Bewertungen

I liked this film in so many ways, but at the same time found it contrived and an old fashioned film comparable to the heyday of Hollywood tear jerkers. The acting extremely good, and the conflict still with Germany's past and Israel now quite possibly believable. The story is over complex and long drawn out. A Jewish man meets a German man in Berlin in the German's cafeteria. Love develops over a Black Forest cake and after a few months the relationship ends as the Jewish man rather conveniently dies in a car accident. End of Gay loving and in my opinion implausibly the German goes to Israel and coincidently the bereaved wife also has a cafeteria and the German settles in and works for her. Then in true Hollywood fashion an unlikely passion develops between the German and the dead man's wife. End of spoilers except to say that the ending is whatever you think it might be. That said the acting is excellent and the film is very quiet and easy to watch and the music could have been made for a Douglas Sirk weepie. To me this was all that heaven allows indeed.

Oren Moverman has directed one of the finest films that has come out of Hollywood in recent years. This is my opinion and I hope time will tell for it to be seen for what it is, an adaptation made in the USA of a Dutch novel, and appropriately it is set in the USA. The terrible crime that is committed during the film could take place anywhere and no spoilers but it is utterly appalling. Richard Gere, Steve Coogan, Rebecca Hall and Laura Linney ( in one her best roles ) set up a dinner of extreme luxury, which is in itself an emblem of their wealth, to discuss the killers who happen to be their respective children. Flashbacks of past experiences are shown so as to flesh out their characters more fully and both are again I believe essential, one at a memorial to the battle of Gettysburg and the other in a classroom where Steve Coogan rages at the loss of lives, and also at the loss of history that creates so many deaths. For these telling scenes alone the film is extraordinary and imaginatively filmed. The open ending is debatable but it worked for me, as it can only show that the reasons for the crime will never go away in our society as it stands, and the chaos of this ending is thrown back at the audience like a mirror. I will watch it many times and already it is among my most treasured films. I thank the director and the brilliant cast and their acting for their commitment to this film.

The gruesome premise of this atmospheric and well made film is not all that it seems to be, and there is a lot of black humour which adds to the brew. No spoilers but it is very enjoyable to watch, and the acting is good. Jim Bachus stands out because of his voice, and this too adds to the cruel joke of the whole plot. It is short and there are no inessential scenes and William Castle is in my opinion a good director and this film made his name as he sold it so well to his audiences with gimmicks that no one would fall for now, The funeral at night in the falling rain with the screen full of black umbrellas is a highlight scene and so is the final revelation at the end which I did not see coming, The credits at the end in my opinion are more explicitly horrific than the action scenes. I was surprised that children could see it in the USA as in the UK it had an X certificate for adults only. Basically it is a mystery film with Film Noir black and white photography. I recommend it and some scenes can still disturb sensitive viewers,

This in my opinion is a truly awful film, and pales before the original musical that i saw in London at the same time as I saw the original production of ' The Boys in the Band. ' Both were fresh as paint and totally fresh, and both failed on the screen. In this film John Savage and Treat Williams do their best, and recently I watched Savage give a brilliant performance in Konchalovsky's ' Maria's Lovers, ' but here he looks as if he wonders why he is in the film. Unlike the nudity and rawness of the musical, which had a lot of sexual diversity this Milos Forman mistake gives us coy choreography, interiors of homes to backup rather banal ' stories ' and safely avoids the sight of a penis. It was also made far too late when the 70's were preparing for the pandemic years of the 1980's. In truth he did not know this, but there is a staleness of sexual revolution about the film which again in my opinion shows. The one credit is letting black actors have a few scenes and words, but dare I say it this is a travesty of a vibrant stage musical, unilike any other musical before it. An utter dud.

