ken_bethell

As the subject of this film is still alive I feel that Cheney's involvement in events surrounding 9/11 have been somewhat glossed over. I think we all remember when, with President Bush in Florida, Cheney was in command of events and inexplicably chose not to scramble the US air force after the Twin towers were hit. 'Technical reasons' was the only explanation ever offered. This film presumably could not explore that aspect on legal grounds. The transformation of Bale into Cheney was incredible and the acting all round was of the highest order. It just lacked boldness.

As I have not seen the two productions 'His' and 'Her' prior to viewing 'Them' it is impossible to judge how well the two earlier films were edited to produce 'Them'. Having no preconceived ideas I was at least able to make objective opinion on what was available and what I saw left me a little bewildered but also impressed. Puzzlement maybe is what the director intended and I am not averse to being left in a little confusion when the end credits start rolling. If you can still be talking about a movie 24 hours after having seen it then maybe the director got something right. This slow and almost claustrophobic portrayal of love gone wrong did not strain one's attention span. We are left to believe that the loss of their baby boy was the reason for their estrangement although much is left to conjecture and deliberately so. Her attempted suicide is shown before any reason becomes apparent and it does enhance the interest. Just how many women jump off New York bridges, never mind being rescued with nothing than a bruised arm, is however an aspect that perhaps shouldn't be explored further. The fact that only minimal effort is made to counsel her afterwards was also remiss and gave the impression that it was nothing more serious than an accidental overdose. I felt that an opportunity was missed at this point to have stretched her character but again the director probably thought otherwise. The acting is superb though. Both Chastain and McAvoy are ideally cast as is William Hurt playing the concerned parent in the kind of niche role he seems to have made his own in recent years. Would I recommend it? Yes but only to people I thought might appreciate it. Art house material.

Nietzsche said that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger which may well have been the director's inspiration for this dramatic piece of Belgian kitchen-sink cinema. Located in the working class suburbs of Brussels Marion Cotillard plays a factory worker made redundant by a ballot among her fellow workers who had to choose between her job and a thousand Euro bonus. She manages to have the ballot rerun but must convince the other workers that she is worth saving and in doing so we see the incredible range of emotions that Cotillard can bring to a role. It is a veritable tour de force of a performance. People will initially ask what is an Oscar winner and big Hollywood star doing in such a low budget movie but by the end of the film you know why. After that Oscar-winning performance as Edith Piaf she was courted by Hollywood and appeared in numerous big productions alongside the likes of Day-Lewis, di Caprio and Depp and was even a big Batman villain but those films often showed her as window dressing and presented no real opportunity to act. 'Rust and Bone' was a rare opportunity but English language audiences in general are reluctant to watch subtitled films. Which is a real shame when such talent is on display.

If, like me, you find it difficult to suspend belief when faced with illogical and irrational story lines then you might have a problem enjoying this piece of science fantasy. Dismiss from your mind immediately how a technologically advanced society could exist, above the snowline, on cloud-shrouded mountain top in total isolation with no apparent means of life support. Well they do have have climate control. I however will not comment further on that. Forget about enquiring where children come from (test tube?) in a population given regular injections to suppress their basic human feelings including sex. But do consider how the community leader (Streep) can have no scruples when it comes to murdering children who threaten her doctrine but who strangely tolerates and even encourages the activities of a sage character (Bridges), the'Giver', who imparts dangerous knowledge to a chosen 'receiver' as a part of periodic ritual. Are we suppose to believe that the Bridges character represents Streep's unconscious desire to want to return society to the way it was? You must draw your own conclusions on that one. The acting is fine and there is even a brief appearance by Taylor Swift who with dark hair looked uncannily like Scarlett Johanssen in recent roles. My bottom line verdict is that it could have been much much better.

