Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

During a heatwave in Florida, a local lawyer, Ned Racine (William Hurt), meets Matty Walker (Kathleen Turner). The lawyer is not very good at his job and is an unrepentant womanizer. He is struck by the beauty of Matty Walker - a rich, mysterious and seemingly lonely woman, who lives in a mansion by the coast. N Racine becomes obsessed with her.

The film has been described as neo-noir in that it is in the style of the noir thrillers of the 1940s: in the movie, which launched her career at the time, K Turner is stunningly attractive, oozing sex appeal, and her classy beauty is in the style of Lauren Bacall. The way she dresses is elegant and her hairstyle is that of L Bacall in the iconic photos you can find on the internet of the actress.

The film was made in 1981, but it almost feels like the 1950s. At the same time, the story is not dated at all: the plot works every step of the way, without implausible complications or unnecessary twists, and with remarkable precision; the atmosphere is tense and heady - tension which is, to a large extent, of a sexual nature, between the 2 lead characters; the music is engrossing and poignant; the acting and the dialogues are excellent - everything in the film works, and works to perfection.

Within the parameters of the genre, to me, this is a masterpiece. I am surprised the movie is not mentioned in anthologies more often and has not attained cult status. You will enjoy it. [The only regret one may have is that the title is not good: it does not do justice to the movie, which is intelligently constructed from start to finish and well-acted.]

This is a film about the battle of Stalingrad, during WWII, between the Germans and Axis armed forces, and the Soviet army, which resulted, as we know, in a humiliating defeat for the Nazis - a turning point in the war paving the way for the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. The film is good and interesting, although it starts a bit slowly. All of it is seen through the eyes of a unit of German soldiers transferred from the (quiet) Italian front to the (apocalyptic) Russian front. The movie shows what they go through, and how they respond to events.

The film is not a masterpiece, and it is made in the classical - perhaps even predictable, up to a point - format of a WWII war film. But it is a good film. The biggest drawback, pointed out by other reviewers, is the atrocious dubbing, which makes the film sound like a shoddy TV drama at times: the (German) actors speak with a (pseudo-) Teutonic accent in English which truly grates and partly ruins the movie. We should be provided with a German copy with subtitles, and it is a great shame that it is not the case.

The film shows repeated atrocities perpetrated by German soldiers (burning down villages, executing civilians, etc.). On the other hand, it implies that most ordinary soldiers, also on the Eastern front, were not particularly anti-Russian or pro-Nazi; they may have been patriotic and won over by Nazi propaganda, but, at heart, they were just ordinary German soldiers dragged into the horrors of war. In other words, apart from a few characters who are clearly rabid and militant Nazis (one in particular), the other, regular troops are not ideologically motivated and even feel rather sorry, at times, for the fate meted out to Russian civilians. I must say I believe this is self-serving and not entirely honest or accurate historically - a rather German way of exonerating the regular troops. In other words, everyone was a victim of Nazism, including ordinary Germans, including ordinary German soldiers, who got forced to commit atrocities under Nazi command against their better judgment.

To set the record straight, we now know from many studies, books, etc. that this was not the case. The Wehrmacht (in particular the officers, but not only) were aware of what was going on, including the systematic atrocities committed on the Eastern front, against Slavs and Jews. In many cases, the regular army provided support to specialist units tasked with carrying out mass murder against Jewish communities, for instance (more particularly: see role of the Einsatzgruppen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen).

There is no doubt that the regular army was involved in war crimes on the Eastern front, and that the hatred for Slavs in general, and the Russians in particular, was deep-seated. As a result, it does not seem realistic to suggest that a majority of soldiers in the German army would have been shocked to see Russian civilians being treated like animals to be slaughtered by German forces across the board. It simply does not add up. I believe that many German soldiers, also from the regular army, would have been only too willing - eager even - to take part in the atrocities in question, as opposed to being forced to perform them by ideologically driven Nazi officers. To start with, the support for the Nazi party in 1930s Germany was massive. But of course, after Stalingrad, many Germans realised the writing was on the wall, and the entire satanical project would, sooner or later, collapse, as, thankfully, it did eventually. Only the convinced Nazis supported the regime to the bitter end; but the German armed forces carried on fighting - and fighting very hard on every front - to the very end, all the same.

