Reviews

Where does one start with this?

The greatest evil ever perpetrated by man-kind was perpetrated by people. Real people...

The Zone of Interest shows us the life of the family Hoess - the commandant of KZ Auschwitz - in their house right next to the camp. No spoilers.

This is a very complex film. Terrible. True. Devastating. It remains beyond human comprehension how such things could happen. But they did. In The Zone of Interest, we see a representation of this and what it looked like.

There is a story here, but the film-watcher will be less interested in that. They will be more interested in the way the film is shot and how the sound permeates the whole piece to create an atmosphere of chill and horror removed from any sense of reality. Oscars for sound and best international film.

The camera is used very frequently to give perspective shots which render the individuals small and isolated. The players and their story are almost inconsequential compared to the pervasive feeling and ambience of the proximity of great evil. Indeed - we can hear it constantly and sometimes we see the smoke of the crematoria too, adding to the dread.

The film trades on what we already know about the Holocaust, it doesn't show us, it doesn't need to. So, as a result, much of the story is played out in the imagination of the viewer rather than on the screen. It's clever and devastating to use the imagination of the viewer like this, and disabling.

And the perpetrators of these horrors were themselves disabled. Wholly emotionally disabled. To organise and oversee those things - they would have to be. We sense this in Hoess. His camp is a killing machine - an extention of his personality. Yet - he has a wife and children. In any other reality, he would probably be a reasonable and generous family man. But he is a mass murderer - a ruthlessly efficient one. We the viewer cannot penetrate his mind.

The Zone of Interest is a very good film, but it's not a great one. The reason it's not great is not because of bad filming, acting or technique. Nothing like that. The reason that this is not a great film is because too much of it rests outside of the movie. It rests in our imagination. The film itself leans into this too when using black & white cut-in sections. This does not make it a bad film, experiemental yes, but not bad.

I would recommend having a clear mind when sitting to watch The Zone of Interest. It is appalling and chilling. At times I wondered if I should switch it off, it was so upsetting, but I made myself continue. Watch this film - and see what you think.

I'm interested in all war movies and I'm always willing to give a wartime drama a fair go. However, unfortunately Hurricane isn't very good. I struggled to give it a 6.

There's no doubting the bravery of all who fought against evil forces in WW2. But many of the films brought to us about it either recently or in the past, just don't portray events well or credibly. I'm thinking: The Battle of Britain (1969) 6/10. A Bridge too Far (1977) 7/10. However, some stand out: Saving Private Ryan (1998), or 1944 Forced to Fight (2015), both 10/10, or The Forgotten Battle (2020) 8/10.

The better films work because the stories are better, acted better, filmed better.

Hurricane doesn't work because it's trite. The stories are forced. The acting isn't great. Somehow they've made a film which is un engaging, despite what should be good action. The flying scenes aren't done very well - but the film relies on them, highlighting the weaknesses. Direction and camera work is weak. I found that I just didn't care.

On the plus side, Hurricane looks spot on for 1940. Some (very few) of the flying scenes are good. The ambience feels right.

Another thing Hurricane does well is remind people that it took all of Europe working together with many other countries to beat down the evil forces. It wasn't just England on its own.

Overall, I'm not recommending Hurricane, and I've watched it twice now just to make sure!

Yes. One of those rare shows that we picked up on the day of release. Watched it in a couple of days, enjoyed it thoroughly!

Watching this reminded me a lot of Westworld.

I haven't played the games - didn't know anything about them. But that doesn't matter, you don't need to know.

I like the way Fallout plays history: action in, say 1958-1962, to 219 years into the future. It's clever and believable sci-fi. The imagery is strong and themed.

The action is good - very good. I liked the storylines of the central characters which developed and delivered. The overarching stories are compelling. Good sci-fi. It's got its own sense of humour too!

A weakness is that Fallout is a little predictable. Also, we see quite a lot of the vaults and vault dwellers, but we don't see enough of the other "tribes". Maybe season 2 will give us more?

Overall - Fallout season 1 is a strong opening.

What is it with some reviewers? Do they think they make themselves look big and clever when they post reviews rubbishing good films?

Forget other reviews - they're wrong. Back to Black is A REALLY GOOD FILM! It's obviously 10/10.

Marisa Abela is outstanding as Amy. And I mean OUTSTANDING. This is one of the greatest performances you'll see. She brings emotion, energy, vulnerability and weakness all to the screen. Her acting AND singing are Superb. This brought tears to my eyes on many occasions. A great future awaits this talented actress.

