Cinematique libraryperilous: Admission free!

Welcome to my film review thread. Watching films—and then thinking about them—is one of my favorite hobbies. I am armed with a Criterion Channel subscription and ready to view and review some old favorites, vault finds, and new favorites.

I watch mostly 30s-40s Hollywood and 50s-60s foreign films. I also enjoy superhero crash-bangers and rom-coms.

You're welcome to screen your favorite films here, too.

Grab some popcorn and soda. Perhaps you'd prefer Sno-Caps or Dots? You can even smuggle in your own snacks.

The cinema now is open!

This is mostly not in the range of what I usually watch, but I'm looking forward to hearing about movies I'm not familiar with.

>1 libraryperilous: "Here's lurkin' at you(r thread) babe!"

Nice idea for a thread! Will be watching this one.

Ooh, great idea! I look forward to reading your musings on film this year.

Sounds interesting. Pass the popcorn!

What a great idea!

Welcome, all, and thank you for joining my screenings! I had hoped to have a film review ready to go today. Alas, I binged a season of The Great British Baking Show instead.

>2 Karlstar: I hope you'll find one or two that pique your interest—or that I at least review them in interesting fashion.

>3 pgmcc: You're lurking swell, Dolly!

>6 Narilka: Buttered and salted, or just salted?

Buttered and salted :)

Excellent idea! I will lurk until you start posting. I had actually considered starting a viewing thread of my own this year; is it OK if I join yours?

I also found the Helmet Film Challenge for 2021 and, despite failing to complete the Helmet Reading Challenge for 2020, I intend to try the Film Challenge as well this year.

>9 Narilka: The best kind ;)

>10 -pilgrim-: Absolutely! I look forward to your reviews. And, of course, if you decide you want to do your own thread, I will pop over to it frequently. Thanks for the Helmet challenge link. It has a good mix of prompts, so I'm excited to use it as a way to pick some of the films I screen this year.

Review away, everyone, even if I haven't yet. We're all film festival coordinators here!

Pilgrim's 1st film of 2021:



Yolki (Ёлки) (2010, Russian)
Dir.: Timur Bekmambetov - 4.5 stars

Helmet Film Challenge 2021:
#20 - a film that takes place within 24 hours
(also #3)

This is still the holiday season, and I wanted to watch something both appropriate and light. But neither was I in the mood for something too saccharin; this fitted perfectly.

Set on New Year's Eve, and with a segment in each of the 9 time zones spanned by the Russian Federation, this is a portmanteau film telling seven stories.

The first concerns a girl in an orphanage in Kaliningrad, who has invented herself a father, whose "business trips" are based on the reported movements of the President of the Russian Federation. When the other children realise this and challenge her, Varvara rashly claims that the explanation is that her father is the President, but she is "not allowed to talk about it". The children demand, as proof, that "her father" include a particular message in his New Year address to the nation (a national institution, comparable to the Queen's Speech in the UK). Vova, another little orohan, is determined to save Varvara from humiliation by making this come true.

The alternative English title for this film, Six Degrees of Celebration, refers to Vova's plan: on the basis of the theory that only six degrees of separation exist between any two people, he rationalises that the request can be got to the President through six phonecalls. It is these phonecalls that link the various concurrent stories, even if some of the connections seem rather strange: how did Lyosha the petty thief come to be friends with Boris the successful businessman?

I loved this. Most, but not all, of the little stories are romances, but they keep taking unexpected turns. Although, just before the end, it looks as if several characters are heading for disaster, this is a "comfort movie" with happy outcomes for everyone. But what actually happens was frequently unexpected, and there was a lot of gentle humour (and not too much slapstick) on the way. And even the solution to the initial problem is not what one would expect. Given how Russia's migrant workers are often treated, the centrality of the Tajik character is surprising - although perhaps less so, given the director is also from a Central Asian former Soviet Republic. Particularly touching was the choice of Baimurat Allaberiev (aka "Tajik Jimmy" in a rôle so close to his own original experience of Russia.
Many characters are played by well-loved Russian actors, and I was particularly impressed by the performance of young Sergey Prikhodaev as Vova.

(And who plays the President of Russia? One D. A. Medvedev!)

I can see why it has spawned a multitude of sequels.

Helmet Film Challenge: #20, #22

>12 -pilgrim-: Oh, this sounds like a delightful film, and one suited to your viewing needs.

Interlinked stories can be hard to pull off. I think having a bit of an outlandish aspect to the through line often, paradoxically, makes the overall story stronger (and, therefore, easier to suspend disbelief when watching.)

Thank you for kicking off our film festival with such a great review!

>13 libraryperilous: A couple of further points:

it seems to be making a deliberate attempt include all social classes. (Yes, a not so subtle message saying "we all celebrate New Year" - even if for some it's an elaborate party, and for another it's a MacDonald's Happy Meal! But a little propaganda for unity and inclusiveness as a nation is hardly something to complain about.)

what I really like is that the "happy outcomes" are all small, and therefore more attainable-seeming things: the orphan didn't get wonderfully adopted - but she did not get humiliated by her lie (and realises that she is not alone in a hostile environment, since she has a real friend in little Vova), the cabbie with a crush on a pop star did not get a Happy Ever After with the woman of his dreams - but he did get a date with her for New Year's Eve, and so on They are dreams that makes the viewer go "Well, maybe..." not "Nah, only in the movies". It makes the suspension of disbelief for the fundamental unlikelihood of much of the plot easier, somehow.

I would recommend this to anyone who needs a dose of people being nice to each other at this time - no big gestures, just little ones adding up...

I reviewed the sequel Yolki 2 here - it really needs you to have seen Yolki to make sense, so I was not sure about making a separate entry here.

BTW Ёлки (Yolki) are New Year Trees (i.e. like Christmas trees, but to celebrate the New Year instead).

Film #3:


Zog (2018, English)
Dir.: Max Lang - 3 stars

This beautiful little animated short was commissioned by the BBC and first broadcast on Christmas Day 2018. It is based on the children's book by Julia Donaldson and retains the structure with a rhyming narration (by Sir Lenny Henry).

Max Lang, of Magic Lights Animation, also illustrates his wife, Suzanne Lang's books, and is perfect at bringing Zog and the rest to life. (He and his wife wrote the script.) They resemble their book versions very closely, and the whole thing is bright and colourful.

I liked the plot, which is based around the "princess is stolen by dragon and rescued by knight" concept - as seen from the dragon's point of view.

There is no nastiness here. Zog feels pressure because he is really keen, not because of anyone being horrible to him.

This was a welcome little break to "embrace my inner child", and take a little escape from life's realities.

I recommend it.

Helmet Film Challenge: #4, #22, #31

Ahhhh! I love Zog! This is one of my favourite of the animations made of Donaldson's books. I also like Room on the broom.

Film #4:


The Prestige (2006, English) - 4.5 stars
Dir.: Christopher Nolan

This was such a superbly acted and compelling film that I could forgive the few, minor period inaccuracies.

It was a compelling study of obsession. As might be expected from a story about two stage magicians who are rivals, there are many twists ("turns") in the plot. But the film does not cheat - as with a good magician, the clues are all there; the director just attempts to misdirect by taking the viewer's attention away from them, or implying that the point was something else.

It has been a long time since a film has held my attention so well, and I enjoyed it immensely.

I deliberately avoided everything about this film when it first came out, so as not to accidentally have any prior information to spoil it. Nevertheless, I had seen the signs implying one major turn. MAJOR SPOILER: I am not sure how I feel about the science fiction aspect of the other, but I liked that the film faced squarely the moral implications of it.

NOTE: I would recommend not looking behind any spoiler tags in this review unless you have already seen this film. I wanted to be able to discuss the points with those who have, but they WILL impair a first viewing.

This film was well-acted - one of the joys was the subtly different performances that enabled me to tell the brothers apart - sumptuously filmed, well-researched, compelling, and more than just eye candy.

So why not 5 stars? Well, when you look back over it, there were plot holes.

When did the twins decide to live a single life? Alfred's comments that Robert has no idea of the meaning of sacrifice, and his immediate recognition of how the Chinaman did his trick, make it clear that they have been doing this since before Alfred and Robert met.

But the sentence is pronounced in the name of "the King" i.e. King Edward VII, therefore post-1901. So Alfred is not old enough to have been born prior to 1837, when compulsory birth registration in England began. It would seem implausible that neither Cutter nor Algiers checked. (It is also unlikely that Borden's extremely broad London accent was faked. Such a lower class accent would have been detrimental to his career, yet he does not lose it as he rises in society (as most successful Londoners did). Which implies that this is a fakery he is not capable of. )

Is it plausible that the Borden parents concealed the birth, and how many sons they had? Why should they? If it was ever known Alfred had a twin, how could he convincingly get rid of him?

Algiers' diary implies that he put the revolver handy in order to kill himself if he materialises spliced, mutated or otherwise damaged. Yet Robert 1 immediately kills Robert 2 after he materialises, despite knowing from the cat & hat experience that duplication is to be expected. This suggests that Robert always intended to kill "his duplicate", and is lying in his notes. But the "No - wait!" from Robert 2 implies that he was not expecting this (or at least, does not want to die).

So when Robert 1 performs the trick, and goes on stage, he knows that Robert 2' will kill him. Why is Robert 1 so willing to perform on stage, knowing that he will not survive (and so on, and so on)? Is this a death wish to "pass" peacefully - "like going home", as Cutter described it - and rejoin his wife? That does not fit with the response of Robert 2 over the revolver.

Robert seems to be confused, with his "will I be in the box or the balcony?". He seems to think he is playing Russian Roulette, and not understand that both are equally him. Does he not understand Tesla's explanation?

And a further point to ponder:

Did Alfred tie the new knot or the usual? He claims not to remember, which seems to me implausible. If he had, he would have been agog to see how much better it worked, and prove himself right. The Alfred who attended the funeral may genuinely not have known because his brother tied the knot. But the claim not to know in the diary is probably disingenuous, because it is intended for Algiers to read.

My first guess at an explanation for the dual personality for Alfred was some sort of multiple personality disorder. Certainly one twin has a taste for cruelty towards his brother's wife. Did one twin also murder his friend's wife?

Why did Alfred-in-prison at one point decide that his daughter would be better off with the mysterious lord than with her own father? Is that another instance of cruelty?

The fact that I have so many questions is itself a recommendation for the film, in this case.

Helmet Film Challenge 2021: #32, #38, #46

>17 -pilgrim-: Great movie. The book by Christopher Priest is also worth a read.

>18 ScoLgo: I have been tempted, since seeing the film. Do you think that having seen the film will spoil the book for me?

>19 -pilgrim-: I saw the film first and still enjoyed the book immensely. I have found that reading a book after seeing the adaptation works better for me as it allows me to explore the finer details of a story while having the movie in mind. Of course, books related to movies that suck (subjectively) generally don't make it onto my TBR list. But more often than not, I end up liking the book better, or at least equally as well. Occasionally, there is a Forrest Gump experience though, (loved the movie / disliked the book). With The Prestige, I thought the book was better - and I mean that as no disparagement of the movie, which I also really enjoy re-watching. There is one thing the film has that the book lacks: David Bowie... ;-)

>17 -pilgrim-: That was a terrific, if dark, movie. My daughter and I watched it together in the theater, an hour later we watched The Illusionist and loved it in a completely different way.

We talked about many of the points you raised at the time and came to some very dark conclusions about the men, and especially about the character Hugh Jackman played. He is one of my heartthrob, David Bowie being another, and there is nothing wrong with Christian Bale, either.

I did read the book after the film, but I would have to look up my review to remember what I thought about it.

>21 MrsLee: That is interesting. I agree that both men are chilling, but I find the Christian Bale character the darker.
Robert is motivated first by revenge for the murder of his wife - the "I don't know" response being sufficiently unbelievable for it to be reasonable for him to think it murder.
And then by a peculiar obsession to
a) make his wife's sacrifice "not in vain"
b) create the perfect magic trick,
with possibly an extra helping of death wish, as mentioned before.
But the brothers have willingly sacrificed their own, and each other's lives - for what? They do not get the same pleasure from the show, and the audience's reaction; it is repeatedly stated that Alfred is the better magician, but Robert the more successful because he is the better showman - he is the only one interested in the audience experience, as opposed to the technical aspect.
One brother cuts off the other's fingers - could you do that to a sibling you loved?
And his behaviour towards his brother's wife is cruel, not only to her, but to his brother.
Is he a psychpath?

