For A Few Dollars More

Classic Spaghetti Western, the second part of the 'Dollars' Trilogy, often considered around and about the greatest spaghetti western ever.
So it's Leone/Morricone, and the returning Clint Eastwood, who probably plays the same character as in 'Fistful', though that's not really the point. Morricone is become grander, more symphonic, finding his feet and asserting himself more than earlier. This film is known as having, through it sdirection, changed and introduced a number of elements to the cinematic art. Like many films where this is the case, for viewers now this is rather hidden as following films have acclimatised one to the styles. All the same, from whatever angle taken this is a sharply, excitingly, directed film.
The film is stronger, slower than 'Fistful', with more of a wide horizon, more of a operatic bent (though nowhere near 'Once upon a time in the West'). This is partly through the inclusion of Lee Van Cleef's character, which adds a relational element missing from 'fistful', and adds more ambiguity and complexity to the still always stoical personification of the man-with-no-name.
The plot is a little bit hokey, a little bit holey, but exciting enough, we won't criticise for it being an exciting piece of action. Clint continues to show human weaknesses to go with his mega-cool aura, and Van Cleef introduces a similarly cool role.
The baddy is a very good baddy, nicely complex with his own motif of the evil laugh.
So, this is a fun film to watch, perhaps not a stone-cold classic in that it does seem like a rather standard caper at times. All the same, the horse-riding's great, Clint's great, it's all good fun.

Le Pere Des Mes Enfants (The Father Of My Children)

This pleasant, occasionally moving, and always uneven film isn't particulalry memorable, but is fine to sit to sit through for a afternoon or evening of escapism at the cinema.
Paris is beatiful, as is the countryside, and the weather is always nice. It is shot comfortingly enough, the kids are cute and their isn't a huge sense of tension or worry about the film (despite the subject manner). The female adolescent lead is also completely charming, and if she or anyone she knows is reading this, we would very much like to have her round for a civilized dinner party.
This film starts off on this pleasant trajectory, and we, for a long time, think we are in for a mild-peril, but utterly comforting and escapist film. And then something happens. The film doesn't turn particularly grim or tension filled, but it undoubtedly changes (in content if not character), and we have a different exploration.
Perhaps the second half of the film was meant to be the whole film, but wasn't long enough, so the first section lasts an extra half hour. It doesn't seem, because of the odd timing, to realy go anywhere. In a non-angry way the changes can be a little jarring, and lead one to not take the film entirely seriously. This dosne't mean it still isn't pleasant to watch, with a bit of curiousity mixed in.
Not many films deal so accurately and precisely with the film industry, and this may explain this film getting green lighted. It deserved this though, it's decent enough, if for abovementioned reasons not exactly special.

Fistful Of Dollars

First Leone film, first of the 'Dollars' trilogy, first serious Clint Eastwood film. This is a fun ride, tipping a hat in sincerity to the Western genre conventions while going it's own merry way.
Leone obviously knows what he's doing, it is paced just right and is intriguing and action packed enough without being over-the-top. Eastwood does what he does, showing weakness now and again which is nice. He still comes out of it with an aura you only see in Hollywood; he's obviously the hero, whatever he does.
This film is, despite having decent weight behind it, not entirely serious. We are never asked to consider the violence, Eastwood's surreal character is meant to be faintly ridiculous. The oddest moment of the film has to be Eastwood's glance at the camera after accidently punching out the women; in that we have the whole mood of the Western summed up, considered upon, and subverted. The soundtrack is minimal, and peculiar (as always for Morricone), which works without the theatrical fireworks he'll let off in later productions.
So, this is a fine, not too long, deliberately odd take on the before-moribund Western genre. It's not something to blow you away, but has a cool aesthetic, an exciting plot, and great acting and directing.

Lourdes

Certainly one of the better films we've seen this year, a fine consideration of miracles, faith, and our favourite subject, people.
This film is wonderfully ambiguos, perhaps in part because it needed the authority's permission to film, and partly because ambiguity is, well, the intelligent artistic position. It is over simplistic to read this as simply mocking the ridicuolousness of the Catholics and the shrine (though it does this at times). What it critiques (in an untterly non-polemical way) is the people who prove inadequate in their understanding, who miss the point. We are not quite sure if Lourdes does have some (very immanenent) kind of miraclulousness, and should be celebrated, or is the home of the phony.
The plotting rachets up the tension, keeping us grinding nails into palms in even the stillest scenes, as the almost unbearable tensions of the tiniest infringements become manifest. The film making is, in a good way, rather cruel and mean spirited towards the audience; in the most understated way possible it puts them through the wringer.
And understated this film in, with lots of long, still shots. These are beautifully choreographed, stunning images, terrifically framed and using colour in original ways. Take the tracking shot over the candles; done with grace and ingenuity to create great spectacle. Jessica Hausner is a fine director. Like the incredible 'In The City Of Sylvia' the camera stays on scenes when the 'action' has left, creating a spectral beauty. This kind of tactic only works when the mis-en-scene is beautiful and intelligently laid out, which is the case here. Marks also for the always-effective trick of placing characters on the sides of shots, so we don't notice them until the end.
Like 'Sylvia', we stay on characters faces/expressions so we are required to do thinking for ourselves, to make realisations for ourselves, that add untold elements of true 'audience interaction' to the film. A film for the intelligent.
The acting is faultless, the character of the mother-superior figure Cecille is a cold study of a masterwork, Madame Carre is unbearably pooignant, an elderly women in the movies who we care about more than just the usually centralised young.
All round, this a slow-moving, intelligent, often cruel (nearly to the point of a black comedy) and wonderful film.

