ella-48 Reviews

Aftersun (II) (2022)

What kind of dad does that, Calum?

[7/10 · 12 February 2024]

I'm going to start with a confession: I bumped into this movie in the TV schedule while channel-hopping, and chose to watch it for the shallowest of reasons: I've had a celebrity crush on Paul Mescal ever since "Normal People". Damn, but he's a fine thing to rest your eyes on! Now we've got that out of the way, let's get serious...

First, the things I liked.

The photography is imaginative throughout and, in places, SUPERB. I especially loved the use of half-disclosed action and shots in which the characters are seen only in partial reflection from surfaces (a bathroom mirror through a doorway... the switched-off TV screen etc.) - very effective.

As for the shaky hand-held camcorder footage, I'm not sure that it should have been allowed to fill the entire field of view as often as it did. If I had been watching in a movie theatre, I suspect that my eyesight and tendency to migraines would have had difficulty with all the wild lens-swinging - it was, mercifully, easier to handle on my home TV (32 inch, about 10ft away). Likewise, the strobe-lit dancefloor sequences could well be a problem for anyone with epilepsy.

The acting. Since watching "Aftersun", I have learned that apparently Paul Mescal (Calum) and Frankie Corio (Sophie) prepared for the shoot by actually spending two weeks on a holiday together - and it was clearly worth it. The parent/child chemistry between them is utterly convincing. Frankie Corio in particular deserves especial praise for her unforced naturalness and subtlety. Impressive.

Now to the stuff that made me mad. (NOTE: THIS BIT CONTAINS SPOILERS)

I have always had a problem with central characters - those in whom one is invited to become invested, with whom we're supposed to sympathise - who do things that shatter my suspension of disbelief.

It is made obvious from the get-go that Calum loves his daughter and is doing his very best to be a responsible, emotionally intelligent, supportive parent. The tenderness between them is palpable and a joy to witness. It gradually becomes equally obvious (to the viewer) that, privately, Calum is plagued by depression, battling some pretty big mental demons - a fact he endeavours to keep hidden from his daughter.

I suffer from depression too - it has taken me to some very dark places - but even so... I'm sorry, mate: I don't care how big your demons are, you DO NOT, in what is apparently a moment of perfect lucidity, leave your 11-year old daughter alone to fend for herself at night, surrounded by strangers in a holiday resort she barely knows how to navigate, while you sod off back to the hotel room! WTAF???

Later we see Calum wandering the darkened streets of the resort. Presumably he has awoken to find that Sophie isn't home yet, and gone looking for her, yes? Surely this is what he's doing? Nope. He heads onto the beach and walks, fully clothed, into the sea. I guess it's those pesky demons doing a number on him again. Later still, when Sophie manages to gain access to the hotel room, she finds her dad spark out, naked on the bed, having returned from his excursion and passed out (from drink? Drugs? Who knows? - it's not clear), apparently not knowing or caring what has become of his child. Incredible. I mean, literally not credible. Mental illness can make people do terrible things, but...

As the end credits roll, the viewer is left hugely unsatisfied, harbouring a mass of unanswered questions - just as the adult Sophie has been, ever since she lost her dad. Although it's never made explicit, I think it's fair to assume that the "Bye bye - I love you!" camcorder footage in the airport departure area was most likely the last time she saw him alive.

So... there's a lot I like about the skill, talent and imagination that's been put into this film, but I struggle to believe that any dad who loves his child that much would allow himself to act so neglectfully.

Finally, a nit-picking note regarding a design oversight: the action of the story is meant to take place in the1990s, but most of the young males at the holiday resort - particularly the lad Sophie meets while playing the motorbike arcade game - have present-day "Peaky Blinders" clippered haircuts . Oops.

Passages (2023)

Portrait of a self-destructive narcissist

[7/10 · 6 September 2023]

German film director Tomas (Franz Rogowski) and his British commercial artist husband Martin (Ben Whishaw) have been together for 15 years ...quite an achievement, I'd say, given just how immature, capricious and utterly self-obsessed Tomas routinely shows himself to be. Pretty much the only glue holding them together appears to be the fact that, whatever else may have gone stale between them, the sex is still good.

Although the script never explicitly mentions it, it would appear that theirs is an exclusive marriage: i.e. There are no intimations given to suggest that it's an open relationship, in which permission to "play away" has been agreed - so when, out of the blue, Tomas finds himself intensely attracted to a 20-something female schoolteacher called Agathe - an attraction he pursues with typically impulsive selfishness and no regard for anybody's feelings but his own - the impact on Martin (and, in due course, Agathe) is just as seismic as you'd expect.

Essentially what we have here is a portrait of a narcissist, in thrall to his own impulses, manipulative and duplicitous when it suits his purpose, and incapable of facing up to the consequences of his actions. Tomas is a study in arrested development: emotionally he's barely more than a toddler - a little boy who, on seeing a shiny new toy, must have it, and cannot understand why everybody else can't just go with his flow and let him have his way.

It's a tough challenge to play an unlikeable character and still keep your audience invested in them, but Rogowski pulls it off superbly, showing us that Tomas is as much a victim of his destructive personality traits as is everyone else who falls foul of them. As much as I despised Tomas's behaviour, I couldn't help but find myself feeling sympathy for his damaged soul. In that final night-time bike ride through Paris - having lost, by his own actions, everything of genuine value - he is truly heading nowhere.