This film can be seen on YouTube, but had subtitles I barely understood, so clearly I missed perhaps the intention of making this film. What I saw was a country impoverished and the first part shows a lot of desert and detritus to be found in it. As we go forward people appear, but there was the same distanced feel from who they were exactly and what was the political situation they were in. We are all victors or victims of our society but Herzog in my opinion shows little interest here in the perhaps conflicted world they live in. As a director I have seen his most famous films and hallucinations abound in them, and of course Klaus Kinski added to this vision. It is not my view of the world, but I respect him as a director. And to be honest the only film of his I have enjoyed is ' Nosferatu ' which I found deliriously funny. But not a patch on Murnau's film which filled me with serious dread.

I loved this film back in the so-called ' innocent ' days of the first years of this century. I bought the ending with its clear gay message and I believed in it, and no doubt the audiences of the time watched in dismay seeing Louis Garrel and Gregoire Leprince Ringuet kissing passionately and sort of naked in bed together. With the charming songs it became successful, but the poster portayed a totally straight film with a man and two women. I cannot kind of forgive this marketing but was France ready for such a film that was supposedly a 21stc ' The Umbrellas of Cherbourg ' ? It seems it did, and the heterosexual first two parts of the film ( a weepie this ) dominated. Nothing more tragic than an unhappy ending to a straight threesome ( man and two women. ) I also on second viewing did not believe in the passion between Garrel and Ringuet. The acting passable, and only the song between the two on a Paris rooftop still moves me now- and yet although I give it a deserved 8 out of 10 I needed to step back and watch it with older eyes.

In the UK this film is to my knowledge unknown, or avoided. It is a hymn to life during the appalling pandemic that hit the world in 2020. This film shows how a group pf actors who practically live in the theatre where they are rehearing ' Guermantes ' a play based on part of Marcel Proust's ' In Search of Lost Time. ' During two hours and twenty minutes we see them rehearse, relax, sleep and love each other despite the fact that the play could not be put on due to lockdown. Their devotion to each other is incredible to watch, and there is a scene where an elderly woman is dying in bed which surpassed for me a similar scene in Ingmar Bergman's ' Cries and Whispers.' Both homosexuality and heterosexuality intermingle as they should in ' real ' life and at one point there is an astute comparison with the pandemic of the 1980's where so many died of another world wide pandemic. There are scenes of a semi-deserted Paris that for me was heart breaking to see. I urgently feel that this film deserves the distribution it should have beyond the confines of France and perhaps other countries with less indifference to Christophe Honore's work and arguably his most committed film.

Maybe I don't get this film, or exactly what it is trying to convey. First it is divided into three parts, and for me the first was the best and I found it witty and accurate in its dialogue, and very well acted by a sparring couple ( comparable to many 1930's comedies; an awful lot can happen in a lift!!. ) The lift is there and the late Charlbi Dean and Harris Dickinson know exactly how to use it. The two would be lovers squabble over money and a thirties title came to mind, ' The Rich Are Always With Us. ' Wit could have carried this film through, but in the second part with a luxury yacht at sea and the very rich on it ending up in a communal vomit bath and a grenade bomb it lost in my opinion its way. For those who have giddy or panic attacks avoid!! The third is set on an island where a woman called Abigail, who was the toilet cleaner on the ship takes on forcibly the role of captain. No spoilers but this seemed to me very heavily played out to a conclusion that left me baffled. Did this film really deserve the highest award at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival ? I was disappointed by ' Force Majeure ' and I have not seen as yet ' The Square. ' Ruben Ostland is in my opinion great as a director, but so far that I have seen in a very fragmented way. Perhaps ' The Square ' will make me change my mind.

