Film Reviews by JG

Disappointing to me for a Cohen brothers film. A good cast, but not a very interesting plot and unless you recognize the people being lampooned, not a very interesting film. Some good visual jokes and over acting by actors who we know can actually really act (e.g. Tilda Swinton) give some interest to the film, but not enough to make me want to stick it out to the end. Alice in Wonderland can be enjoyed without understanding the in-jokes, but I am not so sure of this one. If you know your early Hollywood well you may find it better than I did.

This is presented as a film, but has a lot of biopic about it and in using the original principal participants is almost like a documentary. Judged as a thriller film it is somewhat lacking. The back story of how they grew up together drags the film into plodding (as a thriller). The story of their wanderings around Europe is boring but a lead in to the story. The story itself is undeniably heroic and justifies the making of the film. It is hard to think of any way the film could have been made better (the action part is too short for a feature length film), but nevertheless, as a film it disappoints. It is OK if you view it as a documentary. The best advice I have is watch this film if you do not already know the story, and accept it for what it is.

This is classed as a Sci-Fi thriller/horror. It starts very well and in my view rivals Gravity at the beginning. I have seen videos shot on the space station and this film looked just as realistic, though presumably shot with wires and green screen in a studio, it did look just like zero gravity, no imagination needed.

The capsule returning shots were not as good (until it arrived at the ISS, which was spectacular). We saw a bright dot scudding across the stars which were too close together, except as you find when you watch further, they are not stars (therefore too bright). This is where the weakness of the film shows; it is a good thriller/horror film, but not so good as a Sci-Fi, and not at all good on Space Science. Astronauts do not all shout at once hysterically when things go wrong. Inside, their pulse rates shoot up, but on the outside they remain calm and retain the discipline of their training. Tom Hanks in Scully is a good example of the skilled acting required to convey this. I am sure these actors could do this, but in this case the director wanted excitement and emotion to get the pulses of the audience going. I accept that for a thriller/horror this is what is needed.

The plot is then a bit predictable, there is a twist at the end which I didn't see coming but Carol suspected. Overall the film works for those who like this genre, it had some suspense and scary moments, but it is not such a good film for those who prefer pure Sci-Fi.

I haven't seen the DVD, I saw this on BBC.

Unlike many sci-fi films, this is not set far in to the future, but could be now. The sci-fi premise is that scientists have uncovered something cataclysmic that will happen in the near future and the information about this is on a USB stick which has been lost and needs to be recovered by the secret service, because the government is keeping this secret from the public. This is hard to believe as the scientific community is not just a couple of boffins, but a world wide community that is not beholden to a single government. Such a discovery would take time to emerge, starting with observations and then theories and counter theories to arrive at the probable outcome. It would be difficult for this to remain secret. It would also be difficult to encapsulate all this on a USB stick that would immediately shock anyone who plugs it into their phone. But let us accept this and go with it, it is sci-fi.

The film starts with this and develops as a detective thriller starting with a murder where the USB turns up and the two detectives involved discover it (The USB stick is strange, it looks like some sort of toy rocket. I presume this was so that it would be recognisable when it turns up in various scenes). While they are trying to solve and hunt for the murderer, the detectives themselves become hunted by the secret service. There is a further complication between the two detectives that I won't go into as it is a spoiler but it adds to the the tension.

There are some good ideas and plot themes in this film, but overall I don't think it has quite worked. It would be better as either a sci-fi (in which case it would need to say something which it doesn't, at least I did not find a moral message), or a detective thriller, in which case it would need a better ending. The film does come to an ending, which is recognisable as an ending, but it felt to me it petered out and was a little weak.

The acting is good, but I found Jim Sturgess less convincing than Agnus Deyn. Nikki Amuka-Bird gives a chilling performance as a secret service agent, I wouldn't like to be the centre of her attention. She is RSC trained so should be capable of any role, but I have only seen her in type cast roles as a character with whom you are not meant to have any sympathy. I would like to see her as the romantic heroine.

Overall the film is worth watching, and has some gripping scenes and enough twists to keep you interested, but I felt at the end it was a missed opportunity.

This is an older production (1976) from the BBC, when they did good classic dramas. Of course you have to make allowances for the time (no lapel mikes, no CGI) but if you forget that, and get immersed in the story it is well done. It has a desaturated look to it, which is surprising for the analogue days when colour was still new, but this enhanced the period feel. It has a very good cast, nice to see some of them again. Dickens is always a bit over the top, his characters are exaggerated to the point of caricature, but you have to accept this if you want to watch Dickens. David Troughton's portayal of Mr Sloppy is a case in point, the actor must have been worried all the time, "am I over doing this", but I think he got it just right. We very much enjoyed it. There is a later production if you prefer a later style.

