Change Your Image
funky_dunc
Reviews
L'étudiante (1988)
A Lesson in Pleasant French Fun
L'Etudiante is a film that centres around the relationship between a student teacher called Valentine (Sophie Marceau) and an ambitious but unsuccessful musician named Ned (Vincent Lindon).
Valentine is an exceptionally dedicated student, who thinks of nothing but passing her exams, which, quite unsurprisingly, has a big effect on her relationship with Ned. Ned is frequently tormented by this fact, and also that his relentless touring does not help the relationship either. The film follows them as they try to overcome these problems and settle into a life together.
Like most French films, L'Etudiante is quite dialogue-heavy. Very little actually happens in the film and most of the scenes are of the main actors talking, whether that be in flats, cafés, restaurants, cars, beds, trains or the streets of Paris. And, as is also true about most French films, it is the quality of the acting that sees this through. Lindon is highly entertaining as Ned. He portrays perfectly the man with great ambitions but not the ruthlessness needed to fulfil them. His down-to-Earthness is the perfect contrast to Marceau's highly-strung Valentine. Marceau gives an excellent performance. We've all known workaholics who put their personal success before everything else. Often we see these people as cold and unemotional but Marceau is the opposite and shows Valentine to be as human as anyone else helping us to understand what is driving her.
Again, as is also often the case in French films, there are a number of constant irritations in the picture.
Often, especially at the beginning, the director seems to just want to look at Marceau. She's very attractive but the constant goddess-like adoration does get a little waring. Fortunately, it calms down a bit by the second half of the film. A common gripe at French films is that the dialogue can get a bit precious at times. This is certainly true of L'Etudiante. When I was a student, I rarely fell out with people because of their opinions on social anthropology, political philosophy or career options. Perhaps Parisian students do. And finally, Marceau does spend quite a few scenes au naturale. This is not an unpleasant sight but,personally, I found it to be a little unnecessary.
L'Etudiante is a good French film for people who don't watch many French films. It won't change your life but it does provide you with an insight into commercial French cinema and will definitely keep you entertained for a couple of hours.
A Bridge Too Far (1977)
A film too good
A Bridge Too Far tells the story of Operation Market Garden, a campaign dreamed up by Montgomery to take a series of bridges over the Rhine that would allow the Allies to invade Germany's industrial zone and thus end World War Two by Christmas 1944.
Suffice to say the mission failed and A Bridge Too Far deals mainly with the failed attempt to take the bridge in Arnhem, Holland.
The film is typical Richard Attenbourgh. It has the feel of David Lean: long shots, dazzling cinematography and an epic length (over four hours). The film also features one of the most stellar casts ever. A virtual who's who of 'seventies cinema, plus a few of Dickie's luvvie mates (Olivier, Bogarde). Admittedly most are not in the film for very long but all make an impact. This is especially true of Robert Redford as he crosses the Rhine shouting "Hail Mary, full of grace!" The two standouts though are Sean Connery and Anthony Hopkins. Connery fully convinces us that he is Roy Urquart, a battle hardened general, a million miles from 007. Hopkins is truly outstanding as a stereotypical British colonel fighting a losing battle. He shows the arrogance and self belief of the officer class and its hard to believe that he went onto be Hannibal Lector.
The film offers an unrelenting view of war. Attenborough pulls no punches. The film has no Saving Private Ryan style effects but somehow is more powerful for having less gore. He also makes sure everyone involved, British, Americans, Poles and Germans, gets an equal amount of treatment. There is none of the trite patriotism that exists in other war films here.
A Bridge Too Far is perhaps the ultimate World War Two film. No glorious victories, no petty heroism, just a clear document of the reality of warfare.
Thunderbirds (2004)
One for the kids
I was a big fan of Thudebirds when I was a kid and I imagine if I were eight again I'd be a big fan of this film. My parents, who remember the original showing of the programme tore it to shreds but I think its unfair to do so.
The plot is silly but the film is good fun. I think the problem many people have with the film is that they have forgotten Thunderbirds was for children, not adults, and subsequently the film is the way it is.
Alan, Fermat and Tintin are all likable enough. Its interesting to see an inter-racial romance in a Hollywood film, especially one aimed at children. Ben Kingsley and his gang of villains all have a great time hamming up their parts. Lady Peelope and Parker are both true to the original series. The rest of the Tracy's don't get a lot of screen time but frankly they're all pretty dull so there's no great loss to the audience.
I do have a few problems with the film. The aforementioned Tracy brothers are all pretty boring. They seem to be there to give the film a beefcake presence, presumably to appeal to mothers taking children to see this. Also, the Ford motor company receives product placement that is a little too obvious in this film. I also think that more could perhaps have been made of the Alan/Tintin relationship.