Like me numerous people commenting on this film have done so from memory and have not seen the film since its original release in 1969. This must be indeed be testimony to its lasting appeal for, strangely, it would appear that this film has not been released on DVD/Blu-ray. I will not discuss the historical content which seems to have met with rather mixed reviews (failing memories?) but I shall concentrate instead on the off-screen relationship of the principal protagonists played by David Hemmings and Prunella Ransome. Hemmings was, by his own admission, a 'Jack the Lad' who when asked to kiss Ransome in rehearsal did so in a manner that can only be described as being in the French style. Ransome was so furious that she refused to speak to him offset and in fact there was no communication between them again for nearly thirty years. Hemmings eventually apologised at a function they were attending and it was their final meeting for they were both dead within 4 years. The cause of Ransome's death has never been made public.

The first thing I would like to say about this film is that it kept me entertained for two hours without once glancing at the clock.This in itself is no mean achievement in an age where many movies are unnecessary long. Hollywood obviously believes length is important if you want to be successful. Entertaining as it was I'm not so sure it was plot that kept me watching as much as the parade of veteran actors on display. A rather disparaging comment and maybe one that should have been reserved for the confusing historical context of the storyline itself. Being of an age that remembers the activities of the Weather Underground I was under the impression that their acts of terrorism had ceased by the time the Vietnam peace agreement was signed in 1973 since the Vietnam War had been the organisation's raison d'etre but in this film the Weather Men are still on a mission as we approach 1980. The film also has amusing parallels with another piece of Redford left-wing theatre, 'The Way we were'. In this 1973 film the Redford character, a talented screen writer, backs away from confrontation with the Communist witch-hunt in Hollywood and seeks respectability by compromising his ability and forsaking the woman he loves in the process. His 2012 alta ego also loses his passion for the cause and sacrifices love and a daughter by walking away, 'I grew up'. In both films Redford played people much younger than himself. I'm not sure what this says about Robert Redford but I think my wife summed it up when she remarked after watching an early scene in 'Company, 'He's not the father of that young girl, is he?' Exactly, a 75 year old unconvincingly playing somebody twenty years younger while in 1973 film he was a 36 year college student! Anyway,enough of Redford who otherwise gives a competent performance. It was good to see Julie Christie again and who along with Nick Nolte, Susan Sarandon and Chris Cooper and still capable of teaching the young pretenders a thing or two. All in all and enjoyable and nostalgic evening's viewing.

I saw this film when I was sixteen and remember thinking how cool and hip it was at time. French New Wave they called it. And what did I think of 'Breathless' fifty years on after viewing the anniversary DVD. Well, I'm not sure which I found funnier, reading the other comments eulogising over Jean-Luc Godard or the movie itself. This exaggerated snapshot of Parisian sub-culture circa 1959 simply does qualify as a 'Great Film'. Great films are like great music. You would not say Tchaikovsky's Pathetique was a great symphony for 1893: it is a great symphony this or any other year. Gone with the Wind and All Quiet on the Western Front are great films because they are as watchable now as they were when first produced. I have watched both 'Les Parapluies de Cherbourg' and 'Un Homme et une Femme' in the last six months.

Both films are of the same decade as Breathless but survive much better. Suffice to say that Breathless may have wooed them in 1960 but it wouldn't today.Each generation has produced films which seemed chic and fashionable on opening but which quickly become nothing more than clichés for the period in which they were produced. They became nostalgic and amusing reminders of a seemingly more innocent age. It is however worth watching this film for no other reason than seeing Jean Seberg. She is mesmerising.I remember falling in love with that beautiful face and she even made bobbysocks seem cool! How tragic it is that she died so young. Yes, this film is a collector's item but I'm not sure it's necessarily for the right reasons. I can't profess to being a Godard devotee. In my opinion he's over-hyped but people continue to go into intellectual overdrive to express their admiration of his style. Anyone though who can produce a blockbuster on a shoestring budget does deserve some respect. He would seem to be a director that is above criticism and that is is ridiculous. The Tarantino of his generation? If you like but not for me.

