Dreary re-imagination of the war years in London (and Devon) through opaque 2020's goggles. What a pity the production team tried to impose (BBC-style) a dull-witted and ill-fitting feminist take on a struggling comedy also featuring moments of semi-successful drama - one might have made a far more meaningful and powerful film for women by staying a little closer to actual facts, or a much better comedy by simply forgetting the doubtful sexual politics, or an actual drama by forgetting the other two elements - instead this film fails at all three levels and merely irritates by its inauthenticity. Thank God the dependable Bill Nighy is at hand to give us a couple of chuckles. There's a briefly enjoyable musical interlude half way, but even this I suspect owes far more to Goodwood revival than to the real 1940's Britain. Oh yes, and the inexplicable array of poor and anachronistic accents, yeek. Why was the lead character supposed to be Welsh anyway? And why on earth did they decide the film-in-film was to be in Technicolor? Utter rot.
Reviews
16 Reviews
L'Argent
(1928)
Genuine Jazz Age Masterpiece
19 February 2023
A masterpiece of film making, the thoughtful and observant will find much to enjoy in it. The use of camera angles and light/ shadows is astonishing at times. Then pause to consider the electrifying timing of this film - released a year before the Wall Street crash and when the National Socialism was on the rise in Germany. Then the performances - the unforgettably snake-like Baroness or the innocent beauty of Line. Then look at the expansive sets and the breathtaking - and authentic - late 20's wardrobe and art deco styling. The chessboard motif, the puppet masters inhabiting rooms behind rooms behind rooms. And the Gatsby-esque party scene against which the plot finally unravels, cutting back and forth in a giddying climax. The build-up of suspense in the radio broadcast... The intoxicating rush of the Paris crowd scene... It's easy to poke fun at a silent film and moan about its pace, which was pitched at the audience of 96 years ago; for those who have the patience to watch and appreciate it for what it is, L'Argent is a bloody brilliant film.
Glengarry Glen Ross
(1992)
Wasted Opportunity?
17 November 2022
The main reason anyone would watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" nowadays is the simply dazzling cast line-up, there can be few films which boast such an array of U. S. male A-listers.
And why wouldn't those guys leap at the chance to participate in a theatrical, character-driven piece with lashings of dialogue to play with?
And indeed why wouldn't people queue up to watch them? I remember some of the hubbub which surrounded this film when it was first screened back in the early 90's.
And there's the rub - it was made in the early 90's, when yuppies were a thing, and while one can read some social conscience into this piece, it is nonetheless firmly focused on greedy, grubby capitalism at its worst. A world in which a man's worth is measured by how much he paid for his wrist watch, and even the guy who opens his mouth to protest goes quiet when attention is drawn to his own humble timepiece, indicating a sharing of these values.
Something about it reminded me of "His Girl Friday" - another film which looked great on paper but in practice turned into a joyless couple of hours of shouting inspired by the American Dream of cold, hard dollars.
I'm sorry, but it's just not entertaining or enjoyable to a normal, balanced European - unless perhaps you lump yourself with Yeats when he wrote "we who seven years ago talked of honour and of truth, shriek with pleasure if we show the weasel's twist, the weasel's tooth".
What a shame something more enduring, inspiring, uplifting or simply enjoyable could not have been made with such a tremendous cast. I don't think I could bring myself to sit through it again.
And why wouldn't those guys leap at the chance to participate in a theatrical, character-driven piece with lashings of dialogue to play with?
And indeed why wouldn't people queue up to watch them? I remember some of the hubbub which surrounded this film when it was first screened back in the early 90's.
And there's the rub - it was made in the early 90's, when yuppies were a thing, and while one can read some social conscience into this piece, it is nonetheless firmly focused on greedy, grubby capitalism at its worst. A world in which a man's worth is measured by how much he paid for his wrist watch, and even the guy who opens his mouth to protest goes quiet when attention is drawn to his own humble timepiece, indicating a sharing of these values.
Something about it reminded me of "His Girl Friday" - another film which looked great on paper but in practice turned into a joyless couple of hours of shouting inspired by the American Dream of cold, hard dollars.