Kick-Ass

Oh dear. This blockbuster comic book adaption, coming from what we hear is actually an interesting comic book and idea, is an awful movie. The end is a begging bowl held out in a wish for a sequel. Let us hope to God the public doesn't bite.
Let us start by saying that their are a few not-awful points. Hell, it's not intensely boring and does keep your attention. There are, as there are to be honest even in the worst hollywood crap, a couple of funny lines. Nicholas Cage at least plays something a bit different, and gets a few laughs. Chloe Grace Moretz (why is she not given top billing?) is marvellous, all criticism excludes her, she gives a fine performance and is refreshing to see a hyoung girl in the hero role (of course, in Japan there are hundreds of such roles, but anyway). The first five minutes look promising. After that though...
At least a traditional high-school movie doesn't lie to you, what is most grating, smashingly annoying, is when a movie says it's being a little bit different, subverting the high school norm, and in fact it turns out to be just a painful as usual. The characters are idiot adolescents, who deserve zip. The female characters are cyphers, offensive in their indulgence of the stupid little boys. Pathetic, staid, wish fulfillment.
The action, the main story, is basically a standard superherp movie. However, the attempt to have some kind of earthy, human element just makes the killing, you know, mass murder. The film has an atrocious philosophy, that it's alright to kill indiscriminately if you are standing up and asserting yourself. This is moral black and white, which jars horribly with the attempt to make it down-to-earth and relaistic in its portrayal of the wannabe superhero. The big action is standard and often tedious, the side-actors aren't worth talking about much.
A poor film, a standard blockbuster with all the rubbish of female characterisation, boredom, and predictability that tag now dentoes. Please avoid.

Sin City

Very popular, and rather good, adaption of Frank Miller's reportedly seminal graphic novels(s), with a plethora of stars both in front of and behind the cameras.
Let us first say that we do realise the piece can be read as mysoginistic, and the attempts to avoid this feature are occasionally cack-handed. The violence could be a problem were it unnecessary and malicious, but this is so obviously a comic book that the violence is rather fun and a crucial part of the films entertaining aesthetic.
Deliberate throwbacks to hard boiled dialogue, sharp, complicated, rather holey plotting, are all conventions of the genre faithfully and pleasingly followed. The four stories told are, due to their differences, uneven in quality, though all have their strong features. Mickey Rourke's section is probably the most memorable, Bruce Willis' has a terrific climax, Clive Owen's is probably the most....'realistic' (very -ish).
If this was just simple genre cinema, it would be rather boring. However, the star of this film is the shooting, the graphics. Just because of the comic book aesthetic of static mounted shots, sharp and often black/white/bright-contrast colour schemes it was always going to be interesting, but the direction is good enough that we are taken beyond this and find in general a fine visual fine. The classic argument ; you can shoot beauty badly and its ugly, you can shoot disgust well and it's beautiful, always applies, and here we have beautiful images shot very well. The snow, the camera moves across the violence, they are not overly fussy and fast cuts but clear ones that allow us to dwell on the images created. Just like in comic books, perhaps.
All round, a different and worthwhile piece of cinema. The best use of the comic-strip style seen on screen, and well done to create a fascinating and entertaining film from what could have been self-indulgent fanboyness.

The Room

Famous for being the 'Citizen Kane' of bad movies, this was a screening like no other and a film like no other.
The audience laughed, shouted, played along with the absurd and....well very bad happenings, with some motifs to be shouted at appropriate moments. We were allowed to join in the fun, shouting 'SPOON' and throwing little plastic spoons whenever the spoon picture came on screen, shouting 'FOCUS' whenver the camerawork became rather hazy amongst other fun themes.
This can't really be reviewed, all that can be said is that it is a nice change to go along to a (nearly entirely full) cinema where the audience are so actively engaged and the film is mercilessly deconstructed by the punters.
The question is, was it deliberate? We decided that it was not, this film was made seriously and just turned out as it did. The content is slightly too....boring, or at least mundane (always hillarious) to be a parody, and there is not any self-knowing looks or references that most films of that genre would convey. If this IS a iss-take, it is down with heroic deadpanedness. The prodcution values are also not a huge amount worse (alright, a bit) than a number of TV movies, and the script never entirely jumps the shark. It is rather like a compendium of clunking lines in badly written scripts of otherwise 'serious' films.
So, a fun night, a fun showing, go along if it is in your area. Although watching it by yourself would certainly require a large amount of drinking, to get one in the festice mood required. All together npw 'HI DENNY....BYE DENNY!'

