Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

The film is centred on 3 key characters. The 1st one is Millie Calloway (a pulpous Sydney Sweeney): recently paroled for a crime she committed, she must find and keep lawful employment. She has been sleeping in her car since leaving jail, it would appear. The 2nd key character is Nina Winchester (a beautiful Amanda Seyfried), who hires Millie as a live-in housemaid (hence the title of the film). We soon realise that Nina is a very troubled woman, who may have serious mental-health issues. The 3rd key character is her husband, Andrew Winchester (a beefy and handsome Brandon Sklenar). He comes from a very wealthy family and runs the family business. The couple have a young daughter, Cece. They live in a very large house on Long Island, on the East Coast of the USA, in a posh neighbourhood. When she moves in, Millie is given a comfortable attic bedroom at the top of the house. We learn that Nina is pregnant, hence she feels she will soon need help around the house. The film develops from this point onwards.

This is a successful, atmospheric thriller, filled with erotic tension - one man and 2 attractive women: what could possibly go wrong? The actors' performance is good, more particularly that of Amanda Seyfried. The storyline is never implausible and the suspense is palpable. This is a very good film, in my view. It could have been a masterpiece, in fact. But the movie has a major flaw, which is a structural weakness. At one point, various events relating to the past of the key characters are revealed, which have a bearing on the story. In my opinion, this comes at the wrong time in the story (a bit too early) and is probably more detailed than necessary. As a result, it somewhat breaks and weakens the momentum of the story. Still, well worth watching.

This is a period film and a sentimental drama centred on 4 young women, who are sisters. They are Josephine 'Jo' March (Saoirse Ronan), Margaret 'Meg' March (Emma Watson), Amy March (Florence Pugh) and Elizabeth 'Beth' March (Eliza Scanlen). The film, directed by Greta Gerwig, is based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott (1868). The story takes place during the late 1860s in New York City and in the town of Concord (in Massachusetts). The movie is about the dreams and the fate of the 4 sisters over a period of several years.

Beth is the youngest and is a musical person, who plays the piano very well. Amy can be sharp and difficult: she has dreams of marrying a handsome, rich man. Meg is very attractive and dreams of settling down and starting a family of her own. Finally, Jo is the odd one out, in many respects: she is very independent and fancies herself a writer; she does not want to marry if it means she will have to become subservient to her husband; she has dreams of her own. In a nutshell, Jo is a rebel. Of the 4 sisters, the 2 that dominate the narrative are Jo and Amy, also because they become rivals in love. In the last analysis, one could say that the key character is Jo: how can she be true to herself, and yet find a way to fit into society, find her own way, and become happy?

The storyline reminded me of 'Pride and Prejudice' by Jane Austen, published about 50 years before (1813): for a respectable middle-class woman in 1860s America, the aim was to find a suitable husband, as there were so few opportunities for paid employment for middle-class women at the time. (Working-class women and women in rural communities had no choice and had to work, however.) The director clearly has a feminist agenda or, at the very least, she looks at the story through a feminist prism - Jo being the standard-bearer of the cause of women in the story. Some reviewers have pointed out that the film would not be true to the novel it is based upon, but I cannot be a judge of that, as I have not read it.

The film works well, in my view, as a period film and a sentimental drama. The characters feel real and the story seems plausible. There are issues with the movie overall, however. The 1st one is, somehow, the lack of context: the American Civil War is raging, and yet it barely seems to affect the 4 girls and their mother (the father is away at the front, precisely). This seems odd, given the impact the war had on American society at the time. The 2nd one is the chopped-up presentation of the storyline: the plot is not chronological, but the chronology is literally jumbled up, with numerous, overlapping flashbacks, with events jumping back and forth all the time. This can be confusing at times and I cannot see what it adds to the story. It is clear the director adopted this technique because she did not want to follow a conventional, chronological timeline. This does not make the film any more original than it is, in fact. In conclusion, it is a good period film with its flaws, but enjoyable if you like this kind of film.

This is a detective story that is mostly unusual because of the ever-present geographical environment, i.e. a very small town – it feels more like an outpost of civilisation in the Arctic – in Alaska. (It would appear that most of the film was actually shot in British Columbia, in Canada.) At that time of year, there is no night in the far North: this plays an important part in the story, as it means that Al Pacino (Will Dormer, the senior investigator sent from Los Angeles) cannot get any sleep throughout his stay. [Incidentally, the solution to this problem would have been to have thick curtains put up in his hotel room: based on personal experience, if you have thick curtains – white on the outside and dark on the inside – you can sleep very well while the sun is bright and shining outside.]