If a saw this film dozen I don't think I would be any the wiser as to what the director's intentions were. The French cinema has been a parlous state for some-while and it has survived in the main due to its ingenuity, Canal Plus and its utilisation of a never-ending conveyor belt of talented actors and writers. What the French cinema is most reluctant to do is to finance extensive film sets and 'The Last Metro' is no exception - even a 'brick wall' moved when leaned against! The scene is WW2, occupied France and a small Parisian theatre managed in the absence of her Jewish play-write husband by Film and stage actress Marion played by Deneuve. We very quickly learn that he hasn't fled France at all but is ensconced in the theatre's basement where he continues to write and direct in apparent secrecy, from everyone but his wife, listening to his productions through a chimney flue! Sounding implausible? Read on. Enter stage left Gerard Depardieu a dapper young leading man for the theatre's new production who, between learning his lines and trying to bed a lesbian co-worker (who writes this stuff?) starts acting furtively. Could our man be starting to give some meaning to this aimless exercise? Is he French resistance? Hooray, a stage prop, a record player purloined from the theatre is used in a Resistance bombing. Alas, don't hold your breathe expecting scenes of graphic carnage and dismembered Nazis. The producers no doubt rubbed their hands at the cost saving by simply having a radio broadcast announce the outrage. It doesn't get any better unfortunately and we are already past two hours. We are then treated to a five minute parody on the liberation of Paris - the film's only attempt at humour - before the final sequence where, with a play-within-a-play, the production at long last becomes imaginative. Too little too late I'm afraid. What were Deneuve and Depardieu thinking about when they signed up for this? And oh, the Last Metro? This refers to last Paris subway train to run at night before the curfew is enforced. Relevance to the film? Nothing in the slightest.

''There are a few shots in the film that seem to be unrelated to the story. This is yet another technique often used by Kieslowski to heighten the intellectual capacity of his films.'' This is a quote I read concerning this film and which to me sums up the pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook that seems to surround this director when he brings a new film to town. Yes, 'Blue' is a study in overcoming grief: it is also an exercise in over-indulgence. One of the 'unrelated shots' referred to would undoubtedly have been the scene where the camera pans away from a troubled Julie (Binoche) onto the street where an old lady, bent double with osteoporosis, is endeavouring to deposit a bottle into a bottle bank. The camera lingers while she labours to push the bottle through the slot. Mission accomplished the scene changes to something totally unrelated. What was the purpose of that scene? What did the pain of an crippled old lady have to do with Julie's tribulations? Is it Kieslowski's purpose in life to make you believe that every unrelated scene has some hidden symbolism or is he really having a laugh at how foolish we are. Having previous seen his 'Veronique' which was similarly puzzling I have reached the conclusion that this director now has a status, like that of many modern artists, where nobody dare criticise for fear of being called an intellectual philistine. On the credit side however is the use of classical music which engendered atmosphere something which it also achieved in 'Veronique'. Of Juliet Binoche what can be said that hasn't been said already? A superb actress with a wonderfully expressive face. In my opinion the only reason to watch this film.

It was after I heard that Vertigo had replaced Citizen Kane as 'Best Movie of all Time' that I pondered as to whether I had actually seen this film. This was curious as I had no difficulty in remembering 'Kane' despite having only seen it once some 35 years ago. Since I could not recall missing any other James Stewart picture of that era or any of the other big productions of 1950s I assumed that I had seen it but would view it again. I watched it last night and my instincts were correct. I had forgotten this film because it is forgettable! In fact the only memorable thing about the film was the San Francisco skyline which had become beautifully enhanced by its conversion to BluRay. I have never been a great Hitchcock fan for the very reason that his films tend to be over-stylised and Vertigo is no exception. No great acting accolades either in fact dialogue seem to be a secondary consideration to the visual enactment of Stewart's character's mental decline. The film could easily have been a silent film. One critic commented on being fascinated by the complexity of this multi-layered psycho-drama. Uhmm, really. The ending was pure David Lynch - not difficult to see where he got his inspiration, but it was inadequate for a movie lasting beyond two hours. For lovers of this movie genre I would recommend 'The Woman in the Fifth'. Don't be put off by its low rating in IMDb. It is fine example Pawel Pawlilowski's direction and Ethan Hawke is excellent as the mentally-bewildered American adrift in Paris. Back to Vertigo and what more can I say? This film and others of its period have garnered praise well beyond their station by virtue of the current nostalgia boom. My criterion for deciding how good a film is is whether or not it stands the test of time - does it look dated? This film does, as does 'From Here to Eternity' but 'On the Waterfront' doesn't.

