Reviews

The first few minutes of the film Once tell the whole story and have humour and music and the possibility of love between Glen Hansard (Frames singer) playing the busker and the also unnamed Czech girl played by Marketa Irglov. Their possible relationship is cleverly uncertain. The relationship between Hansard and his Hoover Repairman Father is also charmingly balanced.

But for me the music grates after a while. The story and the relationships are secondary to the music; if you like the singer you'll like the film; if earnest ardour is not your cuppa then the film will begin to taste like tepid tea.

Whilst reading John Le Carre's "Absolute Friends" I happened to see this Robert de Nero directed film. Both spy thrillers; both are stories about the abandonment of family for the ideals of State (Good Shepherd) or Beliefs (Absolute Friends). In fact in both all values are lost to an assumed greater cause. In my opinion the book has more depth; certainly depth of character. The film charts the evolution of the CIA as seen through the experience of Edward Wilson (Damon) through his college years at Yale to his humourless and quiet dedication as one of the CIA's eventual masters. Only star missing is Dame Judy Dench. But, who IS the Good Shepherd of the title? Not Edward Wilson; the word good could hardly apply to him; he's brilliantly played by Matt Damon as a cold psychopath; all 3 Brits acting in the film are double spies; Wilsons underling and overlings kill easily. His son is forever frightened; everyone deceives everyone. The only spy I ever knew was a decent chap; with humour and courtesy; he got blown up by the IRA. No mention of the CIA's involvement in that terrorism; although this was set in the era when it was learning its subversive craft. A thought provoking film. Why look at the CIA at its inception rather than what tricks it does now? Who is the Good Shepherd? Do you have to be deceptive to know the truth?

The Science of Sleep I can talk about as an expert on sleep; although we all are of course but I suspect that not many reviewers have spent 25 years in a "Dream Group". I'm not sure what that qualifies me to do other than know that I learnt how to influence my dreams a bit as Stephane (Gael Garcia Bernal) does in this film. I also found that mid sleep dreams are much more fluid and basic than waking dreams. So much for the science. the film? Great fun. Stephane slowly gets the hots for Stephanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Both are delightfully artistic, temper mental and time their relationship in a schizo metric way.

The film was written and directed by Michel Gondry. Of course it compares with the Sunshine of the Eternal Mind. It also stands alone and there are so many layers to this film. I loved the switching between conscious and unconscious, between French, Spanish and English; between worker and friends. People in and out of roles and relationships. The most inventive and unreal bits happening within the waking times; excellent. I also liked the humour of the time switching device. Yes, fun

If you are not American and haven't seen the two previous films about the murder of the 4 members of a Kansas farming family and Truman Capotes book about it "In Cold Blood" what are you meant to make of this film? I know little of Truman Capote - its a natty name for sure. There are references to what is presumably an American literati. I also missed the earlier film "Capote" so came to this fairly blind. Self adoring writer man ingratiates himself into small town community to write first about the murder then about the murderers and in getting access to the killers falls in love with one of them.

Its hard to say whether this is good acting because everyone seems to ham things up in line with their characters. Daniel Craig as Perry Smith the murderer had the most complex character to play; he waxed and wained between detached and angry. I quite liked Sandra Bullock as Nelle Harper Lee; she didn't overplay her character and had some telling silences in response to the Capote drama Queen. As for this version of Capote by Toby Jones; who knows. The character demands camping it up so he does it. I kept misinterpreting Capote into Frankie Howard and the film at times seemed to be a "Carry on Gossiping".

Was it really surprising to find that Killers had background and personality? I thought this was set in the early 1960s and assumed that the lessons of WW2 that showed that the Nazis were just the folks next door were fairly well embedded by then. Maybe not, there's always such a drive to reduce everything to simplicities; so a Baddie Baddie is easier to stomach.

Frankie Howard? Titter ye not women. It is of course that Englishman Kenneth Williams and that line from Carry on Cleo that resonates under this film: "Infamy! Infamy! they've all got it in for me!

