Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

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.

In 1982, a huge extraterrestrial spaceship has arrived over Johannesburg: it hovers above the South African city. Inside, an investigation team sent by the South African government finds more than a million aliens, who appear to be malnourished and look like very large insects. The government decides to concentrate all the aliens in a camp near the centre of the city, District 9.

After 20 years, the aliens' camp has turned into a slum-like city within the city, with millions of aliens living in it. The locals resent their presence. The aliens are referred to as 'Prawns': they are viewed as filthy and threatening. The government decides that it will be best to move the aliens to another camp, outside the city. A team of government officials will enter the camp and serve eviction notices on the aliens; the officials will be accompanied by heavily armed police officers for their protection.

The film develops from that point onwards. Apart from the broader storyline, with a clear parallel between the treatment of the aliens and that of non-Whites in Apartheid-era South Africa, what is interesting is the central character: Wikus van de Merwe. He is a bumbling, shy, well-meaning and slightly naive bureaucrat at the Department of Alien Affairs, part of the MNU organisation. Wikus is the unlikeliest of heroes and, as the story unfolds, he finds himself at the centre of the unfolding drama. Through Wikus, Mr Ordinary, the story becomes and feels very real: if it can happen to him, it could happen to anyone.

The movie is entertaining and full of suspense but it also asks deeper questions relating to the human condition: who is a human being and who is not; are the aliens like us in some ways, despite their off-putting, insectoid appearance; and what of their treatment at the hands of the South African authorities? Are the aliens just monsters from outer space, and can we be confident that we, humans, are civilised and reasonable? Although those questions are implicitly posed, the film never lectures you and is well constructed from start to finish. A must-see for anyone who appreciates science-fiction films.

Michael O'Hara (Colin Morgan) is a gunman who has been part of the IRA since his teens, but he wants to leave the terrorist organisation. The film starts as he witnesses the shooting of his pregnant wife by a British soldier of West Indian origin (Aml Ameen), serving in the Parachute Regiment. O'Hara manages to escape but he has been wounded in the shoot-out with the British troops and is soon presumed dead. More than anything else, O'Hara now wants to take revenge on the soldier who killed his wife. He travels to mainland Britain from Northern Ireland with a view to killing the British soldier, Tempest (we are not given any other name for him). The film develops from that point onwards, taking place in 1970s London.

This is a tense, taut and dark film. The atmosphere in 1970s London, which is run-down and shabby, is expertly re-created. The acting of all the characters is excellent and the realistic dialogues hit home. This is a movie full of violence - the violence of circumstances, the violence of politics, the violence of the State, the violence of terrorism, the violence of men, the violence of ideas and emotions: there is no end to the forms of violence that the film depicts and, from time to time, the violence, which is present and latent all the time, literally explodes into scenes of extreme, graphic violence. But this is far more than an action movie. It is an intelligent film, carefully constructed, with characters who feel intensely human and believable. The story feels very real from start to finish, even if it may be inexorable in more ways than one, like some pre-ordained Greek tragedy. The film is also unsettling, because all the characters, but for a few exceptions, are ambiguous and dangerous: there are no 'good guys' and 'bad actors' - it is a dirty war, fought in a dirty way by both the IRA and the security forces. On the latter's side, Mark Strong (as Holland) is impressive and scary, as usual when he plays such parts.

Overall, it is a truly excellent film. I am surprised it has not been written about and praised more. I believe it will become a classic, and will be talked about as such in 20 or 30 years' time.

Very few films show reality as it is - think of the average war movie that glorifies war and heroism. 'Hamburger Hill' shows the Vietnam War, when the US Army was engaged against North Vietnamese soldiers across Indochina, in a hyper-realistic and very graphic way. Inevitably, the film is raw, brutal, bloody and tragic. It is not a film for everybody, but it could be considered a necessary movie.

The film focuses on a squad of 14 US Army soldiers of B Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division during the battle for Hill 937 in the A Shau Valley of Vietnam: the battle lasted 10 days (from 11 to 20 May 1969). The North Vietnamese are dug in at the top of the steep hill; the American troops are ordered to take the fortified hill. Every time the US soldiers attempt to overcome the North Vietnamese resistance, they suffer a lot of casualties. It is said that the battle was called 'Hamburger Hill' because enemy fire was so intense and fierce that assaulting troops were being turned into shredded hamburger meat.

The film does not gloss over tensions among soldiers, also along racial lines. It does refer to the broader political backdrop, also in the USA. This makes it an interesting film, not just an action-packed war movie. There is a tragically human dimension to the fighting. The suffering and humanity of the Vietnamese is also featured in various ways in the film. Overall, this is a unique and unmissable film, in my view. Once you have seen it, you will never forget it, for better or for worse.

The film is about what one could call the formative years of Donald Trump (Sebastian Stan), when he became the man that he is today. In that sense, it is a biographical and semi-fictionalized account of D Trump's life, when he was a young man starting off in real estate. The movie begins in 1973, when the family firm is going through a difficult time: the US federal government is investigating his father, the authoritarian Fred Trump, for alleged discrimination against black tenants, as part of the properties that the Trump family rents out. This has the potential to bankrupt the Trump real-estate business and worries Donald Trump greatly: he is working in his father's business. In a trendy bar, D Trump meets Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong). Cohn is an utterly ruthless but very effective and successful lawyer, who decides to help D Trump and becomes, in a way, his mentor. Cohn is not averse to using underhand tactics and has worked with Mafia gangsters in the past, hence his mixed reputation. The film develops from that point onwards.

