Pepe's View:
Written and directed as a debut feature by Michael McDonagh, this black Irish comedy could be described as "In Bruges" on steroids. Interestingly, "In Bruges" was written and directed by Martin McDonagh - Michael's brother. I can only speculate what a family gathering of the McDonagh clan would be like if the humour in their films is anything to go by.
The guard is Sergant Gerry Boyle - a small town Irish policeman, played brilliantly by Brendan Gleeson (In Bruges) - who has little regard for political correctness, his superiors and rules in general. A visiting "big time" FBI agent, played by Don Cheadle, has come to Galway as there is to be an international drug bust. Sergeant Boyle has little interest in this case nor respect for the FBI agent. These two develop a grudging working relationship and the theme of the movie is summed up by the agent's question of Boyle - " I can't figure out if you are mother-fucking dumb or mother-fucking smart". Boyle replies with a sardonic grin.
The dramatic tension mounts as the drug bust is imminent and we see the criminal leaders of the bust bemoan the fact that they always have to deal with the dregs of society but reflect philosophically that these people are after all drug dealers.
The movie is full of one liners, comic twists and is very reminiscent of In Bruges. If you enjoyed that movie you will love this one. One of my favourite scenes is when one of the other policemen in Galway asks the FBI agent about the phrase "to liquidate someone". The FBI agent explains that it means to kill someone. The Irish guard persist for more information - "yes but does it mean they are turned to liquid?" The FBI agent thinks he is being taken for a ride but when he realises the question is serious goes on to explain the meaning of the phrase.
A wonderful entertaining film.
8.5/10
Ma's View:
Loved it! Brendan Gleeson has the ability to play a character that is at once coarse and tough yet also immensely human and vulnerable. I think the thing I enjoyed most about both "In Bruges" and "The Guard" is that all the characters are fully fleshed out complex, contradictory human beings - drug dealers who quote Dylan Thomas and complain about the riff-raff they have to deal with; a tough cop who hires high class prostutes yet takes his dying mother out to the pub.
This movie is a laugh a minute and it's tense and exciting too. The shoot out at the end is a hoot. All in all a very satisfactory movie that sends you home with a smile on your face!
My score: 8/10
THE TREE OF LIFE
Pepe's View:
The Tree of Life written and directed by Terrence Malick won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2011. I'll be up front and reveal my opinion of this film in one sentence: How could this beautifully photographed but pretentious wank win such an award?
The film contains very little dialogue - mostly narration or thought revealing comments but unfortunately most of this was mumbled so was indecipherable to most of the audience. Very avant garde! The plot, such as it is, involves a family living in a small town in Southern USA. Their life is mostly shown through the eyes of Jack - the eldest son played by Sean Penn as an adult - who seems to be mournfully questioning his existence and the meaning of life without actually doing anything about this meaningless existence.
We see young Jack losing his "innocence" as his idealistic perception of life taught by his mother is slowly tarnished when he witnesses a series of minor events portraying life as it really is in all its ugliness. Jack's father - Brad Pitt - has an opposing point of view on life to the mother as he sees life as tough and an ordeal and to survive you must put yourself first and be tough. Jack is caught between these conflicting life views and has never, it seems, been able to rationalise them. There is a 20 min insert of the creation of the universe (why, was totally lost on me) and the ending, which had scores of people walking aimlessly across a sandy beach which I presume was to indicate how many people cross our life's path as we grow up each having a part in the person we eventually become, was too long, too obtuse and almost meaningless.
The film is too long - way too long in fact at almost 2.5 hrs - for such a thin plot and one containing almost no dramatic moments. I was never so pleased to see the end of a film and couldn't wait to escape the theatre as that is how it made me feel - trapped.
4/10 for the cinematography.
Ma's View:
Yes, I have to agree! This did not do it for me - give me "Another Year" any day! I thought we were in for another "Fantasia" with the whole "big bang" sequence. I guess it was meant to place humankind in the big context of the universe but it went on far too long and became irritating! I mean we have all seen those images before! The movie makers have taken a hugely complex theme and conveyed it with the subtlety of a sledge hammer. Add to that all the whispering monologue and meaningless walking about on the beach. Compare it to "Departures" which really places mankind into the context of his short span of life here on this ever changing planet.
Acting honours went to the young Jack, played by Huner McCracken, who engaged the viewer much more than either Brad Pitt or Sean Penn.
My score: 4/10
The Tree of Life written and directed by Terrence Malick won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2011. I'll be up front and reveal my opinion of this film in one sentence: How could this beautifully photographed but pretentious wank win such an award?
The film contains very little dialogue - mostly narration or thought revealing comments but unfortunately most of this was mumbled so was indecipherable to most of the audience. Very avant garde! The plot, such as it is, involves a family living in a small town in Southern USA. Their life is mostly shown through the eyes of Jack - the eldest son played by Sean Penn as an adult - who seems to be mournfully questioning his existence and the meaning of life without actually doing anything about this meaningless existence.
We see young Jack losing his "innocence" as his idealistic perception of life taught by his mother is slowly tarnished when he witnesses a series of minor events portraying life as it really is in all its ugliness. Jack's father - Brad Pitt - has an opposing point of view on life to the mother as he sees life as tough and an ordeal and to survive you must put yourself first and be tough. Jack is caught between these conflicting life views and has never, it seems, been able to rationalise them. There is a 20 min insert of the creation of the universe (why, was totally lost on me) and the ending, which had scores of people walking aimlessly across a sandy beach which I presume was to indicate how many people cross our life's path as we grow up each having a part in the person we eventually become, was too long, too obtuse and almost meaningless.
The film is too long - way too long in fact at almost 2.5 hrs - for such a thin plot and one containing almost no dramatic moments. I was never so pleased to see the end of a film and couldn't wait to escape the theatre as that is how it made me feel - trapped.
4/10 for the cinematography.
Ma's View:
Yes, I have to agree! This did not do it for me - give me "Another Year" any day! I thought we were in for another "Fantasia" with the whole "big bang" sequence. I guess it was meant to place humankind in the big context of the universe but it went on far too long and became irritating! I mean we have all seen those images before! The movie makers have taken a hugely complex theme and conveyed it with the subtlety of a sledge hammer. Add to that all the whispering monologue and meaningless walking about on the beach. Compare it to "Departures" which really places mankind into the context of his short span of life here on this ever changing planet.
Acting honours went to the young Jack, played by Huner McCracken, who engaged the viewer much more than either Brad Pitt or Sean Penn.
My score: 4/10
JANE EYRE
Ma's View:
How wonderful when a film lives up to the hype! This version of "Jane Eyre" captures all the passion and tragedy of the story with its dark, gothic overtones, set in the gloomy mansion of Thornfield Hall in the middle of the wild and desolate Yorkshire moors. Against such a backdrop, the actors might be challenged to make their mark but not so! Mia Wasikowska gives a brilliantly nuanced performance as the steadfast Jane while Michael Fassbender is her match in intensity and passion as the ill-starred Edward Fairfax Rochester.
Of course, some of the other characters in this almost-melodrama are caricatures but well-played and believable ones: Sally Hawkins as the wicked aunt; Judi Dench as the faithful housekeeper; Simon McBurney as the cruel schoolmaster. The pace is measured and sure, drawing the viewer into this world of long ago when a woman's future was dependent on some male provider and the only role left for an orphan girl was to become a governess.
Director Cary Fukunaga has handled the material with precision, remaining faithful to the novel, while enhancing the storyline with creative sequencing. I want to go back and see it again! And read the novel all over.
My score: 9/10
Pepe's View:
High Romance on the Yorkshire moors! I must admit at the outset that I nodded off at the beginning such is the pace of this film and when I woke after about 20 min was able to mostly follow the remainder of the film. It is beautifully filmed with every shot meticulously planned and lit. It is visually a cinematic masterpiece and the performances especially from Mia Wasikowska as Jane, who is Australian incidently, are remarkable. Of course, as for all similar romances, it all ends happily and love conquers all. Set against a backdrop of the position of women in society and how dependant they all were on men, the independence of Jane can be seen as very revolutionary. Interestingly, for all her independence, she is quick to accept marriage to a man although in the end she ends up with someone who is totally dependant on her. Such is the power of love!
My Score: 7.5/10
How wonderful when a film lives up to the hype! This version of "Jane Eyre" captures all the passion and tragedy of the story with its dark, gothic overtones, set in the gloomy mansion of Thornfield Hall in the middle of the wild and desolate Yorkshire moors. Against such a backdrop, the actors might be challenged to make their mark but not so! Mia Wasikowska gives a brilliantly nuanced performance as the steadfast Jane while Michael Fassbender is her match in intensity and passion as the ill-starred Edward Fairfax Rochester.
Of course, some of the other characters in this almost-melodrama are caricatures but well-played and believable ones: Sally Hawkins as the wicked aunt; Judi Dench as the faithful housekeeper; Simon McBurney as the cruel schoolmaster. The pace is measured and sure, drawing the viewer into this world of long ago when a woman's future was dependent on some male provider and the only role left for an orphan girl was to become a governess.
Director Cary Fukunaga has handled the material with precision, remaining faithful to the novel, while enhancing the storyline with creative sequencing. I want to go back and see it again! And read the novel all over.
My score: 9/10
Pepe's View:
High Romance on the Yorkshire moors! I must admit at the outset that I nodded off at the beginning such is the pace of this film and when I woke after about 20 min was able to mostly follow the remainder of the film. It is beautifully filmed with every shot meticulously planned and lit. It is visually a cinematic masterpiece and the performances especially from Mia Wasikowska as Jane, who is Australian incidently, are remarkable. Of course, as for all similar romances, it all ends happily and love conquers all. Set against a backdrop of the position of women in society and how dependant they all were on men, the independence of Jane can be seen as very revolutionary. Interestingly, for all her independence, she is quick to accept marriage to a man although in the end she ends up with someone who is totally dependant on her. Such is the power of love!
My Score: 7.5/10
MOZART'S SISTER - NANNERL
Ma's View:
It is some time since we saw this movie but here goes... unfortunately it confirmed my opinion that the French do not do period dramas very well and I can't help comparing it to Jane Eyre!