Is the film worth seeing? Yes. Am I rushing out to buy "In Cold Blood"? No

Walk on Water is summarised well in many reviews. Some of them avow and generate extremes by using terms like "Terrorist". The film grapples with extremes of prejudice. The Mossad agent Eyal (Lior Ashkenazi) assassinates a Hamas leader at the start of the film returning home to find his wife has committed suicide. Eyal is detached. He has to be to do his job. His boss Menachem gives him a safer temporary job of pretending to be a tour guide for the grandchildren of a Nazi war criminal, Alfred Himmelman, with the idea that the tourists will lead him to their grandfather.

This German brother and sister with their own issues open up the eyes of Eyal to his own prejudices; he is challenged by Axel Himmelmans (Knut Berger) sexuality. He is also challenged by Axel's sister Pia (Carolina Peters), a German lass who lives and works on a kibbutz in Israel.

I saw this film on television. I chanced upon it with no reviews or prior knowledge and got quite gripped by the tensions of the main character. Other reviewers have said that Lior Ashkenazi is an attractive actor.

What intrigued me was the struggle to let go of being hurt. I've been working with a couple who can't let go of their anger with each other; of the hurt that comes through being violated in different ways. I'm not sure that love overcomes everything is quite the answer. I'm not sure that this film answers that question although it does highlight it so well.

It felt like a film in black and white; lots of deep shadows and in the end...

well go see and decide

Noal Baumbach has directed this auto-biopic set in Brooklyn and telling the story of a wrenching divorce. Jeff Daniels as the arrogant, self obsessed downwardly mobile Father is excellent; this film would have been awful with Bill Murray in the lead as it would have been too hard to separate the actor from the character. Laura Linney as the wife is also rather good in playing her gently emotional part as Counterpoint to her husbands Intellectual snobbery.

Its quite difficult to believe that such people exist; I guess that one of the values of film is that it opens up the possibility of other worlds. Brooklyn in 1986 is a complete mystery to me; I know I was in New York in 1981 when I first discovered that people might have a coffee on their way into work. But a world so filled with language I still find slightly unbelievable. Even when playing tennis or table tennis there is an endless aggressive chatter going on.

I am even more in awe knowing that this is a film about the actual Directors life events. I have no experience of divorce; nor of a world of words; nor of children so confident in voicing their opinions. In fact, now I think of it, I have never encountered a squid.

So, quite a success all round. Well, if one is looking at it from across the pond.

Help me out. Who is the actor playing the Assistant to Dustin Hoffman's Baldini in this film Perfume: The story of a murderer? The official website doesn't hold his name and even the longer IMDb credits show his wife (Dora Romano) and yet we are introduced to Baldini through the efforts of his assistant. I think it is Russ Abbott. Russ Abbot who we all thought had given up acting and humour. Could it really be Russ?

So, what's the story? Well, first the story of the story. The film is based on Patrick Süskind's best-selling novel and both Ridley Scott and Tim Burton failed to direct it; just as well as it is already too fruity and redolent in black humour. Set in eighteenth-century Paris the story begins with the plans for the execution of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille ( Ben Whishaw), a borderline autistic blessed with a super-human sense of smell. We then go back to follow his life and the development of his unique talent, Grenouille eventually discovers his calling when he becomes apprentice to master perfumier Baldini (Dustin Hoffman).

it's always the fruit. After murdering an apricot seller, Grenouille becomes obsessed with capturing and preserving the scent of women. He leaves Baldini and heads for heaven-scent Grasse where he encounters Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman) and his stunning redheaded daughter (Rachel Hurd-Wood). It is here that Grenouille perfects away of capturing the scent of women and begins collecting the 12 women that will compose his ultimate scent... by paying with their lives. But will Richis be able to prevent his daughter becoming the final victim?