I find Borden to be the darker of the two, myself.

Out of curiosity - given the conversation about the zoo trip - how much do you think the daughter knows?

It appears I am in a minority having read the book, The Prestige, before watching the film. I enjoyed the film but enjoyed the book a lot more. The book had extra story elements that the film could not include for time constraint reasons. I felt the film was simply a sample of the book.

As I have stated before I have managed to get into the frame of mind where I judge the book and film as separate entities. Both are worthwhile. As with any book, it can go into more depth than a film.

While having enjoyed the film it is not a film I feel any inclination to watch again.

>23 pgmcc: After watching the film, I was already tempted to seek out the book. I last read Christopher Priest in the early eighties, with A Dream of Wessex, and had been unimpressed, but you two are convincing me to try him again.

>20 ScoLgo: If I am intending to do both, I usually try to read the book first. A film can never represent a book, because it has to oversimplify, due to the differences in time constraints. However it can provide an interesting take on the themes. But there are too many mediocre versions of good books to use film interpretations as a filter, I think.
e.g. The Name of the Rose (with Sean Connery) is a perfectly good historical thriller, but the book by Umberto Eco is about something completely different.

>24 -pilgrim-: I gave the book 4 stars, which means I enjoyed the experience very much. I am putting my review in spoiler tags in case you or anyone does not care to read it and risk any reveals.
First of all, I loved the movie by this name, the slow build and the horrific conclusion, the tension between the characters and how you felt for each of them, yet by the end were horrified of both.
Well the book is all that, times ten, and yet, an almost completely different story. It carries the feud beyond the two magician's lives onto their descendants. We begin by meeting a young man who has been adopted and isn't much interested in his family history. However, it soon seeks him out in a way he cannot ignore. From there, we go into the past, reading the journal of both Borden and Angier. Slowly, slowly a picture begins to emerge, but is it trustworthy? These men built their careers and lives on illusion, can we trust what they write in their journals?
The end brings the puzzle together, and yet, the story is still untold. I spent most of the night going over it again and again in my head, and will probably think about it for some time to come. Wonderful escape.

>25 MrsLee: I think you have made it a definite BB hit.

Film #5:


Snowden (2016, English) - 4 stars
Dir.: Oliver Stone

For most of the film Edward Snowden is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, during the final scene he is played by Edward Snowden i.e. himself. There fact that it took a few moments for the switch to register is testimony is to how well Gordon-Levitt captured not only his subject's appearance, but his mannerisms as well. It was an excellent performance.

Oliver Stone had a reputation for making strongly political films, and this certainly makes no attempt at balance. He is clear that Snowden is a hero for his actions, and everyone else is simply wrong - not corrupt, just wrong.

Given Snowden's appearance in the film, one must assume that he approves of this biography.

I am not in a position to judge how accurate this film portrays the man and his actions. And this is an extremely political film, so I would break pub rules to try to discuss it.

The following remarks are based on the film, solely considered as a drama.

The messages seem to be:

Idealists will achieve the most, because they are the most motivated of all employees. But the flipside is that, of they decide that you do not conform with their ideals, they will apply that same selfless zeal to serve those ideals, not you. If you hire idealists, make sure that your ideals are the same as theirs.

To be a patriot means to love one's country and, implicitly, be prepared to make sacrifices in its service. If two people of the same nationality are both patriots, they can assume that they share the same ultimate goal. They are foolish to assume that they necessarily share the same willingness to employ the same means, or even the same subsidiary goals.

The technological nature of modern warfare, both cyber and "hot", is in itself dangerous. It desensitises those who operates in that world. It creates an environment where normal people do bad things, without being consciously aware of their choices.

It is hell to be in a relationship to anyone with a secure job. Obviously they cannot talk about it, so they will always be emotionally distant, since there is nothing going on in their lives that they cannot share.
If you try to have a career of your own, it will continuously be sabotaged by the need to subordinate it to theirs, because their work is of "greater national importance" - and this is something that they alone will make the decision on, as they cannot give you the facts that you would need to make an objective decision yourself.
On other hand, if you just give yours up and follow theirs, they will patronise and deride you, because your concerns are trivial compared to what is occupying them.

I liked this film as a plausible portrayal of geekdom. There is less silliness around computers then there is in most Hollywood films- although there is certainly some. The thing in the corner of Hank's room is certainly NOT a Cray 1. I visited one in the early eighties, and it took up the entire room! I liked its portrayal of a genius who is not "weird", but not "just an everyday joe" either, since he is capable of seeing patterns and implications where others do not.

Apart from a rather slimy field operative, willing to destroy innocent lives in search of a promotion, there are no "bad guys" in the course of this film. Very bad things are done, but they are done by people who are trying to do the right thing. (And who these are may differ, depending on your political views.)

In these times, when it seems normal to regards your opponent as your enemy, it is a healthy reminder that your opponent may not be a "bad guy". They may simply be wrong. (And not evil.) This film is partisan regarding Snowden, but it never demonises his opponents.

The only thing that made me slightly uncomfortable was near the end, where it is implied that some of Snowden's colleagues in the NSA guessed what he was doing, and supported it. If this is invented, it is disingenuous, if true, then it is putting people at risk simply to bolster one's own image. (I know the characters are fictitious, but the implication will still have our extra pressure on any colleagues who used to hang out with the actual Edward Snowden.)

Helmet Film Challenge: #1, #2, #25
(Oliver Stone was 69 when her filmed it, is now 74)

Film #6:


Wilde (1997, English) - 3.5 stars
Dir.: Brian Gilbert

I have very mixed feelings about this film.

Firstly, I should say that I think Oscar Wilde was brilliant. I thoroughly enjoyed The Importance of Being Earnest, which I first saw performed when I was about ten, and was deeply moved by reading The Ballad of Reading Gaol when I was in my teens. Anyone who has that range, from social satire to a beautiful, poetic, description of the frailty of humanity has a great talent.

Secondly, Stephen Fry's performance is superb. Not only is it great at the level of a portrayal of Wilde in all his mercurial mannerisms and wit, it is also a performance of great tenderness and emotion.

The problem with the film is that, as a biography focuses on the actual life of a real person, as opposed to his art, then it has a responsibility to the truth.

Its implication that Oscar truly loved both his wife and his boyfriends is probably true. It seems that, as he stated, he was in love with youth, and whoever possessed youth (and beauty). He became physically "repelled" by his wife after she had their second child, and only then moved out to lodgings he could share with Lord Alfred Douglas.

There does seems double standard here: would a director expect us to sympathise with a middle-aged man who leaves his wife with two young children, because bearing his children had damaged her body, in favour of living with a younger, and still beautiful, mistress?

The film very much takes the tone that Wilde's infatuation with youth and beauty, in accordance with his aesthetic ideals, makes his behaviour understandable. To that end, it casts very good-looking young men as Wilde's lovers (and with quite a lot of shots of them in various stages of undress). This is evidently intended to appeal to the aesthetic sensibilities of the viewer (since the 40 year old Fry does not appear najed).

But this is disingenuous. From Wilde's own statements, he admired "Greek love" - the romantic attraction between an older man and a boy (whether sexually consummated or not).

The actors who play Wilde's "beautiful boys" were 28 and 25, but Robbie Ross and "Bosie" Douglas were 17 and 22 respectively when they began relationships with Wilde (Ioan Gruffudd is the only actor the same age as his character, John Gray.) The rent boys, as portrayed in the film, are also all quite clearly adults.

Normally such slight age discrepancies in casting - and which often arise when a high quality performance is needed in the portrayal of a young character - would not matter, but here I think it does. The film shows Wilde quite clearly being seduced by Ross and Bosie. But a 17 year old infatuated with a brilliant older man is quite a different thing to one adult making a pass at another.

The film's focus is on the injustice of punishing a man for what two consenting adults do in private.
But although that is the crime of which Wilde was convicted - he was actually convicted of "gross indecency", a rather vague offence involving sexual activity with another male - that is not the actfor which he was convicted.

Wilde was convicted of sexual activity with male prostitutes, some as young as 14.

- The age of consent (for heterosexual sex) was 16 at the time of his trial.
- The age of (homosexual) consent was 16 at the time this film was made.
Both Wilde and the filmmakers would have understood that sex with a fourteen-year old was underage. This was paedophilia.

Of course, the allegation as to a poor boy's apparent age may not have been true. But this IS part of the conviction, and hence of the public reaction towards Wilde; it is disingenuous to alter ages so as to imply that the issue was purely homosexuality.

Reducing the trials from the actual three to two - although necessary for dramatic purposes - also distorts the reality of public opinion. The first trial of Oscar Wilde failed to convict, as the jury could not unanimously agree on his guilt. (The "renters" who testified against him all had something to gain from it.) Also, he was charged with "gross indecency" rather than "sodomy" (which had a maximum penalty of life imprisonment), which suggests that, even in official circles, there was no uniform intent to destroy. (The prosecutor was himself adverse to the second trial, saying that he thought Wilde has suffered enough.) In a drama that did not claim to be based on real people, this would not matter. But reputations still depend on how this is viewed. Yes, Oscar Wilde suffered horribly in prison. But would a convicted paedophile fare so much better now?

Another aspect of the changing of the ages is that is detrimental to how we perceive Bosie. He is self-centred, self-obsessed and frequently cruel to his lover. But such petulant behaviour is far more understandable in an abused boy, terrorised by a violent father, than in a young man even a few years older. He is spiteful, mean and petty, because he did not know how else to be. Such an interpretation is out into Wilde's mouth in the film, but its impact is undermined by the self-possessed performance by a beautiful, 25 year old Jude Law.

I don't think that Wilde was a conscious predator. There is no reason to deny the interpretation that Robbie Ross was the seducer - he was already known to be gay by the time they met. Wilde probably genuinely loved his "boys". They certainly took the lead in his relationships. But just because he felt such love does not automatically mean that he should have acted on it.

The bitterness with which Lord Alfred Douglas attacked Wilde in later life suggests that he did feel taken advantage of, at a time when he was uncertain of his sexuality. The fact that his elder brother was rumoured to have had a homosexual relationship with the Prime Minister, and the Marquis of Queensberry's reaction, makes it possible that his seduction of Wilde, and indiscreet behaviour regarding the relationship, were a method of wounding a hateful father, rather than necessarily truly reflecting his own orientation.

Wilde's rejection of partners as they aged seems to confirm that it was youth, rather than gender, that he was interested in. This was never about forming a homosexual bond with a peer. The "Greek love" concept of the older partner educating and "forming" a young one is dangerous; what the mentor would like the young person to desire may not be what is actually natural for them.

I admire Wilde's genius, and I sympathise with how much he suffered for someone he loved. But the film's equation of "Greek love" with homosexuality, in how it is portrayed, was disturbing.

This film is beautifully shot, and moving. But, as normalising middle-aged men having sex with teenaged boys, that only make it more troubling.

It has an overt message of "be true to yourself, regardless of the hurt you cause those you love". That is not a sentiment with which I can agree.

The Ballad of Reading Gaol argues that we all hurt the ones we love. Oscar Wilde, as the poet, never argues that this should not distress us, or that we should not pay a penalty for that.

Helmet Reading Challenge: #28

ETA: One thing that I felt the film handled really well, and rather movingly was its other message, in the comparison of Robbie Ross and Bosie: that the one whom one loves the most, and the one by whom one is loved the most, may not be the same person.

Zog sounds delightful! I'm intrigued by The Prestige, both the film adaptation and the novel.

It's been a while since I've posted any poems on my threads, so here is a trio of favorite film-themed poems:

"Why It Often Rains in the Movies"

"The Lights Go Down at the Angelika"

"Chaplinesque"

I am looking forward to reading about your film choices.

Film #7:


The Pirate (2012, Greek/Russian/English) - 4 stars
Dir.: Iannis Smaragdis

I was expecting a swashbuckler, but this not that. Instead it is a biography of Ioannis Varvakis, of whom I previously knew nothing. He started out as a pirate, harassing Turkish ships, and so people refer to him as such, fondly, throughout the film.