Once Upon A Time In The West

This Leone/Morricone stone cold classic, epic Western, does everything you would expect it to do, and is, thus, magnificent.
There is actually a very tiny amount that happens; you could sum the three hour plot up in about two sentences. This kind of doesn't matter though, from the very start, the famous first scene of the Railway and the entrance of the Harmonica Kid, we are enveloped in a slow moving direction, a direction that isn't overly fastidious or fussy but allows us time to settle, time to wait, time to examine the dust, the mountains, the desert. And it's all the better for that.
The characterisation is at once minimal, and penetrating. We never really know what's going through a character's head, in the spirit of the West these are nowhere people, distant, directionless. This is explicated by the lack of dialogue across basically the whole movie, except for some classically coined epithets. The time lingered on individuals, the close ups and acknowledgements of sweat-beads, pores, stoicisms, tells us that these distant creatures are all the same really humans. Tough, breathing, stone-like humans.
The plot is deliberately confusing, slow, not really going anywhere. It is a meander along the landscapes, the atmosphere, the cast of driven charaicatures who stand among the leads and must be gunned down. The actors follow their paths and don't put a foot wrong. Your female lead is not as awfully mysognisic a characterisation as can sometimes be criticised, though does have pre-enlightenment moments of work.
As for the music (or really general sound effects), what could initially be a little grating and toneless is, through repitition and strong recurrent usage, found to be one of the most memorable parts of the films. The same sounds repeated at different times take on and develop meanings of their own, take on hauntings, sadness, power. The use of co-ordinated drips, gunshots, metal clanking on metal, is at once naturalistic and highly stylised. This is an opera, a grand and magisterial one, with the realism not compromised by the musical impositions.
Leone's directing brilliance will be curious to be followed across the (in fact earlier released) 'Dollars' Trilogy. In this classic, he justifies the epic run time (never bored, could have happilly gone on longer) by assembling a wide cast of landscapes and scenes that never fail to grip. Individually, he operates wonderful close ups, never obtrusive work that always focusses on the characters, even when not literally focussing. An epic, a classic, the work of a master and a key film in the cannon of cinema. Stunning.

Rope

The Hitchcock classic, based on a Patrick Hamilton (Hangover Square etc) script. This is basically the filming of a play, and is famous for the (4?) tiny amount of shots that are used, the camera swooping around the front ended rooms. This is an exercise in brilliance rather than annoying trickery, indeed the few cuts there are (though obviously necessary in the production process) are actually the most obtrusive element of the direction. It is, quite obviously, a play set up; the front ended rooms, the real-time setting, even a bit of a speechifying and so on. The most dramatic cinematic effects are the changing lights that occur at the end. These are obviously a method that would work just as well in the theatre, and the film should be judged as what it is, a fine filming of a play (plus kudos to the moves around the room, the one departure from theatrical conventions, when Rupert delivers the monologue on what the murderers ‘could’ have done).
As far as the plot it concerned, we can roll out all the Hitchcock clichés/superlatives. Tightly-paced, suspenseful, thrilling, the slow build up of action and endless use of ironies creating the kind of perfectly packaged emotionally charged screen experience that few others have been able to get near. The acting is theatrical, but still fine. Brandon in particular shows just the right level of slightly over-the-top cunning. The dialogue is for a play, with rather flowery speeches, but steers just about clear of pretentious. And Jimmy Stewart is wonderful as ever, playing the older man with a beautiful uncertainty that belies possible charicatures.
So, this is a ‘standard’ Hitchcock film, in other words it’s a master-work, tight, short, exciting, and well done. It shouldn’t perhaps be seen as a great cinematic experience; as mentioned, it’s a filmed play, but this doesn’t take away from its achievement as a fine piece of theatrical art.

The Kreutzer Sonata

A Tolstoy short Story based on the Beethoven Sonata, updated to modern-day LA, this is an interesting premise with some nice touches rather let down by poor camerawork.
It, being Tolstoy, is of course in story a beautifully structured and fascinating analysis of the slow-simmering and then exploding emotions of envy and jealousy (nicked by Proust for Swann’s Way, incidentally, and similar with the man-hanging-around-corners to the wonderful ‘Queen of Spades’). The Huston family put in decent performances, and the scene-ography is subtle enough to let us know our perma-smiling anti hero and his sensual, enigmatic wife.
The camera appears however to be operated by a drunk, cheaply bought and fittzling around the characters rather than let the largely well directed scenes speak for themselves. It is distracting and annoying. This film could have chosen to be a sharp, lean document, and could have gotten away with this. The at times painfully slow structure, where bits of the story are explained by a voiceover to the point of idiocy, makes it overlong and slow for this purpose.
The painfully bourgeois setting is deliberate, but also tremendously grating.
Overall, nearly very excellent, but the cheapness of the camerawork and uncertainty over the pace (i.e. it’s too slow) mean it is a rather galling slice of how the rich half live.