Despite the sumptuous costumes, fabulous sets (e.g Versailles) and wonderful music , the main characters do not rise to the realms of reality enough to engage the viewer. Nannerl, is played by Marie Feret with a stolid woodenness that admits so little variation in emotional response that it is hard to conceive that she is the independent young woman who is portrayed as refusing to accompany her family to England, instead continuing against her father's wishes (and masquerading as a boy) to learn how to write down the music she has composed in her head. Her friend and supporter the Dauphine, Louise, is played by her younger sister, Lisa Feret, with equal woodenness. It is only now when I come to note the details that I realise the director is their father Rene Feret - well, enough said! Keep it in the family, doesn't matter if they can act or not! The Dauphin, Louis, with whom Nannerl forms a friendship of sorts, is played by Clovis Fouin in a manner that is somewhat stilted and unreal as well. Luckily, the supporting actors do a better job - Marc Barbe as the struggling Leopold Mozart and Delphine Chuillot as his long-suffering wife, Anne-Marie are very authentic and David Moreau as young Wolfgang is charming.
The story is certainly worth the telling and despite the acting we feel for Nannerl's frustration in having to cede priority to her younger brother and instead take on the role of a woman - always secondary to the male, not allowed to learn what he learns, not allowed to compose her own music, no longer allowed to play the violin. As well, after years of being carted from one country to another performing for royalty, she is unfit for anything else, not having acquired the usual accomplishments of a young woman, the only role available to her in that society.
There are some delightful and touching scenes - where the 2 young muscians sing to each other over their breakfast and where Leopold plays the violin in a moving effort to rouse Nannerl from her illness. But all in all, this film is overly long and under-acted!
My score: 6/10
Pepe's View:
Ma has said it all. The only thing about this film that is enjoyable is the music which is absolutely beautiful. I kept wondering if any of Nannerl's compositions have survived and were being used in the film but unfortunately no information regarding this was forthcoming.
We felt for the situation Nannerl found herself in and wonder at the society of the day that would not allow a girl to play the violin - it was never explained why!
However, Marie Feret (Nannerl) cannot act and as a result, never at any stage, evoked our sympathy The other leads were equally poor.
I normally love French films but after this and "Princess of Montpensier" have decided that the French do not seem to be able to manage the period drama genre at all well.
My Score: 6/10 - for the music.
It is some time since we saw this movie but here goes... unfortunately it confirmed my opinion that the French do not do period dramas very well and I can't help comparing it to Jane Eyre!
Despite the sumptuous costumes, fabulous sets (e.g Versailles) and wonderful music , the main characters do not rise to the realms of reality enough to engage the viewer. Nannerl, is played by Marie Feret with a stolid woodenness that admits so little variation in emotional response that it is hard to conceive that she is the independent young woman who is portrayed as refusing to accompany her family to England, instead continuing against her father's wishes (and masquerading as a boy) to learn how to write down the music she has composed in her head. Her friend and supporter the Dauphine, Louise, is played by her younger sister, Lisa Feret, with equal woodenness. It is only now when I come to note the details that I realise the director is their father Rene Feret - well, enough said! Keep it in the family, doesn't matter if they can act or not! The Dauphin, Louis, with whom Nannerl forms a friendship of sorts, is played by Clovis Fouin in a manner that is somewhat stilted and unreal as well. Luckily, the supporting actors do a better job - Marc Barbe as the struggling Leopold Mozart and Delphine Chuillot as his long-suffering wife, Anne-Marie are very authentic and David Moreau as young Wolfgang is charming.
The story is certainly worth the telling and despite the acting we feel for Nannerl's frustration in having to cede priority to her younger brother and instead take on the role of a woman - always secondary to the male, not allowed to learn what he learns, not allowed to compose her own music, no longer allowed to play the violin. As well, after years of being carted from one country to another performing for royalty, she is unfit for anything else, not having acquired the usual accomplishments of a young woman, the only role available to her in that society.
There are some delightful and touching scenes - where the 2 young muscians sing to each other over their breakfast and where Leopold plays the violin in a moving effort to rouse Nannerl from her illness. But all in all, this film is overly long and under-acted!
My score: 6/10
Pepe's View:
Ma has said it all. The only thing about this film that is enjoyable is the music which is absolutely beautiful. I kept wondering if any of Nannerl's compositions have survived and were being used in the film but unfortunately no information regarding this was forthcoming.
We felt for the situation Nannerl found herself in and wonder at the society of the day that would not allow a girl to play the violin - it was never explained why!
However, Marie Feret (Nannerl) cannot act and as a result, never at any stage, evoked our sympathy The other leads were equally poor.
I normally love French films but after this and "Princess of Montpensier" have decided that the French do not seem to be able to manage the period drama genre at all well.
My Score: 6/10 - for the music.
SNOWTOWN
Ma's View:
I wasn't going to review this movie because it is in fact the first movie I have ever walked out of! About 90 mins in the violence became too much to bear so my daughter and I left. Apparently, as I later learnt, I had already seen all the violence there was to be!
The movie is a mesmerising expose of the psychology of serial killer, John Bunting, famous for the "bodies in the barrels" murders some years ago in South Australia. At the same time it is a study in how someone like this can become a hero to the down and out, exploited and ignorant section of Australian society. Played with equal amounts of charm and menace by the only trained actor in the cast, (Daniel Henshall), Bunting gradually gains ascendancy over a group of social misfits. His special protege and eventual accomplice is Jamie, a vulnerable and abused teenager played by Lucas Pittaway. The boy is torn between his conscience and his mingled fear, fascination and dependency on Bunting who has become a father figure in his life.
Clearly not to everyone's tastes but you would have to acknowledge that director, Justin Kurzel, who co-wrote the screen play with Shaun Grant, has done a great job of exposing a very ugly strata in Australian society where someone like Bunting could gain such sway that these events could take place with the full knowledge of a number of people in the group.
My score: 8/10 (if scored on an "enjoyment" scale it woud have to be 4/10!!)
I wasn't going to review this movie because it is in fact the first movie I have ever walked out of! About 90 mins in the violence became too much to bear so my daughter and I left. Apparently, as I later learnt, I had already seen all the violence there was to be!
The movie is a mesmerising expose of the psychology of serial killer, John Bunting, famous for the "bodies in the barrels" murders some years ago in South Australia. At the same time it is a study in how someone like this can become a hero to the down and out, exploited and ignorant section of Australian society. Played with equal amounts of charm and menace by the only trained actor in the cast, (Daniel Henshall), Bunting gradually gains ascendancy over a group of social misfits. His special protege and eventual accomplice is Jamie, a vulnerable and abused teenager played by Lucas Pittaway. The boy is torn between his conscience and his mingled fear, fascination and dependency on Bunting who has become a father figure in his life.
Clearly not to everyone's tastes but you would have to acknowledge that director, Justin Kurzel, who co-wrote the screen play with Shaun Grant, has done a great job of exposing a very ugly strata in Australian society where someone like Bunting could gain such sway that these events could take place with the full knowledge of a number of people in the group.
My score: 8/10 (if scored on an "enjoyment" scale it woud have to be 4/10!!)
ORANGES AND SUNSHINE
Pepe's View:
Director Jim Loach has assembled an all star cast in this "expose" of a shameful period of both English and Australian recent history. He has taken as his topic the forced deportation of children to Australia from England - children who were either born out of wedlock or whose mother could no longer care for them due to circumstances beyond her control and as a result of the "rules" of polite society of the day. Much of the film centres on the subsequent abuse some of these children received at the hands of the Catholic clergy.
Unfortunately, I felt that Loach has taken a tabloid newspaper approach to the subject and showed us the evil doings of both the authorities in England who took children unfairly from their mothers and the church in Australia who mistreated/abused these children. There were thousands of children who were deported under this scheme and we saw in the film only a handful of "extreme" cases. There was no attempt to reveal exactly how many children were in fact abused, how many were in fact taken from their mothers unfairly and the fact that in some cases at least the children did lead a happy life in Australia with a family in which they were loved. I am not for one minute excusing or condoning the mistreatment but my complaint is that the audience who walk out of this film do so with a view that "all" children were mistreated.
The movie plods along in predictable fashion - corny shots of Ship paintings on the walls as background to "meaningful" scenes - and I asked myself the question how Margaret (Emily Watson) justified her neglect of her family to become the hero of the children who wanted to find their mother in England and find some answers as to why they were sent away.
David Wenham as one of the children who "made it good" in the new country despite being abused, was as usual David Wenham. Somehow he finds it difficult to be anything other than the male lead - almost every word he utters can be interpreted as an attempt to seduce the girl! Hugo Weaving gives a superb performance as another traumatised child/adult and as usual very nearly steals the show.
This movie is very unsatisfying both on the level of entertainment and as a real investigation into the events.
My Score: 5/10
Ma's View:
Well, I can't be quite that harsh on this movie. It does what it sets out to do very well - make a movie that will have wide audience appeal about a government policy in Australian/English history that was poorly administered and took no account of the individuals involved or their long-term welfare. Margaret Humphries and her husband certainly put in a number of years of hard work to right the wrongs of these people at considerable personal cost to themselves and their children, I am sure.
Emily Watson always give a strong and authentic performance and she plays Margaret very well indeed as does Hugo Weaving the waif-like Jack. Unfortunately, you can never forget that David Wenham is acting the character instead of "being" the character.
A bit unsubtle and heavy handed in the cinematography, the movie tends to hit you around the head with its message - which tries to imply that most of the children suffered extreme abuse of one sort or another and the biggest culprit was the Catholic church. Some statistics might have been helpful at the end but why allow truth to get in the way of a good story?
My score: 7/10
Director Jim Loach has assembled an all star cast in this "expose" of a shameful period of both English and Australian recent history. He has taken as his topic the forced deportation of children to Australia from England - children who were either born out of wedlock or whose mother could no longer care for them due to circumstances beyond her control and as a result of the "rules" of polite society of the day. Much of the film centres on the subsequent abuse some of these children received at the hands of the Catholic clergy.
Unfortunately, I felt that Loach has taken a tabloid newspaper approach to the subject and showed us the evil doings of both the authorities in England who took children unfairly from their mothers and the church in Australia who mistreated/abused these children. There were thousands of children who were deported under this scheme and we saw in the film only a handful of "extreme" cases. There was no attempt to reveal exactly how many children were in fact abused, how many were in fact taken from their mothers unfairly and the fact that in some cases at least the children did lead a happy life in Australia with a family in which they were loved. I am not for one minute excusing or condoning the mistreatment but my complaint is that the audience who walk out of this film do so with a view that "all" children were mistreated.
The movie plods along in predictable fashion - corny shots of Ship paintings on the walls as background to "meaningful" scenes - and I asked myself the question how Margaret (Emily Watson) justified her neglect of her family to become the hero of the children who wanted to find their mother in England and find some answers as to why they were sent away.