It's purely personal of course.

A Polish director and an enigmatic movie - no surprise there then! What does surprise me is the relatively low rating that viewers have awarded, presumably because they didn't understand or attempt to understand the symbolisms. Any movie that makes you sit and think - even if your initial reaction is unfavourable - deserves a higher mark especially when you consider the unimaginative dross continually being served up by Hollywood.Ethan Hawke is very good as the confused and dishevelled writer coming to terms with life in Paris after being institutionalised and becoming estranged from his family. What had he done? With hindsight it is possible to interpret the events that follow as chapters in his mind that happen immediately after his incarceration. He is in fact never released. His wife's hostility and the loss of his luggage - a pretty obvious metaphor - represent the breaking of ties with his former life. The shabby hotel, hostile neighbour and a daily routine of watching people entering a secure area are all symbolic of life in a mental institution which he observes while attempting to write letters to his daughter that she will never receive. His daughter found wandering in a park alludes to his initial breakdown. Kristin Scott Thomas, as alluring as ever, plays one of his two sexual fantasies conjured up from his literary past. Exotic, desirable and willing she seduces him into leaving his miserable life and joining her forever: an undoubted euphemism for suicide. At least the blinding white light that followed was unmistakable. Well that's my take. You may have a different explanation altogether but it surely emphasises my initial assertion that any film that can make you think is a good film no matter what the subject matter.

It is hardly surprising that I repeat sentiments expressed in previous comments about the arrival of a great new British talent, I refer, of course, to Jessica Brown Findlay. In what would have otherwise been an unremarkable coming-of-age movie Findlay( 'Emelia') manages to transform the mundane. This lady's love affair with the camera and her audience was so complete that I felt sorry for that other rising British starlet, her co-star, Felicity Jones ('Beth'). It reminded me of the way that an emerging Angelina Jolie took over 'Girl Interrupted'much to the chagrin of the film's major star Winona Ryder. Findlay has that indefinable something, call it stage presence, that Jones doesn't. Unfortunately Jones also suffers from the same problem encountered by Sarah Michelle Geller in her mid-20s that of having the face of a perpetual fifteen year old! It would appear that Jones can go on playing schoolgirls into her thirties. Steady employment maybe but not so clever if you want to be accepted as a serious actor. The film has some solid character acting from such stalwarts as Peter Vaughan as Emelia's wise old granddad, Julia Ormand as Beth's embittered mother and Sebastian Koch, as Beth's one-book-wonder father with a midlife crisis. Good writing also, that broadens the characters and gradually enables the viewer to realise that it is not only Emelia who carries an 'albatros' that is stunting her ambition but all those around her are also burdened in some manner that is preventing them from moving on. In endeavouring to lift her burden Emelia alters their lives by the sheer impact of her personality. Interestingly two years elapsed between production and release of this film. One wonders if the studio, realising that the hitherto unknown JBF was becoming a star (Downton Abbey), had decided to rework the film and publicity to reflect her new status. If so I think the studio made the right decision.

I feel almost too embarrassed to admit that I even watched this film. I suppose it's being a sucker for sci-fi that lead me into wasting 95 minutes of my life. Seeing John Rhys-Davies name in credits also lead me astray.I can only assume this actor agreed to appear before reading the script. His early demise must have come as welcome relief from such torment.I think the actors also realised quite early on in the proceedings that they were performing in a true turkey and started to ham it a little because it got humorous and I feel certain that was not the director's intention. What more can I say.The story? A device about as big as a medium sized suitcase,that does not require electricity because it runs on power generated by cold fusion is being tested in front of a number of dignitaries.It is claimed that when in operation the device can look in on parallel universes. What happens next is ..... but why should I spoil your enjoyment.