What the film does is explore the psychological and professional development of Donald Trump, but it does more than that: to a large extent, at the heart of the movie, actually, is the relationship between D Trump and R Cohn, which is complex and which changes over time. It is that relationship that underpins the film and, up to a point, it is J Strong who steals the show, as R Cohn turns out to be a compelling character whose own fate ends up being as important to the plot as that of D Trump's.

The film seems very realistic and does not pull its punches when describing D Trump, his narcissistic and materialistic arrogance and his lack of scruples. It is no surprise that the real Donald Trump, now president of the USA, found the movie repellent and unfair. However, the way that D Trump is portrayed is also, to a certain extent, sympathetic, if only superficially: he appears vulnerable and merely human in more ways than one. This makes the film more interesting. I would not say it is a masterpiece, on the other hand: it lacks some dramatic tension, perhaps, or it is simply that it is difficult to identify with any of the characters in the movie, as they are, by and large, vain, greedy and unprincipled. Still, a very good film.

A footnote: I found the colour in the film smudgy and sepia-like, presumably a deliberate attempt at situating the film firmly in the 1970s and 1980s; also, the sound is not always that good, making it not so easy to follow parts of the dialogues fully.

Bridget Gregory (Linda Fiorentino) works as a telemarketing manager in a company based in New York City. Clay, her husband, is a dodgy doctor who is in debt to a loan shark. He decides to sell pharmaceutical cocaine to drug dealers, making $700,000 in the process. Once home, Clay hits Bridget in the face after a brief argument, when she insults him. Bridget runs away from their apartment with the money, heading for Chicago. The film develops from that point onwards.

Bridget is an attractive, sexy and bold young woman, who is predatory and cynical. She is the dangerous femme fatale who manipulates gullible, naive, unintelligent and gormless men with ease, using her intelligence and her sex appeal to devastating effect. The story develops in unexpected ways, until its spectacular ending. Overall, it is a good film. However, it is not a masterpiece of the genre, in my view. If you want a masterpiece along such lines, watch "Body Heat" with William Hurt and the sultry, mysterious Kathleen Turner.

There are several problems with "The Last Seduction". First of all, Linda Fiorentino lacks a certain aura or mystery, in my opinion, to be the ultimate femme fatale: it simply isn't her style, at any rate in this movie. She is hard-nosed, cynical and efficient - almost too much. Second, the men in the film are caricatures: they truly are dumb and weak, all of them, to the point where they are not credible. The lead male actors are not that good, in my view: whether it is intentional or not, they are totally dominated by the character played by Linda Fiorentino. The problem is that she finds it too easy to trick them into doing what she wants: it drains the film of tension, in a way. So, a good film but, if you want the real McCoy, watch "Body Heat", which is a masterpiece let down by its dull title.

After the Pope's sudden death of a heart attack, the College of Cardinals, in the Vatican, needs to convene in order to elect a successor to the dead Pope. The dean in charge of organising the conclave, i.e. the process of choosing the new pontiff, is a British prelate, Thomas Lawrence, who wants to do things properly and fairly (Ralph Fiennes). There are several leading contenders for the position of pontiff: some are more liberal, others more conservative. As the film progresses, issues arise with some of the would-be popes, causing crises and ratchetting up the tension and the suspense.

This is a very good film, which manages to make what could have been a dreary process - holding rounds of vote to find a new Pope - exciting and even spectacular. The acting is remarkably good across the board. The movie re-creates the atmosphere in the Vatican very well - or what we may imagine it to be. Soon, the entire plot focuses on power within the Roman Catholic Church: who has it and who hasn't; who knows what; alliances and cliques, and so on.

I have 2 reservations, however. First of all, the list of incidents and crises is, somehow, implausible. Granted, this is what films do: they concentrate in a couple of hours enough melodrama to last a lifetime, so as to make the story exciting. Still, I feel that the plot is somehow over the top and requires a certain suspension of disbelief. Second, the ending is vaguely annoying as it seeks to convey a message to the audience laced with a certain amount of what I can only call political correctness: I cannot say any more so as not to spoil the story for those who have not seen the film yet. 'The Cairo Conspiracy', in a Muslim context (2022), is a masterpiece; 'Conclave' is not. Still, a very good film I enjoyed watching.

The film tells the story of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, usually known as 'Bonnie and Clyde', who became notorious in the early 1930s, in the USA. The movie starts, during the Great Depression, as Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) and Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) meet, when Clyde tries to steal a car that belongs to Bonnie's mother. Bonnie is stuck in a small town in Texas, where she works as a waitress. She is bored with her life and feels she has no future. She is intrigued by Clyde and instantly attracted to him, with his good looks and easy charm. Clyde tells her that he has been to jail, that he is a criminal, and shows her the gun he carries. Bonnie is fascinated with this glimpse into another world. She decides to become his partner in crime. This is the beginning of the story, which chronicles the misdeeds of what becomes the Bonnie and Clyde gang.

The film was criticised, when it came out, for glamorizing violence, which is shown graphically in the movie - something that was new at the time. Also, the storyline strays away from historical accuracy on more than one occasion (see the Wikipedia article on the film, which discusses this in detail). Overall, it is a very good film, which gives us an insight into the motivations of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker - the latter being a more complex character than the former. Still, the story is more style than substance, with the 2 glamorous actors in the lead focusing much of the attention. But this is, after all, how the Bonnie and Clyde gang has always been portrayed.