200 commentaires
Interstellar is a GREAT film, with a great sentiment.
It's a film you can watch again and again. Because it's a nuanced mood piece which is, essentially, about time passing, the length and seeming slow pace are actually an essential part of it. Clever, wonderful.
The piece is played out by an ensemble cast led by Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn, and Michael Caine. McConaughey in particular, is really good, but ably supported by Anne Hathaway.
Brilliant soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.
There is love here: the love between father and daughter. This is very beautiful and heart-rending.
Interstellar is mesmeric, visually stunning and emotionally powerful.
It's a film you can watch again and again. Because it's a nuanced mood piece which is, essentially, about time passing, the length and seeming slow pace are actually an essential part of it. Clever, wonderful.
The piece is played out by an ensemble cast led by Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn, and Michael Caine. McConaughey in particular, is really good, but ably supported by Anne Hathaway.
Brilliant soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.
There is love here: the love between father and daughter. This is very beautiful and heart-rending.
Interstellar is mesmeric, visually stunning and emotionally powerful.
Watched this in the original German, and I'm impressed.
Strong performances by a young cast showing us another kind of thinking: a Nazi way of thinking, where a pointless death is supposed to be a heroes death. In Die Brücke, we see what this looked like. Many young Germans died only out of misplaced zeal in the latter stages of WWII. Very sad.
Good script, effective black & white imagery.
Recommended.
Strong performances by a young cast showing us another kind of thinking: a Nazi way of thinking, where a pointless death is supposed to be a heroes death. In Die Brücke, we see what this looked like. Many young Germans died only out of misplaced zeal in the latter stages of WWII. Very sad.
Good script, effective black & white imagery.
Recommended.
I remembered this excellent BBC collaboration docudrama, and decided to watch again. I was not disappointed.
Recreated here are crucial stories in the history of Egyptology. And it's really well done! It looks amazing! I particularly like the ancient reenactments in the lives of Tutankhamen and Ramses and the landscapes and buildings. This is educational and engaging. First class.
Recreated here are crucial stories in the history of Egyptology. And it's really well done! It looks amazing! I particularly like the ancient reenactments in the lives of Tutankhamen and Ramses and the landscapes and buildings. This is educational and engaging. First class.
"The Meaning of Hitler" tries to do a lot of things. It broadly succeeds in some of them. But what was this documentary actually trying to do?
Well, let's first look at what it does succeed with:
It draws our attention to the fact that Hitler was initially just a regular guy. However, Hitler was very unusual for the fact that he had no friends, no family, had no children, was socially "outside". These would seem to be the symptoms, not causes, of his delusional megalomaniac rise. Also apparent through the documentary, is the observation that Nazism and its monstrous crimes are things that really happened because humans are capable of it.
Where "The Meaning of Hitler" loses its message a little is (perhaps) in looking at the recent return of the hard-right ultra-nationalist movements. These dangerous developments should give us cause for concern that the lessons of history have not been learned. Today's younger generations know nothing of war. We need to work to make sure they never do.
"The Meaning...." deals summarily, severely and correctly with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.
Overall, this documentary does succeed in pointing out and attempting to rectify and remove the strangely attractive characterisations that Hitler has been given in some parts of modern culture. We must learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes. A little incoherent, but necessary watching.
Well, let's first look at what it does succeed with:
It draws our attention to the fact that Hitler was initially just a regular guy. However, Hitler was very unusual for the fact that he had no friends, no family, had no children, was socially "outside". These would seem to be the symptoms, not causes, of his delusional megalomaniac rise. Also apparent through the documentary, is the observation that Nazism and its monstrous crimes are things that really happened because humans are capable of it.
Where "The Meaning of Hitler" loses its message a little is (perhaps) in looking at the recent return of the hard-right ultra-nationalist movements. These dangerous developments should give us cause for concern that the lessons of history have not been learned. Today's younger generations know nothing of war. We need to work to make sure they never do.
"The Meaning...." deals summarily, severely and correctly with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.
Overall, this documentary does succeed in pointing out and attempting to rectify and remove the strangely attractive characterisations that Hitler has been given in some parts of modern culture. We must learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes. A little incoherent, but necessary watching.
40 years ago, the "Brinks Mat" job was just about the biggest heist in UK history. The two seasons of The Gold manage to show quite well what happened. I thought it was alright TV.
As The Gold points out, the story of the people involved is still running more than 40 years after the event. This TV presentation packs 20+ years of action and police investigation into about 12 hours of screen time. That's quite an achievement! But it could have done with some time markers.
Some creative licensing was employed to make sense of some of the characters and their actions. It's a really complex story. Far more complex than could be re-imagined for TV.
Unlike some TV criminal recreations or drama, we absolutely do not identify with the bad guys here. They are nasty, greedy and they suffer. We see this especially in season 2.
I liked the dialogue, and the way the bad guys are shown as truly fallen and ruined by their own avarice.
I liked The Gold. It held my attention. It's pretty good.
As The Gold points out, the story of the people involved is still running more than 40 years after the event. This TV presentation packs 20+ years of action and police investigation into about 12 hours of screen time. That's quite an achievement! But it could have done with some time markers.
Some creative licensing was employed to make sense of some of the characters and their actions. It's a really complex story. Far more complex than could be re-imagined for TV.
Unlike some TV criminal recreations or drama, we absolutely do not identify with the bad guys here. They are nasty, greedy and they suffer. We see this especially in season 2.
I liked the dialogue, and the way the bad guys are shown as truly fallen and ruined by their own avarice.
I liked The Gold. It held my attention. It's pretty good.
A Hard Day's Night doesn't seem to age! It's 60 years old, portrays another age entirely, but the film seems to me to be timeless.
This is because the film so good!
It's beautifully filmed, thoughtfully directed by Dick Lester, has some special moments and really has a hook. It's a film that shows the early 1960s very well.
A Hard Day's Night obviously showcases The Beatles, and it does this brilliantly - in a natural and wholly relatable way. I quite like the story too, even though some might say it's a bit thin and silly. That doesn't really matter. This film is about The Beatles - showing those who could not get their concerts another side of their heroes talents.
I really like A Hard Day's Night. It's a minor classic.
