Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

This is the story of an academic (Sean Penn) who will die unless he gets a heart transplant. What follows is the story of his heart transplant, his relationship with his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and the role of 2 other couples that cross his path. The story is centred on S Penn, whose acting is good. But I found that of Naomi Watts better. However, the acting of Benicio Del Toro is, in my view, by far the most powerful and gripping: his presence on screen is simply amazing. He is like a wounded bull that is fighting against fate and tragedy. His acting is simply superior and breathtaking.

Although the movie takes place in America, the underlying themes are unmistakeably Hispanic (Spanish/ Mexican, given the background of the director): death Vs life, fate and destiny, grief and passion, loss and regrets, love and hate, tragedy and the desire for revenge... Add to this the fact that the director deliberately jumbles up the story line (it doesn't follow a linear/ chronological order, but is a juxtaposition of storylines and very frequent flashbacks), and this means that the film can be tiring -- almost exhausting. The combination of the confused storyline (during the 1st hour, at any rate, until things fall into place and you start making sense of the plot) and the intense tragedy and passion are not for the faint-hearted.

So, in many ways, it is an unusual film, very intense, deep and difficult; it involves you on a profound emotional level with the questions it asks, with explicit religious (Christian) references and sub-themes. I felt overwhelmed and exhausted at first, also because the camera seems to move in a jittery way all the time. But it is an interesting film and I am happy I have seen it. It is a one-of-a-kind sentimental drama, which (almost) becomes a thriller towards the end.

Be prepared, and you will enjoy it. But you will need to be prepared!

This is a classically made thriller, a very good remake of the 1955 Alfred Hitchcock movie. A very wealthy Wall Street financier (Michael Douglas, powerful and threatening) suspects his wife (Gwyneth Paltrow, beautiful and rich as well as vulnerable) of having an affair with an artist. With something like inexorable logic, the story moves forward, still succeeding in surprising you, the viewer.

The acting is very good and there is real tension throughout. The lead characters as well as the secondary ones are all plausible, which surprised me since, usually, in such stories, suspension of disbelief is a pre-requirement. Not here. You buy into the storyline and you understand the characters' motivations. For all these reasons, I recommend this entertaining and gripping film.

In 1933, Gareth Jones is a young journalist from Wales who is known for having interviewed Adolf Hitler. He manages to get official permission to travel to the Soviet Union. Jones is restricted to Moscow but succeeds in travelling unofficially to the Ukraine: he has become convinced there is a government cover-up and conditions are very difficult there. Nothing, however, has prepared him for what he discovers, i.e. the extent and horror of the Holodomor, the Great Famine that has hit the Ukraine, including empty villages and starving people.

[See Wikipedia on the Ukrainian famine, which would have killed between 3.5 and 12 million people (according to a UN estimate, 7 to 10 million): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor]

G Jones was a truly remarkable character, a bit idealistic, no doubt, devoted to the quest for the truth as part of his job as a journalist with principles. James Norton is very convincing as G Jones, and generally the acting is very good; the film succeeds in re-creating the atmosphere of 1930s Russia and Ukraine very well. You feel you are there, sharing in G Jones' nightmarish experience. What is also interesting is the reaction, back in the UK or in the USA, to G Jones' revelations regarding the Ukrainian famine.

This is a powerful film talking about one of the darkest aspects of J Stalin's rule. Some reviews, when the film came out, were very mixed and highly critical, implying that the film is conventional or dull. I disagree. It is moving and profound in more ways than one. I would certainly recommend it, all the more so if you are interested in the history of the 20th century, but not only.

The Ukrainian famine is not talked about so much outside the country. And G Jones would deserve to be better known: his tragically short life was, in fact, centred on his fight against what we now call 'fake news', which is not a new phenomenon at all.

The story takes place in the early 19th century (1825) in Tasmania: the 2 lead characters are an Irish girl and a young Aboriginal man that she meets when she is looking for a tracker. The plot is simple, linear and fairly predictable since it is a bloody revenge story: A harms B, and B wants revenge, pursuing A as a result. What is far less predictable is the way that the revenge will be exacted...

The backdrop is the extremely violent colonization of Tasmania by Britain, with soldiers and settlers, as well as convicts, pitted against the native Aboriginal population. Although the notion of genocide has been disputed, what is certain is that, by the end of the so-called Black War (see Wikipedia article), there were no native Tasmanians left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War

The film is very good because it is not only about violence and retribution. It is also about the rapport between the 2 key characters and how, gradually, it changes and alters. Overall, an excellent and tense movie that you are unlikely to forget.

