Reviews

Three Little Birds is a triumph! Created by Lenny Henry the story set in the late 50s in Britain is well crafted and comes across as an authentic production for the period. All of the actors involved give superb performances enhanced by the direction and strong dialogue. Stand outs for me were the costumes, sets and props reinforcing the period of the story. Despite the challenges faced by the main ensemble of characters in the story, there's still a promise of hope and joy. Migration stories are important to tell and Three Little Birds is a valuable contribution to the story of Jamaican migration to the UK. Highly recommended.

There was a point about 30 minutes into this movie when I thought about turning it off. However I believe in a fair go, so I watched somewhat detached until the end. My conclusion: don't bother because you won't ever get the time back you spend watching what can only be described as a poor excuse for a story and production. The characters are under-developed, the plot weak, the portrayal of dementia related illness under-researched and the acting stilted and shallow. How other viewers can rate this above 7 baffles me especially when compared against other movies produced in the same year. Not recommended.

Excessively long movie for the storyline, making what could have been a tight suspenseful crime drama tedious. The dialogue at times was stilted and preachy. The ultimate shoot out is laughable and overly dramatic. And the most unconvincing aspect of the whole saga is Ben Mendlesshon playing a gay man. Seriously!!! Why was this even necessary?! It was tokenistic and unrealistic. As others have mentioned, the storyline started off reasonably, however as it continued it lost its sharpness and direction. I was looking forward to a fast paced crime thriller but this fails on a number of levels. Not recommended.

Independent film making shows a side of a culture that is rich and insightful. It might not have the production resources that are poured into film making by the Hollywood studios but independent film makers have an important role to play in an alternative narrative. Two Eyes which comes out of the USA provides such a narrative. The 3 stories across 3 different time periods explore diversity, different values and the spectrum of what it means to be an LGBTIQ person. The spectacular and stunning cinematogrophy enhances the stories. The cast bring a sublimeness to their roles which are believable and at times heartbreaking. This is a film which is paced and pensive. One settles into it like a pair of comfortable slippers. My only criticism of Two Eyes is that the music is heavy-handed in parts which detracts from some of the potency of the scenes. However, this aside Two Eyes is a powerful narrative and valuable contribution to independent film making.

I wasn't aware of the source for this story until I watched the series. The well crafted telling of the escape drew me into every moment from the routine of prison life, the early hatchings of the plan, to the arduous and painstaking digging and the exhililiaration felt by the prisoners when they escaped. The main actors Dano, Arquette, Del Toro, Lange and Morse enhance the story with their exceptional acting skills, which authenticates the narrative. As the last episode drew to an end, I was left with a deep impression of the tragedy of the outcome. Ben Stiller's directing is reflected in this brilliant piece of cinema.

Dating Amber didn't quite come together for me until the 2nd half when it gained more depth. And even then the storyline was disappointing. There were moments when the story shone, however it could have been so much more by exploring the politics and attitudes of the time and the impacts on the 2 main characters. Instead the movie airbrushes these, making the story somewhat shallow. And there was some stereotyping (e.g. The "lads") which made for some clownish moments which detracted from the believability of the story. Some of the responses by other characters to the sexuality of the 2 main characters didn't ring true for me and other reviews have spoken of the lack of reality with the time, the mid-90s. There was one scene in a club with Eddie and a drag queen, which is redolent of an earlier UK movie about the same topic @A Beautiful Thing, which in my opinion is a far superior and realistic telling of a coming out story. Despite this, the performance by the 2 lead actors, Lola Petticrew as Amber and Fionn O'Shea as Eddie are outstanding and their performances are the saving grace of this movie.

I didn't have high expectations of this series, although there were some fine actors in the cast. However, I was surprised how quickly the story developed and engaged with the audience. Most impressive was the spectacular cinematography around those parts of rural Scotland where this series was filmed but also in the close up of the characters. The story creates an ethical dilemma in a number of plots, the main one being the decision facing the 2 families who are in a state of grief as a result of their respective adult children and siblings. But there are other challenges for the characters as well. All of this is surrounded by a damn good mystery suspense story which captivates the audience through the superb acting of the cast.