Elsewhere, Jack O'Connell is strong as Amy's infatuation Blake. He's a piece of unpleasant north London rough. Believable. He's a wrong 'un though, and they are bad for each other.

The supporting players are good, with Eddie Marsan and Lesley Manville as influential father and grandmother figures well portrayed.

I really liked the photography, editing and sound. The look is perfect too. We are close in to the action and emotion because the performances are so good and the camera work and direction excellent.

Sure, Back to Black may only show us a narrow view of the brilliant edgy young woman Amy Winehouse. But what we do see here is an outstanding performance by Marisa Abela that is worth seeing and 10/10 in its own right. And nothing detracts from it.

A great film.

Hard to write this without spoilers, but here goes...

The Wall is not sci-fi, and it's not what a lot of other reviewers seem to think either. It's not a bad film at all.

Deliberately set in a beautiful but challenging place - the place the central character inhabits, The Wall could be about any boundary between ourselves and the outside world. It's very solitary, very existential, very personal. I rather liked this: an inner journey.

Superbly photographed, The Wall is worth watching just for this.

Speaking personally, to me it's obvious what the sub-text is. I won't name it, but the symbolism is clear: a white crow, two animals giving birth, a single mature woman alone, a companion who can be no more than that. There are other more subtle symbols too.

At root, The Wall is an exploration of extreme isolation, and a realisation of what that really means.

Like "The Murderers are among us", "Somewhere in Berlin" is filmed in the ruins of that city in 1945/46. It's part of a group of films Germans call, Trümmerfilme: Debris films.

Whilst appreciating that conditions in Germany at that time were appalling - nevertheless, Somewhere in Berlin could have been a better film.

The idea of the community of street children had been seen before in "Emil and the Detectives". "Somewhere..." attempts to recapture this spirit. But it doesn't work. This film is too disjointed, has no core and doesn't highlight, well - anything.

Sure - the boys have their moments, a veteran wanders in, and mothers (who are dressed surprisingly well, and operate in surprisingly good conditions) go earnestly about their business. But really - the story that is trying to be threaded around them all is weak and purposeless. The characters lack interest and focus.

The saving features are the sometimes very good stationary camera shots, and the background ruins. But that's all.

"Somewhere in Berlin" was made on zero budget, that's very clear. But considering the general situation, the possibilities offered by the unique setting, and the blank canvas offered by a "new start", more could have done.

This is a very competently assembled documentary about one of the greatest artist film makers: Leni Riefenstahl.

That this documentary is necessary at all is down to her association with the vilest and most evil regimes in history: Hitler & the Nazis.

The documentary maker, Müller, does not hold back in showing us - and by extension Riefenstahl herself - what she did, what her involvement was in Germany in the 1930s. Similarly, Müller tries to hold Riefenstahl to account. It's interesting to watch the 90-year-old pushing back and holding to the line that she's always held: that she was never a party member, never a true believer. Watch this documentary and see what you think.

There's no question that, seen through today's eyes, Triumph of the Will (TotW), and Olympia can be seen as propaganda. However, the former film won top awards before the war for its innovative techniques and imagery. The art is there. The films weren't seen as propaganda in 1938.... The problem, for Riefenstahl, is that these films are seen as propaganda NOW.

The other problem is that these two films are just too good as innovative art-in-cinema. In this documentary, it comes through that Riefenstahl wishes she hadn't made TofW. All of her (probably well-rehearsed) protestations about not knowing or realising what Hitler was are acceptable. As a matter of fact, Riefenstahl made no further "propaganda" films after Olympia (1936-38). If she had been a committed follower, then she would have made dozens of films for the Nazis 1936-45. Others did (e.g Veit Harlan). But she didn't. This suggests to me that there is a large element of truth in what she says here.

She was appalled by what she saw in Poland in 1939. This also moved her strongly away from wanting to make films for the regime.

Riefenstahl fell out badly with the Nazi authorities. She states that even as early as 1934, Goebbels hated her - and he was in control of the Nazi propaganda industry. She clearly was a strong minded artist who refused to be seduced or controlled.

The pity of it all is that Riefenstahl was pilloried and rejected after the war and made no further major contributions to cinema. In this documentary, we sense her regret - but we also sense that she is prepared to stand and justify her pre-war work. She cannot, even many years after the events, be separated from her art, even though many have identified her as a Nazi sympathiser because of it.