I still recommend the film. The tank battle in the snow is especially memorable, even though it is also horrific.

This is a film like no other - or, rather, very few films I have seen are in any way comparable. It made me think of 'Eyes Wide Shut' by Stanley Kubrick. The movie is about a milliner, a young woman called Irisz Leiter, who arrives in Budapest from Trieste: she wants to work for the upmarket hat shop originally set up by her late parents. The shop is still named after them: Leiter. Irisz learns that she may have a brother and starts looking for him. In so doing, she uncovers various dark secrets that she is not meant to discover.

Irisz is an odd character: her face is blank and hardly expresses any emotions, but is weirdly intense and focused, almost as if she were a ghost from the past who has returned to the scene of crime in order to haunt the living. She is single-minded to the point of being stubborn. She will not take 'no' for an answer. Every time she is told not to do something or not to go somewhere, she does exactly what she has been advised not to do. She is driven by her purpose in a near-obsessive way. Mostly, all that matters to her, it seems, is to establish the truth - the truth of what goes on in the hat shop, the truth of the existence of her brother (or not), the truth of her past, etc. Nothing will deflect her from her quest, as she puts herself in great danger along the way.

Everything in the film is seen through her eyes and the camera moves about as she moves about Budapest - a large, dusty and chaotic city. We follow her in her quest. The film is often puzzling, but that is because the reality she is up against is confused and unclear. To a large extent, that is due to the fact the people she comes across are trying to hide things from her: dark and guilty secrets, shameful actions and practices, and so on. Mystery is at the heart of the film: her quest for the truth is constantly thwarted by men and women who are trying, for various reasons that are not always clear or obvious, to preserve the mystery at the heart of the story (or the mysteries, which are mixed with foreboding, guilt, shame and danger).

This creates a weird and, at times, almost dream-like atmosphere, reinforced by the frequently blurred and sepia images. The story of Irisz is set against the dying days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, right before the outbreak of World War One that was to finish it off. There is a sense of tension in the air, all the time, and a sense of a decadent society that is doomed. In her quest for the truth, Irisz plunges into the sinister underbelly of Hungarian society, pre-WWI, and of Budapest - a world of crime, sexual deviancy, lust and violence. There are gangs that also seem to have an anarchist and/or Hungarian nationalist (anti-Austrian) agenda. The confusion gives way to extreme violence in striking scenes that are filmed in a way that I have never seen before, I think: the way the film is shot, we feel the fear and the dread of those who are victimized, including Irisz. We almost feel it physically: it hits us and feels very real, unlike the average Hollywood action movie.

The film, in some ways, is probably a bit too long, and a bit too slow in places, and too opaque (although that is quite deliberate), with implausible aspects too. Having said all this, it is utterly fascinating even though, ultimately, the plot is not that complex. After you have seen the movie, you will think about it and try to make sense of it all. It is intriguing and captivating. So, a great film, and perhaps, in its own way, a masterpiece, in my view. Mostly, what is unforgettable, here, is the atmosphere the director succeeds in creating - something totally unique.

The plot is relatively simple: an Aboriginal farmhand, Sam Kelly, gets into trouble when his path crosses that of a violent, heavy-drinking and racist white farmer called Harry March. And the story unfolds relentlessly. The film is excellent on many levels. Within the genre - the Australian-type western - it is perfect, even though it is slow at times, more particularly at the beginning.

