Reviews

Very disappointed with this lumbering mess of a film. Visually it's at its best, though way over the top, we've seen the white horses in 'The Big Red One', the pack of heroic P51s reminiscent of 'Private Ryan', the muddy, partially dissolved corpses in countless war epics. The iconography is all clichéd and second, even third hand. The near laughable implausibility of the battle scenes, the tussle with the Tiger tank being one low point, the second the final 'battle', involving the most inept Germans this side of Wolfsburg. A platoon of SS would have eaten a tank crew for breakfast. Then there's the horrible dialogue. The universal use of that word, the 'F' one; one that would not have been used in those days. The embarrassing, ghetto brother talk betwixt the gangster types holed up in their Sherman. Of course they're all far too old as well. Try spending a few nights sleeping rough and you'll understand why these men would rarely have been over 25. Notice too the token Hispanic and black characters; if that's the right would. I despise this heap of junk.

Very glad I didn't waste money on seeing this cringe worthy film at the cinema; it was in parts pathetic, embarrassing and crude. Whatever humour it purports to possess went straight over my head and I consider myself well endowed with a rich, black vein of deadpan running through me. The cgi was very poor; why have such a large amount of it when it's so poor? The younger actors uniformly clichéd and inept. Samuel L needs to call it a day; Colin Firth is a mediocre talent; here he attempts something akin to Patrick McNee and comes up woefully short. Overall, it's a filthy little rag with a fetish feel about it that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Childish muck, avoid.

Dreadful mess of a film. Lousy, mixed up plot, poor direction, strange choice of location, indeed a complete balls up of a film. Why Sarandon, an otherwise decent actress chose the script I can't imagine. Besides that, Sarandon is too old. Sam Neil is wooden, something which does work to his advantage in previous outings but not here. Emily Blunt is best as she is creepy, I suspect in reality too... The worst aspect of this film is it's sheer verbosity; with the dialogue stripped down 80% it would have been less risible. The locations were largely unsuitable, reminding me of Ramsey street; although with some variation and careful camera work their mundane nature could have added some desperately needed tension. The director isn't one I've heard of, hardly surprisingly; I'd suggest they turn to making washing powder commercials.

Having heard good things about this film and read much about the background to the case I watched 'Changeling' with high hopes. The film opened well, wonderful attention to detail and an unearthly quality which I felt added tension and unease to the film. In fact, unease was my overall reaction to this film. This unease might have been positive, in that it was engendered by the unpleasant deaths of the children or the suffering of Walter's mother or that of the 'patients' at the institution. However the unease was I think caused by the oddly detached performance of Jolie and the clinical nature of the CGI and sets. Everything appeared as though shot through a thick slice of glass. The main, very obvious fault with this film is one neither cast nor director could hope to fully overcome. That is it's breadth. It attempts to cover aspects of the abduction and murder of children by a serial killer and his trial and execution. The systematic mistreatment of patients in an institution. The (undisclosed) relationship between a radio preacher and whistle-blower and the mother of the abducted child. The corruption endemic in the LAPD during the period and it's treatment by the press and eventual prosecution. Unfortunately the film doesn't venture in any depth into any of the above themes, it merely scratches their surface. Without doubt, I would have liked the film to concentrate near exclusively on Collins and the pastor and the ambiguous nature of her search and their relationship. Two further things omitted from the film were Collins culpability, having left the child unattended and secondly the glaring absence of any father or extended family. Perhaps if Eastwood had narrowed the films scope, combining that with the ambiguities inherent in the story and the claustrophobic camera work a more satisfying product may have emerged. Despite it's many faults this films' oddity, if anything serves as a mild recommendation, even if the complex story behind it proves more interesting.