This documentary is about an hour too long - but then perhaps it has to be? Riefenstahl is a strong and compelling person.

A good documentary about a very remarkable film maker.

Well... Part 2 DEFINITELY delivers on the promise of Part 1. Try to see them close together. This is really one film cut into 2 parts.

There are some quite major deviations from the original Frank Herbert. I am at a loss to explain why the writers have done this - as they didn't need to.

The impact of Dune 2 is as tremendous as the Novels. Acting is excellent, camera work excellent, music superb. The mesmerising quality of the desert planet Arrakis is brilliantly done. This thing is breathtaking, its scale is vast.

Don't listen to anyone who says the Dune films are no good! They are fantastic!

Wim Wenders makes great films. Period.

There's always a style, a tale, and a panache to Wenders' films. "Alice in the Cities" sets the tone.

Filmed in black & white, this movie is almost a homage to that medium. It's beautiful to behold.

Seen today, Alice in the Cities is just beyond the edge of believable. But park that feeling! It wasn't believable in 1973-74 either. This film is NOT about what it looks like on the surface. No. This film is about a journey.

A journey from where to where, then?

Well, physically, the writer Winter moves from under a broadwalk on the Atlantic east coast of America, to a train somewhere on the Rhine in Germany. This vast distance is mirrored by the vast inner journey the writer is forced by circumstances to undertake. He makes no choices - he's doing this journey because, emotionally - he has no choice. He doesn't even try to choose.

We get the first clues to the visual language employed right in the opening scene under the broadwalk. The writer Winter is taking pictures - Polaroids - of his impresssions of America. This sets the tone for a film filled with images, views and interpretations. In many ways, Alice in the Cities is about America & capitalism: superficiality and fleeting transience.

Alice appears and is a catalyst for what happens next. Although Alice is just 9-years-old, she represents a lot more.

Alice in the Cities is not a film that could be made now, not by a measure. The imagery of the 30-year-old man travelling with a girl who is not his daughter is not credible. But remember - this is not what the film is about.

The brilliance of Wenders' films is that they appeal to our sense of ourselves. How we see them is entirely up to us.

I had no expectations as I took my seat to watch "Past Lives". I didn't know anything about it, except that it had Oscar nominations.

Past Lives is a rather good and beautifully photographed film.

I like films that touch upon the human condition, but are not too overt and philosophical or sentimental. I like great settings and beautiful photography. I like good and sometimes understated stories. Past Lives has all of this and another ingredient - the mystery of what we do with our lives, and why.

There is a lot to think about here. Past Lives invites us to reflect upon our own lives - our own life choices, and why we made them.

At times, this movie is magisterial in it's choice of settings and camera angles. It's a homage to New York - much in the same way as Woody Allen's masterpieces: "Annie Hall" and "Manhatten". The photography is brilliant and creates a visual language worth seeing simply for it alone.

Masterfully acted, with simple but effective dialogue, I really enjoyed Past Lives.

Hadn't read any reviews and didn't know what to expect as I took my seat in the cinema. 2 hours 20 minutes later, I'd had my sensibilities thoroughly jangled by "Poor Things". A remarkable movie.

You don't see many movies like this one!

Visionary imagery - interesting interiors - like being inside a series of Viennese Succession interpretations. Bizarre and vaguely unnerving styling. Clipped and odd camera angles. A weird world has been assembled, all the more unhinging for the fact that it all looks so recognisable!

This thing is visually and morally jarring. More than equally jarring are the differences between the created world of "Poor Things", and the way that world relates to our own, or what we perceive to be our own. Poor things sits just beyond the edge of what could be our reality. Remarkable, and a little chilling.

The story is as complex or simple as you want it to be. A woman, literally ANY woman, a free woman, uninhibited by learned societal norms, desires total freedom, and achieves it.

There is a commentary going on here about "acceptable behaviour" generally. But particularly, how it seems that what is acceptable for a man to want is not, somehow, acceptable for women. Why is that? Poor Things tackles our presumptions.

Stone is first-class. Possible Oscar there. Defoe is very good. Ruffalo has a difficult script to work with. He didn't write it. But he does ok.

Poor Things packs a punch! It's an assault on the senses. Not the sort of thing your mother would want you to see!

A different and difficult film which is about more than just what it looks like.

