michael-dixon2 Reviews

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965)

One of the best films ever made

[10/10 · 11 June 2006]

I have unreserved enthusiasm for this film having watched it on many occasions and yet to find a fault. Indeed it only gets better. It is so atmospheric, with Director Martin Ritt, his designers and photographers, all superb. You really feel you are either in a typical 1960's corner shop in London, a prison in East Germany or a communist safe-house in Scandanavia.

It has always been my view that once it is established the leading actor in any film is on top form, which certainly applies to Burton and the script is accepted as good, then it is the support actors who determine whether a film is going to reach excellence. The Spy Who Came In from the Cold has an absolutely first-class range of actors at the very top of their profession. The casting is magnificent and each of them has a meaningful part to play in this film, enabling them to bring their own special qualities to every role.

The list of talent is endless and includes Claire Bloom playing the naive young communist, Nan, who befriends Leamas, Michael Hordern, Robert Hardy, Sam Wanamaker, Peter Van Eyck who was very good as Hans Dieter Munt, the very sinister head of the East German Secret Police, the brilliant Cyril Cussack and Bernard Lee. My own particular favourite in the film, however, is the excellent Oskar Werner who portrays Fiedler, Deputy to Munt, who despite this and his fanatical belief in communism, is suspected and despised by his own organisation because he is Jewish.

But of course it is Burton who is the central part to the film and he plays the downbeat spy, Alec Leamas, to perfection, in what must be one of the best performances of his film career. Burton is Leamas and Leamas is Burton. He is brilliant and I cannot imagine the author of the book, John Le Carre, being anything than very impressed with Burton's interpretation of his character.

The film is well worthy of being watched either by those who have not seen it before, or by others who have to appreciate it once again. It is of course from a by-gone era when communism was an ideology followed by millions and opposed by many millions more besides. It was perceived by many as a fight to the death, hence the tension which Martin Ritt and his team magnificently captures.

It may well be a film depicting another era but I have no doubt there will be many operators just like Alec Leamas in our modern-day secret service, just as cynical about making a living in the seedy world in which they inhabit. The story comfortably defies the passing of time, while the quality of acting will be appreciated indefinitely such is the very high standard.

Michael Dixon, Sunderland, England.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Great support acting saves the film-just.

[7/10 · 6 June 2006]

I spent most of this film wondering who would have been better in the role of Robert Langdon other than Tom Hanks. Little doubt the late William Holden for one, amongst many of that era, but in practical terms I kept coming back to Harrison Ford. I thought that Hanks spent his time sleepwalking through the film and there was no chemistry whatsoever between him and his talented leading lady, claimed to be, in a ridiculous ending, the last descendant of Jesus Christ no less. Harrison Ford, along the lines of his excellent interpretation of a very worried husband in the film "Frantic", when his wife was mistakenly kidnapped, ( and also filmed in Paris), would have been far superior to the lacklustre Tom Hanks.

So I say well done to the supporting actors who were basically excellent and literally rescued this film, notably Paul Bettany who was very scary, Sir Ian McKellen of course and the talented Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa. But my personal favourite was Jean Reno as the French Captain whom I thought was first-rate as a somewhat confused but sinister policeman. Therefore despite best efforts from all the actors mentioned, in addition to those with small roles who themselves were very effective, when the leading man is wooden, the whole film inevitably suffers.

The story itself is interesting enough and people can decide for themselves if they accept some of the claims made about the Christian faith. As a regular churchgoer I think that the Roman Catholic Church has over-reacted in its condemnation, as anybody with half a brain could see that it was a film based on a theory, nothing more. In any event the Catholic Church could surely see quite clearly that the Ian McKellen character, who believed it all, was eventually portrayed as half-mad and soon for the funny farm. Indeed by the end Sir Ian was playing it a bit like a pantomime, presumably deliberately. The film was so obviously presented as a piece of fiction. interesting but hardly conclusive. People are intelligent enough to work that out for themselves without the Church telling them what to believe. Anyway there were only 7 people for the Catholic Church to worry about in the cinema where I saw the film!!!

