Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

'Gone with the wind', made in 1939, has stood the test of time and is a spectacular period film, centred on the Old South of the United States, before, during and after the Civil War. The movie starts in 1861. On the eve of the American Civil War (1861-1865), Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) lives at Tara, her family's cotton plantation in the state of Georgia. On the estate, she lives with her parents and her 2 sisters. Numerous black slaves are working on the land, picking cotton. Those closest to the family work as domestic servants, including Mammy (Hattie McDaniel), who was Scarlett's nanny and still looks after her.

Scarlett is very young (aged 19): this is an important factor as she can be immature and capricious - to an extent, the film is also a coming-of-age story, as Scarlett discovers the harsh realities of the world and becomes a woman. Scarlett is the movie's central character: she is beautiful, sharp, intelligent, strong-willed, high-spirited and uncompromising. She can also be opinionated and manipulative, and there is a mercenary streak in her. The film is interesting in that Scarlett is a flawed and, in some ways, an unappealing person. Above all else, she is a survivor, who refuses to be subdued by life. Scarlett is deeply attracted to Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). She learns that he is to marry his cousin, the wise and kind-hearted Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), a businessman with a mixed reputation, notices Scarlett at Ashley's engagement party and is soon pursuing her romantically. The film develops from this point onwards.

There are 2 parts to the story. The 1st part (1 hr 45 mins, side 1 of the DVD) is focused on the plantation life in the South of the USA before the Civil War and the war itself. The 1st part of the story is very much a period film with a strong historical background: I found it the most interesting. The 2nd part of the movie (2 hrs, side 2 of the DVD) narrates the post-war story of Scarlett and her love interests. It is primarily a romantic drama. The 2nd part is very good, but I found it less interesting, personally, than the 1st part.

There are many themes in the movie. The prime one is, quite obviously, the collapse of the Old South due to the disastrous outcome of the Civil War. To the (white) characters in the movie, who are very much the upper class benefiting from the plantation economy, the pre-war South is a genteel paradise: this is the world that Scarlett inhabits, with sumptuous parties, opulent mansions, and so on. The black slaves on whose blood, sweat and tears all of this luxury is built barely get a mention: we can say that they are seen through the eyes of their white masters. However, the African Americans have agency too, in their own way and at critical moments, so, it would be unfair to say they are non-existent in the movie. The civil war and its aftermath are seen as a calamity, as the lifestyle and prosperity of the South disappear in the wake of its military defeat against the Union forces of the North. Again, the story is seen through the eyes of the (white) plantation-owning class. How the Southerners adapt to the post-war situation is interesting and described in a balanced manner, however. Overall, the movie feels very realistic.

There are many other themes in the film, some quite subtle: for example, how misunderstandings and misguided expectations can derail otherwise promising sentimental relationships. Contrasts abound in the film, for instance between Scarlett and Ashley's wife, who personifies all that can be good in a well-bred woman. Rhett Butler is a fascinating character and Clark Gable gives a master performance as the suave and cynical businessman, who is nevertheless vulnerable. Overall, the story works and the movie is a great classic.

When the film begins, 'Ghetto' Pat Calhoun, AKA 'Rocketman', AKA Bob Ferguson (Leonardo DiCaprio), is an expert in explosives and a member of a Far Left, anti-capitalist revolutionary group known as French 75. His partner is Perfidia Beverly Hills (Teyana Taylor). The group launches a daring operation against a detention centre run by the government, where illegal immigrants are being kept by the authorities. The camp for the illegal immigrants - or those who are accused of being so and have been rounded up by the police - are Latin Americans; it is guarded by members of a militarized police force. Their commanding officer is Colonel Steven Lockjaw (Sean Penn). The members of French 75 overpower the camp guards and free the detainees. During the operation, Perfidia points a gun at Col Lockjaw, taunting and humiliating him sexually. He becomes obsessed with her and, later on in the story, this becomes an important aspect of the plot, as they - inevitably - meet again.