Based on a true story, the life of a Criminal who eventually went straight (though this is only in th post script during the final credits). We have actually seen him several times on BBC news, commentating on criminal law. He is played, rather well, by Roger Daltry and supported by Adam Failth who also gave a good performance. A bit of nostalgia for those times.

Until he delivered his record jump at Calgary, he was regarded by many as a joke, but secretly admired. When he delivered his new British record he became a hero and demonstrated that the true Olympic spirit is about taking part and doing your best, winning is not the main aim, it is only for those already at the top.

The film makers were keen to make a film that didn't just play up the comedy but showed respect for what he achieved, and this they have done. Eddie Edwards was involved in the making and approved the script.

This film is not a slapstick comedy, but is a serious fantasy. It does have some humour, and it has a barely plausible plot center piece; a man builds his own rocket, not just to launch like most do, but to take himself into orbit. On the surface it portrays American life, accurately as far as I can tell from UK. The opening seems to set us up for a comedy with the farmer wearing a space suit seemingly all the time and everyone calling him The Astronaut. As the film goes on, we realise he doesn't wear his space suit normally and he is serious about his rocket.

Wisely the film doesn't go into great detail on how he did the engineering other than collecting discarded items from scrapyards and resuscitating them, but we see impressive convincing glimpses of the rocket which conveys to us that he does know what he is doing. In the extras a NASA astronaut says it is more complicated than shown. but the film comes close.

Billy Bob Thornton, one of our favourite actors, is always good at unusual characters with different ideas to most on what is important in life. Virginia Madsen, another favourite, is excellent as the sympathetic and understanding wife. Bruce Dern, another favourite, plays the grandfather. Bruce Willis has a supporting role and gives the film his generous support. The administration is portrayed unsympathetically, but not too different to what might be expected.

The story should not be taken too seriously, it is really a metaphor saying, aspiring to your dreams is a good thing. It is a good family film, hopefully we will see more from the Polish brothers.

This is a docu-drama of a real event that stunned me at the time, the Hudson river ditching. I have always had an interest in aviation and have followed enough stories to know that planes coming down in water is not normally a good ending. When the pilot pulled off a feat that had not been successfully done before, without loss of life, he went into the record books and it is right that this should have been made into a film.

Eastwood and Hanks, particularly Tom Hanks, have done a good job. We get a snapshot of the character of Sully Sullenberger and how he became what he was, so that he was the right man in the right place when this happened. What is not so good is the portrayal of the Air Accident Inquiry. I am sure there was pressure on them from the airline and aircraft manufacturers to find "pilot error" as he cause, but Air Accident investigators are professionals and although they would have pursued this line of inquiry, they would not have done it in the adversarial and dishonest way portrayed in the film. Perhaps this was done to make the film appeal more at the box office. The actual events were amazing enough, they didn't need tarting up. Nevertheless the film was otherwise faithful to the real events, (I watched a BBC documentary shortly after the event). There were three items that didn't come fully out, they were covered but could be missed if you were not aware.

The first was that he started the auxiliary engine very early, before normal in the check list. This restored power as there is limited life in the batteries and gave a little bit of forward thrust, not enough to fly and completely offset the drag, but enough to give a few more seconds of precious time.

The second is that there were stop cocks that should have been closed prior to ditching but this was not done, so they plane sank before it should have. The reason was that the instruction to do this was at the end of the check list and due to their low altitude they did not have time to get that far. The check list they had was not adequate for the job they had to do. This is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturers. Hopefully this has now been addressed, that is why we have Air Accident Inquiries.

The third thing, shown in the film but not commented on, was the nose-up attitude he used when ditching. Planes always descend nose up to maintain lift but it is normal to return to horizontal at touchdown so that the plane can run along the runway. Water is different, as soon as any part of the plane touches the water it experiences a sudden stopping force on the lower side. Due to the momentum of the heavy plane, the upper part wants to continue and a turning moment is applied that flips the plane over with disastrous consequences. He came down into the water nose up so that the plane surfed like a boat. He was not taught to do this, he just did it from his experience. This last item is the most important as it shows that his habit, of anticipation of what could go wrong and how to prepare for it, is what lead the outcome. A real hero.

The film is worth watching, is as good as any other good drama, and not a boring documentary. I would happily watch it again.