I'm sorry, but it's just not entertaining or enjoyable to a normal, balanced European - unless perhaps you lump yourself with Yeats when he wrote "we who seven years ago talked of honour and of truth, shriek with pleasure if we show the weasel's twist, the weasel's tooth".
What a shame something more enduring, inspiring, uplifting or simply enjoyable could not have been made with such a tremendous cast. I don't think I could bring myself to sit through it again.
Law and Disorder
(1974)
I really want to like this film but I just can't...
8 November 2022
In view of all the positive reviews here I really feel the need to add a touch of balance.
As a comedy "Law and Disorder" is pretty heavy-handed and from my (British, 2022) perspective it didn't raise many laughs at all (my partner wanted to switch off after 20 mins, I watched the rest by myself out of sheer doggedness).
As a story it is completely aimless, veering from cameo to cameo without any real sense of direction.
The film had potential as a gritty drama, yet the weighty end scenes seemingly had no precursor in the silliness that occupied the other three quarters, leaving me wondering what the heck it was all about.
On the plus side it's hard not to respond to the screen presence of Borgnine and O'Connor, woefully under-used here, even though one or two of the cameo scenes were compelling. I guess that's why I wanted to like it. And consciously or otherwise, the film carries a message about respect for others, and how violence begets violence, which the would-be cops themselves seemed unable to grasp. I'd like that to have been the point of the film, but I fear ultimately it didn't have one. I wouldn't bother watching this mash again. Which is a shame.
As a comedy "Law and Disorder" is pretty heavy-handed and from my (British, 2022) perspective it didn't raise many laughs at all (my partner wanted to switch off after 20 mins, I watched the rest by myself out of sheer doggedness).
As a story it is completely aimless, veering from cameo to cameo without any real sense of direction.
The film had potential as a gritty drama, yet the weighty end scenes seemingly had no precursor in the silliness that occupied the other three quarters, leaving me wondering what the heck it was all about.
On the plus side it's hard not to respond to the screen presence of Borgnine and O'Connor, woefully under-used here, even though one or two of the cameo scenes were compelling. I guess that's why I wanted to like it. And consciously or otherwise, the film carries a message about respect for others, and how violence begets violence, which the would-be cops themselves seemed unable to grasp. I'd like that to have been the point of the film, but I fear ultimately it didn't have one. I wouldn't bother watching this mash again. Which is a shame.
Phantom Ship
(1935)
Mary Celeste
17 October 2022
I'm just going to say this once.
Well maybe 2 or 3 times.
It's Mary Celeste.
Mary.
Mary Celeste.
Mary, Mary, Mary.
Thank you.
Otherwise, well, not much to say about this film, it's just a little bit too old and decrepit to be really enjoyable (I wonder if better-preserved versions exist and perhaps other reviewers have seen those?) I struggled to follow the dialogue and the action seemed almost a harkback to the silent era. Of interest only to students of film and serious fans, in my humble opinion. There are some remarkable barrel-chested sailors in the cast...otherwise, skippable.
In its favour the story does actual bear a faint resemblance to historical fact, even to the point of getting the ship's name right (Mary - did I already say that?)
Well maybe 2 or 3 times.
It's Mary Celeste.
Mary.
Mary Celeste.
Mary, Mary, Mary.
Thank you.
Otherwise, well, not much to say about this film, it's just a little bit too old and decrepit to be really enjoyable (I wonder if better-preserved versions exist and perhaps other reviewers have seen those?) I struggled to follow the dialogue and the action seemed almost a harkback to the silent era. Of interest only to students of film and serious fans, in my humble opinion. There are some remarkable barrel-chested sailors in the cast...otherwise, skippable.
In its favour the story does actual bear a faint resemblance to historical fact, even to the point of getting the ship's name right (Mary - did I already say that?)
Munich
(2005)
Waste of 3 hours
20 September 2022
Seriously, don't waste 2 hours 44 minutes of your life watching this crap.
OK, I'm not a Spielberg fan, but even he could surely do better than this.