This is a film about the criminal underworld in New York city, between about 1845 and 1875. A gang of 'natives' (i.e. Protestant Americans of English origin, from what we are given to understand), led by a sadistic criminal called The Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis, utterly scary and realistically portrayed), is fighting it out with the Irish immigrants, who are despised because they are new arrivals in the city and Catholic. This happens against the backdrop of the American Civil War and the issue of slavery. A good deal of it is based on historical facts.

The acting is good and Cameron Diaz is surprisingly convincing as the female lead in the story, who is a talented thief herself. The film sets look a little bit cardboard-like at times, I must say (it was filmed in Cinecitta, in Italy, I believe). And there is a lot of extreme violence, mostly involving knives and meat cleavers, so, it is not a film for the faint-hearted.

Having said all this, there is an epic and symbolic dimension to the movie that does make it relevant and captivating, also because the lead characters are unusually complex for a story of this kind. I certainly recommend the movie, which you will not forget.

In late1932, very wealthy English industrialist Sir William McCordle and his wife, Lady Sylvia, host a weekend shooting party. The film takes place, therefore, at their country estate, Gosford Park. What follows is an unforgiving depiction of the British upper-class a few years before WWII. There is, of course, a strong element of 'upstairs/ downstairs'; there is also the amusing contrast between the English aristocrats and the American guest(s). There follows a murder, and a police investigation.

The movie has been described as "a satirical black comedy mystery film" (Wikipedia entry). I would say there is an element of satire, but it is not a comedy, or even a black comedy, in my opinion. It is a critical and sarcastic description of a certain, entitled social milieu, in the twilight of Empire, which would be gone (in that kind of setting) 20 years later, as one of the servants rightly predicts. There is humour in the film, no doubt, and there is an element of mystery (to do with the murder that is committed), but that is not the central purpose of the film, in my view.

The movie is a bit like a sexy, raunchy, far more daring and harsher version of 'Downton Abbey': the aristocrats are not all nice and polite, far from it; the servants are not all well-behaved, far from it; and there is quite a bit of hanky-panky, also across the class divide! So, 'Gosford Park' is a better and, probably, more realistic version of 'Downton Abbey', as it were.

Overall, it is an excellent film and a must-see, in my opinion. The only thing that I found disappointing was the ending. I cannot go into details so as not to spoil the story, but the elucidation of the murder is not entirely plausible and is a bit contrived. With a better, more convincing, sharper ending, the movie would have been a complete masterpiece.

This is a film that is both what one could call a romantic/ sentimental drama and a science-fiction thriller. It is highly implausible, of course, so, in a way, it is more some sort of cautionary tale -- and a little bit of a fairy tale.

The premise is quite profound and philosophical, which is reflected in the intriguing storyline: what if our every action was pre-determined by a faceless 'Bureau' that makes sure 'the plan' is carried out and things happen as they 'should'? There would be no free will. The Bureau in question is, in a way, a metaphor for God. But, precisely, in the Old Testament, God grants human beings free will, as they wish to experiment and discover things for themselves. And that's when problems start and things go wrong! On a philosophical level, therefore, this is the tussle between conditioning/ causation (or fate?) and free will, since we are all free agents -- up to a point.

The movie, however, is not at all a philosophical tale: it is an entertaining romantic sci-fi story. I enjoyed it and Matt Damon, as the fast-rising US politician, falling in love with a beautiful ballerina (Emily Blunt), is convincing and his acting is good (better than E Blunt's in my view). Despite what the Bureau says, those 2 want to be free to live their passion as they wish to... Things get complicated and even nerve-wracking at times.

With all of this, the film could have been a fascinating masterpiece. It is not. It is just a good piece of entertainment. Somehow, something is lacking and the story is a bit shallow, and so are the 2 lead characters' love affair: I couldn't quite believe in it, maybe because it is so quick and so 'perfect', at first sight at any rate.

Still, I would certainly recommend this film, which is unusual in some ways and genuinely charming and entertaining.

The story is quite improbable in more ways than one: it is the story of 2 bounty hunters -- one white, a German, and one black, a former slave (Django), freed by the former. On the other hand, the movie is well put together and highly entertaining... until its climax, which is totally over-the-top and features, inevitably with Q Tarantino, an orgy of violence.