A Single Man

This mildly feted film was largely seen as being surprising in so far as it is not awful, being as it is financially a vanity project for a fashion designer. They are right in so far as it is not awful, but this doesn't make it particularly good. It is about a middling film, though that doens't mean average.
It's a shame we saw it with so many preconceptions, as the spot-the-awful-fashion-designer game serves nobody. Let us try and go beyond that.
On the plus side, we have a gentle, stately central performance from Colin Firth. Apart from Nicholas Hoult the acting indeed is fine (in the superlative sense of that term). It is not over-egged,and fits the deliberately flat, rather dreamy and uncertain mood. The story is also an interesting conceit.
Let us talk about the visuals. The sets are dressed nicely, the actors are dressed wonderfully sharply. The colour changes, the increasing vividness of the shots, is a surpirisng touch. The use of slow motion and sunlight creates a few arresting images in juxtapositition (the liquor store car park, for example). This makes it a worthwhile film to look at.
However, we are not sure that all these touches are filmed, are shot, particularly well. Take the use of changes in brightness/contrast. A good idea, used at the right time, but it doesn't so much seem cinematic as a good idea on paper or in photographs (anti fashion designer prejudice). The way the scenes are shot is not 'bad'...there are interesting ideas, the use of images is thoughtful. It is just that the framing of the particular objects, while not being a drawback, doesn't particularly add anything. This is basically a criticism that magic is not worked, and it should be kept in mind that the ambition and invention is far above the level of most major releases. The point is not that beautiful things are shot badly making the images unappetising, it is rather that nothing is added by the use of directorial conventions. And there is too much slow motion.
More basic problems are that the story is not told in a particularly exciting or coherent way, the rythm is rather uneven. Also, the script is frankly very poor, the idea not exactly profound but always rather glib. The lecturing and soliloqiues (especially on 'fear') are cringeworthy. Tom Ford is a director who deserves interest, and should be credited for interesting ideas, but he needs someone else to storyboard and write the scripts.
We fear this has turned into an analysis where we knew the result before going in the cinema, and we should rememphasise that this is a weighty story told with visual inventivenesss and some wonderfully gentle touches, particualy from Firth. It however fails to quite fly.

The Scouting Book For Boys

This unremarkable and to tell the truth not very good film was forgotten almost after seeing it. The characters, in particular your male lead, are idiots and thus infuriating if one particularly learned to care about the. There is the unfortunate assumption that just because people are poor they become interesting; this is not the case, some people, and some cultures, rich or poor, are just boring because the people within them hold no interest.
This ultra-Britishising porn of the regional setting adds nothing. It just makes the whole excercise mildly pathetic. The plot is at once over-egged, faintly absurd, and pointless. Saying that the conclusion makes a wider point about the feminine in society, and males, gives the film far too much credit. Its fault is in its rather ponderous over simplicity/
This is being over harsh, it is in all honesty not a distasteful film to watch, and keeps you occupied. It also ends rather well, the move into hysterical violence offering a lot more fun than what had gone before, if all rather pointless.
The only real interesting point of this film though is that it is shot and shares an aesthetic with the terrific 'Fish Tank'. What was almost biblical there in its dramatic, grand broken skylines becomes just grimy here, and makes one tired if this whole milleu of British-working class wallowing. Here, unlike Fishtank, there are no wider messages at play, and we are left with parochial scenes that will be quickly forgotten.

La Mujer Sin Cabeza (The Headless Woman)

It is difficult to think of any adjectives that describe this film, all we can really tell you is what it is not. It is not easy, it is not linear, it is not readable, it is not explainable, or even at times entirely coherent. Despite this, we are very happy to have sat through its short running time.
Here's an effort to recreate the feeling of the film; a hand held just inches from the mouth, so breathing is impaired and only become worse, but never enough to quite be noticed. The first shot is fast moving, a wonderful piece of camerawrk, but from then on the camera is at once still and decentered, not letting us in and at once making us culpable for what has happened. The screen is split, often beautifully so (if that is the right word). Indeed, the whole film is shot in an odd, disconsertingly beautiful manner, though never to the extent that it interrupts or makes explicit its stylistic pretensions. The finest example is the shooting of the placid central actress. She is cut off as a character and in the shooting, with people and objects coming between here and us to veil and hide. The repeated motif, never obvious but frequently there, is the shot of her ('haunting' seems too crude'), of just her body, head cut from frame, her square body like a puppet with some odd irrational, placid spirit running through. It is memorable.
It's a tough line between enigmatic, deep, unexplainable meaning and metaphors, and pretentious guff. This film does brilliantly to stay firmly on the former side, never descending to artifice as its use of everyday dialogue (nearly overheard), domestic props and little conversations all add up to the unexaplined atmosphere. Mundanity isn't the word, but the seeming everydayness of the actions makes it understandable that it becomes a little boring at times. However, laying too thickly on the atmospherics would dillute this films singularity in both creating a mood, and having no mood to speak of.
All these gnomic points basically are saying that this is a film where nothing happens, or at least what does happen is overwhelmed but what doesn't (or mainly doesn't). It is a film that is curious, and though not exactly entertaining, is undoubtedly worth seeing.