The film is very good because it feels so real and so authentic, as many Australian movies of this kind can be. There is something raw about the story: the film succeeds in conveying the vastness of Australia and its hinterland, and the rough way of life of its inhabitants - be they the Aborigines or the white settlers. The characters have a powerful on-screen presence, particularly and unusually the Aboriginal actors. Far from being secondary and silent figures, they are central to the story. Sam Kelly is full of dignity and strength, coping with fate as best he can. He is profoundly human and touching, and we can easily relate to him. The storyline is plausible from start to finish and the landscapes are intense and beautiful. The wild and remote beauty of the Outback is ever-present.

This is not an easy film to watch, on the other hand, as the story is not a rosy one. Many of the characters are quite repellent. But it is a memorable movie and a very good one. I recommend it.

This is an unusual film in some ways. It is very long (2 hrs 40 mins) and a bit slow and demonstrative; it is not an action movie at all, despite what some may expect. It is deliberative and cerebral, meticulously reconstructing the atmosphere of the late 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s and the early 1960s primarily through the eyes of Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), a senior CIA officer. E Wilson is not a field officer: quite the opposite, he is a desk officer - the faceless bureaucrat who pulls the strings. In some ways, he is dull. In other ways, he is powerful and scary. What the film is very good at is showing what E Wilson sacrifices, in terms of his personal life and happiness, in pursuit of his mission, which is some sort of ill-defined dream that can easily turn into a nightmare.

There are some rather implausible aspects to the story: for example, E Wilson hardly ages through 30 years of intelligence work (contrary to his wife, played quite well by Angelina Jolie). The twist in the tale, at the end, is hardly plausible either (I cannot say any more to avoid spoiling any of it). The film is probably a bit too long and a bit gloomy as well as ponderous, and yet I found it utterly fascinating and it captivated me from start to finish. The intelligence community itself, in the USA, has criticized the movie for not being historically accurate, but this does not matter so much: it is, in actual fact, primarily a personal tragedy around the theme of morality and commitment, centred on an inscrutable and enigmatic Matt Damon, rather than just a historical saga about the CIA per se.

It is a complex film, with many flashbacks that can feel a bit tiresome at times: it forces you to make an effort in order to follow the plot, back and forth, but it is worth the effort. On balance, I would certainly recommend this film.

This thriller is set in 1930s Texas. Everything is reconstituted exceedingly well and feels very real. The acting is excellent, including that of Margot Robbie, the lead female character. (Darby Camp, in the role of the little girl, is amazing.) It is a kind of Bonnie and Clyde story of a kind that we are all familiar with.

It is a good movie and an entertaining one, and the storyline is well put together. But something is missing. It is hard to tell what, precisely. Ultimately, it could be in the nature of Allison Wells (Margot Robbie), the central female character, as she somehow lacks depth and complexity. In the last analysis, the story unfolds in a predictable manner, and it fails to surprise us: that is probably the film's key weakness.

The DVD I was sent was configured in such a way that it was impossible to remove the subtitles (in English). I tried for about 25 mins without success, then gave up. This also ruined it for me, as they take up a lot of the screen and prevent you from truly 'entering' the story, reminding you constantly that you are watching a movie... It is easier to tolerate the subtitles when it is a foreign film. I found this extremely annoying. I have never had this problem before with any DVD.

The film takes place in Montfermeil, a rough suburb of Paris. The local population that lives in high-rise apartment blocks is mostly of North African and African origin. The film follows a 3-man team of police officers in an unmarked car; their role is to crack down on crime and intervene fast when needed. One of them, Stéphane Ruiz, is shocked by the way his colleagues behave, but he is new. Soon, a fairly trivial incident escalates, as violence is unleashed - a combination of police brutality on the one hand and rioting by the local, mostly black male teenagers, on the other, who resent the police patrols.

Although the film is an action movie in many ways - but not a conventional one - it also touches upon far deeper issues, including social deprivation, poverty, cultural integration, non-European immigration, delinquency, etc. The story is fast-paced and, although simple enough, full of extreme tension and suspense. What is also striking is that it feels almost like a documentary rather than a piece of fiction. The main characters feel very real, and there are many funny or farcical moments too, as can happen in real life, even in dramatic situations.