The setting for Women Talking is a fundamentalist Christian sect. It doesn't say which one or where. It looks initially like it could be around 1910 Philadelphia. Once you notice that it isn't, you start to realise that the film is built like this because that's not what matters. What matters is the power of the experiences of the gathered women, the conversation, and how, bit by bit, a critical decision is arrived at.

Women Talking is filmed in an unusual way. The players are set in a darkened Tableau vivant, like in an artist's studio or a theatre stage. Colours are muted. The only things moving are the children. It's all delibarate - part of the stort telling.

A strong cast with a good script. It contains timeless but wholly relevant messages that will mean different things to different people.

"When Hitler stole pink Rabbit""

This is a lovely movie! Beautifully filmed, excellent story and acting. It's 8/10 in anyone's money, but it's 9/10 in mine.

This German film (English subtitles) is the TRUE story of the early years of Judith Kerr OBE, and how she and her Jewish family escaped from Berlin & Germany 1933-1935.

One reviwer here has rather foolishly said that the story is set just before Hitler takes power. No, it isn't. The whole reason why the Jewish family is running is BECAUSE Hitler has just come to power. If he hadn't come to power, they wouldn't have to run. I guess some people just don't pay attention... Another reviewer complains that the dialogue is: "not what you would hear in the 1930s", and gives the film a low rating. Nonsense! How does that reviewer know how people spoke in 1933? Do they have a time machine? Put bluntly, anyone giving "When Hitler stole Pink Rabbit" less than 7 must have been watching a different one to the charming film I saw.

The costumes, vehicles and interiors all all pure 1930s. Young Riva Krymalowski as Anna Kemper, and Marinus Hohmann as Max Kemper are first class.

This is a moving and excellent film. Don't miss it just because other reviewers have said silly things about it.

A film from the '70s, with Michael York... bound to the rubbish, right? WRONG! Cabaret is a tremendous film.

Liza Minelli is brilliant. A superb and natural performance, she lives her role. Perfect.

But Liza Minelli isn't the only reason why Caberet is a great film.

The story has "Caberet" (the stage show) at it's core and the whole piece cleverly revolves around this and the 1931 Berlin setting. It looks GREAT!

Fantastic direction from the obvious choice to direct: Bob Fosse. Oscar. The best pieces are the actual Caberet show scenes. Brilliant.

There are very obvious reasons why Caberet won 8 Oscars. Look out especially for the Master of Ceremonies role played by Joel Grey - gaining a well deserved golden statue.

There is quite a lot going on in the story. No spoilers! Suffice to say that York as an English writer, Minelli as the Caberet starlet and Helmut Griem as Baron Maximilian von Heune work well together as a sort of confused triangle. It's very clever.

There's plenty more going on - all sharp observations of the state of Germany in 1931-1933. Watch this and learn.

For me, the film at just over 2 hours is just a fraction too long. It's unusually long for 1972. But this doesn't stop Caberet being a tremendous film.

We saw this film back when it came out (2004ish). We were intrigued by it then - and still are!

I could have sworn that this was a film from the 1990s. But it isn't. Maybe that's the Butterfly Effect? Maybe the things we remember are NOT what actually happened? In that case, what did actually happen? Who would know it? How would it be known? Recalled? And by whom? Why? And when?

There is something deeply metaphysical going on here.

The Butterfly Effect attempts to consider what would happen if, as a matter of fact, we could change our choices - and change the things that happened.

The intriguing pieces are thrown out through the screen for us to consider. The problem is that the story doesn't quite hang together.

Our son (now 20!), who tends to be fairly discerning about his movies (I blame the parents...), discounted the movie immediately. He hated it on pretty much every level. He's young, he doesn't have so much life experience - but his comments are pertinent.

The truth is - The Butterfly Effect considers the human condition in relation to memory, but does some pretty strange things with it. So strange in fact that it becomes fairly incredible.

Ashton Kutchner is very good as the lead. He is working with some difficult material here and he does well. Amy Smart is also good, showing versatility and range. The others are OK. Dialogue is a bit ordinary. Overall - this is a fairly standard issue Hollywood product.

The Butterfly Effect (originating with Ray Bradbury in 1952...) is a profound thing. We implicitly understand cause & effect. The "Butterfly Effect" has entered modern parlance and know it to be true. This movie is OK, but it doesn't quite cash in on the promise of its title.

Oh dear. I love the original Star Wars films, but I'm afraid I don't love this one.