In other words, I found the first 60% to 70% of the film surprisingly good and well structured, with a storyline that holds together and fair acting. But the last 30% of the film ruins it, to a large extent, because it is so excessive. You can tell that Q Tarantino cannot help it: he has to introduce some extreme and graphic violence in the story in a fairly gratuitous manner, simply because he finds it entertaining, in a way that is almost childish. The result is that the end of the film is beyond plausible and a bit nauseating.

I would still recommend the film, on balance, but it left me wishing Q Tarantino could sustain the pace and actually complete a feature film in a reasoned and consistent way: instead of being an entertaining spaghetti western, we might have had a masterpiece, which this film certainly isn't.

The best acting is L DiCaprio's, and by far, as the sadistic, yet mild-mannered, plantation owner.

An upper-class young woman (Julie), who is an aspiring film director, falls in love with a mysterious and enigmatic young man (Anthony), who tells her he works for the Foreign Office. The story takes place in the early 1980s in London, I believe, and bombs planted by terrorists are the backdrop to the plot. The man implies that he works in counter-terrorism and intelligence for the British government. The girl believes him. The man moves in with the heroine, but it turns out he may not be what he said he was…

The storyline is rather good, in and of itself. The female lead’s acting (Honor Swinton Byrne) is good and she is convincing: that is the only truly good thing about the film. The male lead’s acting (Tom Burke) is not bad, but it is hard to take him seriously, at times, as he can be so pompous -- the brooding type who thinks he is so profound.

The problem lies with the dialogues, often stilted; with the situations, somehow disconnected from reality (the fine dining is redolent of 1920s London rather than anything else); and with the pace of the movie. To put it bluntly, there is no pace to talk about or, to be more specific, it is slow. Very slow. And not so much happens as a matter of fact -- and it happens slowly. Not to mention a range of clichés (e.g.: the lead male character sports a pin-stripe suit at all times, because he works – or says he works – for the Foreign Office, and he even wears his formal attire when having dinner with friends in his girlfriend’s flat, as if we were in the 1920s at Downton Abbey).

The upshot of all this is that, weirdly, what could have been a good plot and a good story is actually a long, tedious, slow, annoying, frustrating, and boring turkey. The other weird thing is that reviews were good (or very good) overall when the movie came out, which lured me into wanting to see it: don’t make the same mistake! Unless you like that kind of pretentious, self-aware, pseudo-intellectual film (it could be a 1970s French arty sentimental drama, in fact!), you will be bored stiff.

It probably is one of the 5 worst films I have seen in the past 20 years. And the list is not that long since I usually manage to sniff them out and avoid them like the plague.

This is an unusual film in some ways, since it mixes elements of pure comedy (e.g.: people hiding under tables to avoid detection) with far darker aspects that are pure tragedy. All of this is against a backdrop of social realism: the Kim family, who live a hand-to-mouth existence in a basement flat, get their lucky break when the son gets a job under false pretences to tutor the daughter of a very wealthy couple. The rest follows.

The study in the differences in social circumstances -- a Korean version of upstairs/ downstairs, as it were -- is excellent. What all those tensions bubbling under the surface can lead to is shown in the film, with twists and turns you are unlikely to have expected.

Overall, it is a very good film, with a well-built storyline, which you are unlikely to forget.

Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) and his partner investigate a psychopathic killer (John Malkovich) who has warned them that he is going to murder the president of the USA. On the basis of this somewhat conventional storyline, the movie succeeds in creating a fast-paced, suspenseful political thriller that is generally plausible, amazingly enough. (I found the romance involving F Horrigan the least plausible part of the story, I must say!)

The film is interesting because it becomes a fight to the death between the 2 men (C Eastwood and J Malkovich), each one with his own demons, and this is brought about in an intelligent way. As far as this type of movie goes, this is the best you are going to get, and it is well-worth watching.

This is an excellent film, and quite a unique one in terms of its pace, its suspense, and the quality of the acting and storyline. As a film, it is faultless and I strongly recommend it.

As a historical drama, however, it is implausible in more ways than one. The inaccuracies are listed in the relevant section of the Wikipedia article on the film: the high command would not have cared two hoots whether 1,600 men were going to get killed or not (given the scale of the slaughter in WWI: a drop -- of blood -- in the bucket); the front was static and the troops were cooped up in trenches, whereas the movie shows 2 soldiers on the move at all times, showing initiative and coping all by themselves -- so, the entire film is built upon a false premise that is a-historical. The officers, except one, are surprisingly humane and approachable -- a good few of them at any rate. I think this is also pure fiction.