I have just watched this film and found it to be near unwatchable; all the more reason perhaps to attempt to watch it again. Some lovely cinematography and solid scripting,.even the good acting failed to make any impact on me. Perhaps because those depicted were such empty people, eeking out a meagre existence despite their monetary wealth, I found it difficult to involve myself in the film. The supposedly shocking scenes were not so, partly because it's what we've come to expect from such people, after all they populate our tabloid papers and internet gossip columns daily, also and perhaps in the films defence, because of the unreality of much of the substance of the story. I was reminded of a recent drama about Lord Lucan and even more so of the film 'White Mischief' about the 'occupations' of the denizens of 'Happy Valley' in Kenya during the last war. So, no disappointments, maybe a story unworthy of filming or perhaps one that will benefit from repeated viewing.

One of the Coens best. Tightly scripted, with a cohesive group of actors, you can't help but feel a Coens film set is an immensely fun place to be. The whole accident segment was particularly memorable, as was the wife's creepy lover and the dentist's discovery. Here the Coens have created a cosy little world of bumbling ineptitude, feckless mothers, worried fathers, unfathomable rabbis and neighborly misunderstandings and then thrown their own spanners into the ridiculous mix; perfect!

Be prepared for the ending, I laughed at the same time as cursing the Coens; twice recently as I'd watched 'Inside Llewyn Davis' earlier in the week. Another infuriating yet captivating film! Yet, as always with the Coens it is those characters which live in your memory and this film provides us with a feast of them.

The film 'Runaway train' is far better. Unbelievable characters (can you really imagine Denzel Washington being a dull train driver?), laughable dialogue, strange plot holes (like why didn't Frank try to go to the front of the train in the first place and put the brakes on- or even better the driver of the train in front, early in the film?)

Above all; rather dull action sequences, with little tension developing. Can't really think of much more to say but IMDb likes 10 lines, so I'll comment that I'm amazed such films are still being made- It was embarrassing to watch, I think if Id been in the cinema Id have walked. Save money and have a more exciting time train watching.

A strange creature is Michael Winner...Has he been secretly mocking the 'industry' he works in for the past fifty years? Or is he just a pompous old fool who couldn't make a public information film? Perhaps no one will ever know!

The big sleep however, is one of Winner's better films. Largely due to a great script (he adheres closely to the book despite the film being set in England) and the superb acting of Robert Mitchum. The best bit in the film is watching Mitchum and a comely Joan Collins rolling around on the carpet; After taking her pistol, a dishevelled Mitchum looks on whilst Collins lets out an orgasmic sign and then lights a ciggy, great stuff!

There will be a many bores who complain about the slow motion action shots, the aggressive camera work, the noisy soundtrack or indeed Downey's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes.......

Ignore them!! I am a Sherlock Holmes fanatic, so much so that I have read virtually every book ever written about the character and have hovered noiselessly in Marylebone library on one or two occasions... This film while not without it's faults is wild entertainment from beginning to end! Downey and Law have great chemistry and the leads are backed up by a nuanced Moriaty and an all round effective cast. Most of all the backdrops and effects are sumptuous and worth watching in themselves!

The only downside I could mention was the character of Mycroft. Why chose that awesome bore Stephen Fry? And having done so not develop the complex relationship between the two characters? Any number of actors would have been better as a brotherly foil for Holmes! Nevertheless a great film which put a great grin on my face!

Firstly, it is true that this film is grossly historically inaccurate, however it is after all a film made in 1970, which had to justify it's considerable budget. Were it not for it's uncanny relevance to us, today I would have given it a much lower rating.

As a forty year old film it does have much to recommend it. There are rousing battle sequences, a campy pair of leads, Guiness portrays the compromised Charles I beautifully and some assured costumes and backdrops lend an authentic feel to proceedings.

It seemed, on viewing this film that the two opposing forces of Charles (inherited wealth/land ownership/continuity) and Cromwell (social justice/political reform/progressive change) are with still enmeshed in much the same struggle as they were over 300 years ago. Arguably one side cannot exist without the other and it is their coexistence (as well as a powerful free press) which gives us our relatively benign system today.