Addendum: In the course of this movie I learned a frankly jaw-dropping, thing - that, in the 21st century, French schools have appallingly lax security: apparently any random stranger can get on the premises and barge into a classroom!

Asteroid City (2023)

100% Style over substance

[2/10 · 30 June 2023]

"Do get to see Asteroid City while it's in town," said my friend, whose judgement I usually trust. "...I think it'll be right up your street." I'm now left wondering whether my friend of 40+ years actually knows me at all!

I don't think I've ever seen a film so totally alienating - and I don't mean the Brechtian kind of alienation (that, I could have got on board with). No, this was a calculated assault on the senses: Wes Anderson doing Wes Anderson to the max, just because he can, with no attempt to engage the audience on anything but the shallowest surface level.

An OTT cartoon simulacrum of 1950s America, populated by 2-dimensional ciphers who speak in disconnected soundbites that ultimately say nothing that's actually worth paying attention to? As the basis for a 5 minute comedy sketch, it could have some merit ...but 1 hour 40-something? Get real!

But that's the problem with this film, for me: it never gets anywhere near real. I notice that on its iMDb page, this movie is tagged as "Comedy / Drama / Romance". I can't imagine why, because it signally fails to satisfy the basic criteria for any of those categories. It's really - REALLY - not funny, contains none of the elements that qualify a narrative as drama, and as for romance... in order for there to be romance, there have to be actual, 3-dimensional characters in whom you can get invested, whose emotional journey keeps you engaged. You'll be a long time hoping to find anything so rewarding in this.

Asteroid City is a vacuous exercise in quirkiness for its own sake. Had it been possible, I'd have gone to the box office and demanded my money back. As it was, I managed to last out to the one hour mark before giving up and walking out of the theatre - and I hardly ever give up on a movie!

Y'know what really bugs me? It's entirely possible to set your action in a highly stylised, cartoon-like version of cold war America, make your screenplay a satirical critique of that society and those times - AND have central characters, storylines and relationship dynamics that are thoroughly engrossing and emotionally satisfying. Tim Burton managed it magnificently in "Edward Scissorhands" - why couldn't you, Wes?

Close (I) (2022)

Subtle, tender ...and devastating

[10/10 · 10 March 2023]

Have just returned from watching this at my local Picture House. I'm going to do my best to describe the basic premise of the story - and my reaction to it - without issuing any spoilers.

Leo and Remi are 13 year-old boys who attend the same school. They have been best friends forever. "Best friends" is a barely adequate term, though, for the intensely close and intimate bond they have - so close that most nights Leo sleeps over in Remi's room, the pair of them spooned together. There is nothing remotely sexual/homoerotic in their relationship, but there is undoubtedly a depth of mutual affection that, it could be argued, borders on the romantic. What Leo and Remi have is beautiful and perfect ...and, thanks to heteronormative social pressures, doomed.

In public, amongst their schoolfellows, they exist almost in a bubble all to themselves, from within which they (quite unselfconsciously) display a level of touchy-feelyness - draping themselves about one another, exchanging deep, significant glances and private jokes, etc. - that it comes as little surprise (to the audience) when one of the girls in class asks Leo if he and Remi are a gay couple. The question isn't posed in an overtly challenging way - there's no obvious homophobic threat to it: merely idle curiosity - but, combined with a number of homophobic comments from other boys, its effect on Leo is seismic. Suddenly forced to face the reality that, to the rest of his peers, he and Remi look very much like lovers, he starts to inhibit his behaviour, becoming less and less tactile with Remi, physically distancing himself and spending less time with him.

Remi is left shellshocked, angry and bewildered ...leading, eventually, to the central tragic event of the story, which I shall not describe for fear of issuing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the tragedy and its consequences are played out with consummate subtlety and to shattering emotional effect. I was left sobbing like a child, as were all those in the seats around me. To quote one of them as we exited the cinema: "Well that's me ruined for the rest of the week!"

A final observation: I'm queer - a bisexual man - and one of the aspects of this film that most impressed me was the way in which Remi's heartbreak (that's the only word for it) was portrayed. It is left entirely to the individual audience member to decide for themself whether Remi's affection for Leo was wholly fraternal, or whether there was a deeper, more complex love at work within him. Go see this movie, and draw your own conclusions. All options are valid: there are no wrong answers here.

What's Love Got to Do with It? (2022)

It's hard to address social/inter-cultural realities when you're stuck in CurtisWorld

[4/10 · 3 March 2023]

I've not long got home from watching this at my local Picture House.

As I took my seat, I knew what I was in for - a nice, unchallenging bit of lightweight romcom froth, very much "School of Richard Curtis", and I was fine with that idea. I was rather looking forward to being lifted out of the worry and aggravation of real life for a hundred-odd minutes. I didn't expect to emerge from the cinema feeling actually angry.

Why? Maybe it's the times we're living through and what that means for most folks in the UK.