You do not often see films like this, which refrain from preaching, tell a story of this kind, and tell it well. I would say it is quite a remarkable achievement. The situations depicted are, from what I know, highly realistic: many rough council estates with a high immigrant population in French cities could be the scene of such developments. But the film is never simplistic, in my opinion, in the way that it deals with the issues: there is no simple answer to the mess that those forgotten communities live in... It should be pointed out that the director is, himself, from that part of Paris, and is of African origin.

I strongly recommend the film. I think it is excellent and memorable. [If you watch it with the standard settings, it is in French, with subtitles in English.]

In 1961, in Montana, George Blackledge (Kevin Costner), a retired sheriff, lives with his wife Margaret (Diane Lane), their son, their daughter-in-law, and the couple's baby. The movie starts off as a sentimental drama, and develops into a thriller. It has been described as 'a neo-Western film'. The plot is interesting because the characters are, and the acting is excellent. More particularly, K Costner's on-screen presence is compelling. As for D Lane, she is simply remarkable in the way she acts her part. She is no longer young, but there is a radiant beauty to her. Also, her face is very expressive, and she always strikes the right note in every situation. Neither character speaks that much, but we get to understand their feelings and emotions effortlessly. All the other characters are also highly convincing.

The movie feels very real, even though the story is hardly ordinary, in the way that it unfolds. The central characters are developed in terms of their expectations, their attitudes, their behaviour... The atmosphere of provincial, rural America in the early 1960s is reconstituted very well. The tension is never far from the surface, sustaining our interest right through the film. Overall, in the register that the film has chosen, it works extremely well. There is something profoundly honest about the characters played by K Costner and D Lane, and their on-screen couple seems close and convincing: they look like a real-life couple, as they interact.

An excellent film, which I would recommend; I suspect it may become a classic of the genre. My only reservation would be the title, which is not very good, although it does relate closely to the storyline. The title is bland and a bit daft: it does not do justice to the high quality of the movie.

Salomon Sorowitsch (based on Salomon Smolianoff's life) is the central character in this film. He is played by Austrian actor Karl Markovics, who is simply amazing in terms of his looks - a very angular face like a fish-knife - as well as his acting and his facial expressions. He barely twitches and always refrains from showing any emotions in the camp, and yet, you know exactly what he is thinking and how he is feeling about the situation at hand: his acting is simply outstanding and unforgettable - truly amazing.

The plot is based on a completely true story (you can read an account here, after watching the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard), which is, itself, totally incredible: Nazi Germany set out to produce millions and millions of fake pounds sterling from a secret unit in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. To that intent, a team of counterfeiters was put together, made up of printers, graphic artists, bankers, etc. Salomon, for his part, is put in charge of quality control as he is a career criminal and an expert forger. The head of the unit, within the camp - an SS officer who is a policeman by background - soon demands that they produce large quantities of US dollars, which are more difficult to make...

The environment of the concentration camps and the routine violence inflicted on Jewish inmates are horrific. What is interesting, though, is also the complex rapport between Salomon and the head of the unit, Sturmbannführer Herzog. Therefore, the film is interesting on many levels: as a historical drama depicting actual events; as a psychological drama set in the period of the war; and also, in fact, as a thriller, given the counterfeiters' mission.

It is hard to watch at times, given the nature of the context and story, but I would say that this movie is a masterpiece.