David Wenham as one of the children who "made it good" in the new country despite being abused, was as usual David Wenham. Somehow he finds it difficult to be anything other than the male lead - almost every word he utters can be interpreted as an attempt to seduce the girl! Hugo Weaving gives a superb performance as another traumatised child/adult and as usual very nearly steals the show.
This movie is very unsatisfying both on the level of entertainment and as a real investigation into the events.
My Score: 5/10
Ma's View:
Well, I can't be quite that harsh on this movie. It does what it sets out to do very well - make a movie that will have wide audience appeal about a government policy in Australian/English history that was poorly administered and took no account of the individuals involved or their long-term welfare. Margaret Humphries and her husband certainly put in a number of years of hard work to right the wrongs of these people at considerable personal cost to themselves and their children, I am sure.
Emily Watson always give a strong and authentic performance and she plays Margaret very well indeed as does Hugo Weaving the waif-like Jack. Unfortunately, you can never forget that David Wenham is acting the character instead of "being" the character.
A bit unsubtle and heavy handed in the cinematography, the movie tends to hit you around the head with its message - which tries to imply that most of the children suffered extreme abuse of one sort or another and the biggest culprit was the Catholic church. Some statistics might have been helpful at the end but why allow truth to get in the way of a good story?
My score: 7/10
BABIES
Pepe'sView:
This move is a simple French documentary by Thomas Baimes who took a basic idea to follow 4 babies for the first year of their life in 4 different continents and crafted an entertaining and revealing movie that is riveting from start to finish. That Baimes chose to have no "voice over" narration to push a particular belief only resulted in opening up the movie's interpretation to the audience. The only sound was the natural sound of the child's environment and of the mother interacting with the baby.
Every viewer falls in love with a "favourite" baby and by the end of the movie I was wishing to see these babies when they are another year older. "Babies 2" ??
The largest impact that the movie had on me was the distinct impression that babies from the West - Japan and USA are so much like "battery babies" with their every waking moment seemingly organised. They seemed to be constantly taken off to classes/groups for their senses to be stimulated or confronted with "educational" and safe toys. The babies from Namibia and Mongolia on the other hand were allowed to be stimulated by their environment and explore their world largely unfettered, although in the case of the Mongolian baby, sometimes tethered to the bed post not unlike the animals surrounding their home.
Perhaps the most ridiculous moment in the film was the scene of the American Baby with his Dad at the mothers group which used meditation and chanting in the style of native cultures to affirm their oneness with the earth. Cut to the Mongolian baby who was interacting with the goat or investigating chickens.
This movie is at once entertainng, cute and very thought provoking as it lays bare many of the cultural beliefs surrounding child rearing.
My Score: 8/10
Ma's View:
Yes this is a really delightful movie which shows that the mother-child relationship world-wide is very similar and that babies make the same progress in their first year whatever culture they belong to. In fact, the Mongolian and Namibian babies appear to be happier, better adjusted and more resilient than their cosseted, over-stimulated western counter-parts.
The concept of following the development of 4 babies is a simple one but the editing of the film which emphasises the vast difference in the environments/cultures of these babies makes a very telling comment on the way "civilisation" is shaping our little ones.
No voice over and no sub-titles allows the viewer to interpret the human behaviour for themselves - this makes for very thought-provoking cinema. Unless, that is, you want all the answers served up to you on a platter - which some reviewers seemed to need!
My score: 8/10
This move is a simple French documentary by Thomas Baimes who took a basic idea to follow 4 babies for the first year of their life in 4 different continents and crafted an entertaining and revealing movie that is riveting from start to finish. That Baimes chose to have no "voice over" narration to push a particular belief only resulted in opening up the movie's interpretation to the audience. The only sound was the natural sound of the child's environment and of the mother interacting with the baby.
Every viewer falls in love with a "favourite" baby and by the end of the movie I was wishing to see these babies when they are another year older. "Babies 2" ??
The largest impact that the movie had on me was the distinct impression that babies from the West - Japan and USA are so much like "battery babies" with their every waking moment seemingly organised. They seemed to be constantly taken off to classes/groups for their senses to be stimulated or confronted with "educational" and safe toys. The babies from Namibia and Mongolia on the other hand were allowed to be stimulated by their environment and explore their world largely unfettered, although in the case of the Mongolian baby, sometimes tethered to the bed post not unlike the animals surrounding their home.
Perhaps the most ridiculous moment in the film was the scene of the American Baby with his Dad at the mothers group which used meditation and chanting in the style of native cultures to affirm their oneness with the earth. Cut to the Mongolian baby who was interacting with the goat or investigating chickens.
This movie is at once entertainng, cute and very thought provoking as it lays bare many of the cultural beliefs surrounding child rearing.
My Score: 8/10
Ma's View:
Yes this is a really delightful movie which shows that the mother-child relationship world-wide is very similar and that babies make the same progress in their first year whatever culture they belong to. In fact, the Mongolian and Namibian babies appear to be happier, better adjusted and more resilient than their cosseted, over-stimulated western counter-parts.
The concept of following the development of 4 babies is a simple one but the editing of the film which emphasises the vast difference in the environments/cultures of these babies makes a very telling comment on the way "civilisation" is shaping our little ones.
No voice over and no sub-titles allows the viewer to interpret the human behaviour for themselves - this makes for very thought-provoking cinema. Unless, that is, you want all the answers served up to you on a platter - which some reviewers seemed to need!
My score: 8/10
LITTLE WHITE LIES
Ma's View:
This is quite a long movie but we didn't notice the time passing. It hasn't received rave reviews but I think some reviewers have missed the point that it was a farce! And like all good farces acted well (i.e. with perfect seriousness) it has a message that is true for us all.
A group of friends goes on holidays together as they do each year but increasingly are made to face the reality of where they are at in their lives and relationships. Through a series of absurdly funny situations, they learn the underlying strong message that there is more to life than pure pleasure seeking and that truth and commitment in relationships is what matters not how much money, power, fun you have during your lifetime.
Directed by Guillaume Cluzet, the film depicts the life of a fairly typical group of modern, affluent Parisiens, who, although long-term friends, have never closely examined what this friendship means. Francois Cluzet, as Max, is the uptight owner of a successful restuarant who plays host to his friends and clearly revels in the status it brings him to splash his money about. His wife, Vero, keeps him in line - just! A lot of the humour is derived from his neuroses - both about weasels in the ceiling and about one of the group who has come out of the closet revealing his secret gay love for the very straight Max. Marion Cluzet is superb as Marie - at once vulnerable and strong, desperately trying to find a path for herself that is true to her commitment to do good in Africa and her committment to her relationships. Gilles Lellouche as Eric is the typical bad boy with the soft heart and Vincent, played byBenoit Magimal is an intensely sensitive individual dealing with his gay tendencies and trying to remain a good husband and father.
Perhaps the only flaw for me was that I could not understand how they could all go off on holidays when one of the number was in ICU after a horrendous motorbike accident! Although he was unable to communicate and they planned to come back early, it just does not seem believable that they would all go off and give him hardly a thought for nearly 2 weeks. Perhaps the point was that they were so hung up on the pleasure aspect of life that they thought that's what he would have done and would want them to do?
So what if the ending is a bit smaltzy, I still enjoyed this movie!
My score: 7/10
Pepe's View:
I agree Ma. This is a wonderful movie - funny, sad and thought provoking at the same time. I can understand why this movie was/is such a hit in France - on the one hand it exposes the superficiality of "Parisiens" (as believed by the rest of France) and at the same time portraying a situation that is common in France and elsewhere when a group of friends spend time with each other regularly but not really knowing each other.
By the end of this long movie I did not want to leave - I had begun to care about the characters and, similarly to returning home from a wonderful vacation, did not want to say goodbye.
The acting throughout was first rate - an ensemble cast - and we were carefully led to an understanding of each character as an individual with their faults and their endearing qualities.
This is a thoroughly enjoyable movie.
My Score: 8.5/10
This is quite a long movie but we didn't notice the time passing. It hasn't received rave reviews but I think some reviewers have missed the point that it was a farce! And like all good farces acted well (i.e. with perfect seriousness) it has a message that is true for us all.
A group of friends goes on holidays together as they do each year but increasingly are made to face the reality of where they are at in their lives and relationships. Through a series of absurdly funny situations, they learn the underlying strong message that there is more to life than pure pleasure seeking and that truth and commitment in relationships is what matters not how much money, power, fun you have during your lifetime.
Directed by Guillaume Cluzet, the film depicts the life of a fairly typical group of modern, affluent Parisiens, who, although long-term friends, have never closely examined what this friendship means. Francois Cluzet, as Max, is the uptight owner of a successful restuarant who plays host to his friends and clearly revels in the status it brings him to splash his money about. His wife, Vero, keeps him in line - just! A lot of the humour is derived from his neuroses - both about weasels in the ceiling and about one of the group who has come out of the closet revealing his secret gay love for the very straight Max. Marion Cluzet is superb as Marie - at once vulnerable and strong, desperately trying to find a path for herself that is true to her commitment to do good in Africa and her committment to her relationships. Gilles Lellouche as Eric is the typical bad boy with the soft heart and Vincent, played byBenoit Magimal is an intensely sensitive individual dealing with his gay tendencies and trying to remain a good husband and father.
Perhaps the only flaw for me was that I could not understand how they could all go off on holidays when one of the number was in ICU after a horrendous motorbike accident! Although he was unable to communicate and they planned to come back early, it just does not seem believable that they would all go off and give him hardly a thought for nearly 2 weeks. Perhaps the point was that they were so hung up on the pleasure aspect of life that they thought that's what he would have done and would want them to do?
So what if the ending is a bit smaltzy, I still enjoyed this movie!
My score: 7/10
Pepe's View:
I agree Ma. This is a wonderful movie - funny, sad and thought provoking at the same time. I can understand why this movie was/is such a hit in France - on the one hand it exposes the superficiality of "Parisiens" (as believed by the rest of France) and at the same time portraying a situation that is common in France and elsewhere when a group of friends spend time with each other regularly but not really knowing each other.
By the end of this long movie I did not want to leave - I had begun to care about the characters and, similarly to returning home from a wonderful vacation, did not want to say goodbye.
The acting throughout was first rate - an ensemble cast - and we were carefully led to an understanding of each character as an individual with their faults and their endearing qualities.
This is a thoroughly enjoyable movie.