We are given to believe that Zoe (Lily James) is a young, promising independent documentary film-maker. Zoe has a social conscience: she likes to tackle the dark, heavyweight issues, has made a few things so far and a couple of them have been critically well-regarded, but she's yet to break into anything you could describe as the big time. To my knowledge (I'm a retired actor), most young film-makers barely manage to scrape any living from their art, even under normal economic circumstances: many of them have no choice but to live in the cheapest flat-share they can find and do other jobs - any jobs - in order to keep the wolf from the door

...so how come Zoe can afford to live on a SERIOUSLY LOVELY houseboat in a Central London location on the River Thames? Go online, folks, and check out the cost of renting one of these babies: you're talking anything from £5,000-£8,000 a month - and as for buying one... let's not go there!

So where's the money coming from, Zoe? This is never explained: there's no indication that you even have a job - and while the majority of us Brits are losing sleep over how we're going to meet the next gas bill, feed our loved ones and/or pay the mortgage, watching your character glide effortlessly through life on a frictionless cloud of material privilege feels at best thoughtless, at worst like a calculated insult.

Corsage (2022)

Art, not history

[8/10 · 3 January 2023]

I've noticed a number of reviewers having difficulty with this film on grounds of its historical inaccuracy. I can't speak to any of that. Being myself blissfully ignorant of the relevant history, I was untroubled by such considerations as I settled into my seat at my local Picture House - perfectly happy to take it as Art: a work of speculative fiction, and a somewhat impressionistic one at that.

Treating it as such, I found it thoroughly engrossing: 1hr 54 well spent, IMO. The central performance by Vicky Krieps is wholly engaging and deliciously subtle, and its portrayal of an intelligent, creative spirit struggling to maintain sanity against a straitjacket (or should that be corset? That's the big metaphor, after all) of patriarchal social convention had me hook, line and sinker, from the opening scene to the (breathtakingly unexpected) final one.

In the interests of full disclosure might as well mention the two things I was less keen on. Neither of them deal-breakers, but...

1) In a couple of scenes, characters are heard singing late 20th century pop songs. This practice of inserting anachronistic modern detail into period drama has become a bit of a fad in the last few years, especially, it seems, in German productions (the recent TV series KaDeWe springs to mind as a prime example). My personal feeling is that it's a stylistic quirk that's been done to death and has outlived its welcome. Others may disagree!

2) One part of the story (we are told by the onscreen captions) takes place in "Northamptonshire". Yeah right. Northamptonshire my ***! Neither the architecture nor the scenery are remotely British. It's blatantly obvious that these scenes were shot, like the rest of the movie, in mainland Europe - most likely southern Germany or Austria. Perhaps the production budget wouldn't stretch to a trip across the channel? Ah well...

These minor niggles aside, though, I'm glad I went to see this movie. Its imagery will linger in my consciousness a long time. If you're debating whether or not to buy that ticket, I'd say go for it. :)

The Bisexual (2018)

Reinforces negative stereotypes of bi people

[2/10 · 7 October 2021]

I watched this series when it first aired in the UK. Having seen the pre-publicity - interviews with the author etc. - as a bisexual myself, I'd been looking forward to a funny but perceptive thing that at least attempted to show the truth of what life is like for us bi folks: the joys and the challenges. Not a whitewash job - we're all fallible individuals, after all - but something I could identify with as having some basis in reality.

Ah well... never mind! Written by Desiree Akhavan, who is bi and who cast herself in the title role - a massive mistake IMHO, as she CAN'T ACT. Throughout the whole story, which involves her character going through some major self-discovery and emotional turmoil, Akhavan delivers every line as a throwaway, in a bored, non-committal monotone, with a face so devoid of expression you'd think she'd dunked it in a bucket of bo-tox. Actors are supposed to be able to portray emotion: to let the audience see what is going on in the character's mind. Akhavan has all the emotive heft of a window dummy.

Worse than that, though, is the storyline's portrayal of her character, Leila, who is shown as shallow, self-obsessed, indecisive - oh, and (wait for it...) a sexually incontinent cheater. Oh great. Thanks, Desiree: pile on the stereotypical biphobic tropes, why dontcha?

So yeah. Not a fan. :(

The Father (I) (2020)

Cleverly crafted and perceptive. Shame about a few factual errors

[8/10 · 23 June 2021]

My sister-in-law and I chose this for our first post-lockdown cinema visit. Both of us have experience of having cared for parents with dementia, although that is not why we chose to see it: indeed, we struggled for a while making up our minds whether it would be wise to watch a movie that had great potential to be triggering. Given the option, we'd probably have chosen something more cheerful! In the end, our decision to watch it came down to the fact that we knew it was a well-regarded piece, and nothing else on our local picture house bill held any appeal at all.

I'm glad we saw it. Florian Zeller is to be congratulated for his brilliant trick of playing with the audience's perceptions of who is who, where is where and even when is when, in order to offer some insight into what the world must feel like for someone descending into dementia. He should also be congratulated for the unflinchingly unsentimental treatment of the story. We are presented with the pain, sorrow, conflicted emotions and occasional flashes of humour that make up the "loved one with dementia" experience - sadly, one with which all too many people are familiar - without any overt attempts to manipulate our emotions or tell us how to think. "The Father" is a totally absorbing drama, and Anthony Hopkins (cast - almost disturbingly so - as a man called Anthony) inhabits the role with absolute conviction and believability, supported by a superb ensemble of top-notch talent.