Whenever a sequel to a film is made the obvious question pops up. "Why make a sequel, is it any better, has it anything to add, or is it just milking the same formula"? This is often answered by "the original was better", though sometimes as in the case of modernizing an old story, or a different director giving a different twist, it does work.

In this case we have the same director revisiting the story twenty years on. It is not so much a sequel, as the second part of the same story. The same actors are used who have all aged twenty years in the meantime, so it works very well. Some clever bits of juxtaposition have been used in the inter cutting of flash backs to emphasize the back plot. The surface plot is a new story (continuing the first one) so it is not just rehashing old ground, which makes the film entertaining and able to stand on its own. It is when you put both together that the back plot of how people inter-react and how culture evolves becomes the more important. In my view these films should be seen together, with a short interval (one or two days) between and are not so much film and sequel, but a whole when seen together. (Blade Runner is supposed to be similar).

I didn't really enjoy Train Spotting, and I didn't really enjoy this one either; I don't like drugs in films, or pop music. However I did appreciate both as well made films, and I am glad I have seen them, but I won't watch them again.

This DVD has an interview with most of the main actors and the director which we found interesting and illuminating. One point made was that in watching this film now, if you saw the original when it was released, then you can reflect on how you have changed in the intervening twenty year.

Emily Pankhurst started the suffragette movement which lead to the emancipation of women. Well they have a few more rights now, but the glass ceiling is still there. Just as the abolition of slavery has not lead to racial equality as it should have. This film touches on both these aspects and tells an important story. There are some women who are cleverer and more capable then most men, but men still get the top jobs. Very few who are not white make it to the top, with a few exceptions.

This tells the story of the computing unit, an office of women used for calculations before the advent of computers as a routine office tool. It shows how their work was vital in NASA' role in the conquest of space. It shows how women, particularly black women, were treated in the work place in the 50s. It also shows how NASA strove to improve things with Kevin Costner playing his part. I do not know if this is accurate; I am not American and I was busy trying to make my way in the world at the time, but I can believe it. The film ending credits give credence to the acceptance of these heroines, but why did it takes so long for this story to come out.

We start peacefully with two boys digging in the sand at the site of a previous conflict looking for weapons and we build up from there. There is not a lot of blood and guts action fighting, as in many war films, but we build up to the horrors of a Nazi SS extermination of a Belarus village. At this point there is no distinction made between regular soldiers and SS, all Germans are depicted as depraved and debauched. In reality the Wehrmacht were ruthless but disciplined (in the main), although the film is depicting them as they would have been perceived by the villagers. Later as the tide turned and the perpetrators were captured and dealt with by the resistance fighters they were quickly dispatched and not made to suffer pain, which is not what would have happened. The fight up to the taking of Berlin was just as bad as the original invasion of Russia, but the film doesn't go there. Instead it asks how we could unwind all this horror. There are scenes of the holocaust and how Hitler rose to power, but that is not the only event in history that needs to be put right. There were wars for centuries before, and there have been wars since, with just as many atrocities taking place in the name of Nationalism. If you are pacifist you will see this as an anti war film. If you are a nationalist then you will see it as a justification for fighting to defeat evil, which is a shame. I can't think of a film that strikes at the real problem, Nationalism.

This film is generally rated lower then the pure documentary by Laura Poitras.

I am not sure why, it is a good film, perhaps people who saw the documentary

first are disappointed as it is only actors and not the real people.

(Actually one of the participants does have a cameo). Maybe because it was

first or because it was still shocking to most Americans at the time the

documentary scored higher. By the time most people saw the second film

Trump was on the scene and Snowdon was old news. However the problem is

still with us, the US legislature may have enacted some bills, but the

"Security" services pay no heed to the law, they are above it, they are

protecting the well being and lifestyle of the privileged elite. Which

is what they mean by National Security, whatever your view maybe. And UK

is no better than USA in this.

In my view both films are equally good, and need to be seen sequentially.

The 2014 one (Citizenfour) is closer to a documentary as it has the actual

participants and much of the footage is the actual video shot at the time.

It answers the question "what happened"? This film (2016) is more of a drama

with actors, but is still true to the story, it gives more background and

attempts to answer the question "Why did it happen"? To this end it can only

make suggestions, it is a complex morality question.

It has been suggested that making sensitive documents public, having sworn

an oath to secrecy, is asking for trouble. This naive view ignores the

moral question that all whistle blowers face, to reveal that a crime has been

committed or not. Is lying to congress OK, but proving this to the public

not OK?