amca1960 Reviews

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022)

Delightful and charming

[8/10 · 5 November 2023]

I stopped watching Downton Abbey (the series) before it finished, and I never saw the first film. But this new film is like catching up with old, amiable friends. Old squabbles, misunderstandings, seem to have been swept aside in a mood of sunny geniality.

Even a darker note - of a possibly serious illness - seems barely to scratch the surface. You know that it will all turn out for the best.

The film is thus a very pleasant entertainment, and the cast of course all rise magnificently to it. Maggie Smith as the Dowager Countess Violet has the best lines, as you'd expect. Her inheriting a villa in the south of France leads to all sorts of confusions, and occasions for witty come-backs. Jim Carter as Mr Carson is of course an unending delight; his travel with the family to the new villa (ostensibly to ensure that things are "done right") is played with grave importance, which is comically at odds with the general holiday feel of the trip. His insistent formality, no matter the occasion or situation, has never been better.

The idea of a story-within-a-story is a very old one, but it is done superbly here, with film-makers descending on Downton like a pack of wolves, to the horror of Lord Grantham, the excitement of all the "downstairs" folk, and the interest of Lady Mary. Violet comments about watching films: "I'd rather eat gravel". The filming also leads to a new interest for Lady Mary, showing the possibilities of further character growth.

What is particularly pleasant in this film is a slew of new relationships; Tom (widower of Lady Sibyl) is not only remarried, but seems to have a very comfortable relationship with Violet. Indeed, Violet's famous put-downs and imperious ordering-about seem to have lessened with age; she is a much gentler and more humane Violet than before - but no less witty for that. I also liked Thomas's opportunity for love - surely very rare at the time! - and also Mrs Hughes' gentle acknowledgement of his sexuality (which in fact we had seen in the original series, but it was nice to be reminded of Mrs Hughes' humanity).

Even a death-bed scene, which could be an occasion for maudlin sentiment, is here played with a tenderness which occasionally verges on humour. It has the slightly unreal air of grand opera.

This film is charming, utterly delightful, with plenty of human interest and an excellent storyline. What a tonic it is for troubled times!

Old Dads (2023)

No message, but lots of excellent swearing

[5/10 · 27 October 2023]

Although this film isn't "uproariously funny" as the Netflix blurb suggests, it isn't in fact a bad film. It gets much of its momentum from the excellent swearing and fury from Bill Burr playing an annoyed 50-ish new father called Jack Kelly - and as an Australian, I recognize and applaud good swearing. Jack's four-lettered description of the oh-so woke kindergarten principal was utterly glorious (and, I think, quite true). Following on from that, there is a wonderful scene where Jack has to apologize to the grouped parents, each of which claimed to be offended or insulted by some aspect of his diatribe. However, his previous fury at the principal was superbly wide-ranging, and if you were the sort of person looking for an excuse to be insulted, you would have found it.

This is a film of extremes. Jack's world is comfortably binary (men/women, black/white, good/bad and so on), and everybody knows their place. Thus every facet of his new world, in which, as a new father, he is thrust, is awful to him. Everybody else is as easily shocked and offended as a Victorian maiden aunt; indeed it's a wonder that some of these people seem to live in the modern world at all. After all, you need a certain amount of thick skin to survive, and Jack's nemeses (parents at the kindergarten, for example; the new boss at his old workplace) seem to have skins made of tissue paper.

What gives the film an extra edge is that one of the paperskin parents is in the fact the wife of an old friend of Jack's, one Connor Brody, played with great élan by Bobby Carnavale. So Jack has to be furious with everyone and everything, at the same time trying to maintain a friendship. Throw in Bokeem Woodbine playing a new father-to-be Mike Richards ("But I've had a vasectomy! I always pull out!") and you have the ingredients for some luxurious clowning.

I could possibly tie myself into knots trying to find a "message" in this film, but it probably doesn't have one. It's simply a comedy, with fairly broad humour, unafraid to be crude and ribald, but indeed, why not? Just sit back and enjoy the swearing.

Kandasamys: The Baby (2023)

For fans only, not as good as it could have been

[6/10 · 26 October 2023]

Much as I love the Kandasamys and the films so far, I feel in this film they have lost their way. It doesn't have the brightness, the pizazz, the spark of the previous movies. Worse, they seem to be sticking to a formula: there's a big event involving both families; each mother believes that she and she alone can manage the event properly, and they both get in the way of each other, the event, and in general make a riotous mess of things, until it all gets ironed out neatly at the end to everybody's satisfaction. Along the way the husbands Elvis and Preggie act as foils to their wives, and the redoubtable Aya gets in some excellent one-liners.

In this film, it's Prishen and Jody's new baby; both Jennifer and Shanthi are of course insistent that each one will show the new parents how to do it right. So it's off to Mauritius they all go. However, Jennifer's itinerary of how they will spend each hour of each day is neatly binned by Prishen, who not only has the four new grandparents, and Aya, put up at a luxury resort, but has himself planned an itinerary for them, much to Jennifer's annoyance.

