Reviews

QT films a 'huis-clos' western in 70 mm. Go figure. A bunch a complete misfits find themselves together in a boarding house in the middle of nowhere and all hell ensues.

Let me state alredy that I am NOT a QT fan. And this piece of junk only confirms my opinion. QT is totally obsessed with extreme violence so this is exactly what you get. There is nobody to sympathise with, definitely not the black bountyhunter, a former cavalry officer (did they have black officers during the civil war ?) and a sadistic racist if there ever was one. The rest of the cast consists also of complete morons. The worst fate is reserved for the only women, apparently a terrible outlaw who must hang. On top of that we are treated also to a long flashback in the middle of the movie which makes things even worse and is simply an excuse for some more mayhem against women. This movie takes misogeny to a new level.

Has this piece of trash any redeeming features ? Not really but the 70 mm looks nice in the few moments we're outside. Hence my one point.

As an antidote after this monstrosity I recommend you watch a few John Wayne westerns. It will do you good.

Story of a number of Free French pilots during WW2 fighting in the RAF by mainly flying Spitfires.

Based on the memoirs of Pierre Glostermann, the highest scoring French ace of the 2nd WW, this is a rather bitter account of his time in the RAF. Made so close after the war you'd be expecting some flagwaving French movie with the Marseillaise constantly in the background. There is a bit of that but as the movie progresses it gets more and more depressing. This mainly is due to the fact that about everyone of Pierre's comrades start to die until he is about the only one left of the original bunch. Even the romance with some English girl goes wrong.

All in all not a bad movie even if there is quite a lot of stock footage used for the dogfighting but the surroundings and the Spitfires are quite real. Glostermann himself moved in 1944 to a squadron of Hawker Typhoons as a wingcommander but we do not get to see any of these.

I highly recommend the book as it is indeed a very laconic account of aerial warfare during WW2 and there is hardly any flagwaving about(and respect for the German pilots).

I think this would turn into a great remake as a movie or tv-series for the French especially now with all this CGI available.

Two sisters during WW2 go totally different ways : one chooses to marry a resistance fighter while the other opts for full collaboration with the enemy and first shacks up with a German general and then with a ruthless SS-officer (are there any other ?). The whole story is partly based on a book by the notorious Marquis De Sade. There are some similarities with "Salo" by Pasolini, again set during WW 2 and that was about the most scandalous movie of the seventies

Ok : this is also pretty daring stuff for the sixties, even if it can't be that explicit as "Salo". It also boast a lavish budget : settings, uniforms and props are all topnotch and the cast has some well-known actors of that time.

But the big problem is that director Roger Vadim is seriously out of this depth with the large budget and story. Imagine what a seasoned French director as René Clement or Julien Duvivier would have made of this material ?

Some scenes work (like the party at the swimming pool) but that is mainly thanks to the leads who somehow make it believable but others scenes look amateurish or simply laughable. This is well demonstrated during the rather spectacular and violent finale when the US army storms the hidden stronghold but it all comes over very confusing.

Roger Vadim was great at seducing beautiful women and enjoying a very glamourous lifestyle, but as a movie director he has never been more then mediocre. His best movies rely heavily on the charisma and beauty of its female leads (like BB and Jane Fonda).

The BlueRay disc does credit to the excellent production values and the lush black-and white photography. Not much else on the bonus part, except a short interview with director Pascal Thomas (well-known in France but not outside). He found it alltogether a silly film as he considered the Nazis anything but 'libertines'!

Great movie to look at, beautifully shot by Roger Deakins and well directed by Sam Mendes. But it is not the masterpiece they want us to believe.

I was struck by the sililarities with that other recent war epic "Dunkirk". Ofcourse that was in WWII and based on a real event, but bear with me on this one. 1917 and Dunkirk were highly praised on their release and 1917 will undoubtedly also rack up some Oscars. Both movies are made by high-profile directors, Mendes and Christopher Nolan for "DunKirk, and both movies are shot in the ultra-widescreen Imax format. They are also both serious British flagwavers. Also both stories are full of plotholes (remember the Spitfire in Dunkirk that could fly without petrol). But my main concern with both movies is this : where are the bloody Germans ? In "Dunkirk" we see a few German planes from a far distance and in the very end a few shadowy German soldiers. And it is almost the same in 1917 : we only see dark flashes of them, even the downed German pilot is quickly disposed of (after he in true Hun-fashion has stabbed one of his British saviours). What is it then : can't we have a fight, would it be to gruesome on the giant Imaxscreen or is it maybe Hollywood won't allow these days German troops in full regalia on such a big moviescreen ?

