Film Reviews by Steve

Not my personal favourite of the classic melodramas Douglas Sirk directed at Universal studios in the 1950s, but probably the most critically admired. And it's the one which made the heaviest cultural impact. Jane Wyman plays a wealthy widow who falls in love with the young free-spirited hunk (Rock Hudson) who tends to her garden...

Meanwhile her two awful children and the wealthy country club conformists try to wreck their relationship, mainly for reasons of class. It reunites the stars of Sirk's massive 1954 hit, The Magnificent Obsession, and once again struggles to insert a rather superfluous philosophy; this time related to American transcendentalism!

Though Sirk is clearly more interested in the iniquities of US capitalism, and the audience in the glossy romance between the two stars. But there are two main potential drawbacks: it's a wish-fulfilment fantasy about a woman of a certain age who gets another go around with... Rock Hudson. And sure, what that means is now ambiguous...

But not everyone will identify! Secondly, this might climax unforgettably with the haunting reflection of Wyman in a tv screen as she is confronted with the loveless future the small town conservatism demands. But the studio insisted on a Hollywood ending! Still it's a key Sirk melodrama with the usual superior production polish.

Long and very detailed domestic drama from Taiwan which enquires into an ordinary middle class family and how they respond to the trials of their normal lives; while arousing a deep sense of empathy for their fears and aspirations.

Director Edward Yang's approach is reminiscent of Yasujirô Ozu, with the static camera and the absence of closeups. And this classical style makes for a stark contrast with the very modern lives of the people of Taipei in a period of instability.

There is an economic recession. More significantly the traditional family cannot withstand the pressure of westernisation. While grandma is in a coma... the younger generations struggle to adapt, and become isolated and uncertain.

The director's disinterested camera exposes the interior space while their personal traumas slowly unravel; the sadness deepened by a beautiful piano score. Everything is understated and unhurried and quietly heartbreaking.

A change of direction for writer-director John Hughes as his characters leave education behind and become adults. And he no longer casts his Brat Pack actors. This features Kevin Bacon as a graduate who marries his steady college sweetheart (Elizabeth McGovern). And she eventually... becomes pregnant.

It's mostly from the male perspective as he goes through his post-grad rites of passage, while borderline paralysed by what is now called FOMO. Old friends and alternate potentials drift away replaced by grownup responsibilities. He's also writing a comic novel so there are occasional fantasy inserts based on his anxieties.

This isn't all that original, but Hughes is always good with dialogue and the comic situations are fine. The stars are amiable enough and there's the usual support cast of oddball parents. Plus music from the UK indie charts. This may even be the moment when Hughes realises he will never be another Woody Allen.

It lost money, but his '80s films are often good at how life gets serious. The best scene is the childbirth montage, scored by the extreme heartbreak of This Woman's Work by Kate Bush and the empathy goes up another level; with the bargaining and awful panic. And all the fathers in the audience choke back their sobs.

This is usually promoted as King Lear set in medieval Japan. But according to the internet, Akira Kurosawa based it on a historic warlord before he was familiar with the Shakespeare play. Then he later worked in a few connections. It's the legendary director's end-of-life film. Anyone approaching this as a Japanese Lear is likely to be disappointed.

This is mostly because the translated dialogue isn't comparable with a Shakespearian text. What this has is spectacle; something you never got at the Globe. On that level it is a triumph, with the immense production logistics, including costumes and castles and the dazzling vitality of the photography. There is lots of authentic, pre-CGI craft.

But Kurosawa doesn't tell the story so well. The screen is loaded with dramatic imagery but lacks cinematic narrative... and the main characterisations are not complex. The various armies are identified more through colour coding than their motivations. And with the impassive performances, this feels longer than its 160m running time.

Even so... Tatsuya Nakadai is massive as the egotistical but foolish military commander. Mieko Harada is also a standout as the scheming, ultra-pragmatic wife of one of his warring inheritors. The whole bloody pageant in Panavision is colossal; especially the many battle scenes. Arthouse blockbusters on this scale are genuinely not made anymore.

