Film Reviews by Steve

Lovely, exquisitely crafted period drama which is a fictional story about two genuine musicians in the reign of Louis XIV of France. The main casting is perhaps gimmicky with Guillaume Depardieu as an apprentice player of the bass viol while his real-life father Gérard plays him as an older man in the court at Versailles.

In 17th century Burgundy, the younger Marin Marais was taught the bass viol by Monsieur de Sainte-Colombe, master of the instrument. According to Wikipedia, little else is known. But in this version, the maestro (Jean-Pierre Marielle) is visited by his dead wife and plays in austere isolation rather than perform in society...

Meanwhile, the novice falls in love with his lonely daughter (Anne Brochet) and breaks her heart. The charm of the film is how the lower pitch of the bass viol flows into the deeper, more melancholy experiences; like grief, loss, regret and unrequited love. Because music communicates emotions we don't have words for...

And this gives the film considerable atmosphere. Depardieu senior reads out long passages from the novel (by Pascal Quignard) but as it is accompanied by the music of the Baroque, the extraordinarily artistic still lifes of the dusty interiors and the gorgeously photographed rural locations, this is no hardship at all!

A divertissement translated from David Ives' Broadway hit, which itself was inspired by the seminal short novel Venus in Furs (1870) by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch; who put masochism into the dictionary. So there is some tasteful eroticism, though this is more a film of ideas, a reflection on what the text means now...

Plus it's also about the creative tensions involved in writing, casting and staging a play. It's a two-hander with Mathieu Amalric as the writer-director who starts out auditioning Emmanuelle Seigner to play the maîtresse, but slowly and by degrees finds himself becoming more compliant, and then submissive...

Perhaps this is because he is interested in the novella as those are his own dreams? Or this is all a fantasy going on inside his head...etc! Both actors are exceptional. In real life, Seigner is the wife of its director, Roman Polanski... and Mathieu Amalric is short and surely made to look like him. So maybe this is personal...

Which will be an issue for some given its themes and the nature of Polanski's criminal conviction. But obviously not for French critics as they awarded him the César for Best Direction. Objectively, it's a stage play set in a theatre which isn't cinematic, but is interpreted in detail and with intelligence by everyone involved.

Flawed but still viable coming-of-age/memory story adapted by director William Richert from his own novel. Indeed at times it feels like River Phoenix- as the sexually precocious 17 year old growing up in '60s suburban Chicago- is just reading out the text from the book, which is wannabe JD Salinger.

The setting may be alienating for those who lived their teenage years in the UK, as the kids drive around in big cars. Plus Phoenix in the title role has multiple erotic encounters ranging from a cute, rich debutante (Meredith Salenger) to a well preserved friend of his mother (Ann Magnuson). And more!

Boys in the UK equivalent are grateful if they lose their virginity before the fade out! Yet there's something moreish about these Hollywood rites-of-passage films about the last summer before college and searching for the perfect girl while learning life lessons to the jukebox hits from back in the day.

This environment is ludicrously conservative, but it's never clear if it is being satirised. River Phoenix- the ’80s James Dean- gives the film some cult status. His presence makes Jimmy more attractive than he may have been on the page and surely accounts for why this is a sex film without any nudity.

This is the debut as director of Shane Black who previously scripted the 1980s Lethal Weapons trilogy. He clearly reuses the formula, though personally I prefer this as a subject for comedy because it sends up hardboiled crime fiction rather than the action thriller. And I lean towards the 1970s neo-noir approach this imitates.

Otherwise the crosstalk and cartoonish action inserts are similar, except this is better written, with some decent wisecracks and a sardonic voiceover. A bonus for genre aficionados is this ostentatiously references Raymond Chandler, and not just resolving knotty plot convolutions by making a heavy enter the scene with a gun...

Even the chapter headings are borrowed from Chandler. Otherwise, much of the attraction is the odd couple bromance between Robert Downey Jr. as a New York shoplifter who goes to Los Angeles to research an acting role... and Val Kilmer as a private detective who gives him a tour around West Coast crime and corruption.

