Reviews

My immediate reaction coming out of the cinema was that the film would be better suited as a play. This being because in the film there are only really four main settings: the apartment, the city, the subway, and the comedy club/theatre/television studio. Especially with the last setting(s) I mentioned, as a play the various reactions of a live audience could add realism and also an active reciprocal interaction between Arthur and an audience which I think would be more entertaining.

I agree with my friend's opinion of the film, for which he believed the range of issues covered was "as wide as a sea but as deep as a pond". The main issues such as mental health, misogyny, class, politics, and parental relations (as well as many others) were all raised and recognised as issues but were not explored in any depth, again as my friend put beautifully he believed Phillips was "tickboxing" issues that are meaningful to current audiences.

When Arthur is sitting alone at the back of the bus, the CGI outside the back window is horrendous. There is also a weird camera shake when Arthur climbs into the fridge, which from the angle makes you think this is from a first-person perspective of an unknown person in Arthur's flat, but then there is a cut and on reflection seems bizarre. Clearly Phillips ran out of budget and had to film on a potato.

The musical score was excellent until it was muddled with contemporary music (for example when Arthur dances down the concrete steps) which was a jarring and incongruent.

On a more positive note, Phoenix's Joker was original and superbly acted. Arthur having a condition making him laugh creepily and inappropriately was an authentic and believable aspect of his character. Phoenix is very effective at laughing with dead and soulless eyes, making him seem utterly sinister.

Similar to Hamlet, The Joker can be played in many different ways because of the ambiguous complexity of his character. Phoenix's Joker is a victim of the worst aspects of society, fragile, and deeply forlorn. This being a very different interpretation to the assertive and more dominant representations in Leto's or Ledger's performances.

All in all, a good watch but please someone adapt it into a play!

PS: I want that suit.

This biopic was an entertaining and informative watch. However, I believe I would have liked more prior knowledge of Cuban history, both political and cultural, in order to fully appreciate the more subtle cinematographic references. Hence, on a second watch, with additional background research, it is blatant that it will be a more enriching experience.

I think the main success of this film is the clear demonstration of scenes set in pre and post revolution by the use of 'full-colour' and 'black and white' scenes respectively. It is remarkable that such a simple device can indicate a time change to a viewer so succinctly.

The map in the beginning of the film was very effective in widening my understanding of Cuban geography. The visual representation made me later realise the lengths the guerrillas were willing to travel in order to spread the revolution.

It was shocked to hear Che use the word 'f**got' when insulting a deserter. Again, this was such an economical way of portraying how society has progressed since the 1950s, even through the language we use, in just that utterance.

All in all, it's most definitely worth a watch (in silence).

PS: Eddie Izzard: 'Cake or Death!'...Che: 'Homeland or Death!'... I think I prefer Eddie's version.

Living in chaotic Britain in 2019, on the verge of a great societal transition, Casablanca re-instilled some faith in my bleak outlook on the near-future. It's been enlightening to finally watch this timeless film and realise how many times it is referenced across cinema. I find the audio in Casablanca very consoling because the hubbub of background noises are muffled, so my attention is solely taken in the soundscape of the current scene. And yes that may sound peculiar, but it makes me very relaxed!

Looking at the other reviews, there is not much more to add besides the wondrous tingling sensation I felt when the café stands to sing Le Marseillaise to drown out the singing of the German soldiers, and the slightly comic repetition of Signor Ferrari swatting insects at the end of each scene in which he appears.

To any people of Generation Z put-off by black and white films (or anyone at all for that matter) give up on the Netflix pulp and spend your time watching awe-inspiring films like this!

PS: We'll ALWAYS have Paris.

Cool Hand Luke starts Paul Newman as Luke Jackson - a modest, wry, and unrelenting atheist who is unique in his unyielding optimism. Ironically, he is the symbol of Christ sent to this Florida prison to bring hope to the inmates. Newman's subtle facial expressions are cunning and precise. Newman can distill Luke's emotions with just a grin or an eyebrow twitch. Luke's best friend Dragline, played by George Kennedy, juxtaposes Luke's meek nature in his energetic and over-explicit demeanour. Dragline's leadership and command contrasts perfectly with Luke's reservedness causing both characters to be dependent on one another in need of what they lack.

Analysing the practicalities, there are a few cases where the editing is very erratic - for example the transitions in music between scenes are very jumpy! There are some very long shots which don't progress the plot and so if you are wondering why the running time is 2 hours well that's your answer!

Overall, although I was initially sceptical about watching this film it was a very entertaining watch!

PS. Signing it off here boss!

This film would have been a 4/10 had it not been saved by Robin Williams as Dennis the Dog. I loved the premise of the film, however was let down by the performances of Kate Beckinsale, who played a really dull television producer, and Rob Riggle who is, frankly, annoying. However there were some very funny scenes, with Simon Pegg and Sanjeev Bhaskar, particularly when Ray is turned into a sausage. I think the film didn't fully understand who its audience were as there were some very childish humour combined with some very explicit sexual references!

Afterthought: R.I.P. Robin Williams, we all miss you!

Famous lines from Michael Palin as Pontius Pilate...and also my favourite lines from this wondrous film. This is not a piece of criticism, just an exhibition of love. For those of you who believe that Holy Grail is better - I'm sorry to inform you that you're wrong. Life of Brian has such good consistent humour that really can't be beaten. The variety and range of characters the Pythons play is sublime. The chemistry they have with each of other is what makes the film work so well. I won't ramble on anymore because most of what I want to say has already been said!

Afterthought: Well, what is myrrh anyway?

I think one of the main reasons why I thought this film was average was because the book is so incredibly good. The film would have been more gripping if Michell kept some of the more tense scenes from the book (for example when Joe goes to pick-up the gun with his old friend) as the second half lacked suspense. However, the performances by both Daniel Craig and Rhys Ifans were very engaging. Bill Nighy's performance was refreshing and provided necessary contrast between the main protagonists. McEwan, being such an expert in crafting a story, creates an insurmountable task for directors to translate all the intricacies in his novels into film - so well done Michell for even braving this task!

P.S. PULL THE RIP CHORD!

A Raymond Carver-esque film centred around a Raymond Carver play. And it works beautifully. The perfect pairing of Alejandro González Iñárritu and Emmanuel Lubezki have made an entrancing masterpiece. The skill of the camerawork dwarfs The Revenant, and though uses a limited set makes it entertaining and engaging throughout. The harsh neon colour palette catalyses the insanity of Birdman. The jazz accompaniment gave me jazz fever which was enrapturing as I danced along with the film's rhythmic ferocity. The humour was tasteful, the script was beguiling in its utter randomness. And who doesn't enjoy various jabs at avaricious Hollywood?

Afterthought: I forgot how good Edward Norton is. Just forget about him in Sausage Party.

I've watched this film many times and enjoyed it. However, on my most recent watch I enjoyed it the least. As Rom-Coms go it's up there as a classic, however at points it's a cliché love-fest. The number of insincere inspirational quotes sounds like Smithy is reading from a Pinterest board (if Pinterest had been founded five years prior). On the other hand, I have had many entertaining hours watching and rewatching this film so thank you Andy Tennant.

Question: Kevin James - actor or good at falling over?

Like Y Tu Mamá También and Children of Men, Cuarón's depth and attention to detail is outstanding. The grayscale makes you appreciate the choice of patterns and shades which enrich each shot. Cuarón has again written awesome and empowering female leads which emphasises how often Hollywood still fails to pass the Bechdel Test on numerous occasions. A film definitely for the enjoyment of its beauty and less on plot, however the final half-hour is incredibly gripping and moved me to the verge of tears.