Nicolas Roeg, the director of this film made several very fine films and ' Bad Timing ' is a masterpiece. Given the chance to direct it for television he does not quite succeed with Tennessee Williams fine play ' Sweet Bird of Youth. ' A previous film was made with Geraldine Page and Paul Newman. Page was excellent and Newman less so and the ending was deeply compromised. To Roeg's credit he gives a brilliant ending and the surgical instruments and the scream behind the door does the filmed play justice. Mark Harmon is arguably better in the role of the expensive gigolo ( that's what they were called back then!! ) than Paul Newman; more handsomely jaded and convincing. And in my opinion I could see his conflict between selling his body and the passionate romance within him for a lost love. Rip Torn is also excellent as the corrupt politician whose daughter is ' soiled ' by her previous contact with Harmon's Chance Wayne. As for Elizabeth Taylor as Alexandra del Lago, who is on the run from screen stardom she does it her way, less over the top than Page but for me utterly successful in her interpretation. Sadly with all this acting talent Nicolas Roeg allows various drafts of the play instead of the final version, and lessens the outstanding dialogue considerably. As I said only the ending really hits the spot, and in my opinion his use of overlaid music is terrible and the camera does nothing particularly interesting. I have no idea why he wanted to direct William's drama. I do not think he was in tune with it, but the actors were and they deserved better. Once again Elizabeth Taylor proved what a great actor she was when given the opportunity to shine, even in the hands of a director who half way fails in the project.

A little girl after a murder ( no spoilers ) is asked what a murderer means her reply is ' someone wot gets hung ' and in my opinion this is presented as pure manipulation to the audience for that to happen. This film is grossly manipulative and despite its patronising dialogue of poor people in the 1950's it is I feel full of stereotypes. Dirk Bogarde plays the murderer and Jack Warner is the policeman he kills in a state of panic. The area, now mainly torn down and ' renovated ' in West London is finely conveyed and the best part of the film. When the film is not sentimental about poverty it seems to me to convey that the poor should always be under supervision. A dated film that has a few comic moments due to the late Dora Bryan. There is a scene with Bogarde's seventeen year old girlfriend is extremely violent and unpleasant, and there is absolutely no compassion in the film for her downward spiral into criminality. Tessie O'Shea sings for those old enough to remember her. She cheered me up along with Dora Bryan.

From the director who made one of the finest of Italian films, ' Fists in the Pocket ' I found this mid-1970's film uninvolving. It starts with a long sequence of a young soldier being bullied to the state of exhaustion, and the same soldier continues getting bullied. As a condemnation of the military it is arguably well observed, and it is always good to see Franco Nero performing well as one of the army leaders. His growling, handsome face is always good to watch and he is the stand out performance in this ( for me ) rather uninvolving film of repeated macho bad behaviour. Women too in this film are equally abused so it is not only one sided. One particular heterosexual sex scene I found unpleasant, and sometimes I sensed a repressed homosexuality but so vague as to be negligible. No spoilers to the ending, but I had by that time become rather bored with the collective and in the main bullying straight men enjoying their power.

In some quarters this film is considered dated, but after just seeing it I saw how relevant it is and perhaps always will be. It also has two of the major forces in the whole of cinema, Nicholas Ray the director and Humphrey Bogart the actor. Ray was concerned a lot by the turmoil of youth, and ' A Rebel Without A Cause ' proves that. That film can never be topped, but this heart breaking film comes close. Without the distraction of colour he shows how a youth is put on trial for murder, and it is in the penultimate scene where Bogart pleads for mercy for the youth, showing that society as it was then, and arguably is now, collectively responsible for the way we live, and puts a judgement on certain courts of law. John Derek, who is the youth on trial was never better and his courage at the climax of the film where he combs back his hair before facing a blaze of light is one of the most moving gestures on screen. A drama that exceeds itself and becomes a great indictment and a great film.

This has to be one of the worst films I have seen recently. And Stanley Baxter as a clumsy Scot is almost unbearable to watch. As one reviewer said it is a transitional film from the 1950's to the Carry On films that dominated crude comedy for years. Baxter falls in love with a green car called ' The Fast Lady ' which as a come-on in itself would have drawn the audience in. He also falls for Julie Christie and unbelievably she falls for him, despite James Robertson Justice as her ever irritable father objecting. He is in my opinion the best actor in the film, cool in his humour and makes the poor dialogue believable. I would like to generous but I cannot find the words to be so.

