Film Reviews by JD

Some good, some bad, many indifferent. Most of it is self-indulgent and boring. I was rarely engaged. At the time of typing the 2 other reviewers got much more from these 18 short films. I don't know what I missed.

Piaf had a very difficult childhood and this film suggests she had a very spoilt hedonistic adulthood. Brilliantly acted but bit too much about the detail of her biography. It makes her unlikable and the film less interesting.

I imagine this is a highly dramatised account of a relationship between 2 French sculptors. How they fall in and out of love and how their art influenced each other. Well acted but unbelievable and not that interesting unless you like Rodin.

A true story of great sadness from the 1550s. It is of such drama, poignancy and dilemma that it has been used as the basis for scores of books, films etc. The accuracy of portrayal of rural village life from the 16 centuary is fascinating. There is a great sense of the superstitions and religiousness of this period. The acting is amazing. The end devastating.

This film will stay with you for a week. It is a dated film about the poor working conditions of coal miners in France contrasted unsubtly with the great wealth of the managers and owners. The pace is slow and some of the scenes could be edited. The feel is of a 60s film and that can be quaint or dated depending on your mood. It is gripping however and at times emotional. The acting is generally good with a few exceptions; Gerard of course is excellent. 4 stars is mainly for Gerard and for its unusually memorable story.

You may not find this funny at all, but if this is your sense of humour you'll love it. For example, his retirement party is utterly underwhelming, work colleagues standing eating crisps in silence. His supermarket trolley gets jammed between two cars in the car park. I found it heartwarmingly and pathetically real and poignant (except for some sillyness just to keep it from being too demoralising like a garden full of really ugly art). I suspect I will be in the minority for liking this, but I smiled all the way through.

What I don't like about this is the ridiculous plot (a divorced couple come together at their dead son's wishes to see his ghost). But the acting is unmatchable. Their subtle body language makes so much possible and draws you into trying to work them out. The style is slow, too slow I think to be popular. This is a chillax film (don't you just love that word?!)

A trophy wife is kept in a high standard of living while her right wing husband has serial affairs. The acting is music hall at best. The twist could be predicted by a 4 year old. Lo and behold the husband has a mental breakdown and the wife becomes the successful businessperson her serial affairs are then revealed. She then beats a left wing mayor in an election. Is this what the French like? Maybe Le Pen voters.

How many films are based on the persecution of the Jews in the 2nd world war? Not many are based in Paris and feature the persecution by the French. Despite this novel angle and some above average child acting, the plot is a little unbelievable in parts and the acting by some of the key players (pardon the pun) is uninspiring. Even the rather emotional plot failed to capture my mood completely. There are some very tired scenes with a child hiding while a guard looks for them, time for a different method of suspense.

Tom Hardy and to a lesser extent Reese Witherspoon take this poor plot with its dreadful direction and make it funny. They must have worked hard. Their comic timing and interactive acting are very entertaining. I recommend to avoid anything directed by McG who does remakes (Lethal Weapon and Charlie's Angels 30 years on) with the exception of anything with Hardy in it.

This is a comedy set out as a detective documentary. I did not think it was funny and turned it off.

The wildlife photography is absolutely awesome. Clips that must have taken so much effort and time not to mention equipment and money. These clips are, I think, inherited from other wildlife films but magnificent nevertheless. Patrick Stewart's narration rather labours the point that Homo Sapiens is killing the planet, not exactly new, exciting or indeed well done. I would have preferred much less narration.

Tom Hardy is such a good actor he even manages to make Benedict look a bit wooden. He plays a tragic character with muscular dystrophy who has become an aggressive, heroine abusing drunk. Tom even makes this interesting and endearing without sentiment or heroism. The plot goes deeper into the past explaining how he got into this horrible mess. At the end it all seems so inevitable. Utterly sad. Don't watch unless you want despair. It's brilliant.

2 previous reviewers saw this as a coming of age. I saw it as the rise of feminism against a background of entrenched chauvinism. The grandfather has blighted his entire family with his great desire to see a hero rise from one of the male members. He never considers the possibility of a heroine. In this regard the ending is fairly clear from a few minutes in. What carries the film is some exquisite dynamic within the rest of the family and some amazing New Zealand scenery.

Actors who can't sing or dance are given the chance to try a sort of sing/talking where the tune is just audible. The dancing is also a bit more like walking quickly with a skip. All this jollity is the background to a plot about how a rape affects a small community. It was the worst load of filming I have seen for a while. I got it because Olivia Coleman and Tom Hardy are named. How my opinion of them has dropped.