And there are satirical arrows aimed at Hollywood. It's got that oversaturated colour of '70s noir and there are references to those films, and pulp fiction. Much of the viewers’ response will depend on tolerance of the irony overload (and swearing). But this is a must for noir buffs, and though a flop, later picked up a following on tv.

This action spy thriller now seems oddly distorted by the cultural factors in play back then. The early Dirty Harry pictures drew accusations of racism, and so Clint Eastwood- as an art collector/secret agent hooks up with black and native American babes.... But in line with his misogynist tough guy image of the '70s, he's incredibly sexist.

And it just doesn't feel right watching the superstar of cop films and westerns roaming around Switzerland in pursuit of the enemies of the CIA, accompanied by a John Williams score which is a blatant John Barry ripoff. Not Bond so much as The Ipcress File (1965). Eastwood is miscast and George Kennedy wasted as a retired spook.

And besides, in 1975 these Euro-spy capers were old fashioned. Plus the intrigue is low watt, and the wisecracks are dreadful and borderline offensive. However, this excels in the action sequences shot in the Alps and Monument Valley, Utah which are ahead of their time. And credit to the star for performing his own climbing exploits.

These still feel authentic and are impressive and thrilling. But considering how massive Clint was in the '70s, it did poorly at the box office. Now, it's hard to watch because of the attitudes, and of interest in the same way as Benny Hill, as a measure of how we've changed. But anyone inclined will also see some spectacular stunts.

Complex psychological thriller loaded with cultural subtext and an elaborate plot structure. This is much more arthouse than multiplex, but still exciting even if manipulative. It's directed with neo-noir atmospherics by Tom Ford who tells the elaborate story with expertise. And there are impressive performances, led by Amy Adams.

She plays a promoter of modern art who receives a manuscript written by her first husband (Jake Gyllenhaal). So there is a non-linear framing narrative which represents their courtship and separation and then her second marriage to a superficial womaniser. And this is interrupted by her personal interpretations of the novel.

So Gyllenhaal plays a second role as the main character of the text who loses his family in a fatal encounter with some psycho rednecks down in Texas. And it becomes clear the literary fiction is a raw, abrasive allegory for their breakup. This can surely be read as an anti-feminist exploration of the crisis in the family, and of masculinity.

Which is idiotic... But it also creates an intense impression of the stages of his bitter breakdown, and of her subliminal guilt. His experiences in the novel are commonplace, hard to watch and end foolishly. But the conclusion of the framing story is a heartbreaker. Despite reservations, this is one of the standout US films of its decade.

Brutal revenge western set after the US Civil War, with Liam Neeson relentlessly/ruthlessly stalking Pierce Brosnan from the frozen peaks of Oregon down to Death Valley, California- where they reference the famous climax of Greed (1924). An internet search informs that a Seraph is the highest of the Christian angels...

So the title gives us the symbolism, though this is the main weakness; especially in the closing moments when Angelica Huston turns up in a gypsy wagon to beat us over the head with it. This is best as a simple tale of retribution with strong performances, primarily from Brosnan, barely recognisable under the facial hair.

And it's a survivalist western too as the quarry must take extreme measures to stay alive, particularly in the subzero mountains. The scene where Brosnan removes a bullet from his arm with his trusty old hunting knife is hard to watch, and the visceral horror of what it takes to cling on offsets the literary pretensions.

The spectacular, almost palpable, photography across many states creates a sort of mythic arena for the deadly pursuit. Until the escalating consequences of their hostility drives the two men into a state of degradation. This is all derivative, but usually of interesting films, and the Irish leads give it some star wattage.

This ultra-low budget Los Angeles comedy is a huge standout in the decade of gross-out slapstick. It is astute and sincere without ever being sentimental. There are plenty of big laughs too. The humour inclines to the comedy of embarrassment, especially the extended scene with an answer machine...

