peterm1 Reviews

The Dry (2020)

A bit like the "Curate's egg."

[6/10 · 10 May 2021]

The Curate's egg reference is a reference to an old joke in "Punch" magazine in which a Church of England Bishop, having breakfast with a very junior member of the church, a Curate, says "I am afraid that your breakfast egg is bad". The humble Curate replies, "Oh no my Lord, parts of it are excellent".

That is a bit like this movie.

I thought the settings and the filming were excellent as were the actors - I could not really find any fault with any of them. Neither would I take issue with the fact that the story is really, for the most part very slow paced - I am a fan of slow paced movies, after all in real life most things do run at a slow pace and if it works, I think this somehow can elevate the story above the normal fast paced, action packed "chewing gum for the eyes" type of film that seem to be the every day offerings of film makers. A crime drama that is slowing evolving can engage the viewer but must find ways of doing so throughout that do not detract from the story by introducing obvious irrelevancies or contrivances. Somehow this movie did not quite manage that.

There were other things in the story that also lacked something and perhaps this is because the movie was not strongly character driven - which could have been the glue which held it together. It is hard to feel strongly for Eric Bana's character for example - we know little about him except that he was implicated in the death of a teen friend 20 years before and now he is single and solitary. Perhaps more could have been made of how the first thing led to the other and his present state of mind. Much the same could be said for other characters who mostly flit through the movie without much depth or background to their character. Although it is not a bad technique, the constant flashbacks also demanded close concentration throughout the movie and even with concentration it was sometimes hard to work out what was going on and who was who.

Who were the characters who were so hostile to him and exactly why - OK we know in general terms why but exactly why were these people so aggressive? This was worked out as the movie evolved but they entered the movie with little introduction, making it less cogent and harder to follow till eventually it became apparent later. And why were they so openly hostile after 20 years - that is not exactly true to life. Aussies tend not to be so "in your face" hostile, and more commonly hold simmering grudges (if any) and tend not to confront people directly. I found this and other things to be somewhat too artificial - an obvious ploy to inject drama where there was none otherwise. Neither did I like the grand finale action scene which played out a bit dumb and not very believable. Though the absolute ending (trying not to give anything away here) was well done and emotionally affecting.

On a more positive side I thought the film was reasonably reminiscent of the first season of the "Mystery Road" miniseries on TV. Which is a good thing - that drama held my interest throughout the season and a strong engagement with the characters. (Though there was less engagement with characters in this movie). Another comparison can be made with the "Rain Shadow" miniseries of a few years ago. It also succeeded a little better than this movie in my view. Both were strongly character driven. So, all in all - the Curate's egg!

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

Off the rails?

[1/10 · 13 November 2017]

I have to confess not to having seen it yet so make what you will of what follows. I have read extensively about it though (and not just the negative reviews) but I have seen enough to be afraid - very afraid. This is a movie where Hercule Poirot has lost weight but his mustache has gained weight. Who would have thought that this seems to be one of the more interesting things about the film. Look, I acknowledge that it is hard to make a movie when everyone knows the characters, the story and the ending. But when will Hollywood at last wake up and call it done. It does not work to remake films and just stuff them full of "stars". You actually have to make it interesting and when dealing with a classic story, this means either being absolutely true to the original or have a new "take" on the story that engages people. This movie is a feast of stars but few of then strike me as being particularly suited to their role - as glamorous (and no doubt professional) as they all are. For me an ensemble cast has never been a reason in itself to ante up the cost of a ticket. The other thing that makes me itch with annoyance is when I look as the character list and see characters I never remembered in the original story or any of the past remakes. Characters that seem to be more related to Hollywood's mania for political correctness than fidelity to Agatha Christies' plot. But - they just gotta have a token mix of races just to balance up the list and satisfy 2017 sensibilities. But what does this do to verisimilitude and willingness to honor Agatha's original story? People who love Agatha Christie love the nostalgia inherent in those stories - the feeling of being in the 1920s or 1930s. Update that and you had better have something pretty damn good to replace it - you will lose the Agatha fans and not pick up enough patronage from the general audience who probably don't know the difference between Hercule Poirot and Lady Gaga. Maybe I am doing it a disservice but what I am inclined to say is this - you can't put lipstick on a pig. Though apparently you can put an great big monster mustache on Kenneth Branagh. Still not enough for me I am afraid.

