Reviews

This is a film I considered renting for a long time and then I always put it down and picked up something else. I must say I have never been a huge fan of Paul Newman, especially in his younger days when he always seemed to hesitate between Marlon Barlon and James Dean as his role model. Still, Patricia Neal happens to be one of my favorite classic actresses and I was curious to see the performance that brought her her only Academy Award. So I finally crossed the pond. I don't regret it, but I cannot say that I am enthusiastic either. First, Patricia Neal's performance is fine as always, but hers is definitely a supporting part. I am some dismayed at how the Academy nominated her as Leading Actress while she is billed after Melvyn Douglas, who still got nominated and won as Supporting Actor. The Academy decidedly has mysterious ways alien to our meager reason skills... Paul Newman delivers a good Brando-like performance and is not as irritating as he was in some contemporary films, although he has played that character several times before. The best performances in my view come from the aforementioned Melvyn Douglas and Brandon DeWilde whom I can't figure out why he didn't get a nomination. As to the film itself... Well, I have mixed feelings. Martin Ritt's direction is top-notch, with a masterful use of long-shots enhanced by James Wong Howe's inventive photography. Still, I found myself at the end wondering what I had been watching for the last two hours. This is a good film, even a great film in its own way but it has no point. I couldn't figure out what Ritt was trying to say and why he chose that story to put it. No driving force, no major theme surfaces.

Ms. De Carlo did some great films - "Criss Cross", "Band of Angels" - but her acting skills never had anything to do with it. Both films I mentioned had her teaming with excellent directors and leads who made up for her limited range. One of the (many) problems with "Salome" is that De Carlo is on her own, neither director nor actors being good enough to provide any supply. David Bruce in particular is so non-expressive he makes Sylvester Stallone looking like Alec Guinness. His love scenes with De Carlo are ridiculous, as he conveys as much love feeling as he had a cow in his arms. So sad, for a better acting *might* have made the screenplay a pill easier to swallow. It takes much humor or abnegation to believe in such a mess of a story, blending Lee and Bismarck, Prussia and West America, and filled with implausible characters and situations. I guess some viewers may find it funny, but I found it simply dull and boring. The only good thing about this flick is its looks: photography is splendid, worthy of a better material, and Ms. De Carlo is really beautiful - if not in an emotive way.

Bombs like this one belong to Golden Age of Hollywood as well as celebrated masterpieces, so one has to accept their existence. But it is not a reason to waste one's time watching them.

It took fifteen years for "London's Burning" to be shown in France, but it was worth-waiting. Though it may seem a little outdated in comparison with its more cinematic American equivalent "Third Watch", it still is a very good show with its own strong virtues. No excessive pyrotechnics, no frenetic rhythm, but solid plotlines and convincing, realistic characters. Actors have a great part in success of this series, with a special mention to the excellent Richard "Sicknote" Walsh. A must-see for viewers enjoying stories about heroes that happen to be also human beings.

If you are, like myself, a fervent anglophile and a terminal railway enthusiast, 'Titfield Thunderbolt' is the film you've spent your whole life seeking for in vain. That charming tale of a village's fight to keep its railway line active celebrates British countryside, trains and traditional values in a quite irresistible way, enhanced by a great cast and a superb technicolor. Despite being not among best-ranked Ealing comedies, 'Titfield Thunderbolt' still is a great feel-good movie, one you're glad to see on rainy or spleen days.

In the mid-nineties, Christopher Lee faced a serious financial crisis. His pension funds failed, his country house encountered plumbing problems, and some dues were to be paid. He had no other solution but playing in a stupid film that left him ashamed for all the rest of his life. Ten years after, Mr. Lee still has nightmares about that film, and restlessly fights for all copies being destroyed. Alas, some perverse folks recently released it in DVD format. Well, time to be serious. "Funny Man" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. There's nothing redeeming about it. Screenplay is non-existent, without any kind of narrative logic. Also, and some puzzling for a film with such a title, "Funny Man" actually has nothing funny, unless you are quirky enough for laughing at people having atrocious deaths for no valid reasons. The Funny Man himself is annoying and I often thought he was the one in the film really deserving to die. So please support Mr. Lee. Don't buy, don't rent, don't watch "Funny Man". Don't tell your friends about it. Just forget it. I did already.

Near twenty years after seeing it, I still can't believe a film can be as awful as this one. An attempt to benefit by success of "Gendarme de Saint Tropez" series, this rubbish succeeds in being even worse than its model. I hope Jacques Balutin, Sim and others were well-paid for playing in this. One million euros wouldn't convince me to see it again.

I didn't expect much from that film. I was wrong. A man who can see the dead and talk with them is a risky subject. Besides, made for television movies dealing with supernatural events are often disappointing. Producers and directors seem to be afraid to scare audience in any way, and network self-censure doesn't improve that. "Living With The Dead" is a miraculous exception that could break the rule - if television gives us more like this. The actors are all excellent, with a special mention to Ted Danson, who probably gives here his finest performance. Mary Steenburgen is fine too, and both Jack Palance and Diane Ladd are too famous for I say how good they are. The screenplay is excellent, one of the best in TV's history. It alternates chilling and moving moments without any false note, using misdirection and red herrings with consummate skill. The whodunit is remarkably held and will let you guessing until the end. Characters are well-drawn, three-dimensional, not the puppets that one usually see in that kind of productions. A closer look reveals an intelligent reflection on death and how deal with it behind the thriller elements. And don't forget the most important thing: it REALLY SCARES. As I've said above, TV movies are rather weak on that. Not "Living With The Dead", that had me starting, shouting and shuddering more than once, without any gory effect. Kudos to the director. So if you like first-rate ghost stories, that one is a must-see for you. Don't miss it. Maybe the dead are behind you... Don't displease them!

I'm a believer, but that one is really too much for me. "Thérèse" might be the most boring film ever made. One might say that subject is not precisely a cheerful one, and that it's all interiority, but Cavalier plays it too austere, mistaking Ste Thérèse for Jansenius. There must be a way to show faith on the screen other than Hollywood or Robert Bresson.