Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

The review by RP gives you a good overview of the film. The plot is cunningly and craftily put together. The acting is simply superb. Both M Caine and L Olivier are unforgettable in this sadistic and complex game of humiliation and counter-humiliation, against the background of class differences.

If you have not seen this film, you must. Probably the best movie I have ever seen.

This is a strange movie. The storyline itself, once you strip it away of all its added layers (added on purpose but confusing the viewer rather than anything else, also on purpose), is actually fairly simple. So, the film is deliberately convoluted and draws you into its multi-layered narrative, creating a claustrophobic and oppressive atmosphere centred on one question: what is the truth?

The plot plays on the fact that, in anyone's life, there are conflicting narratives: there is what happened (insofar as it is known); there is what you remember or know, and what people tell you they know or witnessed; there is your interpretation and your emotions; there are all the unknowns; there are flawed memories and half-truths as well as lies; there is fiction, rooted in reality, and re-constructing the reality that you experience, and so on. All of this interferes with the plot, which is basically about a Canadian teenager trying to figure out what happened to his parents (who are both dead).

The film is, therefore, undeniably interesting, but it moves somewhat slowly, oppressively, claustrophobically towards its climax that is not really a climax. The teenager's uncle, Tom, the tow-truck driver, although he has his own issues, is the only 'normal' character; all the others are odd, troubled, confused, conflicted, twisted, or downright perverse. And yet Tom is presented as the problem one in this warped comedy of errors, maybe because he is, precisely, the only reasonably rational and balanced individual in the story!

I was never bored watching the film, but I wouldn't say it is as good as many snobbish critics claimed. It is not bad. But it is also ponderous and needlessly complicated. It will appeal to some, if they like that kind of psychological/ sentimental drama.

This story has the expansion of Iran's nuclear programme as its background, and suspected Israeli activities within Iran aimed at crippling Iran's effort in that field. In order to infiltrate and damage the Iranian nuclear programme, Mossad recruit a young woman (Diane Kruger) and send her to work in Tehran, ostensibly as a language teacher. From then on, things do not all go according to plan.

This is not a masterpiece, but it is a good film; in my opinion, the charge that it is dull and we have seen this kind of story a million times is unfair. The characters are actually credible and the plot holds, with some striking high notes. The re-creation of life in Iran is good and realistic in my opinion. The film has pace and tension, and keeps you guessing as to what will happen next.

The weakest link may be Diane Kruger herself. Her acting is Ok but she is not a great actress. When she is scared, you can read her like an open book: she is not able to show that she is scared, yet unwilling to show it, and able to disguise her fear. Her acting is simple and almost mechanical, rather Germanic in fact. And we do not really understand why she would want to work for the Israelis, and why they would trust her, since she is not [really] Jewish and does not speak Hebrew [at all].

So, there are flaws, but I did find the movie interesting and I would recommend it, despite its relative and limited shortcomings.

This is a crime movie of epic proportions in many respects. It is, ostensibly, about the American Mafia and the truck drivers' trade union, the Teamsters, which was run by Jimmy Hoffa at the time. (The story spans the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.) The central figure is Frank Sheeran (De Niro), an Irishman who is hired by the Mafia as a hitman, and who is somehow seconded to J Hoffa's office. From then on, the focus shifts and the central character is, without a doubt, J Hoffa (Al Pacino). The story is, therefore, that of the downfall of J Hoffa, who disappeared in unexplained circumstances in 1975.

The central thesis of the film is that the Mafia had helped him take control of the Teamsters. When J Hoffa started having delusions of grandeur and wanting to run the union his way, loosening the grip of organized crime, the Mafia decided to get rid of him. Similarly, the Mafia would have helped John Kennedy win the presidential election. In return, it expected to be given the Cuban market back (prostitution and gambling having been key industries controlled by American organized crime in Cuba before the Castro regime) and to be left alone. When neither one nor the other happened, the Mafia bosses felt betrayed and took revenge on J Kennedy.