Why don't I love The Attack of the Clones? Because it's trite, it's a poor "love film", the plot/politics are tedious. It's a poor mix of action & effects. There are lots of things that are "just for video games". These don't progress the story and are rubbish I'm afraid.

The dialogue is clanky. And, I'm afraid - Hayden Christenson just isn't very good. He's centre stage but he just doesn't pull it off - he gets in the way in that we are drawn to him expecting good things, but they don't happen. He just blocks the flow up instead. Pity for him - a missed opportunity in his career, but I suppose he was pretty young at the time.

All of this is a great shame, since Portman, McGregor, Lee, McDiarmid and co are ok. Even Jackson in a cameo is good. But Franz Oz as Yoda does the best turn! Love him I do!

Episode II is a really frustrating and, at times tedious watch.

Attack of the Clones only gets a 5 from me because it's a Star Wars film. Without that label it really is a bit of a nothing film. Not the sort of thing you'd want to watch again and again like its illustrious cousins Ep IV, V, VI. Those films have chemistry. Episode II I'm afraid, does not.

There is no other way to describe The Red Shoes - it's just brilliant.

Enchanting, mesmeric, dreamlike, this movie is spellbinding. Wonderful.

How did Powell & Pressburger come up with something like this? Well - everything comes together here. Moira Shearer is simply BREATHTAKING as the aspiring prima ballerina. Her ballet sequence from the The Red Shoes is just... well - superb. Anton Walbrook as the driven and tortured ballet company owner is EXCEPTIONAL. Marius Goring as the genius composer is also excellent.

What else? Well - the Art Direction is off the scale, as is the Original Score. Both received Oscars. The use of the south of France - in 1946, must have caused quite a stir. The beautiful light and scenery, that incredible staircase and those lovely locations would have wowed the post-war movie goer. The Opera House settings and grand costumes would also have great impact. The dazzling use of the new Technicolour technology by Jack Cardiff adds yet another dimension to the already long list of excellence.

There are so many things that go to make The Red Shoes a truly great film. But underneath all this there is the remarkable and visionary Direction, Screenplay and Production of Powell & Pressburger. Quite simply: Genius.

Many interpretations have been attempted about the imagery and metaphor - the visual language of this film. See it and decide for yourself what it says to you.

The Red Shoes is something new. There hadn't been anything like it before in the history of cinema. How wonderful and uplifting it must have been in 1948, in bomb damaged Manchester or London, to sit in a cinema and experience this?

The Red Shoes is a film you can watch again and again. It's dazzling - a film for the ages. A masterpiece of the art of cinema.

All hard-core Beatles fans know what the "Get Back Project" was. It was long known that there were many hours of film and sound recordings from Twickenham and Apple Saville Row just left laying in boxes in the archives. What we have here in Peter Jackson's Get Back is a fantastic treasure. It's actually a work of great craft - a loving homage - inspirational and insightful. Genius.

In early 1969, The Beatles' "Get Back Project" was a nebulous creative idea, and it's worth going back to see how this project arose, and how and why what was done was done. Suffice to say that the film (Let It Be) that came out in mid 1970, doesn't bear much resemblance to what the band originally invisaged. They hated it, the fans hated it, I hated it. It's a poor piece of work (5/10).

The Beatles finished live performances in August 1966 because they (especially George) felt they had lost something. They felt they could create much more, but away from the demands and dislocation of live tours. They had already shown themselves what they could do in the studio with the Rubber Soul and Revolver albums.

There then followed arguably the greatest explosion of musical creativity of the 20th Century...

It's well known that the 1968 double album The Beatles (we know it as the White Album) is generally a collection of songs where the Beatles played for each other as "session" musicians. Often they were not in the studio together, and didn't create things together. Although it's brilliant, the White Album is very much understood by Beatles fans as the beginning of the end. They couldn't even agree on the cover art for the album - that's why it's blank.

The band, especially Paul, understood that there was a need to "get back" to creating and making music as a band all together in the same room. They understood that the fans hadn't seen them live for years and wanted to give them something. So there was a tacit agreement to make another film capturing The Beatles creating real music on the spot, in the studio. They also nebulously agreed that there would be a live performance, a TV show, or TV documentary shows, and performances to go with the film and album release. So, in January 1969 the cameras and recorders started rolling. That's the basis of "Get Back".

