Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

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.

The film is a German adaptation of the famous novel by the same name. It starts in 1917 (WWI has been going on for 3 years), when Paul Bäumer, who is 17, decides to enlist in the Imperial German Army alongside his 3 friends, Albert Kropp, Franz Müller, and Ludwig Behm. Once deployed on the Western Front, in an infantry regiment, they find themselves in Northern France near La Malmaison, facing French troops on the other side of no man's land. They are befriended by an older soldier, Stanislaus 'Kat' Katczinsky. The film shows us what subsequently happens to them, as they are involved in frontal attacks on the French defensive lines. Life in the trenches is hellish and death is all too common. The German general in charge of the troops along this segment of the front expects the soldiers to behave heroically and be prepared to sacrifice their lives for their Kaiser and their country.

Very few war films depict war as it really is. Usually, there is a certain romantic element or a certain distance between what is shown and what the reality was (or must have been like). A good example is the British film, '1917', which is a good movie, but not one that depicts the experience of the common soldier in the trenches. This German film is far more realistic and unforgiving. As you watch it, you feel that it is telling it as it is, i.e. as the conditions really were. And, of course, it is hell on earth - a relentless, bloody carnage in the mud, which shows how absurd war can be, and how dehumanizing the butchery of WWI turned out to be. We see the war through the eyes of a small group of soldiers, who are friends and stick together as best they can. The bigger story is told through their own personal stories. The film is also very good when it shows the peace negotiations taking place between the Germans and the French (the war ended in 1918), and the concerns of the senior officers and politicians on both sides.

This is an important film and, given how rare it is to see such a war film, an excellent one. Having said all this, don't expect heroics and easy entertainment in the conventional sense: the film is very raw, very graphic, powerful, shocking, relentless and hard-hitting. Some scenes are hard to watch and to stomach. Nothing is watered down or made easy for the viewer. And we identify with this small band of brothers in the front line: we feel what they feel and hope what they hope, to the end.

Eric O'Neill, a young and ambitious FBI employee who is starting in his career at the Bureau, is instructed to work undercover as a clerk to Robert Hanssen, a senior agent who was previously in charge of the Russia Desk within the FBI's Intelligence Division. R Hanssen (Chris Cooper) is suspected of being a sexual deviant. Hanssen is close to retirement age and seems disenchanted with the bureaucracy and mentality at the FBI. He never fails to underline the importance of his Catholic faith. E O'Neill struggles to find anything remotely concerning in his work but is told to investigate further by those he reports to within the FBI.

The film is, essentially, about R Hanssen: who is he, really, and what is it that makes him tick? Is he a threat to the FBI, or is he merely misunderstood and undervalued, because he has never wanted to play office politics during his long career at the FBI? The film is also about the ambiguous relationship that develops between R Hanssen and E O'Neill: the junior 'clerk' turns into a hunter, whose mission may have huge implications for his 'boss'.

The movie is well-constructed. It is entirely focused on E O'Neill's investigation. There is something of a game of chess going on between E O'Neill and R Hanssen, as each one is trying to outsmart the other, eventually. Who can you trust? And R Hanssen does not trust anyone. There is a lot of suspense in the movie, which is entirely based on historical events. (You can read about R Hanssen on Wikipedia after watching the film.) The film is almost cerebral in some ways: there are no fireworks to speak of. It is not an action film. It is a subtle and ruthless game of cat and mouse.

Overall, it is a very good film I would recommend.

The film is a sentimental/ psychological drama centred on a couple, Jean-Paul (a taciturn Alain Delon) and Marianne (a radiant Romy Schneider), who are holidaying at a friend's villa near Saint-Tropez, in South-Eastern France. They have been together for a couple of years and seem to be very much in love. They are spending their time sunbathing, swimming (in the villa's swimming-pool) and having sex. Their bliss is interrupted, however, when Harry (Maurice Ronet) turns up with his 18-year-old daughter, Penelope (Jane Birkin). Harry is an old friend of Jean-Paul's. The simmering tension between the 2 men is at the heart of the story: it would appear that Harry was Marianne's lover before she met Jean-Paul. As for Penelope, she is not as passive and innocent as she may seem. The movie develops from there.

This is an excellent film. The story is plausible from start to finish. There is nothing dated about the plot or the actors' performance (the film was released in 1969). The psychology of the characters is captured in a manner that is both sharp and subtle. Inexorably, the tension between the characters rises. There is a question that you could ask yourself after seeing the film, and it will keep you thinking for a few days: To what extent are the various characters responsible (or not) for their actions, and for what unfolds? There is no simple answer.

An excellent film, close to being a masterpiece in my opinion, within the parameters of the genre.

Essentially, this is a fictionalized version (1967) of the Great Train Robbery of 1963, in the UK, whereby a Royal Mail train transporting large amounts of cash was targeted by a well-organised gang. The story starts, in the film, with the gang targeting a jewellery dealer transporting high-value diamonds across London: the car chase is very good and perhaps the most spectacular sequence of the movie. With the money from this robbery, the gangsters can fund the setting-up of the attack on the train. The leader of the gang is Stanley Baker as Paul Clifton, who is both tough and charismatic. But not all goes according to plan...