This screenplay has Patrick Gale written all over it: family complexities, same sex relationships and attractions, delightful setting and a great story which includes historical fiction. The story is made all the more powerful by the contribution of the ensemble cast, mostly. And as others have written in their reviews there's pathos. One of the main threads that bound it all together were the letters, a communication of the past and one which I lament the passing of. They are a beautiful and powerful history of the love between Michael and Thomas.

Sacrifice is a beautifully crafted and evocative short movie. It encapsulates the moving story of a same sex couple one of whom is serving in the military and about to leave for a tour of duty.

This isn't a blockbuster movie. It's an ordinary movie of 2 ordinary seniors Ed (John Lithgow) and Ronnie (Blythe Danner), going about their routine lives. Maybe the issues it raises aren't undertaken with any depth, however there's some fine acting as the relationship of Ed and Ronnie grows. Becoming more comfortable with one another, they begin to trust more and disclose their secrets, including their family stories. The bond between Ed and Ronnie is complemented by the camera work and exquisite photography. While the movie won't move mountains, there's simple beauty in the romance between Ed and Ronnie and a reassurance that love can be found at any time in life, even in a supermarket aisle.

So often we talk about mental illness in de-personalised ways. Those with mental illness are loathe to self-disclose because of the stigma and marginalisation that it might cause. This is more so with men. Happy Sad Man is a skilfully crafted documentary film about 4 men from different walks of life. Four men, each of whom courageously disclose their individual vulnerabilities and joys in vividly personal ways and allow the camera to expose them to the audience. Genevieve Bailey has emotionally captured on camera their stories in Happy Sad Man that reflects her personal investment in the stories of the men and her affection for them. Made over several years the film explores the highs and lows of John, Jake, Grant and David in ways which leave the audience with no doubt that their mental illnesses are as individual as each of them. The camera work is bold and raw with close ups of each of the men as they experience doubt, sadness, happiness, calm, depression, uncertainty and love. The stark imagery of masculinity is captured in the film stunningly through sport by Bailey. The narration and voice overs naturally fit with a varied landscape. There were times in this documentary when I laughed out loud and times when tears welled my eyes. Happy Sad Man should be on everyone's list of "must see".

At first my friend and I thought this movie was tongue-in-cheek, however it soon became apparent that it wasn't. The performances are laughable, the dialogue is puerile and the plot predictable and unsophisticated. The sex scene is like something out of a 80s romance movie. It saddens me to say, that this is an extremely poor contribution from what is usually a rich Australian film industry.

British cinema at its best. Don't miss this movie.

Museo was shown as part of the 2018 Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF). It tells a great story with some quirkiness and comedic elements. As a Mexican movie, there are some aspects such as historical and political factors that are culturally-specific. These aspects made it difficult for me to comprehend totally, having no knoweldge of Mexican culture. It's not a criticism of the film, more a self-disclosure of my inability to relate to all of the content. This aside, there are many aspects of Museo which have universality: the relationship between parents and adult children, the humour, childhood friendships that continue into adulthood, the moments of pathos and family Christmas get-togethers, which is portrayed with great mischieviosness in Museo. These are built around the heist of the Archaelogical Museum, which is at the centre of the film. Museo also raises questions about storytelling which is in the background throughout the movie. Are stories which are passed down in narrative form always accurate or do they become embellished as time goes on? What is fiction and non-fiction? What is true and what is false? So that at the end of the movie the audience is left wondering how much of what is portrayed did happen. Gael Garcia Bernal as Juan (the brains behind the heist) steals the show (oops poor pun there .. lol). His sidekick Benjamin played by Leonardo Ortizgris makes up the pair and provides some of the funnier moments in the film. The film drags a little in the middle and could do with some editing. Overall, this is an entertaining film, which will have more salience for a Mexican audience.

