Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

The film is about Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who is a CIA case officer working in the Middle East. Ferris is trying to find and neutralize a reclusive and secretive terrorist leader called Al-Saleem, in Iraq. The movie is focused on Ferris's mission and what happens to him, in various countries across the region (Ferris ends up in Amman, in Jordan, for much of the film).

This is a fast-paced action movie, full of suspense, which I found very well made and captivating. I am a bit surprised the film has not won more plaudits from reviewers. It may not be Ridley Scott's best or most original work, but it is still a very good and very effective spy thriller, which is plausible most of the time. It reminded me of 'Syriana', among other films of this kind.

One thing that is interesting and seems perceptively shown is the complex relationship between various intelligence services - mostly, the Jordanian counter-terrorism service and the CIA - and also within the CIA itself. Ferris is in constant contact with Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), who is the head of the CIA's Near East Division and his boss. Hoffman is a cynical, ruthless old hand, and the interplay between Ferris and Hoffman is an interesting aspect of the movie.

Overall, a very good film within the parameters of the genre, which I would recommend.

In Manhattan, in New York in the 1990s, we follow ambulance crews attending to a range of tragedies and incidents on the night shift: murders, suicides and attempted suicides, drug overdoses, comatose drunkards, heart attacks, etc. The central character is paramedic Frank Pierce (Nicolas Cage), and the movie is, really, about his difficulties - to say the least - in coping, emotionally and psychologically, with the job. Frank Pierce suffers from depression, made worse by chronic insomnia. He is the classic case of occupational burnout when it reaches its highest point, i.e. Frank is sinking to his lowest point. Frank feels guilty because, in recent months, he has failed to save anyone on his shift, more particularly.

The film follows Frank from one night shift to the next. Nicolas Cage, in my view, is an over-rated actor: his acting is not bad, but it is not phenomenally good. In the film, he sticks to the same pattern, which is to say he looks more and more haggard as the story develops (unshaven, sunken cheeks, wild eyes, etc.). He has 'burn-out' plastered all over his face: it is quite clear he would need medical attention. The incidents, accidents and tragedies accumulate, sometimes graphic and gory, and yet only Frank seems to be desperate. All around him, the others appear to be coping fairly well with the utter, chaotic mess that New York City is (as depicted in the film). In 'Taxi Driver', NYC by night felt dark, atmospheric, threatening, deep, complex and fascinating. Not so in this movie. It is what it is: rushing from one ghastly emergency to the next.

What saves the film, in my opinion, is not N Cage (see above), but the supporting roles, which are among the best you will ever come across on screen, and the sound track, which is remarkably good and inspiring. Regarding the former, I am referring here to the 2nd paramedic that Frank is on shift with (a different one each time). Some of them are, essentially, nutcases. Ving Rhames (as Marcus) is particularly good: that sequence made me scream with laughter, in fact. And there is a lot of humour in the film: a raw New York kind of humour, which makes the film less gloomy and more like real life. The film is a study in larger-than-life characters, essentially, and this does not include Frank, who is a drip more than anything else, but the others: his team mates and the - often strange - people that they come across in the New York night.

The problem I can see is that the film shows things we have seen before: a big city at night, the crime, the violence, the prostitution, the chaos, and so on. This is not new. And Martin Scorsese did it far, far better in 'Taxi Driver'. There are some human-interest stories, but they are not truly earth-shattering. The film focuses on ordinary people trying to cope in extraordinary situations that are, nevertheless, quite common, in a big American city at any rate. The movie will fascinate you if you are highly interested in the work of paramedics, in ambulances, in hospitals, and in medical procedures. Overall, I do not regret seeing this film, but it is not that exceptional and I feel I could have done without. What it lacks, in the last analysis, is that thick, claustrophobic atmosphere that pervades 'Taxi Driver'. But that's a totally different movie, obviously.

The story takes place in 1870s New York City and other places along the East Coast of the USA. There are 3 key characters. The 1st one is a gentleman lawyer, Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis); the 2nd is the highly respectable and very pretty May Welland (Winona Ryder), who comes from a good family of the East Coast upper class, like Newland Archer: Newland is due to marry her and they are in love. The 3rd key character is May's cousin, an American heiress known as Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). She has returned to New York from abroad, after a failed and, according to some, scandalous marriage to a Polish aristocrat. Newland Archer is caught between the 2 women. Which one is he going to choose? This is, in essence, what the film is about.