I came across this film quite by chance and as an avid film fan I was puzzled as to how I had missed such a big-budgeted production back in 2009. Well, after sitting through the extended version, all two hours and thirty seven minutes some questions were answered. It was an art film. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing but it did at least explain the anonymity. What I do find inexplicable however, particularly during such austere times, is that nearly $50M can be raised for a project which had no realistic prospect of ever bringing a return. Extraordinary - a labour of love perhaps? Anyway to the film itself. I sat, without fidgeting or clock-watching, through the entire film without being able to explain to anybody at its conclusion what had in fact happened. You kind of felt you knew but didn't feel confident enough to make your thoughts public. The film had sufficient visual impact to keep you attentive while mentally you were in a complete flux! What has been interesting is reading the comments of others. One said that there was humour and LOL scenes, really? I don't recall any. Many used the year 2092 as a reference point as if it were the only solid foundation on which to hang the story but as we see at the conclusion even the year is a facade which comes crashing down. Somebody even said that any production that included 'Mr.Sandman' in its soundtrack was good enough for him. Clearly some people are easily pleased. Overall the film could be said to be an experience but then again 'experience' is often used as an euphemism for a mistake.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder ..... really? It is a sentiment that might have had resonance with earlier generations of lovers parted by wars and/or suffering from the means to communicate but not one it would appear that sits to heavily on today's younger generation if we are to believe this modern tale of Trans-Atlantic love. Indeed a modern suffix to this expression might read ' .... but the loins require instant gratification'. In fact it is not the impatience of youth that is questioned in this film but the American authorities in the issuing of visas who are portrayed as uncaring and unfeeling. Anna (Felicity Jones) exceeds her student visa by having a romantic fling with Jacob (Anton Yelchin) and is shocked when she is barred on her re-arrival back in USA. What a surprise. Even more of a surprise is how she got that far since she would not have been allowed to fly without a visa and which certainly would not have been issued to her in London. A technical error maybe but one the director was obviously prepared to overlook to keep their separation bubbling. The acting was competent and the editing sharp enough to keep you focused, as in '..and where are we now?' As a romantic film it was soured by the infidelity of the leading characters - call me old fashioned - which ultimately left you devoid of feeling for either of them. When a director alienates his audience in this fashion he is on dangerous ground because a disgruntled romantic does not recommend such films to friends..... and that includes me.

I have always been a Woody Allen fan but let's face it his decade-long European sabbatical has hardly produced anything remotely memorable until now. The switch in genre from those uninspiring melodramas to romantic fantasy works perfectly. It can be no coincidence that Owen Wilson was chosen to play the leading man for a part that Allen clearly wrote with himself in mind. Without ever consciously mimicking Allen Wilson manages to put across that same angst and self-doubt in an amusing and totally charming performance. Indeed it is difficult to think of another actor attempting it without resorting to impersonation. Marion Cotillard lit up the screen as usual. Has that woman ever appeared in a bad film? The photography was also worthy of comment. Paris was made to look the centre of the universe and even in pouring rain it looked completely irresistible.Woody Allen should receive the freedom of the city for his contribution to French tourism.

Nothing like spoiling the show is there. I saw this film knowing nothing about the director or the story only that there was a good cast of actors and something about the coming together of two worlds. After an irritating long opening which contained sequences of forthcoming events that do not actually happen the film concentrates on Justine's (Dunst) decline into manic depression immediately after her wedding. The festivities that follow profile and establish the characters of the other major protagonists Hurt, Rampling,Gainsbourg and Sutherland and just when you are starting to think that the astronomical references are some-kind of metaphor for Justine's mental condition, you are informed that a planet called Melancholia - well there's a coincidence - is on a possible collision course with earth. But hold on, it will fly past because Sutherland the amateur astronomer and his little telescope tell us so - who needs Hubble, Mount Palomar or Jodrell Bank? Melancholia then veers away before changing course for earth again. What?? Okay a complete suspension of the laws of physics has now taken place which was probably all too much for the Sutherland character who now tops himself. The fact that the world would have been devastated long before the actual impact is another irrelevance as we now watch Dunst and Gainsbourg sit, take coffee and await the planet's final demise. Not soon enough. The acting was good throughout as was the photography. The rest was just nonsense.