I have not followed the career of Tom Hanks so presumably he is a very talented film star. This performance must have been just a one-off or else he would not have gone so far in his career. But I thought he did not come up to expectations here and was barely adequate. As such a potentially very good film was, for me,just satisfactory, thanks to the other performers and some decent location scenes in France. A chance missed I am afraid and I would seriously suggest a remake in about 10 years time.

Michael Dixon,Sunderland, England.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Very good film but not that brilliant.

[8/10 · 26 February 2006]

I enjoyed this film, greatly appreciated that it was shot in black and white, thought the acting throughout the cast was excellent and would give full marks to the close-up photography. It was atmospheric and as a past student of politics, the film based itself on a subject, which like many others, I was familiar. That certainly helped and I would suggest some background knowledge, at the very least, is essential for this film to be understood, let alone appreciated. But in truth, away from the hype, it was not an exceptional piece of work; it was just extremely good.

A surprise was the low key way in which it was all played. This was, of course deliberate, but I felt at the end of the film I knew not one thing more about the character of Ed. Murrow than I did at the beginning. In addition, while I appreciate that news journalists must have been a cynical breed in that atmosphere, the reaction in the newsroom to the announcement that Senator McCarthy was himself to be the subject of investigation by a Senate Committee, was very muted; disappointingly so.

The Director may have been wishing to avoid the pitfalls of All The Presidents Men, with two Washington Post journalists patently played by two film stars (Redford and Hoffman). Goodnight,and Good Luck succeeded in avoiding that but managed to leave me somewhat frustrated. The film length, too, was very short and I think that a little more information as to what lay ahead in the lives of Murrow and McCarthy would have been useful. My partner in the cinema, when the film ended said, "is that it?" This is one of the few films where I never felt I got inside the mind of one single character, though in fairness the basis of the story, McCarthy, was played for real on the newsreels from the 1950's, so that would have been tricky. What I did enjoy very much was the studio scenes when the programme was on the air. These were most realistic, both politically gripping and very intense. Full marks to all concerned.

Whatever criticisms I may make, it was in the search of perfection, for a film that is centred around free speech, political tolerance of a contrary point of view and, of course, media reporting, deserves much credit for even trying. For that alone and of course much more besides, George Clooney and his team deserve our thanks and appreciation.

The Constant Gardener (2005)

Well acted but lacking suspense

[6/10 · 8 February 2006]

I was rather frustrated with this film because it nearly was very good. The performances were technically faultless, though personally I would have preferred a more demonstrative interpretation of his role than the one given by Fiennes. He just was not desperate enough in his search for the truth about his wife and was the polite diplomat throughout. For me it did not quite work, though there were moments of great tenderness, which he played very well. I would stress that I only question the interpretation of this particular role rather than the ability of Fiennes as an actor, which is obviously top drawer.

The rest of the cast played their parts very well, but save from some isolated scenes there was insufficient suspense and several big chances were missed. This was quite some achievement by the Director as Fiennes was being followed for most of the film and was brutally attacked in his hotel bedroom. The only time I felt really worried was during a small scene outside a school when you felt something dreadful was going to happen to a young child, plus the decision to leave a little girl behind from the plane in the Sudan. Why Fiennes did not adopt her on the spot to save her life as a tribute to both the work and memory of his wife was an inexplicable weakness of the plot. That theme would have worked much better than the eventual ending.

Where the film did score was to give emphasis to those who already perfectly well knew it and for others who do not pay attention to their modern history, that there is massive corruption at government level, especially in Africa and with any big business that link the two. The film correctly portrayed that there would be little hesitation in disposing of anybody "who knew too much," a factor that may make people at least think twice about some mysterious deaths in history and politics, when they are explained as suicide.

I enjoyed the film but I shall not watch it again, which is a pity. The Constant Gardener was very well acted, interesting, while the scenery was both realistic and, at times, breathtaking. Ultimately, however, it was a film which never got into top gear and despite having countless opportunities failed to get me on the edge of my seat. Throughout the film I was just too comfortable when I should have been in a state of continued tension. A chance missed here and a film with definite potential for a superior re-make in about ten years.

Michael Dixon, United Kingdom

One, Two, Three (1961)

No wonder Cagney had a long rest from films.