Shutter Island

Scorcese's latest is an unmistakeable B-Movie, with massive honking, irony laden sound effects, plot developments, characters, and script (check out the first five minutes of the characters explaining the plot to each other). For all these reasons, it's a piece of damn good fun.
Yes, it's hokum, and yes, the realist lesson hasn't been given (quite deliberately, and happily, as we will come to). This is perfectly acceptable in this kind of film, which doesn't have the pretensions to do more than deliver a grand, long piece of entertainment. It instead lingers through mood, grand fast-moving plot, and deliberate homage.
DiCaprio, if the accent a little in and out, is decent. Ben Kingsley doesn't quite eat the furniture, as might have been more fun, but like the rest of the cast keeps it in his pants. All told, this is probably for the best, to stop it becoming too hysterical.
The homage is of course to Hitchcock, and the aesthetic he was part of it. There are endless nods to Psycho, Rope, North by Northwest, Vertogo...etc etc. The lighting, the shooting, the plot devices...it's all there. It is though Pastiche rather than Parody, and takes quite sincerely the references. This is not a joke, even if on occassion a laugh had to be stifled, and is properly scary at times.
All told, if a little long it's a good laugh and serves its purposes excellently. Not Scorcese's attempt at a masterpiece, but rather a memory and a effort at all he loves.

Crazy Heart

Jeff Bridges won the best actor for his role here, and is indeed superlative, but there's a lot more beside him here.
Might as well start with Bridges though; his mumbling, physical presence gives weight/depth/interest/insert appropriate adjective that means he creates a character in what could have been a cliched role. Always a favourite, he manages to make every one of his roles forget that one is watching that nice Jeff Bridges. Instead, one watches an exciting, funny, and above all in this role lovable character, though never in a slushy way. 'Bad' is warm hearted in a believable manner, with faults to boot. Maggie Gyllenhall just about convinces in her role.
The films story, though with one obvious exception and a .....we shan't say, ending, is happy not to pile on the misery too hard. It is a portrait,not a torture chamber, and one can relax in the atmosphere of a few good friends.
Mention also shoulld be given to the music, especially a favourite of ours, hummed as we left 'Funny How Fallin' Seems Like Flyin''. Rare for a top tune to come from a movie.
To conclude, Bridges is excellent, it is well put together, and truly leaves a nice little peice of warmth in side. Thumbs Up.

Spirited Away

Critically lauded, watched by us a number of years ago, this Miyazaki/ Ghibli film has its moments but is in all honesty heavily overrated.
First the high points; some wonderful scenes in the bath houses, a heroine who actually develops as the story goes on, and, as always with Miyazaki, wonderfully imaginative twists of the plot. He is able to create creatures and scenes, without a drop in the rythm, that startle with their originality compared to 99% of the fare of the silver screen. His drawings are always beautiful, perhaps not the most evocative but always with their own straight-lined charm and purposefulness.
However, all of these upsides, great as they are (and let us not be misstaken, his films are often fine works, he is one of the superior creators of mainstream fare around), do not hide the fact that he is not a good director, or even perhaps a good storyteller. The storys are wonderful, but often dissapear into lucanas and lack the heart to fully embed themselves and be told across a regional amount of time. Plot strands are set up, and then forgotten, as though Miyazaki has lost his nerve.
This is forgivable, but it is in the literal scene-plotting that Miyazaki falls down. He has the awful habit of shooting every single movement from five angles, we see a character, a room, a door, a step, another step, a hand on the door, the doorhandle turning, the door starting to open....etc etc unto infinity. He throws us straight into plots, but once there everything takes half an hour and twenty cuts to accomplish. This makes his films, most notably 'Spirited Away' (less so 'Ponyo') over-long and frequently energy-sappingly boring. The fact that it takes such a long time, full of inconsequential (not in a imaginative, quirky manner, the inconveniences are the mindane parts) actions, makes his films rather oppressive to watch at times.
Miyazaki has a fantastic creative imagination, a unique visual style, and the ability to render exciting action. His themes of childhood existential angst and loneliness create masterpieces in mood across his work. However, his inability to direct with any subtlety or leaness can make one rather wish to never seen one of his films again.