The story is, to a large extent and unusually for a film about America, about the class system in the USA. As the film shows, there is - or there was - what a British audience would very easily recognise as a fairly rigid class system in place at the time: social stratification, status, etiquette, propriety, snobbishness, arranged (or semi-arranged) marriages, etc. - all these elements are present in the film, as it depicts the East Coast élite in the late 19th century. The atmosphere in the privileged milieu central to the movie is rendered very well - stifling, controlled, controlling and claustrophobic. Those Americans are more Victorian than the Victorians: it is 'Downton Abbey' in New York City before 1900. In fact, the story made me think of Balzac's novels as well as of 'Pride and Prejudice', by Jane Austen. It is as if Western Europe had been transplanted over to North America... The rigid social norms that are in place create huge tensions within the characters' lives, when love and lust erupt, upsetting the established social order, while forcing individuals to choose between their happiness and their duty to society, to their social class and to their family.

On many levels, the film is very good. The dialogues are witty, sharp, perceptive and amusing. The costumes and settings are simply sumptuous, and both Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder radiate beauty. The only problem is that the pace of the story is deliberative, descriptive and demonstrative - not quite laborious (this would be unfair) but slow. Not so much happens, in fact. This has to do with the nature of the story and the characters, to a large extent: a lot is left unsaid. But, as a result, there is something stilted and perhaps even frustrating about the film. This is, maybe, deliberate.

If you like period films and romantic intrigues, you will enjoy the movie thoroughly, even though it may not quite be the masterpiece it is obviously trying to be, and many critics have claimed it is.

The film is a thriller constructed around 2 story lines that converge as the movie develops: one storyline relates to the past (the mid-1960s in East Berlin), and the other storyline relates to the present (1997 in Tel Aviv). This is a relatively complex structure, as the 2 storylines are interspersed, but the film works well.

In 1965, Rachel Singer (Jessica Chastain), a young Mossad agent, is on her first assignment in the field. She arrives in East Berlin (in East Germany) to meet 2 fellow Israeli agents who are more experienced than she is: David Peretz and Stefan Gold. Their mission is to capture Dieter Vogel, a Nazi war criminal who has been practising medicine in East Germany. Vogel is known as "The Surgeon of Birkenau", the extermination camp, where he carried out medical experiments on Jews during World War II. The 3 agents must bring him to justice in Israel. In 1997, Rachel (Helen Mirren) attends a party with her daughter, Sarah, in Tel Aviv, held because of the launch of Sarah's book, which is based on the account of the events of 1965 that Rachel, Stefan and David gave upon their return to Israel.

As the film develops, the past catches up with the present. It is an intelligent film, full of tension and suspense, which is quite subtle in many ways, while exploring notions of guilt, integrity, morality, justice and retribution. The characters are not cardboard cutouts as could have been the case. The actors are all very good and convincing. The movie has pace and suspense, without indulging in clichés. A key question the film asks is: What is the truth, and does it matter as much as we think? A very good film I would recommend.

Max Durocher (Jamie Foxx) is a Los Angeles cab driver who dreams of starting his own limousine business. Vincent (Tom Cruise) is a professional hitman, who has a list of persons to assassinate that night. Vincent gets into Max's cab and tells Max that he is in Los Angeles for one night in order to complete a real-estate deal; Max agrees to drive him to several locations. The story develops from there.

This is very much an action thriller involving 2 main characters (Max and Vincent), and a number of secondary characters. The central performance is that of Tom Cruise (excellent as the driven, near-maniacal professional killer) and Jamie Foxx (equally good as the Mr Average who finds himself caught up in a chain of events he could never even have visualized in one of his worst nightmares). In spite of the type of film it is, it actually is deeper than it may look. For a start, the dialogues are excellent. To a large extent, the film pitches one man (the killer) against another (the cab driver): the way they relate to each other is interesting, nuanced and oddly plausible.

As a thriller, this is an excellent film: fast-paced, tense, full of suspense, with unexpected twists and turns. Towards the end, it turns into a sentimental drama as the story reaches its climax. There are some amazing scenes, such as the one in the night-club. Although the film is, ultimately, a case of style over substance (as pointed out by some reviewers on this website), I would still recommend it as a memorable piece of cinema.

Griet (Scarlett Johansson, age 19 when the film was made) is the central character - the girl with a pearl earring of the film's title and the subject of the painting by Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675). Griet is a shy and simple girl living with her parents, in the days of the Dutch Republic, in 1665. Griet's family is in a difficult financial situation and she is sent to work as a maid in the city of Delft. She has been hired by the famous painter, J Vermeer (Colin Firth). The film develops from that point onwards.