My Score: 8.5/10
MAD BASTARDS
Pepe's View:
Mad Bastards is an Australian film in the "tradition" of Samson and Delilah and Ten Canoes. The film by first time director Brendon Fletcher pays homage to the aboriginal culture and to the real people hidden inside the "Mad Bastards".
Set in the Kimberley region and filmed in glorious widescreen, the film is a visual delight. The scenery of the Kimberley juxtaposed with the brutality and confusion of the lives of the aboriginal cast living in the town creates a cinematographic experience not easily forgotten.
The director manages to subtly and carefully reveal to us the close attachment the aboriginal people have with their land and how the loss of this connection has caused a lingering feeling of discontent and anger. When young Bullett, played wonderfully by Lucas Yeede, is sent out to a "reform" school in the bush where he and some others are brought closer to their land and their traditional culture, we see a maturing in him and a realisation that there is a different life to the one he is living. While Bullett is walking through the Kimberley becoming reacquainted with his heritage, his father whom he has never met is travelling from Perth where his traditional lands have been covered by freeways and buildings to also become reacquainted with the land. There are beautiful scenes of the characters under the stars and at one not only with themselves but with their world.
TJ, played by Dean Daly-Jones is superb as the brooding volcano who is trying desperately to connect with his family and in particular with his son after a life spent on the margins of white society. The local policeman (Greg Tait) is totally believable in the role - probably because he spent 16 yrs as a policeman in the area.
The most amazing aspect of this film is that all the actors are total amateurs. Not one of them has been to acting school or appeared in a movie before. Their performances though come from the heart - they are the people they depict. There is no artifice, just raw emotion and this gives the film a feeling of truth so often lacking in films attempting to tackle similar themes. It is to the credit of the director that he could extract such truthful performances from this cast.
The music performed often live by the "Pigram Brothers", real musicians from the Kimberley, is a feature of the film and although not traditional aboriginal music it seems to fit with their modern culture.
This is a fantastic movie in all respects.
My Score: 8.5/10
Ma's View:
Yes indeed, I just loved this movie! There is no shying away from the very real problem of alcoholism and disconnectedness endemic in Aboriginal society but there is no whinging or blaming either. Instead, there is a lot of hope in this movie as there was in Samson and Delilah because the real backbone of Aboriginal culture is evident - the magnificent Australian outback and their deep affinity with it.
The title refers to the "mad bastard" withing each character which fills them with anger and violence, often fuelled by alcohol, and resulting in anti-social behaviour. In contrast, we see tribal elders and leading members of the tribe playing a pivotal role in guiding their people back to their roots. The gentleness and wisdom of these older Aborigines is inspiring. The film carries a wonderful message to young indigenous Australians and the Director and the actors should be justly proud of their achievement. Underpinned by a wonderful musical score from the Pigram Brothers, this movie is a story of redemption that will have a ripple effect throughout the culture.
My Score: (9/10)
Mad Bastards is an Australian film in the "tradition" of Samson and Delilah and Ten Canoes. The film by first time director Brendon Fletcher pays homage to the aboriginal culture and to the real people hidden inside the "Mad Bastards".
Set in the Kimberley region and filmed in glorious widescreen, the film is a visual delight. The scenery of the Kimberley juxtaposed with the brutality and confusion of the lives of the aboriginal cast living in the town creates a cinematographic experience not easily forgotten.
The director manages to subtly and carefully reveal to us the close attachment the aboriginal people have with their land and how the loss of this connection has caused a lingering feeling of discontent and anger. When young Bullett, played wonderfully by Lucas Yeede, is sent out to a "reform" school in the bush where he and some others are brought closer to their land and their traditional culture, we see a maturing in him and a realisation that there is a different life to the one he is living. While Bullett is walking through the Kimberley becoming reacquainted with his heritage, his father whom he has never met is travelling from Perth where his traditional lands have been covered by freeways and buildings to also become reacquainted with the land. There are beautiful scenes of the characters under the stars and at one not only with themselves but with their world.
TJ, played by Dean Daly-Jones is superb as the brooding volcano who is trying desperately to connect with his family and in particular with his son after a life spent on the margins of white society. The local policeman (Greg Tait) is totally believable in the role - probably because he spent 16 yrs as a policeman in the area.
The most amazing aspect of this film is that all the actors are total amateurs. Not one of them has been to acting school or appeared in a movie before. Their performances though come from the heart - they are the people they depict. There is no artifice, just raw emotion and this gives the film a feeling of truth so often lacking in films attempting to tackle similar themes. It is to the credit of the director that he could extract such truthful performances from this cast.
The music performed often live by the "Pigram Brothers", real musicians from the Kimberley, is a feature of the film and although not traditional aboriginal music it seems to fit with their modern culture.
This is a fantastic movie in all respects.
My Score: 8.5/10
Ma's View:
Yes indeed, I just loved this movie! There is no shying away from the very real problem of alcoholism and disconnectedness endemic in Aboriginal society but there is no whinging or blaming either. Instead, there is a lot of hope in this movie as there was in Samson and Delilah because the real backbone of Aboriginal culture is evident - the magnificent Australian outback and their deep affinity with it.
The title refers to the "mad bastard" withing each character which fills them with anger and violence, often fuelled by alcohol, and resulting in anti-social behaviour. In contrast, we see tribal elders and leading members of the tribe playing a pivotal role in guiding their people back to their roots. The gentleness and wisdom of these older Aborigines is inspiring. The film carries a wonderful message to young indigenous Australians and the Director and the actors should be justly proud of their achievement. Underpinned by a wonderful musical score from the Pigram Brothers, this movie is a story of redemption that will have a ripple effect throughout the culture.
My Score: (9/10)
INCENDIES
Ma's View:
Set in an unnammed middle-eastern country, Incendies is an immensely powerful film with a plot that unfolds like that of a Greek tragedy. Director Denis Villeneuve has made this vivid adaptation of the play by Lebanese-Canadian playwright, Wajdi Mouawed, which examines the brutality and futility of religious hatred. The film opens with the death of Nawal (Lubra Azabal) now living in Canada and the terms of her will whereby her twin children must set out to find who she was and who they are, by tracking down the father they never met and the brother they never knew they had. The scene shifts from present to past as first Joanne (Melissa Desormais-Poulin) and then her twin brother, Simon, (Maxim Gaudette) retrace the mother's steps in the middle east. We learn that Nawal was born a Christian, fell in love with a Muslim, tried to change society by peaceful and then by violent means before herself being subjected to imprisonment and torture. The film is even handed in its approach and we are shown that both sides in the conflict are just as brutal and inhuman as each other and that in the end it is only love that will heal.
Filmed in Jordan, the cinematography is spectacular and evocative, providing a wonderful background to the tension as the terrible secret of the twin's origin is gradually unfolded. All of the characters are excellently portrayed but special mention must be made of Lubra Azabal who plays the mother from a young girl of 18 or so, through to a woman of 60 - a woman who undergoes much suffering and has to remake herself over and over.
Full of mystery and complexity, the plot could be accused of being a bit far-fetched at times, but then it is war and this is a Greek tragedy after all.
A film not to be missed! One that is particularly relevant in the present time and which will give you plenty to think about.
My score: 9/10
Pepe's View:
We saw this movie on the day that Osama Bin Laden was found and killed by US troops. What a remarkable coincidence! Incendies is about exactly what the killing of this person represents - revenge. The mother in the movie (Nawal) has every reason in the world to feel bitter and seek revenge for the treatment she received both at the hands of her Christian family and villagers and at the hands of the Anti Christian (Muslim) extremists. That she chooses ultimately to offer forgiveness instead of revenge and teach her children the value of forgiveness in the process as the only way to end such hatred in the world, is the movie's theme.
The acting by all those involved in this "Greek Tragedy" is brilliant and the direction is taut setting the scene for the horrors as they unfold without undue sensationalism or showing support for a particular point of view. The setting in this unknown middle eastern country provides a perfect backdrop to the desolation experienced emotionally by Narwal.
Some of my favourite scenes involve a fire fight when all that is in focus are the rifles held by militia with the only indication of their loyalty is the Christian picture of the Virgin Mary on their gun barrel or the treatment of the daughter by the villagers when she goes to her Mother's old home in search of her story as they show that they still harbour hatred from events that occurred a generation before.
This is a gripping revealing movie that stays with you long after the final credits and by setting the story in a non existent country provides the opportunity to see the wider perspective.
My Score: 8.5/10
Set in an unnammed middle-eastern country, Incendies is an immensely powerful film with a plot that unfolds like that of a Greek tragedy. Director Denis Villeneuve has made this vivid adaptation of the play by Lebanese-Canadian playwright, Wajdi Mouawed, which examines the brutality and futility of religious hatred. The film opens with the death of Nawal (Lubra Azabal) now living in Canada and the terms of her will whereby her twin children must set out to find who she was and who they are, by tracking down the father they never met and the brother they never knew they had. The scene shifts from present to past as first Joanne (Melissa Desormais-Poulin) and then her twin brother, Simon, (Maxim Gaudette) retrace the mother's steps in the middle east. We learn that Nawal was born a Christian, fell in love with a Muslim, tried to change society by peaceful and then by violent means before herself being subjected to imprisonment and torture. The film is even handed in its approach and we are shown that both sides in the conflict are just as brutal and inhuman as each other and that in the end it is only love that will heal.
Filmed in Jordan, the cinematography is spectacular and evocative, providing a wonderful background to the tension as the terrible secret of the twin's origin is gradually unfolded. All of the characters are excellently portrayed but special mention must be made of Lubra Azabal who plays the mother from a young girl of 18 or so, through to a woman of 60 - a woman who undergoes much suffering and has to remake herself over and over.
Full of mystery and complexity, the plot could be accused of being a bit far-fetched at times, but then it is war and this is a Greek tragedy after all.
A film not to be missed! One that is particularly relevant in the present time and which will give you plenty to think about.
My score: 9/10
Pepe's View:
We saw this movie on the day that Osama Bin Laden was found and killed by US troops. What a remarkable coincidence! Incendies is about exactly what the killing of this person represents - revenge. The mother in the movie (Nawal) has every reason in the world to feel bitter and seek revenge for the treatment she received both at the hands of her Christian family and villagers and at the hands of the Anti Christian (Muslim) extremists. That she chooses ultimately to offer forgiveness instead of revenge and teach her children the value of forgiveness in the process as the only way to end such hatred in the world, is the movie's theme.
The acting by all those involved in this "Greek Tragedy" is brilliant and the direction is taut setting the scene for the horrors as they unfold without undue sensationalism or showing support for a particular point of view. The setting in this unknown middle eastern country provides a perfect backdrop to the desolation experienced emotionally by Narwal.