This is because the film so good!
It's beautifully filmed, thoughtfully directed by Dick Lester, has some special moments and really has a hook. It's a film that shows the early 1960s very well.
A Hard Day's Night obviously showcases The Beatles, and it does this brilliantly - in a natural and wholly relatable way. I quite like the story too, even though some might say it's a bit thin and silly. That doesn't really matter. This film is about The Beatles - showing those who could not get their concerts another side of their heroes talents.
I really like A Hard Day's Night. It's a minor classic.
For some reason, I was just today thinking about this film and thought I ought to review it.
It's funny how films wax and wane in the mind.
I was 9 years old when I first saw Yellow Submarine. Like everyone else who grew up in Britain in the 1960s, I completely love the music of the Beatles. They are the songs of my life.
When I was a kid, this film was huge in my imagination. Colourful, creative, fantastic - Yellow Submarine is just dazzling. A brilliant technical achievement. The story is funny, trippy and quirky. Very Beatles!
But as I got older, I sort of lost touch with my younger self and by the mid-1980s, I found the film to be not how I remembered it. As a teacher, I showed it to children aged 6-10. When I did, I was aware that it didn't really hold their interest and I found that a little disappointing. It didn't really hold my interest either, which surprised me.
But coming to it again 57 years after its UK release, I'm struck by how amazingly ambitious the visuals of the film are. This isn't Disney digital - this is all frame-by-frame 60s technology. A real work of craft. Impressive.
The real pity is that the Beatles themselves didn't do the voice parts. Then it would have been a perfect statement of 1960s psychedelia, love and flower power. Nevertheless, Yellow Submarine with its soaring magnificent music remains a classic 1960s timepiece. Recommended.
It's funny how films wax and wane in the mind.
I was 9 years old when I first saw Yellow Submarine. Like everyone else who grew up in Britain in the 1960s, I completely love the music of the Beatles. They are the songs of my life.
When I was a kid, this film was huge in my imagination. Colourful, creative, fantastic - Yellow Submarine is just dazzling. A brilliant technical achievement. The story is funny, trippy and quirky. Very Beatles!
But as I got older, I sort of lost touch with my younger self and by the mid-1980s, I found the film to be not how I remembered it. As a teacher, I showed it to children aged 6-10. When I did, I was aware that it didn't really hold their interest and I found that a little disappointing. It didn't really hold my interest either, which surprised me.
But coming to it again 57 years after its UK release, I'm struck by how amazingly ambitious the visuals of the film are. This isn't Disney digital - this is all frame-by-frame 60s technology. A real work of craft. Impressive.
The real pity is that the Beatles themselves didn't do the voice parts. Then it would have been a perfect statement of 1960s psychedelia, love and flower power. Nevertheless, Yellow Submarine with its soaring magnificent music remains a classic 1960s timepiece. Recommended.
Just read some of the low scoring reviews on here. Those reviews are jarring, grate and are just plain wrong. Baz Luhrmann doesn't make "standard-issue" movies - he makes stylish interpretive art-pieces, and "Elvis" is just that. I thought it was excellent.
The form of the story telling is pleasingly non-standard. It's told/narrated from the point of view of Elvis' manager Colonel Tom Parker (Hanks), who is very definitely a wheedling manipulative cynical bad guy on the make. Hanks is always first class, and his presence here is an unusual but powerful casting for him. He's excellent. The story is seen through his lens - an attempted valedictory. But like the man himself - it's empty, cynical and it fails. Nevertheless - an affecting and unusual route for a movie to take.
But even Hanks is upstaged by a superb Austin Butler as Elvis Aaron Presley. Oscar nominated for Best Actor and rightly so. He has the presence, vulnerability, innocence and raw power of the man himself. "Elvis" is worth watching just for this portrayal.
Elsewhere, we have typical Baz Luhrmann flair and dazzle. The movie looks great and is a tribute to Elvis' style and cultural impact. Numerous Oscar nominations. The film is also honest to Elvis' musical lineage in black gospel and rhythm & blues and it's really good for that balance.
The music and set pieces are brilliant.
"Elvis" comes off a 10/10 rating for me because the women's parts are few and the two that are there, his mother and Priscilla do not present that well. So, a little imbalance here.
Really good movies go beyond the story-telling and acting into making us look at ourselves and the human condition. "Elvis" is fundamentally a very sad and moving story of an inspirational genius with real gifts who gets manipulated and brought low by a bloodsucking scoundrel. The portrayal of Elvis Aaron Presley here shows us his vulnerability and tendency to trust. The film leaves us to decide whether Elvis would have been what he became IF the Colonel had not latched onto him.
A thought provoking watch and highly recommended.
The form of the story telling is pleasingly non-standard. It's told/narrated from the point of view of Elvis' manager Colonel Tom Parker (Hanks), who is very definitely a wheedling manipulative cynical bad guy on the make. Hanks is always first class, and his presence here is an unusual but powerful casting for him. He's excellent. The story is seen through his lens - an attempted valedictory. But like the man himself - it's empty, cynical and it fails. Nevertheless - an affecting and unusual route for a movie to take.
But even Hanks is upstaged by a superb Austin Butler as Elvis Aaron Presley. Oscar nominated for Best Actor and rightly so. He has the presence, vulnerability, innocence and raw power of the man himself. "Elvis" is worth watching just for this portrayal.
Elsewhere, we have typical Baz Luhrmann flair and dazzle. The movie looks great and is a tribute to Elvis' style and cultural impact. Numerous Oscar nominations. The film is also honest to Elvis' musical lineage in black gospel and rhythm & blues and it's really good for that balance.
The music and set pieces are brilliant.
"Elvis" comes off a 10/10 rating for me because the women's parts are few and the two that are there, his mother and Priscilla do not present that well. So, a little imbalance here.
Really good movies go beyond the story-telling and acting into making us look at ourselves and the human condition. "Elvis" is fundamentally a very sad and moving story of an inspirational genius with real gifts who gets manipulated and brought low by a bloodsucking scoundrel. The portrayal of Elvis Aaron Presley here shows us his vulnerability and tendency to trust. The film leaves us to decide whether Elvis would have been what he became IF the Colonel had not latched onto him.