The film asks the following questions: Who was the girl with the pearl earring in J Vermeer's painting? What was the connection between her and the painter? The movie imagines who the girl with the pearl earring was, on the assumption that she was a maid working for J Vermeer. The film shows us how Griet adapts to her new life and the people she meets, and how she learns to fit into the family. J Vermeer's artistic work is an important part of the story and how he came to paint the famous painting with the girl in question.

This could easily have been a boring film, if you think about it: describing how a work of art of this nature came to be made could have turned into a dreary tale. Not at all. It is a fascinating and delightful film. It is subtle, sophisticated, intelligent and beautiful. And S Johansson's excellent and delicate acting gives meaning to the movie and supports the narrative in a striking manner.

The atmosphere of 17th-century Holland is reconstituted in a remarkable way, down to the smallest details, and you feel you are literally there, by the side of Griet and J Vermeer. It is a film about the making of a work of art, but it is also a film about Griet, the central character. In the last analysis, the film itself is a work of art of great quality. It should not be missed.

PS: Among the special features, after watching the film, you should not miss the short documentary (<15 mins), "The Making Of": It explains how the house (where the painter and his family live) was built from scratch for the movie. It is quite amazing.

We are told the story takes place in the 'not-too-distant future': it depicts a society that is dystopian, totalitarian and repressed, where people are screened and discriminated against on the basis of their genetic profile (genotype profiling). The difference is made between the 'valid' members of society, who are deemed more capable and have had their genetic characteristics improved before birth, and the 'in-valid' members, who are all the others, destined to carry out manual and unskilled tasks.

Although the story takes place in the future - with electric cars and futuristic architecture - in many ways the design of many objects (including the cars) and the style of dress of office workers - all dressed formally, with the men in grey suits and dark ties - are redolent of the 1950s or early 1960s: this is known as 'retrofuturism'. It made me think of the movie 'Brazil', the 1985 dark comedy directed by Terry Gilliam, which is a masterpiece.

The central character of the story is Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke), who has always dreamt of taking part in space travel to the outer limits of the solar system. To a large extent, the film is about his life and what he does to achieve his goals.

Where the film is very good is in creating a haunting atmosphere, and it does this in a very effective way. The dialogues are also very good, with excellent acting performances by the various actors, including Jude Law and Uma Thurman. On the other hand, the 'message' conveyed by the film probably is not as deep and complex as many have claimed. The pace of the story is slow, mostly, and there is something a little bit ponderous, gloomy and deliberative about the movie. So, it is an interesting and perhaps even captivating film, but it is not a masterpiece.

The story takes place in Scotland, in the early part of the 18th century (starting in 1713). The central character is Rob Roy (Robert Roy MacGregor, played by Liam Neeson), who is the chief of a clan of Scottish Highlanders, Clan MacGregor. Rob Roy is a respected figure locally, who prides himself on his honour in every aspect of his life. He provides the land-owning gentry with protection against cattle rustling. However, his family and his community are poor. Hoping to launch a profitable business venture involving the sale of cattle in England, Rob Roy borrows £1,000 from James Graham, Marquess of Montrose (John Hurt, outstanding as always): Rob Roy, with the money, will become established as a cattle trader. But things do not go as per his plan. The film develops from that point into a swashbuckling adventure.

It is a very good period film. The landscapes (it was filmed in Scotland) are splendid and we get a sense of what Scotland was like at the time (the plot is based on a true story). The attention to detail in the re-creation of Scotland in the early part of the 18th century is second-to-none (the interior of houses, the clothes the characters wear, the weapons in use, etc.). The actors' performance is excellent and the dialogues are brilliant as well as entertaining. The contrast between the various social classes, and also between the manners of the local Scots and those of the aristocrats spending time at Court in London, is very intelligently built into the storyline.

I would have a few reservations, however. First of all, the plot is somewhat predictable. Second, some of the characters are stereotypes (the sincere and warm-hearted highlander, the rustic Scotsman, the effete and scheming Englishman, etc.). Tim Roth as Archibald Cunningham overdoes it in my view: I do not want to give any details as his part is central to the movie and viewers will want to discover it for themselves. Having said all this, it is a very good film, and a highly enjoyable one to watch.