Some of my favourite scenes involve a fire fight when all that is in focus are the rifles held by militia with the only indication of their loyalty is the Christian picture of the Virgin Mary on their gun barrel or the treatment of the daughter by the villagers when she goes to her Mother's old home in search of her story as they show that they still harbour hatred from events that occurred a generation before.
This is a gripping revealing movie that stays with you long after the final credits and by setting the story in a non existent country provides the opportunity to see the wider perspective.
My Score: 8.5/10
HOW I ENDED THIS SUMMER
Ma's View:
Set in a remote part of the Arctic Circle, the story traces the tensions that arise between 2 men, who man a Russian weather station, Sergei (Sergei Puskepalis), the old hand and Pasha (Grigory Dobrygin), the young college kid just working there as a summer job. The third and most powerful protagonist in the drama is nature itself - the immense and desolate landscape, the unpredictable weather and the ever present threat of polar bear attack. Throw into the mix a deteriorating nuclear power generator and it is enough to send the sanest person crazy! Sergei is used to it and gets on with the job but he makes no allowance for his young companion's lack of experience and need of support. No trust develops between the two, so that when bad news of Sergei's family arrives while he is off on a fishing jaunt, Pasha is fearful of telling him.
This is a long film, 124 minutes, allowing the isolation, boredom and the oppressiveness of the landscape to seep into the viewer's very soul through the superb cinematography and sound track of Director Aleksei Popogrebsky. Meanwhile the tension builds between the 2 mismatched men and a battle for survival ensues. The silent, stoic Sergei could be said to represent the old Russia, while Pasha, with his mastery of and yet dependence upon technology, represents the new, less resilient Russia. Leave that aside, this is a typically Russian movie, with deep undercurrents of emotion and a bleak outcome - it reduces man to a mere spot on the landscape, a creature whose life and loves are of no consequence whatsoever.
A movie not for the faint-hearted!
My score: 7.5/10
Pepe's View:
Ma had just given a wonderful description of this movie. I am not quite so rapturous however, as for me it was far too long. The cinematography and wide shots of the tiny settlement consisting of one house set in the midst of a wasteland was repeated just too many times for me. I got the idea after the second shot. It does show how nature is far more powerful than man and that our hold on this earth is transitory at best and for this and the cinematography I enjoyed the film The story however, did not grab me and I began to wish that the ship would hurry up and arrive so I could also leave this interminable experience.
My Score: 6.5/10
Set in a remote part of the Arctic Circle, the story traces the tensions that arise between 2 men, who man a Russian weather station, Sergei (Sergei Puskepalis), the old hand and Pasha (Grigory Dobrygin), the young college kid just working there as a summer job. The third and most powerful protagonist in the drama is nature itself - the immense and desolate landscape, the unpredictable weather and the ever present threat of polar bear attack. Throw into the mix a deteriorating nuclear power generator and it is enough to send the sanest person crazy! Sergei is used to it and gets on with the job but he makes no allowance for his young companion's lack of experience and need of support. No trust develops between the two, so that when bad news of Sergei's family arrives while he is off on a fishing jaunt, Pasha is fearful of telling him.
This is a long film, 124 minutes, allowing the isolation, boredom and the oppressiveness of the landscape to seep into the viewer's very soul through the superb cinematography and sound track of Director Aleksei Popogrebsky. Meanwhile the tension builds between the 2 mismatched men and a battle for survival ensues. The silent, stoic Sergei could be said to represent the old Russia, while Pasha, with his mastery of and yet dependence upon technology, represents the new, less resilient Russia. Leave that aside, this is a typically Russian movie, with deep undercurrents of emotion and a bleak outcome - it reduces man to a mere spot on the landscape, a creature whose life and loves are of no consequence whatsoever.
A movie not for the faint-hearted!
My score: 7.5/10
Pepe's View:
Ma had just given a wonderful description of this movie. I am not quite so rapturous however, as for me it was far too long. The cinematography and wide shots of the tiny settlement consisting of one house set in the midst of a wasteland was repeated just too many times for me. I got the idea after the second shot. It does show how nature is far more powerful than man and that our hold on this earth is transitory at best and for this and the cinematography I enjoyed the film The story however, did not grab me and I began to wish that the ship would hurry up and arrive so I could also leave this interminable experience.
My Score: 6.5/10
POTICHE
Pepe's View:
Based on a stage play by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy, Potiche (Trophy Wife) is a French Farce in the great French Farce style, albeit set beautifully in the 70's. None of the characters really take themselves too seriously and although most of the subject matter deals with serious themes such as Women's Liberation, Exploitation of Workers, I found myself chuckling along with the absurdity of the situations and characters.
Catherine Deneuve once again is wonderful as the wife (Suzanne) of a chauvanistic, ruthless, although slightly ineffectual, CEO of an umbrella factory (Robert). An umbrella factory which was originally owned and run by Deneuve's father!
Deneuve is pampered and treated as nothing more than a plaything by her husband played brilliantly by Fabrice Luchini who objects if his trophy wife expresses any opinion. Their son, who, it turns out, is not really fathered by Robert is a leftie and interested in fashion and art as well. Their daughter is a chip off the old block and although none too bright (she is a woman after all) sides with her father when the crunch comes because she sees this as a way to keep her own husband from travelling away from the family.
One of my favourite scenes is after Suzanne takes over the factory while Robert recovered from a heart attack, she informs him on his return that he is no longer needed and that she has installed a TV in his bedroom so he can watch it during the day - he in effect has become Potiche.
Throw Gerard Depardieu into the mix as having a brief affair with Suzanne in the past and who is still madly in love with her, as a leftie politician and the mayor of the town and the scene is set for mayhem.
Great cinematography, beautiful design and superb acting makes this farce a delight.
My Score: 8/10
Ma's View:
Yes this is a lovely movie not to be taken too seriously - in fact, I thought for a while they were sending themselves up a little and still suspect so. These 2 iconic French film stars are cast in roles perfect for them - Depardieu as the rough diamond union activist and Deneuve the refined and lovely bourgeous trophy wife of the chauvinistic industrialist, portrayed by Fabrice Luchini with delightful petulance at times. Deneuve, in her late sixties, could pass for at least 10 years younger while time has not been quite as kind to Depardieu.
The costume department has been given full reign to create some of the more garish ensembles and hair styles of the era and the sound department has supplied very appropriate background music. Director, Francois Ozon, has re-examined the women's lib pre-occupations of the era with a deft and amusing touch. It's an improbable plot about somewhat caricatured characters but you are bound to come away with a smile on your face if only because of the absurdity of it all!
My score: 7.5/10
Based on a stage play by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy, Potiche (Trophy Wife) is a French Farce in the great French Farce style, albeit set beautifully in the 70's. None of the characters really take themselves too seriously and although most of the subject matter deals with serious themes such as Women's Liberation, Exploitation of Workers, I found myself chuckling along with the absurdity of the situations and characters.
Catherine Deneuve once again is wonderful as the wife (Suzanne) of a chauvanistic, ruthless, although slightly ineffectual, CEO of an umbrella factory (Robert). An umbrella factory which was originally owned and run by Deneuve's father!
Deneuve is pampered and treated as nothing more than a plaything by her husband played brilliantly by Fabrice Luchini who objects if his trophy wife expresses any opinion. Their son, who, it turns out, is not really fathered by Robert is a leftie and interested in fashion and art as well. Their daughter is a chip off the old block and although none too bright (she is a woman after all) sides with her father when the crunch comes because she sees this as a way to keep her own husband from travelling away from the family.
One of my favourite scenes is after Suzanne takes over the factory while Robert recovered from a heart attack, she informs him on his return that he is no longer needed and that she has installed a TV in his bedroom so he can watch it during the day - he in effect has become Potiche.
Throw Gerard Depardieu into the mix as having a brief affair with Suzanne in the past and who is still madly in love with her, as a leftie politician and the mayor of the town and the scene is set for mayhem.
Great cinematography, beautiful design and superb acting makes this farce a delight.
My Score: 8/10
Ma's View:
Yes this is a lovely movie not to be taken too seriously - in fact, I thought for a while they were sending themselves up a little and still suspect so. These 2 iconic French film stars are cast in roles perfect for them - Depardieu as the rough diamond union activist and Deneuve the refined and lovely bourgeous trophy wife of the chauvinistic industrialist, portrayed by Fabrice Luchini with delightful petulance at times. Deneuve, in her late sixties, could pass for at least 10 years younger while time has not been quite as kind to Depardieu.
The costume department has been given full reign to create some of the more garish ensembles and hair styles of the era and the sound department has supplied very appropriate background music. Director, Francois Ozon, has re-examined the women's lib pre-occupations of the era with a deft and amusing touch. It's an improbable plot about somewhat caricatured characters but you are bound to come away with a smile on your face if only because of the absurdity of it all!
My score: 7.5/10
THE ROUND-UP
Ma's View:
This is a harrowing true story of the round-up of civilian Jews by French police which took place in Paris in summer 1942 during the German occupation and which resulted in the extermination of 13,000 men, women and children at Auschwitz. There would have been more because the French authorities, in full co-operation with the Germans, had used their records to locate 24,000 and were disappointed that they fell short of that number - due in part to the efforts of French citizens who hid and aided the remainder to escape. Many of these people were refugees who had taken shelter in France to escape the same fate elsewhere in Europe; their poignant faith that the French government would protect them is heart-rending.
We follow the story of Joseph and his friends as their families are first held in the Velodrome d'Hiver with no water or toilet facilities in the summer heat, then moved to a transit camp and literally torn apart - first the men, then the mothers, then the children are sent off on trains. Veteran French actor, Jean Reno, plays a Jewish doctor who does what he can to alleviate the suffering, aided by a French nurse (Melanie Laurent) who herself starves on the rations allocated to her charges in order to prove to authorities that they were inadequate. Most of these characters really existed and Joseph excaped to tell the tale. He is interviewed at the end of the movie alongside the young actor who very ably played the role.
This is a very powerful and moving tale only a little spoiled by the "happy" ending - I guess they were trying to lighten it up a little.
My score: 8/10
Pepe's View:
This is indeed a gripping and not very pretty film. It is amazing that so little has been revealed of this shameful event in France's history and in the last 6 months this is the second film we have seen covering the same topic. Sarah's Key is the other.
The film is made all the more harrowing and tragic as most of the people in the film actually existed and the surviving boy who escaped actually has a small part in the film as an old man. We saw a clip online of this survivor discussing the film and the events with the director (Roselyne Bosch) and the young actor who depicted him in the movie.