Bone Tomahawk (2015)

Surprisingly good

[7/10 · 19 April 2017]

When I stumbled on this movie on late night TV I was not sure what to expect. But it had a respectable cast and so I persisted. The folks acting in this clearly knew how to act.

The thing that really drew me in though was the dialogue spoken, the language used characters drawn. It is here that I noticed some similarities to other recent classic westerns that really got into the character of the Old West. "Open Range", "Lonesome Dove" and "True Grit" (the Coen Brothers version) all come to mind. That version of True Grit is one of my favorite movies of all time largely due to its verisimilitude and the Coen Brothers attention to detail and respect for the original story. Comparing this to that movie is therefore meant as a badge of merit.

These are all movies where there is little to accommodate post modern sensibilities. And the language used, the morality displayed and customs depicted are all much as I understand them to have been in that 1870s era. All movies are about the willing suspension of disbelief. This is even more true with horror movies and the like. And nothing spoils the mood so much as the tendency found in too many modern movies to have the characters all look and sound as if they are walking the streets of Los Angeles in 2010 (but in cowboy clothes). This film has its characters use language, dress, behave and express views that adhere to the mores of an earlier time - duty, perseverance in the face of adversity, sacrifice and other late Victorian ideas of what it is to be a good and honorable man.

Undoubtedly the movie has some flaws. I will let you find them yourself as I don't think they are of such magnitude as to damage the story too much. But parts of the movie are surprisingly scary too. And while that is what the movie is ostensibly about, I have to say it is its ability to evoke old-time values that really won me over. I am not usually too much into horror movies (too often they are only horrible in a bad way - script, story, acting, paper-mache monsters etc) But this is not one of those, it is instead made in a really craftsman-like way that held my interest and engagement to the ending scenes.

A Serious Man (2009)

Nice guys finish last.

[8/10 · 23 December 2016]

It kind of cracks me up when I read people saying they do not understand this movie and that makes it a bad movie. (People today love simplistic answers - even if they are wrong. It is much more reassuring that having to think). In this case at least isn't this the point though? Life IS like that. The core of the movie seems to be about the inscrutability of the universe and of God's purpose. Or is there a God? It does not ask this question outright - but it is hanging there. Together with the question we all have - we are convinced there must be an answer to - what is OUR purpose? Poor old Larry Gubnik, always being a serious man. Always doing what's right and in return being served up a big steaming pile of drek. Seeking answers from God (or the Rabbi) and getting nonsense - or getting no answer at all. Very dark. But I have been there myself at times in my life when all of my plans have been crapped upon by the universe - trying the same things Larry tried, asking the same questions Larry asked but - Silence. So I get it. I get what Larry is going through.

And of course some reviewers have pointed out the similarities to the biblical story of Job. But did anyone else pick up the symbolism in the movie of Larry, up on the roof, twisting the TV antenna to get a better reception - a message from the ether? When this is also exactly the theme of the movie. Poor old Larry cannot even get "F Troop" clearly. How can he expect to get a clear message from God. This was not a coincidence, folks. Those sneeky Coen brothers!

The movie also raises issues many Jews specifically have had to ask themselves in the face of say, writ large, the holocaust. Jews confronted by outright malice and evil or by just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time ask themselves that eternal question. If there is a God, why does he let bad things happen. For some this was the trigger to turn off religion. For others it strengthened their faith somehow. So at another level the movie is about what is it about to be a Jew and to ask yourself the same questions that Jews have asked themselves down the ages. In this case "What's going on?" as the Coen's express it.