Straightaway we are impressed by the exceptional quality of the visual image and superb sound. Most of this material had been in the vaults since 1969-70. Somehow, Jackson and his team have restored it. Incredible. Also incredible is how Jackson has crafted a form of narrative which more clearly fits the situation for the band as it really was in January 1969. He and his creative team weren't there - so quite how they have managed to do this so believably is beyond me. They have used just what was laying around in the reels of film and boxes of archive material, and the story comes through. Genius.

Back in late 1968/early1969, the band was really beginning to fall apart. The idea of Get Back was for the band to be in the same room together and see what would happen. The hope was that The Beatles would somehow stick themselves back together again. It didn't work. There was no steer. We hear the band lamenting the loss of Epstein as a leader. Early on we see Paul trying, gently, to direct the band's energies. This is EXCEPTIONAL. Brilliant - we are in the room with The Beatles. Amazing.

It was never really clear what The Beatles intended to be the outcome of the Get Back project. They couldn't agree on anything. In the end they withdrew back to their HQ at Saville Row and set up a recording studio there. The intended live show finished up on the roof as the now iconic "Rooftop Performance". Beautifully captured here with many new camera angles and new unseen footage. Superb.

When it was all over, the huge box of material from the Get Back sessions - photos, film and sound was enigmatic. Nobody really knew what to do with it because nobody really knew what The Beatles had intended. The band themselves didn't know. It was also "unfinished". The band rejected various proposals. The individuals, John, Paul, George and Ringo moved on quickly to their own projects.

In the end - John left the band in September 1969 and financial needs meant that some kind of product had to be issued. But "Get Back" rolled on into 1970 still unfinished. A further track was completed in January 1970 and the whole lot given to Phil Spector to sort out. The thing morphed into "Let It Be" as an album and film and was eventually released in May 1970 - 16 months after the sessions we see here.

With an 8-hour set, "Get Back" is a long binge. But if you are a Beatles fan this is a must-see. I'm sure it's a lot nearer to what the band had in mind at the time. Sure - we get the tension - but we also see the incredible creative engine and warm family which was The Beatles. We are sat next them. We see the band enjoying their work direct from the playback machine and having a laugh. I had tears in my eyes many times.

Thank you Peter Jackson and your team. You have given us a fantastic treasure.

Once the initial dazzle fades away (which occurs quickly...), we see that "All the Light..." is a good solid drama. Well worth watching.

Haven't read the book - but I would bet that it would be much slower moving - with occasional big reveals. That's how historical fiction novels work. I know - I've written some...

Anyway.

Marie as a young blind girl is completely delightfully played. 10/10. Aria Mia Loberti as her teenage version is haunting and excellent. The build up is good. Ruffalo is very good, as is Hugh Laurie. Louis Hofmann is excellent as the inspired radio operator. The imagery is good. Lars Eidinger is also good as the deranged Gestapo psychopath on a mission. No spoilers!

The problems other reviewers seem to be having are to do with speed, story development and character layering. Note to other reviewers - only so much can be done in 4 hours of visual entertainment. This is NOT a novel. Novels take days to read and enjoy great range. The piece here - by Netflix is televisual and televisual works to tell stories in a completely different way. So - other reviewers need to get over themselves.

I liked "All the Light.." The story is strong - characters are strong and the setting solidly historically based. It does move rather quickly and can verge into "trite" and that's its weakness, but this is not weak throughout. It's good throughout. The atmosphere is striking - and the sentiment strong.

Well worth watching!

Overall, I've got to give The Mandolorian 8/10.

This thing has a variable impact, due to variable inputs. On one hand it's quite cool to see the way "Mando" interacts with "Grogu". Very cool actually - it's the highlight! But from there on The Mandolorian is a sort of hybrid of "Branded" (late 1960's), Spaghetti Westerns, and "Kung Fu" (1972, David Carradine). It's all a bit wham-bam, blam-blam. But it kinda works!

Some of the storylines are just pure cheese, no spoilers...

Seasons 1 & 2 are good - maybe 9/10. Excellent action and effects, reasonable stories (by Star Wars spin-off standards). Good character development. Watch especially for the Droids and creatures from Episodes IV A New Hope through Ep VI Return of the Jedi. They're cool. We get new "lore" - Mandolorian lore - "The Way". I liked that!

Season 3 is barely 7/10. There is some schoolboy stuff here which grates somewhat. However - it's all pure Star Wars - and the final episode (I thought) was excellent.

Maybe my 8/10 is a little stingy? I was entertained - if there's a Season 4 I'll be queuing up for it!