Cromwell's 'experiment' was stillborn, in executing Charles he destroyed his own blueprint for a new society and only cut the head from a multi stranded Hydra. Charles II was really King from the moment of his fathers death. Only if a replacement monarch had been found (as occurred with the accession of William III forty years later) could any compromise have been found and a new system of governance initiated.

'Cromwell' remains a film of it's time and naturally only skirts some of the complex history of the period, it is however an intriguing glimpse into the origins of our state as it is today.

Again, another lukewarm film seems to generate some very hotheaded opinions! This film has so much going for it, a great cast, lovely jaded 60's backdrops, some appropriate cars and girls and a self mocking Paul Newman in fine form, although the usually anodyne Robert Wagner runs him a close second! I'd never heard of this film until a few months ago and i've watched it a few times now and it doesn't fail to make me grin, it's a big slice of cheese which I don't mind admitting to liking.

Now there are a whole bunch of holes in it without doubt. The plot is overly complex and confusing and some of the hoods would stay in nights if they lived in my humble town...but that really dosn't matter, it was after all California in 1966. Do you really think film noirs offer a realistic vision of the highlife, low lives of the 1940's? Come on, forget being an armchair critic and enjoy a slice of amusing nostalgia.

A far better film than many reviews would suggest, Phillipe Noiret is effortlessly amusing and there is a lovely cameo by Jean Roquefort. However the leading role of the pilot, played by Richard Bohringer was rather blank and unengaged.

There were I thought shades of 'Les Valseuses' evident in the film, which wore a little thin in a what is a far more recent film. Also notable(as another reviewer has mentioned)were some references to the later works of Bunuel;which Carole Bouquets appearance reinforced.

Despite some hilarious and indeed rewarding parts the film remains uneven and many avenues which could have been explored, both to comic and dramatic effect have only been briefly engaged. Sadly I feel this film could have been a real masterpiece but there were too many threads contained in it; none of which were properly explored. The road movie aspect is a film in itself as is the extraordinary relationship between Roquefort and Bouquet, as well as the pilot Bohringers motives, too name but a few threads.

In all an amusing ride, but a slippery one nonetheless, leading to who knows where!

I immensely enjoyed this film, albeit for somewhat shameful reasons! It is rather clichéd, has many inconsistencies and unlikely plot devices, however it is also knowing, charming and unapologetically French. Whilst it will not become one of my favoured films as the characters are a little weak and as i've said the story is rather sentimental I got a great deal of pleasure watching it.

This is just the sort of drama American studios seem unable to make and this is why this slender little film punches so far above it's weight. Undoubtedly 'non actor' Hallyday would run rings around a great many of Hollywood's sons. The beginning and end of the film were the highlights, although I feel better use could have been made of the train and it's journey as a vehicle for the themes explored.

An immense steamroller of a film. Much that has been said about this jaw dropping film served to put me off watching it for a long time. However that just made it better when it finally happened! Day Lewis is quite brilliant and dominates every scene he appears in, indeed he even matches the majesty of the wild scenery and industrial landscapes so startlingly depicted.

The score is a very important part of this film and drives the narrative to such an extent that I felt very uneasy at times, such was it's power. Indeed unease for me is the central emotion generated by this brooding film, one which asks many uncomfortable questions from the viewer and returns far from pleasant answers about the nature of humanity and our relationship with each other and the landscape we inhabit.

Religion and it's place in modern capitalist society is another central theme and again a subject from which uncomfortable conclusions are made. In all an engrossing, affecting film which shall inhabit my imagination for some time!

Will Smith really ought to be making better films than this, he has a certain talent. I watched this as I always enjoyed the film it is based on, namely 'The Omega Man'. But if you agree with that don't bother with 'I am legend'. All the interesting parts of 'The Omega Man' have been culled and substituted with a lot of cute dog, pretty lady with kid stuff.

A pity because the film could have improved on 'The Omega man' and been turned into a really powerful film, albeit of a rather outdated type.Bad as it is I stayed awake and Will Smith was funny on a couple of occasions So please Hollywood producers, no more duff apocalyptic clunkers.