This is an unusual movie because of its topic, which is not that commonly covered in American films. French 75 has echoes of the Far Left movements of the 1960s, 1970s & 1980s such as the Black Panthers in the USA or the Red Army Faction (RAF) in Germany. (It is not clear when the story is taking place but, judging from the IT and telecoms equipment available to the self-styled revolutionaries, it would be nowadays.) The militants who belong to the movement are a mixture of African Americans and Whites, who want to bring down the American system of government, fight the State and the police, and destroy the capitalist system. As French 75 opts for violence to subvert society, the film turns into a thriller. Despite the fact that the film is highly topical now that Donald Trump is president of the USA, and with the way that he uses the immigration service's enforcement arm (known as ICE) to, in effect, hunt down immigrants and clash with all those who oppose his policy - there are several aspects of the plot that are not entirely plausible.

It is still an excellent film, full of tension and suspense, with an unforgettable climax towards the end of the movie that is bound to become a classic set piece in film. At the centre of the story is Bob Ferguson: whereas his partner, Perfidia, is a highly motivated and fanatical member of the revolutionary movement, it is clear that Bob is getting tired of it all. In the course of the film, he turns into a washed-up drug addict and drunkard who would rather forget all about it, but cannot, as his past eventually catches up with him. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the part of Bob remarkably well and is completely believable as the inept revolutionary who has seen better days. His potential nemesis is Col Lockjaw, played convincingly by a scary Sean Penn, who is some kind of racist, ultra-nationalist, psychopathic white supremacist. Col Lockjaw is nearly a caricature, but no doubt there are many like him out there – and not only in America.

In some ways, the film is interesting because its message is more ambiguous than it seems: viewers may ponder this as they wish, after having seen the movie. In fact, the story is funny in places, if only because there is something comical about DiCaprio's character, forever wearing his dressing gown through thick and thin. So, it is a somewhat unusual film but a very good one, which I would certainly recommend.

In 1958, in New York City, Herbert Greenleaf (James Rebhorn), a shipbuilding magnate, meets Tom Ripley (Matt Daymon). Ripley is young, bespectacled and clumsy. He is clearly very intelligent and capable but comes from a modest background. He tells Herbert Greenleaf that he attended the university of Princeton, where he met his son, Dickie (Jude Law). Dickie is away in Europe, an idle socialite living off his father's monthly allowance. Dickie is spending time in Italy, partying and indulging in his passion for jazz. He lives with his fiancée, Marge Sherwood (Gwyneth Paltrow). Simultaneously, he is having multiple affairs with other women, including a local Italian woman. Herbert Greenleaf would like his son to return to America to learn more about the family business. He decides to pay Tom Ripley $1,000 to travel to Italy and persuade his son to return to the USA. The story develops from that point onwards.

This is an excellent adaptation by Anthony Minghella of the 1955 novel by Patricia Highsmith. Primarily a psychological thriller, the movie benefits from the very good dialogues, the beautifully executed shooting of the film itself and the flawless acting of all the key characters. (Incidentally, it confirms the fact that G Paltrow was a good actress: it is a pity she chose to move away from acting when she did, in my view.) Matt Damon gives an outstanding performance that is at the very heart of the story: he is entirely believable in the part. Some of the scenes - I will not say any more not to spoil the film for the reader of this review - will stay with you, as they are so full of tension, suspense and drama. I would certainly recommend the movie.

This is a war film about the Second World War focused on a bridge crossing the Rhine - the bridge at Remagen. An advance party of war-weary and battle-hardened American soldiers are racing towards the bridge. Both the Americans and the Germans have conflicting interests regarding the last bridge still standing, which crosses the River Rhine at Remagen. On the one hand, the Americans are keen to destroy the bridge, as this would prevent the 15th German Army, stranded on the Western side of the river, from retreating further East into Germany; on the other hand, if the bridge is saved, Allied troops will be able to use it to cross the Rhine, which would speed up the Allied campaign across Nazi Germany and shorten the war. As for the Germans, on the one hand, some of them would like their 15th Army to be able to retreat across the bridge, if there is still time, while the Nazi high command orders the bridge's destruction in order to prevent the Americans from crossing the Rhine quickly and easily.

