Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

The film takes place in Montfermeil, a rough suburb of Paris. The local population that lives in high-rise apartment blocks is mostly of North African and African origin. The film follows a 3-man team of police officers in an unmarked car; their role is to crack down on crime and intervene fast when needed. One of them, Stéphane Ruiz, is shocked by the way his colleagues behave, but he is new. Soon, a fairly trivial incident escalates, as violence is unleashed - a combination of police brutality on the one hand and rioting by the local, mostly black male teenagers, on the other, who resent the police patrols.

Although the film is an action movie in many ways - but not a conventional one - it also touches upon far deeper issues, including social deprivation, poverty, cultural integration, non-European immigration, delinquency, etc. The story is fast-paced and, although simple enough, full of extreme tension and suspense. What is also striking is that it feels almost like a documentary rather than a piece of fiction. The main characters feel very real, and there are many funny or farcical moments too, as can happen in real life, even in dramatic situations.

You do not often see films like this, which refrain from preaching, tell a story of this kind, and tell it well. I would say it is quite a remarkable achievement. The situations depicted are, from what I know, highly realistic: many rough council estates with a high immigrant population in French cities could be the scene of such developments. But the film is never simplistic, in my opinion, in the way that it deals with the issues: there is no simple answer to the mess that those forgotten communities live in... It should be pointed out that the director is, himself, from that part of Paris, and is of African origin.

I strongly recommend the film. I think it is excellent and memorable. [If you watch it with the standard settings, it is in French, with subtitles in English.]

In 1961, in Montana, George Blackledge (Kevin Costner), a retired sheriff, lives with his wife Margaret (Diane Lane), their son, their daughter-in-law, and the couple's baby. The movie starts off as a sentimental drama, and develops into a thriller. It has been described as 'a neo-Western film'. The plot is interesting because the characters are, and the acting is excellent. More particularly, K Costner's on-screen presence is compelling. As for D Lane, she is simply remarkable in the way she acts her part. She is no longer young, but there is a radiant beauty to her. Also, her face is very expressive, and she always strikes the right note in every situation. Neither character speaks that much, but we get to understand their feelings and emotions effortlessly. All the other characters are also highly convincing.

The movie feels very real, even though the story is hardly ordinary, in the way that it unfolds. The central characters are developed in terms of their expectations, their attitudes, their behaviour... The atmosphere of provincial, rural America in the early 1960s is reconstituted very well. The tension is never far from the surface, sustaining our interest right through the film. Overall, in the register that the film has chosen, it works extremely well. There is something profoundly honest about the characters played by K Costner and D Lane, and their on-screen couple seems close and convincing: they look like a real-life couple, as they interact.

An excellent film, which I would recommend; I suspect it may become a classic of the genre. My only reservation would be the title, which is not very good, although it does relate closely to the storyline. The title is bland and a bit daft: it does not do justice to the high quality of the movie.

Salomon Sorowitsch (based on Salomon Smolianoff's life) is the central character in this film. He is played by Austrian actor Karl Markovics, who is simply amazing in terms of his looks - a very angular face like a fish-knife - as well as his acting and his facial expressions. He barely twitches and always refrains from showing any emotions in the camp, and yet, you know exactly what he is thinking and how he is feeling about the situation at hand: his acting is simply outstanding and unforgettable - truly amazing.

The plot is based on a completely true story (you can read an account here, after watching the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard), which is, itself, totally incredible: Nazi Germany set out to produce millions and millions of fake pounds sterling from a secret unit in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. To that intent, a team of counterfeiters was put together, made up of printers, graphic artists, bankers, etc. Salomon, for his part, is put in charge of quality control as he is a career criminal and an expert forger. The head of the unit, within the camp - an SS officer who is a policeman by background - soon demands that they produce large quantities of US dollars, which are more difficult to make...

The environment of the concentration camps and the routine violence inflicted on Jewish inmates are horrific. What is interesting, though, is also the complex rapport between Salomon and the head of the unit, Sturmbannführer Herzog. Therefore, the film is interesting on many levels: as a historical drama depicting actual events; as a psychological drama set in the period of the war; and also, in fact, as a thriller, given the counterfeiters' mission.

It is hard to watch at times, given the nature of the context and story, but I would say that this movie is a masterpiece.

This is a good film and I enjoyed watching it but, let's face it, it is not as good as most reviewers have said over the years, and it is not as profound as most people seem to think. The storyline is actually quite simplistic: Britain in 2027 (in a few years' time, that is: brace yourselves, folks!) has turned into a Fascistic state where anti-immigrant policies are enforced by the Army; civilisation is collapsing as worldwide infertility has hit women. It is an interesting premise, but the movie somehow fails to live up to its stated purpose. In passing, it is interesting to note that the future of humanity is embodied in a black woman speaking with an African accent (the actress, whose acting is good overall, in fact, is British, of Ghanaian origin): the sub-text on the terminal decline of the West is obvious, as London is shown to be a filthy, violence-ridden urban jungle.