Dormer arrives in Alaska with his 'partner', a young police detective from LAPD. A local teenage girl has been murdered and the 2 LAPD police officers have been sent over to assist in the investigation. Dormer is under pressure back in Los Angeles, due to allegations concerning his unorthodox police methods: he is being investigated by LAPD's Internal Affairs Department. A young detective based locally, Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), who admires and has studied extensively Dormer's track record and career, is tasked with assisting the 2 LAPD detectives. Early on, Dormer hears from the murderer, who is a manipulative individual with clear psychopathic tendencies. The film develops from here, into a high-stake cat-and-mouse game between the seasoned police officer, Dormer, and the murderer.

This is an excellent film from start to finish. It works on every level. The atmosphere of a small town in Alaska is re-created in a striking way. The ever-present and threatening nature of the geographical environment weighs heavily. The acting is very good: Al Pacino, as usual, is credible as the tough LAPD detective; Hilary Swank – her character and her performance – shines right through the movie. The very good reviews regarding this film are justified: it is a classic.

This is an odd film in more ways than one. It fits into the category of the so-called existential thriller and, in fact, reminded me a lot of the 1975 movie, 'The Passenger', starring Jack Nicholson. This is probably no coincidence as the film takes place in the 1970s and re-creates the atmosphere of the period very well. It is about the 1970s, in the style of the 1970s. This probably explains the blurry, sepia colour that envelops the entire movie: even when the sun is shining, the colours are still brownish, somehow. I was not sure this was absolutely necessary, in fact.

The story tracks the progress - or lack of - of the ultimate anti-hero. James Blaine Mooney, known as JB (Josh O'Connor), is the son of a judge and his family is well-to-do. But he is some kind of drifter and dreamer, who seems to be a complete failure, career-wise. This has not prevented him from acquiring a wife, who has a regular office job, and 2 sons, who are vaguely annoying as American kids can be, in American movies. JB comes up with a brilliant plan to steal 4 paintings from a local museum - he studied art at university and is quite knowledgeable when it comes to modern art, more particularly. JB needs accomplices to execute the crime. Things do not go quite according to plan, as you would expect, and the story develops from here. In the movie, JB is the titular 'mastermind', improbable as this may be.

The film is not a thriller in the conventional sense: do not expect spectacular action scenes or fireworks. It could be called an anti-thriller starring an anti-hero: the heist is only a pretext. The core of the story is JB's existential slow-motion car crash. JB is a conman and a loser, but he is strangely fascinating: I suppose we can identify with him as he struggles through life, trying to make sense of his initiatives, i.e. his mistakes. The film has plenty of long silences and slow-motion shots: it is the kind of movie where you are always expecting something big - something truly big - to happen, and it never does, so, you are kept waiting, and yet you are fascinated because you want to believe something big might be round the corner. The jazzy score is ever-present, sometimes a bit too much, perhaps. The film is good at creating an atmosphere - an absurdist mood. So, overall, it is an odd but a good film, a strangely compelling tale, but certainly not the masterpiece many commentators have claimed it is.

This is an interesting film on 2 levels. First of all, the film itself is well-made and keeps you interested to the end. Second, it is fascinating to see the world of today (2022 in the movie) as seen in a film made in the mid-1970s. The story focuses on Robert Thorne (Charlton Heston), who is an NYPD detective investigating the murder of a wealthy and influential individual called William R Simonson. The victim sat on the board of the Soylent Corporation, which dominates life in the city, where it provides food to the army of destitute and homeless residents, in the form of a new product called Soylent Green. Thorne suspects there could be a conspiracy behind Simonson's murder. The story develops from this point onwards.

The film is built on the Malthusian premise that Western civilisation has collapsed due to pollution and overpopulation. Life in New York City, where 40 million people live, has become a fight for survival: it is nightmarish and brutal. Only the élite - and those linked to the Soylent Corporation - enjoy any degree of security and comfort. In some ways, the movie is prescient: we can see, today, the impact of global warming and climate change. What is absent from the future as predicted in the film is advanced communications: there are no computers to speak of, and of course no internet, and people still rely on physical libraries and paper records to find information. (The personal computer appeared in 1971-1975.) In the context of the story, this could be a consequence of societal and civilisational collapse, however, and a deliberate angle adopted by the director.

