Films you've seen lately

[Belgrove]

Expecting historical accuracy from a Hollywood movie is bound to lead to disappointment. Ian and I agree that Gladiator II is not worth going to see, but for different reasons, first and foremost being that it didn’t need to be made, it doesn’t improve upon the original, rather it merely rehashes it. Scott’s Napoleon of last year was also historically inaccurate, but it failed principally for containing bad acting and a bad script. Two duds in a row is not a good legacy for a director with a previous strong record for making innovative and genre changing films. Perhaps he needs the money?

[MickyD]

Just seen the latest Clint Eastwood film "Juror #2". An interesting court case story, well acted and I take my hat off to Eastwood to be directing so well at the grand age of 94.

[richardfinegold]

The Call of the Wild, starring Harrison Ford. It’s been years since I’ve read the Jack London book, which exists on two levels: An adventure story and London’s interest in Social Darwinism and Nietzche. Any the movie seemed like a reasonably faithful interpretation

[Ian Thumwood]

I do not necessarily agree that films are always inaccurate when dealing with history. Some are better than others but I find my expectations are lower with American films. It is interesting how historical films reflect their times , the prime example being the Errol Flynn Robin Hood which had a subtext concerning the rise of Nazism. This is still my favourite film.

I think that a lot of our conception of Roman history actually comes from Hollywood. Films like Spartacus are embedded in the brain. If you wanted accuracy, the morality of 4he characters would be very different from our own in so many aspects. Roman history is fascinating and the appeal for me is that the more you read , the less you understand. I am not convinced a modern audience would accept the reality as accurate.

I agree that Gladiator 2 was a waste of time. I am quite intrigued by later antiquity which becomes very wierd yet am not sure I have seen a film about 4th to 7th century.

[smittims]

I was impressed by 'No Bears' , by Iranian auteur Jafar Pahani. Set in the present day, it's about an Iranian film director whose film is being made in Turkey (as it would be illegal in Iran) so he is lodging in a village near the border were he can communicate with the crew and actors via smartphone and laptop. As the film progresses we find that the actors are going through the same problems as their characters, trying to move to the west with forged passports , so it's a sort of 'mirror within mirror film' .

Despite this , I was relieved to find it's not 'politically-preachy' but often amusing , especially where the main character's modernity collides with the ultra-traditionalism of the villagers, whose lives are utterly ruled by centuries-old conventions of behaviour. For someone who has only lived in England and speaks only English it was quite a horizon-broadening experience.

[Dave2002]

We had our Grandson for a sleepover about 2 years ago and a younger colleague with kids raved about Paddington 2, which rented. It was very good and my wife watched the first Paddinton movie after we returned him home

Paddington 3 is very good, but makes more sense following the earlier films. Chances are that most young people may not spot the references to other films - Indiana Jones and others for example.

A few days back saw the Red Shoes remake [remastering] on TV. Mostly very good - and the shots of London and Paris in the late 1940s were definitely of interest.

[richardfinegold]

My grandson watched The Call of the Wild (with Harrison Ford) with us and loved it

[johncorrigan]

I decided to take a visit to see the Wim Wenders film 'Perfect Days'. Koji Yakusho plays a toilet cleaner in Tokyo. In the film we see him go through his daily rituals from getting up to going to work to photographing trees to eating to going to bed. Very little happens in this film - I thought it was wonderful - I found myself immersed in Hirayama's world. It also made me think of great performances by actors in Wenders' films...Harry Dean Stanton, Bruno Ganz, Natasha Kinski spring to mind. Koji Yakusho's performance is the most enjoyable performance by an actor that I have seen in many a year. The two hours flew by.

It was my birthday a couple of weeks ago, and because I had been going on about how much I loved this film since I saw it back in March, my daughter bought me the DVD. We sat down to watch 'Perfect Days' on Saturday evening and I was immediately delighted to be drawn back into Hirayama's world. It is a beautiful film with a wonderful central performance by Koji Yakusho, and was just as memorable a second time round.

[smittims]

Thanks for that. I must look out for it. I'm a big fan of that sort fo film (I like Ozu Yasujiro especially).