I thought The Wife (2017) was good however not great. The ensemble cast for the most part give fine performances. Glenn Close's performance as Joan Castleman is outstanding with a finely balanced display of emotions from a woman who has been cast in the shadow of her husband's greatness. However, Jonathan Price as the celebrated author Joseph Castleman is not as convincing and lacks the skill and power of an actor like Close. One wonders whether other actors (such as Sean Connery) might have been better suited to the task. The Castleman's son, David (Ben Irons), adds to the tensions within the family however more could have been made of this to expose the brutal behaviour of his father, Joseph. Christian Slater has a great time playing the sleazy would be biographer, Nathaniel Bone. Some of the cinematography is spectacular, especially the aerial shots of Stockholm and in particular the long and swooping camera shot of Glenn Close's face in the last moments of the movie in the hotel room. This movie is worth seeing for Close's performance alone. The storyline of a decades' long charade unraveling is captivating.

This is cinema at its best! An evocative and engaging story, beautifully photographed and finely acted. If you see no other movie in 2018, do yourself a favour and see this gem of outstanding artistry.

I saw Sorry Angel at the 2018 Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF). The first part of the movie is disjointed and one has to persevere before it starts to come together. Set in 1993, during the HIV/AIDS era in France, the story revolves around Jacques Tondelli, played by Pierre Deladonchamps, and his varied and many relationships and sexual liaisons. He's not a very likeable character and I found him somewhat stereotypically gay. Of course there's more complexity to the story than this but overall I found it tedious and overstated. Others might have a greater appreciation for the artistry of the movie however I left 30 minutes before the movie ended.

This movie doesn't come close to a thriller, or even a suspense movie. From the previews, one could be forgiven expecting that it would be both of these. It's boring, tedious in parts, unrealistic and irritating. Don't bother.

Beautifully photographed in the Yorkshire countryside during lambing season, God's Own Country depicts the severity and isolation of farm life for a 3-generation family. The ensemble cast are brilliant giving balanced performances which never overstate their connections or feelings for one another. While there is very little dialogue, there is considerable depth to the story and this audience member took away a lot from the story. This is a film which could crudely be labelled a gay coming out film but it's much more than that. It's a film about family relationships, dad and son tensions, the expression of intimacy and the acceptance of those who are often marginalised in our society. To say more would be to spoil the power of the movie.

This is a difficult film to sit through knowing the subject matter. I was tense from the start. However, the acting and the story line make for compelling viewing. Other reviews have spoken more of the story and performances. This is an outstanding movie produced in a typically Australian way. Worth seeing!

I saw this movie subtitled in English and I was disappointed in the inadequate transfer of the book of the same name to the screen. In the English translation of the book, the story captures the cultural and emotional nuances of Ove's relationships and interactions within his neighborhood. Ove is not only portrayed as cantankerous and intolerant, he is also a warm, tolerant and generous human being who is dealing with significant grief. The book covers his many relationships within his neighborhood in much detail and it is from these that we learn the warm side of Ove. Some of these more significant relationships (e.g. Jimmy)are brushed over in the movie and therefore don't build the richness that is evident in the book. I suppose it's always a big ask to capture in film what makes such a successful book as A Man Called Ove. However, it's not impossible (e.g. Last Orders by Graham Swift). These criticisms aside, Rolf Lassgard as Ove (senior) and Filip Berg as Ove (younger) give commendable performances, Bahar Pars as Parvaneh less so. I wanted more from this movie however it wasn't to be.

Brendan Gleeson and Emma Thompson as Otto and Anna Quangel give outstanding performances in this story of resistance. From the outset the movie's stunning cinematography transports the audience to World War 2 and creates an authentic timepiece. At one point I found it reasonable that Berliners were cheering Germany's war efforts with flags and salutes. It makes one wonder were they oblivious to the ravages of war. The nationalism demonstrated on the streets felt more like a celebration on New Year's eve rather than support for Hitler's regime. This movie certainly has messages for present day nationalistic politics. Some other reviewers found this movie slow-paced in parts, however I thought this added to the well-considered cinema that it is. This movie incites a raft of feelings: anger, tension, horror, tenderness, sadness and more. The performance by Daniel Bruhn as Inspector Escherich is as superb as the 2 main leads. Don't miss it!