Where do you start with "A Matter of Life and Death"??? It's SO remarkable and SO amazing that perhaps the place to start is the actual experience of the film itself...

There are moments whilst watching when you just say: "WOW"! And there are so many reasons why you would say: "WOW!"

The imagery, the technicolour, the camera work are just superb. The story is... indescribable without spoilers! The acting by Niven, and especially Livesey is very strong and the script is excellent. It demands to be seen. It's visionary and fantastic!

So, there are plenty of reasons why many people consider A Matter of Life and Death to be one of the greatest films of all time.

I haven't given it the ultimate 10/10... I take a wide view when I give any rating. I am always very reluctant to give 10.

For me, the story gets tangled up with itself over the "trial" - which turns into some sort of match between the USA and Britain. Maybe I missed something - but I thought the trial was to do with an error in the procedures of Heaven? It seemed to me that Niven's bomber pilot had done nothing whatsoever wrong?

Maybe I'm being picky? Maybe I got so drawn into the whole concept of A Matter of Life and Death that I'm missing the elephant in the room? Probably!

Never mind - the film, for 1946, is visionary - the concepts it deals with are made front and centre, even though they would normally never be considered by film-makers. The "special effects" are amazing!

An amazing film!

"The most evil man in history drags everyone down with him..." That could have been the subtitle to this tremendous film. But that would be letting Adolf Hitler off lightly.

Make no mistake - "Downfall" is not a film that could get made in Hollywood. They wouldn't get it - they don't have the cultural history that Europe has. They haven't had a single man stand astride the continent and lay waste to it. And not just physically destroy - but morally destroy too. That's what Downfall is about - the utter disintegration and ruination of everything that might be regarded as "human".

No - only Germans could make this film. Only Germans could truly grasp, portray and confront what Hitler was, and what the Nazis were - and show it to themselves and the world.

Downfall is made very much in the German film-making tradition. The story is told through the eyes of Traudl Junge - Hitler's young newly recruited secretary. An incredible, almost unbelievable story, but actually true.

The German tradition is seen in the way the story is constructed around "family" - in this instance Hitler's entourage. Indeed - Hitler treats his young civilian staff, including Junge as if they are his family - the family he doesn't have. Part of the power of Downfall is its very personal nature. We are close in to the centre of it all - like we are really there.

We are confronted with complete madness. Insanity. Mayhem. Wanton and needless death. Stupidity. Madness. But in Downfall we find ourselves as willing observers of it - observing it as if it is somehow "normal".

We see the pointless appalling destruction of whole families. It's shocking and deeply moving at the same time. Because of the graphic filming it's all hugely impactful.

Bruno Ganz is (was) a legend in German-speaking cinema before he came to this role (see also my review here of Wim Wender's Wings of Desire). But this portrayal here of the deranged tyrant Hitler is quite simply magnificent.

Sets, filming, script - all are strong with excellent supporting acting.

Why not a 10/10 then? Well - Downfall is almost too dense - too powerful - almost beyond the edge of anything. Indeed - Berlin in April 1945 WAS beyond the edge of everything morally, just as all of Germany had been under the years of Nazi rule. Whilst there can be, and should be no redeeming feature - perhaps that's the problem I have. Traudl Junge worked closely with the most evil person in history. It's just beyond the edge of possible to imagine what that was like - even though I have seen it through her eyes.

It's still a tremendous film. An amazing cinema experience.

Full disclosure - I LOVE this movie!

How many times have I seen this film? I really don't know? 30?

There are so many reasons why I love all 3 of the original Star Wars films. I'm not even going to try to start here, but I do want to say a few things...

I'm not sure if I can describe to today's readers just how dead cinema was by the time 1977 came along? Just DEAD. Boring films that nobody went to watch. Sure - a couple of interesting ones, but generally nothing worth queuing up for. Cinemas closing down permanently.

Throughout 1976/7 there is increasing talk of a "new" kind of film being made in studios in the UK: Star Wars. It hits US cinemas in May to an absolute crescendo of approving critical acclaim.

The hype grows as the rest of the world has to wait its turn to see this new movie phenomenon...

Fast forward to an afternoon matinee in early January 1978, and I'm sitting in The Dominion, Tottenham Court Road, London waiting for the film. This cinema is vast - one of the largest in the UK, and yet there are only about 20 people here. Star Wars is only showing in two places in the UK - and I'm in one of them!