Preggie and Elvis are even more background figures in this film than in others. Aside from one scene when they instruct Prishen on how to be a new dad (selective deafness, and constipation - thus allowing plenty of alone time) they hardly figure at all. Aya indeed has lots of one-liners, and plenty of having the last word, but it all feels a bit forced and without humour. We were hoping for some brilliant punch-lines, but there are none. There is however, a nice scene where she brilliantly describes the four grandparents to their guide, Moothoo.

Throw in some genuine issues: Jody's postnatal depression, and Jennifer's flashback to her own difficult time as a new mother - and there is the potential for real drama. And in different hands this could have been a truly dramatic film. But we don't expect drama from the Kandasamys, we expect humour and a bit of fighting between Jennifer and Shanthi. This drama thus sits a bit oddly in the film, as though the makers weren't quite sure to handle it. Shanthi is having her own difficulties with her second son Desan accused of bullying and being expelled from school; Desan on the other hand feels he can never measure up to the golden son Prishen (as he puts it in a rap: Prishen is a hero; he, Desan, is a zero).

With a scene in which Jennifer explodes in furious anger at both Prishen and Jody, the feel-good ending - one year later, at baby Arya's first birthday party - seems a bit contrived and unnatural. Too much has happened in the film for it just to end with a colourful dance and Aya's voice-over.

I think this film is for Kandasamy fans only - it's not unwatchable, but it's less than it could have been. And if a fifth film is to be made, they will have to seriously lift their game.

Chevalier (2022)

Not bad fun - a bit of a romp through 18th century France

[7/10 · 20 August 2023]

I don't quite understand the furious negativity about this film - as I thought it was highly watchable. I am a classical music lover, and I've known - and hugely enjoyed - the music of St Georges almost from when first recordings were released. He was certainly one of the most remarkable men of his time - supremely gifted: a brilliant violinist, composer, and swordsman (as indeed shown in the film); and known in France as "Le Mozart Noir" - the black Mozart.

The film certainly takes liberties with the facts (insofar as they are known), and the director admits that the opening musical duel between Mozart and St Georges never happened: this idea was based on the similar musical duel between Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix. But so what? It makes for good cinema.

So you can't really call the film a biopic; it's more of an historical fantasy based around St Georges and the tumultuous times of pre-revolutionary France. His music gets a bit of air-play, as it should, but in fact not much really, and I found I didn't mind. I was quite happy simply to be swept along by it.

And it is really very well staged: the costuming, the scenery (both inside and out) are nicely done - I don't know how historically true they are, but for me that doesn't matter. And I thought that Kelvin Harrison Jr was quite fantastic, bringing a gravitas and a passion to his role as the Chevalier.

Weak points were his co-stars: Lucy Boynton as Marie-Antoinette seemed petty and a real light-weight, far from the imperiousness one would expect from the Queen of France. She also seems to wander about quite a bit, especially given the grumblings from the revolutionary mob. The scene in which she appears in St George's lodgings to put him down, she sounds more like an aggrieved shopper being given the wrong change. Samara Weaving is pretty enough, but seems to have no depth of character. Her husband the Marquis de Montalembert is played by Marton Csokas, who acts more like a small-time crook or stand-over merchant than a real menace.

There are times - and possibly too many of them - where the film dragged and seemed to lose its direction and focus. It could do with more rigorous editing and lose 10 or 15 minutes to tighten it up.

For all of those reasons I was going to give it 6/10, but my partner - a much more fierce and demanding critic than me - thought the film was terrific and worth 8/10. So I'm compromising with 7!

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

Uninspired, humorless, and too long

[6/10 · 9 July 2023]

I didn't hate this film, but I enjoyed it far less than I expected to. (I enjoyed it more than my partner though, who fell asleep during it.) But it was still far less than it could have been.

On the plus side: Harrison Ford is still amazing, and can easily carry off an action adventure. There are the usual splendid scenes of Indy fighting on all sorts of moving vehicles. The baddies - Nazis - are easy to dislike. Ethann Isidore as Teddy was simply wonderful - I wish more could have been made of him.

That being said, there didn't seem to be anything really new and exciting about this film. Almost all the action scenes we seem to have seen before: cars and motorbikes with sidecars; trains; it's all been done before. A nice touch though was a wild ride through Tangiers on auto-rickshaws - who knew that these little cheap vehicles were in fact turbo-charged and built (to judge from the battering they received) like tanks?

The supporting characters were weak. Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Helena Shaw was a poor foil; you couldn't work out if she had any depth at all; she kept saying (even if it wasn't true) that it was "all about the money". She simply wasn't a sympathetic character. Mads Mikkelsen as the Nazi Jürgen Voller again played his cards very close to his chest (as it were), delivering most of his lines in a sort of guarded mutter that was at times hard to understand. At no time did he exude any sort of air of malice. It was as though he simply had a job to do; he made for a boring villain.