Overall, this is a good, intriguing film. It is perhaps not quite as gripping as I expected, given the rave reviews it has had over the years. It is a disturbing movie, but not quite a masterpiece. I would still recommend it.

The film is about the mass escape of detainees from the extermination camp at Sobibor, which took place in October 1943. The camp was located in German-occupied Poland. Most deportees were killed on arrival in the camp's gas chambers, but a few hundred detainees worked at the camp to keep the well-oiled extermination machine going. The camp was guarded by a dozen German officers or so, and a larger number of auxiliaries, who worked as camp guards. (Generally, they came from Eastern Europe - often, Latvia and Ukraine, but not exclusively.) As an extermination camp (as opposed to a concentration camp), Sobibor existed in order to murder as many Jews as possible, as part of the Nazi project. Of the detainees who were not gassed on arrival, and given the terrible conditions at the camp, few survived more than a few months. In total, up to 250,000 people were murdered at Sobibor, making it the 4th-deadliest Nazi camp after Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Belzec.

The uprising was organised by a group of detainees, under the leadership of Alexander 'Sasha' Pechersky (played by Russian actor Konstantin Khabenskiy): he was a Jew from the Soviet Union and had the advantage that he had military experience. The movie is very good at re-creating the conditions in the camp in a realistic way - something very few films have achieved, given the nature of the topic. We get a good idea of the German officers' sadistic and perverse attitude, and also of the divisions among the Jewish detainees (more particularly between the Soviet veterans and the others). There are, inevitably, some inaccuracies. For example, at Sobibor, there were no crematoria: the dead bodies were piled up and set on fire on site, in huge pyres. The film may give the impression that, in Judaism, there is a general prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, which is not the case. (Drunkenness is forbidden and alcohol should have kosher certification.) Many, if not most, of the detainees would probably have looked far thinner, if not skeletal, given their living and working conditions – something that is not apparent in the film. (That is why they died so quickly.) Sobibor was not the only camp that experienced an uprising: so did Treblinka. Occasionally, there is also a pro-Soviet (read: pro-Russian) bias that creeps into the narrative, but this is not a major concern overall.

It is still a very good film, which tells a true and harrowing story very well - a story that should not be forgotten, which gives the lie to the often heard notion that Jews went to slaughter without trying to fight back. When they could, they did, as happened with the heroic uprising of the Warsaw ghetto, also in 1943.

The starting point, in the film, is the assassination of a US senator – a presidential hopeful called Charles Carroll. In the wake of the murder, several individuals who were present when the assassination took place die one after the other. Every time, there is a plausible explanation, and the police will not pursue any lines of enquiry. Joe Frady (Warren Beatty), a journalist based in Oregon working on a regional newspaper, decides to investigate the case. The movie develops from this point.

This is a political thriller that is very much of its time, in terms of the atmosphere and the setting (1974). This was, at the time, a new genre, up to a point. The movie is every conspiracy theorist's dream: it is a deep dive into what is often referred to as the deep state. The film is well-made and features a strong ending. However, I must admit I was a bit disappointed: I expected more. Although there is a lot of suspense, it feels a bit flat and predictable at times, not to mention the many, inevitable implausibilities. And we have had so many films following similar storylines since that The Parallax View does not seem particularly 'fresh'. In fact, The Conversation (also, 1974) is far, far superior to The Parallax View. So, a reasonably good film, but no more than that, in my opinion, despite what many film critics may have claimed over the years.

When the film starts, it is 1967 and there is turmoil in British-administered colonial Hong Kong, as the local Chinese are demanding that British rule end. Three childhood friends, Ben, Paul, and Frank, belong to a local gang and they often clash with members of other gangs. When Ben becomes engaged to Jane, his girlfriend, Frank takes out a loan to pay for the wedding reception. Things soon go wrong and the 3 friends are on their way to Vietnam to do some business on behalf of their bosses in the gang. As soon as they arrive in the capital of South Vietnam, Saigon (today, Ho Chi Minh City), they find themselves caught up in the mayhem of the Vietnam War and, again, things do not pan out as hoped. The story develops from there.

