Film Reviews by CSF

The film reflects well the time it is taking place in. I totally agree with Griggs's comment. I also think that Diana is yet another Madame Bovary. These women are victims of their personality clashing with a period of time. The 60's was a time of brutal change and it was not always easy to adjust. Nobody was adjusting at the same speed. The film shows that situation perfectly well. Is it a new wave film? Yes in the anglo-saxon way. Especially that the end is not as tragic or pessimistic as the French.

Schlesinger expresses also the idea about where is the frontier between total freedom and depravation.

I recommend this film for pleasure and for reflexion.

I had to read the resume again to understand what I have been watching. Never been so bored watching a film. I chose it because I like Joachim Phoenix and it had a reward in Cannes!!! How can one compare it to Taxi Driver and Leon or 2 master pieces mixed together give rubbish.

I saw the film at the cinema when it came out. Unfortunately it was the year of the terrorist bombing attack in London. Nothing to do with the film but it was an unfortunate coincidence. Both happened underground. Above all, you must not know what's happened before you see it, it would ruin half of the film. So I try not to spoil it as far as possible. I am very difficult to scare or to move. The last film that scared me was Hitchcock's 'Psycho'. The success of The Descent is that it is realistic. What they find in these caves has little to do with ghosts, witchcraft or black magic.

What disappoints me was the ending. I didn't understand it!!!!1

I saw the film "Delicieux" and I thought it was this one. Far from it. 'Délicieux' is a master piece like 'Babette's Feast'. The 'Taste of Things' is just a nice photo album or a gallery of beautiful photos or a cooking course. It is long, tedious and the opportunity to make an emotional film is totally missed. Pity, with such great actors!

I didn't like the film very much. I am a bit blasé about the bad boys in America. I am disapppointed that Ford could only produce this story déjà-vu. I much prefer Elia Kazan's Waterfront. Not the same story but the same style.

A nice vampire, in fact a victim who tries heroically to save his family and his people. However, three quarter of the film are battles or it feels like it. We have also an ugly vampire-annex to balance the legend. I found the ending unusual but it has already been used by Roman Polanski. In fact my favourite is the Bal of the Vampires where Polanski uses originality and humour but the English version has been cut of its best bits. Only the French version is unchanged.

I appreciated that this new Dracula is not a disgusting looking Nosferatu but I was disappointed that all his features were not in use.

The film impressed me a lot. I found the actors were exceptional, especially the actor Dominic West. Sometimes I felt I was watching the real one. I didn't realise until then how Emily Watson was such an expressive actress. Both of them were expressing themselves as much in words as with their eyes. I was aware of this terrible affair like everybody else but the reason I wanted to watch the film is because I used to teach in a prison and I met a new officer. By chance we came to talk about this affair and he said he was working as an officer in the same prison as Rosemary West's. She told him that she was 'happy' to be in prison because it protects her from herself and from the others!

I found it more scary than an horror film because it tells a true story but it must be watched to learn about the human mind. Also it makes you think about how people can become like that. The film is very 'neutral', it doesn't take someone's side, it relates the facts in a raw way.

Why on earth England import, in general, the uninteresting films from France?? I love the director Patrice Leconte (and the actor Depardieu) but this film is far from being his best, I found it ...boring. But I would advise film lovers to watch the other Patrice Leconte's films.

I enjoyed the film even if it seems to have been made after a 3 week course on how to make a film. I won't say more. Still it is worth watching and what's more, it was like very much like the life in France during the German ccupation. The film is worth 2 stars for the 'making' and 4 stars for what it shows.

I won't be long. Very tedious. Trying in vain to be as brillant as The Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter. Even children would get bored. What a waste of money and time!

I was extremely disppointed by that film. It is typical of men's fantasy. I much prefer the first version and the version with Isabelle Adjani. This is a gore version. I didn't find it frightning, I found it disgusting and sickly. Not erotic at all. I don't mind 'fragile women in the hands of a monster' if it is well done , i.e Jean Cocteau's The Beauty and the Beast. But Cocteau was a poet, not a sewage cleaner or a forensic coroner. I was also surprised that the actress, Lily-Rose, was rather plain in the film, she is in fact a very pretty luminous blonde. There, she is like a silly plain nun with a wig enjoying a man vomiting blood during sex. Nosferatu is like a leper, worse than a zombie. What's more, some directors think it is original not to follow the rules of the vampire's legends; it was not original, it was less credible. It would have been easy and there was the opportunity for the stake in the heart. No, the woman has to be the stake as it were! I can't say the way he died because of the spoiler but the ending is just as disgusting as the rest of the film.

It looks as if 2 psychologists are talking to each other and it should have been a stage play more than a film. However, it is a very informative and open mind story. The story tells us in a nutshell that sex is a natural thing, even if it needs to be controlled. Sometimes I didn't find some scenes credible. A mature school teacher speaking about her sex life openly to a young man? Why not. It is easier to speak to a stranger you'll never see again. I was told off by a parent once, for showing 'The Graduate' to a 5th form (15 year-old) but the kids were fascinated. I would not show them that film, I would lose my job. I always believe that good cinema makes us progress. A pity that it is rarely showed and that our new generations are put in front of American entertainment essentially. France is better for showing life with entertainment. Emma Thompson is amazing. So is 'Leo Grande'. A difficult part to handle...

I liked the film. It has everything to be great: the idea, the actors, the story. And yet, it could have been so much better! What's nearly ruin it is the pace. Repetitive scenes and padding. What a pity, it could have been a master piece! Still worth watching.

Intellectual films are cheap to make. I'm afraid this one is above my station, I am not a psychiatrist. Again it is showing how boring Iceland must be and yet I know it is not. It is not the country, it is the people who are limited in this film. It is supposed to be a love story but as everybody is hiding their feelings, it is difficult to see where love stands, appears or oozes. In fact the chaaraters themselves are wondering where love is and throughout the film.

A so called intellectual film. I liked Bergman's films and people should watch them. There is a freedom of expression that is banned today. As for that film, I found it boring, almost a travel agency advert. Is Faroe that island where they killed hundreds dolphins every year? Bergman's films are far more interesting than his life.