[9/10 · 3 January 2006]

It was around 20 years before James Cagney subsequently re-appeared in a film role. It would be little surprise if he based that decision partly on the amount of effort he had made and energy he had used, in his portrayal of MacNamara, the head of Coca-cola in West Berlin at the height of the Cold War, in this most wonderful of films, One Two Three.

Without doubt this is the fastest-moving, most exhausting film I have watched, so what it must have been like for the cast and crew is difficult to imagine. But Billy Wilder has directed a masterpiece of comedy and satire, with Cagney absolutely excellent. I would love to know how many takes were required for some of the scenes, as there was much to memorise and deliver and all at break-neck speed.

With one exception the supporting cast, both American and European, play their parts to perfection, made easier by some great one-liners from the writers. I would have given this film full marks had someone other than the late Horst Buchholz played the part of the idealistic but hapless young Communist, who eventually marries the daughter of the main man of Coca Cola. His acting just does not gel with the rest of the cast, while his part required someone with a much lighter touch who could have made us laugh.

The test of any film for me is whether I can imagine I am really in the location and with One Two Three I most certainly felt I was in Berlin, around 1960. Indeed having been to East Berlin myself during the cold war, the drab surroundings and entertainment on offer in the "nightclub" scene,(excluding of course the great part when Ingeborg did her sexy dance on the table to tempt the Russians), was not that far from the truth. The car chase that followed when the Russian car kept dropping to bits was just hilarious.

While Wilder took every opportunity to mercilessly satire the Communist system, he still had a few barbed swipes at American-led capitalism and did not spare the West Berliners for their Nazi past. But despite such deadly serious matters he manages on all occasions throughout the film to cloak them into satirical comedy, which is no mean feat.

I never tire of watching One Two Three as it regularly appears on British TV and I also have the DVD. However one thing that does rather mystify me when I look back on this film is why Pamela Tiffin did not become a superstar. She was beautiful, funny and talented.

But two people who did go the whole journey in their careers were Cagney and Wilder and we are very fortunate that they came together in this most memorable film when both were in superb form.

Nixon (1995)

Great

[9/10 · 1 January 2006]

Great film. Fantastic acting mainly from Anthony Hopkins, but with an excellent supporting cast. Oliver Stone is allowed a little scope in introducing some scenes that probably did not take place, but the main body of the film is linked to the history of Nixon and his era. When I watched Hopkins on the screen it was Nixon in front of me and not the actor, no mean feat bearing in mind his subject was known to millions. Yet you felt that it was Nixon and that you were there in the White House with him and his cronies, or watching his relationship with wife Pat, played beautifully by Joan Allen, slowly deteriorate.

I thought the flashbacks throughout the film to his earlier life worked well, as they brought out a caring and even romantic side to Nixon that seemed to disappear in his later years as a very combative politician.

Although Oliver Stone had his critics, I thought politically the balance was fair enough and I speak as someone who credits Nixon with playing a large part if the ending of the Cold War.

It may be better to know a little bit about this era, politically, before watching this film or it may not make that much sense. So why not read a book about Nixon first. Afterwards you can decide what was fact and what was in Oliver Stone's mind for the rest. Either way it made for excellent viewing and also some reflection on the man and his times after it was finished.

Sebastian (1968)

Good acting, good music, lousy plot.

[6/10 · 1 January 2006]

The list of excellent actors and actresses in the film is endless and includes Dirk Bogarde, Susannah York, Sir John Gielgud, Lili Palmer and Nigel Davenport, with many more first-rate performers besides. Add to this the musical talents of Jerry Goldsmith and it is quite an achievement by the Director to create this piece of utter nonsense, especially as some of the screenplay is worthy and the settings very 60's and good. Is this meant to be a serious film? It could only have merit if it was a total send-up of it's decade and spy-films generally, but as Dirk Bogarde later described it as a "non-event," the meaning and intent was obviously lost on him; a big disadvantage as he was the star. This film must have begun with promise and potential for why else would such an array of talent include themselves in it's making? Something after that went radically wrong, but like your other contributors I would gladly purchase a DVD if only, in my case, for curiosity value.