Varvakis was Greek, at a time when Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire. And he was persuaded by Alexis Lefentarios to help the Russians against the Ottoman Empire in order to "free Greece". His heroic action at the Battle of Chesma really took place, and is celebrated. But the Greeks did not rise and fight for their freedom, and Varvakis was imprisoned. Escaping execution, he made his way to the court of Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, who favoured him with a trading concession, and made him an officer in the Imperial Navy.

As a merchant, he is famous for working out how to export caviar - then a Greek delicacy: hence the Greek title of the film, God Loves Caviar.

I was inspired by the film to look up what I could about Varvakis' career, and found no obvious descrepancies. Most of the military figures with whom he interacts are genuine.

But the figure of Lefentarios appears to be fictional. He is a more shady figure, working first for the Russians, then for the Turks, and then for the British - always, he claims, in the service of Greek liberty. I think he is included as a foil to Varvakis' approach - although he stayed in Russia for decades, he is more straightforward, using his wealth to support his people.

Lefentarios, explaining to a British officer who his prisoner is, is one strand of narration. Ivan, a loyal servant of Varvakis, tells a different version to local Greek urchins. Both may or may not be accurate.

Around Ivan is the only definite historical inaccuracy that I detected: he says he was a slave until Varvakis freed him. Slavery was abolished in Russia by Peter the Great in 1723. ( Note: this was not a selfless act - slaves, not being people, cannot be taxed. Serfs can.)

But this may be an artifact of translation. The choices for the soundtrack of this film are rather odd. Being about a Greek national hero, who spent most of his career in Russia, it is not surprising that this is a Greek/Russian co-production. The director and most of the actors are Greek, although the three leading roles are played by a German, a Russian and a Spaniard. Some of the dialogue is in Greek, and some in Russian; but the majority is in English, even though (with the exception of Lefentarios' conversation with the British officer, who is played by John Cleese) all the conversations would have actually been in Russian or Greek. Maybe the idea is that because Lefentarios is telling part of the story, he is translating? But that would not explain why Ivan speaks English to the Greek urchins!

There was a slight sense of hagiography regarding how Varvakis was portrayed in his attitude towards women,worshipping his mother, andin the way Varvakis automatically assumed that it was his fault when cuckolded, and how he refused to let the prostitutes be denegrated, when in fact he abandoned his mother, wife and daughter, and - when his daughter followed him - made it clear that it was only his son that mattered to him. However it is understandable given the efforts the man made to free his country, and donating his vast wealth to aid his countrymen.

This was an intriguing slice of history, with good performances in the leading roles. And ultimately, a moving story.

Helmet Film Challenge: #13, #40

Film #9:

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982, English)
Dir.: Clive Donner

I am not feeling well, and finding it difficult to focus, so this was escapist fare, based on one of my favourite adventure novels. This version seemed to follow the novels by Baroness Orczy less closely than I remember the 1942 version with Leslie Howard doing. I say 'novels' because it includes plot elements from both The Scarlet Pimpernel and El Dorado.

The costumes for the 18th century aristocracy are beautiful, and I personally the think Jane Seymour to be one of the most beautiful actresses ever, so this is visually enjoyable. Anthony Andrews does splendidly as the foppish Sir Percy Blakeney, although his performance "in disguise" were risibly over-egged. Malcolm Jamieson, an actor whom I have never noticed before, made a gorgeous Armand St Just.

But what I found mesmerising was Sir Ian McKellen's performance as Citizen Chauvelin. He often seems to be portrayed as a rather cartoonish villain, since he is foiled so often.

By starting earlier than I remember the novel doing, with the first meeting of Sir Percy with Marguerite, the film sets up a love triangle, with rivalry between the English aristocrat and the French revolutionary - here Chauvelin is portrayed as having known, and been involved in revolutionary politics with Armand and Marguerite, for a long time, such that he believes he and Marguerite will marry eventually, although she is now nervous of him, and where his beliefs have taken him.

Sir Ian's acting is superb. Watching his face, there is so much that is not said, regarding his contempt for aristocratic foppery, his genuine belief in the revolution for the betterment of France and that the "stern measures" currently going ahead are necessary, his insecurity and his ambition, his jealousy, and his love for Marguerite - and his internal anguish when the two motivations of his life are bright into conflict.

It was his performance that lifted this from being an acceptable version of one of my favourite adventure novels to something I was glued to.

Actually I did not find the scene giving rise to the misunderstanding between Sir Percy and Marguerite will-handled - if I remember in the book, Marguerite IS responsible for denouncing the Marquis de St Cyr, but to people she trusted, and for a genuine act of treason. Revenge for his treatment of her brother was part of her motivation, but she did not expect the consequence to be fatal. Moreover, she herself confessed to Sir Percy.

By making the revelation (to Chauvelin) accidental - with him putting her name on the formal denunciation out of spite - the film exonerates Marguerite. But the cost of this is that her refusal to defend her action in this version, when publicly challenged, looks arrogant and wilful. It is pointless - all she needs to say is "that is a lie, I didn't do it", and her husband would then be a brute if he did not at least listen to her version of events.

Her actual guilt in the book makes her unwilling to engage in public debate; it is of course understandable that Sir Percy cannot risk asking her about her actions, because that would reveal that he in fact cares about events in France to someone who may pass that information to his enemies.

So by being unwilling to attribute any wrongdoing to its heroine, the film creates one of those irritating unnecessary lovers' quarrels, beloved of film, which have terrible consequences but could easily have been avoided if one party had not wilfully withheld vital information.

Marguerite then moping to Suzanne that she "does not understand" how she lost her husband's love makes her extremely stupid - "you were accused of murdering an entire family and did not deny it" would change most people's views of their spouse. Her apparent motivation, that he "ought to have leapt to her verbal defence regardless", makes her seem a spoilt brat, willing to destroy her relationship for the sake of testing it.

This is yet another example of where a scriptwriter, wishing to remove the less perfect aspects of a character, actually introduces more serious flaws. A woman, seeking revenge for a real injury done her brother, but misjudging the febrile atmosphere of revolutionary Paris, with horrific results, is understandable and sympathetic. A woman who does not defend herself from slander purely because she thinks her husband ought to love and defend her whatever she may have done, is petty, childish and stupid.

But I will forgive the film's sometimes ill-judged changes for the sake of the added depth it gave to Chauvelin.

It helps that this was made in the era when actors were taught to fence properly. The climactic duel is nicely done (even if the duelling sabres that they use would not have been sidearms for the military in that period and do not carry an edge, so that the button-cutting would be far more difficult, if only performed with the point!)

Helmet Film Challenge 2021: #40

Film #8:

What Dreams May Come (1998, English (American)) - 3 stars
Dir.: Vincent Ward
Screenwriter: Ronald Bass

Visually, this is a very impressive film. Its thesis is that Heaven and Hell are what you imagined them to be, and the lead characters are a painter and an art lover, so the Afterlife consists for them of finding oneself inside a painting - an excuse for some truly stunning visual imagery. It is nice to see CGI used for something other than explosions and violent spectacle.

But theologically the plot is weak. (By this I do not mean "I disagree with these beliefs" but "this does not make internally consistent sense".)

The premise is that Heaven is what you want it to be - "God is here, somewhere, but He doesn't get involved". Yet it is also stated repeatedly that this Afterlife is "real". So the lead character gets to see his children, when he eventually gets around to thinking of them - but not his wife, since she is not there. His children died in a car crash several years earlier. So, since they are in Heaven, why do they not get what THEY want? Why do they turn up in HIS Heaven, rather than him turning up in theirs? They state explicitly that they have been longing for him to actually pay attention to them, so that is undoubtedly something they would desire. People in this Afterlife are not spiritually perfected - although their body takes whatever form they want - they have the same personality as they did in life with all its flaws. So, what is the hierarchy of conflicting desires? If A wants to be with B, but B wants to be with his dog, whose "perfect world" takes priority?

I would add that calling this Afterlife a "heaven" seems a bit of a misnomer. When most religions refer to their concept of a heaven, the thing that it has in common is that it is a place of bliss and happiness (with cultural variations as to what such an environment would entail), but the people in the Heaven of this film appear just as anxious, insecure and unhappy as they were on Earth. Given that there is neither the practical presence of a deity nor anything that approaches a perfect environment envisaged here, it is unclear what makes this heavenly.

The question is relevant, because there is also a Hell. It is explained that there is no judging deity determining what your afterlife is like; it is a result of your own expectations - shades of Pratchett here.

And "this is why suicide is so terrible", because "souls who commit suicide do not realise that they are dead" and so are trapped in the grim world that caused them to kill themselves in the first place.

But this just does not make sense. Our protagonist, who died in a car crash, at first thinks he is hallucinating in hospital, but then comes to realise that he has actually died. But he remembers the impact. And that was death coming unexpectedly; so why should a suicide not remember an outcome that was expected?

And what about the people who commit suicide out of motives other than despair - to join a loved one, or to prevent their capture giving information to the enemy in time of war?

Moreover, when our hero visits Hell, he finds lots of people there who, from what they say, have done what we objectively would call bad deeds - but which they themselves do not consider wrong. So why are they in Hell? If they do not consider themselves bad people, why is that the Afterlife that they wish on themselves?

The images of Hell are visually striking, but bear more resemblance to the concept as rendered in traditional artistic portrayals, than the concept as explained. Our hero is going to a particular suicide's Hell. So, if suicides do not realise that they are in Hell, but think they are still alive, why is her Hell populated with monstrous demons that our hero has to fight his way through to reach her?

A lot of Hollywood films do not have a particularly well-thought through cosmology. If this is the background to the plot, then one can just "go with it". But here it is so central to the plot that the fact that it is inconsistent destroys most of the plot of the film.

I understand that it is based on a book by Richard Matheson, but has significantly changed major plot elements. I suspect this may explain the plot incoherence.

But it is still visually impressive; I enjoyed the art involved.

This is very much a " star vehicle" for Robin Williams And of course, the irony of a lecture from him on the evils of suicide is not lost on me.

Helmet Film Challenge 2021: #5

Edited for touchstone

>34 -pilgrim-: Great review. Your author touchstone for Richard Matheson points to a different author - likely due to the extra letter introduced into the surname.

In case you might be interested in cross-posting, I'm sure your excellent movie reviews would be very welcome over in the Movie Lovers Plus 2 group.

>35 ScoLgo: Thank you.

What is the LT position on cross-posting? Is it post in one place, then link?

I sometimes read that group, but had hesitated to post there, because my reviews tend to be considerably longer than what seems to be their norm. The folks in GD are used to my going on at length!

>36 -pilgrim-: I am not a group moderator so have no clue regarding the application of LT rules. I do see folks in the mystery group post the same review for the same book in 2 or 3 different threads all the time so... I see no harm in posting the same thing in two entirely different groups. I also see where people will link their review so it only exists in one location. Choice is good!

Post length also seems un-important. If people don't want to read a lengthy post, they can either skim it or skip it. Again, their choice, eh?

>36 -pilgrim-: There are no rules about it to my knowledge.

Film #12:

Aquaman (2018, English (Australian)) - 3.5 stars
Directed by: James Wan
20/3/2021

There is nothing very original in the plot of this film, but that is OK. It is precisely because it is following ancient archetypes that this superhero story works.

It is nice to see the special effects budget being used to create an imaginative other worlds rather than simply impressive explosions.

The physics is ridiculous but the mythic resonance carries one through, and Jason Momoa, as Arthur Curry, has an engaging take on the superhero persona, whilst Temuara Morrison portrays a very genuine version of the "man of few words, but deep emotions", as Arthur's father, Tom. There is more depth to the portrayal of other subsidiary characters too, which compensates for the fact that the female characters are cardboard placeholders for "desirable female".

There is little depth to this (if you still excuse the pun). But its lack of pretensions was refreshing; there was a lack of the cheap ploys aimed at eliciting an emotional response, and faux angst that makes most films that I have seen in the superhero genre so irritating.

I enjoyed this.

>39 -pilgrim-: Oh, I need to watch this one. I'm a fan of the Aquaman mythos, and it's great to know that a DC universe film didn't go the brooding and pretentious route.

>40 libraryperilous: If you know the mythos, can you tell me whether Thomas Curry is written as Maori in the original?

The actor, Temuera Morrison, is of course Maori, and the character at one point suggests to his son that they should work on his moko - which I thought was a Maori-specific term. So I had assumed that his lighthouse was in New Zealand (where, as it happens, it was filmed). I was quite surprised when I realised that this was supposed to be in Maine.

