Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

ETERNITY

US, 2025, 114 minutes, Colour.

Miles Teller, Elizabeth Olsen, Callum Turner, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, John Early, Barry Primus, Betty Buckley.

Directed by David Freyne.

Till death do us part. And after that…? Eternity.

While the title can have some profound implications, there is a light touch here, in fact, a variation on a romantic comedy.

For audiences going to see Eternity, there is the question of whether they believe in any life after death. If not, here is a fantasy speculation, amusing in its way. For those who do believe in life after death, is it just something of a continuation of life here on earth? The screenwriters of Eternity, present it as if it is, extremely terrestrial, but an opportunity to reaffirm one’s life choices. Those who have religious beliefs, they are not presented in the screenplay, but believers will give some thought to the religious implications of life after death.

And, perhaps, romcom is an enjoyable way of raising some more profound issues of death and life after.

The story raises a question that many would not have given much thought to. If a person who dies has married, her husband killed in war, then her marrying again and having a happy life of 67 years with family, who will be her husband in eternity. (And, of course, those who know the Gospels, will remember that Jesus said there is no giving and taking in marriage and heaven.)

The film opens with the elderly couple, touch of bickering in the car as they go to celebrate with the family, both in their 80s, at least. And, unexpectedly, the husband dies – and finds himself in eternity junction, a huge railway complex where the dead meet their adviser, and are offered a huge range of possible paradise choices (some serious, some funny parodies… In the advertising posters). And, his wife who is ill, dies, and joins the crowds milling at the junction waiting for the trains for their eternal destinations all very personalised with Larry, Miles Teller, dying and being at his best age, mid-30s. (And, with that question which many ask, what age will we really be at in eternity.) Joan, Elizabeth Olsen, was married briefly to Luke, Callum Turner, and experienced the sadness of his death in the Korean War. It turns out that people can have an option to stay working at the junction rather than going into eternity and Luke has been at a bar, where he does encounter Larry, the 67 years.

Larry and Joan have their carers, played by John Early and Oscar-winner, full of verve and vitality, Da’ Vine Joy Randolph.

And the romcom premise is Joan will have to make an eternal choice between Larry and Luke.

Which means then that the audience is going to have to make a choice with her! Luke has remained at the day he died, young, in love, hopeful. Larry, on the other hand, has 67 years of memories and does not take well to Luke’s claims. What is Joan to do? What do the carers suggest? (And we still keep wondering why she has to choose one and exclude the other for eternity.)

So, some funny sequences, some pathos, some retracing the steps of life, emotional uncertainties, yearnings…

So this romcom has the overtones of a mystery which keeps us puzzling and, as we look at the final credits, wondering which choice we would have made in Joan’s place – and whether she makes the right choice!