The central character of the story is Bobby Dupea (Jack Nicholson), who works in an oil field in California. He has an attractive girlfriend, Rayette (Karen Black), who is a waitress in a local diner and has dreams of becoming a country-music star. Despite his lifestyle and his demeanour, it becomes clear that Bobby Dupea is not actually your ordinary working-class man: he was a classical pianist, at an earlier stage in his life, and comes from an artistic family of musicians. The movie is primarily a character study focused on Bobby Dupea, and the tension there is between what he is, outwardly, and what he would like to be or could have been, inwardly, is at the very heart of the story.

Bobby has been drifting from one dead-end job to the next. He is not faithful to Rayette, and yet she loves him, frequently complaining that he does not treat her nicely. She is a simple girl, but she is genuine and finds it difficult to make sense of his moody behaviour. On one level, the storyline is quite simple. If you analyse it, however, you realise the story can be read on many interlocking levels. The theme of class differences is explored in the film, which is not so common in American movies, through the tensions there are between Bobby and Rayette.

On a deeper level, Bobby is a man going through a form of profound existential crisis. He does not seem to know what he wants, who he is, or what (and who) he wants to be. He has become a drifter due to his inability to take responsibility and make clear choices in his life; Bobby seems to be running away from his own actions and their consequences, as if the lack of meaning of his existence made that existence unbearable, and yet he cannot find or construct any kind of stable meaning for that life. Much of the time, in practice, Bobby's frustration translates into what can only be described as abusive behaviour towards women, particularly Rayette.

The film is memorable and captivating. All the actors are good. I found that Karen Black's acting actually shines through and is rather superior to J Nicholson's performance as the sulky macho man. There is no doubt that it is a very good film. But it is dark and the central character - Bobby - is an unlikeable person in many ways. Given the nature of the story, this is inevitable, but it makes the film difficult in some ways: we are having to follow the goings-on of an individual who is, when all is said and done, narcissistic, volatile, immature and disagreeable. So, it is a challenging but an interesting film.

Widower Henry McCarty and Wyatt, his son, live on an isolated farm in Oklahoma Territory at the start of the 20th century (1906). After Henry (the 'Old Henry' of the title of the movie) finds a lost horse with some blood on the saddle, Henry succeeds in finding the man who was riding the horse: severely injured, the man is named Curry. The story develops from there, with an inexorable chain of events unfolding, as Old Henry finds himself confronting a gang of extremely violent outlaws. In the process, the past of Old Henry is revealed.

Within the parameters of the genre, this is a little masterpiece (at 90 mins, taut, punchy and to the point, as reflected in Old Henry's way of speaking). There are no women at all in the story - only men. Rough and potentially violent men, in the middle of the Old West, which is still the Wild West. But the characters are not caricatures: they have depth and their interactions are on several levels, with very good dialogues. If you like Westerns, this feels like an old-school classic in the finest sense of the word. My only reservation would be that the lead actor doesn't quite look the part, but this is deliberate on the part of the director: there is more to Old Henry than meets the eye.

In January 1942, France is occupied by the Germans and the government in place in France is actively collaborating with the Nazis, enacting anti-Jewish legislation. Robert Klein, the central character (Alain Delon), is a well-to-do art dealer, who insists on the fact he is Alsatian and Catholic by birth, and not Jewish, despite the fact his surname could also be Jewish. R Klein is an opportunist and a hedonist, who appears uninterested in political matters. When his identity is called into question, i.e. the authorities threaten to investigate him in order to establish whether he is in fact Jewish or not, R Klein finds himself caught up in a Kafkaesque cycle of events, which is what the movie is about.

It is undeniably a very good film, which re-creates very well the atmosphere of 1940s France under German occupation, with the impact that the institutional anti-Semitism has on society and on the behaviour and mentality of ordinary people. It poses deeper questions about what a person's identity can mean. However, I expected a masterpiece and felt that this is merely a good film, whose storyline is rather simple. The very restrained acting style of Alain Delon - an over-rated actor who is inexpressive 90% of the time, which is his default position, essentially - gives a dry and abstract character to the story. We watch the story unfold from outside, as opposed to feeling that we are (or could be) part of it. This is, at any rate, how I felt while watching the film, which I still enjoyed and recommend.

Remy McSwain (Dennis Quaid), a New Orleans police lieutenant, investigates a local mobster's murder. The police suspect that a war between two crime families is unfolding. Anne Osborne (Ellen Barkin), a state district attorney, arrives on the scene in order to investigate alleged police corruption within the New Orleans Police Department. The story develops from there on 2 levels: on the one hand, the detective story involving the police investigation of multiple crimes taking place across the city, and, on the other, the romance that takes place between the 2 central characters, i.e. R McSwain and A Osborne.