A thought provoking watch and highly recommended.
I'm not a reviewer who fawns over particular directors or actors. I'll judge a film or performance on it's merits: the impression it leaves on me. So I'll say straight away that I wasn't especially impressed by Mirror.
Mirror is non-linear. That's the best description. Usually, I can deal with non-linear narrative. But Mirror leaves us floundering for context from the get-go. After 30 minutes I was getting frustrated. It was only once I let go of trying to figure out what was going on and let it wash over me, that I began to feel more comfortable.
Mirror is a mood piece: a collection of fragments as if from a broken mirror. Shards of memory collected together. Impressions.
The confusions that arise in the viewer are caused by several pieces near the beginning that appear to be familiar identifiable linear narrative elements. After that, we await confirmation, but they don't arrive because these pieces are just shards.
Overall, Mirror is a thoughtful and moody film, well photographed, reflecting impressions that will mean different things to different people.
I've given it 7/10 - which is my average mark for a steady, watchable film.
Mirror is non-linear. That's the best description. Usually, I can deal with non-linear narrative. But Mirror leaves us floundering for context from the get-go. After 30 minutes I was getting frustrated. It was only once I let go of trying to figure out what was going on and let it wash over me, that I began to feel more comfortable.
Mirror is a mood piece: a collection of fragments as if from a broken mirror. Shards of memory collected together. Impressions.
The confusions that arise in the viewer are caused by several pieces near the beginning that appear to be familiar identifiable linear narrative elements. After that, we await confirmation, but they don't arrive because these pieces are just shards.
Overall, Mirror is a thoughtful and moody film, well photographed, reflecting impressions that will mean different things to different people.
I've given it 7/10 - which is my average mark for a steady, watchable film.
The irritations of this film begin almost immediately, when we are not given a lead in to either the time or place of the start of the film. It took me - with some level of historical background knowledge, about 15 minutes to work out that this is Munich in 1919. From there, further scene setting might have helped, but "Max" does not give us that. Instead, the film launches into a completely fictional relationship between fictional art dealer Max Rothman (Cusack) and wannabe painter Adolf Hitler (Taylor), here aged 30.
This movie tries to explore a range of themes, chiefly "what ifs", as Rothman attempts to have Hitler elevate his art beyond mundane flat draughtsmanship. The relationship between the characters, such as it is, revolves around that.
The central problem with this film are the significant conceits: There is no Rothman, and there was no such relationship. And in fact, Hitler dabbled in painting before the war in Vienna, not afterwards.
The "negative" power of the piece rests on the fact that most people know what Hitler ultimately became. "Max" trades on this knowledge we have as we sit watching, but it's not in the film. That absence is cynically and grotesquely alluded to in the sequence running into the conclusion. Here, there is a deeply offensive overlay. No spoilers.
The female characters are totally superfluous and do nothing in the story.
Neither did I like the use of surrealist/expressionist paintings that, in fact, were painted much later. A theme which the film tries to set up and explain, is a connection between art & politics. Here, I'm afraid, it completely fails!
Why an average "7/10" from this reviewer then? Well - Cusack is very good, as usual, and Noah Taylor is also good as the ignorant and dismissive Hitler. There is a believable cloying edge to Taylor's Hitler, who in real-life had an arrogance and entitlement based on nothing; an uneducated man detached from reality at an early age. The film looks pretty good. These redeeming elements bring "Max" up from a much lower rating.
A better film could have been made using historically correct figures. Hitler's life has been deeply researched for decades by people trying to understand how and why he turned out the way he did. There is no shortage of material. "Max" doesn't do that, and as a result it's ultimately superficial.
This movie tries to explore a range of themes, chiefly "what ifs", as Rothman attempts to have Hitler elevate his art beyond mundane flat draughtsmanship. The relationship between the characters, such as it is, revolves around that.
The central problem with this film are the significant conceits: There is no Rothman, and there was no such relationship. And in fact, Hitler dabbled in painting before the war in Vienna, not afterwards.
The "negative" power of the piece rests on the fact that most people know what Hitler ultimately became. "Max" trades on this knowledge we have as we sit watching, but it's not in the film. That absence is cynically and grotesquely alluded to in the sequence running into the conclusion. Here, there is a deeply offensive overlay. No spoilers.
The female characters are totally superfluous and do nothing in the story.
Neither did I like the use of surrealist/expressionist paintings that, in fact, were painted much later. A theme which the film tries to set up and explain, is a connection between art & politics. Here, I'm afraid, it completely fails!
Why an average "7/10" from this reviewer then? Well - Cusack is very good, as usual, and Noah Taylor is also good as the ignorant and dismissive Hitler. There is a believable cloying edge to Taylor's Hitler, who in real-life had an arrogance and entitlement based on nothing; an uneducated man detached from reality at an early age. The film looks pretty good. These redeeming elements bring "Max" up from a much lower rating.
A better film could have been made using historically correct figures. Hitler's life has been deeply researched for decades by people trying to understand how and why he turned out the way he did. There is no shortage of material. "Max" doesn't do that, and as a result it's ultimately superficial.
Well. This is a toe-curlingly agonising watch!
Con Mum is an above average con story documentary.
A vulnerable man and his partner are expecting a baby, when an old woman comes into their lives seemingly out of nowhere. What unfolds is a story of mind-boggling amoral manipulation, greed and financial destruction. No spoilers.
The power of this show comes from the honesty of the real-life protagonists in front of the cameras. All of them, except one. We really feel for those on the receiving end, especially and particularly the vulnerable man and his family. It's appalling to watch. Shredding. Chilling.
Even so - we learn a whole lot about one of our human conditions: the need we have to want to believe. Once a scammer knows this vulnerability about us - they have us.... That's what's happened here in Con Mum.
Recommended.
Con Mum is an above average con story documentary.
A vulnerable man and his partner are expecting a baby, when an old woman comes into their lives seemingly out of nowhere. What unfolds is a story of mind-boggling amoral manipulation, greed and financial destruction. No spoilers.