Having watched this dreary film I sadly fell on the side of coincidence. Jacques Perrin ( saddened by his death in 2022 ) asks this question in a class full of students. Destiny gives meaning, coincidence does not. The opening shows that, in my opinion, where the urge to live from newly born birds is accidental. Many eggs fall to their oblivion, while a pushy one survives. No spoilers about the ' story ' of this film, and only to say that the various people in it make endless useless telephone calls, and walk out on each other without so much as a goodbye, or maybe I missed some better means of communication. I found the three sisters involved in this circus of lack of meaning boring to watch, as the film is covered in a darkly coloured oppressive gloom. Everyone in the scenario is well off enough living in Paris and I found no excuses for their inward looking selves. Carole Bouquet excels as a mute mother, but her beauty is dismissed by giving her a permanent scowl, white hair that looked like a wig and a passion for listening to stories about cannibalism and how long you can live without a head - the latter being a chicken. To sum up this film is negative to the point of boredom and in my opinion dourly directed. Since it was made in 2005 the world has moved on to an outer hell of the world being engulfed in killings and wars that should have given us all a deeper sense of being in hell.

I have to admit that I got half-way through this film and gave up. In black and white was a good idea, as we do not always need colour with Shakespeare, but saying that I found little colour in the acting. It all takes place in a neutral looking home ( with equally neutral exteriors as well ) and it is clearly America. Not only did I find the acting unstimulating but the American accents got in the way. I also found one sexual scene near the beginning too Alpha Male for me and realised that heterosexuality to be very predictable when it comes to, let us say. Positioning. I love the play but the play needs more than just a normal American household to convince and when the wonderful ' Sigh no more, Ladies, sigh no more ' song was delivered I literally winced at what I saw. A common place party with two women on a sort of trapeze. I am not a purist with Shakespeare, but wondered how he would have thought of it. I liked the actor who played Beatrice, but did the actor who played Claudio have to show of his buffed chest ? Good intentions and I am sure they were are quite simply in my opinion not enough.

I have just seen this great film and in my opinion it is one of the best films I have ever seen about a gay relationship. Everything is pared down to two people who are striving to connect, but fail to do so. There is warmth in one, apparent coldness in the other, and strive though they may the blending of both warmth and coldness is not possible. Counselling cannot help and these scenes are amazingly filmed and finely acted; but then again it did not seem like acting but truly' being ' in the heart of the roles. 2024 have produced some same-sex films, and some have flirted with homosexuality, or fitted it out with violence so as to get straight audiences in. I presume this was an Independent film and it is there, and only there, in my opinion, that homosexuality is being treated as being equal to heterosexuality and what the world calls normal. The ' being in the roles ' of the two men was phenomenal, and great direction as well. As I watched I thought of Bresson, of Rohmer, and Philipp Karner in this film is equal to them both and the lack of manipulative music was absolutely right. Made in 2015 it should be a classic. Many films since then have dealt with same-sex relationships, and with a few exceptions, pale in comparison. And why did neither Bresson or Rohmer attempt to show this equality ? I leave the question open.

In my opinion this is one of the most debatable films that Hollywood ever made, and in my life I have watched it three times. A lot has been said about Paul Newman's performance, and it is a great performance. I also feel for the role of the sister-in -law that Anne Francis plays, and it compounds my long convinced belief that she was one of the finest actors that Hollywood ever had. Both actors have a warmth that I do not find in the other characters, and I find Walter Pidgeon wishing his son dead appalling. There is pathos in the suffering of witnesses against Newman's behaviour in Korea, but sadly I do not find much compassion towards Newman's mental breakdown. But it is the ending I dislike the most. Ambiguity in this situation is no excuse, nor high minded speeches. Above all what were the expectations of the audience at the time ? What sentence did they wish for ? If it was the death penalty were the creators of this scenario afraid of the reaction to this ? Or that collectively it would be endorsed by most in 1956 ? For me this is a troubling thought and Newman's mumbling ( were his teeth tortured ? ) speech at the end shows for me that his body and mind is beyond repair. Society it seems is not willing to help repair it.