I am sorry that I don't share everybody else's apparent appreciation of the film. In my opinion Hollywood doesn't do the 'Film Noir' genre particular well but with one notable exception and it is no coincidence that DRIVE takes it inspiration from the 1978 classic THE DRIVER. If you believe that the vacant enigmatic stares and irritatingly long pauses in dialogue are more than balanced out by the unnecessarily strong violence then this film is for you.The 1978 film did not require excessive bloodletting to capture the audience attention which was more fascinated by the chemistry of Ryan O'Neill and Isabelle Adjani. Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan simply failed to ignite and I do not see the former as a new Hollywood heavy.He has no charisma.

Portman plays the young second wife of a New york lawyer.Already labelled a home-wrecker she is furthered burden by guilt borne out of a mistaken belief that she accidentally smothered the couple's eight day old daughter.Her guilt clouds her judgment and she eventually alienates her friends and family. So you get the idea. It is a strong family drama that is well paced and finely acted with Natalie Portman offering a far greater range of her acting ability than she did in 'Black Swan'. Just how the studio came to include 'comedy' in its description however is totally beyond me. There are smiles but certainly no laughs. What is intriguing is why this film had such a limited cinema release.It appeared briefly in autumn of 2009 and then was shelved completely until released on DVD just recently. Given that Portman has been collecting all the acting accolades since last Xmas it is mystifying as why the studio wouldn't want to capitalise on her success.I wonder maybe if some of the hostile comments aimed at the Portman character in this film may have influenced the studio's decision to withhold its release.

One wonders from the adverse comments what people expected when they tuned into this five-part HBO production. They must have been aware that it was a essentially just a domestic drama set in California during the depression of early 1930s and yet people draw attention to the lack of action. Yes it is slow paced but its also wonderfully atmospheric At no time during the six hours or so was I restless or feel the need to check my watch. Everything about this production was class. The acting,directing,and photography were flawless.Great attention was paid to Winslet wardrobe to ensure an authentic look even to the extent of dressing her in late-20s outfits because few people could afford to buy the new styles of 1931. I have not seen the Joan Crawford neither have I read the book but I cannot believe the author intended to convey the impression that Mildred's daughter Veda was transformed almost overnight from a failed concert pianist into an accomplished soprano.This apparent absurdity must have bemused any aspiring classical singer looking in who knows only too well that there is no substitute for the long years of voice training. This is a minor criticism however and does not detract from the general pleasure.

Irrespective of a movie's subject matter if you can honestly say that you did not fidget or glance at your watch but sat intrigued for the duration then you have been entertained and what more can a film offer than that? Unknown is that kind of offering. The film has some very implausible moments the most memorable being the notion that you could somehow 'prep' a terrorist will sufficient knowledge in a highly technical subject to enable him to blend in with the other eggheads at a convention.However this is not an immediate distraction and represents the kind of flaws you talk about AFTER a film's conclusion. Someone said this was a typical Liam Neeson film and their probably right.Matt Damon is the only other actor that immediately comes to mind who embodies that look of both confusion and resilience to adversity. Neeson's ally in his battle against evil forces is the beautiful Diane Kruger who plays a rather unlikely looking immigrant taxi driver but then again there's nothing like an attractive woman to divert your mind from impossible scenarios. Enough criticism .... enjoy!