[kernelbogey]

I just saw Perfect Days at our Film Society on Tuesday and thought it was superb. I agree with what John writes about it. Although it's true that 'very little happens in this film' a great deal is hinted at without being explicit in the narrative. Koji Yakusho's performance is extraordinary - he won best actor at Cannes.

Regrettably, I have seen only one other Wim Wenders film, a neglect that I intend to rectify soon. The guy giving the introduction to the showing on Tuesday said that there is a body of opinion that this is his best.

[johncorrigan]

The guy giving the introduction to the showing on Tuesday said that there is a body of opinion that this is his best.

I've seen four or five of Wenders' films and always enjoyed them, which was why I was determined to see 'Perfect Days' in the first place, kb. I have seldom enjoyed a film more than it, and I think it's Wim's best. I encouraged a number of people to go see it and all seem to have been delighted that they did. My next task is to look for other films that Koji Yakusho is in...I am sure there are other delights waiting in his back-catalogue.

[johncorrigan]

We saw Conclave yesterday. I had been looking forward to it but I hadn’t realized until the opening credits that it was based on a Robert Harris novel and the disappointment continued throughout.
The acting is generally excellent. Ultimately there wasn’t much required of Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow and so it’s Ralph Fiennes and some of the supporting actors that carry the story.
The score was doom laden and portentous. We hated it.
The “Bad Cardinal” like all Harris villains, is a trope and difficult to perceive as a threat because he is so uncomplicated. The Harris plot twist is interesting is implausible.
Ultimately this is an Agatha Christie story. Have a plot contrivance that forces a group of individuals to be isolated and pressed together under pressure and wait to see bad traits emerge under pressure.
It was entertaining but hardly essential

Perhaps I benefited from never having read any of Harris' books, nor having seen any films based on his work (I just had a look), but we thoroughly enjoyed 'Conclave' when we saw it last night. I thought it looked great and really enjoyed the acting, though as you say, Richard, it's Fiennes who holds the whole thing together. One thing that kept coming in to my mind was how much Isabella Rossellini was reminding me of her mother. Very entertaining trip to the pictures.

[vinteuil]

... we thoroughly enjoyed 'Conclave' when we saw it last night. I thought it looked great and really enjoyed the acting, though as you say, Richard, it's Fiennes who holds the whole thing together. One thing that kept coming in to my mind was how much Isabella Rossellini was reminding me of her mother. Very entertaining trip to the pictures.

... yes, same here : we went on Saturday and loved it. Beautifully photographed too (gorgeous frocks for the curia) - they must have had such fun constructing 'their' (quite believable) Sistine Chapel, and the choreography of the cardinals (loved the white umbrellas... ). An oscar for Ralph Fiennes, please

[richardfinegold]

We saw Bonhoeffer. As one would expect given the subject matter it is an intense experience. The acting and cinematography were excellent. As is the Hollywood norm the historical accuracy isn’t perfect; the timeline is all over the place, his fiancé is completely absent; and while Bonhoeffer was kept out of the planning of any of the assasination plots against Hitler, he is depicted here as being in the nuts and bolts; and the movie actually understates the degree to which the Abwehr (Canaris is completely missing as a character) saved some German Jews; and many other historical liberties.
On the positive side the movie did an excellent job portraying the split between the Nazified traditional Lutheran Church and the Confessional Church of Niemoller and Bonhoeffer. It also treated a man of faith as a serious subject, something all to rare in the cinema world

[smittims]

Having read the novel some time ago I was interested to see the recent TV showing of Wuthering Heights (with Peter Davison as the narrator). As so often with adaptations of novels, I wondered why they felt it necessary to change the events so much , but since they always do this I'm past caring.

I was puzzled by the curious and complex relations of the characters, i.e. who is whose child? The geneaological table in the Penguin Classics edition was so helpful that it enabled me to interpret the novel in a way that the film failed to do. It really is a masterpiece of symmetry and almost symphonic form .

Does anyone know Bernard Hermann's opera ? I wondered if he had appreciated this aspect of the novel.