And the humour - always a nice touch in the best Indiana Jones films, was here in very short supply.

One of the delights of Indiana Jones films is the inventive ways in which the villains meet their end: recall the melting scene towards the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark; the way that Donovan ages to dust in The Last Crusade. In this film, though, Voller simply dies in a plane crash (albeit in Ancient Greece) - a very prosaic end.

And of course - like so many current films - it was too long for its content. Half an hour shaved off and a tighter direction may have made for a better and more disciplined film.

My partner, who's Tamil, said that it was a masala (mixture) of a film, and totally lacking in Bollywood singing and dancing. Come to think of it, he's quite right.

I'm sorry to see the Indiana Jones films end with this one. It could have been so much better.

We Have a Ghost (2023)

Not bad, if overlong and unsure of its genre

[6/10 · 29 April 2023]

This isn't a bad movie by any means, and has a really stellar performance by David Harbour. As the non-speaking ghost his physical communication; his miming, is truly excellent. Jahi Winston, as the youngest son of the family in the ghost's house, and who befriends the ghost and tries to understand him, is also terrific. The CIA agent who tries to play a hard line but who in the end is let down by her humanity, is played by Tig Notaro, who as you'd expect brings total assurance to her character. The always watchable Jennifer Coolidge does a nice role as a TV medium.

All that being said, the film is too long, and suffers from a confusion of genres. Is it a feelgood family movie? Yes, in some ways. Is it a comic horror movie? Yes, in parts. Because there is this confusion all the way through, with the film never being sure of what it is or who its audience might be, I felt a bit let down by it. More rigorous editing may have given us a better product.

There is, however, a splendid car chase.

The scene near the end, of a crazed murderer with a gun, seems strangely at odds with the rest of the film. And you really have to suspend belief - a creakily elderly man suddenly becomes a gun-wielding maniac with, it seems, almost superhuman strength and fighting ability. It was all a bit silly.

As I say, it's not a bad film, but it is annoying in its deficiencies, which with more care need not have been there at all.

(My partner, who is very exacting in his requirements of a good movie, claims firmly that this film should get only 5 stars.)

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Virtuoso performances, but a bit of a drag overall

[5/10 · 15 April 2023]

There's nothing not to love about the utterly stellar performance of Michelle Yeoh; never was an Oscar more richly deserved. And she's supported by a terrific cast, with Ke Quy Kwan as the husband, and Jamie Lee Curtis - an inspired casting choice - playing a dowdy (but powerful!) IRS agent.

That being said, the film was too long for its content, and I thought it lacked coherence. Rather than one film, it felt as though I was watching about 5 very similar films all spliced together, and by about half way through I'd begun to lose interest. (My partner outdid me in lack of interest and fell asleep.) And by the end I was checking my watch with impatience.

In a way it was like watching a virtuoso violinist or pianist playing brilliant music - you start off being entertained and amazed at the sheer technical mastery and wizardry of the musician, but after a while you get bored by the pyrotechnics and wish for something with a bit of heart. This film was a bit like that - intensely full-on, a madcap wild ride, but ultimately lacking heart.

My partner was also uncomfortable about the scenes with the dog being used a sort of catapult or sling shot.

There was humour of quite a broad sort (who will ever look at a butt-plug the same way again?) which I felt was a bit out of character for the film. I should say that I'm no prude, I just thought that these scenes were gratuitous.

In short, too long for its content, and lacking depth of feeling.

Wednesday (2022– )

Most enjoyable, with a few caveats

[8/10 · 23 March 2023]

I thoroughly enjoyed this series. Jenna Ortega as the title character is quite stunning - she carries off the macabre, expressionless and forbidding Wednesday Addams with an aplomb that is nothing short of superb. I can't fault her at all. And I loved the students at Nevermore, especially Wednesday's room-mate Enid - a slightly ditzy blond werewolf who (for almost the entire series) hasn't had a complete "change", much to her own (and her parents') disappointment.

The last episode is a huge madcap whirl of events, mis-identification, confusion, and all at an almost frantic pace. The other episodes were never slow, but they seemed to be more disciplined than the last. And the final identification of the monster and its master seemed a bit unfair as there were no hints during the series that might point to them. On the other hand, the resurrected Joseph Crackstone, with his inane cackle, is great fun, even if he seems like a copy of Emperor Palpatine from the first Star Wars trilogy.

Given that my "Addams Family" experience is based purely on the original TV series - I haven't seen any of the later versions - I didn't like Luis Guzmán as Gomez Addams. He's a poor comparison with the great John Astin (who is still alive at the time of my writing), and plays a somewhat gross Gomez instead of the madly suave characterization of Astin. Thankfully he's only in a few episodes. On the other hand, Catherine Zeta-Jones does a fine Morticia Addams.