This is a good film and I enjoyed watching it but, let's face it, it is not as good as most reviewers have said over the years, and it is not as profound as most people seem to think. The storyline is actually quite simplistic: Britain in 2027 (in a few years' time, that is: brace yourselves, folks!) has turned into a Fascistic state where anti-immigrant policies are enforced by the Army; civilisation is collapsing as worldwide infertility has hit women. It is an interesting premise, but the movie somehow fails to live up to its stated purpose. In passing, it is interesting to note that the future of humanity is embodied in a black woman speaking with an African accent (the actress, whose acting is good overall, in fact, is British, of Ghanaian origin): the sub-text on the terminal decline of the West is obvious, as London is shown to be a filthy, violence-ridden urban jungle.

First of all, it looks a bit cheap at times (and yet, the budget was considerable): it is just the way it is filmed; it somehow looks like a low-budget movie, to me. Second, the characters lack any sort of genuine depth and some details are baffling or preposterous. Can you imagine an American movie of this kind where the lead male actor ends up with his feet in a bucket of warm water on more than one occasion because he has footwear-related issues, and, for a prolonged part of the film, is actually wearing flip-flops. Yes, flip-flops. Only a film set in Britain could come up with such an idea, quite frankly. The alternative would have been sandals, obviously. Third, the dialogues are not particularly inventive or memorable, much of the time: 'Terminator' films have more humour to offer than this film, which rather takes itself seriously, in fact.

My problem is also Clive Owen. He seems to be a likeable person (I have no idea whether he is in real life). But every character he plays, from what I have seen over the years, is the same (and whether he is playing himself, as a person, or not!): someone who is cynical, blasé, depressed (hence depressing), pessimistic, gloomy, dishevelled, and who has basically given up on fellow human beings and life. Then, something happens in the story whereby he decides to rise up to the occasion and do The Right Thing. But he is still, right through, depressed, gloomy, dishevelled and pouty. He seems to be thinking, all the time, that, really, 'Life is horrible.' (I am being polite.) In this film, his uncouth and filthy appearance reaches new depths as he staggers about in his flip-flops, lurching from one disaster to the next. It gets a bit limited and annoying after a while. It is also rather formulaic. Is the character (and C Owen's acting) capable of more than one theme/ strand of emotions/ take on life?

Having said all this, it is an interesting film and the end (the last 25 mins or so) is actually moving and good, so, I recommend the movie. And of course, Michael Caine, in his minor part as an ageing hippie living in the woods, is excellent, as he always is.

The movie has been hyped up as a great piece of cinema, while some reviewers on this website describe it as boring and shocking given the extreme violence that characterizes some scenes (not many, in fact). I think it is in-between. It is not a masterpiece, but it is a brilliant piece of pure entertainment. Inevitably, the gore-fest is over the top and fairly implausible, but it is OTT to the point of being memorable and funny. Where it is less funny is the fact that the story relates to the Manson Family and what happened to Sharon Tate and her guests at the time: in that sense, one could argue that there is an ethically dubious angle whereby Q Tarantino uses real, gruesome events in order to create some grotesque movie scenes without any qualms on his part...

Having said all this, I enjoyed the movie, even though it is slightly too long (over 2 1/2 hours). What I liked was the vivid re-creation of late 1960s California: you get the music and the atmosphere, and it feels very real. Also, the central characters -- Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth (Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate is under-used) -- are a scream: the acting and their characterization are excellent. Finally, there is a lot of humour in the film, and some of it is truly good, underpinned by very clever dialogues.

So, I would recommend it, despite the inevitable OTT gory violence that Q Tarantino feels the compulsion to insert in every one of his films. It is a good 3* and maybe even a 4* movie well worth watching, in my view.

This Italian film (it was a pan-European production) is about the life of Tommaso Buscetta, reputedly the first Sicilian Mafia boss who decided to 'talk', i.e. tell Judge G Falcone what he knew about Cosa Nostra, thereby becoming a 'pentito' -- a label T Buscetta nevertheless always rejected.

The movie is well-made, convincing, and interesting; I enjoyed watching it, even though it is very long (2 1/2 hours). The realistic atmosphere is what makes it captivating: it feels quite 'real' from start to finish, and the life of the criminal underworld is not glamorized to any degree.