But Hollywood has a bad record of using actors of one ethnic group to substitute for another, so I wondered if the original version was Hawai'ian - which I assume would be rather more common in America?

>41 -pilgrim-: As far as I know, Thomas Curry has been portrayed as white in the print comics, including as recently as the New 52 reboot a few years ago.

Edited to correct post #

>42 libraryperilous: Thank you for the info. How is your viewing going?

Chinese Zodiac (2013, Chinese (English/French/Russian/Japanese)) - 3 stars
Dir.: Jackie Chan

This film, released in 2013, is the third in a trilogy of films in which Jackie Chan plays the adventurer, Asian Hawk. The first film, Armour of God came out in 1986, its sequel, Operation Condor in 1991.

Asian Hawk was reminiscent of Indiana Jones - he stole priceless cultural artifacts from "primitive superstitious people" and had hair-raising escapes from their traps. However he was simply in it for the money - he sold what he obtained.

To put this in context: Armour of God is one of my favourite films. The plot is simple, and exists merely to hang together a series of imaginative, ingenious stunts of breathtaking athleticism.

Operation Condor was not as good, and its patronising portrayal of screaming Western women got a little irritating, but the stunts are still incredibly impressive, and a young Jackie Chan makes a handsome, amusing, likeable rogue.A

In CZ12 (to given it its usual title), the stunts are still good. Jackie Chan is not only the star, but the director, the producer, the stunt coordinator, the theme song singer and more - he broke the Guinness record for number of credits in one film for this. And he is still better than anyone else in this business. The problem is, by playing the same character as he did twenty years ago, he is not competing against "everyone else" - he is putting himself up for comparison against his younger self. And although his physical skills in CZ12 are impressive for a man of 59, no athlete of that age can compare favourably with his abilities in his thirties.

Thankfully, Jackie Chan has the good sense not to cast himself as the romantic lead (a rôle in which he has never looked comfortable anyway). This time the Asian Hawk has two younger assistants, and the trio have different domestic issues - all three are married, and one has a fiery relationship with his martial arts proficient wife, who is also on the time.

Add the female archaeologist that they are bamboozling for information and the French Countess that they are stealing from, and the central team is beginning to look a bit crowded. (There are several groups of bad guys on top of all this!)

But the plot is where the problems start. The previous two films were morally problematic if one looked too closely, but simply great fun. But since taking Chinese citizenship in 1999, Chan has felt the need to include aggressively patriotic themes in his films. (Maybe because he was formerly a British citizen, whose parents arrived in Hong Kong as refugees from Communist China, he feels the need to reassure the current Chinese government as to where his loyalties now lie.) And so politics are brought into this film.

The plot of this film concerns 12 brass figures of the animals of the Chinese Zodiac, that were looted from the Old Summer Palace by "British forces".

Now the destruction of the Palace by Anglo-French forces in 1860, is a real event, that took place during the Second Opium War. In that context, it needs to be remembered (I) that paying troops through "spoils of war" was standard procedure internationally at the time, and (ii) the destruction was deliberate retaliation for the torturing to death of envoys sent under a flag of truce.

Thus we have accepted military practice of that era (not ours), taking place in response to acts in breach of accepted interactional practice (of that era and ours), in the context of a war that is hard to justify. The rights and wrongs here are a political debate, and the Chinese have a valid claim for the repatriation of looted artifacts.

But a film in which the hero is an established character whose career consists of looting artifacts from other cultures, purely for his own financial gain, is not the place to make such claims - it is rank hypocrisy.

And when this character uses the fact that her great-great-grandfather was part of that expedition to justify stealing from a woman who has just given witness testimony that saved him from arrest, then invited initially her home (knowing that the bank has foreclosed on her due to "the financial crisis", and that therefore she will be prosecuted if anything good missing), the moral attitudes of this film stinks.

Taking spoils of war in accordance with standard practice of the time = BAD
Stealing from people who have personally befriended you, as a stranger in their country, and helped you = GOOD.

Ha.

The film's attitude to non-Chinese is very uneven. It seems to both be trying to play to xenophobic Chinese attitudes AND appeal to an international audience.

So, all Russian dialogue is in Russian, the French speak French, and the pirates' dialogue amongst themselves is in Japanese. But then the Chinese characters speak amongst themselves in heavily accented English - why? And whilst Jackie Chan commendably gives equal billing to actors of all nationalities, regardless of which language their dialogue was in, the actual attitudes to these other nationalities is odd.

The film opens with JC stealing from the Russian military (who become the"bad guys" for trying to stop him); next the French are the "bad guys" - justified this time, since they are destroying antiques to inflate prices, and making forgeries, and stealing them - but they are also arrant cowards. The pirates fulfill the role of "hilarious primitive antagonists" (like the guys in black paint and feathers in Operation Condor) - and I'll just pass quietly over how the black pirate is portrayed.

I do not demand political correctness from an action movie whose main purpose is to showcase breathtaking stunts with humour. But when a film includes moral lectures, then I hold its own ethics to a higher standard.

Instead, it sticks to its double standard, with Asian Hawk calling a colleague an utter scumbag and stating that they are nothing like each other. This is because he stole an idol from a temple (like the Asian Hawk does in the first two films), the government blamed a neighbouring country, resulting in a war "thousands of lives". How could Asian Hawk know that his earlier thefts would not have th that result? Since the earlier films never covered the aftermath of his thefts, why should we assume they did not?

Of course, in the course of the film, Asian Hawk sees the error of his ways, and starts to steal the bronze animals to donate back to China. But this is a very luke warm reform, as they still intend to keep other portions of the loot that they have found, for themselves. This film wants to preach the wickedness of the West, and deal in moral messages - but its message seems to be "being a greedy thief is fine - but only if you are Chinese".

Nevertheless the stunts were good and some of the humour was funny - although a lot of it felt like re-runs of old jokes.

Judged against most physical comedy that I have seen recently, this was good.

But the greatest misjudgment was that, just before the credits rolled, we had a high speed flashthrough montage of Jackie's face in all his most iconic rôles. I recognised a lot - I have seen almost all these films. This was not a bad film. But, being reminded of the handsome, brilliant star in his prime left me with a feeling of sadness. He should not have forced the comparison.

It is traditional for Jackie Chan's own films to have a montage of bloopers and accidents that took place during filming during the credits. We had a few. Thankfully the safety on set is better nowadays. But it was padded out with his best, most famous stunts (and accidents) from earlier films.

I am left with nostalgia.

If you have never seen a real Jackie Chan film (as opposed to the co-productions made for Western audiences), please do not start here.

Film #15


Shazam! (2019, English (American)) - 1.5 stars
Dir.: David F. Sandberg
2/5/2021

I wanted something that did not require too much concentration, and that was fairly lighthearted. Since I enjoyed Aquaman, I thought I would try another DC superhero movie. This was a mistake.

I can accept an illogical plot in terms of 'how things work'. But not terms of how people behave.

A wizard has been waiting for aeons to appoint a champion who is "pure of heart". After being disappointed many times, he finally accepts that he is not going to find perfection. So his seeking spell picks someone who steals from innocent strangers, including a disabled kid in a foster home!

Now a lot of superhero stories take a "hero's journey" structure, and start with an inadequate or unlikeable protagonist, who grows into their rôle. But the premise of this film states that this boy is the best that the seeking spell can find . And, naturally, he proceeds to use the powers that he is given for purely selfish ends.

That is an incredibly depressing worldview being purveyed by the writers. And it is an insult to any of its audience who behave with simply normal moral decency or kindness.

Furthermore, the disabled boy appears to be the much better person. He is unselfish, and patiently enduring. He is also a superhero fan, embued with the superhero ethos. He keeps trying to pursuade his new friend to put his powers to better use. So why is he less worthy of becoming the champion? Since one gets an enhanced (adult) body with the power, then his lameness should not be an issue. He has no noticeable major faults, yet apparently he is less pure in heart than a selfish, immature thief. This is a particularly ugly example of the "disabled people are intrinsically evil" trope.

Being disabled is not cool, so anything he goes through deserves to be mocked. He has no one. But an able-bodied kid, who likewise has been fostered "should not" have to suffer in the same way - in fact that justifies his also abusing the disabled one.

I remember reading about the attitudes of Regency society, which divided everyone, regardless of social background, into "sharps" and "flats". To be a "sharp", meant to be cynical, amoral, to "understand how the world works", to be clever, quick and able to take advantage of others. And if you were not like that, you were a "flat" and "deserved" to be a victim. And that is exactly the set of values that is being embraced here.

In fact, the designated evil guy has just as much trauma in his past as the hero, so by the film's own logic - that bad things happening to you entitles you to hurt others - he is arguably more justified than the protagonist, in that he is initially targeted in his malice, rather than harming random strangers.

The plot also, such as it is, is extremely weak. Apparently wizards are all extremely stupid, never to have thought of the "plan" that deals with the antagonists before.

The finale also has a level of ickiness: MAJOR SPOILER:The resolution is that the power of the staff is shared amongst all the kids in the foster home. So they all get sexy, fit adult bodies - and that DOES cure the lame boy's leg. And they start "checking each other out", in a way that would be fine if they were adults . Yet the whole film has been spent establishing that the protagonist is still the same, immature kid with powers, as he was without. There is no increased emotional maturity or intelligence coming automatically with the physical upgrade.

And that means what we have here are teenage boys ogling the sexiness of a girl who is 7, at most. And that is uncomfortable to watch - and gives the message that fancying your prepubescent foster-sister is a "normal" reaction.

In actuality, the kibbutz practice of raising all children communally demonstrated that most adults find it impossible to be sexually attracted to their "siblings", even when not biologically related. So the behaviour being normalised here is not naturally occurring.

Maybe this sounds as if I am overanalysing what is intended to simply be a comedy. But the prime requisite for a comedy is that it should be funny. And I did not laugh once. Not even a chuckle.

What gave this film its extra half star was the animation that ran during the final credits, which was actually amusing.

>45 -pilgrim-: I am very glad I passed on that movie.

Film #10:


Yolki 3: 4G (2013, Russian) - 3 stars
Dirs.: Aleksandr Karpilovsky
Olga Kharina
Dmitry Kiselev
Aleksandr Kott
Watched: 7/3/2021

It may seem odd to have watched a New Year themed film in Lent, but I was so pleased to come across a subtitled version, when I had been unable to find one at the appropriate season, that I watched it anyway.

It follows the established set-up of disparate groups of people coming together to help one another, and bring happiness for the holiday.

As the third film in the series, several of the protagonists are established characters. Boris and Evgeniy are now babysitting their sons (both called Boris) whilst their wives (both called Olga) have gone to the sauna for last-minute pampering. The snowboarder and the skier are now on good terms with Granny Manya and get granddaughter, but Dima gets his call-up papers.

The overt racial inclusiveness theme continues. And there is a joke that it amused me that the subtitler concealed, by replacing it: a young cop walks up to a crowd of happy Uzbeks and, according to the subtitles, demands to see their registration papers. The response is an injunction to "respect your elders" and warm embraces - they are his in-laws and all of them are there to celebrate the birth of his first child. It is a subversion of expectations of the relations between immigrant workers and the Russian police. What I found fascinating is that what Misha actually says is: "Hey, chërny ("black") non-Russians". Now chërny is a racially offensive term, used by some ethnic Russians about the darker ethnicities in the country, particularly from the south - Caucasians, Romany, Uzbek, Tajik etc. (Note: it never refers to African ancestry, about which Russians do not have a particular prejudice.) But the intent is the same - Misha is playing up to a racist stereotype to amuse his Uzbek relatives. Why was it necessary to alter the banter? Was it just that there is no simple equivalent epithet?Yusuf (from the first film), and Ibrahim (the streetsweeper who has been in every one) are here celebrating.

The linking story is that of the Kravchuks. Kolya and Elena are now an established couple again, and their daughter Nastya has brought into their household a mutt called Pirate, who is in an idyllic relationship with Elena's purebred, Yoko. But Elena's British boss is also passionate about dog breeding, so Elena (with Kolya in tow), is flying to England for the New Year to breed Yoko with his dog. Pirate lets her go after Elena gives him a speech along the lines of "if you really love her, you would not stand in the way of her happiness; this is a much better opportunity than she could have with you", then runs away to follow her.