Which I now skip through. It's a lifestyle/buddy picture about a couple of out of work actors. John Favreau means to break into sitcoms but is weighed down by the separation from his longterm girlfriend. Vince Vaughn plays a loud, charismatic wannabe who labours to get his best pal over the heartbreak...

Meanwhile the duo cruise the swing revival scene in Hollywood with their posse of would-be rat-packers... looking for sex, or a break. And much of their hipster dialogue entered the wider culture for a while. Plus there's the cool soundtrack of classic Vegas numbers and visual references to arthouse cinema.

The lack of finance is obvious, but not a problem. Favreau- who co-produced, and wrote the quotable script- was in the business and able to call in favours. Otherwise, he cast relations and director Doug Liman shot guerrilla style. It's a funny, feel-good comedy, and among the best ever on unrequited love.

Bittersweet anthology of tales rich in the usual idiosyncratic quirkiness of writer-director Jim Jarmusch. It feels like an exercise from a drama workshop with the quintet of short films about taxi rides in five very different cities at night: Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome and Helsinki.

The locations were mostly chosen so Jarmusch could reconnect with past collaborators. And the capital of Finland, well, so he could make an offbeat short in the style of Aki Kaurismäki; the best performance on show is from the legendary director's stalwart leading actor, Matti Pellonpää.

These are diverse stories about the nocturnal meetings of strangers, where the moods shift each time between comedy and tragedy. Presumably Roberto Benigni improvised most of his bawdy monologue delivered to a dead priest... There's an alien eye view of the foibles of mankind.

And also the often overlooked wonder of living on the surface of a rock spinning though space. The soundtrack by Tom Waits is another reason to visit, but again, is hardly mainstream. This is an unorthodox arthouse treat for Jarmusch fans, but unlikely to crossover beyond the existing cult.

This version of Elizabeth von Arnim's 1922 novel was made by the BBC for television but later released to cinemas in the US where it was a minor hit and picked up three Oscar nominations. It's pure escapism; a vicarious fantasy. And so beautiful.

Four unacquainted women mostly suffering from disappointing marriages, the rainy grey fustiness of bourgeois London and a lingering despair brought on by WWI, relocate to the picturesque, rustic fishing village of Portofino in Northwest Italy...

In a historic castle rented out to tourists; in the light and warmth of the lovely coastal gardens; free for a month from the restrictions of their normal lives- and a few days from their inattentive husbands- they start to heal and thrive and grow again.

The sunny locations and sublime ensemble cast... dispense a dose of the tranquility and optimism the ladies find in themselves. It comforts like an opiate, emancipating the senses and soothing the heart... In the UK- in 1991- that was sweet release.

Ever get the impression there is precious little law and order in the US, but rather a free market of individuals suing each other within a system balanced in favour of protecting the interests of the rich and well connected against the little guy? Well, so says Sidney Lumet's classic Hollywood courtroom drama.

It's a typically liberal and sincere exposé by Lumet of US medicine, but mostly of the legal system and the many impediments to justice. It's also the best performance of Paul Newman's life as the disillusioned, alcoholic lawyer who gets a shot at redemption when he represents the victim of a botched operation.

There are a couple of clunky narrative gear changes but it would take the most inflexible of realists to complain. This is more about the emotional ride, and- for me- a betrayal that haunts my memories. David Mamet's script is intelligent and pithy and hard-hitting, but not above pitching straight to the heart.

And at the climax, almost as a bonus, there's an overwhelming cameo from Lindsay Crouse as the surprise witness. This is one of the greats of American cinema because it confirms our certainty that the whole human casino is fixed... but then appeals to our most tenuous dream that a fairer deal is possible.

Writer-producer John Hughes said this is an attempt to correct his unsatisfactory ending for Pretty in Pink, released a year before. It is the same formula, with the soundtrack of hits from the UK indie charts and the usual high school rituals, with some cute dialogue about teenage angst.