Early on the superbly camping-it-up Hoffman (Baldini) tells Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Whishaw) how to make the perfect perfume. "Each perfume has 3 chords, 12 notes in all. There is a head, a body and a base. The head is the first to be noticed; the body then comes to the fore and the base lingers after the others have gone". Watching this my first thought was Chocolate but its nowhere as magical as that film. The obvious theme is "Scent of a Woman" but it does tell a bit more than that. And with the Hoffman connection and the autism of the Winshaw character one of course thinks of Rainman; but its much less enjoyable than that. There is however a long lasted impression from this film, visually its stunning; so rather odd to have a film about aroma that is so visual. But was it Russ Abbott I saw?

This funny french film by Francis Verber predates the wonderful Tais Tois and has made me want to see others by this director. Two funny films by the same chap bodes well. What came to mind in first viewing was "Hoisted by your own petard" What is a petard? I discover it was a small metallic bell shaped engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls. The significant feature was that they were full of gunpowder - basically what we would now call a bomb. And there is also another French word 'péter' - to fart, which it's hard to imagine is unrelated. But this isn't one of those gaseous comedies and although light it is full of wit.

The film is about a group of snobbish friends who once a week have a meal and invite a victim. The victims are stupid and the winner is the person who can find the imbecile of the Week. The story mostly centres on Pierre Brochant (Thierry Lhermitte) who selects a boorish tax accountant François Pignon (Jacques Villeret). But Monsieur Pignon fails with every task he is set and gets monsieur Brochant into ever deeper do do.

It struck me that this must have first been a play as only one scene is really needed for the play - the affluent flat of the arrogant Monsieur Brochant. Its like the old Brian Rix Whitehall Farces. Jolly funny as everyone gets the fate they deserve. I think its worth checking out this and other films by Francis Verber.

There are hundreds of individual reviews of this film. Why? Because it is so moving. Set at a time when Franco's troops were finishing of the resistance to their move to power after the Spanish Civil War it is a fable of the the roles of duty and independence. The sadistic Fascist army captain Vidal played by Sergi Lopez has to be one of the most awesome Top 10 Movie Villains. The themes for each of the many intertwining plots seems to be the conflict between the importance of unquestioning duty or obedience and the importance of impulse or affect.

But I think it is almost better to go into this film knowing very little about it and just go with the tale. Magical

I defy anyone not to like the Dutch. Apart from their astounding ability to speak several languages straight from birth and make some odd guttural noises that no-one else in Europe can do; they are engaging and open and a very tolerant people. Besides which I went to see Zwartboek directed by Paul Verhoeven after being in Holland for a fortnight. So, a film set in the wartime Netherlands directed by a successful Dutchman, one would like to be gem. I just found it despairingly trite.

Let's start with the positives. The background music? It underlines every mood with crescendos and cadences to exaggerate the mood if we haven't understood it from the story but was way too prominent. Maybe the photography that had crisp colours and showed some of the wonderful Dutch buildings and orderly landscapes? But it had none of the lighting contrasts of the Dutch painting masters. Well, maybe the acting then? For sure, the lead actress, Carice van Houten, who plays the heroine throughout the film is very easy to watch and , as you can see from the picture clips supplied to IDMB has a natty way of looking over her shoulder (in all 8 of the supplied pictures of her she stands looking over one shoulder or the other). I thought she and all the actors did a fine job, but....

About 2 hours into the film van Houten's character, by then having changed her name from the too Jewish Rachel Stein to the Dutch resistance nom de Guerre of Ellis de Vries, says "When will it end?" I had been thinking the same thing for about 90 minutes. In England ITV have programmes that are advertised as "a stunning new DRAMA". They are well made, well filmed, set in caricatured locations, full of well known actors who make their mark by bursting with "drama" meaning they always have some turmoil with a close up shot. This film struck me as a good ITV drama. Just right for a Tuesday night at 9.00pm.

My immediate reaction to the film was that it managed to equally offend everyone. Would Jewish people want to be portrayed as money and diamond grabbing; with the Rachel Stein character having to be noticed all the time even when trying to slip past the Gestapo? Do the Germans still want to be seen as sadistic power crazed peoples? Are we Brits ineffective wishy washy nice chaps ( well OK probably). Were the Dutch so bound up with their religious fervour? All much too caricatured for me.