The power of this show comes from the honesty of the real-life protagonists in front of the cameras. All of them, except one. We really feel for those on the receiving end, especially and particularly the vulnerable man and his family. It's appalling to watch. Shredding. Chilling.
Even so - we learn a whole lot about one of our human conditions: the need we have to want to believe. Once a scammer knows this vulnerability about us - they have us.... That's what's happened here in Con Mum.
Recommended.
Full disclosure: I really like Jersey, and am a frequent visitor. I love the place - its ambience and history. I'll watch anything featuring the island! My view is that it would be terrible if someone made a film or series featuring Jersey that turned out to be rubbish. (Heads up - the film "Another Mother's Son" is a huge disappointment. Also reviewed by me here)
This mini-series is a sort of rehash of the long-running 1980's BBC classic "Bergerac" which ran to 9 series, 87 episodes and 6 Christmas Specials. It was very popular. But this "rehash" is generally better than the original, even if it sticks rather too closely to the formula.
So, how does "Bergerac" (2025) stand up then? Well - it's just about alright.
Damien Molony has big boots to fill as Detective Bergerac. He's pretty good: edgy and troubled. Zöe Wanamaker is there for substance - but I found her role/script annoying. Not her fault, she didn't write it. Philip Glenister also adds substance, and he's quite good. Other roles/players OK. It's not especially well written.
I liked the longer storylines style, but that didn't make it any less predictable. This is fairly basic run-of-the-mill detective stuff. Could have been noir - but it wasn't. Could have showcased the wonderful island setting of Jersey more - but it didn't. In short, "Bergerac" (2025) is full of missed opportunities. This story could have been told anywhere: Norwich, Newcastle, Nottingham. There was nothing distinctively "Jersey" about it, and that's a real shame because Jersey is beautiful.
Maybe there will be a second series? I hope so - and hopefully the story will be stronger and use the island more effectively.
This mini-series is a sort of rehash of the long-running 1980's BBC classic "Bergerac" which ran to 9 series, 87 episodes and 6 Christmas Specials. It was very popular. But this "rehash" is generally better than the original, even if it sticks rather too closely to the formula.
So, how does "Bergerac" (2025) stand up then? Well - it's just about alright.
Damien Molony has big boots to fill as Detective Bergerac. He's pretty good: edgy and troubled. Zöe Wanamaker is there for substance - but I found her role/script annoying. Not her fault, she didn't write it. Philip Glenister also adds substance, and he's quite good. Other roles/players OK. It's not especially well written.
I liked the longer storylines style, but that didn't make it any less predictable. This is fairly basic run-of-the-mill detective stuff. Could have been noir - but it wasn't. Could have showcased the wonderful island setting of Jersey more - but it didn't. In short, "Bergerac" (2025) is full of missed opportunities. This story could have been told anywhere: Norwich, Newcastle, Nottingham. There was nothing distinctively "Jersey" about it, and that's a real shame because Jersey is beautiful.
Maybe there will be a second series? I hope so - and hopefully the story will be stronger and use the island more effectively.
Many things about The Edge of Love are really good. It looks great. There is top acting talent here that is working really hard. The locations, interiors, costume, lighting and camera work are excellent. Even the dialogue is pretty good. It captures the age and makes us believe. However, there is something missing - some vital spark - the spark that would make this into a "good" film just isn't there. As a result, we have a rather sub-standard piece. I struggled to give it 6/10. My wife thinks it's 5/10.
So, what's the problem with The Edge of Love?...
The first 20 minutes are good. The characters are introduced against a backdrop of 1940 Blitz London. It looks great and expectations are high. Then the movie changes gear and bit by bit we're left wondering ....er, what? The focus we expect doesn't really happen. In fact, The Edge of Love stays unfocussed. As it goes on, we become confused. The film isn't really about anything, or anyone. In the end, it's a mess. It doesn't work.
However. There are some moments of absolute excellence. Some of the Thomas poetry voiceovers are magnificent, some of the camera work and lighting is sublime. Knightley, Miller, Rhys and Cillian Murphy are really very good. It's not their fault that this movie doesn't deliver - they didn't write the story or screenplay.
So, overall The Edge of Love is a bit disappointing, even though some aspects are so strong. I wanted it to be good. Pity.
So, what's the problem with The Edge of Love?...
The first 20 minutes are good. The characters are introduced against a backdrop of 1940 Blitz London. It looks great and expectations are high. Then the movie changes gear and bit by bit we're left wondering ....er, what? The focus we expect doesn't really happen. In fact, The Edge of Love stays unfocussed. As it goes on, we become confused. The film isn't really about anything, or anyone. In the end, it's a mess. It doesn't work.
However. There are some moments of absolute excellence. Some of the Thomas poetry voiceovers are magnificent, some of the camera work and lighting is sublime. Knightley, Miller, Rhys and Cillian Murphy are really very good. It's not their fault that this movie doesn't deliver - they didn't write the story or screenplay.
So, overall The Edge of Love is a bit disappointing, even though some aspects are so strong. I wanted it to be good. Pity.
This is one of my favourite films. Great for rainy day watching. They don't make 'em like this anymore!
Just watched Some Like it Hot again after a long gap (15+ years). I have to say that on this viewing - I see it slightly differently now. But it's still great film: funny and entertaining.
All the three main players are excellent. Marylin Monroe is at her best. She is natural, charming and very funny. I believe her performance here is something like the real person: Norma Jean. That's my theory anyway.
Jack Lemmon is earnest as Jerry/Daphne, and gives an hilarious performance dating & dancing with the oddball playboy Joe E. Brown as Osgood Fielding III.
Tony Curtis as Joe/Josephine/Shell Oil Junior, gives one of his best ever performances, carrying THREE characters expertly. His comic timing and persona are first class.
We get a sense of 1929 here, with cars, costume and interiors all finely recreated - and of course - beautifully filmed in black & white.
We already know that Billy Wilder was one of THE great screenplay writers and directors. Some Like it Hot shows his great versatility even with comedy and farce. (See also my review for People on Sunday)
Watching Some Like it Hot again makes me realise that it is actually a bit too silly. The ending sections are a bit too farcical. This brings it off a 10/10 rating.