Against this backdrop - and the movie is generally historically accurate, it would appear - we are given both the perspective of the Americans and that of the Germans, which makes the story particularly interesting. We are also shown the tensions existing within the 2 armies - tensions between headquarters and the units in the field, and tensions between officers and ordinary infantrymen, among others. This gives a realistic texture to the film, helped by the excellent acting, the good dialogues and the powerful score. We experience the battle for Remagen through the eyes of Lieutenant Phil Hartman (George Segal), an experienced platoon leader in the US 9th Armored Division, and his men, who are spearheading the American advance towards the Rhine; facing the US troops are the remnants of the Nazi war machine - and the movie is very good in this respect, showing graphically to what extent the German Army is collapsing across the front line. However, the Nazi zealots are certainly not prepared to give up the fight. Major Paul Krueger (Robert Vaughn) is in charge of the German units tasked with defending the bridge and preventing the Americans from crossing the river.

I have read that the film has a 20% rating on Rotten Tomatoes: I find this truly surprising. It actually is an excellent war film, in my view (the fact all the actors speak English is not too much of a distraction, incidentally). The script is never simplistic, also in relation to what it means to be a soldier in battle. If you look at the review on Wikipedia (after seeing the movie), you will see that the shooting of the film was caught up in the events of 1968-1969 in Central Europe (namely, the Prague Spring): this is, in itself, an amazing story, and it must be one of the biggest achievements in the history of film making that they succeeded, against all odds, in completing the making of the movie. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_at_Remagen .)

David Locke (Jack Nicholson) is a jaded, tired-out and disaffected TV journalist based in England. He finds himself in the North of Chad, reporting on the guerilla movement rocking this part of the country. Locke tries to interview some rebel fighters, who are involved in the country's civil war. He runs into various difficulties and his attempt fails, resulting in an exhausting trek across the desert back to his hotel. Locke had struck a casual friendship with an Englishman also staying at the hotel, called Robertson, who is a businessman. Locke finds Robertson's dead body in his room: he has died from a heart attack, unbeknown to the hotel's management. Locke decides to become Robertson: he succeeds in switching identities with the dead businessman. The film develops from here.

The movie has been described as a thriller, but it is, rather, an existentialist tale and a psychological drama. In many ways, it is a weird film: not much happens and it feels slow at times. The characters seem to be drifting about through their lives, without a clear aim or purpose. Locke, more particularly, is a cynical and lonely character, seeking a new beginning in his life: he is tired of his hit-or-miss journalistic career and has had sentimental and personal setbacks, as we learn later in the film. He lacks direction, however, and seems to be forever improvising, in a random and sometimes capricious manner, without measuring the potential consequences of his actions, almost as if he did not actually care. That is why the film has often been referred to as a study in emptiness: even the landscape, at the start of the film, is starkly empty - a never-ending desert moonscape with very few locals, eking out a living in poverty. To depict emptiness - the void at the centre of life, if one wants to look at it in such a way - is not easy, but Michelangelo Antonioni manages very well to make us feel it in our bones, almost as if we could touch this desperate randomness and existential emptiness.

Is it a masterpiece? No, not in my opinion, because the ironic and detached depiction of emptiness has its limits. This stance cannot involve us in the story in a deeply emotional way. Is it an interesting and original movie? Absolutely. In this respect, I recommend this unusual story, well-filmed and well-acted, which throws up more questions than it gives us answers. An intelligent and disconcerting movie.

The film is set in the years following the American Civil War (1861-1865). We follow the James-Younger gang, led by Jesse James, as they attack banks and trains, bringing terror and mayhem to the towns of the Midwest. The story starts with the attack on a bank that goes partly wrong.

