Jim-249

The story has real potential - girl invents fiancé for career reasons, has to produce him on a social occasion, the guy she pays to fill the role falls for her, etc.etc . - but once it becomes evident from way out that it's abandoning any subtlety and heading for the happiest of Happy Endings, all you can do is sit back and enjoy its charm. In that sense, it's a perfect Friday-Night Film - relaxing, unwinding, undemanding. A small success - which could have been a bigger one. I'd not seen Jennifer Aniston before (WHAT!!! What planet have you been living on !!!), and I was impressed by her comic acting. She has a great range of facial expressions that she controls and times perfectly. Kevin Bacon is wasted in a silly role. Why do actors of his talents accept such thankless parts! (Well, he can enjoy the bedroom scenes with J. Aniston, I suppose . . .). Oh, incidentally, poor Jennifer has to suffer some of the worst dresses you're ever likely to see in a glossy fillum. Watch out for the cleavage-disaster that they inflict on her for her most glamorous outing.

I enjoyed this more than most Almodovar films and was especially impressed by the power and deftness of the plot. It was not a surprise at the end to see that it was based on a book by Ruth Rendell. Can anyone tell me which?

I would recommend this film just for its superb photography - except that it also happens to be a lavish, well-plotted gangster film. The mobsters are every bit as nasty as those in "The Godfather", with the (tasteful?) difference that the violence is always off-stage - though only just, at times. This is not a matter of squeamishness : most of the film is seen through the eyes of a 14-year-old boy, a reluctant 'witness' (well, he's usually on the other side of the door) to the various plots, sub-plots and counter-plots. On second thoughts, the gangster boss here is NASTIER than anything in the Godfather. That point doesn't immediately sink in, because the film is so BEAUTIFUL, a real feast for the eyes, and because the final twist in the story - in my case, anyway - has a delayed impact. It's one of those films you need to see again, armed with the knowledge of how it is going to turn out - like "The Usual Suspects". If this is how Chinese cinema is developing, we shall be seeing - and welcoming - more of this stunning fare.

I was shocked to see what a low opinion users of IMDb had of this film. It has the lowest vote score I've come across! But I suppose it depends of your taste in thrillers. This is a P.D.James-type psychological thriller, where despite an overall air of menace it's hard to guess who the villains are - until the end, of course. For example, there are various tough, silent 'gorillas': are they hoodlums and hitmen (Boo! Hiss!), or are they devoted, loyal bodyguards (Hurray!)? Even when it's apparent who's been murdering folk, the puzzle of how everyone else fits into the picture remains. Claude Brasseur plays, with cheeky charm, a TV script-writer, who falls for a mysterious and beautiful blond (Mireille Darc) he finds walking on the winter beach. He is the only character free of suspicion in what follows - which I can't discuss without giving away the story. It reminded me of "After Pilkington", Simon Gray's powerful psycho-thriller, in which Bob Peck found himself similarly tied up with a mysterious (and beautiful) Miranda Richardson. In fact, both films end in the same way (as does "Of Mice and Men"); perhaps it is this ending that is not to the taste of those who gave it only one vote. If so, what would they have made of the end of "Of Mice and Men"? Give it a try, anyway; it kept me involved throughout. Not the greatest thriller, but worth more than the vote here suggests.