Ponyo

The new(ish) Miyazaki film from his Studio Ghibli warehouse, this is probably the best directed one of his offerings we have seen to date.
It is undoubtedly aged at a younger demographic than prevous darker and often more disturbing work, here the bad guys aren't really bad. This doesn't make the peril less perilous, there's still a sense he could kill a charcter off, but the over-riding message of the fim is one of joy and curiousity rather than the confusion which can characterise his other films.
Due to it being set around infancy the characterisation isn't particularly complex, yet it's fine enough and does well to not ram a message down any throats. The story is nicely told, even if I does drag and draw itself out a little at times. The humour is at once laid on with a troal and rather light, endless rather silly jokes not being oppressive but rather cute.
It is of course in the animation that this film excels, the action scenes especially are wonderous, wild spinnings and leapings, there is no one who can create quite the 'wow' factor with animation as Miyazaki. The characters he draws are exciting, changeable, and different.
This, in comparison to others of his work, is very much a kids film, with more slapstick and even a catchy theme tune. Because of this, its simplicity and, to overuse a word frequently attached to Miyazaki, charm. These make it perhaps the most pleasurable of his films to watch, if not the deepest, for those who like that sort of thing.

Jean de Florette

Hailed as a classic, groundbreaking work of world cinema, this is in reality a perfectly decent film without doing anything too special.
Originally filmed as one monster, but slip in two ('Manon Des Sources' being the other half), the film does not suffer from loose ends or unresolved consequences. Rather it has a certain weight to its conclusions, a seriousness, an almost self-consciously epic quality that is its greatest strength. It takes itself seriously, and invests in what it does; in its characters in its setting, in its deceptively simple plot. For all of this it should be congratulated. The acting is perfectly decent, especially Cesar (Gerard Depardieu is Gerard Depardieu, all the honourary French mainstream greats are wheeled out), and are smoothly put together (not always at a great pace, though this isn't a problem). Visually, Provence of course looks beautiful, iddlyic even at times. few scenes, especially the yellow dust strom and the grapes-of-wrath style shots from below of Cesar, are carried off with flair. So nothng to complain about there.
The problem is that the plot, themes and characters can't quite live up to the billing of the 'classical tragedy' the furniture evoked. There are plot holes, silly things happening out of place that stretch the audience's collaboration. The characters are not particularly special or emotionally engaging, rather just random people, and thus the themes aren't carried off with a lot of consequence. Rather than being left crying, we were left saying 'I suppose that was a bad thing', before we left the cinema and thought about something else. It was nearly easy to revel in what we should be disgusted by, turning it into a caper movie. Perhaps this is Monsieur Depardieu's fault, his Jean de Florette, on further analysis, barely rises above charicature.
To conclude, this is perfectly entertaining, nd we shall try to catch 'Manon des Sources' (the rather pointless girl in 'jean de florette' obviously prefiguring this). It has a good weight, and a certain pleasing solidity. However, it is hamstrung by a lack of consequence, stemming from uninspiring acting/characterisation and a rather unnuanced story.

Chung Hing sam lim (Chungking Express)

An earlier film from one of the most highly renowned directors working today, Kar Wai Wong. And, going in with high expectations from the supreme 'In The Mood For Love', our hopes were met and even more, this is a terrific film.
It is wonderfully shot, the incredible jolting, disorientating, jerking camerawork that opens the movie and recurs at points expecially near the start of the film. Kar Wai Wong has a incredible sense of colour, vivid, and a way of capturing the nuances of the human face without having to resort to self-conscious tricks to do so. The way of the city is though the real 'love letter' (horrible cliche) of this film. The evocation of a great metropolitan city that is still, irredemeably, singular, the ethnic mix, the food stalls, the dark almost blade-runner esque near-independence Hong Kong. It made us yearn for another film that shows the streets of Tokyo, but it is also more than just an identikit far-eastern city; the specific locality if wonderfully evoked.
The actors are flawless, Tony Leung in particular is as excellent as ever. Characters who should be, and you worry at the start will be a little bit annoying, are, somehow (this is a cop out, but Wai is a master and we can only bow) made into real human beings. Wonderfully dressed human beings, at that.
The plot is, we suppose, not particularly laden with drive or purpose. It never feels like nothing is happening, though, as in all the best films (so we say) the human beings at the centre are the story here. Perhaps the second half is not quite as engaging as the first, and, like the great 'In The Mood For Love' it might just be a few scenes too long. This is more than made up for, and so forgiven as to barely be worth mentioning.
Wai has a visual style that is vivid, fast, and one could say 'pop-video- esque, but it has so much more weight and beauty than that. Visually, this is a film to re-watch. And plot wise too; on our first viewing, we focus on the characters and become immersed in the plots of their lives (which re fascinating). As it develops however, and we attempt to tear ourselves away from direct intense involvement, we realise this film has great universailty. It is really a slow moving paen to the city, the changing times of the specific locale of 1994 Hong kong that, with its capturing of little incidents that seem big at the time. It is a consideration of the loneliness/friendliness of the city, but far beyond the usual cliches of films that attempt to explore this. It has a different take on this idea than most films, taking us beyond the simple 'loneliness of the city' themes.
This is a beutiful film, about real people. It is excitingly, at times innovatively, filmed, by a modern (and, one day, timeless) master. One of the rare films that is both wonderfully intelligent and shot with adrenaline, as an early work of a great filmaker, this film is most highly considered.