The story has been told before and in other films. This is a worthwhile and captivating re-telling, however. The acting is very good and convincing, and so are the dialogues. The set pieces, when violence is unleashed in a spectacular way, are memorable and narrated well. The central characters are not cardboard cutouts and stir up the viewer's interest, even if they are, essentially, not that likeable. But what I enjoyed most was the re-creation of the atmosphere in that part of the USA in the wake of the Civil War. I think this is done very well and is quite realistic, down to the music that is played (including the score), which evokes the Wild West of 19th-century America.

Overall, it is a good film which viewers should enjoy, more particularly if they like westerns. It may not be a masterpiece, but the movie is effective and worth watching.

Allie Fox (Harrison Ford) is an eccentric - an inventor who is as brilliant as he is egotistical and stubborn. He is highly critical of the American Dream: in his eyes, the USA is a decaying society that has lost its way to consumerism. He is also convinced that a nuclear war will break out soon, leading to the complete destruction of America. Married to Margot 'Mother' Fox (Helen Mirren), he has 4 children. One day, he decides they should all leave America and start anew, from scratch, in a pristine place, far from the greed, materialism and crime that plague the USA. The family set off for Belize, in Central America. Once there, Allie purchases a small settlement in the jungle, called Jeronimo. To get there, Allie and his wife and children must go upriver on a rickety boat, deep into the rainforest.

Allie wants to build some kind of utopian community, with his family at the heart of it. He will do so with the help of the residents of the village - a mixture of black and Amerindian locals - who are in awe of him and appear only too willing to lend their help to this American pioneer. The story develops from that point onwards. Will Allie succeed in realising his dream, or will it turn sour, for all the reasons that one could imagine - or not, as the case may be?

The focus of the film is Allie and his elder son, Charlie (a teenage River Phoenix); Allie's wife is reduced to a supporting role. The movie is, somehow, a mixture of Robinson Crusoe and Fitzcarraldo, as pointed out by other reviewers. As the story unfolds and darker forces gather on the horizon, we think of the madness of Klaus Kinski. Overall, it is a very good film and Harrison Ford is completely believable in his unlikely role as the eccentric inventor. There are many unexpected twists and turns. However, I felt it was not quite the masterpiece it could have been. I do not want to discuss the reasons why, because I would have to go into details that would spoil the story for those who are going to see the film. I still recommend the movie, which is memorable and could be pondered and interpreted on many levels, the first one being the obvious: When does a powerful, inspiring and beautiful dream develop the potential to turn into a complete, utter bloody nightmare?

Philip Pirrip, known as Pip (Jeremy Irvine, when older, his brother playing Pip when he is a young boy), is 7 years old. He lives with his cantankerous older sister and her husband, a blacksmith called Joe Gargery. Joe is kind and likes the boy. They live in a house on the coastal marshes of Kent. There are some prison ships anchored off the coast, where some convicts were kept in those days. On Christmas Eve 1812, Pip visits the graves of his parents and siblings in the nearby cemetery. He encounters an escaped convict who threatens to kill him if Pip does not bring him food and tools (such as a file, to be able to remove his shackles). The convict is Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes). Pip is scared of what the convict on the run might do and agrees to help him. The story develops from this point onwards: the encounter with Magwitch will change Pip's entire life.

The film is a very good and faithful adaptation of the novel by Charles Dickens. The atmosphere in England (and London) in the early 19th century is re-created in a plausible and interesting way. The actors put in an excellent performance across the board. As reviewers have pointed out, however, there is something original and some excitement missing from the movie, somehow. The film is almost too slick and too predictable in its form, its tone and its style. It is still a very good movie and I did enjoy watching it. Anyone who enjoys watching well-made period films and/or who knows the novel by Charles Dickens and enjoyed reading it will undoubtedly like the film.