Ostensibly about "Munich", I suggest reading the wrapper before watching the film, as it's really about an Israeli hit squad which was sent after the men who planned the Munich attack, which itself forms a minimal part of the film's content. This didn't trouble me, in fact it sounded like a great hook for a movie, but the actual film falls over in several important ways.
The most important of these is that the film just can't decide what it's about. Is it a thriller? Is it an attempt to paint a human face on a squad of Mossad assassins (I mean, really?) Is it an exposé of Mossad incompetence? Is it somehow about cooking? Or did Spielberg just get some funding and didn't know what to spend it on? There are serious failures of cohesive story-telling here.
The (slightly too literal) "climax" of the film finally betrays its intent - that violence begets violence, and hatred begets hatred, and that those involved pay a price for their involvement. But then why pad it out with all the other incoherent rubbish? There are long sections of the movie where I just couldn't figure out what was going on.
I can't just walk away from the portrayal of Mossad - are they really just a bunch of amateurs? Because that's not their rep. The team of assassins here seem to have been assembled from an entirely random group of untrained and inept people - a bomb expert who's never set a bomb before; a guy who is warned to steer clear of the "honey trap" yet walks right in. Doubtful plans which seem fraught with entirely avoidable risk. Does the national intelligence agency of Israel really rely on shady, double-dealing French freelancers to track down their targets? I have my doubts.
And those camera angles. I mean, why? If they added something artistically, it was lost on me. It just looked like someone left the tripod at home and they had to use a bar stool instead.
Not a film I will hurry to watch again, nor one I will be recommending to others.
OK, I'm not a Spielberg fan, but even he could surely do better than this.
Ostensibly about "Munich", I suggest reading the wrapper before watching the film, as it's really about an Israeli hit squad which was sent after the men who planned the Munich attack, which itself forms a minimal part of the film's content. This didn't trouble me, in fact it sounded like a great hook for a movie, but the actual film falls over in several important ways.
The most important of these is that the film just can't decide what it's about. Is it a thriller? Is it an attempt to paint a human face on a squad of Mossad assassins (I mean, really?) Is it an exposé of Mossad incompetence? Is it somehow about cooking? Or did Spielberg just get some funding and didn't know what to spend it on? There are serious failures of cohesive story-telling here.
The (slightly too literal) "climax" of the film finally betrays its intent - that violence begets violence, and hatred begets hatred, and that those involved pay a price for their involvement. But then why pad it out with all the other incoherent rubbish? There are long sections of the movie where I just couldn't figure out what was going on.
I can't just walk away from the portrayal of Mossad - are they really just a bunch of amateurs? Because that's not their rep. The team of assassins here seem to have been assembled from an entirely random group of untrained and inept people - a bomb expert who's never set a bomb before; a guy who is warned to steer clear of the "honey trap" yet walks right in. Doubtful plans which seem fraught with entirely avoidable risk. Does the national intelligence agency of Israel really rely on shady, double-dealing French freelancers to track down their targets? I have my doubts.
And those camera angles. I mean, why? If they added something artistically, it was lost on me. It just looked like someone left the tripod at home and they had to use a bar stool instead.
Not a film I will hurry to watch again, nor one I will be recommending to others.
There's a Girl in My Soup
(1970)
More entertaining than expected
6 September 2022
"There's a Girl in my Soup" is very much a film of its time, and I'm not going to criticise it for reflecting (and making comment on) the values of that time. Not least, because against a backdrop of stifling convention on the one hand, and chaos on the other, it is a film concerned with the ability to find common ground when worlds collide, and in which even the worst clashes are managed for the most part with gentleness and civility - something we could learn a little about in 2022. I must admit I didn't expect to be so well entertained, and despite valid criticism elsewhere of the film's plot development it is the central characters which carry it. Peter Sellers does alright but Goldie Hawn is an absolute smash, in a role she delivers without ever seeming to act. Sit back, make a mental note to stop tut-tutting at how things were in the past, and enjoy the film for what it is. And while you're there - do please pause to reflect on the beautiful performance by Anthony Britton as 'Andrew'. The absolute epitome of an English gentleman, his quiet good humour and gentle manners are an example to us all.