The film is, really, about loyalty and betrayal among gangsters. Violence is not glamorized as it used to be in 1970s films, but it is normalized, which is also problematical: it is part of the job. Presumably, that is how such gangsters feel, in fact.

All of this is interesting and Al Pacino plays the part of J Hoffa in a convincing, dramatic, and captivating way. But the film has 3 main problems. First of all, it is too long (3 hrs 20 mins). It is never boring and I enjoyed watching it, but the story could have been told in less. Second, the IT wizardry cannot hide the fact that both Al Pacino and De Niro are geriatrics (they are in their 80s, or close). So is Joe Pesci (the Mafia boss). So, you have actors who look like they are in their 50s or early 60s, when they are supposed to be in their 40s, and they move in the stiff way that elderly men move (something no amount of high tech can hide). At any rate, that is how it felt to me. It works, but only up to a point. Third, the lead characters, apart from J Hoffa, lack depth. They do what they do, without qualms, and without regrets. That is fine, but it can leave the viewer indifferent.

In conclusion, it is a good film and I would recommend it, but it has been hyped up beyond the praise it deserves. If you like this kind of crime saga, you will certainly enjoy it.

This is the closest to a Western that Australian film can produce: the story of legendary outlaw Ned Kelly and his gang in 1870s Australia. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom do their bit to keep you interested, and the movie is fine overall, but it somehow lacks depth and intensity. There are some good action scenes and a captivating re-creation of the Australian wilderness, all the same.

The romantic tryst involving Naomi Watts is totally implausible and added on for no clear reason. (I don't know whether it is accurate historically, but very much doubt it.) And the film gives a one-sided account of Ned Kelly's goings-on: you are expected to feel sorry for him -- an impoverished Australian of Irish descent who is being picked upon by corrupt and violent police officers.

It is still a good film and I enjoyed watching it, but it is not a masterpiece. It is not bad at all, but it could have been so much better. I don't regret watching it, though.

This is the story of a surgeon (Harrison Ford) who is accused of the murder of his wife and who goes on the run, while proclaiming his innocence. In hot pursuit is a tough cop who will not give up the hunt (Tommy Lee Jones). What you get is a brilliant action thriller with some memorable scenes that you are unlikely to forget, such as the train-crash mayhem at the beginning of the movie. At the heart of the story is the battle of wits between the talented surgeon and the US marshal hunting him down: a duel played out across the city of Chicago.

Within the parameters of the genre of such a film, this is as good as it gets, even if the ending may seem a bit contrived, in my view. The 2 lead actors are very good and the pace of the film will keep you glued to your seat and screen. Overall, this is a masterpiece of the genre.

This is usually billed as a thriller but, actually, it is the portrayal of a married woman (Diane Lane) who is unfaithful to her husband (Richard Gere), having fallen for a younger man, Frenchman Paul Martel (Olivier Martinez). The acting of all 3 is good, but that of Diane Lane is absolutely outstanding: her facial expressions and her body language capture every passing emotion to perfection. Her performance as an actress, in this part, is simply superior. If only for her, her charm on screen and her acting, I would recommend the film.

The plot is plausible from start to finish, in the main. The central character is Diane Lane. And the central relationship, as we realise gradually, is not so much that between her and her French lover, as that between her and her rather ordinary husband (R Gere)... In this respect, it is primarily a sentimental drama, in my view, rather than a thriller.

There are 2 possible endings: I recommend that you also watch, at the end, the alternative ending (among the bonus items on the DVD).

Having said all this, something is missing from the film: an element of electric tension and genuine tragedy, perhaps, in the way that the plot is shown to us and unfolds. As a result, it is not the great film it could have been. But it is still a very good film, which draws you into its concentric circles, to the point where there is no longer any obvious way out.