Truman Burbank (Jim Carey) is married to platinum blonde Meryl (Laura Linney). He works in insurance (he enjoys his office job) and has the perfect life of a married man in American suburbia. Truman, however, is not aware of the fact that his life is entirely fake, i.e. that it is part of a reality-TV show. Everybody knows, including his wife and his best friend, but he doesn't. Truman - the result of an unwanted pregnancy - was selected at birth and legally adopted by the TV studio: he is the unsuspecting star of the immensely successful Truman Show. The reality-TV programme is broadcast across the world, 24/7, through hundreds of hidden cameras. Truman's hometown, Seahaven Island, is set inside an enormous, artificial dome. The show's executive producers, based in Los Angeles, control virtually every aspect of Truman's life.

The film is an interesting mixture of genres. It is a comedy in some respects (some moments are hilarious: the TV programme is funded by product-placement adverts inserted in the narrative); it is also a sentimental drama as well as a social drama; and there is an element of science-fiction about the story too. Ultimately, however, it is an allegory about the modern Western world, which is, at heart, a punitive and powerful satire. Small-town America, consumerism and the TV industry are some of the topics satirized very effectively in the movie. The storyline is remarkably prescient: the film was made in 1998, before the internet had taken hold, and before 'reality TV' - with shows such as 'Big Brother' or 'Love Island' - had taken off.

The acting is absolutely perfect. J Carey's performance, as Truman, who is the story's (and the TV show's) central character, is extremely impressive. But all the other actors are very good too. More particularly, L Linney is totally plausible as the 1950s-style incarnation of the perfect American wife. The movie can be read on many levels. There is the issue of agency: is Truman free to leave his artificial paradise, and would he want to if he knew what it really is? As interesting, or more, is of course the issue of truth Vs appearances. In the film, everybody plays a part - except Truman, although his behaviour appears highly conditioned too - but isn't the Truman Show a reflexion of what (real) life is, much of the time? Don't we perform for those around us, in order to please them and to conceal our weaknesses? Certainly, in work situations, this tends to apply. And, with the advent of the internet and social media, the entire world has become a huge stage for a globalized Truman Show that most people appear very happy to take part in.

This film is quite unique and is truly excellent in every respect: it is a masterpiece and a must-see. One last detail that is astonishing and revealing: although the town where Truman lives and works does look like a completely artificial set - some kind of Disney-like caricature of American suburbia - it actually is, unbelievably, a real town that does exist and looks exactly as it does in the movie. The town is called Seaside and is located in Florida. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaside,_Florida) This is the ultimate and ironic blurring of reality-TV, fiction and actual reality. To get further information, you can watch the extras, on the DVD, which explain how the film was shot, and so on.

The story takes place in Los Angeles in the early 1950s. It centres on the city's police department (LAPD), plagued by decades of corruption and debatable police practices. The detectives within the LAPD are aware that a clandestine prostitution ring is operating in the city, while large quantities of heroin are being trafficked. When Mickey Cohen, a powerful gangster, is jailed, a string of murders rocks the city, as Mickey Cohen's gang is challenged in its dominance by rival criminals.

The central characters are Detective Sergeant Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey); Officer Wendell 'Bud' White (Russell Crowe); Detective Lieutenant Edmund Exley (Guy Pearce); and, finally, Lynn Bracken, a high-class prostitute (Kim Basinger). The interplay between the various characters is central to the story, more particularly the rivalry that develops between Bud White, a bruiser with a hot temper, and Edmund Exley, an idealistic officer who would like to clean up and modernize the way that the police department operates.

This is undoubtedly a very good film, with a solid plot that develops in an interesting way, well served by the main actors' excellent performance. The first 70% of the film is convincing as the plot unfolds, but I found the end of the story, with its spectacular action-movie climax, somewhat implausible. Still, an enjoyable, very well-made feature film.

In today’s Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay, 2 middle-aged women, Chela and Chiquita, have been a couple for over 30 years. They come from a bourgeois background and live in a grand apartment, with a resident maid. They do not need to work, from what we can see. But their lifestyle is far from lavish, as their funds are running out. They decide to sell part of the furniture and crockery, including fine crystal glasses that have been in their possession for generations. Charged with seeking a loan fraudulently, Chiquita has to report to the city’s jail. Chela, suddenly, finds herself on her own. The story develops from that point onwards.