I think the main disappointment for me is that one has no deeper understanding of people or their motives from this film. There is no exploration of character. The SS Officer Ludwig Müntze excellently played by Sebastian Koch collects stamps; so another German with obsessional characteristics. Stereotyping again; and he is the most developed character. And van Houten's Rachel Stein had to be noticed all the time; it drove me potty her showing her legs off at Germans whilst apparently trying to sneak through their lines; putting on candles in a transparent tent whilst again hiding; all the time that woman drew attention to herself.

Probably the biggest flaw really was the script; superficial and silly. I'm so glad my mother never saw this film; I think it's an insult to anyone in their 80s.

This film by Ben Hopkins is a semi documentary about the recent life time history of a nomadic tribe the Pamir Kirghiz. Originally from the Pamir Mountains of Central Asia they were forced to migrate from country to country. The film has the Pamir Kirghiz acting out their own tribal history with humour and diffidence and switches between events in the past and events in the making of the film. The older members of the tribe long to return to the mountains where they had eek-ed out an existence in the border lands between Russia, Afghanistan and China.

To survive the oppressions by each totalitarian state they moved from Soviet Union, to Afghanistan, then to Pakistan and finally to Eastern Turkey. In Turkey they have found sanctuary but the cost is to loose their identity. But how does this happen? Go and see the film.

You could say, with predictable wit, that there are 37 films one could see any night so why choose this one? Well, it has humour and respect. It mixes its approach as documentary and also story telling and catches also the making of the movie. Cultures are merging and dissolving into some global greyness. Language too seems to moving towards variations on words you can include in English. So how exciting to see the director struggling with 37 sheep words. But I do hope that Ben Hopkins doesn't repeat the theme with a trip to explore the merging worlds of Eskimo peoples ( Inuuit is out of favour isn't it?) because I've yet to see a film from that white out world where subtitles work.

I've seen there are are 11 pages of reviews of Children of Men already. So, is there anyone who hasn't seen this film yet? As most of the reviews say this is a film about a dark future set in 2027 with life apparently changing in 2008 when people are unable to have babies. The film has lots of chasing about and fighting and Clive Owen as the reluctant hero drawn in to help an illegal immigrant who has somehow become pregnant.

It makes some comparisons with todays issues around illegal immigrants. All the acting is fine as everyone else says in their reviews.

I just don't get the logic of the film. In the future, the near future, something happens that prevents pregnancy across the world. Inevitably this would mean the worlds population would decline rapidly. There is some issue about Britain being a place worth getting to; I missed what that was about but somehow Britain is overcrowded with a Police state trying to keep out the others.

Surely if mankind is disappearing resources INCREASE for anyone that is still alive; no need for fighting and squabbles, no need for concentration camps at Bexhill, no need for police state. A sort of heaven for the 50 or so years until the last person kicks the bucket. Admittedly with too many resources and no competition for survival it might be as dull as living in New Zealand. The more interesting tale would be how the very last person does whittle away their last few years.

I guess really this is just a film that is meant to illustrate the reluctant hero in the ordinary man and maybe the extra ordinary event that is childbirth?

Snow Cake is a story set in wintry Canada where Alex (Alan Rickman) encounters Linda (Sighourney Weaver) a live for the moment childish person with autism. He stays with her waiting for the dustman to arrive after a funeral. I rather liked that; the dustman to get rid of the dirt that the autistic obsessional Linda cannot cope with and the dust to dust aspect of living and dying. It's a film about discovery or awakening; the slowly melting snow; the thawing of Rickman's feelings; a film about how people resolve and heal after loss. Interestingly Sighourney Weavers brilliantly played autistic Linda does not really adapt or change but is more the catalyst for those around her; her biggest thrill in life is eating snow. A film well worth seeing and yet...

A few things didn't work. Alan Rickman for me was just wrong for the part. He seemed to be stuck as Severus Snape; playing on his laurels, going through the motions of saying lines rather than being a person grappling with an inner turmoil. I wondered if too much success and too much talent made it too hard for him to know what its like to be destroyed by our own passionate behaviour. I couldn't work out why all the people around him apart from the Cop seemed to fawn over him. So, he just didn't work for me; although the idea for the story and his character is excellent with its slow resolution of affect and reason.