Assassination Tango
(2002)
Tomorrow is Promised to No-One
3 December 2021
This might not appeal to those wanting a dance movie, even less so to those seeking an action flick, it is neither. It is however an absolute gem of beautiful, intelligent and thought provoking film making, peppered throughout with exquisite walk-on and cameo pieces which are a pure delight to behold. Luciana Pedraza is captivating in her first film role. Even the bit-part hooker (Natalia Lobo) gives us a truly dazzling 5 minutes for our money. Anyone who can't understand where assassin meets tango (and black panther, come to that) is simply not paying attention. As Aunt Maria says, "Tango is love; it's hate. It's a lot of things together". Robert Duvall takes on a complex and dangerous character in a way which sometimes jars. He is nearing the end of his career and cracks are starting to show, nonetheless he's still one step ahead of the rest. There are clearly darker aspects to his character, not all of which are laid bare to see. It's an enigmatic film with no happy ending, no winners, no gratifying denouement; yet one which I can re-watch time and time again, a proper cinematic treat.
Shanghai Express
(1932)
Dietrich Dazzles
21 October 2021
This film is essentially a vehicle for Marlene Dietrich and wow, does she shine. She out-acts and out-costumes the rest of the cast put together.
In all other respects it's a bit of a B-movie. Fond as I am of Clive Brook, he's just a bit too wooden in the part, which really calls for a more nuanced performance.
With a bit of re-writing all the ingredients are there for an epic movie, leading me to wonder how a modern re-make might look. Setting aside of course any modern "p.c." agenda which would hamstring the thing from the off. Ralph Fiennes in the male lead perhaps? But who could replace Marlene...?
In all other respects it's a bit of a B-movie. Fond as I am of Clive Brook, he's just a bit too wooden in the part, which really calls for a more nuanced performance.
With a bit of re-writing all the ingredients are there for an epic movie, leading me to wonder how a modern re-make might look. Setting aside of course any modern "p.c." agenda which would hamstring the thing from the off. Ralph Fiennes in the male lead perhaps? But who could replace Marlene...?
Edge of Tomorrow
(2014)
Lame But Watchable
17 August 2021
Starship Troopers meets Groundhog Day...nothing else to tell really. Except that this film lacks the wit and humour of either.
If we are supposed to take this seriously, then having swallowed a highly implausible narrative, at the end of the film logic is rather annoyingly dispensed with entirely. You can almost smell the review panels testing the water with different crowd-pleaser endings and going with the "ahhh" vote.
In fairness it's "watchable" and perhaps a career best for Tom Cruise, who manages to be less annoying than usual. One suspects Emily Blunt had more to offer in her role, but was effectively hamstrung to a bit part by the story line. The rest of the cast was perhaps picked up from the dole queue and failed to inspire at all. Shan't bother tracking down the sequel.
If we are supposed to take this seriously, then having swallowed a highly implausible narrative, at the end of the film logic is rather annoyingly dispensed with entirely. You can almost smell the review panels testing the water with different crowd-pleaser endings and going with the "ahhh" vote.
In fairness it's "watchable" and perhaps a career best for Tom Cruise, who manages to be less annoying than usual. One suspects Emily Blunt had more to offer in her role, but was effectively hamstrung to a bit part by the story line. The rest of the cast was perhaps picked up from the dole queue and failed to inspire at all. Shan't bother tracking down the sequel.
Give up all hope...
9 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
...that Hollywood will ever produce a re-make better than the original. Hollywood only does re-makes so they can dumb-down content to a level comprehensible to the contemporary US mainstream, and to cash in on money-making potential garnered from past glories.
The 1951 film was a good story, well scripted and shot, albeit within the SFX capabilities of its time. A classic in its genre, it still holds up today as a good yarn with strong characters and plausible narrative.
Fast forward to 2008 and all you'll get for your money is popcorn-spilling SFX; plot threads which don't lead anywhere; tick-box black and female representation in lead roles (Kathy Bates was a welcome dose of common sense early on; but by the end of the movie the imminent destruction of humanity is still being presided over by the U. S. Vice-President's deputy? Who doesn't have a clue; so let's just place our faith in someone with no relevant credentials nor any actual plan).