A near unremittingly grim little tale with a multitude of plot holes, inconsistencies and unlikely twists. The only interesting character and one i wish had been allowed to develop being the reformed alcoholic uncle.

Another problem with this film (I thought it was me at first) is the mumbling incoherent dialogue and most of all the use of that word....Now don't get too agitated but there were one or two good aspects to this film, B. Affleck had done some research into gang/urban culture (unlike Mr C.Eastwood recently) and C. Affleck can act in a T.V. movie kind of way. There has elsewhere been some criticism of the stilted camera work and how little movement and distance shots there were, however be that as it may I personally think that added to the stifling and incestuous atmosphere.

Finally thank goodness, the film did have some small grain of hope at the end, which helped to ease the passage of so bitter a little pill.

'Les Biches', whilst not my favourite Chabrol film ranks among his best. On one level it has sumptuous cinematography on a par with 'Le boucher', another excellent score, courtesy of Pierre Jansen and some very stylish direction. All Chabrol's actors play their parts beautifully although Audran undoubtedly has the best material.

But what marks this film out and what many cannot appear to perceive is that it is not a meditation on class or a portrait of a 'menage a trois'. It does touch on those subjects, as do many of Chabrol's films, but this film is essentially about identity and it's destruction or absorption by another. Stephanie Audran's character is, put simply a VAMPIRE. This is humorously and beautifully established early in the picture when she first meets Sassard's character 'Why' on a bridge in Paris amid a Gothic mist and with Audran looking drained and evidently needing a new victim. Many have commented on Jean-Louis Trintignant's acting, arguing that it is bland or inexpert, failing to realise that as part of the plot he had to be 'consumed' by Audran and had to appear ineffectual. Compare Audran's extraordinarily vital, near superhuman character in 'Les Biches' to her purposefully meek character in 'La Rupture' and one can begin to see what a subtle and intelligent actress she is.

On first viewing 'Les Biches' some years ago I was mystified and like other reviewers irritated by the two scroungers Robegue and Riais. After further viewing it appears they are purposefully antagonistic and their apparently parasitic relationship points to them being Audran's familiars.

The raison d'etre of the film are the final sequences in which 'Why' ultimately escapes the fate of Paul and destroys Frederique by becoming her. So 'Les Biches' is essentially a nuanced and very stylised commentary on identity and it's struggle to coexist within a relationship.

I watched 'Harry Brown' recently in the cinema and found it a hard hitting and divisive little film. On reading reviews on this site I'm not surprised it's generated a very polarised response.

In answer to those who love it I have to say it really is so miserable and paints such a cruel picture of England you really couldn't garner it with too much praise. However in terms of realistic,efficient film making it succeeds. Many, it appears disagree strongly with this, those who know and understand little of the incompetent, impotent nature of our police force.The officers described in the film are very real,as brittle as ourselves.The eponymous Harry it must be pointed out is no hero, simply another man who wishes not to get involved and as such bears more resemblance to Dustin Hoffman's character in 'Straw Dogs' than any 'Death wish' style Charles Bronson. That is the main theme of this film; we really don't want to be involved, yet sooner or later will be forced to come to some kind of recognition and baffled acceptance of the violence in our midst.

Watched this film again recently and was shocked at just how embarrassingly clichéd it is. The characters are undeveloped cardboard cutouts and most of the action sequences ring hollow; all in a film that was made in 1980! Sam Fuller was way passed his best, not that i'm certain he was ever up to much. Just think of an action film like 'The bridges at Toko-Ri',made 26 years earlier and how much more realistic and adult it is!

Now it's worth pointing out that there are several interesting sequences in this chaotic mess of a film, including the whole concentration camp scene and the scene in the insane asylum, but even these are marred by a clumsy approach. It seems to me that Fuller had a stubborn strangle hold on all aspects of the films production and this is what damages what is a promising albeit ambitious proposition.