Without wishing to rain on its parade, though, I would raise a couple of points of detail re. The care of patients with dementia:

1) In the final scene of the film, which takes place in a (clearly very expensive) care home, none of the staff is wearing a name-badge. They should be. It helps the patients keep some kind of grip on who is who in their lives.

2) In the same scene, Anthony tries to describe how he is feeling. "I feel as if I'm losing all my leaves," he says - to which the nurse replies "What do you mean?" WRONG: no trained dementia nurse would ever say such a thing to a patient. If the patient were able to assemble the words to express themself more clearly, they would do so, and requiring them to explain what they mean only heightens their distress and anxiety. I'm surprised that this slip-up was not spotted and removed from what is an otherwise excellent script.

Toeing the Line (2013)

Sexual assault as a seduction technique? No thanks!

[1/10 · 18 August 2020]

Despite my female-sounding IMDb username, I am in fact male. A bisexual man.

I started watching this short film out of curiosity, as it had been recommended by someone on an LGBT web forum. What I saw left me angry.

In the opening cafe scene, Lamar is (very clumsily and directly) trying to coax his old high-school friend Zach (who is married to a woman) into admitting that he is bisexual and that he is attracted to Lamar. Note here that Lamar isn't trying to FIND OUT whether Zach is into him: he's far too (if you'll pardon the pun) cocksure for that - he's CERTAIN that Zach must secretly be into him - an assumption apparently based purely on the gargantuan dimensions of his own penis. His arrogance is astounding!

Far worse than this, though, is his physical behaviour. 6 minutes into the scene (which, let's not forget, takes place in a busy cafe), in order to confirm his suspicion that Zach has an erection, Lamar makes a completely unprovoked, unasked-for, non-consensual grab at Zach's crotch.

And it doesn't stop there. At the 9 minute mark - having been told firmly and repeatedly by Zach "I am not making out with you man - no way!" - Lamar leans in, and with Zach still protesting that he DOESN'T want this, he grabs Zach by the neck and tries to force him into a kiss. Bizarrely, none of the cafe's other customers pay the slightest attention to this overtly non-consensual sexual advance. Lamar then stares into Zach's eyes and says "My place or yours?" - at which point, Zach is seen to stop fighting the inevitable: he and Lamar are going to have sex, whether he feels comfortable about it or not.

Honestly, I have seen Gay porn shoots with a better sense of fundamental morality and respect for the principle of consent than is displayed in this piece of ill-written crap. Its message - that seduction is the imposition of one person's will over another, regardless of their wishes - is downright dangerous. If anyone were ever to try Lamar's behaviour on me, they'd be very lucky not to end up in a police station, facing a sexual assault charge. Learn the lesson, film-makers! When it comes to sex, consent is EVERYTHING. End of.

Trigonometry (2020)

There are many kinds of poly relationship dynamic - this is one of them.

[9/10 · 23 May 2020]

I really enjoyed this intelligent, well-written drama (which only very occasionally tips over into melodrama).

For anyone unfamiliar with polyamory and wondering "how it works", I'd say enjoy this story for what it is - a drama, very well told and highly entertaining - but keep in mind that this tale describes just one of the many ways in which a group of more than two consenting adults can find mutual fulfilment and/or love. In the real world, every poly household is its own unique creature with its own conventions and "rules". In other words, don't watch this series and then come away from it thinking that you're down with the whole Poly thing now! :D

Having said that, there are some scenes in this drama that will be only too excruciatingly, hilariously familiar to anyone whose been in a poly partnership - mostly to do with the way you are perceived by the rest of society. The scene with the bank manager, for example, is a hoot!

SPOILERS: I have two negative observations, both fairly minor.

1. I used to know someone who was airline cabin crew. One got to see her very infrequently, as the demands of her job meant she was constantly jetting off all over the place and stopping over in various bits of the world. In this drama, Ramona gets a job as cabin crew ...and then the practical reality of being an Air Hostess is pretty well utterly ignored. For most of the last two episodes she appears to have copious free time to hang around the flat and be involved in all the emotional turmoil. Very odd!

2. For Ramona's birthday, her mother comes to visit and has dinner in the flat with her daughter and her "landlords". She brings with her a home-made birthday cake - a sweet, simple little affair - and puts it on the table. Jemma (a trained chef who makes fabulous food every day) then brings out of the fridge a HUGE, elaborately decorated mega-cake that totally outshines it.

REALLY?? Surely nobody with even an ounce of consideration for anyone's feelings would do such a thing. At that moment, I felt like slapping her! It was a heartless act - and all the stranger in that it was so jarringly out of step with Jemma's character. A strange bit of writing...

In My Skin (2018– )

Not "a comedy" - so much more than that!

[10/10 · 4 May 2020]

For reasons that baffle me, in the UK this has been promoted by the BBC as a "comedy series" - go figure! OK, there are some wryly comic moments, but make no mistake: this is drama, folks. When I saw the pilot of "In My Skin" back in 2018 I was blown away, and kept my fingers crossed that a full series would be commissioned. Happily it has, and the result completely fulfils my hopes.

"In My Skin" is the tale of a talented 16 year-old Welsh schoolgirl called Bethan Gwyndaf. Bethan has a secret: everything.

Her home life is far from ideal - VERY far - to the point that she feels she needs to hide it from everyone she knows. Fortunately, Bethan is a very accomplished liar: for years, she has had even her closest schoolfriends believing the wildest "facts" about her lifestyle and background.

