Noel Dowling – Google

As a Catholic, I am always amused that Hollywood always goes to the Church as a vehicle for entertainment. Never will it tackle Judaism or Islam in the same way, if at all. That said, there is a quite a bit going for this film. It's beautifully photographed and the acting ensemble is first rate. As one would expect, the story that follows the convening of a conclave of Cardinals from around the world in the Vatican to choose a replacement for a dead Pope involves treachery, ambition, past sins and the lack of bravery to take on the role. The liberals - natch - are the good guys, while the traditionalists are portrayed as backward, anti-women and vaguely racist. I don't see the film as anti-Catholic. After all, a core tenet of the religion is that we are all flawed and in need of forgiveness and God's grace. I think the film could have explored this more: why would so many still cleave to the Church if it did not meet a deep spiritual need. The film is worth your while, even if you disagree with its take on faith and the highest level of hierarchy in the Catholic Church.

I came to this film reluctantly because of the criticism it has received. Having watched it, that criticism is unjustified. The story is by now well known. A juror realises at the start of a trial that the accused is innocent and that he - the juror - may have unknowingly killed the victim in a car accident a year earlier. Even though the plot is revealed early in the film, the story is really well handled and I was never bored. Nicholas Hoult as the juror and Toni Collette as the prosecution attorney are excellent, although, as a non-American, I can’t vouch for their accents. Hoult doesn’t over dramatise his character which I managed to sympathise with and dislike at the same time. The fact is that Clint Eastwood is a master filmmaker and this fits well into his catelogue of unshowy great films.

Film is an odd mixture of horror, lunacy and theology. Hugh Grant basically kidnaps two young women - Jehovah Witnesses - who are kept in his creepy old house. He tries to convince them of the one true ‘religion’, using references to popular culture. As he grows older, Grant’s facial tics and mannerisms, previously charming in effect, now convey menace. His performance is eye catching. The two young women are played by actresses who are new to me. They’re very good. The film keeps you engaged but I’m not sure it amounts to a classic.

Previous reviews of this film on this site are insightful and I can't add anything to them. The only thing I would say is that, as a non-American, I expected this to be a hit piece by the Hollywood elite who seem to hate Trump. It's actually a strong study of power. The actors playing the three principal characters - Trump, Roy Cohn and Ivana Trump - are excellent. Trump must have something going for him beyond boundless ambition and a transactional attitide to personal relations. Otherwise, he would not have the support of half of US citizens. The film would have been improved if it acknowledged and portrayed that side of him. Still, it's well worth your money.

I've rarely seen a more demoralisng mainstream film as this. The first Joker film passed me by, but I gathered from this that the Joker had killed five people including one on live television. The Joker, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is standing trial and his defence team is arguing that he has a split personality - one Arthur Fleck and the other the Joker - arising from appalling sexual and physical abuse he suffered as a child. While awaiting trial, the Joker is incarcerated in a truly vile institution where the chief warden is a bully played by Brendan Gleeson (using his Irish accent). The Joker meets what he believes is his soulmate, played by Lady Gaga. She purports to be a fellow mental patient but we find out later that she is not being honest with the Joker. Gaga certainly has a screen presence but she is not a sympathetic character. Everything in this film is drab and depressing. Judging by the fashions and technology on display, it's set in the 1980's. It rains constantly. The public seem transfixed by the psychopathic nature of the Joker. In the Joker's mind, he engages in musical numbers alongside his new love played by Gaga. The songs they sing are American standards, and I'm astonished that the copyright holders have allowed them to be subverted in this manner. There seems to be a worm-in-the-apple intention to associate these joyful songs with a murder, violence and mental illness. I can't fault the acting in this film or its design. While I don't believe that all films should be morally uplifting, those that dwell on the darker side of life usually have an inherent moral purpose. This doesn't. I was depressed by it, and I really wonder whether the director Todd Phillips harbours ill will towards the society in which he lives.

Hmmmm…..Don’t know what to say about this film which I’ve just seen for the first time in a cinema. The story doesn’t really go anywhere. There’s two policemen attracted to two women. One, a hired killer; the other an eccentric short order chef prone to breaking into the apartment of the policeman to whom she’s attracted. It’s directed in an elliptical style, never quite following a conventional narrative. It’s fascinating to see how technology has changed in the 30 years since the film was released. No mobiles but pagers, CDs rather than file sharing. California Dreaming pops up every so often, as does Dreams by the Cranberries except that the lyrics are sung in Korean by its star, Faye Wong. A strange little film, but not the worst.

I never read the book and I saw the film only because the cinema timetable suited me. I didn’t know what it was about but I guessed it was was a ‘woman’s film’ based on the preponderance of women in the audience. I wasn’t wrong. The film’s protagonist, played by Blake Lively, grew up in a home marked by domestic violence. As an adult, she meets up with a handsome brain surgeon who - you guessed it - is prone to domestic violence himself. Like the James Joyce short story ‘The Dead’, Blake’s real love is a boy from her past. In this case, years earlier, she saved him from suicide and he is now a successful restauranteur. It’s likely that Blake’s character’s reluctance to see the reality of her situation mirrors real life victims of domestic violence. Blake’s performance is odd. She seems to talk through her teeth and laughs inappropriately - again perhaps mirroring reality. The character’s dress sense seems odd too, veering towards the bohemian. All in all, I wasn’t convinced by this film. And I wasn’t moved by it, despite the manipulative techniques used at times. I wasn’t mad about the score either. All of that said, it’s a professionally made film that doesn’t insult the intelligence. So, it deserves three stars.

The film follows the conventions of modern biopics: a story told in flashbacks; a strong woman married to a weak - implicitly gay - man; the unfairness of the law when it comes to independent women; and finally, the last scene ending on an ambiguous note, followed by an on-screen written epilogue tying up loose ends. All of that said, I liked this film. The eponymous Ms. Clicquot is played by an English actress Haley Bennet who has an interesting and expressive face and evokes much sympathy. The rest of the cast - all English too - play their parts well. The story moves along nicely and the film - hurray - doesn’t go beyond 90 minutes. Up to this film, I had no idea about the creation of Clicquot champagne or that a woman had played such an important part. Another interesting element of the story was the allegation of ‘sanctions-busting’ against Widow Clicquot when she attempted to export her product to Russian in defiance of Napoleon’s decrees. Not meaning to make a pun, this film leaves behind a pleasant taste.

I have only recently seen on this film - for the first time - on YouTube. It's a cracker. The cast is stellar. Michael Caine commands the screen as usual but the others, particularly a young Pierce Brosnan, shine just as brightly. Funnily enough, 10 years ago this film may have been considered passé, given its Cold War theme. But now, with newly heightened tensions with Russia, it is perhaps closer to the bone than we would like to think.