This theme is mirrored with the other new couple; Denis studied medicine and is now a successful traumatologist in Siberia. He is therefore not a "real man", in the words of his classmates (medicine does not pay well in Russia), and so has not felt able to pursue his school sweetheart, who is now successful in Moscow. This New Year he contacts her, but tells lies to make himself seem successful. (The fact that he is the inverse of the director, who gave up training in medicine in order to make money, is probably not coincidence.)

Apparently this is the most popular of the "Yolki" films in Russia to date. I found it the weakest so far, but still enjoyed it.

It was the first that had any passages that were at all uncomfortable. I did not like how one story here undermined the previous instalment: The drunken professor, who had been daring wild deeds to impress his girlfriend in the previous film, is now revealed to have been cheating on his wife to do so. Here he is trying to cheat with another couple of girls who, unlike her black predecessor, is far younger than him, with the help of a friend who, in the previous instalment, was also a completely nice guy. His wife apparently forgave him for the previous affair, but here she catches him again, so that most of the film has him realising he has been a fool and trying to win her back. The ending is happy, and it usual for troubles to occur before good prevails, so that the values of friendship are emphasised in making true love triumph, but the cost, turning our heroic Dragon from a sweet middle-aged man looking for love into a serial adulterer and sleaze, disappointed me.

The fact that his previous girlfriend was from overseas was a sweet casual touch in the previous film; using foreigners for casual flings has an additional uncomfortable overtone, reinforced by the fact that the only person in this film whose romantic hopes are disappointed is the Englishman. That is a very mild issue, but I supposed that I was saddened to see ANY implication that "foreigners are different", and their feelings therefore don't matter - "working-class Russian gets one over on snooty foreigner" was very much the tone of Kolya's arc - creeping in was a pity; although inclusiveness towards non-ethnic Russian former Soviet citizens has remained a strong theme.

And I could not help wondering: are Russian psychiatric hospitals still so bad, or is the film simply reiterating popular prejudices for humorous purposes? Such jokes take on a darker hue when one remembers the memoirs of certain Soviet dissidents.

The humour in this film was a little less gentle, this time round.

Film #21:


Paws, Bones and Rock-'n'-roll (2015, Russian) - 3.5 stars
Dir.: Maksim Sveshnikov
Writers: Maksim and Vadim Sveshnikov
Watched: 6/7/2021

This is a spinoff from the Yolki series of films: its Russian title is "Yolki Lokhmatye" (or "Shaggy Yolki").

Its heroes are the dogs, Pirat and Yoko, from Yolki 3: 4G (reviewed in >47 -pilgrim-:). The plot is simple, Nastya Kravchuk, the owner of Pirat and Yoko, has stayed at home in Samara, looked after by her grandmother, whilst her parents are working elsewhere. The family is going to meet up in New York, for Aunt Olya's birthday. So Nastya has arranged for her beloved dogs to stay in a "dog hotel" whilst she and her grandmother are away.

The story follows the dogs as they get bored with the hotel, and decide to go home.

However a pair of burglars are using the kernels as the source from which to identify the details of wealthy pet owners who are away from home. We also follow their manoeuvres - and the Kravchuk home is on their list.

What follows is basically Home Alone, only with dogs instead of a child. The dogs are not voiced, or anthropomorphized, although the ingenuity of their schemes (and dexterity required) are well beyond plausibility.

The other thread being followed is of Nastya's attempts to get home, once she realises her did have escaped, and the upheaval that results from that.

This is a charming children's comedy. It avoids over sentimentality and lands just the right side of sweet. The performances by the two dogs are wonderful, and it was amusing to see Andrey Merzlikin, who usually plays "serious individuals", in a comic rôle.

Although the Kravchuks are recurring characters in the Yolki franchise, the parents only appear in the finale. This is the dogs' film.

One thought: Russian men! Why is it that in so many Russian films, the "hero" is tempted towards (or into) infidelity, and has to beg forgiveness from his beloved, the heroine? Even when he is a dog!

Film #22:


Fool's Day (День Дурака) (2014, Russian)
Dir. Aleksandr Baranov
Watched: 6-7/7/2021

This has nothing to do with the Western April Fool's Day tradition; the title is more along the lines of the principle that Every dog has his day - even a young idiot like Vanya.

Like many Russian films, it opens with Vanya explaining to an investigative officer...

Young Vanya, "like everyone" in Moscow, is living on credit, whilst bolstering his image on VKontakte (the Russian equivalent of Facebook) with Photoshopped photos of himself with various celebrities and supplementing his income with paparazzi shots of people he encounters in the course of his work, as a hotel doorman. Unfortunately his loan shark's patience has run out and Sergey Sergeyevich has been sent to collect. Desperation causes Vanya to invent a rich father in the provinces, and so the pair set off.

What follows is a very amusing satire on corruption on rural Russia. The local politicians have heard rumours that there is going to be a crackdown on corruption by central government. At first this has bad results for the duo, but eventually, with echoes of The Government Inspector full advantage is taken of the situation.

I am still only semi-functional, and this sort of light-hearted but slightly cynical, humour was what I needed. Much chuckling and some outright belly laughs.

Extra note: the use made of VKontakte screens in the credits to set up the premise was very original, and amusing.

What has happened to libraryperilous? She hasn't posted in almost 3 months.

>50 clamairy: She has entered books into her catalogue in June and July. Hopefully she is just busy with RL.

>51 pgmcc: I noticed that as well. Hope she manages to drop in soon.

>51 pgmcc: I was aware of that. She said that she wanted me share this thread, but I do feel a bit awkward over being the only one posting here!

Film #17:


My Spy (2020, English (American)) - 1.5 stars
Dir.: Peter Segal
Watched: 4/5/2021 - 1/6/2021

This was another attempt on my part to find a light comedy. It was not really successful.

It spent rather a lot of time on the "bullying of the new kid", which the class teacher, although she is being characterised as "nice", does remarkably little about. The set-up of requiring her class to bring in adults (during the normal working day, thus causing problems for those not in a position to set their own schedule) and requiring them to give talk about their job, whether they volunteer or not, seems designed to humiliate those children who come from poorer, or otherwise less than ideal backgrounds. Would any primary teacher who is a decent human being actually do this? I can see no educational value to it.

And again, ruthless manipulation and outright blackmail is presented as a "cute" and admirable quality in a 9 year old. Yes, she is lonely, since her father is dead and her mother works long hours as a nurse - one of those jobs that the teacher expects parents to drop to attend her schedule! So what she wants is completely understandable; but the message is, again, that "I want" justifies any behaviour.

The plot itself is completely implausible, but that is fine. It is obvious from the premise that it is going to be, and the film does not take itself seriously.

It raised a few smiles, mainly because of the quality of Dave Bautista's performance, but was really predictable, including its assumption that the designated "unattractive but kooky female" should suppress her crush on the protagonist and help him in his pursuit of the designated "desirable female".

OK, but I felt I had wasted my time.

>55 -pilgrim-: Have you watched Hotel Artemis?

>56 pgmcc: To be honest, I am not sure. The title does not sound familiar, but the nurse with an ER for criminals does...

Do you recommend?

>55 -pilgrim-: "attempt on my part to find a light comedy".
Have you looked for a copy of The Gods must be crazy (Jamie Uys, 1980) by any chance? For a moment I was about to suggest Lord Oom Piet (also Jamie Uys, 1962), which is at least theoretically downloadable from the Internet, until I was reminded by Wikipedia that much of the dialogue is in Afrikaans.

>58 hfglen: Thank you, that looks interesting.

I think I may actually have seen some of the unofficial sequels, since the title sounds familiar, and I watched a lot of Chinese film in the nineties.

And no, I don't think I can handle Afrikaans without subtitles, unfortunately.

>58 hfglen: Gosh, I remember seeing that at the cinema with my mother. Not sure how woke it would be considered these days.

>60 Maddz: Jamie Uys has always been terminally and joyously Politically Incorrect :-)

>57 -pilgrim-: Jodie Foster and Geoff Bloomberg. I think Jodie Foster alone is a key recommendation.

It will become a cult movie if it hasn't already. It is set in Los Angeles in 2028 with water riots taking place around the city because the water company has increased the price of water. (Hints of China Town) Hotel Artemis is actually a clinic for criminals who get injured and who are paid up members. Jodie Foster plays the nurse who runs the clinic. I will say no more. I have watched it several times and my older son (aged 32) has been recommending it to all his friends.

An added interest for Irish viewers is that the film came out just after the mass protests in Ireland that forced a reversal of the previous government's decision to introduce water charges and to give ownership of water to a private company. When we saw what the first scene was about we were sold on the movie immediately.

A point of interest: Caitríona and I saw it in the cinema on the last week of its cinema run. The numbers going to it had not been big and we saw it in a theatre that only had thirty-six seats. There were only eleven people in the theatre. It was very intimate and added to the feel of the film.

I mentioned the film because Dave Bautista is also in it.

If you are looking for something interesting with good acting in it you might try Page Eight and its two sequels. Bill Nighy plays and MI5 analyst. Michael Gambon is also in it.

>62 pgmcc: Yes, I realised that the connection was Dave Bautista 's presence. What I was unclear about was whether the subtext was "Here he was REALLY good" or, "in contrast, here he was awful".

Do not mention water privitisation to me. It happened here.

>63 pgmcc: Thank you for recommendations. They are always welcome.

>49 -pilgrim-: This sounds like a fun and unique film, and I'm glad it hit the spot for you.

Thanks, everyone, for the posts about noticing my lack of posting, and to clamairy for checking on me behind the scenes. :)

I'm not able to keep up with threads on LT right now, so I've abandoned all but a couple of them, including mine. Everything is fine, I'm just super busy and not reading or watching much.

-pilgrim-, you are most welcome to keep posting your film reviews here! I enjoy reading them when I do get the chance.

Apparently, Dave Bautista has quite the fandom.

>66 libraryperilous: My eyes! My eyes!

I finally watched a film!

Tampopo: self-styled 'ramen western' that fuses nods to The Seven Samurai, spaghetti westerns, Buñuel, and Cary Grant's screwball years with a look at the similarities between eating and having sex. I disliked the end credits, which sexualize breastfeeding.

The widowed Tampopo, struggling to keep her husband's ramen shop afloat, enlists the help of truck driver and ramen connoisseur Gorō to create the perfect bowl of ramen. The story of Tampopo's efforts to improve her ramen are interspersed with vignettes about humans' sensual relationship with food.

I enjoyed Tampopo's story more than the side arcs. I also am not a foodie. My own attitude is closer to 'food as fuel,' although I do love fresh vegetables and fruits. Film lovers who enjoy food will find this a compelling story, but I mostly enjoyed the nods to other films and the pastiche of westerns.

Four out of five stars.

Content: Lots of dead animals are on display and eaten, and there is one scene of live animal slaughter.

Incidentally, while looking up whether or not the bold and italics tags are recognized by screen readers, I found this helpful article. I've used strong and em on this comment and will do so going forward.

I've just happened onto this interesting thread. I like old movies and foreign films too, so I'll be back for a closer look.

I have had no luck in finding the films recommended by Peter and Hugh, but I did find:

The Colour of Magic (2008, English) - 4 stars
Dir: Vadim Jean
Watched: 24/7/2021-6/8/2021

The episodic nature of this film worked very well with the fact that I currently have very little time for viewing; I could watch it a little at a time.

I last read Sir Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic iand The Light Fantastic in the nineties, but my impression is that it was remarkably faithful to the books - the film covers both. It made two major changes (as well as some minor ones), one of which worked admirably, the other less so.

Sean Astin was perfect as Twoflower. He captured the essential fact that, however infuriating - and life-threatening - Twoflower may be, he is, essentially extremely nice.

This does involve changing Twoflower's continent of origin from a Japan- substitute to an America-substitute, which results in incongruities both in nomenclature and the imperial nature of its government.

It works because Twoflower is the sort of tourist who is primarily interested in checking off a list of "Things To See", rather than actually enjoying each experience fully or engaging with what he sees. In the eighties, those sorts of tourist tended to either come from Japan or America. (Note: I am NOT implying that all tourists from those countries behave in this way; just that most of those who do, come from those countries. I suspect that the phenomenon arose from the fact that those nations had less annual leave than the norm in the rest of the world, thus inducing a desire to try to cram too much into too little time.) So the translation works.

