Film Reviews by JF

I really liked this gritty movie. For one thing, it reminds you that when you have had a bad day, somebody has had it worse. It also leaves unanswered questions, and I like that. It is interesting how so many reviewers miss the possibility that the whole thing was intended as just Arthur's fantasy while institutionalised (the whole story a joke the psychiatrist “wouldn’t get” while sitting in the chair); this would explain the frequent strangely fortuitous and improbable moments feeding Arthur’s narcissism that so many reviewers critise. It would be weird but possible. This day dream concept was even explicitly shown to us within the movie with the De Niro fantasy scene.

The review of the film has been summarised by many others but I will add that this is an uncomfortable film made a little more comfortable for its setting in largely predefined fictional universe. Given this boundary, the extremities have been pushed in a rarely aired manner. Similar movies include Taxi Driver (De Niro again!) and Falling Down; another tale about the increasing scarcity of common decency and empathy in modern society catalysing mental illness into harmful results suggesting that our society is not dealing with mental illness very well on any level. Out of the main characters in these films, Arthur takes the biggest step towards nihilism.

It was also great to have a twist to Gotham that does not involve the tired fantasy of the super human man in a bat outfit. I’m a bit bored with the overly serious Batman character.

What I find most interesting about this film are reviewers' criticisms.

We have those who are repulsed by the lack of faith to DC comics. One would think that modern movies would have introduced these people to the concept of alternative narratives and twisting old story ideas. But I guess the faithful believe what must be, must be and that questioning is unacceptable. They “wouldn’t get it.”

We have those who are repulsed at seeing “insane” people “murdering people” as if we shouldn't see what can be done and is (rarely) done in our society because it is too uncomfortable to expose. These people would seem to find empathy very difficult. This film eventually describes the full horrors of Arthur's past and childhood, pointing out to the audience quite clearly and rationally what can be created when we neglect. Arthur is not insane, but a fairly logical product of his experiences. In this way, I think it very cleverly fits the comic book Joker personality well.

Then we have those who have politicised the movie comparing Thomas Wayne to Trump! It is quite brilliant how this film has needled some people’s sensitivities.

Above all is the lack of empathy from some people expecting a person with delusional mental illness to have externally recognisable logical justification for their own actions, as well as a sense of what is reasonable and probable in the world around them. Friends, these things are not strong with the mentally ill. Near the climax, the story shows us very clearly that what Arthur has planned and intended to do for many days very quickly changes into something dramatically different in a matter of seconds.

Or was it all, as I suspect, just Arthur’s dream after watching too many Batman movies shortly before killing his annoying psychiatrist?

Over budget sci-fi B-movie. It would be a good parody if not for the high quality CGI and the expensive actors. If you are going to go cheesey, you have to go full on cheese. However, it does have cheesey acting, cheesey plot, and cheesey lines. Get drunk before watching. Just a shame more intelligent sci-fi does not often get such an amount of money spent on it.

I guess the reason that space was chosen for the setting of this story was to have some message about humanity dangerously concentrating too much on getting out there and not enough on what we have here, and of how fighting will persist. Very fair points. But bizarrely done and utterly missing the more important point that Earth's biosphere is an incredibly small, practically unique habitat that we must value more if we are to survive and do more than just pretend to be an intelligent species. Instead, this self-indulgent movie shows living in space is largely a piece of cake (it's really not - no one can hear you scream!).

The story details are so detached from physics that I am left to conclude that the whole thing may be a very abstract portrayal of the main character going through some kind of mental breakdown or dream associated with his real-life father relationship or lack there of due to obsessive work behaviour and emotional detachment. Or it could just be about a g-man eventually learning there is more to life, and deciding to warm to it. Moon pirates in buggies? Gun-toting astronauts in a spaceship? Space monkeys? Near instant space travel? Inexhaustible resources? Surfing on Neptune's rings? The journey home? This is all the stuff of dreams, further suggested by the general movement of the movie and copying from historic science fiction films. I can only think the writer here wrote a rather cerebral (incredibly abstract perhaps, perhaps too clever for me) story, and the draft reviewer says, 'Come on, where are the space battles? Where are the guns? At least throw in some space monkeys for Caesar's sake!' And so they were added. Odd. But interesting, with haunting atmosphere and hypnotic sound, amazing visuals and sets and some fine acting from Pitt. Worth watching if you like strange, open ended sci-fi, rather than fast-paced neatly concluding action films but I doubt I will watch it a second time unless sudden enlightenment hits me. (Why the bubbles and beeping at the end of the credits?)

The updating of the 1971 movie has been done well but with a key part of he plot omitted. Why, I have no idea. The everlasting gobstopper test of trust has been left out. The scene building up to Charlie's gentle placing of the gobstopper on Wonka's desk is one of the most moving scenes in any film I have watched. Surely it is such acts of nobility that we need to see more of in movies today. And, of course, it was this act of integrity by Charlie that won him the grand prize in the original movie.