Maintaining such a massive construct of lies is hard work though: Bethan lives every day on a knife edge, only ever one wrong word away from exposure, and over time, the stress of keeping all her fictional plates spinning - of maintaining her facade while trying to cope with an increasingly chaotic domestic situation - gets steadily harder to bear.

Long story short: it's superb. Its depiction of the callous bear-pit of school life is so accurately drawn that, as a one-time victim of persistent playground bullying myself, there were moments I found difficult to watch. It's worth it, though: the writing is spot-on and performances are excellent across the board. Especial mention must go to Jo Hartley, who plays Beth's mother - a very challenging role.

The majority of the cast are faces new to me and little known outside Wales. However, one actor may ring a bell with anyone who's seen "Detectorists": the horrendously overbearing P.E. teacher (a darkly comedic ogre of a part) is played by Laura Checkley, whom you might remember as Louise.

I understand that "In My Skin" is about to be screened in the USA on Hulu. A note for American viewers: you might need to switch on the subtitles! Many scenes involve Welsh teenagers talking rapidly in slang, and without a little onscreen help there may be quite a few moments when you're left wondering what the hell is being said. I grew up near Wales, but even I struggled at times!

Tucked (2018)

Simple, un-sensational, beautiful

[9/10 · 23 May 2019]

Have just been to see this at my local Picture House. What a thoroughly satisfying experience it is. A simple tale, told in a no-nonsense, non-exploitative way.

The two central performances (Derren Nesbitt as Jackie and Jordan Stephens as Faith) are utterly believable from beginning to end: no off-the-shelf 2-dimensional character tropes here, just REAL human beings dealing with REAL life.

Because of its subject matter, there is plenty of potential in this story for things to get horribly mawkish, but they don't. Yes, there are moments of intense emotion (take a packet of tissues with you - you'll need 'em), but the drama always steers just the right side of good taste on that score - i.e. genuine emotional power, yes - sentimentality, no.

Another thing I really appreciated was the way in which the growing dynamic between the two was portrayed. Writer/Director Jamie Patterson skilfully avoids trotting out the old cliché of "they can't stand each other to begin with, but learn to love each other - awww, bless". Nope: in this film, the interaction between the two is completely believable from the get-go. This, for me, is the main thing that makes this story so satisfying.

Other thoughts: nice to see a story in which a hetero cross-dressing character is treated with respect, at a time when society as a whole seems to have almost forgotten such people exist!

The only aspect of the script that left me a bit perplexed is this: at the start of the film, Faith tells us that they are gender non-binary: i.e.they don't regard themself as being either exclusively male or female. I was surprised, therefore, that throughout the whole story, Faith seemed entirely happy to be referred to by everyone as "He". I would have expected Faith's preferred pronoun to be "they". At one point in the story, the nightclub MC was seen doing a whole comedy routine about societal attitides to "new" pronouns, so this detail struck me as anomalous.

Other than that, though, I have nothing but praise for this small but damn-near-perfect gem of a movie.

The Aftermath (2019)

Did we REALLY need that moment?

[8/10 · 8 March 2019]

I've just got back from watching this at my local Picture House. Essentially "Brief Encounter with extra layers of moral conflict", this is a thoroughly fulfilling and well-crafted thing - Hell, I cried. Twice. - blessed by excellent central performances, particularly from Keira Knightley, whose portrayal of a mother struggling (and failing) to cope with suppressed grief was especially affecting.

HOWEVER... For me, all of this good work was let down by one awful moment. If you don't like spoilers, stop reading now...

The scene in question involves British Army wife Rachael Morgan (Knightley) and German architect Stefan Lubert (Alexander Skarsgård) - owner of the luxurious country house which the British forces of occupation have commandeered for Morgan and her solider husband. It's one of those "we're falling in love with each other but we're terribly conflicted about it so we're having a row" moments.

In a sudden outburst of emotion, Stefan launches himself at Rachael and - with considerable violence and absolutely no pretensions toward consent - physically restrains her while forcing her into a kiss.

Yes, I know it's supposed to demonstrate what a cauldron of pent-up passion is boiling in their respective breasts etc., but HONESTLY... in this post #MeToo age, is this kind of stuff even SLIGHTLY acceptable? I mean, what he does in that moment is nothing short of sexual assault. It was an ugly moment, utterly unnecessary to the plot and, for me at least, tainted an otherwise well-made tale. This story may be set in the 1940s, but that doesn't mean that in 2019 we should still be perpetuating the patriarchal cinematic tropes of that era. Scenes in which a man forces himself on a woman "out of passion" really belong in the dustbin of history.

The Party (I) (2017)

A massive disappointment

[2/10 · 16 October 2017]

I'd been looking forward to seeing this. It just goes to show that one should never be taken in by a slickly made trailer or a stellar cast-list. What a disappointing load of old codswallop.

Script: abysmal. No attempt made to write anything approaching natural conversation. Dialogue was jagged and disjointed, lacking any genuine motivational flow. Sorry, but real people just DON'T interact like this. And as for it being a comedy, well you could have fooled me. I think I laughed three times, and two of them were little more than polite titters.

Pacing: what pacing? Whole scads of dialogue slouched by like a line of blinded soldiers. At one point I caught myself yawning.