At first, you would think the movie is going to be a conventional thriller taking place in Hong Kong. In actual fact, it is nothing of the sort and it soon turns into an action movie taking place in war-torn Vietnam, involving Chinese gangsters, the South Vietnamese army, the American troops and the Communist Vietcong forces. The spectacular scenes involving the 3 central characters, as they tackle a range of extremely violent and often desperate situations, are what you would expect in such a film and are memorable. Apart from the film score, which sounds a bit cheap at times, overall, the story works well, even if the shooting and killing is over the top. The way that the 3 central characters relate to each other and react to events is what makes the movie interesting, as this aspect of the storyline develops in relatively unexpected ways. So, a very good action movie, within the limitations of the genre, with a storyline that does not avoid (or seek to avoid) a number of predictable clichés.

Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is a tough and rebellious 20-year-old man who comes from the working-class neighbourhood of South Boston, which is predominantly white, Irish and Catholic. Will hangs out with 3 friends, including his best friend, Chuckie (Ben Affleck). They go drinking in bars, flirt with girls, and get into fights with other young men. Will is a self-taught mathematics genius, who can solve arcane mathematical problems with ease – a skill he can apply to other sciences, such as biochemistry. He has read a lot – also, books about American history or the law – and finds that his photographic memory enables him to easily retain extremely detailed and comprehensive information. Will works as a janitor at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

When Professor Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgård), a famous professor of mathematics at MIT, sets a challenge for his graduate students – they must solve a highly complex mathematical problem posted on a blackboard – Will puts up the answer anonymously. Prof Lambeau tracks him down and wants to help him. The story develops from this point.

This is an intelligent and moving story. Contrary to what one might expect, there is very little about pure science and mathematics: it would not have been easy to construct a movie around such a theme. The film is, really, a sociological and psychological character study. Will Hunting is a working-class lad who is prone to violence and had a terrible childhood. There is tension between his world and that of MIT: when Will is offered a path into academia (or another promising career that would make use of his mathematical genius), he is reluctant to embrace such a future. The film shows that class differences certainly exist in America. When Will is offered therapy to help him come to terms with his situation, the psychological dimension of the story becomes predominant.

This is a very good film and the actors’ performances are excellent, including that of Robin Williams as the unconventional psychotherapist. The movie is perhaps a little bit predictable and, at times, almost too sentimental. But it is certainly worth watching and up to its reputation.

PS: South Boston features in a superb thriller starring Ben Affleck, “The Town”. It is a grittier and more violent take on that part of the city.

In today's Russia, Andrei and his younger brother, Ivan, are very close. They live with their mother and grandmother in what seems to be a small, provincial town. After an absence of 12 years, their father returns, hence the title of the film. He is a taciturn, enigmatic and menacing man, as well as a disciplinarian who wants the boys to do as he says. We do not know why he stayed away for so long. We do not know what he did for 12 years and where he lived. We only learn that he was "a pilot", but it is not clear whether he flew airliners or fighter aircraft for the military. He appears to have a lot of money and some shady connections. He keeps on making phone calls from telephone boxes to people who are not identified in the story. He is, in effect, an enigma, but a vaguely threatening one, prone to physical violence. We do not know his name: he is referred to as 'Father' or 'Dad' in the film - the latter being what he wants the 2 boys to call him. His wife tells him it would be good, after so many years, if he spent some time with his 2 sons. The 3 of them set off, in his car, for what the 2 kids expect will be a short trip, which will give them the opportunity to go fishing. The film develops from this point onwards.

This is a quintessentially Russian film. We feel the vastness of Russia, and the wilderness of such a vast country, as soon as you leave the towns, which, all too often, are rather run-down and depressing. The interaction between the characters is also very Russian: a mixture of tenderness and violence, tension and love, passion and repression. The movie is very good at conveying all of this and creating a unique, gripping atmosphere, with a huge amount of suspense, even though, in many ways, the storyline could seem rather plain in many respects. From this point of view, this is a great film, well worth watching. On the other hand, the enigma of the father's past remains an enigma, and deliberately so: who is he, really? The entire story is seen through the eyes of the 2 kids - Ivan, still a very young boy, and Andrei, a more mature young teenager. This is where the movie works so well. But it also leaves us, at the end, with as many questions as when we started. The ending is brilliant or frustrating or both, as you wish.

There was a tragic twist to the film. See this article in The Guardian. You should only read it after you have seen the movie, as it gives away certain elements of the plot.