These two complaints aside, this was totally good fun, and a very worthy addition to the Addams Family narrative.

I'm now awaiting the second season with impatience!

Tár (2022)

Too long, somewhat tedious, ultimately disappointing, but Blanchett is superb

[5/10 · 5 March 2023]

I enjoyed this film less than I expected to. I fully agree with the other reviewers who have commented that the film has a weak storyline, but that Cate Blanchett is beyond brilliant. These are true. Blanchett's control and her carefully measured character are an object lesson in how fine acting can be. Nobody, surely, deserves an Oscar more.

However, the film is so slow, so careful in its timing, that the narrative gets lost under a sort of obsessive precision. Fundamentally, it's pretty dull. The story as told would make a far better novel than a film. It seems essentially uncinematic. There are so many strands and questions raised about different characters' actions, that it's all but impossible to fully follow what's going on.

Another problem with the film is that a lot is left to the audience to decipher, very hard to do with a "blink and you'll miss it" script. Especially a script with such a glacial pace. There were too many times I was confused. And so I left the film scratching my head and wondering what had happened and why.

For context, and in answer to those who say it's a great film for "classical music fans" - I am certainly one of those. In fact , almost all the names mentioned by Tár in her interview at the beginning with Adam Gopnik are quite familiar to me, and so I didn't find this interview as boring as some other viewers did. However, I didn't learn much from it, either.

(And as a little aside, my partner, who speaks Tamil, tells me that the NY cab driver was talking in Tamil, and saying: "No, I won't be home in time; I have a customer.")

In the end, Cate Blanchett's acting notwithstanding, this for me was a very unsatisfying film.

What's Love Got to Do with It? (2022)

Very fine indeed: heartwarming and charming

[8/10 · 16 February 2023]

I'm very fond of clash-of-culture films, especially those with an Indian/Pakistani flavour. And for me, this ticked all the boxes: Pakistani vs English, Muslim vs non-Muslim.

The actors are all terrific: and it's a wonderful ensemble cast; they work together as well as individually. I might quibble a bit about Emma Thompson, who I thought was possibly miscast. She is such a great actor that I always wanted to see more of her. She played her part to perfection - but of course! - as the slightly ditzy mother of the lead, but I also can't help feel that an actor of her calibre was wasted in her role. She did, however, have some quite delightful throw-away lines. My partner was very critical of this aspect of the film, and would give it only 7 stars.

Lily James is wonderful as a lead actor; playing the part of Zoë, a documentary film maker with a string of unsatisfactory boyfriends; she never overplays her part; there is always a slight sense of holding back which one thinks of as quintessentially English. Her counterpart Kazim, played by Shazad Latif, is the perfect foil to her; again with a careful, almost formal approach to his role.

If Emma Thompson is fine and Lily James is wonderful, then Shabana Azmi (playing Kazim's mother) is superb. She provides the moral and emotional centre of the film, and although her part may be small in terms of the total number of words spoken, she is utterly integral to the story. Her acting is exemplary in every respect. She is very happily partnered by Jeffrey Mirza playing Kazim's father; he brings a nice touch of humour. The family also has an aged grandmother "Nani Jan", played with a sort of sad wistfulness by Pakiza Baig who, in a nice touch, only speaks Urdu (with subtitles). I discovered that far from being a long-time respected actor, Pakiza Baig is in fact the mother of Jeff Mirza - and she had never acted before! She also has some great lines (grandmothers in rom-coms generally do).

But the scene stealing humour is Asim Chaudhry as "Mo the Matchmaker", what's not to love?

This is a lovely film, very enjoyable, with wit, humour, some drama, and plenty of charm. It has a certain predictability (it's a rom-com, after all), and may be a whisker over-long at 1 hour and 48 minutes, but that doesn't detract from its many delights. Good stuff.

Your Place or Mine (2023)

Flawed, but watchable

[7/10 · 14 February 2023]

The main flaw is the lack of chemistry been the two main characters, as others have said. This is undeniably true. It's hard to see why they would be friends at all, let alone prospective lovers. But even so, the film is perfectly watchable - and I've sat through many far "better" films which I've enjoyed less.

The individual performances (I could happily watch Reece Witherspoon reading a telephone directory) are perfectly fine, and in a sense the movie is carried by its co-stars: Zoë Chao, Tig Notaro, Steve Zahn, Griffin Matthews. And there's a lot of fun to be had. The film also portrays very clean, orderly, almost antiseptic New York and Los Angeles which border on surreal.

This film is like an after dinner coffee and chocolate; a relaxing, comfortable morsel but hardly main course stuff. I have no problems with easy watchable films, with a bit of humour thrown in. A "great film" it ain't; a pleasant way of whiling away an hour and a half it very much is.