Gérard Corbiau's films always promise us at least two treats: visual excitement and splendid music. "The Music Master" and "Farinelli" had obvious grounds for indulging in both of these, this film less so, since there is no obvious connection with music and no chance for lavish, period costuming. Nevertheless, he gives the story of a lonely youngster's (François') experiences in an army school a rich score throughout (Fauré, De Falla, Grieg, Schubert, Beethoven), subtly underlining emotional moments. Visually, he gives us stunning scenes of Provence landscapes, but in fact every shot is carefully composed, so that even mundane subjects (a schoolroom, a dormitory) are alive with interest. It's an absorbing film, moving in the way it intermingles brutality and gentleness. François himself is both a boxer and a writer/poet. In a memorable scene, a grumpy, unsympathetic French teacher suddenly reveals to his startled pupils that he survived Dachau - François and his class here learn about real cruelty. It's packed with incident, rich in characters, and you do get emotionally involved in the predicament of a sensitive, determined youngster, confused about God, love and injustice, while knowing that his training will lead him overseas to the war in Indochina. Yet the story suffers from one of the common problems of novel-adaptations : short-cutting the narrative so that motivation becomes confused. The handsome Julien (the 'Chef' = sergeant-in-charge) decorates the scene, but it's never really clear why he feels so protective towards François, and we never fully understand his violent relationship with his wife Lena. More importantly, it's not easy to accept the depth of the attraction between François and the wife. I took the first nude scene to be a dream, a fantasy - but I was wrong, and by the end of the film it's clear that their love is genuine and lasting. (Disturbing, too, is the nagging worry about nude scenes involving such a young actor. . . ). But don't miss this film, if it comes your way: I strongly recommend it.

If you like the "Moonstruck" kind of film - a many-layered, multi-charactered tumble of the comic and the tragic (with plenty of shouting and raging) romping to a happy ending - you'll love this. It's packed, it's fast-moving, it's funny, it's wonderfully acted - above all, it's human. The elderly, gentle Mastroianni still charms and delights, though it's a pity they challenged his English with so many difficult lines. As a counterbalance, Shirley Maclean is a Fury again (cf. "Steel Magnolias"), to be smoothed and softened only by the friction with daughter Bibby (Kathy Bates) and the dedication of her new suitor. True, the story has its creaks and groans - what better to road to a woman's heart than to save her grandson from certain death? - but exuberance carries the day, we are swept along and are happy to rejoice with the rest of the cast in the Grand Finale. Of course, if you didn't like "Moonstruck" . . .

Not only an extraordinary piece of epic filming, but also, in typical Youssef Chahine vein, a very humane view of territorial struggles and religious warfare. A remarkably pacifist outlook for 1963, preaching tolerance and honest diplomacy, decrying the crude pursuit of Glory at the expense of the lives of humble soldiers.

Though the film is "serious" and well intentioned, telling a heart-breaking story with a valid message, its impact is considerably weakened by a naïve story-line and a undistinguished screen-play. I hunted around to see if this was "based on a true story", like "The Birdman of Alcatraz", but I found no evidence; that might have excused some of the awkwardness. There are some movingly warm scenes, though I was never groping for a kleenex. It reminded me of one of those Worthy Westerns I watched as a kid, where the bad guy meets a good guy/woman who changes his life: it had too many predictable and not totally credible steps. When, at the end, the hoodlum about to shoot him says, "Prison sure turned you stoopid!", I was inclined to agree. He talked his way out of the jam, but only because the narrative demanded it: his speech would never have convinced me, any more than Eli's words in the prison cell would have made me turn over a new leaf. These key "speeches" lacked any eloquence, and I frequently found myself predicting the dialogue. Nevertheless its best moments, especially the confrontations, are really gripping - until the end, that is, when it's too easy to foresee that no harm will come to anyone and Good will prevail. It's unfashionable and courageous to give such a story a happy ending (cf. "La Haine", where the vicious circle of hate is NOT broken and a bleak future is foreseen), and perhaps its optimism speaks more deeply to audiences in the States.

A film that provokes thought is always welcome; this entertained and at the same time created certain unforgettably disturbing scenes - as one would expect from a director of this calibre. I'm grateful for that, but when I found myself asking why it hadn't grabbed me as powerfully as some of Weir's other films, I realized that he hadn't really made me CARE what happened to Truman - I could see the horror of the idea, but I felt no real emotional link to the hero. It's significant that IMDb categorizes the film as "Drama/Romance". Romance? That side of the film (= his emotional life) flopped completely, perhaps because the real climax of the film is the revelation of Christof's up-in-space studio: the focus of the film switches totally to the Evil Film-maker and we succumb to the glitter of high-tech film-making, even if we're supposed to be as frightened as we once were by Big Brother. Why were we not shown the full impact of the reunion with his "father"? (What on earth would they have said to each other? What pain/joy would Truman have known?) And why are we not shown the wife walking out? (We're told that it happened. What pain must that have caused!) This sort of gap left the protagonist too one-dimensional - which is a great pity, because the parable is a powerful one, worthy of our full involvement.