Something else didn't quite work. I saw the film at our middle England Film Society and for once we had a good crowd. But there are some new members who like boiled sweets. In front and behind me the confectionery lovers; an old lady in front who unwrapped each sweet very slowly from its cellophane wrapper until she choked on one; and behind a young woman who seems to be a new regular in a loud red coat who somehow spent 5 minutes opening each crinkly covered sweet. If that's not enough then there is a man, yet to be identified, who may not have long to live judging by his laboured sonorous breathing. Somehow, these external sound distractions invaded for much of the film and made me realise that there was often a silence in the film and also I was struggling to immerse myself into it. At least the failing of the heating system made watching the Canadian snow seem very real.

I have to say as well that I felt so let down by the loss of the character Vivienne played by Emily Hampshire who was stunning. The best bit for me is to see that this amazing actress has made other movies that I will now have to go and see. She for me was more awesome that Sighouney Weavers' stylised autistic.

at last all those French lessons paid off. I laughed in French. Not quite "haw haw he haw"; but real belly laughs. This film by Francis Verber with Jean Reno playing the solemn solid straight man to Gerard Depardieu's comic idiot is wonderful and worth seeing right now. Reno plays Ruby the cool professional hard-man out for revenge against the gangland Bigman who has murdered his lover. He finds himself lumbered with Depardieu's Quintin, the simpleton from Montargis. There is plenty of slapstick, good lines, cross dressing; pathos and verve.

Aver, un petite question? In the middle of the film they both end up in a Psychiatric hospital as a route to escaping from prison. The Psychiatric Hospital is portrayed much as the fears of the 60s showed them; people strapped to beds; forcibly injected to numb them out of their skulls; frog marched around the high walled secure grounds by men in white coats. St Bernards in West London when I was a schoolboy in Southall had that feel to it. So much has been done to try and ease the myths about madness and does this just set things back? I've worked in Psychiatry for a 3rd of a century and things have moved on. Those inkblots are more likely to be just stains now in a dark history. it left me a bit uneasy that madness is still a source for a caricatured laugh. But, then again, there are moves now to start locking wards again, to depersonalise people, to make security of the outside more important than sanctuary for the troubled; and maybe this film actually does a service to warn against that backward move.

So, a winner all round. go see.

The Death of Mr Lazarescu is a film that challenges. It is long. 153 minutes long. It has the weighty subject matter that the title suggests. A man of 63 who lives alone with his 3 cats and the comfort of his home made booze is taken from hospital to hospital where busy doctors use the little power they have to make sure they are not responsible for his care. I had expected it to be about alienation and a poor society with a poverty of care. But what was striking was the opposite. One must fear for the Romanians about to become part of the Mighty European Union. This man lives in dowdy circumstances; his home reminded me of my childhood home with tacky plastic table cloths and bland wall tiles. Even the cats are indifferent to him. But there were neighbours; they go into each other's homes; they offer food; they argue over the best course of help. The Nurse who takes him from Hospital to Hospital shows real caring and sees beyond the smell of alcohol that creates the first pre-judgement for everyone. Those rivalries between the different medical professions is universal I'd assume. I found this a tough film to watch. If you've sat with someone dying you'll know how hard it is. The only thing I did wonder throughout was why someone who has had a headache for days would wear a woolly hat in bed?

