Reviews

Murder is easy is one of my favourite Christie novels. It does features neither Poirot nor Miss Marple, but a retired police officer, Luke Fitwilliam. It does also depict the unfurling of a wonderful grown up love story, between him and Bridget, a Gothic beauty with a past. Why, oh why, dispense with all of this and add Miss Marple to the mixture? And why change practically all the rest, so that nothing but the barest of bones are left of this wonderful, chilly story? To the authors: if you have run out of ideas, why not stick to the original story since Dame Agatha was the genius of the potboiler? Now, let's talk abut the acting. As usual, we have a pantheon of great British actors, but why bother if they are restricted to churning out these horribly stilted dialogues?

Please avoid like the plague if you are Christie fan.

I have just watched Valmont on DVD, after having seen it several times years ago when it was made. As they say with buses, you wait in vain for hours and then two come along! Strange coincidence having two films come out at the same time based on the same book, albeit two very different films.

I will start with my main "Valmont" gripe: you don't get to understand clearly why M.me De Merteuil is so upset with Valmont and does not want to "honour her bet". It's clear from both the book and the S. Frears' adaptation that Merteuil is told by Valmont that he's so smitten with M.me De Tourvel that he cannot give her up. That's why Merteuil's pride and jealousy are aroused and she "declares war" on her ex-lover, thus causing misery to him, herself and all involved. It is a tragedy, not only the tragedy of lost innocence, but death and suffering for all involved. Milos Forman's film takes the view that it's better to look at things from afar, so that they can be assessed from a safer perspective. Frears goes for close-ups, while Forman goes for the Barry Lindon approach: lots of candle-lit interiors, wonderful scenery and a story that takes its time to develop. So this is what I think about Valmont:

1) Colin Firth is a lovely Valmont and there's real chemistry with Meg Tilly's M.me De Tourvel.He looks the part, but I would have loved to have been given more background to his and Merteuil's story. Also, the film would have benefited from dwelling more on his affair with M.me De Tourvel

2) Annette Bening is great as Merteuil, albeit a tad too sadistic at times.

3) All the mise-en-scene is very impressive and every scene looks like a painting

4) The supporting cast are all very strong, with Fairuza Balk being a very credible Cecile (although if I were Cecile I would not be so distant to the charms of such a young and handsome Colin Firth....).

All in all, a very good film, but it feels slightly disjointed and the ending falls a bit flat. I'll give it an 8, because the production values are so very high and Milos Forman is a great director. If it had not been based on a book I know quite well, I probably would not have felt something was missing...

I was very disappointed by this film, especially since the beginning was so promising. Attractive 30 something photographer meets 14 year old girl through chat-room. She turns out to be a kind of avenger for all pedophiles victims and ends up by castrating him and pushing him to hang himself. It's a good idea to have the alleged pedophile played by a young attractive actor but that's about it. Things I found annoying: the girl was so infuriating that I would have liked to see her choke on one of her many wisecracks (like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder or Gwyneth Paltrow in just about any film, they are righteous and beautiful, but boy you just wanna squash them like flies). Why do you have to spoil what could be a thought provoking film with irony and smart-ass film references? I do not condone child molestation but I am very very suspicious of teenage girls from Lolita onwards (I am a woman in case you're wondering): violence is always wrong, but is it always violence? What about statutory rape? Isn't this some kind of a legal oxymoron? Ultimately, I would have appreciated a little more exploration of the grey areas that surround the concept of child sexuality and of the boundaries attached to the idea of "self-service" justice. I think a little less petulance and sarcasm and a little more empathy and silence would have helped... And, by the way, the cinematography was excellent, but so what? Any MTV director worth his salt could do the same or better. Conclusion: a missed opportunity.

For some reason I can't quite figure out, I've always preferred this book to the admittedly superior "Murder on The Orient Express", maybe it's because it is lighter in tone and with a central love story that is quite moving and unglamorous. Derek Kettering falls for Katharine Grey, a woman of charm and moderate beauty, even though past her prime. The book consists of several interweaving stories all centered around a famous gem once owned by the Tsar's family. Exotic dancers, international thieves, American millionaires, the French Riviera, a reluctant English rose heiress, the book has it all. It's lurid, it's gripping, it's great fun! The film instead is just a muddle. The scriptwriters decided to change a few things about the relationship between the main characters,which were of paramount importance for the story's structure. Derek is now "in love with his wife", Mireille is a black (!!!) dancer with an illicit affair with Mr Van Aldin (!!!!) and Lady Tamplin turns up on the train (!!!!!). Why, oh why? At the end, I couldn't give a damn for any one of the characters... Incredibly bad acting, weird accents, too many plots ending nowhere... Don't bother, unless you are a dye hard fan.

I watched this last night on Channel 4 and I consider myself very lucky that I do not suffer from diabetes! The amount of saccharine and sanctimonious feelings was hard to bear... I really preferred her when she was all about sex and pop. Now she has married one hit wonder Guy Ritchie (who by the way behaves like a merry macho man with a Peter Pan syndrome - a mixture that I think very unappealing), she has two kids and has embraced Kabbalah. So she's all about finding the meaning of things, taking responsibility, helping others, etc. It's all very well, but the thing is that she wants to bully other people (like those poor brawny/not brainy dancers) into doing and thinking what she does. The best parts of the film were the bits from her Re-invention tour, where we get to see the tension and the playfulness and the flawless organisation of the Madonna machinery. The worse were the feel-good moments: Madonna sings for her father (a catholic conformist if ever there was one - and she's totally in awe of him), Madonna goes to Israel and sings Imagine, Madonna writes a(cringing, cringing) poem for her assistant Angela, Madonna says a crying goodbye to her dancers, yada, yada, yada.... Conclusion: Madonna is a great star, she just shouldn't have shown us what lies behind the curtain of pop stardom.