There's a painful product placement sequence mid-movie which I will not dwell on.
The real issue with this film is that if you hadn't seen the proper version you would have no idea at all what was going on. When a U. S. soldier shoots Klaatu in the '51 film, it is easy to comprehend why; in the '08 scene there seems no plausible justification for it. What does the opening sequence in the mountains tell us other than that "they've been here before"? What actually happens in this film? And what convinces Klaatu to change his mind, other than lots of meaningful looks? What are these various lame-looking soldiers doing, randomly shooting weapons at Gort? Sorry, it just doesn't work.
If one scene best illustrates the gap, it's the blackboard scene with (curiously) John Cleese cast as a "leading scientist". In the original we understand that the prof. Is working on equations connected to inter-galactic travel, and that Klaatu has some relevant knowledge to bring to the work. The writing on the board looks plausibly complex, and when Klaatu corrects it the prof. Asks a pertinent question and receives a plausible reply, pretty much like scientists might talk to each other. In the remake it looks more like the kind of maths I did at school and nobody actually tries to explain what the prof. Is working on. "Something difficult" we guess. Rather than take the science route it is dumbed down to a little dance of writing hands, correcting and responding; nice try but it conveys nothing of any meaning. Klaatu knows more than prof is all we can take away from the scene. Dumb science for dumb audiences.
Sorry, this film stinks. Next please...
The 1951 film was a good story, well scripted and shot, albeit within the SFX capabilities of its time. A classic in its genre, it still holds up today as a good yarn with strong characters and plausible narrative.
Fast forward to 2008 and all you'll get for your money is popcorn-spilling SFX; plot threads which don't lead anywhere; tick-box black and female representation in lead roles (Kathy Bates was a welcome dose of common sense early on; but by the end of the movie the imminent destruction of humanity is still being presided over by the U. S. Vice-President's deputy? Who doesn't have a clue; so let's just place our faith in someone with no relevant credentials nor any actual plan).
There's a painful product placement sequence mid-movie which I will not dwell on.
The real issue with this film is that if you hadn't seen the proper version you would have no idea at all what was going on. When a U. S. soldier shoots Klaatu in the '51 film, it is easy to comprehend why; in the '08 scene there seems no plausible justification for it. What does the opening sequence in the mountains tell us other than that "they've been here before"? What actually happens in this film? And what convinces Klaatu to change his mind, other than lots of meaningful looks? What are these various lame-looking soldiers doing, randomly shooting weapons at Gort? Sorry, it just doesn't work.
If one scene best illustrates the gap, it's the blackboard scene with (curiously) John Cleese cast as a "leading scientist". In the original we understand that the prof. Is working on equations connected to inter-galactic travel, and that Klaatu has some relevant knowledge to bring to the work. The writing on the board looks plausibly complex, and when Klaatu corrects it the prof. Asks a pertinent question and receives a plausible reply, pretty much like scientists might talk to each other. In the remake it looks more like the kind of maths I did at school and nobody actually tries to explain what the prof. Is working on. "Something difficult" we guess. Rather than take the science route it is dumbed down to a little dance of writing hands, correcting and responding; nice try but it conveys nothing of any meaning. Klaatu knows more than prof is all we can take away from the scene. Dumb science for dumb audiences.
Sorry, this film stinks. Next please...
Jaya Ganga
(1996)
A Beautiful and Poetic Portrait of India
10 May 2021
I was shocked to find only one review here for a film of this calibre, which is already 25 years old.
Not just any film, but Jaya Ganga, did it really reach so limited an audience? If so there's no justice in the world.
I won't go into the film's plot here; suffice to say it's about a man who tries to grasp both the worldly and the spiritual, and ends up with neither. It is an allegorical story, of Ganga, of India herself.
It's the telling that counts, the journey, the poetry and lyricism, the staggering and fatalistic beauty of Vijay Singh's portrayal and of Vanraj Bhatia / Eric Piederriere's score.
It's a film which asks questions rather than answering them; a film which leaves the viewer with much to contemplate, but also much to revere.