Also I have a sneeky feeling this movie is also biographical in a way. The Coens grew up in the twin cities area of USA in the 1960s I have read. They would have been Bar Mitvah'd in a synagogue much like the one depicted and the Jewish characters would have been much like those depicted too. The life questions they may have asked themselves as they became adults would have been much like those asked in the movie and even if all the bad stuff did not happen to them personally they may well have feared it would - will I get an urgent call from my doctor about a routine xray? Will my kid's Bar Mitzvah go OK. Will my wife run off with another man, taking everything I have including my family, self respect and my understanding of who I am? In other words perhaps all the normal stuff of life. But written in bold type both because us Jews are a neurotic bunch and because it is damn good material for black comedy. As Woody Allen found out before them.

But of course the Coens would not have gotten any answers to these questions just as Larry did not. Silence. Zip. Bupkis. But there is one thing I learned that life taught me and maybe this is part of the message too. Nice guys too often DO finish last. If you are too nice, too compliant, too good, people will take advantage and crap on you. And maybe the universe does too, although in its case, not because it is malicious, but rather, just uncaring. And that is a lesson poor old Larry never learned.

The Twilight Samurai (2002)

pictures of the floating world

[10/10 · 2 August 2013]

Twilight Samurai is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Absolutely captivating but do not expect the usual samurai movie. Although there are fight scenes this is not what the movie is about. It is a lovingly made story set against the background of the end of the Edo Shogunate and the beginning of the Meiji Restoration. A dramatic and chaotic time in Japanese history. After 250 years of peace under the Tokugawa dynasty, Samurai no longer had their traditional roles of defending their warlord masters to fulfill and often worked in more or less menial roles. Here, Sebei is a clerk in the castle warehouse. This is not the only movie made with similar themes by the director Yoji Yamada, but I fancy it is the best. He made three movies all with similar themes - all set in the 1850s, all involving honourable men doing their duty and all involving the defence of women who had been misused or taken advantage of. This is a lovely lyrical, beautiful movie. I especially love the way Yamada lingers on the tiny details of Japanese life in this period. Its almost like watching an intricately carved Ukiyo-e woodblock print by one of the masters like Hokusei or Hiroshge. Pictures of the floating world indeed!

The Book of Eli (2010)

A film best left to denizens of the USA bible belt ( spoiler alert)

[3/10 · 8 March 2013]

Oh really, are you kidding me. Eli walks across the USA to deliver a bible. To save humanity!!?? With a bit of effort, I could think of a thousand novels and a million factual books that would provide a better guide for a desperate humanity - and more important in this context - a far better movie.

"The Road" which is from the same post apocalypse genre is a hundred times better than this over blown piece of twaddle. And if you want religion in the story "A Canticle for Leibowitz" would be a much better movie and a more intelligent story too. I also found the movie hard to watch -literally. With high contrast and dark scenery in every shot and actors who muttered their lines presumably for effect I had to strain to catch the drift of what was going on. Nope, not a movie for me! Maybe this is a film best left to denizens of the USA bible belt.

Rake (2010– )

real life

[8/10 · 26 May 2012]

While the cases in this series are over the top, believe it or not the main character in this is based on real person. Charles Waterstreet a Sydney barrister whose life is apparently every bit as colorful as the series would have you believe . Real life is stranger than fiction. Especially at the New South Wales bar, apparently. Waterstreet is mate of Richard Roxborough the star of the series who plays him in it. A younger and more handsome version as Roxborough smilingly says in one interview. The point is if you enjoy this series you should google waterstreet and find out more about him. As for me while something tells me he is the kind of guy who creates chaos in the lives of people around him, there is something about him that I find admirable and engaging. And this comes across in the show. PS love the show.

The Amorous Mr. Prawn (1962)

Only for those who have a soft spot for 1950s English movies

[6/10 · 1 April 2011]

For some reason I must admit to having a soft spot for old English movies. All terribly "pukkah" and stiff upper lip, don't you know! This description even applies to the British comedies of that era, funnily enough. Which is to say that they are principally designed to appeal to the British of that era. I have to say that even if I enjoy such a movie, I mostly do not like these comedies for their humour as such. What humour there is, is all so gentle as to be practically non existent - or perhaps it only works if one is an initiate to some secret society.