The less successful change was the casting of Sir David Jason as Rincewind, which involved aging him about 30 years. The film explains this by saying that Rincewind has been a student at the Unseen University for 40 years, unable to graduate because he cannot cast a single spell.

Sir David's performance is excellent. Apparently a great fan of the books, he captures Rincewind's personality excellently. But the problem is this: the canonical Rincewind is not a particularly nice young man. He is a preeminent survivor, in a fashion that includes a large helping of ruthless selfishness. But we sympathise with him nevertheless because his schemes always rebound on him, making him the 'fall guy'. Watching a man in his sixties, whose life has gone completely wrong through little fault of his own, become the repeated pratfall-taker for the universe, introduces an uncomfortable feeling to the situation that is not present in the original.

Casting I liked:

Jeremy Irons as The Patrician - even though the Patrician in the first books is actually the fat Patrician, not Lord Vetinari, as portrayed here.

David Bradley as Cohen the Barbarian.
Casting I disliked:

Tim Curry chewing the scenery as Ymper Trymon.

I was sad to miss the whole Temple of Bel-Shamharoth episode, but enjoyed the Wyrmberg far more having read Dragonflight earlier this year.

All in all, I found this a most enjoyable way to revisit two books that I had loved in my twenties.

>70 -pilgrim-: Sounds entertaining--but if I didn't like the Discworld series (what I read of it), should I skip this, or does it stand on its own?

>71 Meredy: It is very much taking the mickey of of the standard fantasy tropes of the seventies/eighties. (Fahrd and the Grey Mouser, Pern etc.) And it is completely light-hearted, with endearing leads.

It is close enough to the specific books that it is based on, that if you read them and disliked them, you probably won't like this. But the Discworld changed quite a bit in the course of 40 odd books and a few decades, and so does their tone.

Certainly this does not require having read the books.

Troll Bridge (2019, English (Australian)) - 4.5 stars
Dir.: Daniel Knight
6/8/2021

This is a rather unusual film. It is based on the short story, The Troll Bridge, by Sir Terry Pratchett, which I read last year in the A Blink of the Screen collection. It is a Patreon-funded fan-made film.

The production quality is superb. "Fan-made" in this case does not mean "amateurish"; it means "the director's vision has not been compromised by production executives with their eyes on American demographics and focus groups". And it is beautiful.

Sir Terry tells, in A. Blink of the Screen, that he wrote this story in 1992 as a contribution to an anthology honouring J. R.R. Tolkien. But rather than attempt to write in a Tolkienesque setting, he decided to write in his own world, a story echoing one of Tolkien's major themes: things change, times pass, and nothing remains the same for ever.

Cohen the Barbarian - who also appears in The Colour of Magic - is in his nineties. He wants to fight one last battle, against a troll. It was the test of manhood in his father's eyes. But the world has changed; is there a place for a barbarian warrior any more, in the world that his exploits have created?

It is a beautiful meditation on old age, and the impossibility of living up to our fathers' goals for us.

N.B. This prize-winning film can now be viewed, for free, from its maker's website.

>73 -pilgrim-: Just watched it. Fun. The best part for me was the song at the end.

>73 -pilgrim-: >74 MrsLee: Can you please link to the website?

>75 Meredy: I found it on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7v_TdLviUE

>76 MrsLee: Thanks!

>75 Meredy:
https://www.trollbridge.film/

P.S. The anthology that The Troll Bridge was originally written for was After the King.

>68 libraryperilous: Despite being vegetarian I remember really enjoying Tampopo when I saw it some years ago. I also liked The funeral, from the same director.

>78 -pilgrim-: Thanks for that, too. I'll have a look.

Film #26:


Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012, English (American)) - 1 star
Dir.: Mark Neveldine
Watched: 6/8/2021

I did not realise before watching that this was a sequel to a previous film; I chose it because I was somewhat familiar with the character from his appearance in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

But this film had nothing - except for is emphasis on good "on fire" special effects in the many, many scenes involving this.

The plot, such as it was, was barely coherent - with an interest in the detailed depiction of the Mass that I found rather offensive. (I don't feel that it is OK to play around casually with the fundamentals of ANY groups deeply held beliefs, regardless of whether you share them.)

The film was obviously aiming for "gritty and realistic", which it achieved mainly through including scenes of violence against a child. Like the blasphemy mentioned above, I feel this is something that can be justified in a more serious work, but is totally inappropriate in what is basically formulaic entertainment.

The story appears to be set in Romania, given the number of Romanian actors used and the emphasis on the leading woman being a "gypsy", but it wimps out at "somewhere in Eastern Europe"

Nicolas Cage gets to do his "I'm CRAZY!" schtick again, and the film is really just a vehicle for this.

I found this a complete and utter waste of time.

>81 -pilgrim-: That is one of the movies in my favorite "corn" collection. So bad it's wonderful. Yes, I have that collection. Another one is Van Helsing.

>79 Sakerfalcon: I also was able to stomach it, despite being veg, in part because the scenes are brief. It really is a clever and interesting film. There are several Itami films available on the Criterion Channel, so I've added The Funeral to my list. Thanks for the rec!

>70 -pilgrim-:, >73 -pilgrim-: I'm not a Pratchett fan, but these sound charming.

>73 -pilgrim-: I watched this one tonight. Thank you!

>74 MrsLee: I loved that song too.

>82 MrsLee: I know what you mean by "so bad it's good". I have a collection too. Unfortunately, for me, this didn't make it. It was just bad.

>68 libraryperilous: Since you also are having little time for watching, I am glad that you found a good one.

>85 -pilgrim-: I think it made my list because of the skeleton. Who couldn't love a flaming skeleton on a motorcycle? You may not know that I have a thing for skeletons, and have several (fake) of various sizes in my home that have featured in Facebook posts through the years.

>86 MrsLee: Death rides again, off Discworld!

>74 MrsLee:, >80 Meredy:, >83 libraryperilous:, >84 NorthernStar:

I have been watching some of the "Making of..." documentaries. It really was a labour of love from everyone concerned.

It took 17 years in total, with several reshoots. There was also a lot more material shot, with scenes from Cohen's youth (including how he lost his eye).

I understand why they felt that they had to release it when they did, rather than including all that they had originally wanted to add. But, having seen it, and good it is, I do have a hankering for what was originally conceived.

Film #27:


Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017, English) - 4 stars
Director & writer: Luc Besson
Watched: 29-31/8/2021

The plot is simple, and not particularly original, and Major Valerian himself is incredibly annoying, but neither of those facts really matter: this is a film that is so wonderful in its visual imagination that it was a joy to watch.

Premise: The International Space Station grew as modules from more and more nations, and then more and more planets attached, until representatives from all known planets live there. It became too large and heavy to remain safely in orbit around the Earth, so it was cut loose into space: it has become Alpha, the "City of a Thousand Planets" of the title.

Major Valerian and his sidekick, Sergeant Laureline, are taking a virtual vacation when he is hit by some sort of vision of the destruction of a peaceful planet, as part of a war in which they were taking no part. It is seen through the eyes of a princess who did not make it to the bunker in time. (Why? How? These are the sort of questions that are never actually answered; just sit back and go with it.) He comes on to Laureline, she seems irritated, and then they get called away on a mission.

Valerian is the sort of arrogant, smug man-child that Hollywood seems to love. He, naturally, has a long history as a lover, yet is puzzled and disappointed that Laureline is dismissive of his professions of devotion.

What makes him bearable is his Sergeant's attitude to him. She appears more technically proficient than him, she repeatedly fishes him out of the messes that his cocky attitude has got him into, and generally is 'not taking any of his crap'.

I do not like romance mixed with my science fiction, but here it turns out to be integral to the plot, not tacked on as 'hero's motivation', or as a sop to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible.

The more I think about the plot, the more questions I have. But this is not the right film for that. Just switch off brain and enjoy.

ETA: Although the director, and some of the cast, are French, and this is inspired by the French comic books Valérian and Laureline (by Pierre Christin), the film was made in English.

>89 -pilgrim-: You are right about the film. It is entertainment fodder and just good fun. The Sergeant Laureline is excellent at putting him in his place and taking him down a few pegs. Plot? Irrelevant. That is like looking for deep meaning in a Die hard movie. :-)

As you said, Just switch off brain and enjoy.

I have watched this film twice and both times enjoyed it for enjoyment's sake. No, I did not get anything more out of it the second time around. It is not that deep.

Film #30:


Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008, English (American)) - 3 stars
Dir.: Steven Spielberg
Screenplay: David Koepp
Story by: George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson

I had heard that this was a bad film, but decided to watch it for the sake of completeness. It was not a great film, but nowhere near as dire as I had been led to believe - I enjoyed it.

Ok, it is written by someone lacking any understanding of the basic laws of physics, and I supect their zoology is as bad. And Dr. Jones, for all his emphasis on fieldwork, is a terrible field archaelogist to suggest that Scara Brae (in the Orkneys) is west of Scotland. And the difference between the genuinely Russian actors and the American actors with "heritage Russian" was risibly obvious.

But it is brainless and fast-moving - and no sillier than its predecessors. Harrison Ford is really too old for an action hero, but Indiana Jones is played as an older man who has kept in shape - give him another 20 years and he might be like Cohen the Barbarian, a lifetime in his own legend.

I remember the controversy over the supposedly ancient crystal skulls in the British Museum (when they were proven to have been crafted in the 19th century). This was still a debated topic in the first decade of this century, when this film was made. I suspect the hostility to this film may come from younger viewers being unaware that crystal skulls - and their supposed origin with aliens - ever were "a thing". This film is no sillier than its predecessors.

And I have grown old with Indy.

>91 -pilgrim-: Love me an Indiana Jones film. Some things are beyond reason and can't be analyzed, but I think growing old with him explains it as well as anything.

Film #31:


Boss Level (2021, English (American)) - 3.5 stars
Dir.: Joe Carnahan
Scriptwriters: Chris Boney & Eddie Boney
Watched: 18-22/9/2021

This is a film that proves that I am really not in harmony with Hollywood! It was apparently denied a cinematic release, yet it is the best American film that I have seen for quite a while.

The film has a continuous narration by the protagonist, Ray Pulver. As it opens, he appears to be stuck in a video game of the continuous combat variety. From the moment he wakes up, a bizarre assortment of people, with a wide range of weapons - bombs, swords, pistols, harpoons, rocket launchers, machetes helicopter gunships - are trying to kill him. And this is not his first time through this day; each time that they kill him, he wakes up again that morning. As with a video game, by memorising their attacks, he has gradually learned to live longer, but he has not managed to live past 12:57.

However, this is not a puerile dramatisation of a video game but a science fiction film. How this has come to be happening to him, why it is, and what he is supposed to be doing about it make up the meat of this film.

Ray is not an improbable superhero. He is an ordinary, flawed individual - there have been days where he drinks himself into oblivion instead of trying to achieve something useful. He is a little too addicted to the adrenaline of his work, which has alienated his wife, although they continue to communicate for the sake of their son.

He is a special forces operative, which gives him a certain fitness level, alertness, and competence with weaponry, but what is getting him through is not superior competence, but PRACTICE - he has been thorough each encounter before and knows what is going to happen, whereas for the opposition it is the first time.

And I liked that, despite the cartoon level of violence, there is not the same casual disregard for human life common to a lot of American action movies. The people who get killed are involved in attacking. The body count is high, but I don't remember any bystander injuries. Neither is our hero a buff prettyboy. He is muscular, wiry and scarred. His wife is neither a beauty nor the cliché nerdy scientist; just a woman doing her job (at which she is extremely good).

It's not a great film, but it is a good - and unusual - one. It is not out of the standard mould.

>93 -pilgrim-: I enjoyed it too. I thought Mel Gibson was well cast.

Good entertainment fodder.

>94 pgmcc: Agreed, this film really played to his strengths.

Film #32:


Gypsies Are Found Near Heaven (1975, Russian (Soviet Union)) - 4 stars
Dir.: Emil Loteanu
Watched: 1/10/2021

The title in Russian is Табор уходит в небо ("the tabor goes to the skies"), tabor being a Balkan term for a company of Roma, travelling together, under the leadership of an elder. It has been issued under many English titles, Queen of the Gypsies being another, particularly idiotic, one (since Roma society has strong gender roles, and the rule of the tabor by a male elder, and the redirect due to him, is one of the plot points of the film.)