....but I was (partly) wrong.

It is certainly not THE perfect adaptation of the great Jane Austen's novel, but is has several redeeming features.

The cinematography, costumes and lighting are stunning and the general feel of earthiness and sensuousness is a real plus.

I was taken by surprise by the director's choice to go for a realistic approach to the life and times of Ms Austen. I think it's refreshing to finally see the difference between the Bingley palace and the Bennet muddy overcrowded household. It was not so apparent in previous versions.

The acting is good too. Kiera Knightley is wonderfully delicate and playful, even though she's nothing like the serene, witty and ultimately sensible Ms Lizzy of the book. And this new Darcy has nothing of the stately arrogance Colin Firth could master so well in the BBC adaptation. It was as if we were watching a kind of 'P&P the early years', as if the characters were portrayed at an even younger age. They are not as mature as we expect them to be. But probably this is because the film had to do a six hour job in just two hours and had to settle for zest instead of irony, for sexiness instead of passion. I thought that Sutherland was much too lovable and kind to be a believable Mr Bennet, but I found his performance heartwarming. The same can be said for Ms Blethyn's Mrs Bennet: she's much too down to earth and careworn for us to really be able to laugh at her, but her performance is topnotch. Normally in P&P the fun comes from Mr Collins, but this time we are sorry for him and pained at his shortcomings. Here, the fun comes from Bingley, a fresh faced, wide eyed, red haired bumbling idiot. The character seems to have traded bonhomie for plain idiocy. However, even though the luminous Jane loves him and for the life of me I couldn't figure out why, even though this passion seems to be born out of absolutely nothing but proximity for a couple of hours, I warmed to Bingley. Lydia and Wickham and the whole militia caboodle could have been dispensed with, as there's not even half the time to start caring about them.

As I said, I was prepared to be severely displeased (as Lady Catherine would say, a stately but ineffectual Judi Dench in Lady Bracknell-mode), but I wasn't. This great book has come to life again, albeit in a surprising new way.

I've been overwhelmed by the beauty of this film.

**** Some spoilers ****

Two people meet in Tokyo, both are married, but they are of different ages and from different walks of life. Still, they can relate to each other not only because they are both feeling lost in a strange town, but also because they are soulmates. Finding a soulmate, as we all know, is one of the most difficult things ever.... The film's narrative per se is rather scant, but here narrative is not needed. The beautiful shots of Tokyo, the glances Bob and Charlotte exchange, their witty conversation, their embrace at the end (by the way, what did he say?) are more than enough to make this film one of the best I've seen of late. A wonderfully poetic study in loneliness and displacement, in love and restraint. If you see it with someone who does not like it, it means you are not kindred spirits.

*** Some spoilers *** This film has the most wonderful opening and goes on to become incredibly predictable. Despite the good idea of casting Harrison Ford against character and of taking full advantage of Pfeiffer's fragile edginess, the plot suffers from piling up too many shocks and horrors. It would have been so much better to dwell on the story rather than on the ghost-story mumbo-jumbo. Also, the sub-plot about the creepy neighbours is nothing but a red herring and it is such a pity, because it could have developed into something intriguing. The cinematography is high class and the acting decent, but ultimately I found it a very disappointing film. P.S. Also, it's a patchwork of loads of other films- i.e. at random: Gaslight, Consenting Adults, Midnight Lace, bits and pieces from Hitchcock, Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction, Final Analysis,Diabolique, Jagged Edge....and more

*** Spoiler (?) *** I wonder if David Mamet was ever asked permission for being so heavily "quoted" by Scott in this movie. The core of MM is very much similar to Mamet's "The House of Games".

The sequence when Cage and Rockwell talk outside the car after the big sting gone awry is almost identical to the one where Mantegna and his buddy stage a similar conversation in Mamet's film. The only thing that's different is the identity of the victim.... Apart from that, Cage is brilliantly playing a smalltime con with a load of neurosis and tics in desperate need of affection. Much in the same vein of Nicholson in "As Good As it Gets". When he meets with is long lost daughter the chemistry between them mirrors the one between the two O' Neals in "Paper Moon". The performances are consistently good and the writing is impeccable, the only - minor - flaw is a kind of patchwork sensation, if you get my drift. The film mixes many atmospheres not to say genres. It's not a comedy, not a thriller, not a drama, but a medley of all these. Luckily, it works. Just one more thing: Sam Rockwell. Great performance.

I just saw the film on TV and, although I already knew the ending (I'm a media student and this is a very famous shot), I was stunned.

The film is quite above the average, certainly better than most contemporary sci-fi movies. Heston gives a powerful performance and many important topics are explored, such as the clash between science and religion, the exploitation of nature and human race's penchant for pointless destruction.

But the ending is so terribly beautiful. No concessions to happy endings or to consoling explanations. I'm just sorry I haven't seen it at the cinema, that majestic Statue of Liberty must be so powerful an image on the big screen. That idea is worth all the movie and more. I was deeply touched... Go see it and enjoy.