This movie is like that - a kind of social history of its times. It's a rather unfunny but somehow sweet movie (all the characters are so inoffensive) that I do not regret watching it, perhaps because I am a bit of an Anglophile at heart. But I certainly would not recommend it to anyone raised on a diet of Jim Carey or Adam Sandler for example, (not that I think they are funny either...........)

It's a movie that is typical of its type and if you are into that type you may enjoy it as a way to pass a pleasant unchallenging 90 minutes.

And like most people, I am totally mystified by the title. I can only presume that "prawn" had some specific vernacular meaning back when this was made. (I have heard the term used to describe what Americans call a "patsy" but don't think that really works in this context.

Eat Pray Love (2010)

A whiny "Undere the Tuscan Sun"

[7/10 · 23 October 2010]

I read many reviews that were scathing of this movie. I don't share others absolute disdain for the story although it plodded a bit from time to time.

What can I say , its a chick flick and I am a sucker for them! Its not a great love story - its just another love story. And that's OK if that is all it was setting out to be. Probably on par with something like Under the Tuscan Sun - a bit more whiny and a bit less cute perhaps.

All in all I enjoyed it well enough. Some reviews I read nit picked this film to death - like the wise toothless old healer was not really wise at all, he just reflected back what he had been told. Huh? I kinda think that's the point - been to a therapist lately? Besides the story never says he REALLY has any such powers and that is supposed to be part of the "cute" in the story (not that there really is much cute.) Oh well, some people really just lack an irony nerve, I guess.

But I must say that there are two things about the film I did dislike quite intensely. First the sound track was more often than not loud, intrusive and inappropriate. YUK It put me off in several places to the point where I wanted to stuff my fingers in my ears. A better chosen and executed sound track would have helped make this a far better movie experience.

The second thing I loathed was the cinematography. The colors were often muddied, the images were often under exposed (and 5 will get you 10 that this was not deliberate in the name of getting a dramatic image - it just came across as amateur.) In any case this resulted in ugly and muddied colors and sometimes it looked as if the focus puller was asleep - at my theatre at least as the images were sometimes a little unsharp. Seven out of ten for the story but two out of ten for the soundtrack and cinematography.

Elegy (I) (2008)

This movie is an elegy

[9/10 · 9 April 2010]

I bought this movie late yesterday. It is now 10.00am the following morning and in that time I have watched if twice. I fully expect to watch it again in the next day or two.

I honestly cannot imagine a more perfect movie or one that has moved me quite so much.

Every step it takes, every line spoken, every scene seems in harmony with itself and the others. The soundtrack is moving and beautiful, the actors perfect for their roles. There is not one jarring moment in this movie and the story is real - not perhaps real in the sense that it specifically happened like this to the people depicted, otherwise I suppose it would be a documentary of sorts, but it is real in the sense that this is how it does happen to real people.

An elegy is a sad poem. This movie is an elegy.

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

classic Hollywood trash

[2/10 · 22 January 2010]

What a dreadful load of old tosh.

I have not seen this pot boiler for 25 years and now wish I had left it that way. Typical Hollywood (I am using the term broadly due to the British influence) of the era - actors with the wrong looks, the wrong style and the wrong plot, saying the wrong things while pretending to be secret agents pretending to be Germans ( I might add in the presence of cardboard cut out enemies - well they seem this way given their depth and believability) strolling through a movie with perhaps the most improbable plot since the war actually occurred. Don't you love the way the allied agents are all said to speak German perfectly but in the film are actually speaking English complete with their native accents while the nasties (opps sorry, I mean the Nazis) all speak with faux German accents. Pooooo. This pongs to high heaven and I found the entire set up to be dreadfully off putting. Take Clint Eastwood for example, he not only sounds like a yank but looks and behaves like one too, complete with a 1960-1970s era haircut. And its not only him. The bloke playing the Gestapo villain looks and sounds like a spiv complete with a wavy blond haircut. He eternally looked as if he just had a perm and rinse.

And what about the Germans flying around in a 1960's helicopter. Ouch.