James Marsh's The King is a film that mystifies me. I can't think what its meant to be for. It's a story about a young man called Elvis played by Gael Garcia Bernal who gets an honourable discharge after 3 years Navy service and then goes off to find his biological Father and behaves dishonourably with him and his family. It's all rather sick really. Elvis worms his way into the family by seducing his 16 year old sister Malerie (Pell James). It's rather impossible to identify with anyone in this film from here in Middle England. Preacher Father and bouncy joyful Christian Congregation; I couldn't work out whether the film is meant to be deriding them for their mindless beliefs. Or is the target the happy family and we are meant to think that's unviable. OR is it just saying that some people are lost and just hell bent on destruction. It's shallow. We all know that bad things happen; the interesting bit is to learn why but this film just gratuitously depicts a violence without ever unravelling the thinking that has led to it. "The King" is such a lost opportunity. There are some really interesting questions about honour; the Warrior Code; the changing concepts of valour; honour killings in Indian families and so on. Honour is a very varied concept. But this film just adds nothing to the notion. However, Paul the Projectionist did more than his meagre role suggests. The DVD Projector showed all films in a green-only hue and the only way to repair this was to get it sent to Belgium. He did this through Christmas. I think those postal workers and repairers and Paul went far beyond the call of duty and our reward was this dismal film. But you might see it differently?

I used to think Cosmopolitan was an Italian ice cream. But it's the perception of differences. In seeing any film there is a context. The context for me in viewing Jafar Panahi's Offside here in Middle England was going first for a meal with some friends before we went to see the movie.

A new restaurant has opened opposite the cinema. It is owned by a Pakistani, the Maitre D was Portugeese, the chef was Chineese and our waitress was Polish. You guessed it; it was a Mexican restaurant! The only authentic Mexican was Laura who sat opposite me. We enjoyed our meal and I took something of that diversity into the film.

The story is about a group of young women who want to see the soccer game that will decide if Iran gets to the World Cup in Germany 2006. They are caught by the military who are all conscripts trying also to work out the rules and treat their detainees with respect. The film is shot on hand held digital camera and the light is often very poor but actually works well - reflecting that brilliance that one gets in sun blinding climates. The acting is also rather simple and this works well too. There are thoughtful pauses and shots that seem to wander off as though one is pausing for thought.

All of this provides a superb insight into a world in which respect is powerful and dis-empowering. The girls are not allowed to see the game to protect them from the swearing and abuse of men. It is not the game that is corrupting but men. This is apparently a comedy and it certainly has charm and both the detained women and their conscript guards's characters come through. But I also was fascinated by their perception of differences; their creation of a cosmopolitan world; the opposition team of Bahrain (the only Arab state that is equally divided between Sunni and Shia) is the enemy. There are comments about Tehran versus country dwellers. Even within this small group of people difference and diversity is out down to where people come from. There's something in that isn't there?

The story as such is simple. A Mongolian girl living a nomadic agrarian life with her parents and younger siblings finds a puppy. She wants to keep it as a pet and her Father wants it to go lest it attracts in the wolves who will eat their livestock. It's a disappearing world. There are hints at democracy coming - and we all need to have that. The Father mentions the possibility of moving to live in a city. Throughout the whole world there must still be more people struggling with that dilemma of whether to stay and live off the land or join us internet scrutinising city dwellers. A film like this makes one think who has the better deal. It's a real tough life for the Batchuluum family. Their spirit is inspiring. The director Byambasuren Davaa has surpassed her earlier film of the Weeping Camel to show the struggle for survival in the Mongolian plains. The director had the family just be themselves and so it was not scripted but it is so well crafted and becomes a tale. But where did that puppy come from and how long can this culture withstand the pressure and allure of global social conformity?

Richard E Grant's film about his formative years being brought up in Swaziland is fascinating for both what it shows and what it conceals. It is a stunning portrayal of an only child brought up by feuding parents. It shows his parents turmoil in dealing with their required Upper Class Victorian behaviour - even though this is the 1960s - and their frustration at being unable to act their true feelings. It made sense to me of how people in authority who have to behave in such formalised ways to give their roles gravitas end up sacrificing their true desires. But desires come through. His mother turns to having affairs and his Father to alcoholism and the only child stuck in the middle of this is also dis-empowered. He is shuttled off to boarding school and the country of Swaziland and he each find their independence. But there's a real twist in this tale. My wife tells me that Richard E Grant has a brother. Can this be true? If so it means the film makes no sense. The whole basis of the film is the tugging Oedipul triad that destroys them all before each is reborn as is the country with a new identity. You'd better go see it too and see if you can work out why he left the 4th leg off the table?