Except there's a gender flip. This time Eric Stoltz is the redhead from the wrong side of the tracks, torn between the unattainable babe (Lea Thompson) who hangs with the rich kids, and his punky, androgynous best female friend (Mary Stuart Masterson) who is secretly love with him.

When the misfit is sexier than the honey, well it's obvious where this will end up. Still, the ride is fun. If it's not as good as Pretty in Pink, that's mainly because the main actors are too old and there's no Molly Ringwald, who turned this down. Stoltz is handsome enough but lacks star charisma.

Masterson is better and her drum solo to Dr. Mabuse by Propaganda gives the opening titles a jump start. Maddie Corman steals her scenes in one of Hughes’ little sister roles. The budget means more gloss, but it's a routine ‘80s High School romcom; no surprises, just classier than most.

Graham Greene was particularly scathing of this adaptation of his own favourite among his many novels. And it was a huge flop at the box office. But it's interesting for all the reasons his writing normally is. He creates human stories which seem to get to the heart of a political scenario while exploring the fascinating moral consequences.

In this case, it's the long military junta in control of Argentina. There is the author's familiar cast of archetypes, with a minor government official, a doctor, a local cop and a lapsed priest. In this instance the alcoholic is the Honorary Consul who is mistakenly kidnapped by rebels and treated by the medic in an affair with his wife.

Other than the subterfuge, the main attraction is the standout performance of Michael Caine's career as the drunken functionary who foolishly marries a young sex worker (Elpidia Carrillo). Richard Gere is actually fine as the mercenary MD; however the main weakness is a few awkward attempts to play up to his '80s pinup status.

This is more of psychological drama than pure thriller, though director John MacKenzie gives the hooky plot some momentum. There is plenty of ambient pessimism; plus the intrigue of Greene's usual emotional cycle of indifference, betrayal, guilt and redemption. There are few poor films made from his novels, and this isn't one.

This was a critical and box office disaster, and financially the worst possible start for Francis Coppola's Zoetrope Studio. But it has sustained a small cult following, and will probably continue to draw interest because of Tom Waits' heartbreak ballads, including the odd couple duets with Crystal Gayle.

It's an arthouse musical romance set in Las Vegas but shot on a soundstage with ostentatious virtuosity. The music and the look have attracted a few admirers. But I like the love story too, and the heartfelt performances, with Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr as a couple stuck in the same old routine...

As they close in on middle age, the thrill has gone, leaving chores and rows. What if they have another go around? As this is a musical fantasy, their affairs are like sweet dreams. She hooks up with an adventurous, attentive Latino played by Raúl Juliá. And he... well, with the adorable Nastassja Kinski!

And she gives the film a dose of heart as the sexy circus girl. This is a romance which mixes enchantment into the familiar and creates magic. When the two reconcile while Crystal Gayle sings, 'I love you, more than all these words can ever say' on the soundtrack... is it really only me, blinking away a tear?

* My preferred version is the original 1982 theatrical release.

Understated psycho-drama based on a novel by Ruth Rendell in which Claude Chabrol extends his contempt for French bourgeois sanctimony about as far as it can go... A wealthy provincial family hires an introverted, illiterate psychopath (Sandrine Bonnaire) with fake references to help around the house.

In time her role expands until she's their general dogsbody. Then she forms an alliance with another even weirder misfit (Isabelle Huppert) to bring capricious, bloody revenge on the family’s middle class rules and privileges! If only they hadn't expected their flunky to read those damn shopping lists!

It's very much an actors film, led by Bonnaire and Huppert, who bring chilly austerity to their roles as the uneducated, plebeian executioners, who bond with just a suggestion of sexual attraction. Virginie Ledoyen stands out in the support cast as the student daughter already an expert in class hypocrisy.

The mood is downbeat and detached and brittle, yet uncomfortably, relentlessly hypnotic. It's an ambiguous, slow release drama more than a thriller; though there is a relishable final twist... It's among Chabrol's more commercially successful films from his late period and a critics' favourite.