Brilliant reenactment and carefull recreation of the events in 1942 made all the more chilling by the depiction of actual families - a great film which unfortunatley is spoilt a little by the romanticised ending.
My Score: 8.5/10
This is a harrowing true story of the round-up of civilian Jews by French police which took place in Paris in summer 1942 during the German occupation and which resulted in the extermination of 13,000 men, women and children at Auschwitz. There would have been more because the French authorities, in full co-operation with the Germans, had used their records to locate 24,000 and were disappointed that they fell short of that number - due in part to the efforts of French citizens who hid and aided the remainder to escape. Many of these people were refugees who had taken shelter in France to escape the same fate elsewhere in Europe; their poignant faith that the French government would protect them is heart-rending.
We follow the story of Joseph and his friends as their families are first held in the Velodrome d'Hiver with no water or toilet facilities in the summer heat, then moved to a transit camp and literally torn apart - first the men, then the mothers, then the children are sent off on trains. Veteran French actor, Jean Reno, plays a Jewish doctor who does what he can to alleviate the suffering, aided by a French nurse (Melanie Laurent) who herself starves on the rations allocated to her charges in order to prove to authorities that they were inadequate. Most of these characters really existed and Joseph excaped to tell the tale. He is interviewed at the end of the movie alongside the young actor who very ably played the role.
This is a very powerful and moving tale only a little spoiled by the "happy" ending - I guess they were trying to lighten it up a little.
My score: 8/10
Pepe's View:
This is indeed a gripping and not very pretty film. It is amazing that so little has been revealed of this shameful event in France's history and in the last 6 months this is the second film we have seen covering the same topic. Sarah's Key is the other.
The film is made all the more harrowing and tragic as most of the people in the film actually existed and the surviving boy who escaped actually has a small part in the film as an old man. We saw a clip online of this survivor discussing the film and the events with the director (Roselyne Bosch) and the young actor who depicted him in the movie.
Brilliant reenactment and carefull recreation of the events in 1942 made all the more chilling by the depiction of actual families - a great film which unfortunatley is spoilt a little by the romanticised ending.
My Score: 8.5/10
NEVER LET ME GO
Pepe's View:
Taken from a science fiction novel by Kazou Ishigwo, this movie directed by Mark Romanek, requires the viewer to go with the flow and not apply too much logic to the underlying premise. We are asked to accept that history has been rewritten and that in 1953, life expectancy in England has been extended by using clones whose organs are harvested. Isn't that a bit of a cheat? - To set a science fiction story in the immediate past means minimum research re history or imagination re a futuristic world!
We are introduced to the 3 protaganists Cathy, Tommy and Ruth as children in a "public school" from which there is no escape and which is ruled with a rod of iron to ensure that the children remain healthy and that nothing of the outside world intrudes. We gradually come to realise the premise of he film as we follow the 3 friends to the next stage of their growth in "The Cottages". Here we are introduced to the adult versions played by Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Kiera Knightly respectively.
Although they are protected from the outside world, they do watch videos, listen to current music and indulge in sex - presumably even clones have natural sexual urges?
This movie had me asking questions all the time - it did not manage to suspend my disbelief as is required of films of the genre - and left me thoroughly annoyed.
It transpires that these human sacrifices can extend their life by a few years by becoming a carer (someone who looks after the patients between organ donations). Nothing was shown of the recipients of any of the organs and thus the ethical dilemma of who is most worthy of life was conveniently sidestepped. In fact all ethical dilemmas were ignored so the movie became little more than a love triangle between Tommy and the two girls.
The ending, which has Cathy watching an idyllic country scene at sunset and having her voice over tell us the theme of the movie - in essence no one ever has enough time even though we don't take advantage of the time we have - was the ultimate in lazy filmmaking.
Perhaps it would have saved a lot of time if she had done that an hour earlier!
My Score: 5/10
Ma's View:
This overly long movie was basically a love story made more poignant by the fact that the time these young people shared was to be cut short by their awful fate - as repeat organ donors until their bodies (or spirit) gave out. Setting aside the horror factor of this science fiction "world gone mad" premise, powerful as that is, there is not enough depth to the movie. The authorities claim to have solved the ethics of the practice, they claim to have ruled out the possibility that these clones have a soul but their is no explanation or examination of these aspects. Neither is there any parallel drawn between them and the recipients of the body parts - who qualifies for these? do they have to prove they have a soul? do they have any qualms about it? Other questions come to mind - why are the clones so passive? are there none who try to run away or commit suicide or try other means of avoiding their fate? We need to know how they were being controlled.
As far as the acting goes, Andrew Garfield was the most believable of the 3 young protagonists. Kiera Knightly was as always and Carey Mulligan seems to have been chosen for the part because her standard facial expression is such that she seems always on the point of bursting into tears. Thank god for Charlotte Rampling bringing some quality acting to the screen.
Disappointing!
My score: 5.5/10
Taken from a science fiction novel by Kazou Ishigwo, this movie directed by Mark Romanek, requires the viewer to go with the flow and not apply too much logic to the underlying premise. We are asked to accept that history has been rewritten and that in 1953, life expectancy in England has been extended by using clones whose organs are harvested. Isn't that a bit of a cheat? - To set a science fiction story in the immediate past means minimum research re history or imagination re a futuristic world!
We are introduced to the 3 protaganists Cathy, Tommy and Ruth as children in a "public school" from which there is no escape and which is ruled with a rod of iron to ensure that the children remain healthy and that nothing of the outside world intrudes. We gradually come to realise the premise of he film as we follow the 3 friends to the next stage of their growth in "The Cottages". Here we are introduced to the adult versions played by Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Kiera Knightly respectively.
Although they are protected from the outside world, they do watch videos, listen to current music and indulge in sex - presumably even clones have natural sexual urges?
This movie had me asking questions all the time - it did not manage to suspend my disbelief as is required of films of the genre - and left me thoroughly annoyed.
It transpires that these human sacrifices can extend their life by a few years by becoming a carer (someone who looks after the patients between organ donations). Nothing was shown of the recipients of any of the organs and thus the ethical dilemma of who is most worthy of life was conveniently sidestepped. In fact all ethical dilemmas were ignored so the movie became little more than a love triangle between Tommy and the two girls.
The ending, which has Cathy watching an idyllic country scene at sunset and having her voice over tell us the theme of the movie - in essence no one ever has enough time even though we don't take advantage of the time we have - was the ultimate in lazy filmmaking.
Perhaps it would have saved a lot of time if she had done that an hour earlier!
My Score: 5/10
Ma's View:
This overly long movie was basically a love story made more poignant by the fact that the time these young people shared was to be cut short by their awful fate - as repeat organ donors until their bodies (or spirit) gave out. Setting aside the horror factor of this science fiction "world gone mad" premise, powerful as that is, there is not enough depth to the movie. The authorities claim to have solved the ethics of the practice, they claim to have ruled out the possibility that these clones have a soul but their is no explanation or examination of these aspects. Neither is there any parallel drawn between them and the recipients of the body parts - who qualifies for these? do they have to prove they have a soul? do they have any qualms about it? Other questions come to mind - why are the clones so passive? are there none who try to run away or commit suicide or try other means of avoiding their fate? We need to know how they were being controlled.
As far as the acting goes, Andrew Garfield was the most believable of the 3 young protagonists. Kiera Knightly was as always and Carey Mulligan seems to have been chosen for the part because her standard facial expression is such that she seems always on the point of bursting into tears. Thank god for Charlotte Rampling bringing some quality acting to the screen.
Disappointing!
My score: 5.5/10
LOVE CRIME
Ma's View:
We've been fans of Kristen Scott-Thomas for a while now and can't say we have ever been disappointed by her performance, no matter what the quality of the film. In this case, the film and her co-star, Ludivine Sagnier easily lived up to our expectations. If anything Sagnier, the younger actress, outdoes her rival, depicting such an array of emotions as her naive devotion to her boss is transformed step by step into disillusionment, determination and finally implacable hatred.
While the subject matter is somewhat light weight - 2 high ranking female executives in a power struggle that ends in a crime - the plot has enough twists and turns and the acting is so excellent as to totally absorb the audience to the last minute. Our audience spontaneously clapped at the end - a good sign! Director, Alain Corneau, who passed away before the film's release, would be well-satisfied with its reception. Although there are just a few little holes in the plot which occur to one after reflection, I have to give it a good score for sheer entertainment value.
My score: 8.5/10
Pepe's View:
Great entertainment and very little more sums up this film completely. The acting is fantastic, the direction taut and develops just the right amount of tension while allowing us to really care about the characters.
I particlarly enjoyed the implication at the end that the new "boss" Isabelle, played superbly by Ludivine Sagnier, will have to watch her back as her young eager male assistant knows a little too much about the crime. The cycle of revenge, intrigue and ambition is set to be repeated.
Kristen Scott Thomas as the senior executive Christine who uses her young protegee once too often as she ruthlessly maintains power is as always superb. The crime, which I won't reveal as it would be a spoiler, and the way it is cleverly covered up and the innocent party is implicated, creates riveting entertainment as it is so well handled.
My Score: 8/10
We've been fans of Kristen Scott-Thomas for a while now and can't say we have ever been disappointed by her performance, no matter what the quality of the film. In this case, the film and her co-star, Ludivine Sagnier easily lived up to our expectations. If anything Sagnier, the younger actress, outdoes her rival, depicting such an array of emotions as her naive devotion to her boss is transformed step by step into disillusionment, determination and finally implacable hatred.
While the subject matter is somewhat light weight - 2 high ranking female executives in a power struggle that ends in a crime - the plot has enough twists and turns and the acting is so excellent as to totally absorb the audience to the last minute. Our audience spontaneously clapped at the end - a good sign! Director, Alain Corneau, who passed away before the film's release, would be well-satisfied with its reception. Although there are just a few little holes in the plot which occur to one after reflection, I have to give it a good score for sheer entertainment value.
My score: 8.5/10
Pepe's View:
Great entertainment and very little more sums up this film completely. The acting is fantastic, the direction taut and develops just the right amount of tension while allowing us to really care about the characters.
I particlarly enjoyed the implication at the end that the new "boss" Isabelle, played superbly by Ludivine Sagnier, will have to watch her back as her young eager male assistant knows a little too much about the crime. The cycle of revenge, intrigue and ambition is set to be repeated.