Wilder was better for me as Wonka, presenting a far more wonderful and wise character. Depp appears to have based his character on Marc Warren's portrayal of the sociopath Mr Teatime from the Hogfather.

All the acting was good, with good humour throughout and the squirrels were excellent.

Apparently there are 3 versions of this magnificent film:

1) The original release (1982).

2) The 'Director's Cut' that was not the director's cut (1992).

3) 'The Final Cut' that was the director's cut (2007).

Cinema Paradiso appears to only have the second. I would like to watch the third version.

Episodes 1-2 preamble to zombie battle Episode 3. Unfortunately, I couldn't see much detail in episode 3. Got the general idea, though. Episode 4 preamble to battle in 5 and then 6 provided a neat ending. Maybe some fans did not like this series because they knew it was the last series and the production had already delivered so much. Perhaps also some were unhappy with a lack of justice; but that's life, and GOT. It was faster moving and less subtle than previous series. Varys and Tyrion were not quite displayed as the intelligent characters built. As if the idea that the best leaders are not those who seek power had not already been reflected upon by Varys and Tyrion; obviously, they both would be very well aware of this fact. Daenerys turning into a mad tyrant was also a bit blunt but I guess there was no time.

For me, the most disappointing aspects have been the supernatural elements. I enjoy much sci-fi and fantasy but the problem for me was that there was no pseudo logic to much of it. The Night King's zombie magic was used to create an external force everyone would (almost) unilaterally army against. Other than that, he was not relevant. It could have been done in a less crazy supernatural way. I was reminded of Jason and the Argonauts. I am guessing the detail is in the books that I haven't read, but the magic in the TV series has come across as being pretty random and spurious (I guess it supports an idea of some unpredictable omnipotent being running the show and keeps the world firmly in fantasy land rather than overlapping with our own). The never-ending dragon fire seemed to vary in strength, often shown instantly blowing away solid bricks and mortar as if straw. It just seemed like the magic was inconsistent and a bit of a cop out.

Come on, though, surely you make a movie dark when you want to hide bad set and SFX detail. Was it really so bad? It was a very self indulgant editing decision. If I like I can turn my screen brightness down. But I cannot turn it up high enough.

The televised GOT has been an outstanding epic story telling display. The grit, gore and grimness have really been special.

I could not physically watch these vapid characters in the first part of the film. Just way too boring. Skipped to the action. I guess the first part is to get the audience to invest with the characters; no investment I could ever make would get me to like these self absorbed morons. The film follows a group of townies who just can't cope with any situation that does not involve gossip or drinking at a bar with their buddies. The home movie maker is meant to be, I guess, so annoying that nobody minds what happens to him. Great effects but fly on the wall following a group of artificial characters with no brain cells in a crisis is just not my thing, regardless of the cuddly monster.

Not going to repeat what others have put. Not sure what the creatures are but, assuming they have evolved into what they are and are not some form of radioactive Marvel mutation (could be...), such a top predator would surely have evolved echo-location. This means they generate noise and measure the reflections coming back to them. In this way, they would easily be able to 'visualise' humans standing away from larger objects. It's the same reason that bats do not get caught up in your hair. It's a bit far fetched that these creatures have not been wiped out by the military. How are we expected to believe this family survived over 400days? I mean it is possible, maybe, but it's all just a tad too far fetched without offering some explanation. And yes, the parents really should have stopped at two; at least until you have built some decent fortification or moved underground, huh?

This was truly the first new science fiction story I have come across in a long, long time. I haven't read everything out there, but I've watched most of it and I found this to be a breath of fresh air. Year after year, most science fiction films have become dumber and dumber relying purely on effects and action. This film deserves real respect. Sure, there were unrealistic aspects but good science fiction is about setting a scene well enough not to break its own rules while stimulating the viewer's brain and I loved this film for the manner in which it did this. No good science fiction should end without questions.

(As for the review by Count Otto Black, I think you may have missed some of the ideas. I believe the 'third act' to be superb. I don't think you understand what the story is suggesting regarding time and Louise's daughter, or what the gift is that has been given to Louise. It wasn't a plot twist in the boring traditional sense. The movie was a little like an attempt to translate a circle into a line, which fits beautifully with other visuals. Also, it's rather arrogant to decide the scope and bounds of how the aliens were able to interact in our time and space. As for the suggestion that the director does not know what he was doing visually; I believe both the visuals and score were designed marvelously.)

The original Lost in Space series worked because of the antics of Dr Smith, Robbie the Robot and Will. The character interactions were comical. This new series has fantastic effects abounding but with incredibly unlikely plot contrivances put on a background of nonsense science. It could get away with the nonsense science if only it did not take itself so seriously. The modernisation of the new characters is interesting, but with the typical cheap flashbacks to fill in the back story obviously, I guess, because it was felt that the plot is not strong enough for chronological portrayal. It's the cheap modern way. The 'robot' should have been given more character and communication; it's the Data character and story line that was absolutely core to the appeal of Star Trek TNG.