First of all, it looks a bit cheap at times (and yet, the budget was considerable): it is just the way it is filmed; it somehow looks like a low-budget movie, to me. Second, the characters lack any sort of genuine depth and some details are baffling or preposterous. Can you imagine an American movie of this kind where the lead male actor ends up with his feet in a bucket of warm water on more than one occasion because he has footwear-related issues, and, for a prolonged part of the film, is actually wearing flip-flops. Yes, flip-flops. Only a film set in Britain could come up with such an idea, quite frankly. The alternative would have been sandals, obviously. Third, the dialogues are not particularly inventive or memorable, much of the time: 'Terminator' films have more humour to offer than this film, which rather takes itself seriously, in fact.

My problem is also Clive Owen. He seems to be a likeable person (I have no idea whether he is in real life). But every character he plays, from what I have seen over the years, is the same (and whether he is playing himself, as a person, or not!): someone who is cynical, blasé, depressed (hence depressing), pessimistic, gloomy, dishevelled, and who has basically given up on fellow human beings and life. Then, something happens in the story whereby he decides to rise up to the occasion and do The Right Thing. But he is still, right through, depressed, gloomy, dishevelled and pouty. He seems to be thinking, all the time, that, really, 'Life is horrible.' (I am being polite.) In this film, his uncouth and filthy appearance reaches new depths as he staggers about in his flip-flops, lurching from one disaster to the next. It gets a bit limited and annoying after a while. It is also rather formulaic. Is the character (and C Owen's acting) capable of more than one theme/ strand of emotions/ take on life?

Having said all this, it is an interesting film and the end (the last 25 mins or so) is actually moving and good, so, I recommend the movie. And of course, Michael Caine, in his minor part as an ageing hippie living in the woods, is excellent, as he always is.

The movie has been hyped up as a great piece of cinema, while some reviewers on this website describe it as boring and shocking given the extreme violence that characterizes some scenes (not many, in fact). I think it is in-between. It is not a masterpiece, but it is a brilliant piece of pure entertainment. Inevitably, the gore-fest is over the top and fairly implausible, but it is OTT to the point of being memorable and funny. Where it is less funny is the fact that the story relates to the Manson Family and what happened to Sharon Tate and her guests at the time: in that sense, one could argue that there is an ethically dubious angle whereby Q Tarantino uses real, gruesome events in order to create some grotesque movie scenes without any qualms on his part...

Having said all this, I enjoyed the movie, even though it is slightly too long (over 2 1/2 hours). What I liked was the vivid re-creation of late 1960s California: you get the music and the atmosphere, and it feels very real. Also, the central characters -- Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth (Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate is under-used) -- are a scream: the acting and their characterization are excellent. Finally, there is a lot of humour in the film, and some of it is truly good, underpinned by very clever dialogues.

So, I would recommend it, despite the inevitable OTT gory violence that Q Tarantino feels the compulsion to insert in every one of his films. It is a good 3* and maybe even a 4* movie well worth watching, in my view.

This Italian film (it was a pan-European production) is about the life of Tommaso Buscetta, reputedly the first Sicilian Mafia boss who decided to 'talk', i.e. tell Judge G Falcone what he knew about Cosa Nostra, thereby becoming a 'pentito' -- a label T Buscetta nevertheless always rejected.

The movie is well-made, convincing, and interesting; I enjoyed watching it, even though it is very long (2 1/2 hours). The realistic atmosphere is what makes it captivating: it feels quite 'real' from start to finish, and the life of the criminal underworld is not glamorized to any degree.

What is lacking, however, is a certain tension, paradoxically; I would not say the film is flat, but it does not grab us as much as it could have, given the subject matter. It is odd, in fact, and I am not sure why that is the case. Maybe, it has to do with a style that is somewhat academic and painstakingly factual to the point of being prosaic. The other thing that is missing is some in-depth understanding (or description/ analysis) of the main character's motivation in deciding to spill the beans. On one level, it is quite clear (he feels Cosa Nostra has betrayed its roots and traditional values, etc.) but, on a deeper level, it remains an enigma, to a large extent. Why did he decide to co-operate with Judge G Falcone? What really happened between those 2 that persuaded T Buscetta to collaborate? This aspect is dealt with in a fairly superficial manner.

In conclusion, it is a very good film, in my opinion, and I recommend it, but it is not the truly great movie it could have been.

The film, considered to be a classic, was made in 1961. It stars Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly and George Peppard as Paul Varjak. Both monetize their charm and sex appeal, in different ways, and lead unconventional lifestyles. A Hepburn is both naive and calculating, forever looking for Prince Charming. G Peppard is a struggling writer. They are neighbours in a New York block of flats, and the movie is largely about the interaction between them.