Overall, it is a good film, but somewhat predictable in its narrative form (and not only because it shadows the true story it is based upon). It is nice to see Central London in the mid-1960s, and the film has a very British feel to it. Other than that, it is not a masterpiece, but worth watching if you like this kind of thriller and vintage films, so to speak. And you realise how much Britain has changed in the past 60 years: no one uses firearms in the film, for instance, even though there certainly is violence...

For the real story, go to this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Train_Robbery_(1963)

The film starts in Germany: we are in 1943. Maria (Hanna Schygulla, remarkably beautiful and charismatic) marries Hermann Braun, a soldier. After "half a day and a whole night" together, Hermann Braun goes back to the front the next day. Following the end of WWII, Maria is told that Hermann has been killed. Maria is the central character: without Hanna Schygulla, the film wouldn't exist. She is the focus of attention and her sure-footed performance underpins the entire story, which is about her, first and foremost.

The historical context is important, here: Maria needs to survive in the wake of the Nazi regime's collapse, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to feed herself and those closest to her, including her mother. She refuses to lose hope and keeps on believing that Hermann, her husband, will reappear at some stage in the future. The film is interesting on various levels. First of all, the atmosphere in Germany at the time is re-created in a way that seems convincing and compelling. Then, Maria herself is a complex character, a non-conformist who has no scruples, or so it would seem. Finally, the story unfolds in a captivating manner.

This could have been a masterpiece but I feel there is something missing and it is hard to pinpoint what it is. The story is not entirely plausible, more particularly towards the end, in my view. Also, the style of the narrative is surprisingly dated, and not that this is a major issue in itself: the story takes place in the 1940s and 1950s, and it does feel like a 1950s film, or perhaps even a 1930s type of movie (it was released in 1978). Maybe R W Fassbinder did this on purpose. This creates a strange impression, as if there was some kind of distance between us and the story as well as the characters, as if the narrative was stilted, as Maria herself can be. On balance, I would still recommend the film, which is very good.

Trish (Margaret Qualley) is a young US journalist and travel writer. She is stranded in Nicaragua during the COVID 19 pandemic, having to resort to part-time prostitution in order to survive, in the capital. The Nicaraguan authorities have confiscated her passport following articles she wrote that were critical of the Sandinista regime. Trish is at a low point when she meets Daniel, a mysterious British consultant, in one of the city's posh hotels. The story develops from there.

The film had everything to be captivating and interesting: the political backdrop (Central America, revolution, repression, etc.) and the sexual tension (including the interaction between Daniel and Trish), not to mention an exotic atmosphere. Unfortunately, the pace of the story, which is overlong, is sluggish in the extreme. Most of the time, not much happens and the dialogues between the main characters are laborious. It is as if the film director had all the right ingredients to produce a masterpiece, and she ends up serving us a tepid, dull and tasteless ready meal. The movie is full of clichés, from start to finish. It is not so much implausible as it is boring.

Claire Denis probably is vastly overrated as a film director. The film is an indigestible turkey. I recommend you avoid it.

Emre, a young prosecutor who is starting in his career and wants to make a difference, is newly appointed to a small town in Anatolia which is hit by a water crisis. When Emre tries to curb illegal practices in the town and decides to investigate the causes of the town’s chronic water shortage, he ruffles the feathers of the local worthies. The story develops from there.

The storyline is not exceedingly original: a young man, who is a bit idealistic and has come from the city, is pitted against the locals and their traditional ways, who do not want things to change. Each side has to learn how to live with the other, and with the other's expectations. What the film shows, in a way that is both remarkably powerful and very subtle, is what happens when, gradually, a conflict develops in such a context. The movie is full of tension and suspense, as we see, little by little, the looming, inexorable confrontation getting more threatening and sinister every minute. This is an excellent film, as the subject is treated in a very intelligent and effective manner, from start to finish: it is what good cinema is, or should be.

The title of the film relates to what is claimed to be, at the time, an East-West agreement (between NATO and the USSR) established to prevent runaway nuclear proliferation. One of its clauses is known as the Fourth Protocol and is secret: it bans the non-conventional use of a nuclear weapon against any target. At the start of the movie, taking place in 1968, John Preston (Michael Caine), an MI5 officer, establishes that George Berenson, an official in the British government, has been passing on top-secret NATO documents to a foreign power. The film develops from there.

The story involves Soviet agents sent to Britain to cause mayhem; intrigue and infighting within the various agencies and personnel involved on the Soviet side, but also on the British side; and, finally, a plucky, no-nonsense counter-terrorism agent (Michael Caine) who will do what it takes to save the country - and the world. On the Soviet side, an elite intelligence officer is his opponent: a cold-hearted and homicidal Pierce Brosnan, as Major Valeri Alekseyevich Petrofsky (AKA James Edward Ross).

The film is not bad but it is not that great. The suspense is somehow a bit limp. The plot is riddled with implausible twists and turns, and yet bizarrely predictable (it manages to be both, in other words). The characters are cartoonish, to a large extent. It is a B-movie, in the last analysis: it feels as if it was made in the 1970s (the story is supposed to take place in 1968 but it was made in 1987). In fact, it almost feels like a run-of-the-mill TV drama. In conclusion, I would pass on this one, even though it is enjoyable enough to watch and is not boring as such: it simply is not necessary.