The lights dim.... "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." STAR WARS... That magical music comes in with its trumpets and fanfare... AND THEN I have to look around as I think a Jumbo jet is crashing into the back of the cinema! It's Leia's little space craft pursued by this ENORMOUS Battle Cruiser shooting and blamming! OH MY GOD! THIS IS BRILLIANT!!!....

And that was just the first minute of the movie!

Surround sound - a super clear picture and a cinema experience unlike anything I could ever have imagined. The impact of this thing is just awesome! This is STAR WARS and it's absolutely breathtaking! Fantastic!

I think it may well be the case that today's new viewers of Star Wars: A New Hope, do not see it or experience it the way I did that day back in 1978. Today's viewers may not appreciate that it was precisely THIS film that set movies back on their feet again - made cinema going brilliant again.

After that it's all pretty straightforward. Star Wars: A New Hope has a fairly simple story, and was acted by (in those days) fairly unknown players. The formula worked then and still works today.

What isn't perhaps recognised fully today is that Star Wars set new standards in movie making. It set new expectations about what could be achieved. Set new standards in entertainment. It remains a masterpiece.

In 1977 cinema was dying. Star Wars was its New Hope.

Have just come out of watching Colonel Blimp on the big screen at the British Film Institute 2023 Powell & Pressburger retrospective. This is a very fine work - a classic of cinema. It must be seen.

The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp is multi-layed. It kind of defies any attempt to define it and yet it is a truly great movie!

How so then?

For one thing - the film was made in 1942/3 at the height of the most desperate, deadly and destructive war this world has ever seen. And yet it is NOT a war or propaganda film (not really!). You'd think it might be a comedy to amuse the populace. But it isn't. Not at all. It's not a love story per se either (although it kind of is!?). You'd think it might even be anti-war? But it's not anti-war (not really!).

Along the way there are subtle little acts of subversion - little pokes at "the establishment", but again - it's not really about that! It's about something much bigger...

So, what is The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp about then???

All of those other attempts at description fail because this film transcends any age. Indeed - the story takes up and spans 40 years of the life of Colonel Wynne-Candy as if painting on a canvas of time. This is part of its brilliance. Once we understand that time is the key part of it, the essential feature of it, we start to see that what this is really all about is one thing: the human condition. We see that some things never change - no matter how many years pass along. It's quite brilliant for this.

All the players are FANTASTIC! Roger Livesey is magnificent as Wynne-Candy across time. Anton Walbrook as the accidental German is also superb. And you would never guess Deborah Kerr was just 20-years-old as she plays the three women that Wynne-Candy encounters across his life. Her performance is assured and excellent. She quite literally re-materialises as the living embodiment of that which does not change. Very clever and perceptive of the writers to show us this aspect of ourselves in such a subtle way.

But none of the players could do anything without the wonderful & carefully crafted story, and the outstanding screenplay and direction of Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger. This thing is in glowing Technicolour in every sense, and it's sumptous.

This may be Powell & Pressburger's greatest work? Which ever way you look at it - The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp is a true classic of cinema.

Well! Why is Obi Wan Kenobi only showing a 7.1 rating on IMDB? I really don't know why?

If you LOVED Episode IV A New Hope and Eps V & VI then you will certainly enjoy Obi Wan Kenobi!

Perhaps the lowish IMDB rating is because the people who love the original trilogy are now into their 50s, 60s and 70s? Maybe this age group don't have access to Disney+ and so maybe it's only "younger" people who have so far seen this series - and may not appreciate it in the way us "older" people might? That must be the reason.

There are only a couple of flaws which bring it off a 10 rating - but these are minor compared to the exciting and immersive overall experience.

I saw Ep IV A New Hope in London in 1978 when it could only be seen in just two cinemas here in the UK. I was 19 at the time and it left an indelible memory. I adore that film! So, I was ready for disappointment when I saw Obi Wan Kenobi in the trailers. It was bound to be rubbish, right? Wrong! This is really good!

Set about 7 or 8 years before Episode IV, the story starts quietly and believably. It's brilliantly played by Ewan McGregor reprising Obi Wan. He is joined by characters we know and love! They are accurately represented in every detail. Tempting - but no spoilers! The settings are great too - places we recognise. The spacecraft, the uniforms, the look, the photography, the cutting, the moral code - everything is right - and we are transported to the time of Episode IV once again.

This is great stuff!

If you love the original trilogy - then Obi Wan Kenobi is obligatory watching. I thought it was great!