The contrast between the work ethic of the local police officers and the district attorney's approach and principles is stark. The backdrop to it is that the police officers (most of whom are white) are members of the local Cajun community. The district attorney is an outsider. The clash of cultures and approaches is depicted in a way that is subtle and interesting, with some comical moments here and there. The 2 lead characters' acting is good, although I felt D Quaid overdoes it a bit as the Cajun lady killer who thinks he is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. (Needless to say, a movie like this couldn't be made today, post-Me Too, unless it was presented as a period film with a health warning.)

It is a good and enjoyable film. The atmosphere of New Orleans and its seedy underbelly is re-created in a way that feels real and immediate. However, I do not think it is the excellent movie some critics have said. It lacks depth and feels a bit like a TV crime drama at times, with too many clichés along the way. I still enjoyed the film.

Johnny Gallagher, a US Army Green Beret Master Sergeant (Gene Hackman), is in charge of a unit on patrol in West Berlin, while the US President and the Soviet General Secretary of the Communist Party are starting talks for mutual nuclear disarmament. However, some within the military are against such negotiations, and the film develops from there into a vintage political thriller. The setting is the Cold War, c.1980-1985. (The Soviet leader looks rather like Mikhail Gorbachev.) As the story progresses, J Gallagher is ordered to escort an Army sergeant, Walter Henke (Tommy Lee Jones), from West Germany back to the USA for court martial. But who is, precisely, W Henke?

This is a good film, well-made and full of suspense, structured around an alleged conspiracy at the highest level, within America's 'deep State'. In some ways, the film follows a well-trodden path and it would be excessive to call it a masterpiece of the genre. Having said that, it is very enjoyable entertainment, more particularly if you like that kind of storyline, and both Gene Hackman and Tommy Lee Jones are excellent, as always.

The story takes place in late 18th-century Denmark (the film is in Danish with subtitles). Princess Caroline Matilda of Great Britain (Alicia Vikander) marries Christian VII of Denmark (on the throne from 1766 to 1808). Christian is an eccentric and difficult character, who is widely considered to be mentally deranged. The situation is difficult for the British princess at Court, in Copenhagen, where the atmosphere is very conservative, stifling and fairly insular. The status-quo is called into question when a part-German doctor, Johann Friedrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen), is hired to be the King's personal physician. Struensee is a man of the Enlightenment. The idea is that he will be able to help the King cope better. Struensee and the King soon become very close. The story develops from there. It takes place from the late 1760s to the mid-1770s.

The film is remarkably good for 2 main reasons. First of all, the story is amazing and fascinating in its own right, and so are the key characters. What is even more striking is that the story is entirely true: the movie is historically accurate, from what I have read about the chain of events in Denmark at the time. Second, the film re-creates the events and the context in a truly remarkable way. It is not only that the acting of all the characters is excellent and the story rings true from start to finish. It is also that the film manages to re-create the atmosphere at Court in Copenhagen at the time so well, with the political and the personal factors overlapping in subtle ways. It is very rare for a period film to do this so successfully, more particularly when dealing with historical dramas set in Europe prior to c.1850.

Within the parameters of the genre, this is a truly memorable and superb film. If it were not a Scandinavian production in Danish with subtitles, it would be far better known. I would say it is one of the best movies I have seen in the past 10 years, and one of the best period films of this kind, ever.

An excellent film depicting the Profumo Affair in 1960s London — An English osteopath, Dr Stephen Ward (John Hurt, spot-on), who is also a socialite and a libertine, well introduced in various circles within the upper-class of 1960s England, is besotted with a very young showgirl who works in a slightly louche cabaret in Soho, Christine Keeler (Joanne Whalley, excellent right through). Dr Ward invites her to live with him. He becomes a friend and mentor to her. Through his very wide range of contacts and the parties he is invited to, C Keeler and her young female friend (met at work) meet and date various members of the Conservative Party.

The movie follows closely and accurately, from what I can see, the string of events that led to the downfall of John Profumo (Ian McKellen), who is a minister in the government and gets involved with C Keeler. This is known as the Profumo Affair, which rocked the Establishment in Britain in 1961-1963.

The film is very good: it recreates the atmosphere of Swinging London in the early 1960s very, very well, without ever indulging in clichés; the actors/ actresses are all very good, and the acting performance by J Hurt and J Whalley is excellent; minor characters (e.g.: the police officers who become involved in the case) are also played very well. This should be considered a classic of the genre and, given the subject matter and the parameters of the story, the film could not have been made better.