Characterisation: seven characters flapping about on screen and not a single one of them believable: just 2-dimensional assemblages of histrionics. Consequently I never felt any sympathy (or even antipathy) toward any of them, so couldn't engage with any of the supposed crises they were experiencing.

Performances: almost uniformly muggy and overdone - an effect made even worse by the habit of shooting an awful lot of exchanges in tight close-up.

I was left with the feeling that this might just work on stage (where you'd lose all the tight close-up nonsense) as a short, one-act dark farce. Why on earth anyone thought it would succeed as a movie is beyond me.

Oh yes... I said "short", didn't I? When the end credits appeared there was an audible "Uh?" of surprise from the audience. Surely an entire movie hadn't passed already? On exiting the cinema I checked the time. The film had lasted barely over an hour. Mind you, on second thoughts this was probably a blessing: not sure I could have withstood another 30 minutes of such nonsense.

The Sense of an Ending (2017)

What a let-down

[5/10 · 24 April 2017]

I'd been really looking forward to seeing this. Despite my female-sounding IMDb username I am, in fact, a bloke - one who, at the time of writing this review, is heading towards his 60s and has recently had personal experience of rediscovering people/relationships I had thought long lost. In other words, I am pretty much a shoe-in for the target audience demographic of this movie. On paper, this tale should have had my emotions resonating like a steeple full of church bells.

Alas, no. It was decently told, to be sure, and thoroughly watchable, but despite good performances throughout, I found it oddly uninvolving. From start to finish, I felt that I was being kept at a respectable arm's length from anything so dangerous as genuine passion or emotional engagement - which is weird, because it's not as if the storyline lacks potential for drama: memories of first love... regret... rivalry... guilt... even teenage suicide, for heaven's sake! - but it was all played out with such bland, even-paced politeness that my bells remained firmly un-clanged.

Mind you, it wasn't helped by the bizarre physical miscasting of the two Veronicas (young and old). People of my generation and older remember what Charlotte Rampling looked like in the 60s - hard to forget! - a look immortalised by the fashionable photographers of the day: skinny, flattish-chested and angular; all shadows, highlights and fabulous cheekbones. So how on earth are we supposed to believe in a young Veronica played by a curvy, pouty-lipped, oval-faced actress such as Freya Mavor? She couldn't have looked LESS like Charlotte Rampling if she'd grown an extra head!

Finally, there was one corking gaffe in the script that made me laugh with derision. An insignificant moment plot-wise, perhaps, but off-putting all the same. There is a scene in which Tony Webster is having lunch with his amicably-divorced ex-wife Margaret. She says "Do you remember that Swedish Au Pair we had? I was tidying her room one day and found her diary. When I read it, I was shocked to find out that...(blah blah blah)". Really? She was reading her Swedish Au Pair's personal diary? Wouldn't that have been written in er... Swedish? Margaret may well be a top lawyer and jolly clever, but even amongst her professional class I don't know that many Brits who are casually fluent in Scandinavian languages.

So, by all means see this movie if you want to - as I said, it's watchable - but don't expect to be riven to the core by it. Such a shame...

A Quiet Passion (2016)

Virtually flawless.

[9/10 · 11 April 2017]

Likes:

1) A magnificent central performance from Cynthia Nixon, and (with one exception detailed below) excellent ensemble work throughout.

2) The marvellous script, which features some stone cold killer pieces of dialogue and, amid all the tragedy, some genuinely side-splitting moments of hilarity.

3) The expertly handled pacing, which gets incrementally slower as the story progresses, mirroring Emily's own ever-dwindling domestic world and failing health. Superbly done.

4) I must give special mention to Terence Davies' use of the camera. Particularly there are moments when he has the courage/good sense to just let the lens settle on an actor's face for ...ooooh.. 20 seconds or so (AN AGE in modern cinema) while their character sits in wordless silence, absorbing and processing the impact of a comment or event. In this he is reaching back to the very best practice of the pre-talkie era, and it's a really satisfying thing to be part of.

Dislikes:

1) Catherine Bailey's portrayal of the Dickinson sisters' scandalously witty friend Miss Buffam. IMHO, she overcooked it something rotten. Of course, we all 'get' that her character is enjoying being deliberately provoking, but Bailey's performance goes way too far in the direction of artificial posturing. Had she delivered her aphorisms in a more relaxed, offhand manner, they'd have been devastating. As it was, she killed their effect by being absurdly arch and "theatrical" from the get-go, which is a shame because Miss Buffam is a great character. In a film otherwise full of excellently-judged performances, this stuck out like a sore thumb.

2) A very minor moan, this, but it bugged me. I felt it a shame that, in one scene, the dialogue was made to bow to 21st Century mores, with characters speaking of people's "gender", when the Victorians would have said "sex".

Personal resonances:

As a person who has suffered tonic-clonic seizures, I found some of the later scenes of Emily's illness pretty tough to watch. Very well portrayed but a bit too close to recent memory for this viewer's comfort.

I write poetry, and every now and then some of it is lucky enough to get published. Having not long ago endured a "You changed my punctuation without consulting me, you ***!" battle with an editor m'self, when we arrived at the scene in which Emily has exactly the same argument with the newspaper publisher Mr Bowles, I found myself hard pressed not to jump up and cheer at the screen!