The plot is based on Maksim Gorky's early short story, Makar Chudra, but adds elements from another: Old Woman Izergil. It is set in Bessarabia, in the Austria-Hungarian Empire, at the end of the 19th century, in the lands around the river, including Bucovina.

Lojko Zobar is a renowned horse-thief; as the film starts he leaves his own people, with three friends, to "walk the world". The advice he receives from the old blacksmith, Makar Chudra, is

Do not love gold; it will betray you.
Do not love women; they will betray you.
Freedom is the headiest wine of all.
Rise at the break of day; remember sunset falls when you don't expect it.

Lojko's first words in the film are: It's damp. The air smells like a graveyard. For six months I have been smelling my own grave. You know this is not going to end well.

The film's director, and author, Emil Loteanu is a Moldovan who himself comes from the Bukovina region in which the film is set.

There is a lot of music in the film, but it is not a "musical" in the sense that people stop what they are doing and break into a choreographed song-and-dance routine. People simply burst into song when they feel like it, and dance when gathered together, if it feels appropriate. (This is how it actually was in my childhood, amongst family. It does not look unrealistic to me.) The (poor) lip-syncing looks a bit odd, but this is because the songs are traditional, and performed by members of the company Moscovite Musical-dramatic Theatre "Romen" (Ромэн). Nikolai Volshanin, of the famous Roma musician dynasty, plays the guitarist, Aralambi, and his daughter, Nelli, plays Lojko's sister, Rusalina.

The style is somewhat stilted at times. Although this film won the main prize - the Golden Shell - at the San Sebastian International Film Festival in 1976, it is clearly a film of its era. It is a Soviet film in the ethnographic tradition, but appears to have limited knowledge of actual Ruska Romi customs - or maybe it just intends to portray Rada, the mysterious heroine, as so untameable that she does not even obey the customs of her own people. She is, of course, a witch, and a femme fatale whose beliefs are very similar to those of Bizet's Carmen. (Her topless scene was apparently the first in Soviet cinema!)

The moral code is strict: but hardly standard. Lojko lectures an errant countryman as a disgrace, for attempting theft of some hens and a duck, who then asks "What shall I steal?":

"Girls - or horses. And if you can't steal, work. You dishonour our people."

Everyone, male or female, smokes a pipe. Small children toddle around the camp completely naked. Soldiers destroy Romani property with impunity - because Roma are not allowed to own horses or wagons.

This is another world.

The ethos of the film is to value freedom above everything else. Lojko and Rada love each other passionately, but they each love freedom more.

The ending of the film was one that I did not understand fully until I read the short story on which it was based. (I also noted how much of the dialogue came directly from the book.)

But this has wide, astonishing scenery, lots of horses - what could be a sex scene cuts to horses frolicking! - and men who dress in the way a man should. It is a visual feast.

I loved it, despite its flaws.

(Edited)

Film #34:


Your Own Cross (Твой Крест) (2007, Russian) - 3.5 stars
Dir.: Stanislav Podivlov
Written by: Stanislav Podvilov & Kirill Nemidovich-Danchenko
17/10/2021

This is a fairly short, but beautiful Russian animation (which I watched with subtitles).

The story is an overtly Christian one, about a peasant, during the era when Rus' was repeatedly under attack by Mongol forces, who, praying that the (spiritual) cross that he suffers is too great for him to bear, is visited by an angel, who tells him that he had been granted the gift of being permitted to choose his own cross.

The theology of the film's message is rather specific to Orthodox Christianity, first in its assumption that we all suffer in this life, and that this burden is part of our spiritual duty, and secondly in the priorities it emphasises.

However, it may nevertheless be of interest to those who are not Orthodox believers, because of its beautiful and unusual artistic style. Its author, Stanislav Podivilov, was an animator who became an icon painter after becoming Orthodox, returning to animation to make specifically Christian films. The composition and colour of scenes frequently recalls the vocabulary of icon painting, but the story is more domestic.

Film #39:


To Live! (Жить!) (2010, Russian (Russian Federation)) - 4.5 stars
Dir.: Yuriy Bykov
21/11/2021

This film is set in rural Russia. Mikhail is middle-aged man out hunting with his beloved dog, Laida, when a desperate man runs out of the forest, screaming at Mikhail to start his car and drive. Three other guys are giving chase, and as they are shooting, Mikhail has no choice but to help the stranger; he is an ordinary, decent man.

The car soon breaks down, largely because of stupid demands from the semi-hysterical stranger, who has taken charge of Mikhail's shotgun; but Mikhail knows the country, so the two set off cross country to walk to town. As they walk, they get to know and understand each other better. But this is not a 'buddy movie'.

There are tense moments, but this is primarily a film about evolution of character in response to circumstances. There are reasons why the young man thinks the way that he does, and we learn them.

The film gives a coherent exposition of the viewpoint of the New Russian:
A man needs money and power. A young man needs a lot of money and power.
and the belief that
Anyone who wants to live is scum.

He has been betrayed and he considers this the norm. This is contrasted with the attitudes of a 'regular guy', who cannot shoot at a human being - whereas the gangster shoots someone, one of his pursuers, despite the fact that that youth is trying to help him get away.

What would you do to live?

This is the question that is continually asked - and answered.

As Andrey slowly rediscovers his humanity, Mikhail learns how far he really is willing to go, to stay alive.

The ending is a powerful portrayal of the "morality" of the modern Russian gangster, where a man may kill a friend, or ask the man about to kill him to take care of his wife and children.

This film is thought-provoking. Above all, it feels real. It is a tour de force debut by Yuriy Bykov. It has won major prizes in Russia.

Note 1: No animals were harmed in the making of this film.
Note 2: Yes, I did need to say that.
Note 3: The poster does not fairly represent the film. It is a two-hander between Denis Shvedov (on the right) and Vladislav Toldykov (not shown)

Film #40:



Hussar Ballad (1962, Russian (Soviet Union))
Dir.: El'dar Ryazanov
Author of original play: Aleksandr Gladkov
3/12/2021

After the very serious and intense To Live!, I continued my Russian film binge with something completely different. This film is from 1962, and is a musical comedy. It should probably more properly be called an operetta, since most of the dialogue is in rhyme. It is set in the early 19th century, as Russia responds to Napoleon's invasion.

Shura is a lively, spirited seventeen year old lass of good family. As the film opens, Poruchik (Lieutenant) Rzhevsky arrives to visit her uncle. She is dressed in hussar uniform as fancy dress, ready for a ball, and so Rzhevsky takes her for a Cornet and, since "a hussar is brother to the hussar" confides in the 'young man' how little he is looking forward to his marriage to Shura - but which he intends to go through with nevertheless, out of a sense of obligation to her uncle.

Shura proceeds to tease him by, in her own person, proceeding to be the sort of young lady Rzhevsky most detests, but the ball is interrupted by the announcement of the French invasion. Inspired by Rzhevsky's (quite genuine) impassioned statement that there is nothing that one could do better than die for one's country, Shura decides that she too wants to fight; in her disguise she heads off to war, supported by a faithful retainer.

Shura is a wonderful character. She is brave, competent and heroic (being already an excellent rider and a crack shot), but still a passionate and impetuous young person. Hussars are particularly notorious for being hard-drinking, hard-fighting womanisers, so watching the young "Alexander" trying to fit in is hilarious. Rzhevsky is the epitome of a hussar. There are a whole slew of "Poruchik Rzhevsky" jokes around - either he is based on them or they are based on him (I have heard both claimed.)

Why Shura has a crush on him is beyond me - I suspect it is because of his extreme bravery. Personally I would choose the heroic, self-sacrificing and extremely handsome Spaniard. But she is most definitely not a simpering camp-follower. She gets the better of Rzhesky at every turn. This is a romantic comedy. But one where one does not feel that the heroine is surrendering her personality to get her man.

The plot is loosely based on the life of Nadezhda Andreyevna Durova, who DID serve, in disguise, as a Russian army officer in this period. She had a successful military career and was rewarded at the highest level.

The date of the film shows in its production values. The outdoor scenes are well done, but the indoor scenes, and much of the staging and some of the acting is rather theatrical. I don't think it matters - one cannot expect realism in an operetta.

This is a very satisfying romp.

May I add one? Even though unfortunately I don't have a poster for it, and LT has never heard of it.

Lord Oom Piet (1962, South Africa, English / Afrikaans)
Dir.: Jamie Uys

This one has aged remarkably well, considering. But it probably won't travel to most Dragoneers -- half the dialogue is in Afrikaans, and you really need both halves to follow the humour. You probably also need to have lived in South Africa at or about the time it was made to follow the unspoken bits.

"Oom" (Uncle, a term of respect in Afrikaans) Piet Kromhout (a thoroughgoing Boer) is standing as the Nationalist candidate in an election, opposed by Sir David Willoughby (as English as can be). Ten days before polling a lawyer turns up from London to inform Oom Piet that he has inherited the Bentwood (literal translation of "Kromhout") title of nobility. Oom Piet is horrified that anyone could accuse him of being English, let alone a Lord. Most of the film is taken up by his disastrous attempts at damage control, not helped by the village postmistress, who is the most notorious gossip in the district. Eventually one of the English staff draws attention to a decree of Edward I aimed that the first Lord Bentwood, that any Bentwood who jousts and loses, forfeits the title. Which Oom Piet is only too keen to do. The joust is pure slapstick in the best Jamie Uys style (and ends inconclusively). Oom Piet wins the election by the narrowest of margins, after which he and Sir David make patently insincere speeches emphasising Unity ... until they see Sir David's daughter and Oom Piet's son making out in the shadows at the back of the crowd.

A pure romp, which loses nothing by having been shot in and around Stellenbosch (Western Cape), though the story fits the scene in the Waterberg (Limpopo, almost as far as possible without crossing a border) better.

>100 hfglen: I think you have mentioned this one before, Hugh. It does sound fun, but hard to find, I fear.

ETA: And I have been unable to find it anywhere.

Film #36:


Casbah (1948, English (American)) - 2.5 stars
Dir.: John Berry
Scriptwriters: Leslie Bush-Fekete & Arnold Manoff
22/10/2021

This was a rather strange little film. The ambience was of a film noir, set in French Algeria. But people kept bursting into song! Tony Martinis a good singer, but this was a jarring change of mood.

The story tells of a notorious, successful and well-liked thief who is hiding out in the Casbah of Algiers. The police are well aware that he is there, but cannot arrest him, because although Pépé le Moko is popular there, the police are not.

At first I was rather fond of poor, put-upon Inspector Slimane (played by Peter Lorre), who understood the realities of the situation all too well, and even shares a drink with Pépé within the Casbah. But then he uses techniques to trap Pépé, by lying to an innocent party (since she has no reason to believe that her lover is a criminal)MAJOR SPOILER: and thereby destroying her life, since she had already given up everything to be with him that are unacceptable in their willingness to cause collateral damage.

There is real tragedy in this story, and impetuous, doomed love between mature, but jaded, adults, who are reaching for something better than the cynical lives they have constructed for themselves. It does not go well with the attempt to turn the film into spectacle, with an emphasis on music and "exotic dancing" (including an early, uncredited, role for Eartha Kitt).

The explanation lies in the antecedents of this film. It is the musical remake of the1938 American film, Algiers, which covers the same plot in a serious manner, and is itself a remake of the famous French film from 1937, Pépé le Moko.

I found the mishmash of serious film noir and cheap exoticism jarring and rather uncomfortable. I think I would have enjoyed the original more.

Film #11:


The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017, English (American)) - 1.5 stars

After watching the first term minutes or so, I thought this was going to be an enjoyable comedy.

Then we got a genuinely traumatic scene - in which a man's wife and son are murdered before his eyes, to punish him for writings in opposition to his country's ruler. The switch in tone was jarring. Its emotional tone felt hypocritical in a film where the "good guys" prove themselves superior to the police mainly because they are prepared to blaze away with their guns with complete disregard for the safety of the crowds of civilians around them.