I love stories that move a long way - and this certainly does that. Some Like it Hot also contains some subversive observations: about how women are/were seen: their "roles", at least in America in the 1950's. Monroe is set up as the icon, but all three main characters get chased by men in some respect or another. Both Curtis as Joe and Lemmon as Jerry are woman chasers - fairly overtly. But part of the fun of the film is watching the interplay of these two playing women - surrounded by other young women!
There are other subtle views Wilder makes that are to do with his observations of American 1950s society. Wilder spent the first 28 years of his life in Europe - so he would be well placed to see what Americans around him could not.
One observation is the obviously very high body count! In a comedy!? Clearly, American audiences were quite used to gangsters in movies, shooting, bodies, implied and actual threat. Set up as dramatic tension, but it's hiding in plain sight here. This also detracts a little.
So, Some Like it Hot is funny, entertaining as a comedy farce, but slightly flawed.
The film winds to a very memorable final scene: "Nobody's perfect"....
Perhaps this is what Wilder was trying to say all along???
Just watched Some Like it Hot again after a long gap (15+ years). I have to say that on this viewing - I see it slightly differently now. But it's still great film: funny and entertaining.
All the three main players are excellent. Marylin Monroe is at her best. She is natural, charming and very funny. I believe her performance here is something like the real person: Norma Jean. That's my theory anyway.
Jack Lemmon is earnest as Jerry/Daphne, and gives an hilarious performance dating & dancing with the oddball playboy Joe E. Brown as Osgood Fielding III.
Tony Curtis as Joe/Josephine/Shell Oil Junior, gives one of his best ever performances, carrying THREE characters expertly. His comic timing and persona are first class.
We get a sense of 1929 here, with cars, costume and interiors all finely recreated - and of course - beautifully filmed in black & white.
We already know that Billy Wilder was one of THE great screenplay writers and directors. Some Like it Hot shows his great versatility even with comedy and farce. (See also my review for People on Sunday)
Watching Some Like it Hot again makes me realise that it is actually a bit too silly. The ending sections are a bit too farcical. This brings it off a 10/10 rating.
I love stories that move a long way - and this certainly does that. Some Like it Hot also contains some subversive observations: about how women are/were seen: their "roles", at least in America in the 1950's. Monroe is set up as the icon, but all three main characters get chased by men in some respect or another. Both Curtis as Joe and Lemmon as Jerry are woman chasers - fairly overtly. But part of the fun of the film is watching the interplay of these two playing women - surrounded by other young women!
There are other subtle views Wilder makes that are to do with his observations of American 1950s society. Wilder spent the first 28 years of his life in Europe - so he would be well placed to see what Americans around him could not.
One observation is the obviously very high body count! In a comedy!? Clearly, American audiences were quite used to gangsters in movies, shooting, bodies, implied and actual threat. Set up as dramatic tension, but it's hiding in plain sight here. This also detracts a little.
So, Some Like it Hot is funny, entertaining as a comedy farce, but slightly flawed.
The film winds to a very memorable final scene: "Nobody's perfect"....
Perhaps this is what Wilder was trying to say all along???
Back in 1972, a film like Pink Flamingos might have been made to deliberately shock and inflame - to draw attention and attempt to make a name for its creators.
Pink Flamingos might be attempting something- sure - but what it "achieves" is something else....
Pink Flamingos is crass, tasteless, artless, banal, disgusting, lewd, but above all - it's pointless. It's one giant nothing. Pornography dressed up as "something".
There's trash - but Pink Flamingos isn't even trash. It doesn't qualify even as trash. It's utter nonsense.
Seen today, in 2025 after decades of movement, development and acceptance in cinema, Pink Flamingos is even more irrelevant and more pathetic and pointless than ever.
I'd give it zero if it was possible.
Pink Flamingos might be attempting something- sure - but what it "achieves" is something else....
Pink Flamingos is crass, tasteless, artless, banal, disgusting, lewd, but above all - it's pointless. It's one giant nothing. Pornography dressed up as "something".
There's trash - but Pink Flamingos isn't even trash. It doesn't qualify even as trash. It's utter nonsense.
Seen today, in 2025 after decades of movement, development and acceptance in cinema, Pink Flamingos is even more irrelevant and more pathetic and pointless than ever.
I'd give it zero if it was possible.
Just come out of The Brutalist, and I'm carrying mixed feelings. But I think this is what was intended: we're supposed to see someone who has been brutalised, and the effect of this brutalises US. That's the idea, I think. And it works.
It's a pity that there seem to be a lot of haters posting low ratings and down thumbs. These people must have short attention spans and not be able to recognise a good film when they see one... All completely unnecessary.
The Brutalist portrays the experiences of a fictional character László Tóth (Adrian Brady), a Hungarian-Jewish architect arriving in America from Germany soon after the end of World War II. What unfolds is his journey. Although highly engaging, it does not make for pleasant watching at times.
The Brutalist reminds us of the style of the architecture: built in blocks, that may not appeal to everyone's taste. Again like the architecture, this is a film that tells its different stories in ways you're not necessarily expecting or ready for.
Guy Pearce is Harrison Lee Van Buren - who becomes the architects patron for a huge commission. Felicity Jones is Erzsébet Tóth, László's wife - who, by virtue of Van Buren's connections, eventually makes her way from Europe to join her husband.
There could very easily be Oscars for all three of the central players. Brady is magnificent as the architect. He sort of reprises his role in The Pianist. This is Guy Pearce's best performance since Memento. As for the rest: Photography is good, script OK, sound/music good.
The Brutalist is a good film, one that presents many different meanings and messages. It comes off a 10/10 rating for me for two reasons. One: there is a gratuitous scene in section 2 that is both unnerving and story wise, completely unnecessary. Two: this is not a true story - it's an agglomeration. It could have been true - hell there are literally millions of survivors of WW2 - victims who wanted a new life, but they couldn't get one. Instead the abuse continued. Any one of those true stories could have been told, but it wasn't. What we have in The Brutalist, again rather like in the architecture, is an "artful representation".
See The Brutalist and decide for yourself what it tells you.
It's a pity that there seem to be a lot of haters posting low ratings and down thumbs. These people must have short attention spans and not be able to recognise a good film when they see one... All completely unnecessary.