Christmas on the Farm (2021 TV Movie)

A splendidly silly movie, good fun

[7/10 · 28 December 2022]

I liked this movie. It satisfied the first and most rigorous of my requirements: that it doesn't put me to sleep. It also has the virtue of being relatively short, running at slight under 1 1/2 hours. It has no pretensions whatsoever at being anything else but undemanding fun, which it is. Hidden depths - there are none.

There are lots of references to Crocodile Dundee, which are fun to watch for, and all the actors seemed to relish their roles. The gay couple, one of which had to pretend to be Emmy's husband, were a hoot, as were the mother and son publishers.

The ending, with everybody dancing in the street (and the formidable mother holding a chook) was ridiculous, and at the same time perfect for the tenor of the movie.

There's probably nothing in this film which hasn't been done before and better, but it's an enjoyable package, and a fun romp.

UNindian (2015)

Good story let down by execrable acting

[4/10 · 26 December 2022]

I'm very fond of clash-of-culture films, especially those with an Indian element. And so this film seemed like just the sort of thing I'd enjoy. And indeed it has a very good premise: an Indian woman living in Sydney (Meera) once married and now divorced, is being set up by her parents with all manner of eligible Indian bachelors. But she falls in love with - oh horror! - an Aussie bloke.

First the good. Meera's parents are well portrayed by Supriya Pathak and Akash Khurana, with acting that is not overdone, and with just the right amount of histrionics. The formidable Binky Aunty is a small part which is played to perfection by Kumud Merali. Arka Das as TK is another standout.

But none of these can overcome the wretched woodenness of Brett Lee. The man simply cannot act. He wanders through this film with a slightly abstracted air as though he was thinking of something else ("I should've put Smitty in to bowl for the second over ... should've opened the batting with Johnno ... ") and with an expression that seems hardly to ever change. Not one for any emotion on-set; the most we get is a sort of quizzical look as though wondering whether to have jam or marmalade on his toast, and occasionally a slightly pained look, as though he was going to sneeze. It's a wonder this film ever made it past the initial pitch to its backers.

I also think that Meera was miscast - she is supposed to be quite glamorous, and Tannishtha Chatterjee's portrayal seemed lacking in glamour. Maybe she was trying to bring herself down to Brett Lee's level by being ordinary. A nice contrast was a scene in which Meera is sitting next to her friend Shanthi, played by the truly glamorous Pallavi Sharda. Why was she not chosen to play Meera?

If you can stomach the non-acting, then it's not a wholly bad film. But the good actors in it, and the story itself, deserved far far better than they got.

Emancipation (2022)

Too long for its story

[6/10 · 25 December 2022]

It's very hard to make a film about slavery without either trivializing it or glamorizing it. Or just as bad, glorifying its violence. This film sets the serious tone by its careful not quite black and white cinematography. For me, this worked extremely well, although it did have the effect of making some scenes more confusing and harder to see.

Will Smith's performance has been rightly praised, but for me the standout was Ben Foster as the relentless slave catcher Jim Fassel. Charmaine Bingwa was superb as Dodienne, and the scenes around the potential break up of her family were some of the most effective in the film. They gave a real emphasis to the rights for which Peter was fighting.

My main complaint about the film was that it just dragged at the end when Peter joined the Union army. The tension and drama which so highlighted the film up to this point seemed to dissipate. This part of the film could have used some more rigorous editing. (Although it must also be said that the section of Peter being chased through the swamp also seemed quite attentuated; however it was more watchably interesting than the last part.)

This film then was not perfect, but it is a brave attempt to tell more of the story of American slavery.

Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris (2022)

A charmer; just lovely

[8/10 · 10 December 2022]

What a delightful, warm film this is. And Lesley Manville in the title role is perfection - never overplaying; at her most delighted or downcast, she endeavours to display the classic "stiff upper lip" so beloved by the English. The film plays with national stereotypes (possibly more strongly held when the original novel was written): the no-nonsense, practical, English; against the slightly ineffectual and overly cerebral French. But it is impossible not to warm to Manville's Mrs Harris, who with charm, courage (and plenty of good luck) realizes her dream in the end.

She is very ably supported by an excellent cast; the standouts for me were Jason Isaacs as the laconic Archie, Alba Baptista as the beautiful but disenchanted model Natasha (and she seemed to be trying to be the second Audrey Hepburn), and of course Ellen Thomas as Mrs Harris' doughty friend Vi.

I did think the film dragged a bit in one or two places, and possibly it could have been tightened a bit. And there were scenes (mainly set in the House of Dior, in Paris) where it was necessary to suspend disbelief. The ease by which Mrs Harris inveigled herself into the inner sanctum of Dior seemed to me to be very unlikely; on the other hand it makes for such a good story than one wishes it was true.

But don't mind me, it really is a corker of a film, and we sure do need some charm and delight in our lives, which this film delivers in spades.

The X Files (1998)

Meh....