Dalton Trumbo was by the end of the forties about the most succesfull screenwriter in Hollywood but also an active member of the communist party and a big supporter of Stalin. When the HUAC starts its hearings he is ofcourse one of the first to be targeted and indeed found guilty, as one of the infamous Hollywood Ten, put in jail (but only for 10 months) and upron release can't find a job so starts to work on B-movies but prevails in the end with winning two oscars and writing the screenplay for "Spartacus".

As a classic moviebuff I quite liked the movie, especially to find out how all these actors would be portrayed : Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger are spot-on, John Wayne so-and so but the Edward Robinson part is a joke, played by an actor who looks at least 20 years younger then the real Robinson at the time.

But let's face it : this is an almost Ghandi-like haghiography by today's liberal leftleaning Hollywood. Cranston does an OK job : he portrrays Trumbo as rather grumpy but lovable family man who only cares on the fact that also his stricken colleagues get some work. There is even one who has cancer. He also lives in a grand mansion (as a real commie) but which he ofcourse has to leave when things get rough and then has to movie to a house in the suburbs (how terrible).

Anyway, if you are supporting for a country that is in deadlocks with your own country on about everything (definitely in the fifties) you might consider piping down a bit, especially on the First Amendment thing, something that is rather missing in the Soviet Union legal handbook.

Based on a true story it's about Lomax (Colin Firth) , a former engineer burdened by some very traumatic experiences during WWII as a prisoner of war on the Burma railroad. More then 30 years later on a train he meets this nice woman (an almost unrecognisable Nicole Kidman), they fall in love and marry. But Lomax still has to deal with his troubled past. Then he finds out that one of his torturers is a tour guide at the former prison camp.

Quite a few posters are very impressed with this film but I think it is rather overrated. Colin Firth is as always Colin Firth, Kidman is OK but nothing more. The real star is Jeremy Piven as the young Lomax who has to endure some really intense torturing (this is definitely not a family movie) which will leave you baffled. Rest of the cast is rather standard.

Most trouble I have with the pacing of this movie : it jumps from now to the past at some really strange moments. Also those scenes of torturing are a bit too 'stretched out' for my taste. Some key moments of the movie are also completely messed up : then the older Lomax is in the UK, next he is at the gate of this former prison camp in Burma. Also the scenes when the Aussies jump in by parachute to liberate the camp and get a hold of the Japanese secret police and torturers, are treated way too short : there's hardly a fight, we can barely make out what happens to Lomax at this point. At least we should have seen those Japanese torturers hanged.

The rest of the movie is rather predictable as everybody now os much older ofcourse and so sorry for what happened in the past.

Again Hollywood (or whoever produced this) ruins another a potentially great war drama with a lousy PC script, lame direction and so and so acting.

Holmes meets his ultimate nemesis : Professor Moriarty, who becomes an arms (and bandages!) dealer and wants to stir up a war between France and Germany so he can start making some serious money. That's the plot in a nutshell but it's all more complicated then that ofcourse.

I was expecting another dumb blockbuster with lots of fighting and explosiosn and the first 15 minutes seem to confirm this but then the movie really takes in a rollercaster ride and moves at such an incredible pace it's difficult to keep up ! Highlights are the banter between Holmes and Watson, Stephe, Fry as MyCroft, incredible chases, gunfights including the incredible scene where Holmes and his gang gets almost blown to smithereens by German artilleryfire.

Director Guy Ritchie provides a perfect bland between action and smart dialogue and at the same indulges in his obsession for firearms (the sniper!).

Add the high production values and the perfect recreation of 1891 and you got a real winner !

The Empire is replaced by "The First Order" as the main enemy of the Rebels. A former stormtrooper and a lonely farmgirl will try to save the day.

The 7th installment of the Star Wars franchise moves along at a reasonably brisk pace but it's mostly "seen that been there" with a heavy dose of political correctness.

It's rather obvious the First order are the Nazis, there is even a Hitlerlike thunderspeech delivered by one of the leaders to endless rows of Stormtroopers. The rebels are then this multicultural bunch of dogooders. The main charcter is this young girl with no background who becomes this superwarrior without any previous knowledge or training. This character seems to have been inspired by Joan of Arc/maid of Orléans, who was a very young girl, divinely inspired and turned into supreme fighter and leader, leading the French to victory against the invading Brits. Anyway : she is mightily annoying. Joan of Arc was burned by the Brits at the stake which could be an idea for a next episode.

The ex-stormtrooper is from Nigeria : Hollywood is now in full PC mode so there you have it. Nice guy and a bit funny sometimes.

The whole plot is cutandpaste from the original StarWars so no surprises there. Again :special effects are Ok and it's worth to see it on the big screen.