This is an unusual film in more ways than one. For a start, you do not get to see a film from Paraguay that often. Also, the entire story is focused on women: there is not a single male character of note in the story. The social context is interesting: it is clear that the class system, rooted in the country’s colonial past and racial structure, is alive and well in Paraguay. The characters are intensely aware of their status in society and what their ‘rank’ in the pecking order entails.

Little, or very little, actually happens in the story. It develops slowly. The central character – Chela – discovers new things, new people and new possibilities in her life, while her partner, Chiquita, is away. But the movie, ultimately, is about what is not – what does not happen (as opposed to what happens) and what could have happened (but did not happen). In that strange sort of way, it is focused on a void: the void of existential missed opportunities. This makes the film interesting and unusual, subtle and profound all at once, but also frustrating – as frustrating as Chela finds her own life to be.

I cannot understand why reviewers have been praising the film to high heavens and I suspect its exotic character will have played a part. It is an interesting movie, but it is not that exciting and that inspiring.

This is a documentary directed by British photojournalist Tim Hetherington, who was later killed while covering the war in Libya. It shows American troops in action in a very remote valley of Eastern Afghanistan in 2007, during the Western intervention in the country. The following text appears on screen at the start of the film: "In May 2007, the men of Second Platoon, Battle Company began a 15 month deployment in the Korengal Valley of eastern Afghanistan. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. Military."

American troops and supplies were ferried into the isolated Combat Outpost (COP), called Korengal, by Chinook helicopters. The infantrymen, who belonged to the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, were under near-constant attack from Taliban fighters hiding in the mountains and villages near the outpost. At times, the fighting was very fierce and the US Army took casualties. The documentary shows all this in very realistic fashion: you come away feeling that you have a reasonably good idea of what the experience of Western soldiers can be, when fighting a counter-insurgency war in a far-away land.

The documentary is interesting on many levels. First of all, it offers a unique insight into the local conditions that prevailed in Afghanistan at the time. Second, it shows the life of soldiers on deployment as it really is, without trying to romanticize it in any way. I recommend you watch the bonus material after watching the documentary. More particularly, the interviews with the soldiers (called 'Italian Bites') are very interesting: they discuss their career in the army, why they chose such a career, the impact of war, notions such as bravery and honour, etc., and they show themselves to be thoughtful and articulate. Overall, an excellent documentary on the war in Afghanistan, and on war and soldiering in general.

The story takes place in Los Angeles, in the 1930s. It centres on a private detective, J J 'Jake' Gittes (Jack Nicholson) and his 2 associates. A woman comes to see him and says she is Evelyn Mulwray. She wants to hire J Gittes so that he may investigate her husband, Hollis Mulwray. She is convinced he is having an affair. H Mulwray is the chief engineer at the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeles. J Gittes soon takes photos of Hollis Mulwray in the company of a young woman who appears to be his mistress; the pictures end up on the front page of a local newspaper, exposing Hollis Mulwray's alleged affair. The story develops from there.

As J Gittes realizes early on, there is far more to the story than a mere extra-marital affair. The private detective finds himself sucked into a dark conspiracy with political and financial ramifications, involving individuals who are both very powerful and highly dangerous, as well as devoid of any scruples. Faye Dunaway, who plays a key character, gives the story a dramatic and emotional quality that it would otherwise not have. The film is undoubtedly a great classic in the tradition of the American neo-noir mystery movie. It is a very good film. The atmosphere of pre-war California is re-created extremely well. The dialogues are outstandingly good and not devoid of humour, enabling the various characters - more particularly Jack Nicholson in the part of the private detective - to hold our attention from start to finish.