Asil Rais is well cast as the cerebral but unworldly writer Nishant, Smriti Mishra dazzling as the tawaiff Zehra. Something of her rise and fall puts me in mind of Beatrice Dalle's trajectory in Betty Blue, though Zehra is altogether a different character. Along the way there are many beautifully crafted cameo scenes by a strong supporting cast.
One small thing - it would appear that scenes filmed in Paris have been cut from the DVD release: Although I've never seen a version which included them, the DVD extras and credits nonetheless suggest they existed. No matter, this absence perhaps heightens the elusive quality of Jaya, and the film is still a master work by - incredibly - a first-time filmmaker (who also appears creditably in the film, as Sanjay).
Jaya Ganga is perhaps not for the masses; but an absolute must for Indophiles and lovers of art cinema - track it down, you won't be disappointed.
Not just any film, but Jaya Ganga, did it really reach so limited an audience? If so there's no justice in the world.
I won't go into the film's plot here; suffice to say it's about a man who tries to grasp both the worldly and the spiritual, and ends up with neither. It is an allegorical story, of Ganga, of India herself.
It's the telling that counts, the journey, the poetry and lyricism, the staggering and fatalistic beauty of Vijay Singh's portrayal and of Vanraj Bhatia / Eric Piederriere's score.
It's a film which asks questions rather than answering them; a film which leaves the viewer with much to contemplate, but also much to revere.
Asil Rais is well cast as the cerebral but unworldly writer Nishant, Smriti Mishra dazzling as the tawaiff Zehra. Something of her rise and fall puts me in mind of Beatrice Dalle's trajectory in Betty Blue, though Zehra is altogether a different character. Along the way there are many beautifully crafted cameo scenes by a strong supporting cast.
One small thing - it would appear that scenes filmed in Paris have been cut from the DVD release: Although I've never seen a version which included them, the DVD extras and credits nonetheless suggest they existed. No matter, this absence perhaps heightens the elusive quality of Jaya, and the film is still a master work by - incredibly - a first-time filmmaker (who also appears creditably in the film, as Sanjay).
Jaya Ganga is perhaps not for the masses; but an absolute must for Indophiles and lovers of art cinema - track it down, you won't be disappointed.
The Honorable Woman
(2014)
Excruciating
21 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Does this review contain 'spoilers'? Well I guess it does in the strict sense, though I must add that this abomination was spoiled long before I got near it.
There's so much wrong with "The Honourable Woman" it's hard to know where to start. It's a miserable, joyless, catfest which contains barely a moment of human warmth from start to finish. We'd already guessed the big secret(s) by the end of episode one - so much for intrigue and suspense.
Then there's this female supremacist agenda. Imagine a world where women get all the top jobs, never lose an argument, define their own moral compass, and keep those snivelling spineless males down in the dirt where they belong. Chorus of cheers from the student feminist society. Winces from everybody else.
Is this anti-male romp a proper use of BBC licence-payers' money? Or might it be better have been spent imagining a positive, fair and inclusive world based on mutual respect and equality regardless of gender? Has this anything to do with the Middle East? No - but let's down another Prosecco and stick it to the guys again...
Why cast an American in the lead role as an ostensibly British Jew? So the series will sell in America of course; I can't think of another reason. Credit where it's due, Maggie Gyllenhaal managed quite a believable whiny, annoying British accent - unfortunately not credibly the accent or tone of a baroness (think of Margaret Thatcher - that's what a Baroness sounds like), nor an accent I could stand listening to for very long. And why did 'baroness' Maggie drift through the entire series with the smirk of a stoned teenager on her face? Was she as bewildered as we were? Beats me.
All the above meshes rather poorly with the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Are we supposed to take it seriously? Are the characters - male or female - really so witless? Example: The university professor who blows the whistle over student admissions policy, but fails to mention the secret surveillance super-computer in the uni basement? Really?
It almost - almost - redeemed itself in the last episode where we thought for a moment we might get our wish of seeing the entire cast dead. And then "Dame" Julia at MI6 came out with her vagina line and ruined it all. What on earth was the writer thinking?
I'm sorry, this is dreary, ill-conceived, male-bashing toss and it's eight episodes too long. This is precisely why I stopped paying the TV licence - shame on you, BBC.