This movie truly deserves the rotten egg award. Rubbish. Still, perhaps this is where Quentin Tarantino got his ideas for Inglorious Basterds.

The Bespoke Overcoat (1954 TV Movie)

A Yiddish classic? Or just one that has that feel.

[7/10 · 25 February 2009]

I like these old movies based on Yiddish stories or at least with a Yiddish feel to them. This was actually based on a Gogol story and he is Ukrainian / Russian not Jewish but this story certainly has that ambiance. In any event these stories are always so full of character (and characters.) This film reminds me somewhat (not the least because it stars David Kossoff ) of the film "A kid for two farthings" But here is the real reason for this post. Although this film was made in the mid 1950s I swear when I watched it that I saw a very young and skinny Sean Connery in a walk on walk off role. But he is uncredited so I cannot confirm it and the film was made a good 6 years before his first big international film - Dr No. Be interesting to have this confirmed or otherwise! Another interesting aside is that this film won an Oscar.

Vera Drake (2004)

Heart wrenching stuff

[9/10 · 1 March 2008]

I was gob smacked by this movie. I stumbled onto it by accident while channel surfing. At first as I watched, I struggled to make sense of it. Long periods of no action and not much dialogue, then it slowly dawned who Vera Drake was and what she did and what the movie was about. I grew up in 1960s Australia but somehow these people seemed so familiar to me with their working class British manners and values. Thats how I remember so many people of my parents generation from when I was a kid.... maybe second or third generation Australians but at another level, displaced English men and women who still referred to England as "home" and who still dressed and acted as if they were in Manchester, or Liverpool or the East End. The faces I saw on the screen were also the same faces I saw when I looked at old photos of the Blitz. The movie was so finely crafted it could have been a documentary of that era. And of course with that realization grew sympathy for the characters.

Slowly I was drawn into their drab existence by the finely drawn characterizations of the fine cast and can only say that the acting was superbly believable. So I will end with a little confession. By the point in the movie when Vera is confronted by the police, I was so sympathetic to her and her family's plight that I could not bear to watch what I knew had to follow. I turned the movie off, not because I had lost interest but quite the opposite. I simply did not have the heart to watch her life fall to pieces.

Gosford Park (2001)

An atypical offering that is typically Altman.

[9/10 · 6 November 2007]

There are some movies I love and can watch over and over. (With a decent interval in between, of course, I am not obsessive compulsive!) And what do you know, this is one of them. And yet my wife hates it. She says it is long, (true) rambling, (true) has no story (not true it has several.) And perhaps therein lies the issue between those who "get it" and those who do not. This is not an ordinary film. Most of all I see it as a film about English society in the 1930s, although I full well understand that this is not the complete story either. It perhaps is typical Altman movie. He tells his stories the way people live their lives, rambling, wandering in and out of situations and if you are lucky coming together more or less at the end. Other films touch on the same ground - Merchant Ivory's "Remains of the Day" most notably, and perhaps "The Shooting Party." But these are totally different films although set with similar characters and in a similar milieu. (How on earth is that bloody word spelled? - But I am sure you get my drift.) I would only say this. If you like intelligent movies that are not formulaic, that have wit and energy and a good deal of authenticity then this is a movie that may well entertain you. It entertains me - again, and again, and again.

Mansfield Park (1999)

I can see this being simultaneously loathed and loved.

[8/10 · 18 August 2007]

As a school-kid growing up in rural South Australia I hated Jane Austen as only a 13 year old boy can. I always thought her novels to be boring insipid and simpering when force upon us as unwilling students in English Lit classes. Full of dull characters, doing dull things, in even more dull times I thought. Perhaps I have never quite grown out of this, having never been able to bring myself to read Jane Austen to this day. But I have seen some wonderful movies and TV series based on her novels and have loved them - a tribute perhaps both to my growing maturity (after all I am now 50) as well as the reach of a good cinematic production. In short this adaptation has seemed to be hated by the Jane Austen "true believers" while loved by others. The true believers will find it not to be authentic enough no doubt. But I am one of those others. While there are aspects of the production that seem odd- the attitudes displayed do seem a little modern for Austen and why on earth did they choose such a ramshackle run down old dump for Mansfield Park? But it is entertaining and delightful. I predict most will thoroughly enjoy it, if not love it. - Even in all of its Jane Austen predictability of outcome!