Having said all this - and this is a purely personal and subjective comment - I felt that the film was almost too perfect, too slick and too effective. I felt a certain distance from the main characters. J Nicholson, as usual, is cynical and pulls back from getting involved, somehow, which is also job conditioning, on his part, obviously. F Dunaway is remarkably beautiful but there is something very controlled and a bit cold about her, outwardly at any rate, which is also a function of the character she is playing. Finally, there are 2 main intrigues in the movie - one that has to do with power, real estate and money, and the other that has to do with the private lives of the key characters who are under investigation. I was not sure the 2 strands in the story combined that well with each other, somehow. So, a very good film, but not quite the masterpiece I expected, which would rock the viewer emotionally. Still, a must-see.

The film takes place in modern-day Iran, under the rule of the repressive Islamist regime in power in Tehran since 1979. The story is centred on Iman, a devout Muslim and a lawyer, his wife, and their 2 daughters (one is a teenager, and the other one is in her early twenties). Iman has been appointed as an investigating judge in the Revolutionary Court in Tehran. The position comes with a higher salary and the promise of a larger apartment in due course. The situation in the country is far from peaceful, however, as nationwide political protests are taking place, involving many young people who reject the regime's authoritarian and arbitrary rule. Iman finds that his role may be far more political than he perhaps expected. The story develops from there.

This is a good film, which re-creates the atmosphere within Iran very well. We can see and feel the impact that the regime's total control over society is having on every citizen, whether they support the regime or not. Iman, as a decent, honest man, is faced with a dilemma: think first and foremost of his career, or ask himself uncomfortable ethical questions. The film analyses what it means to be working for a repressive regime, and what such a regime does to its opponents but, also, to those who choose to serve it. The clash of generations in a deeply conservative and patriarchal society - pitting Iman against his daughters, with his wife caught in the middle - is depicted in a nuanced way, giving us a genuine insight into the way that Iranian society works. The interplay between the collective and the individual, between the regime and the population, is presented in an intelligent manner: the regime's paranoia becomes every person's own claustrophobic paranoia, like a disease nobody can escape from, eating away at the very fabric of society, relationships and families.

The main problem with the film is that it is very long (nearly 2 hours 45 minutes) and that it starts slowly, in a deliberative way. Still, a good movie I would recommend.

The film starts with a bank robbery: 4 lifelong friends from Charlestown, an area of Boston said to be notorious for its professional criminal element - mostly Whites of Irish descent in what is a working-class neighbourhood - rob a bank, wearing masks. Among the 4 is Ben Affleck as Douglas 'Doug' MacRay and Jeremy Renner as James 'Jem' Coughlin. In the course of the robbery, Rebecca Hall, as Claire Keesey, who is a manager at the bank, is taken hostage, but she is released unharmed soon after the attack on the bank.

When he discovers that Claire lives near him, Doug starts following her in order to find out what she has told the authorities about the robbery - she could be a key witness. Also, he is somewhat concerned that Jem may want to eliminate her, given what she may know. Doug is tough but against gratuitous violence, whereas Jem clearly has psychopathic tendencies and appears to have no limits. Jon Hamm, as Special Agent Adam Frawley, of the FBI, leads the investigation with a view to finding who the members of the gang are and stopping them once and for all, as they have been behind a string of daring and violent attacks of this kind across the city of Boston. The film develops from here.

This is a very good, tense and suspenseful thriller, very well made, with good and plausible dialogues. What is interesting is also that the film gives us some context, in terms of the criminals' background. Doug, more particularly, is a complex character, who aspires to a different sort of life, but leaving Charlestown is not that easy: the movie shows the pressures of all kinds that gang members are under, directly and indirectly. To an extent, they are prisoners of their criminal lifestyle: opting out is not on the menu. The interaction between Claire and Doug is credible and adds to the storyline. Finally, the tense relationship between Doug and Jem is at the centre of the story - a sort of curse there is no exit out of.

There are similarities between this film and 'Heat', the great classic of the genre. But this movie is very good on its own terms. I would certainly recommend it.