Brooklyn (2015)

Lovely script; lovely performances... WEIRD production values

[7/10 · 10 April 2016]

A thoroughly well turned-out affair from start to finish, and spoilingly endowed with genuinely memorable performances (Emory Cohen particularly impressive as Tony, IMHO) - but all the way through it was this same "well turned outness" that bugged me. That was the trouble: TOO well turned out by half! Nick Hornby's script was quite rich enough in emotional content to stand on its own feet. Indeed, it would have been well served by visuals that showed us the grit and reality of life for people in both 1950s Ireland and Brooklyn. Instead, it had to contend with being schmaltzed half to death by the constantly overdone "let's put another nostalgia-glow honeyed sunlight effect filter on that shot" photography.

The same sugary approach was also painfully evident in the costume and make-up work. On telling her boarding house companions that she has volunteered to serve Christmas dinner to homeless men, Eilis is warned by her house-mates about how "stinky" they are. Well you'd never have known it by the look of 'em! I've never seen a more immaculately scrubbed-up, robust and healthy set of tramps in all my life: every one sporting scrupulously clean hair, a healthily un-haggard complexion and clothes that had obviously just come fresh from the costumiers. As far as I could see, no attempt whatever had been made at breaking down the garments. The only stink I had to reel away from was that of industrial dry-cleaning fluid. The story may be set in the 1950s, but heavens... I really didn't expect the artificial, squeaky-clean production values of that era as well!

Bugsy Malone (1976)

Could that be... who knows?

[8/10 · 8 September 2013]

This film has long been a favourite of mine, and I enjoyed seeing it again this afternoon on Channel 4. To be honest, what I'm about to write isn't really a review at all, merely a curious observation. Here goes anyway...

It's fun to watch this film with an eye for identifying people who have since gone on to greater fame. I believe I may have spotted one very well-established performer who has a nice cameo part but isn't even credited in the cast-list!

Approximately 25 minutes in, we have the audition scene in which Blousey Brown misses her chance to be heard. The first hopeless "act" we see being auditioned is a light opera singer, warbling ineptly through the opening lines of "Velia, Oh Velia" before being kicked offstage.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty convinced that this is a young Sylvestra Le Touzel - and yet this performance doesn't appear in her resume/filmography at all, either here on IMDb or anywhere else I can find. Chronologically it's possible, as she would have been about 17 years old at the time Bugsy Malone was being made.

I wonder if anyone out there can tell me whether or not I'm right? If you're reading this, Ms Le Touzel, do put me out of my misery - is it you? ;-)

The Social Network (2010)

Is it really a movie?

[5/10 · 5 February 2011]

THe first thing I should do is declare an interest - or maybe it'd be more accurate to say a LACK of it. I didn't come to this film with a particularly open mind. I actively dislike Facebook and the whole "social networking" phenomenon, so if a drama about its origins was to keep me on board for the whole ride, it would have an uphill battle on its hands.

Sure enough, by about 20 minutes in, I was getting restless. Simon Amstell - sorry, Jesse Eisenberg - does a great job as Zuckerberg, but the script portrays him as such a thoroughly unlikeable, asocial being that I found it pretty hard to give a damn about what he was doing, and his fellow Harvard undergrads were portrayed as a pretty vacuous bunch of twerps too, which didn't help. Fortunately, the character of co-founder Eduardo Saverin provided somebody to care about. Then - before my hand had strayed too close to my coat - the plot began to thicken nicely, and thereafter the pacing kept us bowling along to the finish line.

Was it worth sticking with it to the end? On the whole, yes: it's a fairly satisfying drama. However, I'm not sure that it really qualifies as "a movie". A tale well told it may be, but to me it felt more like it belonged on the small screen - as a two-part TV drama, perhaps - not as something you'd willingly part with hard cash to go and see in a cinema. Oh, and one final thing: can somebody PLEASE tell David Fincher that incredibly dingy, yellow-lit interiors aren't atmospheric - they're just very difficult to see!

Blackout (1940)

Two great partnerships, on screen and off

[10/10 · 26 August 2010]

One of my favourite P+P outings - but then there are so many of 'em!

Where to begin? A delicious feast of a film. A perfectly seasoned mix of pace, humour and suspense - not to mention a surprisingly strong undercurrent of bondage/S+M eroticism for a 1940s British product. (WARNING - SPOILER) A mere 5 minutes in, and in the very first verbal exchange between the two central characters, Captain Andersen (Conrad Veidt) says "Tell me, Mrs Sorensen: have you ever been put in irons?" (/SPOILER)

From there on, their fractious, edgy relationship - essentially a battle of wits to find out which shall be the dominant partner and which the submissive - carries a smouldering erotic charge that drives the story and makes it compellingly watchable. Veidt and Hobson make a brilliant double-act: move over, Steed and Mrs. Peel!

I won't go on at length about the quirky, typically P+P story elements, the expressionist camera/lighting work or the distinctly Hitchcockian touches (look out for the conversation on the bus, folks), because others have said it far better than I could. Instead, I'll just say...

WATCH THIS FILM - YOU WON'T REGRET IT!

Broken News (2005)

Not just a rip-off

[9/10 · 21 December 2008]

A number of reviewers here feel that "Broken News" is somehow a shallow rip-off of Chris Morris's work on "Brass Eye" and "The Day Today". I couldn't disagree more.