To make matters worse, the country in which this atrocity was perpetrated was explicitly identified as Belarus, and it was depicted as performed in the presence of, and at the direct order of, the President of Belarus. Now Belarus has had only one president since regaining its independence in 1990, who was first elected in 1994. So identifying the villain of the film as "the President of Belarus" is a much more direct reference to the current holder of that office (even if he is given a different personal name) than a "President of the United States" or "Prime Minister of Great Britain".

Then, in the next scene, the President of Belarus has apparently been deposed by an invasion of United Nations forces, and is standing trial. The charges are never explicitly stated: only a few witness statements of atrocities are included in the proceedings. From the location in the Netherlands, the international nature of the judges, and the fact that the courtroom is being guarded by UN forces, I presume that this is intended to be the Court of International Justice at the Hague. But what are the charges? That court deals with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, or for violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of human rights law. What we saw in the opening scene, although completely reprehensible, and, of course, against the laws of Belarus, does not fall under that description. And who is bringing the charges? The victims of this fictional president are apparently "witnesses". Since it is stated that "if he is acquitted, he will return to being president of Belarus", it is evidently not a constitutional government of Belarus that is bringing charges against a former ruler. So which state or state is bringing the charges? (The court does not try cases brought by individuals.)

The assumption seems to be that United Nations troops have invaded Belarus, to kidnap the constitutionally elected president of that country, to put him on trial for his treatment of his own citizens. How is that supposed to have worked? Belarus is a member of the United Nations, and so will have had to have its representative present at the debates at which possible military intervention in Belarus was deliberated.

There are only two explanations I can see: one is an insulting disregard for the realities of Europe. The second, sinister, possibility is this: that the film is a manifesto for the use of transnational forces, in a manner incompatible with international law international law, to depose an elected ruler (however unpopular) of a UN signatory state. Since this film emanates from a country that is not even signatory to the relevant conventions of international law, this has to be considered a possibility.

If it is simply wilful ignorance and stupidity on the party of the film-makers, the reason that I think it matters is this. There IS opposition to the current president of Belarus, and that was the case when this film was made. To suggest to a government leader that an organisation, of which his country is a member, might - and, given the tone of the film, SHOULD - depose him by military force is likely to make the most reasonable of men paranoid. And the current president is not known for mild responses.

To compromise international cooperation and increase the risks faced by internal opposition, just to make a movie that primarily consists of a lot of shooting, car chases and watching an aging Samuel L. Jackson shout "motherfucker" a lot, is grossly arrogant and irresponsible.

I found this film neither very funny not very original. To try to make it more "contemporary" by these references was, for me, unacceptable.

I read subsequently that the film's uneven tone arose because it was originally intended in a serious vein, and then the script hastily rewritten as a comedy at the last moment. That would make sense.

If this was intended as a deliberate political statement, then regardless of whether I agree with its implicit doctrine regarding invasions, it would be a valid approach to conveying the filmmaker's viewpoint.

But to stir up tensions in a country where protests are dealt with in a draconian manner, just to make a banal comedy, is utterly irresponsible. (It should be noted that there is no reason at all to think that the actual president of Belarus has ordered mass executions of villages, as the fictional one is portrayed as having done, so setting such a scene in a country where such mass murder has occurred within living memory, during Nazi occupation - 25%+ of the population of Belarus were killed during World War II - is extremely distasteful.)

The hitman is humanised by portraying him as devoted to his wife to the point of sacrificing his own welfare for foolish gestures. But this is completely undercut by showing her to be a horrible person, whose terrorisation of her overweight cellmate is something the filmmakers evidently find hilarious.

Otherwise, it is a typical mismatched pairing "buddy movie", completely with lovesickness manifesting at inappropriate moments.

Again, we are supposed to sympathise with the woes of the "hero", despite their being completely self-inflicted, and, when he is finally made to see his error, it is taken for granted that the woman he has behaved so unreasonably towards should immediately forgive him. (Him hurting her - what did that matter? This is the sort of film where only the man's feelings have any validity.)

This film is complete oblivious to the concept that the audience should care about anyone other than the designated heroes.

There was one other aspect that I found annoying: very few characters other than the lead pair are anything more than ciphers. But the recurring antagonists are the "Russian mercenaries" hired by the villain to eliminate them protagonists. The acting there was less cardboard than in much of the rest of the film, and one of the faces looked familiar, so I tried to look up the actor's names. They are not listed. I know it is common not to list actors with non-speaking roles, but these had significant amounts of dialogue - just none in English. Other actors with literally a single line (in English) were in the credits, but not these.

Another thing that initially puzzled me was the dialogue of these "Russian mercenaries". It was subtitled; yet, as far as my imperfect Russian could tell, what they were saying did not match the dialogue shown. But then I realised what I think is happening. The film was shot in Bulgaria. A lot of the minor parts are played by Bulgarian actors. And there is no particular reason why the mercenaries hired by a Belarusian president should be Russian. So, I suspect the mercenaries were played by Bulgarians, and were speaking Bulgarian (which, as another Slavic language, has some similarities to Russian). But the filmmakers had sufficient contempt for their audience that they were afraid the concept of Bulgarian bad guys would be confusing, so "solved" it by labelling them as "Russian".

There was an outtake at the end, post-credit, which seemed to confirm the maker's contempt for everyone and everything that was not American. Their shooting in Amsterdam is interrupted by the Munttoren carillon. They are irritated, and bemused, that it goes on so long. It seems to me inconceivable that even the most cursory scouting of the location would not have revealed this famous feature; I spent a total of 3 days on the city, yet this was one of the first things I heard about!

This is the sort of film that I feel should come with a was warning label: "For Americans only: screw the rest of you!", since that is so obviously the intent of its makers.

Film #42:


The Boondock Saints (1999, English (American)) - 2 stars
Dir. & Scriptwriter: Troy Duffy
28/12/2021-29/12/2021

The plot of this film is simple. Two ostensibly Irish Catholic young men in Boston feel that their city is too corrupt, and that no one is setting justice done. So they are taking it upon themselves to execute the culprits. As they do, they pray over their victims a prayer that apparently their father taught them. (These are the heroes, by the way. In another film they would probably by the serial killers that the good guys are trying to catch.)

This is supposedly a "cult classic". I do not understand why. (I was watching it at the insistence of a friend, who seems to find it hilarious.) I found it mildly amusing, but the humour mostly went for the obvious.

This is the sort of film that replaces actual plot with extra gore. Fortunately, given its era and low budget, this just means a liberal coating with tomato ketchup. If you are the sort of person that cheers as someone's pet cat is splattered all over the wall by a shotgun blast, you will probably love this. For anyone else, there is not a lot.

What plot there is does not hold up to examination. The lads' father has been in prison for "over 25 years". Yet he taught then their distinctive prayer. That places them in their thirties. So why did they start their campaign of 'retribution' now, rather than any earlier? Did Boston suddenly become corrupt and gang-ridden? They are well-educated young men, who choose to work in an abattoir. It is implied that this is because the focus of their lives is their belief that they are on a "mission from God". So why have they waited so long before starting? (They do not seem very organised, and attract a lot of attention, so this seems to be the beginning of their career.)

I believe the portrayal of Italians and the Italian Mafia are reasonable, and the Gaelic may be also (I do not know), but the "Russian" uttered by supposedly fluent Russian speakers is dire. The assumption that the organisation of the Russian Mafia resembles that of the American Mob is a casual bit of cultural imperialism, whilst the "yellow-face" make-up used for the Russian "boss" is downright offensive. (Its purpose is unclear; did someone make the equation that Russian gangster= Chechen=Asian=from southeast Asia="yellow skin+slitty eyes required"? It was simply weird.)

Nasty stereotypes of foreigners and women abound.

I admit to laughing at times, but the humour was frequently puerile, the plot brainless, and targeted at an audience whose sole criterion for engagement appears to be the level if mindless violence involved. It aims to be "cool", rather than coherent (or indeed entertaining!) I feel I wasted my time.

Film #16:


American Yakuza (1993, English (American)) - 3 stars
Director: Frank A. Cappello
Scriptwriter: Takashige Ichise
29/3/2021-5/5/2021

This is definitely a B-movie. I admit, I watched it because it stars Viggo Mortensen - even though the latter admits that it is one that he did for the money!

It includes a lot of fights, and satisfied my need for something undemanding as distraction. Having made clear the sub-genre in which it fits, I found it actually better than I expected.

The film opens with the lead character being released from prison, then finding it difficult to get a job because of his criminal record. He saves the life of a Yakuza boss, whose gratitude brings him into their world.

This is firmly about the Yakuza as an organised crime syndicate in America. They are in conflict with other organised crime groups, particularly the Mafia. This conflict is the context.

As the blurb for the film explains, our hero is actually an undercover FBI agent. However lack of communication between departments means that he is attacked, and put at risk, by those who are supposed to be his fellows.

The Yakuza, per se are not glamourised above other crime groups. They are portrayed as being violent, bullying, and riven by internal power struggles as any other crime "family".

But what lifts this film a little above its genre is the performance by Ryo Ishibashi as our hero's sponsor into the yakuza. He is an honourable man.

The film contrasts loyalty within the FBI and loyalty within the yakuza - with examples of unworthy behaviour on both sides. In both cases, the ideals and the reality differ.

And the film's conclusion is that truly honourable behaviour can only be found in individual, interpersonal loyalty - not in adherence to organisations with their mantras.

Film #37:


Babylon 5: The Gathering: Special Edition (1998, English (American)) - 4 stars
Director: Richard Compton
Writer: J. Michael Straczynski
6/11/2021

I first watched the Babylon 5 series when it first aired in 1994. It was a tumultuous period in my life, including moving house, which meant that I did miss episodes, and had to give up completely during its third season, when I was too ill (gall bladder) to make any consistent attempt to follow it.

It has stayed in my memory as the best SF show that I can recall, so I have been somewhat wary of revisiting, lest it had been gilded by hindsight.

But now seems an apposite time. I was never aware of the pilot episode, which was apparently aired a year before the series in the US. So that was where I decided to start this time.

However in 1998, J. Michael Straczynski released a Special Edition of this pilot. Some of the editing was tightening up pacing, removing some scenes, restoring deleted ones, and removing some studio-mandated changes that occurred before the release of the pilot. But there are a couple of small, but significant points introduced. This is the version that I watched - the one that is most consistent with where the series in fact went.

The new space station, Babylon 5, has just been commissioned, and is awaiting the arrival of the ambassador of the last of the major known races, a Vorlon. There is much excitement, as no one has ever actually seen a Vorlon; they appear to have a problem breathing the atmosphere of the communal spaces on Babylon 5 (although the private quarters of all those who rent accommodation on the station have their atmospheres adjusted according to species preference). As the most technologically advanced race, they garner interest and respect.

If nothing had followed this film, then it would still have been a good film, although not a great one.

But as an introduction to the world that J. Michael Straczynski creates, it does a superb job. It introduces not only the interplanetary politics, but also a sense of the political situation on Earth in the 23rd century. It makes it clear that although the different races may try to present a united face, through their representatives, in fact no culture is monolithic: there are variations in the views of individuals within each. Aliens are not used here as a cipher for a particular societal point of view from your world, there is a real attempt to make them peoples who have developed their own independent cultures. And they are not all bipedal or humanoid - I particularly liked the shady preying-mantis-like dealer.

We also get to know ambassadorial and command staff as individuals, with their own personalities.

And on top of that there is genuine tension, and a mystery to be solved. There is an assassination attempt, the victim's life hangs in the balance, and this may result in war.

That is quite a lot to pack into a film, but there is more - there are hints as to how the series may develop. However these are never so blatant as to leave the ending feeling incomplete. What I thought was particularly brave -and showing respect for the intelligence of his audience - was the way that there were a couple of points that could easily be dismissed as "continuity errors"... Or recognised as small clues regarding aspects of the storyline that would be developed further later.

CGI has improved tremendously in the decades since this film was made. I watched the Special Edition, which tries to improve on the less successful aspects of the original special effects. I cannot make the comparison, but I never got the sense that what I was watching was overtweaked.

This film was always about the characters, more than glossy visuals.

We finally got around to watching The Eternals, the Marvel movie from 2021. It wasn't good. Some of the parts, with Thena/Athena and Gilgamesh were decent, but in general, just not good.

>107 Karlstar: Thanks for the warning!

>107 Karlstar: What a disaster. The only plus was the setup for Kit Harrington's potential new movie. Let's hope his film isn't as bad as this was.