This is the story of a quest that is somewhat slow and slightly mournful (Brad Pitt, whose acting is very good, continuously describes his feelings and thoughts, in voice-over mode, as he goes through his journey); it is not an action movie; it is not a conventional film. It is, rather, a philosophical tale with an obvious metaphysical dimension.

B Pitt is Roy McBride, who is looking for his father, also an astronaut, on the edge of the solar system. His father (Tommy Lee Jones) is (or was) on a quest of his own. Everyone is looking for meaning and for a reason to keep going, in the midst of a cosmic crisis (a power surge) that threatens the Earth and the entire solar system.

There are a few striking action-movie-type scenes, which are very good. There are many things that are implausible from a scientific or common-sense point of view. The end result is strange and weirdly fascinating. In its own way, it is a very good film, perhaps even a masterpiece. Judging from the reviews posted up on this site, it may only appeal to 15% to 20% of viewers, however.

In Japanese-occupied Korea, in the early part of the 20th century, a Korean con artist pretending to be a Japanese aristocrat plans to seduce a beautiful and lonely upper-class Japanese woman, Lady Hideko, in order to marry her and get hold of her wealth. As part of the plan, a pickpocket called Sook-hee is 'planted' in the household as Hideko's maid: her mission is to encourage Hideko to marry her suitor. She is to be rewarded for her part in the plot.

What follows is an unexpected and unique blend of psychological thriller, sentimental drama, eroticism, pornography even, and horror to produce a movie like none other I have seen recently: relishing its perverse and deviant inspiration, and the crooked nature of its lead characters, the film is morbidly fascinating to the end. The end result of this sumptuous and well-acted production is a masterpiece. I strongly recommend it, but it is not for viewers who may be conventional or squeamish in their filmic tastes!

In 1961 London, Jenny Mellor is a bright 16-year-old schoolgirl. Her life changes when she meets David Goldman, an older man who takes a shine to her.

This is very much a coming-of-age sentimental drama but it is exquisitely well-made. The plot is simple enough but convincing and captivating. The acting is excellent throughout. Rosamund Pike, as the blonde bimbo, for instance, gives an outstanding performance, thus showing how good an actress she is.

This is a charming and insightful movie: I enjoyed watching it and strongly recommend it. And the re-creation of the atmosphere of 1960s London is excellent.

Russell Crowe is a seasoned journalist working for a leading newspaper. He uncovers a dark plot full of surprises centred on a US congressman (B Affleck), who is also a friend of his (going back to his college days). R Crowe has to work with a young, inexperienced female journalist, played with conviction and charm by a very expressive Rachel McAdams.

The film is full of tension and suspense. It is interesting, not so much in terms of what it reveals regarding the world of American politics, but in relation to the way that investigative journalism works, and why it matters -- in our world swamped with commentary, opinions and blogs, where the facts take a back seat and the demanding work of cross-checking hard facts is being lost or neglected.

I recommend this movie, which is captivating on many levels.

Gwyneth Paltrow, as Helen Quilley, is employed by a PR agency in London. (In the film, she is English.) She gets fired from her job and decides to head home. There are 2 scenarios: in the 1st one, she manages to jump on the 1st Tube train that pulls into the station when she gets there, and she gets home early; in the 2nd one, she misses the Tube train and ends up taking a taxi home. In the 1st scenario, she gets home early, while in the 2nd, she gets home mid-afternoon. Two storylines follow, with a chain of consequences that may surprise you.

The entire film is built around the question: What if? It is an exercise in counterfactual fiction, as it were. Helen has to contend with various problems apart from the fact she has lost her job, the main one being dealing with her unreliable live-in boyfriend. Sentimental complications follow.

I found the beginning of the film a bit slow and predictable (within the parameters set by the dual script). But, past the first 30% of the movie, things speed up, and we move away from the conventions of soap operas that threatened to kill off the movie. It becomes more interesting and more engaging. The characters are well constructed and the acting is excellent throughout. G Paltrow herself is very good in the role of Helen: in fact, she was a good actress. (I say 'was' as she has moved away from acting to focus on Goop, her wellness brand and marketing venture...)