Coupling (2000–2004)

One of the best sitcoms

[7 February 2007]

I adore this show.

I have just re-watched the entire 4 seasons on DVD and it reminded me why I loved this show so much the first time around. The characters are brilliantly crafted, the cast is gorgeous and fits these characters like old and comfortable shoes, but best of all the script is a gem. Full marks to the writer and producer. They just got it right again and again and again. I guess because they are married and in a sense this is "their" story. I was however slightly shocked to see that some (apparently USA based) viewers hated, hated hated it. From their comments it was clear that their complaints were either that it was "rude" (gotta love that mid-west bible belt) or they just did not "get it."

Winston Churchill once said that the American and the British a two peoples divided by their common language. Nowhere is this seen more than in comedy. The Brits have a genius for irony. (Something that seems cultural as other cultures (Americans for example) do not always seem to get this type of humor and are left with a totally blank look on their faces when it comes up) And hence the Brits are good at the related area of comedy based on farce which uses irony in liberal dollops. And so to Coupling. Unlike many US comedies which seem to use set piece verbal gags, this is much more based on a mixture of farce and situational comedy (such as the juxtaposed split screen male and female views of the same situation.)

The only slight criticism I would make is that the last season is not quite up to the standard of the others, IMHO, although it has its moments. This is largely due to the departure of the Geoff character. Although his replacement character is OK, he is a little less natural and more contrived and the writers are trying just a BIT too hard - no criticism of the guy playing him though, I definitely think its a script thing. I might add, one or two of the set piece comedy moments in the 4th series are a bit too contrived for my taste too. But on the whole the laughs are still there and the show comes to a satisfactory ending leaving watchers wanting more.

I understand that the show was reworked in USA but taking account of my comments above I was not surprised to hear that it failed there. I suppose as many others have commented Coupling is like a risqué version of Friends (A very approximate approximation but good enough for the moment) and I could only imagine network free to air TV in the USA watering this down till it was insipid dull piece of the normal nonsense that that country's TV too often turns out. (Sorry Yanks but thumbs up to Sex and the City, Friends, Sienfeld which in their days were fine comedies, but these are far and away the exceptions - the Brits are less inhibited and just do comedy better IMHO!)

Watch it with someone you love. The script pokes a very sharp pencil of fun at relationships, men, women, men and women and does so in a way that is often thoroughly recognizably to everyone who has been there. Speaking personally I have been married for a while now but can fully relate from my single days to many of these guys' dilemmas - after all although I got thru my single days without a visit from the "melty man" I am now married to a "hairy inquisitive sex octopus."

Well done.

Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)

A good love story

[15 November 2006]

Isn't it interesting how much people can differ about the same movie. Many people love this movie and some (a not insignificant but lesser number) hate it. Once supposes its all about expectations. I am happy to say that I fall more into the first camp, rather than the latter. My wife on the other hand who comes from another (non western) culture tends to be less forgiving than me in such things and was scathing about the film for its display of western sensibilities that she saw as detracting from the story.

This is undeniably a Hollywood movie and as a Hollywood movie it suffers from some of the flaws one might expect. Especially the obligatory concessions to western taste. But it also has some of the associated strengths. Most of all the financial backing to buy superb sets and scenery, excellent cinematography, wonderful soundtrack and a good strong script.

Unlike some who thought the main actors to be inauthentic (which I suppose to be fair, they were) I at least did not find this objectionable. Yes, the main female leads did not fool for a moment - they are Chinese, not Japanese - but they are competent actors and in my view, about as right for their roles as you could be entitled to expect (Japanese or not!) So, all told, this is a good story, well told. It engages the audience and is a good honest love story, set in a somewhat exotic time and place. All in all I would give this an 8 out of 10.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

A cracking yarn

[8/10 · 30 July 2006]

Yes a cracking yarn with just enough accurate historical allusions in terms of characters and locations to make you forgive the anachronisms. But this was never meant to be an accurate and historical account of Shakespeare's life. What it is, is a funny, joyous and irreverent look at the man and his early work.