Was the casting of Jim Carey responsible? Much as I like him, he seemed far too happy and 'normal' for a product of such an upbringing. There could be no existential angst in such a chirpy grinner (though he did try). Would someone with the permanently perplexed expression of a Harrison Ford have fitted better? Interesting, because then it would have been heavier, less amusing. Amusing? Was it a comedy, then? Perhaps there's a genre-confusion here, too! Comedy/Drama/Romance? It was really a Sci-fi Parable that would have been more effective if it had been pitched somewhat higher. (I was interested to see that, though its publicity attracted youngsters, the large majority of those I talked to - I'm a teacher - didn't enjoy it at all.)

I would line up Tristan Bauer's wonderful film with De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief", certain Dickens novels ("Hard Times", "Our Mutual Friend") and Orwell's 'documentaries' ("The Road to Wigan Pier", "Down and Out in Paris and London"), and other moving accounts of poor folk struggling for survival and dignity in a harsh world. Ramon suddenly finds himself jobless and unable to maintain his family. After this metaphorical storm, we watch him and his family descend to the point of despair in a shanty town. Late in the film, there is literally a storm, during which Ramon and his brother struggle to make a coffin for their dead father; they have to remove the doors of their house for the timber they need. Grim stiff, yes, but engrossing, absorbing, haunting. Another unforgettable image (among so many) is that of Ramon suddenly seeing his face on a security video screen; shocked by how gaunt and haggard he has become, he studies the picture, examining every line, as if trying to recognize himself - or to find the self he once knew. After that storm, Ramon returns to his wife, visits his imprisoned son. and the last scenes suggest that the struggle will be maintained, that better days may arrive as suddenly as the bad ones did. Not facile optimism - just a possibility, a hope, enough to keep them all going. Strongly recommended.

I'd recommend this film primarily for its visual impact: the photography and the camera work make the natural setting stunningly beautiful. Splendid pictures of animals are interwoven into the very fabric of the film - in fact, a heron is a recurring linking device between the three stories. Each tells of disappointed love; the first protagonist is a boy, the second a man, the third an old man. They are separate people, but they share a delight in closely observing what they see as beautiful. The narratives are intriguing and unusual: the second, for example, plays with the supernatural and has the largest comic element. I caught this on Belgian TV and it's on my Must-See-Again list.

"Middle-aged divorcee picks up barman in gay bar" isn't a promising plot-line; the title's soft-porn suggestion is also off-putting. But in fact it's a delicate and attractive handling of what could have been sordid relationships. The key word, I suppose, is "tender"; we are frequently led to expect violence (the barman Quentin is a kick-boxer - we watch him attacking a punchbag during the title sequence) but are instead surprised by reasonableness and gentleness. The few nude scenes manage to be erotic without ever being vulgar. Relationships are weird, the film (and Mishima's novel) seems to say, but there can still be tenderness in life. Isabelle Huppert exudes French charm . . .

I'd recommend this film primarily for its visual impact: the photography and the camera work make the natural setting stunningly beautiful. Splendid pictures of animals are interwoven into the very fabric of the film - in fact, a heron is a recurring linking device between the three stories. Each tells of disappointed love; the first protagonist is a boy, the second a man, the third an old man. They are separate people, but they share a delight in closely observing what they see as beautiful. The narratives are intriguing and unusual: the second, for example, plays with the supernatural and has the largest comic element. I caught this on Belgian TV and it's on my Must-See-Again list.