The story takes place during the American intervention in Afghanistan and focuses on US special forces and their operations in the Korangal Valley against the Taliban. In 2005, a local Taliban warlord called Ahmad Shah, who operates in the Korangal Valley, is identified as a key player in the anti-Western insurgency. The Americans decide to send a four-man Navy SEAL team to capture Shah. Among the 4 men is Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg). The 4 men are dropped off overnight by helicopter to a location close to where the US commanders believe Shah is. The story develops from this point onwards, as the 4 Americans soon find that their mission is compromised and they need to fight their way out of the valley. The film is closely based on a completely true story.

What is striking - at any rate, with hindsight - is how hugely perilous the 4 men's mission was: to a large extent, it could be described as a suicide mission. The story is gripping as action movies can be, as the 4 men are literally fighting for their survival against considerable odds. So, it is a good film in that sense but, beyond that, it provides only limited insight into the key characters or the broader meaning (or lack of) of the Afghan campaign. It is, somehow, difficult to get emotionally involved with the lead characters, I found. Overall, a gripping and raw depiction of the conditions special-forces soldiers on such difficult missions can end up facing.

Once you have seen the film, you can read about Operation Red Wings on Wikipedia here: htttps://. There has been some controversy about certain aspects of the narrative put forward by the American military, which does not detract from the tenacity and heroism of the 4 Navy SEAL soldiers.

Sydney Brown (Philip Baker Hall) is a professional gambler. He is middle-aged and well-dressed. John Finnegan (John C Reilly) is a homeless man, down on his luck, who says that he needs $6,000 to cover the cost of his mother's funeral. John is sitting outside one of those typically American roadside diners, in a town called Sparks (Nevada), when Sydney stumbles upon him at the start of the movie. Sydney buys John a cup of coffee, gives him some cigarettes, and takes an interest in the homeless man. Sydney tells John that, if the latter travels back to Las Vegas with him, Sydney will help him win the money that he needs for the funeral. Despite his initial reluctance, John agrees to travel to Las Vegas with Sydney, in Sydney's car. From this point onwards, John becomes Sydney's protégé: the 2 characters and their relationship constitute the central focus of the film. In passing, one might point out that John is insufferably gormless: he looks dim and acts stupid. Then again, this is what he is supposed to be in the story.

The film is, ostensibly, about Las Vegas, its casinos and the world of gambling. Inevitably, prostitution - the other key industry in Las Vegas - features in the movie. Gambling and prostitution attract criminals and crooks: as the film develops, it turns into a thriller. This is a good film overall: at first, it creates an atmosphere in a very effective way; it develops into a character study (Philip Baker Hall has remarkable screen presence and Samuel L Jackson, as Jimmy, is memorable); and, finally, as the suspense and violence take over the narrative, we have a captivating thriller. Having said all this, I would not say this is a masterpiece: I would rather describe it as a B movie set in Las Vegas by night, as we have seen it in other American movies. I would still recommend the film, as there is something original and intelligent in the way the plot develops.

The story is centred on Cosmo Vittelli (Ben Gazzara), the owner of a second-rate strip club, the Crazy Horse West, which is located on the so-called Sunset Strip in Los Angeles. Cosmo is a decent-enough individual, who tries to run his business well and to look after his staff, including the girls who perform every night - one of whom he is in love with, a stunningly beautiful African American girl called Rachel (Azizi Johari). Cosmo pays particular attention to the choreographing of the artistic burlesque acts put on by his troupe of semi-naked female dancers, even though the shows are not top-notch, while the girls certainly are very beautiful. Following a game of poker, Cosmo gets into debt to an unsavoury bunch of individuals who run a casino and appear to have links to the criminal underworld. It is at this point that things take a more sinister turn for him, as he is subjected to the pressing demands his creditors are making.

The film is good at depicting the atmosphere of the LA night in the mid-1970s: Cosmo seems to live at night, spending a lot of time at his club, and to relish it. There is something sleazy about the whole business, but no more than that: we are shown the soft underbelly of a big city, with its licit or illicit pleasure-seeking activities. The way that the camera moves gives the viewer the impression of being immersed in the action, almost as if we were watching a documentary about the life of a nightclub owner. This has its limitations, however, and can feel a bit messy visually at times. There are no spectacular scenes to speak of: it is all very much in-your-face, as it were. Cosmo himself is an interesting character - a man trying to do the right thing against the odds, and despite his own weaknesses.