The Brutalist portrays the experiences of a fictional character László Tóth (Adrian Brady), a Hungarian-Jewish architect arriving in America from Germany soon after the end of World War II. What unfolds is his journey. Although highly engaging, it does not make for pleasant watching at times.
The Brutalist reminds us of the style of the architecture: built in blocks, that may not appeal to everyone's taste. Again like the architecture, this is a film that tells its different stories in ways you're not necessarily expecting or ready for.
Guy Pearce is Harrison Lee Van Buren - who becomes the architects patron for a huge commission. Felicity Jones is Erzsébet Tóth, László's wife - who, by virtue of Van Buren's connections, eventually makes her way from Europe to join her husband.
There could very easily be Oscars for all three of the central players. Brady is magnificent as the architect. He sort of reprises his role in The Pianist. This is Guy Pearce's best performance since Memento. As for the rest: Photography is good, script OK, sound/music good.
The Brutalist is a good film, one that presents many different meanings and messages. It comes off a 10/10 rating for me for two reasons. One: there is a gratuitous scene in section 2 that is both unnerving and story wise, completely unnecessary. Two: this is not a true story - it's an agglomeration. It could have been true - hell there are literally millions of survivors of WW2 - victims who wanted a new life, but they couldn't get one. Instead the abuse continued. Any one of those true stories could have been told, but it wasn't. What we have in The Brutalist, again rather like in the architecture, is an "artful representation".
See The Brutalist and decide for yourself what it tells you.
I'm a life-long Beatles fan and I really liked this.
It's not easy to reach back, travelling in time back 60 years. Even if you did, you'd find it hard very hard to take in your surroundings. You wouldn't know what was going on if you travelled from 2001 back to 1941. You wouldn't have a clue. The Beatles '64 shows us, today, what America was like in early 1964. That's 61 years ago.
It's quite a journey!
As Paul McCartney tells us late on in this excellent show, The Beatles first trip to the US was just 12 weeks after the assassination of JFK. He said he felt the pain, even as a Brit, and that he thought America "needed a lift".
Imagine also, The Beatles themselves travelling to this fabled land of America - home of Gospel, Rhythm & Blues, Soul and Rock & Roll and Elvis! They'd heard the music - and worshipped it, studied it, loved it, made their lives in music around it. But they'd never been there. How amazing would that be for them!? Well - now we know!
The Beatles '64 shows us, via simple black & white cine filming made by a traveler who went with them, just what their journey was like. It's revealing, engaging and a great watch. We find out a lot about the differences between America & the UK in the mid-60s, and we especially find out about the reactionary conservative nature of America and how change was feared. But The Beatles are talked about by those who grew up with them. Their view is that The Beatles were something new - completely new, but not macho or imposing and not a threat at all. I liked these observations.
Along the way, we hear from The Beatles themselves, and others, about how they came to view this event later on in their lives. Brilliantly, we also see David Lynch (bless you & RIP) tell of his experience of going to a 1964 Beatles gig. It's great stuff!
This piece was masterminded by Martin Scorsese, and it shows. Also deeply involved are Ringo & Paul. The wider families are also involved including Sean Lennon - and that's great because we get a rounded view.
This is like travelling back in time. I thought The Beatles'64 was great!
It's not easy to reach back, travelling in time back 60 years. Even if you did, you'd find it hard very hard to take in your surroundings. You wouldn't know what was going on if you travelled from 2001 back to 1941. You wouldn't have a clue. The Beatles '64 shows us, today, what America was like in early 1964. That's 61 years ago.
It's quite a journey!
As Paul McCartney tells us late on in this excellent show, The Beatles first trip to the US was just 12 weeks after the assassination of JFK. He said he felt the pain, even as a Brit, and that he thought America "needed a lift".
Imagine also, The Beatles themselves travelling to this fabled land of America - home of Gospel, Rhythm & Blues, Soul and Rock & Roll and Elvis! They'd heard the music - and worshipped it, studied it, loved it, made their lives in music around it. But they'd never been there. How amazing would that be for them!? Well - now we know!
The Beatles '64 shows us, via simple black & white cine filming made by a traveler who went with them, just what their journey was like. It's revealing, engaging and a great watch. We find out a lot about the differences between America & the UK in the mid-60s, and we especially find out about the reactionary conservative nature of America and how change was feared. But The Beatles are talked about by those who grew up with them. Their view is that The Beatles were something new - completely new, but not macho or imposing and not a threat at all. I liked these observations.
Along the way, we hear from The Beatles themselves, and others, about how they came to view this event later on in their lives. Brilliantly, we also see David Lynch (bless you & RIP) tell of his experience of going to a 1964 Beatles gig. It's great stuff!
This piece was masterminded by Martin Scorsese, and it shows. Also deeply involved are Ringo & Paul. The wider families are also involved including Sean Lennon - and that's great because we get a rounded view.
This is like travelling back in time. I thought The Beatles'64 was great!
The Singing Detective is a masterpiece.
Everything about this works. All the players are excellent, and Michael Gambon gives us a tour de force - he is BRILLIANT as the central character. The young actor, Lyndon Davis, who plays Marlow in earlier years is also outstanding.
So many things could be said about this innovative and inspirational work by Dennis Potter.
The Singing Detective is multi-layered, multi-faceted AND interconnected. Not many screenplay/story writers are even capable of this calibre of work - let alone pull it off in such an accomplished way.
Gambon is Philip Marlow, a... well, what is he? He's a writer. But here he's a hospitalised bedridden character afflicted by an appalling skin condition. But is he? The brilliance of The Singing Detective is that we can't even be sure where or when or who the central character is!
Why the confusion...? No spoilers...! The Singing Detective travels through time, music, flashbacks, through one of Marlow's novels and through real life (I think!), to produce layers of stories, memories and emotions. Characters break the fourth wall regularly! This chemistry results in a deeply engaging and intriguing further layer - where, frankly, much is open to interpretation! It's brilliant.
The Singing Detective is one of those pieces that forces us to think about ourselves. What are memories? What is/was real. Who am I? Did things that happened when I was a child cause me to be who I eventually became? We end up becoming a detective about our own life!