The movie is delightfully charming and entertaining, with many funny moments and good dialogues; all the actors and actresses are excellent. (The cantankerous Japanese neighbour is a caricature and could not feature in a film, today, but he is undeniably comical.) What is amazing is that the film has not aged at all, in my opinion. It feels fresh, unconventional, original and full of energy. And A Hepburn is simply irresistible as the zany central character of the story, which she totally dominates effortlessly and with immense charm.

There is nothing intrinsically profound about the storyline, but the film is very good. I strongly recommend it.

In Heilongjiang Province, in the north of China, in 1999, the dismembered parts of a man's body appear in shipments of coal across the region, at coal plants in different cities. The movie is rooted in its dark, grim and frozen environment: the city is perpetually covered in snow and ice (hence the title of the film in English).

The central character is a local detective (serving, then having left the force) who investigates the murder (or murders) and becomes obsessed with the case, and with a woman who works in a dry cleaner's (she is linked to the case). There is something heavy, claustrophobic, gloomy and close to depressing about the story, because of the plot but, even more so, because of the atmosphere and the surroundings. But this overwhelming atmosphere is also the movie's strongest point, as it fascinates, while we descend into the underbelly of this Chinese provincial town and its chain-smoking, heavy-drinking and gambling rough men.

The characters are enigmatic for 2 reasons. First of all, because of the storyline and what thrillers tend to be like. The second reason is that it is a Chinese film (I think that is the reason, at any rate): the characters speak relatively little; they do not explain their reactions or emotions: they merely state them. We are left to imagine what is going through their minds. Many things are left unsaid or merely alluded to. The combination is quite disconcerting and fascinating.

Despite the fact the film can be slow at times, and is not always plausible (which is true of most thrillers), I would recommend it and enjoyed watching it from start to finish. It will surprise you.

[PS: The review by 'RP' should be accompanied by a 'spoiler alert' warning, as it gives away the entire plot.]

In this film -- part of the 'Terminator' franchise -- Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the Terminator robot whose role is to protect humans , is pitted against statuesque blonde Kristanna Loken as the T-X, a more advanced Terminator robot bent on mayhem and eradicating the human race. The storyline is built upon the notion that networked machines could, one day, attempt to take over the world and enslave (or destroy) humans. This interesting concept is not developed to any extent, as the film is primarily an action movie inspired by science fiction.

The film is not a masterpiece, but it works very well within the parameters of its specific genre, with dialogues that are often quite funny: A Schwarzenegger is spot-on in his role as the protector robot trying to carry out his mission. The special effects, car chases, fight scenes, etc. are very good. So, for those who enjoy this kind of entertainment, I do recommend the film.

Nastassja Kinski is Tess in this madly romantic film by R Polanski, which is faithful to the novel by Thomas Hardy and captures the atmosphere in the book, transferring it over to the screen. It is a beautiful film and N Kinski is simply so utterly beautiful herself that she dominates the narrative effortlessly. It should be said that the movie is as good as it is simply because the story is so compelling and moving, as written by T Hardy.

I would have a few reservations, however. First of all, the pace of the film is quite slow and the film is perhaps a bit too long (2 hrs 45 mins or so). But one could argue this is in keeping with the novel by T Hardy. Second, N Kinski's acting can feel a bit limited in its range at times: she tends to look cross, embarrassed and/ or pouty a lot of the time, as if this were what Tess's part and fate demand.

It is still a beautiful film that I recommend and enjoyed watching.

This is a classic and an excellent film: as war movies go, it is superb and I did enjoy watching it (all 2 1/2 hours of it). The style, atmosphere, acting, plot, etc. -- none of that, in my view, feels stale, and that is saying something, as the film was made in the mid-1950s. So, I recommend it if you have not seen it.

I had seen bits and pieces of it, but never the whole movie. I expected it to depict the atrocities committed by the Japanese at the expense of British and other POWs, and the stiff upper lip to prevail in the end. In fact, the inhumane treatment of the prisoners is shown, but rather downplayed. I do not think it gives a realistic idea of the conditions in the camps along the railway line. But the film is not really about that. Without spoiling the story for those who don't know it, it is about a personal tussle between 2 men, as stubborn one as the other: a British officer (Alec Guinness) and the Japanese officer in charge of the camp (Sessue Hayakawa).