1. The title? Expectations? Life after death?
2. A romantic comedy, fantasy, a terrestrial paradise? Choices for eternity?
3. Audience response to the idea of eternity? No belief in life after death? Yet imagining it? Of those who believe, continuing existence? Religious dimension? God, heaven, hell, purgatory?
4. The contemporary setting, the family party, Larry and Joan in the car, chatter, the touch of bickering, the 67 year relationship? Larry and the pretzels? Joan and her illness? At the party, the welcome, Larry and the pretzels, choking and dying?
5. The visualising of the junction, a vast railway station, railway network, various offices, the amenities, apartments and interiors, the bar, the enquiry desk…?
6. The posters indicating such a variety of eternity’s, serious, comic? Hedonistic? Selfless?
7. The staff, their decision not to choose eternity, working, the guides? The focus on Ana and Ryan? The personalities, this stunning working? The past bond, the rivalries, marking out their territories, bonding again?
8. Larry, at 35, his happiest time? Arrival, the mirror, realising he was dead, the puzzle, the crowds and the variety of the dead? Asking advice? Meeting Anette, her being busy, taking on the tour, finding his apartment, explaining the possibilities, bonding with him, the conversations? His apartment, her being there during the night, his waking, puzzle? And finding that Joan was in hospital, the sequence of her death?
9. Larry, wandering, encountering Luke at the bar? The woman propositioning at the bar? Going down the escalator, Joan, her arrival, her age, her best self? Puzzled, the carer, Ryan? On the escalator, Larry rushing down, chasing her?
10. The basic romantic comedy and situations, Luke, going to the war, career, his death? Joan, grief, encountering Larry, marrying, the happy times together, 67 years, the children? Till death do us part – and then afterwards, for eternity, the choices?
11. The basic proposition for the screenplay, that Joan had to choose one, not both? And her experiences leading her to choose neither? The long friendship with Karen? Larry and his visit to her, her explanation about her life, marriage, lesbian, her best aged 72? Joan going to see her, the discussions, Karen sympathy, going to the Paris paradise?
12. A dramatisation of the choice, her time with Luke, his waiting 67 years for her to come, his young appearance (yet the joke about dying his hair and the photos and his cupboard)? There reviewing the sequences are their time together, including his death? Keeping company, the happy times, the audience response as to whether she should choose Luke?
13. Larry, intruding, angry at Luke, putting pressure on Joan? His time with her, at the crowded beach, her remembering the 67 years, stages of their life?
14. Ryan and Anna, continually there, their interventions, taking sides, advice, contriving situations?
15. The pressure on Joan, advice from Karen, her choosing neither, going to travel, on the train with Karen? Getting off?
16. Larry and Luke, together, antagonism, Luc going to his room, the note, the fighting, the drinking, becoming buddies?
17. Larry, becoming self-sacrificing, concern for Joan, letting her go with Luke?
18. The train ride, Luc happy with Joan’s choice, there paradise, the home, the neighbours, the socials, you’re going out and enjoying the socials, Joan, pining at home? The discussions with Luke, her decision to escape, with the prospect of living eternity in the void? Her going to the archives, looking at the scenes of her life, especially with Larry, old age? Luke agreeing, his acting, the man at the ticket office, his advice to Joan, her getting the key, escaping, the tunnel, the light at the end of the tunnel?
19. Finding Larry, her being pursued, the receptionist sounding the alarm, Ryan and Anna, making a decision to lie, saving her, her finding Larry? And the happy ending?
20. For a romantic comedy fans, for fantasy fans, and the underlying serious issues of a life after death or not, and if there is, what would it be like, continuing life, making new choices, reconsidering choices, a touch of the Purgatory experience to prepare for paradise?

CHASER

Korea, 2008, 125 minutes, Colour.

Kim Yoon-seok.

Directed by Na Hong-jin

A rather grim Korean crime thriller which has 129 Korean and Asian film awards.

This is a city setting the film, a focus on a former detective who now runs prostitutes and two of them have disappeared. He has a suspect and arranges for one of his women, ill, at home looking after her young daughter, to go to a rendezvous and supply him with information.

There are quite grim consequences, the suspects attack on the woman, leaving her for dead, his killing an old couple who come to make enquiries at his house, his attempting to get away and pursued by the former detective, a crash, and the beginning of quite a number of long running chases throughout the film.

The detective has friends in the police force but they have mixed feelings about him. In the meantime, the mayor has been attacked by a local on throwing faeces at him and the police are preoccupied with this occasion in the press.

After a brutal fight, the police arrest both the suspect and the detective – and the suspect then confessing to a whole range of killings but, not necessarily believed, and with no evidence against him, he is released.

Further grim complications, the injured woman comes to consciousness, is able to escape, takes refuge in a shop. In the meantime, the released suspect comes into the shop cigarettes and the owner asks him for help in case the murderer should come, and revealing that the woman is in the shop – and he kills them both.

As expected, there is a final confrontation between the two men, quite vicious, the police involved. But, a touch of happy ending with the detective moving away from managing the women and going to the bedside hospital of the dead woman’s young daughter.

DAVID

South Africa/US, 2025, 108 minutes, Colour.

Voices of: Phil Wickham, Brandon Engman, Mark Jacobson, Adam Michael Gold, Kamran Nikhad.

Directed by Brent Dawes, Phil Cunningham.

There have not been many animated films with characters from the Jewish Scriptures. Which means that this film, from South African Sunrise Studios, in collaboration with Angel Studios in the US, distributors of so many religious films and with their over a million membership, has received wide circulation.