What constitutes entertainment? That is almost an impossible question to answer.Some would say that any film that can keep you enthralled for nearly two hours and leave you talking about it long afterwards would qualify and 'Never let me go' certainly meets that criteria. Not having read the book I had no preconceived ideas on what to expect and what I got was a contemporary horror made all the intense by the fact that this drama plays out events that we all know society could endorse in a not-too-distant future, events that we thought were pure science fiction back in Aldous Huxley's time. The film starts with captions eluding to great medical and scientific breakthroughs in 1952 and 1967 that advanced humanity in its quest to eradicate disease. In those captions alone the tone is set. For the unsuspecting I should point out that those years brought the discovery of DNA and the world's first heart transplant respectively but no specific reference is made of these events and I leave what is referred to as 'modelling' to your own imagination. A clever deception then follows with protracted scenes that appear to show an orderly life at a typical English boarding school. The narrative continually but subtlety indicates that all is not what it seems. The reality and the raison-d'etre of these children then slowly dawns on the viewer. Shocking and brilliant! The film is inspired, at least in part, by Huxley's 'Brave New World' where people are created for a specific function and live their lives in grateful resignation of their fate. Pathos is added by a menage-a-trois in which the principal characters have relationships against a background of impending doom. Not the most cheerful of films but beautifully crafted with first rate performances and a wonderfully sinister ambiance. If you liked 'Children of Men', and films of that genre, this is for you. Entertainment is after all a personal taste.

What I said regarding Part 1 is still irrelevant for Part 2. Both films lack the ability of conveying the magnitude of events in France at that period. The relief of Orleans is said to have been an engagement involving around 15,000 soldiers but at no time do you feel it is more than a skirmish. When Joan, with a half-dozen soldiers in support, shouts up at the walls of Paris for its surrender I can only surmise that arrows were shot at her because no rotten fruit was available! Yes I know she probably had an army behind her but that's not the impression the viewer gets. Such events as heroic leaders leading mass armies into battle may have been clichéd by films like El Cid but they still stir the spirit. This film never does. The war of words that follow with her imprisonment and trial by the English lacked any intellectual substance. Interestingly the film does not portray the English as the villains.This is reserved for the duplicitous French noblemen. France created St.Joan and clearly accepts the blame for her demise which is the only message this film conveys.

I am a great admirer of the French cinema. That their film industry can consistently produce good quality material with very limited money speaks volumes for the professional artistry employed throughout the industry. Which brings us to 'Jeanne la Purcelle'. Joan of Arc has always been an emotive subject and one the French have found difficult to commit to celluloid. Although it was a dark historic episode from which France eventually emerged reinvigorated the story of Joan is essentially one of treachery and appeasement. A factual account might satisfy the purists but is not one that necessarily makes for good cinema. This is an 'epic' production, but only euphemistically, for size is not everything. Any production that stretches for three and a half hours, albeit over two films, has got to be offer the viewer something to compensate for what were only ever going to be symbolic battle scenes .... and it didn't!

It was wasn't just that the full scale assault was portrayed more like a small guerrilla skirmish it was the fight scenes themselves, the one-on-ones, which were poorly choreographed. The narrative was adequate but uninspiring - I guess Shaw is a hard act to emulate. The acting was merely efficient - Sandrine Bonnaire went on to do far more impressive work. The editing was poor with the camera being allowed to linger eternally on irrelevancies presumably to engender an 'atmosphere'. It failed. Overall the producers bit off far more than they could chew and were far too ambitious given the financial constraints imposed. A sobering lesson in how not to make a film.

The only thing missing from this film was the music of Ennio Morricone such was the deliberate attempt to recreate a Serge Leone-style modern thriller in which George Clooney takes on the role of our mysterious and enigmatic stranger. The problem is that those old Spaghetti westerns made up for their lack of intelligent dialogue with blazing action and high body counts which were performed with a certain panache. The same however could not be said of this film.

The action scenes are few and any notions we may have harboured of a romantic hero are quickly dispelled in the opening sequence.Clooney's script could have been written on the back of a calling card and in fact if the film had stayed in the Italian language that it frequently switched into I doubt whether anybody would have noticed. Movie directors make a big mistake when they fail to create at least one leading character in a film that is not likable or who cannot be empathised with.If you don't care, as in this instance, whether Clooney lives or dies the film becomes a pointless and futile exercise. For a such a charismatic actor this was a strange part for Clooney.That it went to Box Office No.1 was due to his lasting appeal and not the film's qualities.