The movie, ultimately, is an atmospheric character study rather than a conventional thriller. It reminded me of 'Mean Streets', made at about the same time. Overall, it is a good film, but it certainly is not the masterpiece that some would claim. I am not sure why it has achieved iconic status since it came out. But it is worth watching all the same and Ben Gazzara was a good actor.

The film is focused on the Italian-American community in New York City and its stronghold, Little Italy, and on the goings-on of the Mafia. The main character is Charlie Cappa (Harvey Keitel), a young Italian-American who has good prospects within the crime syndicate that his uncle, Uncle Giovanni, runs locally. When the film starts, Charlie is merely an enforcer who goes round bars, restaurants and other businesses to collect protection money on behalf of the Mafia. Charlie's problem is that he is close to his cousin, John 'Johnny Boy' Civello (Robert DeNiro), who is a reckless and useless troublemaker. Johnny Boy is a small-time gambler and drifter, who has got into debt and owes fast-rising amounts of money he cannot repay to locally based loan sharks. As Charlie tries to defend and protect Johnny Boy, this threatens to damage his own prospects within the family business. Charlie's other problem is Teresa Ronchelli (Amy Robinson), his girlfriend, who is related to Johnny Boy. For various reasons, she does not have a good reputation in the neighbourhood: if Charlie continues dating her and it gets known, again, it will damage his career prospects within organised crime. The film, centred on Charlie's dilemmas and actions, develops from here.

In many ways, it is a good film with a solid storyline. Where the film is particularly good is at re-creating the atmosphere in the Italian-American community, and at showing us how the Mafia operates on a local level, like some kind of innocuous family business where everyone knows everyone, and allegiance is proffered to various figures of authority who run the show. The movie is good at re-creating the insular and claustrophobic character of life in Little Italy. I would say that it is about it. For the rest, I found the movie underwhelming, as the word goes. Apart from the last 20 to 25 minutes, not that much happens: the story goes round and round in circles, it feels. The chief characters - apart from Teresa, in fact - are neither appealing nor interesting. Do not expect flamboyant gangsters: they are small-time thugs and crooks, doing the Mafia's footwork. The disrupter, Johnny Boy, is a vacuous and annoying jerk: there really is no other way to describe him. The adjective 'moron' is used in the film when referring to him.

For some reason, the film is considered a masterpiece and a great classic. I suspect that is because it paved the way for the great films that followed in the same genre: it created a certain type of film that focuses on the US Mafia, glamorizing and trivializing its actions all at once. But the result is, in my personal opinion, average-good, at best, and rather disappointing. The film does not deserve its excellent reputation.

Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino) is a TV producer working for a flagship news programme broadcast on CBS. When he approaches Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe), as he needs some explanations regarding confidential, technical documents in connection with the tobacco industry, which have been sent to him anonymously, Bergman realises that Wigand, now a freelance consultant, is a former senior executive at Brown & Williamson, a huge tobacco company. Bergman is intrigued because Wigand insists that he cannot discuss anything else (apart from the bundle of technical documents he will be paid to explain), citing a confidentiality agreement he signed with his former employer when he lost his job with them. Bergman senses that Wigand harbours an explosive secret that could rock the entire tobacco industry and wants Wigand to go public. Wigand, who needs to protect his family and his reputation, hesitates, as his former employer has issued thinly veiled threats, should he choose to talk to the media. Will Wigand take the plunge and become a whistleblower and, if he does, what will happen to him and to his family? The movie develops from this point onwards.

This is a psychological and political thriller, in effect, as Michael Mann manages to turn what could have been a dull corporate-cum-media drama into a captivating story, full of tension and suspense from start to finish. The storyline, based on a completely true story, is taut on every level and works very well, underpinned by the very good acting of the lead actors. Much of the film is built around dialogues in the course of which the key characters articulate their hesitations, their priorities, their fears and their doubts: this could have been tedious but it is not at all, which is a great credit to the director and scriptwriters. We get an interesting insight into the corporate world as well as the (pre-internet) media sector in the USA, centred on the dominant TV networks and the printed press. The way that journalists work when dealing with their sources is described well. Similarly, the risks involved in whistleblowing are analysed in a subtle manner: every step of the way, Wigand has to make extremely difficult decisions, likely to change his life on every level and forever.

Overall, an excellent, intelligent and captivating film, which I would certainly recommend.