This David offers an opportunity for younger audiences to learn quickly and easily something of the initial history of King David. It is the kind of film, like the Jesus animated film of 2000, The Miracle Maker, that would be a very effective for primary school religion classes, for Sunday School meetings. While adults may enjoy David, the film has not been geared for this adult audience.

The animation style is very familiar, characters are drawn clearly, brightly, colourfully. David is very cheerful, Saul and the Philistines and Goliath, menacing.

The film opens very sunnily, a quite young-looking David out in the hills with the sheep, the sheep rather Disney-looking and sounding, David singing, and then a menacing lion as one sheep is about to give birth, the confrontation with the lion, saving the sheep – and David exerting his strength and freeing the lion who has been trapped. And then he goes home to quite a surprise.

And there is the prophet Samuel, large, full bearded, examining prospective kings, the sons of Jesse, and asking if there is another son, David and the sheep barging through the house and back again and David announced to be the choice, his being quite reluctant about the idea. But his mother nods her assent.

And, so, the David stories continue, audiences familiar will be anticipating the episodes. Younger audiences may follow with delight and some astonishment.

Saul is a brooding character, failing in his role as king, wary of a successor, confident in his son Jonathan. David then sings and consoles Saul, enabling him to go out to battle against the Philistines – and quite an amount of the film, as would be expected, the confrontation between Little David and a hyper- gigantic Goliath.

The drama becomes more serious as time goes on, Saul responding well to David but then becoming more suspicious, attacking him, David fleeing with his family hidden in the cave, and the whole question of will David ever be King…

Those who do not know their Scriptures will have to see the film to find out…

On reflection, we might realise that so many of the biblical films are made by Christians. And, this is the case here. However, the writers-directors have a sensitivity towards the Jewish community and their reading of the Scriptures, the language of shalom, a song of shalom, a background of rituals, anointings and prayer. Which means that this animation film would be a fine interfaith meeting place for Jewish and Christians.

1. The target audience? Younger audiences? Religious audiences? Jewish? Christian? Wider audiences?
2. The style of the animation, the human characters, animals, the layouts and scenery, action? Popular and familiar?
3. The musical score, the number of songs, David and his work as a shepherd, the shalom and peace song, his mother’s weaving song, the battle songs…?
4. Audience familiarity with David’s story, his early story, the film ending before his adult story and subsequent history?
5. The opening, David and his age, very young, the shepherd, interaction with the sheep, the cartoon style of the sheep, the sheep giving birth, the dangers, the lion, David confronting the lion, saving the sheep, and freeing the lion? Going home, his place in the family, the brothers, the little sister, his assertive father, his mother observing and giving her assent?
6. Samuel, his look, beard, accent, with the family, assessing the sons, their not being successful, the assertion of the military son, the fat son, the dopey-dwarf comic son? David arrival, Samuel’s approval?
7. Saul, morose, anointed king, his battles, faith and lack of faith, love for Jonathan? David going to the court, the line of musicians to soothe Saul, their stepping back, his confrontation with Saul, going back to get the instrument, singing, Saul’s response, opening the windows, coming alive, the bond with David? David and his friendship with Jonathan?
8. The attack of the Philistines, the vast numbers, the visuals of the king, wheedling, his voice? The challenge, Saul and his decision to go to war? The two warriors, Goliath, the giant standardbearer, Goliath more gigantic, the challenge?
9. David, at home, wanting to be with the sheep, the sequence with his mother, her song? Going back to the battlefield, assertive, his language about God’s help, decision to confront Goliath, stepping out of the armour, just himself, the waters, finding the stone, the confrontation with Goliath, the stone, Goliath’s fall, the defeat?
10. David, growing up, with Saul, the friendship with Jonathan, clashes with his military brother, visits home?
11. Saul, his suspicions about a successor, his realisation that David was anointed king, throwing the javelin, David bewildered, escaping? The episode with Saul asleep, taking the piece of his cloak, confronting Saul, not the enemy? Saul and his military and their attitudes?
12. David, the family, hidden in the caves, wanting liberation, eventually going out?
13. David, Samuel, taking on his mission, with Jonathan, Jonathan defying his father about the inheritance and not killing David, the huge statue of Saul, hitting it, its collapsing?
14. David, going into battle, the victories, popular support, his dependence on God, the beginning of his reign?
15. A sequel would have to be more adult-oriented with David and his issues of sex and violence, the revolt of his son, establishing his rule, 40 years?