Kristen Scott Thomas as the senior executive Christine who uses her young protegee once too often as she ruthlessly maintains power is as always superb. The crime, which I won't reveal as it would be a spoiler, and the way it is cleverly covered up and the innocent party is implicated, creates riveting entertainment as it is so well handled.
My Score: 8/10
AN ORDINARY EXECUTION
Pepe's View:
A film based on the last days of Stalin was difficult to pass up so it became another of our French Film Festival selections.
Marc Duigan directed this movie based on his own novel and managed to imbue the film with incredible tension. Anna, a young, beautiful and talented doctor who is happily married has a rumoured secret gift of healing using her hands. This makes her immensely popular with her patients and arouses jealousy in her colleagues.
When Anna is summoned by Stalin himself and told to use her powers to ease his suffering because all his previous doctors had been thrown into prison, she is drawn into his world and we see some of his sinister thought processes. Anna is played beautifully by Marina Hands and Stalin is played wonderfully by Andre Dussollier so that we actually feel some sense of empathy with him while recoiling from his ruthlessness and callousness.
Anna, at Stalin's "suggestion" as to how keep their healing sessions secret, agrees to leave her husband although she is not sure where she wil live. Stalin using a peculiar logic tells Anna that he is unable to provide her with an apartment as that would be using his position to provide advantage for friends and so he would be corrupt. He has an easier solution - have the husband arrested so Anna can continue to live in their appartment.
The tension developed as Anna is continually summoned to Stalin's chambers knowing that at any time and for any reason she could herself be imprisoned or worse gives a wonderful snapshot of the fear, mistrust and evil of Stalin's regime.
This is a great movie which left me stunned.
My Score: 8.5/10
Ma's View:
Yes, at any moment you felt that Stalin could extinguish her life just as readily as he would crush a cockroach - the moment she could no longer relieve his pain would be her last. Marina Hands captures perfectly the anguish of a loving wife forced to pretend to her husband that she is having an affair with a 'high official' in order to protect him, then hearing Stalin read aloud the report on his torture which revealed that indeed he knew nothing. The atmosphere of tension and suspicion in the whole society is vividly depicted - in her workplace, she is threatened with reports and blackmailed for sexual favours; in her apartment building, neighbours threaten to report the noises of physical pleasure coming from her apartment as she and her husband try to conceive a child. What an incredibly stressful life - no wonder she could not conceive.
A great movie, extremely well done.
My score: 9/10
A film based on the last days of Stalin was difficult to pass up so it became another of our French Film Festival selections.
Marc Duigan directed this movie based on his own novel and managed to imbue the film with incredible tension. Anna, a young, beautiful and talented doctor who is happily married has a rumoured secret gift of healing using her hands. This makes her immensely popular with her patients and arouses jealousy in her colleagues.
When Anna is summoned by Stalin himself and told to use her powers to ease his suffering because all his previous doctors had been thrown into prison, she is drawn into his world and we see some of his sinister thought processes. Anna is played beautifully by Marina Hands and Stalin is played wonderfully by Andre Dussollier so that we actually feel some sense of empathy with him while recoiling from his ruthlessness and callousness.
Anna, at Stalin's "suggestion" as to how keep their healing sessions secret, agrees to leave her husband although she is not sure where she wil live. Stalin using a peculiar logic tells Anna that he is unable to provide her with an apartment as that would be using his position to provide advantage for friends and so he would be corrupt. He has an easier solution - have the husband arrested so Anna can continue to live in their appartment.
The tension developed as Anna is continually summoned to Stalin's chambers knowing that at any time and for any reason she could herself be imprisoned or worse gives a wonderful snapshot of the fear, mistrust and evil of Stalin's regime.
This is a great movie which left me stunned.
My Score: 8.5/10
Ma's View:
Yes, at any moment you felt that Stalin could extinguish her life just as readily as he would crush a cockroach - the moment she could no longer relieve his pain would be her last. Marina Hands captures perfectly the anguish of a loving wife forced to pretend to her husband that she is having an affair with a 'high official' in order to protect him, then hearing Stalin read aloud the report on his torture which revealed that indeed he knew nothing. The atmosphere of tension and suspicion in the whole society is vividly depicted - in her workplace, she is threatened with reports and blackmailed for sexual favours; in her apartment building, neighbours threaten to report the noises of physical pleasure coming from her apartment as she and her husband try to conceive a child. What an incredibly stressful life - no wonder she could not conceive.
A great movie, extremely well done.
My score: 9/10
SPECIAL TREATMENT
Pepe's View:
We chose this movie from the wonderful films showing as part of this year's French Film Festival for one reason - Isabelle Huppert. Isabelle Huppert is Alice, a high class prostitute who role plays and adopts a persona according to the fantasies of her clients. When beginning a "session" which always comprises 10 "treatments", Alice discusses dispassionately with the client what their needs are and what role she will be required to play and therefore what the fees will be.
However, she is tired of her life and professional calling and seeks psychiatric help.
The director/writer Jeanne Labrune then leads us on an exploration of the similarities between the two professions - both dispassionately deal with clients, negotiate fees, have a minimum number of sessions, offer "therapy" and solace to their clients and so on.
However, this is not very subtly handled - more labouring the point actually.
One of the psychiatrists, Xavier, played by Bouli Lanners is also tired of his profession and when his marriage starts to fall apart he tentatively investigates the services offered by Alice. She tries numerous characterisations with him to no avail until one character reminds him of his wife and he realises he is still in love with her and should try to mend his marriage. This parallels a scene where he provides great solace to one of his patients without actually saying or doing anything - Alice similarly does nothing for him sexually and almost accidently makes him realise the solution to his unhappiness.
This is an interesting film - one that is none too subtle and we never really feel great sympathy for the two leads.
Huppert is as usual first class but this is really a film that left me unsatisfied.
My Score: 7/10
Ma's View:
Yes, spot on Pepe but I liked the parallels between the two professions and the way both the psychiatrists and the prostitute were so business like with their clients and both so intent on plowing their money into antiques. It was interesting to see the psychiatrist with a problem of his own and I was expecting Alice to show herself to be better adjusted to reality than he was. I'm so glad that they did not have her "find herself" by helping out the "good" doctor who really was too saintly to be real but the happy ending did not really gel with the rest of it anyway. A very interesting movie, very well acted and filmed but a storyline that was strangely unsatisfying.
My score 6.5/10
We chose this movie from the wonderful films showing as part of this year's French Film Festival for one reason - Isabelle Huppert. Isabelle Huppert is Alice, a high class prostitute who role plays and adopts a persona according to the fantasies of her clients. When beginning a "session" which always comprises 10 "treatments", Alice discusses dispassionately with the client what their needs are and what role she will be required to play and therefore what the fees will be.
However, she is tired of her life and professional calling and seeks psychiatric help.
The director/writer Jeanne Labrune then leads us on an exploration of the similarities between the two professions - both dispassionately deal with clients, negotiate fees, have a minimum number of sessions, offer "therapy" and solace to their clients and so on.
However, this is not very subtly handled - more labouring the point actually.
One of the psychiatrists, Xavier, played by Bouli Lanners is also tired of his profession and when his marriage starts to fall apart he tentatively investigates the services offered by Alice. She tries numerous characterisations with him to no avail until one character reminds him of his wife and he realises he is still in love with her and should try to mend his marriage. This parallels a scene where he provides great solace to one of his patients without actually saying or doing anything - Alice similarly does nothing for him sexually and almost accidently makes him realise the solution to his unhappiness.
This is an interesting film - one that is none too subtle and we never really feel great sympathy for the two leads.
Huppert is as usual first class but this is really a film that left me unsatisfied.
My Score: 7/10
Ma's View:
Yes, spot on Pepe but I liked the parallels between the two professions and the way both the psychiatrists and the prostitute were so business like with their clients and both so intent on plowing their money into antiques. It was interesting to see the psychiatrist with a problem of his own and I was expecting Alice to show herself to be better adjusted to reality than he was. I'm so glad that they did not have her "find herself" by helping out the "good" doctor who really was too saintly to be real but the happy ending did not really gel with the rest of it anyway. A very interesting movie, very well acted and filmed but a storyline that was strangely unsatisfying.
My score 6.5/10
MY AFTERNOONS WITH MARGUERITTE
Ma's View:
Pepe didn't see this one due to a hockey meeting - and he missed a beauty!
This is a delightful story of Margueritte (with 2 t's because her father couldn't spell), a 95 yo lady who shares her passion for literature with an illiterate odd-job man, Germain, a gentle giant whose childhood bereft of affection has not taken from him his love of humanity. Gerard Depardieu is tailor made for the role, immediately winning our empathy and affection with his bumbling attempts to help, console, or cheer up his friends who for the most part make fun of him. Flashbacks to his childhood show that it has always been so - he bears the brunt of his single mother's resentment, his teacher's mockery and his fellow students' jokes. The one bright spot in his life is his girlfriend, Annette, who loves and accepts him just as he is; she wants to start a family with him but he feels himself unworthy to be a father, probably due to never have known his father, nor experienced a loving parent-child relationship with his mother.
Germain leads a simple life, growing vegies, doing odd jobs, going to the pub, taking care of his mother (even though she upbraids hims still!) and passing his afternoons in the park where he is on first name terms with the 19 pidgeons. It is here he meets Margueritte, played by 96yo Gisele Casadesus, with the consummate ease of the veteran actress that she is. Margueritte is an elderly lady whose work as a scientist has taken her all over the world and as she shares her love of literature with Germain, his vision and understanding of the world begins to expand as does his confidence and belief in his own worth.
The only fault I could find in this movie is the age difference between Germain and Annette - she seemed far too young for me to believe she would be madly in love with this fat, balding 50 something labourer - and Departdieu actually looks older than that. She looked no more than 25.
Nevertheless, this is a truly delightful, heartwarming story.
My score: 8.5/10
Pepe'sView:
I finally caught up with this movie on 25 April and I am so pleased I did. This is a wonderful gentle loving movie. The director, Jean Becker, has imbued every scene with incredible tenderness that the beauty and gentleness pours from the screen enveloping the cinema. There is not a scene in this movie that jars and the performance of Gerard Depardieu is absolutely wonderful. Margueritte is also perfect in the role and given her age is a living treasure.
The story follows Germain as he is the brunt of jokes by almost everyone in the town until he meets Margueritte in the park and she begins to share her ove of literature and wisdom with him. Although he cannot read himself he is able to visualise the scenes in the novels being read to him. His mother treats him woefully and his girlfriend who loves him wants him to father her child but at the beginning of the film he is afraid because he is unsure what sort of a father he would make. By the end of the film, he has been given confidence and been shown respect by Margueritte and increasingly by his friends so that he is excited when he is told that he is to be a father.