So, the film is not a masterpiece, but it is charming and intriguing, as is the 'What if?' riddle, nicely developed in the movie. I enjoyed watching it and was pleasantly surprised. And there are many very funny moments and situations, supported by excellent and witty dialogues.

The movie takes place over the course of one day in Jane's life: she is a junior assistant who has recently started working at a film production company in New York City. Julia Garner is excellent in the restrained way that she plays the part: her raw emotions can be read easily, even though she struggles to curb them. She works long hours and is, in effect, the PA to the CEO, who is a barking, foul-mouthed bully. The film, no doubt, is inspired by the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

It is a short film by today's standards (1 hr 30 mins). It is also a minimalist depiction of office life as it can be. It is so realistic that it feels almost like a documentary, which is scary, on reflection... The scene in the office of the HR manager is, in my view, the climax of the movie, and is excellent. The rest, somehow, is a bit dull and repetitive, simply because office life -- for a junior assistant performing clerical tasks, which is what Jane is at the start of her career -- is never going to be exciting. The storyline is surprisingly linear.

It is a good film because it expresses a lot of deep emotions, while referring to profoundly uncomfortable realities in the world of work: shocking realities that can become routine and totally normalized. But the movie is so realistic that it is a bit flat. I would still recommend it.

Vincere (in English, 'To Win') is an Italian film based on the life of Ida Dalser, who had a torrid affair with Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in Italy, from 1907 to World War I. (In 1907, he is a member of the Socialist Party.) They have a son together. She will say, to the end of her life, that they were married.

Ida Dalser was clearly, madly in love with B Mussolini. The film tells us what happened to her, as it swerves between melodrama and tragedy. Rather than a movie about B Mussolini, it is a film about her and her self-destructive, limitless passion for the Italian leader, seen through her eyes. In this respect, it is highly original and quite fascinating.

The film's plot is quite simple; the movie is classically constructed and acted. It is, from a narrative standpoint, perfect, however. The acting is compelling and Giovanna Mezzogiorno as Ida Dalser is remarkably beautiful. It is worth noting that Filippo Timi, as both Benito Mussolini and his son, suffers, in real life, from a very heavy stutter (according to his Wikipedia page, he is also partially blind), which you cannot fail to notice if you watch the interview with him in the 'bonus' segment of the DVD: when you see the film, you wouldn't know. It is possible that, while in the process of acting, he becomes a different person and totally loses his stutter.

So, in many ways, this is an exceptional film, which has much beauty that it depicts, despite the dark times it refers to and the tragic tale it narrates. I strongly recommend it. I don't think you will ever forget it, once you have seen it.

On the face of it, the storyline of this American thriller is fairly simple: Bob (Tom Hardy) is a bartender in the bar owned by his cousin, Marv (James Gandolfini). They get mixed up with organised crime. And Bob gets drawn towards a troubled girl, Nadia (Noomi Rapace). The action takes place in Brooklyn, New York.

What makes this film so good and, in my view, a little masterpiece of the genre? The atmosphere is gripping and the environment the characters move about seems highly realistic; the suspense builds up gradually, in little unassuming touches, with fear and tension ever-present under the surface. The story also goes in directions you did not quite expect: in many ways, it is not a conventional thriller. But, mostly, in my opinion, it is the outstanding acting that is the movie’s chief asset: J Gandolfini, a big bear of a tough man, and N Rapace, a vulnerable yet strong character, are memorable.

As for Tom Hardy, he is remarkably good, in part because he is not quite what he seems to be, and I cannot say more so as not to spoil the film. He is quiet and low-key, almost dull, and yet he is the most important character, which makes the film unusual and intriguing. Who is he, really? What does he stand for, if anything?

As thrillers go, this is one of the best I have seen in the past 2 decades and I strongly recommend it.