But the PC-ness almost kills of the movie, definitely for the older generation fans. But the new generation, not so familair with the original trilogy, will undoubtedly like it very much.

Former soldier, with the help of MI6, infiltrates arms trader network.

OK : this is Tom Hiddleton's show, as he is in almost every scene and constantly in close-up. It looks like he is preparing for the Bond role : every woman falls for him (even some guys...), is supercool, never makes any mistakes, he kills without mercy and in the end wins all. The baddie is your classic Bond villain and even the multicultural MI6 support team reminds you of some recent Bond characters. Only the big chases and the gizmo's are missing (but I guess the TV-budget wouldn't allow those).

It is wellmade ofcourse but from a Le Carré novel you would expect so much more. There are no real surprises but the plot somehow keeps you interested.

In the end I did feel a bit sorry for Hugh Laurie as the villain, as he made a much more interesting character. If there's some sequel I hope they include him again.

Just before the start of the Civil War a southern gunfighter annex gambler comes to Denver and stirs things up, shoots some people and falls in love with 2 women.

It sounds as the typical outline for a 50's western and that's exactly what this is. Only it just doesn't seem to work this time. First and foremost there is the main character played by Robert Stack. He may be quick on the trigger, handsome and so on but he sure ain't very likable and that remains so mainly all through the movie.

He gambles and wins by cheating (thanks to some smart card dealing from Ruth Roman) a whole lot of money and the complete saloon. No wonder the former owner (Raymond Burr) is quite angry. Then he starts another scheme by dealing out gold digging claims to some local folk but he wants 50 % of all the earnings. Right, this will work out fine. Things go wrong almost immediately as he kills one of the diggers who refuses to hand his share. To make it up somehow he takes care of young son of the gold digger, a very annoying kid as in most US fifties movies. In the end Stack then somehow redeems himself by turning to the Southern cause (?).

Stack does his best but he sure ain't no John Wayne or James Stewart who would have given the role some humour and some extra sympathy. The rest of the cast ain't very good either, most of them hamming it up (there's a lot of shouting in this movie).

Mind you, this role might well have suited Stack for his next two movies, both directed by Douglas Sirk, where he plays some really nasty characters and does it quite convincing.

There's also Virginia Mayo, still very attractive and we even get a bathtub scene but that's about all there is to her role.

So overall this movie is not exactly a classic despite some good photography and the otherwise very able director Jacques Tourneur at the helm. It would be his last western.

Grant plays a French officer who constantly bickers with Sheridan, a US WAC officer in immediate post-WWII Germany, but they fall in love, marry and want to leave for the US. But US army red tape proves a serious obstacle to their plans.

I am about the biggest Hawks fan there is but this is somewhat one of his lesser efforts, compared to his other outings in the screwball genre (His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby, Monkey Business, Ball of Fire,....). It still is OK to watch, if not only for the rather unusual setting of a still bombedout and devastated Germany (but the Autobahns seem intact). The Germans in this movie all seem to be very nice by the way but mainly consisting of females or elderly people as the young (males) were likely all dead or in a prison camp.

There is a long trip through Germany with a sidecar which leads to some slapstick and pratfalls. But then they fall in love, marry quickly and the main problem becomes then the US army red tape.

Grant is funny of course but is not exactly convincing as a French captain as there is no French accent all : even when a US captain starts to talk French to him it looks as Grant doesn't even understand him. Also he seems waferthin in this movie as his uniform and later his civil clothes seems a bit too large for him. He suffers quite a lot through the film at the point you really start to feel sorry for him. His new wife also doesn't seem to care much.

It ends well of course but only when Grant has been thoroughly humiliated and having to dress up as a woman.

So not the best of Hawks&Grant movies. But there might be some external reason for this : both Sheridan, Grant and also director Hawks became seriously ill during filming. It might explain (partly) the minor end result. With their next collaboration, Monkey Business, they were again up to their usual par.

Actor who used to be famous tries a comeback. This must be one of the oldest clichés in the book and indeed the story itself and character tick all the right boxes :

Previous successful (in Batmanstyle blockbusters) actor with alcohol problem tries comeback (via the theater) : check. Teenage daughter on drugs : check. Slutty much younger girlfriend : check. Complaining but still caring ex-wife : check. Super nervous producer : check. Much younger annoying co-star trying to steal his lines (and his daughter) : check. Bitterold theater critic : check.

And so on.

I guess the director and producer knew this very well so they had the real bright idea to film in a series of long continuous shots with a minimum of editing and it works brilliantly.

It has not been done since 1948 "Rope" (Hitchcock) which is rather strange as the current film technology makes this so much easier as then. And on that part alone the directing and best film Oscars were duly deserved !