The problem is that, good as it is, the film is based on the novel by a Frenchman, Pierre Boulle, and the novel's storyline has little to do with the actual events. Alec Guinness's colonel is modelled on Brigadier Sir Philip John Denton Toosey (1904 – 1975), who was, by any yardstick, an utterly remarkable man and a soldier of impeccable standing. All of this is explained on Wikipedia (to be read after you have watched the film).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Toosey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai

Understandably, when the film came out, the British veterans, who had suffered so much because of the cruelty of the Japanese, and may have served under Brig D Toosey, were outraged. So, enjoy the film, but remember that the actual historical facts have nothing to do with it. It would be great if there was, one day, a movie telling what Brig D Toosey actually did and who he was. (The truth has been put forward in various TV documentaries and books since written about the construction of the railway line, etc.)

Solek (Polish nickname for Solomon) and his family live in Germany. The Nazis have taken over. On the eve of Solek's bar mitzvah, Kristallnacht occurs. Solek and his brother leave for the East, hoping to take refuge in the Soviet Union. Soon separated from his brother, Solek is having to survive by all means possible.

The story the film tells is totally extraordinary and quite improbable and would, indeed, seem implausible. And yet, it is based on a true story, that of Solomon Perel, who is still alive (he was born in 1925) and now lives in Israel. Although the movie takes some liberties with the account of his life, given in the autobiographical book he wrote, it is broadly faithful to the chain of events as they happened.

The film grips you because it combines the story of a teenager on the run (Solek) caught up in the murderous 1930s and 1940s in Europe with the broader historical canvas -- the rise of totalitarian systems in Germany, with the Nazis, and in Russia, with Stalin at the head of the Communist regime. You feel you are living through all the traumas that shook Europe at the time, seen through the eyes of a Jewish teenager confronted with the horrors of war and anti-Semitism.

The film is quite unique in many ways and is well-made; it carries profound insights into morality and politics, and what it means to be human. As historical dramas go, it is a masterpiece, in my view. It is a must-see.

This is an odd movie. Made on a budget, it looks like a short film (it is 80 minutes long) that would have been made by students, as part of a project at Arts School. Indeed, it is supposed to be a piece of non-fiction, in the reportage mode, made by a group of 3 American students who set out to explore a wood, in Maryland, that would be inhabited by one or more 'witches' and is the subject of a disputed, local legend. Once in the wood, the 3 students are quite ill-prepared for the chain of events awaiting them.

On one level, the film is compelling, despite the fact the plot could not be simpler. The suspense builds up and I was never bored while watching the film, as it manages to sustain tension. The internal dynamic of the group of students can also seem interesting.

On the other hand, the film feels like a 'draft' (and deliberately so, arguably). The wood itself never feels threatening to me and looks small (whether it is or not) and plain: there is nothing truly special about it. But that is most probably what has attracted viewers and fans over the years: everything in the film seems so prosaic (3 students who could be anyone, in a wood that could be any wood, and weird things start happening...) that it is easy for the viewer to identify with the characters.

The film has attained cult status, and this is most probably not warranted: it has been hyped up over the years... A masterpiece of the genre is 'Deliverance': this is to 'Deliverance' what a campervan is to a Lamborghini...

You will enjoy the movie if you like this kind of film, and it would perhaps deserve 3 * for its originality, not 2; but, if this is not quite your cup of tea, there are plenty of other films that are more interesting that one can watch...

The review by RP gives you a good overview of the film. The plot is cunningly and craftily put together. The acting is simply superb. Both M Caine and L Olivier are unforgettable in this sadistic and complex game of humiliation and counter-humiliation, against the background of class differences.

If you have not seen this film, you must. Probably the best movie I have ever seen.

This is a strange movie. The storyline itself, once you strip it away of all its added layers (added on purpose but confusing the viewer rather than anything else, also on purpose), is actually fairly simple. So, the film is deliberately convoluted and draws you into its multi-layered narrative, creating a claustrophobic and oppressive atmosphere centred on one question: what is the truth?

The plot plays on the fact that, in anyone's life, there are conflicting narratives: there is what happened (insofar as it is known); there is what you remember or know, and what people tell you they know or witnessed; there is your interpretation and your emotions; there are all the unknowns; there are flawed memories and half-truths as well as lies; there is fiction, rooted in reality, and re-constructing the reality that you experience, and so on. All of this interferes with the plot, which is basically about a Canadian teenager trying to figure out what happened to his parents (who are both dead).

The film is, therefore, undeniably interesting, but it moves somewhat slowly, oppressively, claustrophobically towards its climax that is not really a climax. The teenager's uncle, Tom, the tow-truck driver, although he has his own issues, is the only 'normal' character; all the others are odd, troubled, confused, conflicted, twisted, or downright perverse. And yet Tom is presented as the problem one in this warped comedy of errors, maybe because he is, precisely, the only reasonably rational and balanced individual in the story!

I was never bored watching the film, but I wouldn't say it is as good as many snobbish critics claimed. It is not bad. But it is also ponderous and needlessly complicated. It will appeal to some, if they like that kind of psychological/ sentimental drama.