After the tragedy of Jean de Florette (also 1986), part two is more like melodrama, with its revenge narrative and the heartbreaking but very literary dénouement. Both were filmed in a single production so there is no change in approach. We are back in the idyllic campagne of Provence with the sound of the solo harmonica and the cicadas...

Except it's ten years later. Jean's daughter has grown into a lowly- but lovely- goatherd who exacts poetic justice upon the landowners who destroyed her father, by blocking up the stream that serves their farms and the village. The locals are what is now called low information voters. It's dismaying to listen to their (familiar) ignorance and prejudice.

But the unknowable mystery of unintended consequences brings about an even more profound revenge. And the entire four hours ends in a complete emotional overload... Daniel Auteuil and Yves Montand return as the duplicitous villains who are deepened by ill-fortune. And '80s arthouse pinup Emmanuelle Béart makes a beautiful agent of retribution...

Which really makes the complex narrative function. Credit also to writer-director Claude Berri, who gets the elaborate final twist to unravel with exquisite precision. There may be tears! Then there is the understated but rather sweet love story. This period drama is still relevant to who we are now. And seems to have got better over the passing years.

This is an end-of-the-world picture in two respects: it was made by Andrei Tarkovsky after he was diagnosed with a terminal disease and is a personal reflection on a lifetime in cinema and a summation of his late life ideas; plus it's a sci-fi fantasy which imagines a nuclear holocaust through the dream of an older man in decline.

The deeper we get into his subconscious, the more surreal is the director's symbolistic landscape. The sacrifice is the extreme bargaining the academic (Erland Josephson) will consider in order to save his young son, and the whole world. The plotless visual poetry creates sensual expressionism out of light and sound...

There are (apparently) 115 slow tracking shots, leading to the climactic house fire scene which is one unbroken seven minute edit. Sven Nykvist's desolate colour photography is so desaturated that the core of the dream is in b&w. And if this sounds pretentious, then of course, it's the last statement of a complex arthouse legend...

And it's an immersive experience, which breathes in Ingmar Bergman, and breathes out Béla Tarr... Much of the imagery is religious but there is no meaningful redemption. Tarkovsky ends on a long close up of a tree, which evokes the sacrifice of the crucifix. And returns us- says Wiki- to the opening shot of his 1962 debut, Ivan's Childhood.

There is such irony that the vogue for UK metropolitans to move to rural France was inspired by this parable on the abuse of immigrants. And maybe it's supremely shallow if their takeaway from this epic tale of avarice is how lovely it all looks. Well, the widescreen cinematography is exceptional, as well as the interwar period decor and costumes.

Gérard Depardieu plays a hunchback/outsider whose persecution is justified by his physical difference. Yves Montand and Daniel Auteuil scheme like a pair of Shakespearean rogues to destroy the goodhearted hero via the tragic flaw of his naivety. Before his family arrives to farm their inherited land, the nativists seal up the spring, then observe them go bankrupt in a drought.

The three stars are perfect casting, with Montand the standout as a pretty coldhearted villain. His accomplice is conflicted, which is arguably even worse; but their greed and resentment are an addiction. Claude Berri adapts and directs this revision of Marcel Pagnol's 1952 original version, with both detail and spectacle. The production is simply magnificent.

It had a huge cultural impact overseas... and was massive box office everywhere. The opening strains as the harmonica plays Verdi over the drone of the cicadas, folds the passing years in an instant. It ends on a huge downer, partly because it's only the first half of the story. Anyone who sees this will want to watch the conclusion unfold in Manon des Sources (also 1986).

This is the second of Douglas Sirk's 1950's melodramas for Universal which are the nucleus of his reputation as an auteur. Most of the motifs are in place, with Frank Skinner's lush, classical influenced score and Russell Metty's lustrous Technicolor photography. In his breakout role, Rock Hudson is paired for the first time with (Oscar nominated) Jane Wyman.

And Sirk delivers a few asides on the disease of American capitalism. Although this is early in the cycle, it feels like a pastiche, with the melodrama turned up to max. A millionaire playboy (Hudson) becomes a neurologist to restore the eyesight of a middle aged widow (Wyman), whose blindness he brings about in a reckless accident.