There is but one glimmer of light in the entire dirge - Lubna Azabal; a superb actress entirely wasted on this rubbish. If you want to see a proper film about the Middle East look her up in "Incendies" - one of the most stunning movies of our time. "The Honourable Woman" is not fit to wrap her chips in.
There's so much wrong with "The Honourable Woman" it's hard to know where to start. It's a miserable, joyless, catfest which contains barely a moment of human warmth from start to finish. We'd already guessed the big secret(s) by the end of episode one - so much for intrigue and suspense.
Then there's this female supremacist agenda. Imagine a world where women get all the top jobs, never lose an argument, define their own moral compass, and keep those snivelling spineless males down in the dirt where they belong. Chorus of cheers from the student feminist society. Winces from everybody else.
Is this anti-male romp a proper use of BBC licence-payers' money? Or might it be better have been spent imagining a positive, fair and inclusive world based on mutual respect and equality regardless of gender? Has this anything to do with the Middle East? No - but let's down another Prosecco and stick it to the guys again...
Why cast an American in the lead role as an ostensibly British Jew? So the series will sell in America of course; I can't think of another reason. Credit where it's due, Maggie Gyllenhaal managed quite a believable whiny, annoying British accent - unfortunately not credibly the accent or tone of a baroness (think of Margaret Thatcher - that's what a Baroness sounds like), nor an accent I could stand listening to for very long. And why did 'baroness' Maggie drift through the entire series with the smirk of a stoned teenager on her face? Was she as bewildered as we were? Beats me.
All the above meshes rather poorly with the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Are we supposed to take it seriously? Are the characters - male or female - really so witless? Example: The university professor who blows the whistle over student admissions policy, but fails to mention the secret surveillance super-computer in the uni basement? Really?
It almost - almost - redeemed itself in the last episode where we thought for a moment we might get our wish of seeing the entire cast dead. And then "Dame" Julia at MI6 came out with her vagina line and ruined it all. What on earth was the writer thinking?
I'm sorry, this is dreary, ill-conceived, male-bashing toss and it's eight episodes too long. This is precisely why I stopped paying the TV licence - shame on you, BBC.
There is but one glimmer of light in the entire dirge - Lubna Azabal; a superb actress entirely wasted on this rubbish. If you want to see a proper film about the Middle East look her up in "Incendies" - one of the most stunning movies of our time. "The Honourable Woman" is not fit to wrap her chips in.
The Interpreter
(2005)
No script and I'm afraid it shows
30 November 2020
Yes, in the DVD extras Sidney Pollock actually admits starting the film without a script and I'm afraid the audience pays the price for that. As others have pointed out, there are some rather unlikely verbal exchanges and plot developments which really should have been ironed out at the 3rd or 4th read-through, but if you don't have a script...
It's quite clever as a concept and might have made a good movie but fails to really involve the viewer in any meaningful way and at the end I just felt - well, whatever. Compare with, say, 'The Constant Gardener' and this falls a long way short.
It's quite clever as a concept and might have made a good movie but fails to really involve the viewer in any meaningful way and at the end I just felt - well, whatever. Compare with, say, 'The Constant Gardener' and this falls a long way short.
The Rains Came
(1939)
Better than might be expected
29 November 2020
This film was a pleasant surprise and rather exceeded our expectations, particularly the special effects which were remarkable for their time, and which in fact won the first Oscar awarded in that category.
Although filmed in California the sets are pretty convincing and clearly much effort was spent to that end.
It's become fashionable in recent years to knock British India, overlooking the many good works which were done. Even here we see the British administration and residents step up and offer whatever help was possible, even at risk to their own lives. Nigel Bruce's slightly out-of-character performance is not a comment on Empire, but rather a device to illustrate what kind of person Myrna Loy portrays as the female lead. She is amoral and listless and it's quickly evident that she married him for status and money rather than for love. British India had its share of drifters and bad characters just as was the case at home, and they often gravitated around spendthrift Maharajahs as does George Brent's character in the movie, trading on a title or social connections. This was no secret, and especially the philandering among bored officers' wives is well documented. Myrna Loy here gives perhaps the performance of her career, transforming from calculating vamp to smitten heroine quite convincingly. The twist of plot which seals her fate is compellingly real.