As young Philip Marlow at the top of his secret tree in the Forest of Dean in early 1945 tells us: "When I grow up, I'm gonna be a detective! I bloody am!"
Everything about this works. All the players are excellent, and Michael Gambon gives us a tour de force - he is BRILLIANT as the central character. The young actor, Lyndon Davis, who plays Marlow in earlier years is also outstanding.
So many things could be said about this innovative and inspirational work by Dennis Potter.
The Singing Detective is multi-layered, multi-faceted AND interconnected. Not many screenplay/story writers are even capable of this calibre of work - let alone pull it off in such an accomplished way.
Gambon is Philip Marlow, a... well, what is he? He's a writer. But here he's a hospitalised bedridden character afflicted by an appalling skin condition. But is he? The brilliance of The Singing Detective is that we can't even be sure where or when or who the central character is!
Why the confusion...? No spoilers...! The Singing Detective travels through time, music, flashbacks, through one of Marlow's novels and through real life (I think!), to produce layers of stories, memories and emotions. Characters break the fourth wall regularly! This chemistry results in a deeply engaging and intriguing further layer - where, frankly, much is open to interpretation! It's brilliant.
The Singing Detective is one of those pieces that forces us to think about ourselves. What are memories? What is/was real. Who am I? Did things that happened when I was a child cause me to be who I eventually became? We end up becoming a detective about our own life!
As young Philip Marlow at the top of his secret tree in the Forest of Dean in early 1945 tells us: "When I grow up, I'm gonna be a detective! I bloody am!"
Just come out of the cinema after watching Conclave, and I was impressed.
Unless we are (or have been) a Catholic Cardinal, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors after a Pope dies. Conclave gives us a convincing glimpse of the machinations and intrigue.
Fiennes is outstanding as the "Dean" - the one entrusted by the past Pope, to conduct the ancient procedure which selects a new one.
The close-up camera work is excellent. Long corridors, talking heads, facial looks, body movements, and even the sound of breathing do a lot of heavy lifting to create a tense yet controlled and subdued mood. Superb settings, sumptuous costumes. Good dialogue and interaction.
Conclave has a slow pace - but it's a mood piece so that's fine. We gradually go deeper and deeper into the process, but also into the minds of the senior clerics assembled. There is emotion and scandal.
Strong film 8/10. But Fiennes 10/10, and possibly an Oscar for best actor?
Unless we are (or have been) a Catholic Cardinal, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors after a Pope dies. Conclave gives us a convincing glimpse of the machinations and intrigue.
Fiennes is outstanding as the "Dean" - the one entrusted by the past Pope, to conduct the ancient procedure which selects a new one.
The close-up camera work is excellent. Long corridors, talking heads, facial looks, body movements, and even the sound of breathing do a lot of heavy lifting to create a tense yet controlled and subdued mood. Superb settings, sumptuous costumes. Good dialogue and interaction.
Conclave has a slow pace - but it's a mood piece so that's fine. We gradually go deeper and deeper into the process, but also into the minds of the senior clerics assembled. There is emotion and scandal.
Strong film 8/10. But Fiennes 10/10, and possibly an Oscar for best actor?
Everything about "Edge of Darkness" is just about perfect. It's still a great watch!
Just watched this again after a long (25+ year gap), and it's still got it - Edge of Darkness is absolutely brilliant.
It's not easy for the younger generation in the US or UK to understand just how paranoid and messed up the early and mid 1980s were. Edge of Darkness captures the mood really well.
Bob Peck is superb as Ronald Craven the grieving father/police detective trying to get to the bottom of a terrible tragedy. Joe Dan Baker gets involved as the mystery literally spirals into the earth. He's crazy, but very believable. Joanne Whalley is also excellent as the ghost-like daughter.
This is really good stuff, with dialogue, settings, acting and Eric Clapton's superb soundtrack all working together perfectly.
Edge of Darkness is shot through with political intrigue and nasty side-plays. It makes a range of statements about the bleakness of the age which today would be barely believable. It's one of the best things to come out of 1980s TV and it's absolutely brilliant.
Just watched this again after a long (25+ year gap), and it's still got it - Edge of Darkness is absolutely brilliant.
It's not easy for the younger generation in the US or UK to understand just how paranoid and messed up the early and mid 1980s were. Edge of Darkness captures the mood really well.
Bob Peck is superb as Ronald Craven the grieving father/police detective trying to get to the bottom of a terrible tragedy. Joe Dan Baker gets involved as the mystery literally spirals into the earth. He's crazy, but very believable. Joanne Whalley is also excellent as the ghost-like daughter.
This is really good stuff, with dialogue, settings, acting and Eric Clapton's superb soundtrack all working together perfectly.
Edge of Darkness is shot through with political intrigue and nasty side-plays. It makes a range of statements about the bleakness of the age which today would be barely believable. It's one of the best things to come out of 1980s TV and it's absolutely brilliant.
Well - it's Star Wars, isn't it? That means it has to be seen! The trouble is - Skeleton Crew just isn't very good.
Ok - I get it that it's "for kids". I get it that parents (& Grandparents...) would sit in and think of their younger years. They will watch Skeleton Crew and..... be... waiting... for some spark - something resembling a coherent story. They'll have a long wait.
Skeleton Crew doesn't hang together. The characters and their interactions are WEAK, the story, such as it is, is WEAK. You sit there waiting, watching, waiting, but it doesn't deliver... anything. It's poor.
Jude Law will be disappointed with the final product, and wish he'd never gotten involved.
Skeleton Crew looks quite good. But the cutesy touches with owls and kids on distant planets just don't cut it. It's predictable, banal and unengaging. The final episode - where it could actually have redeemed itself - was acutely disappointing, and confirmed the low 5/10 grading.
Ok - I get it that it's "for kids". I get it that parents (& Grandparents...) would sit in and think of their younger years. They will watch Skeleton Crew and..... be... waiting... for some spark - something resembling a coherent story. They'll have a long wait.
Skeleton Crew doesn't hang together. The characters and their interactions are WEAK, the story, such as it is, is WEAK. You sit there waiting, watching, waiting, but it doesn't deliver... anything. It's poor.