[3/10 · 22 November 2022]

I don't think it's too much to ask that a film be watchable by viewers - such as me - who are not X-Files fans. That is to say, I've watched 2 or 3 X-Files episodes only. I'm not actually antagonistic to the series, but I simply haven't had much exposure to it. My partner however, is an X-Files fan, having seen the entire series and loved it.

And neither of us liked this film. Too much seemed to be happening at once, too much was unexplained, and the effect was to both of us a mess of unconnected ideas all thrown together. There is also a mad jumping around between scenes: cornfields, Antarctica, the desert ... I had no idea at any stage who the baddies were, and who the goodies (aside from Mulder and Scully, of course). Who was covering up for who? Who was protecting who? I couldn't tell you.

The aliens are classic Hollywood bad aliens, out to kill and destroy. (Well of course. You're not going to get much interesting screen time with good aliens.) I still am unclear how an "antidote" is going to work against parasitic aliens who use human bodies to grow in, rather in the manner of parasitic wasps that lay their eggs inside paralyzed spiders.

There are some excellent explosions, though.

I'd guess this film to be for die-hard fans only, without much to offer for the rest of us.

The King's Man (2021)

It's OK, but not up to the other films

[6/10 · 22 November 2022]

This film would make a better standalone film as a part of the Kingsman series. My partner, who hadn't seen the other films, liked it very much. I have seen the other films, and although I quite liked this one, I couldn't help compare it unfavourably to the previous two. This film lacks the madcap inventiveness and pizzazz of the other films, and seems to be lacking also in the cinematic wit that was such a part of the others.

Part of the problem is using WWI as a sort of framing device. There is nothing funny about this conflict - one of the bloodiest in history - and so there is an immediate hamper on the amount of fun that the film can contain. It becomes more serious, and more measured in tone.

Another problem was the use of the villain, "The Shepherd", with his Scottish accent, which made him sound more like a small-time stand-over crook than a global criminal mastermind. Try as I might, I simply couldn't take him seriously.

The film is not without good things, though. Rhys Ifans' portrayal of Grigory Rasputin is utterly superb, and the scene in which Rasputin fights with diabolical energy and malice, is brilliant. (In consequence, a later fight scene with The Shepherd is drawn-out and dull). Ralph Fiennes plays a very good hero, showing both a menacing silence, and occasional excellent action sequences. He is very ably partnered by Gemma Arterton as Polly and Djimon Hounsou as Shola. Charles Dance does a very fine Lord Kitchener.

I didn't realize until afterwards that Tom Hollander played all three rulers of England, Germany and Russia: King George, Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas. This is a treat for lovers of facial hair. Excellent moustaches abound (also on the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand).

The film has enough action and movement to carry its own weight, and simply as a standalone film, it's highly watchable, if not without flaws. But I think it is a weak addition to the Kingsman series.

Fire Island (I) (2022)

Fun in parts, but too long

[6/10 · 20 November 2022]

I did quite enjoy this film, with its vague homage to Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", and cast of colourful characters. It seems to embrace gay stereotypes at the same time as mocking them. It is quite watchable, but you have to put your critical faculties into neutral.

Theres a lot of buff bodies, waxed and muscled, as you'd expect, with Torian Miller being a nice exception - I wish he could have had more screen time.

The standouts for me were Bowen Yang as Howie (based on Jane Bennet and Charlotte Lucas), and Conrad Ricamora as Will, who was the Darcy character. I thought Will's trajectory from a disapproving bystander to a smiling lover was beautifully done. And Howie's introspection was very well played.

However, the film has a confusing message. And the stereotypes it portrays are outdated. But perhaps that's part of the enjoyment: outrageous types such as played by Tomas Matos might not be the centrepieces of gay representation as once they were, but he is still great fun to watch.

So the film has both a sort of nostalgia for the hedonistic life of the past, and a more serious message about relationships, fitting in, acceptance and understanding. The trouble was that I could never be sure which was the most important, and this tension detracted from rather than enhanced the film.

A more careful editing and tighter screenplay would have made this a better film. As it is, it isn't unwatchable, but it is less than it could have been.

Kandasamys: The Wedding (2019)

A fun movie, with heart

[7/10 · 9 October 2022]

My partner and I chose this almost at random from Netflix, and we were delighted with it. We both like comedies with an Indian flavour, and this one didn't disappoint. Neither of us knew much about Indians in South Africa, other than Gandhi having started his political career there, and his building the philosophies which he would use to such world-changing effect in India. But the film has great humour, and a large heart. We loved the continual bickering of the two mothers, Shanthi and Jennifer, and of the corresponding gentleness of the husbands Preggie and Elvis, who act as a sort of foil to their wives. Mishqah Parthiephal is amazingly beautiful, and does a very good job of the bride-to-be Jodi, alternating between great joy in her husband-to-be Prishen, and fury at the way his mother always seems to get in the way at the worst possible moment.