This serves as a prompt for flimsy philosophical ideas related to philanthropy. But mostly invokes the hand of the almighty... especially when the celestial choir kicks in. It's tempting to imagine this sort of poetic romance was done better in John M. Stahl's 1935 original*, when melodrama was more tuned into the audiences of the depression...

But no, this is superior, with the photogenic stars, lavish set decor, Sirk's elegant direction, the lifestyle of the WASP upper set... Naturally, unless the viewer is predisposed to love such hyper-emotional fantasy, the astonishing story is ridiculous. But for those who are, it is an extreme experience, and a portal into a kind of cinema which is no longer possible.

*both versions are on the bluray.

There's a curiously warm, nostalgic afterglow to François Truffaut's occupation drama, maybe because the Parisians keep calm and carry on- as much as possible- against hardship and provocation. And there is an occasional soundtrack of sentimental ballads. There are no interrogations or executions on screen.

This is about the wartime boom in theatre attendance... because the public can't heat their homes. It focuses much more on the French collaborators than the Nazis, including how freely the citizens report the enemies of the occupation to their oppressors; usually suspicion of Jewish heritage. Often over minor disputes.

Catherine Deneuve plays a popular star of the stage who hides her Jewish husband (Heinz Bennent) in the theatre cellar while the show goes on. There is an affection for the liberal creatives who do what they can to bend the new laws. Gérard Depardieu is her romantic lead who offstage is involved in the resistance.

The villain is a theatre critic who finds the occupation suits his prejudices very well. It's a slow, affectionate tribute to a resilient way of life which is broadly critical of any intolerance; and it's disturbing to hear the racism present today in UK politics. This was a huge success in France and my pick as Truffaut's best.

Extreme Japanese body horror which looks like a live action Manga strip. This is a homemade, low budget project from writer-director-factotum Shin'ya Tsukamoto, who basically did everything in his workshop, and also co-stars. He has helpfully outlined the intended plot, though there isn't an obvious linear narrative...

We mainly see two men suffer trauma, who transform into grotesque metal machines. This is more about the style, with the beat up, grainy b&w expressionism and the gloomy kling-klang of the industrial techno soundtrack. It is a demented, gross-out sci-fi/horror with heavy use of prosthetics and animation.

There's obvious thematic content about the impact of technology on human evolution and post-Hiroshima fear of apocalypse. This is an immensely Japanese monster story which reflects their embrace of avant-garde automation. But is also spookily reminiscent of European surrealism from between the wars.

The relentless chaos is brutal- at least the blood/oil and the flesh/metal is in b&w. And its weird futurism is impressive and peculiar. There may be a limit to how much of this anyone would want to see, but as an isolated, 67m hallucinatory experience, it's a must-see for viewers with an interest in experimental cinema.

This looks like a John Hughes film because it's a coming of age story and it casts the same 'Brat Pack' actors, including several from The Breakfast Club released earlier in 1985. And it could be about those kids a few years into the future. Except this is made by Joel Schumacher, a writer-director of modest pedigree.

While he is obviously inspired by Annie Hall (1977), this is melodrama, or a soap. The dialogue is clunky, the situations are commonplace, and the characterisations are superficial. This is pure nostalgia, an 80s time capsule which was a box office smash because of the young stars and the durable concept.

It reflects on the yuppie lifestyle of a clique of graduate best friends who go through a period of adjustment; because what gets you through school won't get you through life. It's about starting work and selling out... love and infidelity... drugs, booze and the hangover; the encroachment of responsibility.

It wonders when you will wakeup and be like your parents. Pre-surgery Demi Moore is top billed, but hardly recognisable in the bad girl role. In '85, Rob Lowe was the hot star, but my pick is Andrew McCarthy as a heartbroken journalist. Sadly, the soundtrack is a dud, though John Parr had a US no.1 with the title track.

Landmark high school romantic comedy which owes more to Woody Allen than Fast Times at Ridgmont High (1982). It's the ultimate '80s experience with the hair, the clothes... And the alternative soundtrack including The Smiths, OMD... Plus of course the punky title song by The Psychedelic Furs. And many more.