What is lacking, however, is a certain tension, paradoxically; I would not say the film is flat, but it does not grab us as much as it could have, given the subject matter. It is odd, in fact, and I am not sure why that is the case. Maybe, it has to do with a style that is somewhat academic and painstakingly factual to the point of being prosaic. The other thing that is missing is some in-depth understanding (or description/ analysis) of the main character's motivation in deciding to spill the beans. On one level, it is quite clear (he feels Cosa Nostra has betrayed its roots and traditional values, etc.) but, on a deeper level, it remains an enigma, to a large extent. Why did he decide to co-operate with Judge G Falcone? What really happened between those 2 that persuaded T Buscetta to collaborate? This aspect is dealt with in a fairly superficial manner.

In conclusion, it is a very good film, in my opinion, and I recommend it, but it is not the truly great movie it could have been.

The film, considered to be a classic, was made in 1961. It stars Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly and George Peppard as Paul Varjak. Both monetize their charm and sex appeal, in different ways, and lead unconventional lifestyles. A Hepburn is both naive and calculating, forever looking for Prince Charming. G Peppard is a struggling writer. They are neighbours in a New York block of flats, and the movie is largely about the interaction between them.

The movie is delightfully charming and entertaining, with many funny moments and good dialogues; all the actors and actresses are excellent. (The cantankerous Japanese neighbour is a caricature and could not feature in a film, today, but he is undeniably comical.) What is amazing is that the film has not aged at all, in my opinion. It feels fresh, unconventional, original and full of energy. And A Hepburn is simply irresistible as the zany central character of the story, which she totally dominates effortlessly and with immense charm.

There is nothing intrinsically profound about the storyline, but the film is very good. I strongly recommend it.

In Heilongjiang Province, in the north of China, in 1999, the dismembered parts of a man's body appear in shipments of coal across the region, at coal plants in different cities. The movie is rooted in its dark, grim and frozen environment: the city is perpetually covered in snow and ice (hence the title of the film in English).

The central character is a local detective (serving, then having left the force) who investigates the murder (or murders) and becomes obsessed with the case, and with a woman who works in a dry cleaner's (she is linked to the case). There is something heavy, claustrophobic, gloomy and close to depressing about the story, because of the plot but, even more so, because of the atmosphere and the surroundings. But this overwhelming atmosphere is also the movie's strongest point, as it fascinates, while we descend into the underbelly of this Chinese provincial town and its chain-smoking, heavy-drinking and gambling rough men.

The characters are enigmatic for 2 reasons. First of all, because of the storyline and what thrillers tend to be like. The second reason is that it is a Chinese film (I think that is the reason, at any rate): the characters speak relatively little; they do not explain their reactions or emotions: they merely state them. We are left to imagine what is going through their minds. Many things are left unsaid or merely alluded to. The combination is quite disconcerting and fascinating.

Despite the fact the film can be slow at times, and is not always plausible (which is true of most thrillers), I would recommend it and enjoyed watching it from start to finish. It will surprise you.

[PS: The review by 'RP' should be accompanied by a 'spoiler alert' warning, as it gives away the entire plot.]

In this film -- part of the 'Terminator' franchise -- Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the Terminator robot whose role is to protect humans , is pitted against statuesque blonde Kristanna Loken as the T-X, a more advanced Terminator robot bent on mayhem and eradicating the human race. The storyline is built upon the notion that networked machines could, one day, attempt to take over the world and enslave (or destroy) humans. This interesting concept is not developed to any extent, as the film is primarily an action movie inspired by science fiction.

The film is not a masterpiece, but it works very well within the parameters of its specific genre, with dialogues that are often quite funny: A Schwarzenegger is spot-on in his role as the protector robot trying to carry out his mission. The special effects, car chases, fight scenes, etc. are very good. So, for those who enjoy this kind of entertainment, I do recommend the film.