There is a nice echo of the omnipresent mother in Elvis's own relationship with his mother Aya, who lives with them. Mariam Bassa plays the aged Aya to perfection, and has some terrific lines. I didn't fully understand (until at the end) the reason for her stealing money from her son to pay off another elderly person; I thought that this was one strand in the film which added nothing and could have been removed.

Another strand was the apparent love (although no words were spoken) between two members of the extended families, the man of which had this amazingly idiotic grin whenever he saw the woman of his dreams. I loved this.

The film ends with a paean to mothers in general, which would in any other circumstance be unbearably cheesy, but here seems to fit nicely the general tenor of the film. As I say, it's a film with great heart, plenty of humour, and it's a lot of fun.

My partner would give it 6.5 stars, feeling that the lead actress could have used more humour in her role. And I agree, but I can't seem to give half star ratings!

Ticket to Paradise (2022)

So lightweight it almost floats off, but not bad fun

[6/10 · 1 October 2022]

I like a fluffy feel-good film as much as the next guy, and this film certainly ticks all the fluffy feel-good boxes. However, it is so sweet, so saccharine, and so undemanding, that the final feeling is one not quite of disappointment, but of a vague sense of missing something.

The partnering of George Clooney and Julia Roberts as the bickering parents is superb. The first part of the film, when they hurl vicious wisecracks at each other, is quite splendid. Their vigorous attempts at point-scoring keep the film humming along very nicely.

In the second half, set in Bali (but shot in Queensland, in northern Australia) is slow going in comparison. It's all very pretty, with the wondrous scenery you'd expect, but the characters all seem to slow down. The islanders themselves are portrayed with a sort of insouciant patronising as happy-go-lucky people who simply enjoy the benefits of good weather and a bountiful ocean, but who are clearly never bothered with any deeper thoughts.

The "unbickering" of the parents meant that there is little humour in the second half, and any small unpleasantness is glossed over quickly. This half actually dragged a bit.

So this is a film with a delightful first half, and a somewhat slow second half. On average, it probably comes out as just all right. It will never be anybody's favourite film, but it's not bad; certainly worth watching as long as you can put your brain into a sort of mental and emotional neutral.

Wedding Season (2022)

Lightweight, but charming and delightful

[8/10 · 20 September 2022]

I enjoyed this movie very much. It's a sweet little gem that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. If it were a foodstuff it would be a couple of chocolates. And I love chocolate!

The film is a delightful rom-com, lifted above the mundane and ordinary by the very good acting of Suraj Sharma and Pallavi Sharda, who bring a real warmth and humanity to their roles. Their onscreen chemistry is excellent. And their screen parents complement them both nicely. There is humour as well; and a touch of emotion and melodrama, but not enough to overcome the general feel-good nature of this film.

I suppose you could dislike this film if you wanted high drama and seriousness, but I have no objection to something more lightweight.

This film has heart, and it has charm. It's good fun, and very watchable.

I Came By (2022)

Not as good as it could be: annoyingly incomplete and unsatisfying

[4/10 · 13 September 2022]

This film started off with a good premise, some good ideas, and a very good cast - in particular it was great fun to watch Hugh Bonneville playing a really bad character; a man, indeed, with no moral scruples at all. And the film had good elements: the trapped person in a hidden basement; a person seemingly above the law; with some racial elements thrown in. And the idea of tagging the walls of "upper class" people is splendid. I liked the "I came by" tag very much. And the two taggers: Toby and Jay, played by George McKay and Percelle Ascott, both bring terrific energy to their roles.

But the sum was most definitely less - far less - than the sum of its parts, and the film ended up being fundamentally unsatisfying.

One main problem is: who was the man in the basement? A lot is explained in a scene where Bonneville's character - a retired judge called Sir Hector Blake - explains his background to an asylum seeker Omid (who is played with a quiet and understated excellence by Yazdan Qafouri). Sir Hector talks about a boy adopted by his father, who becomes his father's lover, and so drives his mother to suicide, with the boy Hector being consigned to a barding school. Sir Hector - who has already drugged Omid - speaks about his hatred for the boy and his revenge with a cricket bat. But such a boy would be older than Sir Hector is now, and the man in the basement seems younger. So - who is he? Does Sir Hector like to trap and torture innocents, and to murder others?

Another question might be how does Sir Hector manage to have two houses with equivalent hidden basements, and with pottery studios containing huge kilns? And how did he move everything from one house to the other? Including a basement prisoner.

It is a minor point, but even a pottery kiln (which can operate at much higher temperatures than a crematorium) will not reduce a body to a small box of ashy dust, as we saw Sir Hector flush away earlier in the film. Teeth, fillings?

I thought it was unnecessary to have Toby's mother (Kelly Macdonald, and excellent in her role) also be a victim of Sir Hector. Maybe this is a minority view, but I think the film would have been more satisfactory if she was able to bring Sir Hector to justice.