There are also details that are absurd. E.g.: an Indian soldier is part of an all-British unit of infantry. In reality, Indian troops were in separate regiments, as part of the Indian Army, which did fight on the Western front, but was pulled out in 1916. This is just a politically correct gimmick, in other words. And letters carried in envelopes do not seem to get wet and the ink doesn't run, even after they've been immersed in water. (When you see the film, you will understand what I mean.)

Having said all this, watch the film and you will enjoy it. It is excellent as a film. It looks highly realistic, even though it is not realistic at all -- not one bit. However, the depiction of no man's land is suitably macabre and memorable.

This is an excellent film in every respect, full of suspense, surprises, and tension from start to finish. The initial storyline, as such, has been followed in other feature films: an aspiring writer pretends that a piece of writing he has plagiarized was written by him, and sends it to a publisher. The rest follows. This initial act of deceit sets in train a chain of events that unfolds with the mechanical precision of a sophisticated clock, ticking away in the background, relentlessly.

The acting is very good and the situations are plausible from start to finish, as the characters respond to what is happening to them and to each other. (I don't want to say too much...) The tension and suspense are close to unbearable at times: one misstep and you can lose everything, including the woman you love...

It is a gem of a film, which should become a classic of the genre in due course, in my view. Enjoy.

In the late 1930s, in Ferrara, a group of young friends get together for afternoons of tennis and flirting. Some of them are Italian Jews: Fascism is imposing increasing restrictions on their lives. The film ends in 1943, when the situation of Italian Jews had deteriorated immensely and the destruction of the Jewish community loomed very large.

It is the tale of 2 families -- one of them reasonably well-off, and the other very rich. The garden in the title belongs to the house of the immensely rich family, the Finzi Continis. It is also a love story, which is set against the tragic backdrop of the war and the Fascist regime in Italy. But, for much of the film, the love story in question, in all its complexities, twists and turns, is actually centre-stage, as if it mattered more than the bigger picture.

The film is beautiful and melancholy. There is no doubt that it is a very good film and 'a classic'. However, I also found the action quite slow and the plot somewhat predictable: in actual fact, not a lot happens in the course of the 90 mins that the film lasts. So, I would recommend it, but not without some slight reservations.

On his way to start rehearsals at the Théâtre Montmartre, in Paris under German occupation, in the 1940s, where he has been hired as the male lead for a new production, Bernard Granger (G Depardieu) flirts with a woman: that is how the movie starts.

The film is about the staging of a play during these troubled times. The chief censor is a repellent French character who is pro-Nazi and rabidly anti-Semitic. Matters are made more complicated by the fact the owner of the theatre (C Deneuve) is the wife of a German Jew who has disappeared: he has fled to South America.

Despite the strong historical background, it is not really a historical drama in the conventional sense, because much of the film is about the theatre itself, and the play, and various sentimental intrigues going on (or not) among the chief characters -- in the manner of a 19th-century French play, in fact.

The acting is oddly theatrical and feels stilted, more particularly as far as G Depardieu and C Deneuve are concerned. He tends to overdo it and sounds like he is playing a part, whether he is playing a part on stage, as part of the play in the movie, or actually playing his part off-stage, in the film. He comes across as naive and clumsy, much of the time. C Deneuve is her usual self: cool, aloof and self-controlled -- ice-cold even when she tries to convey emotions of any kind. (From what we read in the press, that is actually how she is in real life, so, she is basically playing the ice-cold beautiful blonde that she is in real life.)

Because of all this, the film feels more like a play than a movie. It feels theatrical and contrived, a little bit old-fashioned: it was shot in 1980 but it feels more like a film that might have been produced in the 1950s or early 1960s. Maybe this is deliberate: an attempt are re-creating the 1940s style within the movie, as it were. But it only works up to a point.

The result is a sort of disconnect between the theatricality of the film and its subject matter, and it is not clear whether it is deliberate on the part of the director or merely a consequence of some pretentious, stilted and formalistic angle adopted by F Truffaut.

The conclusion is that it is a good film, but it has its weaknesses. It is enjoyable, but it is not the masterpiece many seem to believe it is, more particularly in France where it is frequently talked about as an unmissable chef d'oeuvre. I would still recommend it: it is interesting and it will make you think about all of these issues after you have seen it.