It has always seemed strange to me that a veteran should want to describe his experience of war, perhaps only an old man with emotions blunted by time could attempt this and perhaps he would have to do it in such a way as to avoid dealing with his real feelings. This may be the reason for the films curious lack of character development and emotional detachment, as well as the perverse machismo displayed, especially the scene involving the homosexual orderly in the hospital.

In conclusion I think this very self conscious film tells us more about war than one might at first imagine, albeit through the distorted lens of a veteran and outdated film maker.

Possibly the best film Chabrol made, along with 'La femme Infidele' and 'Le boucher'. An intense psychological study and not really a thriller this was the first Chabrol film I ever watched. At first I was left confused and disappointed, however this powerful and moving film slowly revealed it's hidden beauty with each viewing.

This film more than any other of Chabrol's has entered my consciousness, Michael Bouquet's acting is very memorable and Stephanie Audran is astonishingly beautiful. There is no hint of mawkishness or sentimentality and one is left moved and glad of so poignant a masterpiece.

As a great admirer of Chabrol's 'Helene cycle' of the late 60's and early 70's I approached this film with some trepidation, having been disappointed by some of his more recent work.

However I was pleasantly surprised, the film was nicely scripted and acted, period detail good and the whole felt taut and unsentimental. A previous reviewer seems surprised that Chabrol remains balanced in his views,however Chabrol often refuses to take sides and allows the viewer a freedom (almost unknown in moralising modern films)to make up their own mind. One only has to view the excellent 'Nada' to appreciate this.

I thought Isabelle Huppert was better here than in any other role i've seen her, partly because she managed to drop the somewhat smug persona she seems to bring to her roles. (yes i'm not a fan and wish Chabrol would turn his attention elsewhere). She played the central character as both cynical and devious, charmingly naive vindictive and finally empty and self loathing. A real acting masterclass.

Much as I enjoyed this film though it left me rather empty at the end, indeed there really was little I cared about, both in terms of character and plot. All the usual questions one feels need answering were absent, the curious unease and ambiguity gone. The Chabrol appeared to be absent from this nevertheless efficient and entertaining Claude Chabrol film.

I would like to give this wonderful film more than 7 points but it cannot measure up to the superb 'Helene' group of films Chabrol made during the period immediately prior to it.

Many reviews and books are rather scathing about 'Les Innocents aux mains salles', and this disregard, although understandable is largely unfounded. I must admit that the first time I watched it I found the dubbing disappointing and was a little disappointed by the rather casual approach of both director and actors. However by the third viewing a strange fascination and sense of immersion had developed, a state a lover of Chabrol's films will recognise. The deficiencies which the film has do little to detract from it's strange unearthly colour, the disturbing architecture and the 'otherness' evident in the most mundane acts and settings. Added to this it is a rather good thriller with plenty of plot twists and wrong turns.

This film, perhaps because it isn't one of Chabrol's best makes clear to me why he is such a talent. To clarify this I will point out that no other French director, new wave or otherwise interests me at all and I really think I only have a peripheral interest in film. This film is so un self conscious,playful and yet deeply sinister it makes a mockery of any serious analysis. Chabrol confounds those who attempt to analyse or compare him and this film is perhaps the best example of this, you can only enter the reality presented, experience and perhaps enjoy.

'The Drowning Pool'is an overlooked gem in my opinion, however a gem with many flaws,as pointed out in other reviews on this site. The plot, parts of the script, much of the shooting and location are wonderful...but the direction and editing in particular were just lazy and thoughtless! Apparently Newman and the director were buddies, well maybe that's where the problem lay...

I think this would be an ideal film to remake and to this time produce the masterpiece that could have been. Keep the wise cracking private eye, the uneasy relationship between grandmother, mother and daughter, the sadistic oil man, the creepy Gothic overtones and mix it up with the right actors and you've got dynamite. Coen brothers required?