Molly Ringwald gets to keep the unofficial Ms. Eighties title for all time as the boho scholarship student at a school full of rich kids, who is in a first-love triangle with a similarly disadvantaged admirer (Jon Cryer) and the sort of teenager who comes to class in a Mercedes (Andrew McCarthy). With prom coming up fast...

We get a female perspective on the rites of passage. The only significant weakness is neither romantic choice feels like a happy ending; writer-producer John Hughes swapped the outcome in post-production. There's more heartache in the scenes between Molly and Harry Dean Stanton as her deadbeat dad.

While it doesn't dig into the subcultures as deeply as its imitators (and everyone's white), there's plenty of genuinely witty dialogue. It's optimal to watch at 16. Otherwise, this is nostalgia. Even if you didn't grow up in Illinois, the music is British. This is a school where it's forever 1986, and Molly Ringwald is always a star.

The introduction claims this is based on a true story, and it's interesting how often the premise has been copied since, like its themes reflect the ordinary fears of our times. A nine year old boy goes missing from his rural community and his already unhappy family begins to come apart.

When he returns aged 15 he is considerably changed because he ended up on the street... Or because he's an imposter... The parents choose not to press on the details because they want to believe in the dream. This isn't so much a thriller, as an arthouse reflection on issues of identity and the role of the family.

They are a dysfunctional household and it's possible to plot a way through their incipient neuroses and sexual hangups... The conclusion has little impact as the parents and his older sister have mostly lost interest in the truth because it no longer seems to matter... They got used to a new reality.

There's an odd paranormal diversion which doesn't go anywhere but isn't intrusive. This is a slow, muted exploration of a family which is unusual, but by no means unknowable- and may upset some viewers. Writer-director Agnieszka Holland makes the group dynamics of these traumatised survivors weirdly mesmerising.

Characteristically lavish/febrile Southern Melodrama from Douglas Sirk's classic period at Universal Studios. This is the 1950s of Eisenhower's America shot in gorgeous Technicolor with huge stars and exaggerated emotions... It is adapted from a novel based on a real life murder, but this is like a photographed airport blockbuster.

It brings together a few of Sirk's stalwart leading actors with Robert Stack as a crazy drunk/Texas oil tycoon who marries a classy Madison Avenue business secretary- played by Lauren Bacall- and goes on the wagon, for a while. Rock Hudson is the buttoned up adopted brother who holds everything together... but wants her even more!

Dorothy Malone steals the picture and won an Oscar as the younger sister, a volatile nymphomaniac who blows the family apart! There is more sex chat than usual for the period, though the attitudes are dated. And there's a chic production with Bacall in particular wearing some cool outfits, plus the sports cars and sumptuous set decor...

Sirk directs with his usual elegance including some eye-catching crane shots. And there's the Latin rhythms of the big band jazz. Everything is overstated and glossy and superficial and that's the main attraction. Once more, the director implies there is a sickness in US capitalism. But naturally, the postwar excess is the reason we're watching!

This gets marketed as an eco-thriller, which it hardly is. It's about three environmentalists who blow up a dam, but there isn't much editorialising on green issues. And it's scarcely a thriller; there is a moment of classic Hitchcock suspense when the bomb is activated, but it mostly eschews standard technique.

This is more a showcase for the 2010s slow cinema revival, which was led by its director, Kelly Reichardt. So there are long edits, static camera setups and understated acting. This is not exciting; it is gently hypnotic. Jesse Eisenberg and Dakota Fanning as the eco-warriors barely give a performance.

The story is lifted by the slightly more animated involvement later on from Peter Sarsgaard as an ex-marine who assists in their mission. Then it becomes more about their guilt and how the trio respond to the consequences of their actions. And in this respect, it is hardly waving a flag for eco-activism.

Its merit depends on our response to its ostentatiously languorous aesthetic. This is an anti-thriller. It is quietly compelling for the first hour but lacks ideas for a second act and is sustained by the ambient music. Still, it's a must-see for students of slow cinema and a relatively accessible example of the style.