Of special note is the way in which the film draws on the plots of Shakespeare's plays for its own plot and then ultimately turning it on its head by representing his subsequent plays as drawing on the plot of story told in the film. Notably of course, The 12th Night.

In fact the film was full of these sorts of "in jokes" such as the ragamuffin John Webster (a playwright who would have been the early teen to Shakespeare's young adult) and who is renowned for his dark plots as suggested by his love of blood in the film.

The cast was pretty good although I was at a bit of a loss as to how Ben Affleck got cast in his role. The only thing I can imagine is that the director, casting director and script writers clearly love irony (you only have to watch the play to know that) and perhaps they thought it would be funny having a late 20th century star playing his period counterpart. Almost worked but not quite.

Not a serious film by any means but well done and much more enjoyable than the vast majority of Hollywood rubbish churned out year by year.

From Hell (2001)

Strange casting

[2 June 2006]

I thought that perhaps the oddest thing about this movie was its casting. Johnny Depp and Heather Graham.......peeeeerrrrrrlease! Not that they are bad actors, they did a good job all considered. Its just that I did not find these typical Hollywood types in the faintest bit believable. Kinda up there with Tab Hunter as Christ (Didn't that actually happen or am I thinking of some other "Star" of the 1950s.) But I should not be too down on Hollywood, after all Robbie Coltrane would probably not have been my first choice for the sidekick either. Again...a reasonable "journeyman" actor but for goodness sake! Finally the dialogue. Sounded more like a script from a late 1990s crime drama. Lots of street talk.. (F... this and F...that) still I should not be too upset, at least no one called the other a "mo fo" Not that I mind profanity. But if you are going to do it at least make it culturally sensitive and chronologically accurate.

6 out of 10.

Munich (2005)

What is right and wrong?

[9 May 2006]

It is difficult to separate this film from its message and from its historical context.

This film reminds me that there are no simple answers, no right thing or wrong thing to do and that any response (or non response) will be wrong in some circumstances. This is perhaps more-so in a situation as complex as the middle east.

In one section of the film, Papa says something to the effect that history has been harsh with your tribe, acknowledging the brutal, ignorant and terrible mistreatment of Jews by other nations through the centuries and giving his personal approbation to Avner's actions. But the film reminds us that violence begets violence and as the exchange between Avner and the terrorist (when forced to share a safe house) indicates, both sides eventually end up looking something less than human.

Does this mean that a violent response to the Palestinian murders was wrong.....I am not sure, at least at that time in history. Isacc Azimov once wrote that "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." Maybe sometimes we are all incompetent and feel we have no choice or no better option. had Israel decided to instead bring the perpetrators before the courts, would other countries have helped? Would they have done any more than mouth platitudes? Probably not, judging by history.

All I can say is that somehow this film captures the dilemma reasonably well without recovering old historical ground (Hitler kills 6 million Jews, and in consequence surviving Jews feel they need a home land. The UN grants Jews part of Palestine and the Palestinians naturally object and fight. Jews win and this sets the scene for a tragedy of global proportions that we are still playing out over 50 years later, and will, no doubt for a long time yet.) Perhaps what the film depicts best is the personal toll that such national strategies take. Yes, after Munich, killing Jews had a high price attached to it but there was also a terrible personal price for those who had to execute the policy.

Outside of the film, I am saddened that Israel has in some ways made itself a pariah (in some quarters anyway) for adopting harsh policies that respond in brutal kind to the Palestinians' own brutalities. I have always felt like the bomb maker in the film - that Jews should set out to be righteous, if not perfect and try to do the right thing. (But Jews also acknowledge that this is only an ideal and joke "We are just the same as every one else - only more-so!") perhaps thats what this film is about too.