There's no bigger fan than me when it comes to Chris Morris's brilliantly scabrous spoof news work from the 80s and 90s, but come on folks! Just because a new generation of writers and performers wants to explore a similar strand of comedy/satire, that doesn't make them rip-off merchants. Nobody's pretending that they're the first people to have ploughed this particular comic furrow (and actually, neither was Chris Morris: he was very much following in the footsteps of arch prankster Victor Lewis-Smith). I'm sure the writers of "Broken News" would be the first to acknowledge the debt they owe to such pioneers.

In fact, what the BN team have created is something deliciously sophisticated and different. Unlike Morris, whose news parody tended toward an exaggerated, cartoonish style, BN's chief strength is in subtlety of detail: it looks and sounds so utterly (and hilariously) like the real thing!

Anyone who enjoyed "Broken News" as much as I did should also check out the same team's BBC radio show, "The Sunday Format", which uses similar techniques to parody the content of British Sunday newspaper supplements. Brilliant stuff.

633 Squadron (1964)

Not for grown-ups

[5/10 · 23 November 2008]

As WWII RAF pictures go, this piece of pure fiction is pretty awful, to be honest. The period detail is sloppy at best, and in the styling of the women's costume, hair and make-up they didn't even try: it's pure 1964! In the hope of making it sell in to US audiences, the Wing Commander is written as a Canadian, enabling them to cast American star Cliff Robertson. The rest of the Mosquito crews are written as a cross-section of the principal national and racial groups that made up Britain in the 60s. This is a laudable idea, quite far-sighted for its time, and truthful: during WWII the RAF was indeed crewed by people of all nations and races, from the British Empire and beyond, but this film points it up in such a contrived and heavy-handed way, it's embarrassing to modern sensibilities.

So why on earth have I got 633 Squadron in my collection? Perhaps because, as a child in the 60s I noticed none of the above flaws and cared less. To me then, it was a thrilling adventure. Maybe that's the point: basically, it's a film for children.

Heavens Above! (1963)

Flawed but lovely satire

[8/10 · 8 February 2007]

I shan't go on at any length, as others have already done the job for me. Instead I'll just drop in a couple of interesting factoids about this film.

1) "Heavens Above!" was the third in a trio (a triptych??) of films satirising great pillars of the British establishment:

The military;

Industry/the trade unions;

The church.

The previous two in the series were "Private's Progress" (Ian Carmichael as Stanley Windrush - a fraightfully posh chinless wonder, drafted into the army for WWII and finding himself embroiled unwittingly in a grand scheme to steal great works of art) and "I'm Alright, Jack" (Carmichael as the same Stanley Windrush, now de-mobbed and dumped by his despairing family into the shop floor workforce at one of their factories, in the hope that he might learn the business). The Windrush family characters were dropped for Heavens Above, although Carmichael makes a small appearance as "the other Vicar called Smallwood".

2) Fans of the Small Faces should keep their eyes peeled for 'Jack' - eldest son of the huge family of itinerant scroungers who take up residence in the vicarage. It's none other than cheeky cockney mudlark STEVE MARRIOTT, fresh from his West End stint as The Artful Dodger in Oliver !

Battle of Britain (1969)

The devil was in the details

[7/10 · 16 November 2006]

A curious paradox of a movie. Made as a milestone tribute to the heroes of the RAF, this was a massive project. No expense was spared in filling the cast with stellar names, sourcing the few remaining aircraft and making them airworthy again, and putting it all together to create some of the most impressive aerial combat scenes ever shot. And yet...and yet...they still fell into the sloppy design habits of the time, believing it quite OK to give all the women resolutely 1960s clothing and hairstyles! There are other notable gaffes, too, such as the cottage which has an obviously post-war plate glass front door and modern plastic bell-push.

In spite of it all, though, it's still a bloody good 2 hours at the pictures!

Play for Today: The Flipside of Dominick Hide (1980) Season 11, Episode 8

Charming exploration of a popular Sci-Fi theme

[8/10 · 15 November 2006]

I don't wish to go into great detail about this lovely piece, save to say that I loved it when it was first broadcast, and having seen it again recently, I find it no less delightful.

The "time traveller becomes his own ancestor" theme is a popular one in Sci-Fi - common, even - but few re-workings of the idea have the lightness of touch and simple charm you will find here. It's a joy.

To a modern viewer, a few things may seem anachronistic. In terms of sexual politics, its attitudes are a bit old-fashioned, even for 1980: both of the women in Dominick's life are essentially passive characters. Also, it suffers technically from the side-effects of low budget BBC drama production (some of the studio interior scenes have rather noticeable background noise: you can hear the cameras moving about). However, none of these factors is sufficiently serious to spoil one's enjoyment.

Finally, let me add a curious personal observation: given the other main theme of the piece (a man having to cope with juggling two simultaneous sexual relationships in different eras), I can't help feeling that "The Flipside" and its sequel "Another Flip For Dominick" must have been in some respect influential on the writers of the excellent British 1990s sitcom "Goodnight Sweetheart", in which a modern day TV repair man accidentally finds a doorway to the 1940s through which he can come and go at will, and ends up having to deal with the stresses of being married to two women, fifty years apart.