Jude Law will be disappointed with the final product, and wish he'd never gotten involved.
Skeleton Crew looks quite good. But the cutesy touches with owls and kids on distant planets just don't cut it. It's predictable, banal and unengaging. The final episode - where it could actually have redeemed itself - was acutely disappointing, and confirmed the low 5/10 grading.
As Hollywood "vehicle movies" go - Edge of Tomorrow (Live, Die, Repeat) is probably one of the best. It's been in my BluRay collection for some time now: just scrapes into the 9/10 band.
The story is good. The only weakness is that it stretches the limits of Sci-fi in certain places. No spoilers, but it's sort of Groundhog Day meets a kind of battelefield armageddon!
The action is good - with a stack of CGI - that doesn't actually choke the spectacle.
Ok, it's a vehicle for Blunt - who is excellent, and Cruise - who gives his normal reliable performance. Extras such as Glesson, and Bill Paxton (in his dotage), also very good. Believable dialogue. Good sci-fi imagery. It's fairly relentless, but there is rise and fall.
There's just a bit more in Edge of Tomorrow than blam blam blam blam blam. We see this in some of the situations, but especially at the very final scene.
I like this film. The sign of a good film is that I don't tire of it. And I don't tire of this one.
The story is good. The only weakness is that it stretches the limits of Sci-fi in certain places. No spoilers, but it's sort of Groundhog Day meets a kind of battelefield armageddon!
The action is good - with a stack of CGI - that doesn't actually choke the spectacle.
Ok, it's a vehicle for Blunt - who is excellent, and Cruise - who gives his normal reliable performance. Extras such as Glesson, and Bill Paxton (in his dotage), also very good. Believable dialogue. Good sci-fi imagery. It's fairly relentless, but there is rise and fall.
There's just a bit more in Edge of Tomorrow than blam blam blam blam blam. We see this in some of the situations, but especially at the very final scene.
I like this film. The sign of a good film is that I don't tire of it. And I don't tire of this one.
The Shepherd recalls & commemorates the pilots who helped and "shepherded" home shot-up aircraft during World War II.
I didn't like it.
It's corny, predictable and shallow. Not quite sure why Disney has wasted its time on this?
It looks quite good. Visually it's convincing. But the story doesn't complete its most important arc. No spoilers.
Obviously a ghost story, but why bother?
John Travolta is probably behind all this, but despite his enthusiasm for flying, this isn't any kind of showcase for him or his production skills.
Can't be bothered to write more about this so.......£&....................
I didn't like it.
It's corny, predictable and shallow. Not quite sure why Disney has wasted its time on this?
It looks quite good. Visually it's convincing. But the story doesn't complete its most important arc. No spoilers.
Obviously a ghost story, but why bother?
John Travolta is probably behind all this, but despite his enthusiasm for flying, this isn't any kind of showcase for him or his production skills.
Can't be bothered to write more about this so.......£&....................
When Fight Club first appeared it became an instant cult film - a "modern classic". Back then I gave it 9/10. Just watched it again after a 8-10 year gap and now I'm giving it 8/10.
Fight Club hasn't aged that well, and for all the wrong reasons. In 1999, there weren't many films or series like this. 25 years later - there are. Fight Club doesn't stand out anymore.
It's still a good film though.
Edward Norton is excellent as the ordinary guy who, bit by bit, entirely loses it. Brad Pitt is Norton's wild side: alter-ego Tyler Durden. What follows is an inner journey, exploring sexuality, control (and deliberate lack of...), self-harm and rule-breaking. Who/what is Norton? Who/what is Tyler Durden? There are a very wide range of interpretations open in Fight Club.
This film is more or less dark in virtually every respect!
Bonham-Carter is good in a supporting role, and Meat Loaf gets a good cameo.
Fight Club is a strange film - one that has almost too much going on. It's also about 20 minutes too long. See it yourself and see what you think.
Fight Club hasn't aged that well, and for all the wrong reasons. In 1999, there weren't many films or series like this. 25 years later - there are. Fight Club doesn't stand out anymore.
It's still a good film though.
Edward Norton is excellent as the ordinary guy who, bit by bit, entirely loses it. Brad Pitt is Norton's wild side: alter-ego Tyler Durden. What follows is an inner journey, exploring sexuality, control (and deliberate lack of...), self-harm and rule-breaking. Who/what is Norton? Who/what is Tyler Durden? There are a very wide range of interpretations open in Fight Club.
This film is more or less dark in virtually every respect!
Bonham-Carter is good in a supporting role, and Meat Loaf gets a good cameo.
Fight Club is a strange film - one that has almost too much going on. It's also about 20 minutes too long. See it yourself and see what you think.
Not quite sure how this gets such a high rating. The first Deadpool film is decent: 8/10, the second one so-so: 7/10, but Deadpool & Wolverine isn't very good.
The central problem is that this film takes the mickey. It's really sticking up the middle-digit to pretty much the entire super-hero genre. It's deliberately contrived - actually very obviously contrived as some kind of poke at corporate contemporary film makers who make the "hero" genre movies, and thus big bucks. I didn't like that.
It's just another Hollywood corporate vehicle for a few stars. And what the hell was Wesley Snipes thinking of when he signed up to this? Money, obviously, along with all the rest of them Jackman & Reynolds included.
There's a stupid sort of story. Rather dull acting - some of which mindlessly breaks the fourth wall.
Alright - there's action, a few laughs - but so what? For me this was a waste of two hours where I could have watched a better film instead.
The central problem is that this film takes the mickey. It's really sticking up the middle-digit to pretty much the entire super-hero genre. It's deliberately contrived - actually very obviously contrived as some kind of poke at corporate contemporary film makers who make the "hero" genre movies, and thus big bucks. I didn't like that.
It's just another Hollywood corporate vehicle for a few stars. And what the hell was Wesley Snipes thinking of when he signed up to this? Money, obviously, along with all the rest of them Jackman & Reynolds included.
There's a stupid sort of story. Rather dull acting - some of which mindlessly breaks the fourth wall.
Alright - there's action, a few laughs - but so what? For me this was a waste of two hours where I could have watched a better film instead.