Where the move does fall down a little is in the vague differentiation between nationalities. I struggled to keep track of whether American Loy or Irish-born Brent were supposed to be portraying Americans or British. Tyrone Power was handsome, but an Indian? And then Maria Ouspenskaya - she played the Maharani magnificently, but was in fact Russian-born. A few dreadful portrayals of Indians by American actors. It all got a bit confusing.
One last word for the wardrobe design which was simply magnificent - not just Loy's perfect gowns but the menswear and Tyrone Power's Indian garb, truly a sight for sore eyes.
It's become fashionable in recent years to knock British India, overlooking the many good works which were done. Even here we see the British administration and residents step up and offer whatever help was possible, even at risk to their own lives. Nigel Bruce's slightly out-of-character performance is not a comment on Empire, but rather a device to illustrate what kind of person Myrna Loy portrays as the female lead. She is amoral and listless and it's quickly evident that she married him for status and money rather than for love. British India had its share of drifters and bad characters just as was the case at home, and they often gravitated around spendthrift Maharajahs as does George Brent's character in the movie, trading on a title or social connections. This was no secret, and especially the philandering among bored officers' wives is well documented. Myrna Loy here gives perhaps the performance of her career, transforming from calculating vamp to smitten heroine quite convincingly. The twist of plot which seals her fate is compellingly real.
Where the move does fall down a little is in the vague differentiation between nationalities. I struggled to keep track of whether American Loy or Irish-born Brent were supposed to be portraying Americans or British. Tyrone Power was handsome, but an Indian? And then Maria Ouspenskaya - she played the Maharani magnificently, but was in fact Russian-born. A few dreadful portrayals of Indians by American actors. It all got a bit confusing.
One last word for the wardrobe design which was simply magnificent - not just Loy's perfect gowns but the menswear and Tyrone Power's Indian garb, truly a sight for sore eyes.
Red Eagle
(1994 TV Movie)
One Hour Too Long
14 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Good heavens I'm not sure I watched the same movie as these other guys. True, it had bags of potential and an interesting story line but someone forgot to edit it and it really would have benefited from the deft removal of a good hour from the almost 3-hour run time.
Omar Sharif, Timothy Dalton and Marg Helgenberger did a fair job somewhat against the odds, but supporting scenes were poorly scripted, acted and directed and some of the 'mercenaries' looked more like I.T. guys who did a bit of T.A. at the weekend.
I can't help but also observe it seems to have been made for the American market, thus much potential for rich cultural background has been stifled - at its most basic level this includes protestors marching through Paris - at least I think it was Paris - with placards all written in English!
Much might be forgiven, but the film's fundamental flaw is that it totally failed to explain the metamorphosis of Nigel Havers' character from a sensitive and considerate friend and altruistic doctor to a snivelling wife-beating homicidal lunatic. We understand he was coerced and duped into betraying his friends; but his subsequent behaviour is a complete non sequitur.
OK, made for TV, we didn't expect too much. There's still quite a bit to entertain. An 'A'-movie it is not.
Omar Sharif, Timothy Dalton and Marg Helgenberger did a fair job somewhat against the odds, but supporting scenes were poorly scripted, acted and directed and some of the 'mercenaries' looked more like I.T. guys who did a bit of T.A. at the weekend.
I can't help but also observe it seems to have been made for the American market, thus much potential for rich cultural background has been stifled - at its most basic level this includes protestors marching through Paris - at least I think it was Paris - with placards all written in English!
Much might be forgiven, but the film's fundamental flaw is that it totally failed to explain the metamorphosis of Nigel Havers' character from a sensitive and considerate friend and altruistic doctor to a snivelling wife-beating homicidal lunatic. We understand he was coerced and duped into betraying his friends; but his subsequent behaviour is a complete non sequitur.
OK, made for TV, we didn't expect too much. There's still quite a bit to entertain. An 'A'-movie it is not.
Tell Your Friends