I expected little from this film, but after watching it I felt deeply moved by it. First I must mention the two young leads; Sean Lynch and Beth Rogan. Both of them showed, in my opinion, great promise as both give excellent performances. Lynch plays a young man from a disturbed family background, and in a sense of revolt towards society becomes a petty criminal. Released on bail me meets a young woman played by Beth Rogan, and they fall in love. This may sound banal but the intensity of their love for each other means everything to them, and by a misunderstanding of theft Lynch once more turns to crime as he needs money for them to marry. No spoilers but many scenes are set to Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, which somehow raises the film to another level. I am sure at the time it was a risk to use this music without it being tampered with or distorted, and it succeeds. The ending is overwhelmingly moving and I wonder why this fine film is not better known. A lot is played out in the last of the 1950's years, and it is evocative for those still alive in remembering those London streets, now so radically changed. Above all I regret that the two leads are no longer with us, and also a deeper regret that they arguably were not given even more equal cinematic chances to show their worth. In my opinion a minor masterpiece in film making.

After having reviewed a current violent film I have just watched an unpleasant, but well made Western from 1953. It was given a ' U ' certificate in the UK with cuts, but this information of cuts is now currently not available. The plot is about a group of criminal soldiers who are sent out to fetch two captured women. Vera Miles has a thankless part of one of them who want to marry the chief of the Native American tribe. The soldiers are led by Guy Madison, who had presence but not much ( in my opinion ) acting ability. Gordon Douglas directs well, but then in whatever genre he directed well. Even ' flat ' the 3D effects stand out, and the standout scene is of a man spitting twice at a snake to ward it off. This is not a film for children, as the violence is unremitting. A young man is shot three times and no spoilers but I found the film slightly repellent. Douglas was a tough director and also made the sadistic ' The Fiend Who Walked The West, ' and this is only a little less uncomfortable to watch. Max Steiner hammers the music at the audience, which shows that even sound can hit hard.

Having seen this film I do not see how or why it has been put into the category of being a thriller. The suspense is watching how two people cross almost impossible barriers ( mainly caused by our society's homophobia ) and become lovers. Yes there is revenge in this loving, but this too is fed by society and its prejudices. There are two horrific physical attacks both instigated by frustration as one of the lead characters cannot accept his homosexuality. A black man who is also a drag artist is beaten up and the man who beats him, and forgets that he has done this is a former imprisoned criminal, and astonishingly during the duration of what we see a love story develops between the attacker and the attacked. No more spoilers but the two leads are perfect in their roles and so is the direction perfect. I saw the film as a queer ' Romeo and Juliet ' where two people have their own Montagues and Capulets, and how these opposing sides are enemies as well as being friends. It is definitely not a sad gay/queer film and there is at the end a yellow hoodie birthday gift that signalled that their need, however perverse in the eyes of the politically correct, would continue for each other. A film of beauty and a brutal tenderness despite heteronormative values that neither of them deep down want to follow. A great, great film.

Although I have given the film a full ten I am troubled by certain aspects of it. Bresson is a great director, and yet why do so many of his ' models ' ( he refused the word actor ) look so beautiful ? He seems to sexualise them without sexualising them, and this occurs quite often in his austere work. There is not one sexual scene in ' L' Argent ' and yet I was distracted by the physicality of the actors and their desirability. Then there is the violence and the final twenty minutes left me numb with shock, and the film has a certificate ( PG -parental guidance ) when in my opinion it should have been much higher. For example, and no spoilers as to why, a killer is stalking his victims with an axe, and a crippled child in his bed is crying out knowing the killer is coming for him. The total impact of the film on me was one of total despair as it probably shows that money, counterfeit or otherwise is destroying us as human beings. And the destruction is relentless with Bresson's open and closed doors and his concentration of the slightest gesture without any melodrama, but shown as a universal tragedy. The voices neutral and few smiles, and the ' model ' Christian Patey gave one of the finest performances I have ever seen on film. A film that deserves repeated viewings, and trying to bear my initial shock I hope to feel a numbness towards what I am seeing. Is that high praise or a subconscious disgust towards the film rising to the surface ?