Un coeur en Hiver (A Heart In Winter)

This drama, based oh-so-loosely on the Princess Mary section of Lermontov's Hero Of Our Time, is a good watch and expertly made.
Yes, it is screamingly bouregois, which is a bit of problem. It does become very easy to laugh at the 'action', to believe that the characters who apper to not actually do anything start heaving their bodices. Everything is incredibly Fine, is incredibly Delicate, is incredibly Sensitive. It's all rather Proustian, and very much a drawing room drame of intellectuals (set in the post Drawing room age). The language is rather stylisised; but this is down to the obvious influence of Chekhov. It shares his not-classically-naturalist bent of high-falluting conversations about the meaning of life over tea and biscuits (I refer more to his plays than his stories) . Chekhov is a God, and this film does not of course approach his genius, but in between some rather painful stylisations it just about works.
The falling in love part, in the middle of the movie, is rather jarringly and unconvincingly portrayed. This may be deliberate, to show its rather surreal manner, and the power of one character's capacity to extrapolte beyond what is there. The end, despite a few moments we were worried, happily does not chicken out and we are left with a satisfying, if at time unintentionally hillarious, relish.
This is an incredibly bourgeois (Proust's world updated to the 1990's)anti-romance of manners. It suffers from the pitfalls of that label, but is at once well made and rather satisfyingly plotted. Worth a look, and a little more.

Once Were Warriors

This film is terrific, touching greatness at times, even if not always able to remain on that level? But how many can? This is a great film.
Set in a disfunctional Maori household where the characters have entered the bourgeois world, spat out as violent drunks or abused forebears, it is largely a character piece. The male lead i monstrous, perhaps a little too much so, but is certainly humanised and shows a great range of emotions. The mother, and the daughter, are also well shown in not being (always) over-perfected, they aren't just angels impoed upon (this may be a charge against Grace, the girl). The cycles of poverty are terrifically shown; we see how generations of povery, patriarchal violence, social and ancestral conditions repeat themselves. Hate the crime, not the criminal.
The rendering of an atmosphere, of a culture, is superb. Wonderful singing, awful misogyny. The 'answer' of a return to the Maori is perhaps over egged, at the end which is a couple of scenes too long; there is at the same time truth there, when the correct elements are incorporated.
A word also to the cinematography, perhaps this film's greatest strength. The reds, the colours, the shadings and crevices of the characters faces are captured and delved into beautiful. It makes the film carry weight, giving visceral nausea to either the disgusting violence or grandeur to the hopeless. A film that seems to be under the radar, but is more than worth taking time to discover. Two thumbs up.

Der Himmel Uber Berlin (Wing of Desire)

This, on the other hand, is not a masterpiece. We loved Wim Wenders 'Alice In The Cities', but this film, though with some great visuals characteristic of his earlier work, is largely a ponderous bore.
The characters cross the line from enigmatic to nothings. Wenders likes to have dialogue that has layers of meaning, uncovered over durations of viewing. In this cae, it doesn't work; it basically comes across as self-indulgent and directionless. The plot is uncertain, there is nothing wrong with a slow pace but this lacks a direction to even not go along.
The visuals are fine, some beautiful black and white framing, with simple costume and sharp silver services that are appreciated.
However, this is an ideas film, and the ideas simply aren't very good. It opens up clearings of meaning, but has nothing to insert in the place. Their is simply not enough to stop us getting impatient with the poetry.
Lauded by those who believe it has deep meaning, but we don't buy it.

La Battaglia Di Algeri (The Battle Of Algiers)

This is one of the finest films we have seen this year. Incredibly well balanced, virile, actively exciting, and with profound, if never didactic, political and social conclusions.
This is basically a true story, with street actors playing either real people or combinations of characters. The acting is wonderfully low key, realist, and largely secondary to the action, which in such a wide-ranging picture of a revolution i necesary. Depite the lack of specific characterisation, one still end up feeling for particular characters, due to fine minimalist performances and sympathetic shot. This doesn't entirely apply only to the Algerians; the French general, though we would not like to say is preented 'as a human being', always has undertanding, is never a cipher. That i what makes this films special; in terms of the characters, in terms of the action it presents, it is irredeamably fair. In almost a documentary style it simply shows us what happens, the pain and disgust at both ends. None are free from the violence, none are not hurt by it consequences.
It is a very exciting film, with large scenes of rythmic violence, although it has a wonderfully odd way of making one certain what will happen next; through the lack of filmic artifice of cliffhanger/ unnecessary twists it takes on a wonderfully clear inevitability. This is beautiful, and the film is beautiful. The film, especially the Algerian people and the dusty, surprisingly dark streets of the Casbah, are gloriouly shot, though never in a self concious style.
We could go on all day about the strengths of this film; the music, the conscience, the well paced scenes. Let us though finally mention how the camerawork being amongst the crowds add emotional weight to the scenes of rebellion/revolution, especially at the end where the audience is implicated in involvement. For a film that is unflinching in its portrayal of the consequences of violence, it manages to at once leave us with a stirring feeling of the power of the people. A rightful classic.