Percelle Ascott is quite superb as Toby's partner in crime, and as the final bringer of Sir Hector to justice. In fact, I think his character in this film is one of its best aspects.

But even with such excellent acting by such excellent actors, the film ultimately falls flat. Too many questions are raised and not answered, and the finale seemed fake and contrived. It was almost as if the director suddenly realized that he'd run through as many bodies as he could, and need to finish up quickly.

Good Luck to You, Leo Grande (2022)

Just superb

[9/10 · 4 September 2022]

I didn't think it would be possible for my esteem for Emma Thompson to rise any higher, but thanks to this film it just has. Her portrayal of the trajectory of a sexually unsatisfied widow to a more open and sexual woman is played with humanity, honesty, and with a poignancy that never descends into schmaltz or self-pity. She is very ably partnered with Daryl McCormack, whose character Leo seems to be completely in control of his life as a sex-worker, but who shows depths and also insecurities.

It would be easy to over-praise this film for its unflinching approach to the sexuality of older persons, but I thought that was just one of many strands in this remarkable film. Other films have described the hijinks of older persons with a "it's never too late" message but I don't think it's ever been done with the quiet impact of this one. The gentle, slow, but inexorable crescendo from the nervous babbling of the widow at the beginning, to her smile at the end, should be an object lesson to all film-makers about how to put people first.

There is also humour in this film - although it's by no means a funny film - but it has some warm and tender moments, and the scene near the end with an ex-student is just blissful.

Emma Thompson is on record as saying that her nude scene in this film is "the hardest thing" she has ever had to do in a film, but it's the apex of her final acceptance of who she can be, and her smile at the end is a fitting conclusion to a totally satisfying and profoundly moving film.

The only reason I knocked it down a star was because I thought that it dragged a little in spots; but maybe that's just me.

Jurassic World Dominion (2022)

It's monumentally silly, but it's still entertaining (if you turn your brain off)

[4/10 · 3 July 2022]

I was initially going to give it a higher review, but as I sat down to write this, I thought how utterly stupid this film is, so I went down a few notches. Really, it's just an excuse for some very excellent special effects all tied together with a story line so flimsy that it barely deserves to be called a plot. In fact, there doesn't seem to be one story line but about five different strands, none of which is satisfactorily explained, and which all together make for a confusing mess. As far as I could tell, it was something like: genetic modification, dinosaurs, evil company aiming for world domination, dinosaurs, some old characters from previous movies, dinosaurs, people running and being chased through forests, buildings, everywhere really, by dinosaurs, lucky escape at the end because two dinosaurs get distracted and fight each other. Did I mention dinosaurs? Them too!

It's very lazy film-making. You'd have thought that by now film-makers would realize that special effects, no matter how good, aren't enough to carry a film. You need a good strong plot to hang the effects on. However, this lesson appears not to have been learned.

However, I am happy to watch a film with my brain comfortably in neutral, and I did enjoy it for the silliness of it. But fans of the series (of which I used to be one) deserve better than this. My film-going companion fell asleep during the film, and decided firmly that it should be worth zero stars.

The feel-good Disney-ish ending, which seemed to be lifted in spirit and style from the beginning of The Lion King, was so saccharine as to be almost nauseous.

Basically, if you have a choice between this film and any other, choose the other.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022)

Great fun - comedy drama at its best

[9/10 · 8 May 2022]

Nicolas Cage has been in so many good movies, and so many appalling movies, that he has been the subject of more internet memes than possibly any other actor. To his immense credit, though, he has ever taken offense, but has instead often taken an active part in those memes. He clearly has a splendid sense of humour. He seems to take the line that it's better to overact in a bad movie - and at least get people talking - than to be in no movie.

This movie, then, is the most Nicolas-Cage-iest movie possible; a movie which both sends up "Nicolas Cage", at the same time honouring his work, both good and bad. And it works. Playing both himself and a younger version of himself (in the credits said to be played by "Nicolas Kim Coppola"; his birth name), he romps though this hugely enjoyable film with all the energy we've come to love about him.

His counterpart, played by Pedro Pascal (in the role of a supposed kingpin of a drug and arms cartel), is no less wonderful, and each of the two bounce superbly off each other. This is a case where the total is definitely greater than the sum of its parts. The real kingpin, the evil cousin Lucas, is played with tremendous gusto by Paco Leon, who looks as though he had a thoroughly good time of it. Even the henchman. Carlos, played by Jacob Scipio, has not a great deal more but to look smouldering, but boy, does he smoulder! In fact, every part is terrifically played - see other reviews for other fine actors.

There were a few moments when I though the action dragged a bit, but they were few, and served to highlight the next scene.

This is a tremendously fun movie, filled with cracking action scenes and some superb one-liners. ("It's grotesque - I'll give you $20,000 for it.") It's a movie with real heart, and a real tonic for these times.