Yes, this is a feel good movie - but one with such class and sensitivity that I am happy to admit that I left the theatre with a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye.
My Score: 9/10
Pepe didn't see this one due to a hockey meeting - and he missed a beauty!
This is a delightful story of Margueritte (with 2 t's because her father couldn't spell), a 95 yo lady who shares her passion for literature with an illiterate odd-job man, Germain, a gentle giant whose childhood bereft of affection has not taken from him his love of humanity. Gerard Depardieu is tailor made for the role, immediately winning our empathy and affection with his bumbling attempts to help, console, or cheer up his friends who for the most part make fun of him. Flashbacks to his childhood show that it has always been so - he bears the brunt of his single mother's resentment, his teacher's mockery and his fellow students' jokes. The one bright spot in his life is his girlfriend, Annette, who loves and accepts him just as he is; she wants to start a family with him but he feels himself unworthy to be a father, probably due to never have known his father, nor experienced a loving parent-child relationship with his mother.
Germain leads a simple life, growing vegies, doing odd jobs, going to the pub, taking care of his mother (even though she upbraids hims still!) and passing his afternoons in the park where he is on first name terms with the 19 pidgeons. It is here he meets Margueritte, played by 96yo Gisele Casadesus, with the consummate ease of the veteran actress that she is. Margueritte is an elderly lady whose work as a scientist has taken her all over the world and as she shares her love of literature with Germain, his vision and understanding of the world begins to expand as does his confidence and belief in his own worth.
The only fault I could find in this movie is the age difference between Germain and Annette - she seemed far too young for me to believe she would be madly in love with this fat, balding 50 something labourer - and Departdieu actually looks older than that. She looked no more than 25.
Nevertheless, this is a truly delightful, heartwarming story.
My score: 8.5/10
Pepe'sView:
I finally caught up with this movie on 25 April and I am so pleased I did. This is a wonderful gentle loving movie. The director, Jean Becker, has imbued every scene with incredible tenderness that the beauty and gentleness pours from the screen enveloping the cinema. There is not a scene in this movie that jars and the performance of Gerard Depardieu is absolutely wonderful. Margueritte is also perfect in the role and given her age is a living treasure.
The story follows Germain as he is the brunt of jokes by almost everyone in the town until he meets Margueritte in the park and she begins to share her ove of literature and wisdom with him. Although he cannot read himself he is able to visualise the scenes in the novels being read to him. His mother treats him woefully and his girlfriend who loves him wants him to father her child but at the beginning of the film he is afraid because he is unsure what sort of a father he would make. By the end of the film, he has been given confidence and been shown respect by Margueritte and increasingly by his friends so that he is excited when he is told that he is to be a father.
Yes, this is a feel good movie - but one with such class and sensitivity that I am happy to admit that I left the theatre with a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye.
My Score: 9/10
THE AGE OF REASON
Pepe's View:
Sophie Marceau as Margaret, portrays a high powered executive who is turning 40 and totally focussed on her professional life and lover. When a notary from her childhood village turns up at the office with a bundle of letters, she is perplexed and annoyed at this interruption to her schedule. The letters turn out to be written by Margaret herself at the age of 7 (the age of reason) and given to the notary with instructions to deliver them to her 40 year old self.
The letters confront Margaret with her provincial childhood which she had tried to hide from her present role, even assuming a completely different history and name and they reveal all her hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future.
Directed by Yann Samuell, this film had so much promise and is directed with great skill - the scenes of the past are interwoven beautifully - but unfortunately it seemed to slide into romantic idealism. The scenes where she relives her love of her childhood and in particular her love for her childhood sweetheart, while lovely, dwell far too much on the romantic. The letters keep coming and eventually she contacts her childhood sweetheart and invites him to meet her in a tourist cave to see if their love could be reignited.
It seemed to me that the premise is that we all have childhood dreams of what life will be like, and what we will achieve with our lives but the reality is very different for most of us. This idea was worth exploring but unfortunately the movie seemed to be afraid to confront this real issue. The ending of the movie was particularly disappointing in that, after Margaret had rejected her boss and her lover for all they stand for professionally, she is then miraculously reunited with her lover and they, it would seem, live happily ever after, Margaret using her skills to help underprivileged children while her lover continued his high powered career.
A movie that promised so much but delivered so little due to a confusion of themes.
My Score: 7/10
Ma's view:
I would have to agree. Sophie Marceau is gorgeous but a little one-dimensional and her English lover a little bit the same. The concept certainly had potential - how can we be true to our best selves in this cut-throat commercial world? Unfortunately, the letters from the 7 yo Sophie were somewhat unrealistic both in content and presentation i.e. it was hard to accept they could be written by a 7yo. On the positive side, they did evoke some lovely scenes from a childhood when all dreams seemed possible of fulfulment and it was heartwarming both for her and the viewers to discover that her childhood friend had stood firm in his values and pursued his dreams. The ending tried to have a bet both ways and would have been more satisfying and more French had she walked away from her current relationship as she did from her job to become the person her 7yo self had imagined she could become.
My score: 7/10
Sophie Marceau as Margaret, portrays a high powered executive who is turning 40 and totally focussed on her professional life and lover. When a notary from her childhood village turns up at the office with a bundle of letters, she is perplexed and annoyed at this interruption to her schedule. The letters turn out to be written by Margaret herself at the age of 7 (the age of reason) and given to the notary with instructions to deliver them to her 40 year old self.
The letters confront Margaret with her provincial childhood which she had tried to hide from her present role, even assuming a completely different history and name and they reveal all her hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future.
Directed by Yann Samuell, this film had so much promise and is directed with great skill - the scenes of the past are interwoven beautifully - but unfortunately it seemed to slide into romantic idealism. The scenes where she relives her love of her childhood and in particular her love for her childhood sweetheart, while lovely, dwell far too much on the romantic. The letters keep coming and eventually she contacts her childhood sweetheart and invites him to meet her in a tourist cave to see if their love could be reignited.
It seemed to me that the premise is that we all have childhood dreams of what life will be like, and what we will achieve with our lives but the reality is very different for most of us. This idea was worth exploring but unfortunately the movie seemed to be afraid to confront this real issue. The ending of the movie was particularly disappointing in that, after Margaret had rejected her boss and her lover for all they stand for professionally, she is then miraculously reunited with her lover and they, it would seem, live happily ever after, Margaret using her skills to help underprivileged children while her lover continued his high powered career.
A movie that promised so much but delivered so little due to a confusion of themes.
My Score: 7/10
Ma's view:
I would have to agree. Sophie Marceau is gorgeous but a little one-dimensional and her English lover a little bit the same. The concept certainly had potential - how can we be true to our best selves in this cut-throat commercial world? Unfortunately, the letters from the 7 yo Sophie were somewhat unrealistic both in content and presentation i.e. it was hard to accept they could be written by a 7yo. On the positive side, they did evoke some lovely scenes from a childhood when all dreams seemed possible of fulfulment and it was heartwarming both for her and the viewers to discover that her childhood friend had stood firm in his values and pursued his dreams. The ending tried to have a bet both ways and would have been more satisfying and more French had she walked away from her current relationship as she did from her job to become the person her 7yo self had imagined she could become.
My score: 7/10
PRINCESS OF MONTPENSIER
Ma's View:
We were very excited to be going to see a French period drama since we love such things in English so we were a not a little disappointed by this overly long and not very interesting love story set in 1562 during the wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants. Directed by Bertrand Tavernier and based on a novella (i.e. short novel!) by Madame de Lafayette, the movie tells the story of a young noblewoman, forced to marry the Prince of her father's choice and abandon the young man she loves passionately. She is torn between duty and desire but gives in quite easily in the end, influenced it seems by the romantic poetry she has been studying with her tutor (who is also in love with her).
The costumes are magnificent, the French scenery also and the historical background well-handled but none of these were enough to sustain interest during the 139 minutes of this movie which started at 8.45pm! Not sure if historical dramas are a French forté!
My score: 6/10
Pepe's View:
Why is it that directors and screenplay writers have come to the conclusion that more is better? This movie was at least an hour too long. Coming as it does from a short novella, I think I could have read the whole novel in its original form in the same time it took to watch this incredibly boring movie.
A period drama set in France at the time of the Protestant wars did not even have the advantage of being factual. It is simply a story set in an historical perspective. The costumes and setting are magnificent but the story is a 15th century soapie. I did not care at all about the characters who fought, contrived, argued and plotted to win the hand of the Princess. The princess, played by Melanie Thierry, was cast I began to think simply because of her amazingly blue eyes (probably coloured contacts anyway) as her ability to successfully portray the princess was negligible.
This was a singularly disappointing movie - so much so we chose not to see the other late night period offering at the festival - Nannerl, Mozart's Sister - as I don't think that period drama is the forte of french cinema.
My Score: 5/10
We were very excited to be going to see a French period drama since we love such things in English so we were a not a little disappointed by this overly long and not very interesting love story set in 1562 during the wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants. Directed by Bertrand Tavernier and based on a novella (i.e. short novel!) by Madame de Lafayette, the movie tells the story of a young noblewoman, forced to marry the Prince of her father's choice and abandon the young man she loves passionately. She is torn between duty and desire but gives in quite easily in the end, influenced it seems by the romantic poetry she has been studying with her tutor (who is also in love with her).
The costumes are magnificent, the French scenery also and the historical background well-handled but none of these were enough to sustain interest during the 139 minutes of this movie which started at 8.45pm! Not sure if historical dramas are a French forté!
My score: 6/10
Pepe's View:
Why is it that directors and screenplay writers have come to the conclusion that more is better? This movie was at least an hour too long. Coming as it does from a short novella, I think I could have read the whole novel in its original form in the same time it took to watch this incredibly boring movie.
A period drama set in France at the time of the Protestant wars did not even have the advantage of being factual. It is simply a story set in an historical perspective. The costumes and setting are magnificent but the story is a 15th century soapie. I did not care at all about the characters who fought, contrived, argued and plotted to win the hand of the Princess. The princess, played by Melanie Thierry, was cast I began to think simply because of her amazingly blue eyes (probably coloured contacts anyway) as her ability to successfully portray the princess was negligible.
This was a singularly disappointing movie - so much so we chose not to see the other late night period offering at the festival - Nannerl, Mozart's Sister - as I don't think that period drama is the forte of french cinema.
My Score: 5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