Grave Of The Fireflies

This classic animated anti war animated film laid the foundations for the boom of the next to decades, covering wildly different themes, thinking here Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle etc etc.
It is a fine film, and is indeed a deeply humane take on the oft-derided (in this sense) animated genre. It builds up nicely, and the animation of the fiery cities is beautifully inhumane. It is well paced, at once ponderous across time but sufficiently active and visceral when necessary.
Our problem with it was that the characters are not all that compelling or brilliant. The lead male is just idiotic, a boring person placed in a tragic situation. Setsuko is a basic sweet-little-kid cipher. Of course, the situation is tragic and we are moved by the situation we find these people in, but the people themselves add nothing special. Also, the event at the end is clearly a result more of the boy's idiocy regards his banking.
In short, a powerful film, though with a big hole in its centre where well made characters should be.

Insomnia

Best known in the English speaking world for the fantastic remake starring Al Pacino and Hillary Swank, this film may not quite have the epic qualities of the Hollywood version, but otherwise lacks nothing that gives the story it's elegiac qualities.
Sarsgaard is excellent, not over egging his characters disintegration but playing him nicely as a man who is real, feels feelings and laughs at jokes, but is all the same in many senses pathological. The side characters play their roles well, not trying to impose anything more than their parts dictate.
It is a terrific story, well written, well paced. Revelations are given which appear to break the mounting air of tension...and then it is realised that we have just reached a new layer, of thought. The thematic similarities between the dectective and the murderer are well played out, the latter being portrayed ithout hysteria.
Perhaps the sex is a tiny bit overplayed, but all round the piece is nicely restrained, staying largely within its bounds of a police thriller, with psychological aspects. The cinematography is fitfully interesting, the fog scenes are well made and the general atmosphere is well maintained.
The way we most like to think about this film is as a modern noir, with blinding light replacing the classic dark shadows. This film doesn't fall far short of those great Hollywood classics; it is at once a tightly and well made genre movie, but with the prospect of reaching out, further, adding to a intriguing piece.

Myrin (Jar City)

Pretty standard police procedural. Cop has a case, has a personal life. It's well shot, it's it curious who, though there is no particular resembelance between examples, you can alays tell nearly staright away whether that's the case?
Anyway, it goes along at a decent pace and leaves you curious for the ending. There's a few cliches, a bit of hokiness, and some rather unnecessary confusion resulting from things not being laid out clearly enough (this isn't deliberate). The characters are also not cared about deeply.
However, as we said, it's decent and well paced enough, not edge of the seat but comfortably sitting back.
It feels like one of a series of pieces about the cop, which it, surpirisingly enough, is (at least in book form). The cop characters isn't particularly engrossing, though he is at the same time a well drawn character who we simply don't get to know well enough to get TOO involved.
We don't want to have a go at this film, it treads lightly on you mind and is pretty much the definition of mildly diverting. Decent enough, that's what we can say.

Invictus

A simple, heartwarming tale that will likely pick up a couple of Oscars; and that's about what this deserves.
It'll probably go down in the annals of the first of the Nelson Mandela movies, the one that just focusses on the rugby. It rather has to, but at least isn't complete hagiography. Though Morgan Freeman speechifies too much at the start, he makes a game go of the accent and characterisation. If it wasn't exactly Nelson Mandela, it was a fine man he played. And, hey, it's a movie.
Matt Damon does the required business, even if he is a little small. One of the better points of this movie is that it didn't try to do too much; it could have portrayed Mandela as God and Pienaar as Jesus, but is a bit too good for that. It realises these are two humans, a man and a rugby player, who do what they do. The central message of forgiveness is unnuanced, simply presented, and the better for that. It isn't stupid, but it also isn't pretentious. It tells a good, simple story without embellishment necessary beyond the straight facts of some inspiring moments.
What makes this film positively a pleasure to watch is the direction. Clint Eastwood puts the procedures through so well, the scenes flowing from one to the next seemlessly, you nearly want to laugh at his effortless skill. The cuts are perfectly timed, the build up to the final moments are built up without noticing. Maybe that's the best thing that can be said about the film; the story's so well told, you forget to remember to feel moved and simply feel, well, moved. We felt a reddening of the eye as it came to the conclusion.
The end, indeed, just about stays the right side of sentimental. A few cliches are snuck in, but we can forget a few nods to the sports movie genre conventions. The conclusion is just like the rest of the film; not overegging the rosy-gardened messianic pudding, but letting us in to that little bit of joy.
This made us want to watch every movie Clint Eastwood has directed. This particluar example of his is a straightforward, well told, not at all overdone, well made portrait of a historical event. Thumbs up.