These are minor gripes though and ultimately its a film that anyone under the age of about eleven will enjoy.
Die Another Day (2002)
Utterly Atrocious
Die Another Day sees Pierce Brosnan, once seen as the new Connery, become the new Moore. In fact, this film is so farcical that I'd be surprised if Rog would even think about appearing in this.
The premise is good, North Korea is an 'axis of evil' country so having a villain from there keeps Bond in with the times. And the idea of taking a different approach in a Bond film by not letting us in on the villain right away is one that could be repeated in the future. Berry and Pike are also pretty sexy whilst Brosnan does his usual turn.
However, everything else is terrible. Bond's adventures were always meant to be improbable but not impossible. Somehow I think this was lost on the producers. Invisible cars? Iccarus? Why not go whole-hog and have Bond fight cyborgs as this seems to be where they want to take the film.
Madonna makes an absolute idiot out of herself, both in song and in performance. Surely getting Shirley Bassey in would have been a more appropriate way to celebrate the 40th anniversary.
CGI this bad is frankly embarrassing; whatever happened to stunts? And this I will never forgive: the film contains parts that are practically adverts for Ford, Sony Ericcson, Omega, etc. I appreciate this is how you pay for films but guys, please do it subtly.
All in all pretty awful. Bond did this before in Moonraker. let's hope next time the producers take it back to basics and remember Bond is why we go and see a Bond film. If we wanted to see a film like this we'd watch XXX.
Lost in Translation (2003)
A masterpiece
Lost in Translation tells the story of two lost souls, one an aging film star played by Bill Murray and the other a newly-married graduate played by Scarlett Johansson. Both are stuck in emotional torture because of neglect by their respective spouses and both are suffering from insomnia in a Japanese five-star hotel. These common-bonds result in the two of them forming an unlikely, but electric, connection in the hotel bar. The pair then take in Tokyo together, their friendship developing brilliantly but they are never being able to take it one step further.
This is perhaps the best 'indie' film of the 21st century so far. The acting is superb and Coppolla's smart script and even smarter direction put the characters across brilliantly. Ultimately the film's biggest asset is the subtlety of its stars' performances and the subtlety of its direction. This subtlety made it a let down for many people. The film was marketed as a kind of slapstick, lighthearted rom-com and admittedly the moments with the Japanese ad-men are utterly hilarious but the film is a character study. I remember expecting the former but being surprised, and delighted, when I found it to be the latter.
Its a triumph for all involved. Anyone who doesn't feel moved by the 'goodbye' scene clearly has no heart, the acting is outstanding. Coppola's tight direction, and good use of music, ensures that the film never drifts into schmaltz and that real emotion is what carries us through the film.
I feel sorry for all involved that Return of the King came out in the same year. If the Acadamy knew their arse from their elbow The Two Towers would have got the trilogy's Oscars, allowing this to clean up in 2003.
Ali (2001)
Nothing like the real thing
Its right to say that this film is underrated but there is a good reason for the disappointment many felt with it. This problem is that though Smith is excellent in the role, thoroughly deserving his Oscar nomination, there's nobody on Earth who can ever be as interesting as the real Ali.
For instance, the way in which the Rumble in the Jungle affair is recreated is highly impressive but watch "When We Were Kings" and you realise that the reality was so much better.
Overall then a good film hampered by the fact that it deals with living-legend subject matter.
Who Dares Wins (1982)
Sheer British Entertainment
Who Dares Wins is possibly the most right-wing film ever made in the UK. The film is virtually an advert for Thatcherism and the Conservative party. This however give it a unique status among UK films.
Most British films are about class, isolation, unemployment among other such themes that show the uglier side of British life. WDW is totally uncritical of the way Britain is and instead concentrates on giving us action. On this it delivers. The action is British, no one-liners or glorification of killing. The SAS are portrayed as what they are, professionals with a dirty job. In this the film is pretty realistic.
What is not realistic is the idea that a hard left group would actually encourage a nuclear bombing. However, many of the other reviews criticise the film because it suggest left-wing people are a threat. These people have forgotten that at the time the NUM, CND, NGU and the Labour Party were dominated by people bent on violent action. The idea that they could try to attack government itself was plausible at the time, even if it wasn't particularly likely.
I wish that more British filmmakers out there would give us pure escapism, which is the intention with WDW, instead of endless social commentary. Whilst there is a place for Ken Loach/Mike Leigh/Danny Boyle et al, there is also a place for nonsense like this.
WDW is escapism. It does not challenge us all it seeks to do is entertain us, and it does this pretty well.