So what to make of the film? I have not read all of the comments so do not know if anyone else has the same view as me, but I think of it as a tragedy in the true sense of the word.

Perhaps I can leave with one final comment. I was discussing Israeli policies with a (Jewish) friend, when she pointed out that in Israel we find a nation formed by survivors of the Shoah and which is in many ways still traumatized by it. In these circumstances, who can expect less than harsh responses to the brutal provocations of those who at their most extreme call for Israel to be destroyed and every Jew to be slaughtered. These words were so nearly played out in Europe that it must be hard for Israelis to know how to respond even if they wish peace, as I am sure many do. Sadly now, both sides are dancing to the tune of the extremists.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

This film was not a good one

[14 April 2006]

In amongst all of the praise for this film, I find this hard to write.

I watched this movie for the first time last night and boy was I disappointed. Here's why.

The film struck me as every bit as shallow as those 1950s reverential pot boilers about Christ. In fact there was a 1950s Technicolor monstrosity on TV after it and of the two, I preferred the latter. At least it did not take itself so seriously.

The characters were one dimensional: Christ was good (of course) the Romans were brutal, the Jews with a few exceptions (where mandated by the bible) were avaricious and hateful. Not once in the whole film did I see any complexity or deviation from this formula. The lines were pretty much taken from the Sunday school lessons I remember as a kid and to make it worse they were delivered in the stilted and labored way that one would expect a B grade actor in a space adventure epic to deliver a line. The language might have been genuine Aramaic but it might have well have been Vulcan for all of the impact it had.

I could not get over how ridiculous the Romans were. I cannot even remember when Nazis were depicted quite so brutally on film. The Romans' raw hatred for Christ struck me as unreal and propagandistic. If someone is being taken for execution, even if their law required scourging would the perpetrators really have taken it to personally? Even the Nazis killing Jews or the Serbs murdering Muslims were mostly dispassionate about their horrible acts from what I understand.

I would have been much more impressed with a film that, while sticking to the biblical story at least deviated from the dialog to show Jesus' inner torment.

I sat down to this tripe wanting it to move me. But at the end of it all I could feel was sad that one of the worlds most powerful and moving stories had been reduced to this brutal and silly Hollywood pastiche.

Angel Heart (1987)

Casting Call

[8 April 2006]

I have just rewatched this movie, something I do from time to time with my favourites and believe me this qualifies on that count. A lot could be said about this movie and judging by all of the other comments it already has been! So I will just say this; it is seldom that you see a movie so well cast, even the smallest part was played to perfection and with great believability. For example, check out the doctor who was killed off in the earlier part of the movie, if he was not off his face when he played the role he deserves an Oscar, so help me. It is this attention to detail that makes Parker such a top notch Director. BUt of course full marks must go to the cast themselves, probably what you caould call an ensemble cast, I suppose. I have to say too that the sound track plays a huge role in setting the mood in this film.

Shackleton (2002)

An epic story

[28 January 2006]

A number of years ago I read the story of the Shackelton expedition and like many who have read it before me, was amazed at the courage, skill and determination to survive that these men exhibited. The story has an old world "Roger of the Raj" sort of feeling to it: British empire, British pluck, fighting fearful odds and all of that. I found the story quite inspirational never the less (it being de rigeur to be cynical these days) and this film certainly does it justice. It is well worth a watch and somehow manages to squeeze in a huge story (and a large book) into quite watchable dimensions.

Frank Hurley the photographer in the expedition was a person of considerable stature himself and is worthy of a film about his own life, but that's another story.

Jokehnen (1987– )

A moving mini series drama

[9/10 · 16 June 2005]

It has been many years since I first saw this series on Australia's SBS, and while I cannot recall much in the way of detail about the story, I do recall that it was surprisingly (and immensely) engaging and moving. I have been hoping it will be rebroadcast one day but so far, no luck.

I am in any event an Armin Muehler Stahl fan (quite apart from him being a talented actor, for some reason he reminds me of a much loved uncle) but I also recall the entire cast being very sound and believable. I will continue to keep my fingers crossed for its re-appeance on the small screen.