This in my opinion is one of the greatest British films ever made. The cast is excellent, and Alistair Sim is superb giving a presence of light and shadow in every word he says and every gesture he makes. The story itself is well known, based on the J. B Priestley play and it translates well to the screen, basically because the close ups of faces which is not so possible in the theatre. A young woman has taken poison and an inspector calls to interrogate a family on the knowledge of her existence. This family represents our larger family in society and the cruel revelations of their responsibility towards a weaker member who is less well off than them. The dead woman is abused by three of the men and equally abused by the women associated with them. The genius of Priestley is in showing this interrogation around a dinner table with flashbacks to the injuries they have inflicted. In short those in power dominating those with little power, and leading to no power to survive. The play is set in 1912 but it as relevant today as it was then. No spoilers but the mystery of this inspector is left unrevealed, and for those who do not know the ending it is justly chilling. I have watched this film many times for all its nuances, and there are many of them. My only criticism is that the card of sexuality as a weapon is not explicitly portrayed and the power games not played out more frankly, but censorship was very strong in both the theatre and the cinema back in 1954. Despite that we the audience read between the lines, and how easily human society can turn rotten, and gladly willing to be so. Essential viewing.

This film has excellent dancing, a few good songs and little else in my opinion that is of much cinematic worth. Fred Astaire gives a colourless performance, but then the poor script was not in his favour. The opening number with George Murphy was excellent, but as George Murphy was gone from the screen and Eleanor Powell took over I wondered why I was watching this trivial scenario. In short George Murphy falls for Eleanor Powell and dancing together the screen lit up. Astaire gets sort of jealous of Murphy and it is downhill all the way. Eleanor Powell falls for Astaire and I felt sad for Murphy as I thought he was better in this film than Astaire and had a more rounded character than the leads. I give it four as it has its moments, but in my opinion it is no classic. The song ' Begin the Beguine ' is lack lustre and I waited for the film to end.

I like this film a lot and the acting is believable and in places deeply moving, as well as being funny. It does not pretend to be anything else but a gay film and there are no deaths, no ambiguities. It is what it is a film that depicts a crisis in a relationship, and as well as partly messing up that relationship a dating site actually helps two lovers get back together, or tries to. No spoilers but despite it being sometimes thin on production values it follows a simple and often surreal path including a pink diner and a woman ( Morgan Fairchild ) whose sole purpose seems to be to help gay men. She likes them, and only regrets they do not leave tips for her services. This scene is as hallucinatory as several others, as the frustrated lover played well by Houston Rhines gets into a tangle with a lot of diverse men on the Cupid dating site who want him. And they are diverse; potential lovers who do want love and others who don't. One of them ends the film in a short scene that made me realise that gay men do not have to give in to gym like physiques. A film made in 2011 it shows how imaginative simplicity on gay issues can work better than more mainstream or quasi-arthouse films that wallow in sadness or chic ambiguity.

Yves Allegret is noted for a handful of fine films and this one should fall into that category of excellence. Perhaps due to its controversy in France in 1957 it has somehow disappeared. Robert Hossein has just got out of prison and he wants to be top man of a ring of gangsters. He murders both one of the top men who has replaced him and his wife and Antonella Lualdi ( excellent in her role ) sees him disappear from the scene of the crime. She tells the wrong man, one of the gangsters waiting for Hossein, that she could recognise him. She is mugged, bundled into a waiting car and held hostage in a Paris brothel. Alain Saury who plays her wastrel of a husband returns to their apartment and finding her gone is instrumental in attempting to bring the gang down. This is typical James Hadley Chase territory and the film is based on his novel ' Miss Callahan Comes to Grief ' which was initially banned in the UK as this version of his novel was initially banned in France. There is a lot of brutality in the film, and perhaps Lualdi's graphic attempt at suicide was the cause of the controversy. I can see no other. It is a relatively short film that does not let up in pace, and uses its underworld Paris of the 1950's very realistically. It is also at times deeply moving and the childish nature of the gangsters is shown by Hossein's love of train sets, and like a child he loves to play with them. No spoilers but the toy train symbolically shows how life in this gangster world reaches its terminus, and Allegret shows this brilliantly. Shown on television to my knowledge the film has not been released on DVD, It is not too late to rectify that.