NUREMBERG

US, 2025, 148 minutes, Colour.

Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Michael Shannon, Leo Woodall, John Slattery, Richard E.Grant, Colin Hanks, Lydia Peckham, Ben Miles, Lotte Verbeek, Mark O'Brien, Andreas Pietschmann.

Directed by James Vanderbilt.

80 years after the end of World War II, the name Nuremberg still evokes memories of the Nazi regime, the rallies in the 1930s, Lottie Riefenstahl is film Triumph of the Will, the location for the proclamation of anti-Semitic laws, and after World War II, the trials.

Cinemagoers and television viewers will have memories of the 1961 classic, Judgement at Nuremberg, and the 2000 television series, Nuremberg, with Brian Cox as Herman Goering. Here is a new take on the trials, focusing particularly on Goering and the American psychiatrists brought in to gauge the mental states of those accused, Douglas Kelly. There is also a focus on Justice Robert Jackson, his role in promoting the trials even though there were no legal precedents, the combining of Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the US to sit in legal judgements on these Nazi war criminals. The screenplay by writer-director, James Vanderbilt, draws on documentation and verbatims of speeches during the trials.

With the focus on Goering, a large man in real life, Russell Crowe fully embodies him (and Crowe, 25 years after Gladiator and his Oscar, can still dominate the screen). Physically, he is quite a contrast to the psychiatrist, Douglas Kelly, played by Oscar-winner Rami Malek. At the centre is a battle of wits, Goering able to combine charm with ruthlessness in his hyper-narcissistic personality, Kelly with psychiatric shrewdness but, in many ways, succumbing to the domination of Goering, an ambiguous friendship, bonding with Goering’s wife and daughter, but a final disillusionment.

Along with this focus on the two central characters, the screenplay provides the background to the raising of such issues as an international court, no legal precedent. And the need for international collaboration with Britain, France and the Soviet Union. At the centre is Justice Robert Jackson, a seriously sombre performance by Michael Shannon, earnest, committed – and with a surprising sequence where he goes to persuade Pius XII to support the trials, using the Pope’s concordat with the Nazi regime in 1933 as a persuasive point of power to gain the Pope’s assent.

Each of the central characters has powerfully dramatic moments. As do two of the supporting characters, standing out is Leo Woodall’s performance as Howie  Triest, Kelly’s translator, but revealing at the end his Jewish background and an impassioned narration of his persecuted life and his American commitment. And, Richard E.Grant also has a significantly dramatic scene, a short but cumulatively effective interrogation of Goering on the stand, brutally making Goering admit his continuing Nazi loyalties.

Older audiences will be familiar with so many of the details but, for later audiences, the device is used in the screenplay to have characters explain situations that they were discovering in 1945. And, the film here uses newsreel footage, re-enacted black-and-white footage. And, there is quite extensive footage, screened in Nuremberg at the trials, the horror of the prisoners in the concentration camps, the starvation and torture, the mounds of dead bodies, the bulldozers clearing… 80 years later still profoundly shocking.

With its focus on Goering and Kelly, Nuremberg is not the last war trials story but it does bring the past back to life – and, some of the speeches at the trial and an epilogue with Douglas Kelly in a radio program proclaiming that fascist groups and individuals can still flourish even if the neo-Nazis are not wearing uniforms. Today we know how true this is.

1. The title, expectations, memories of Nuremberg, the Nazi rallies, vast rally building, the post-war trials, significance in crimes against humanity? International collaboration?
2. Audience knowledge of the war, the Nazi regime, Hitler, Goering as his second-in-command, the concentration camps, the Holocaust, ideology, anti-Semitism, power? The explanations in the dialogue of the film to explain to the characters of the time and their new awareness, for later film audiences?
3. The film as drama, relying on documentation from the court case, the book about the psychiatrist and his encounters with the accused, the focus on Goering and the psychiatrist? The use of black and white news footage, re-created footage, especially the concentration camps?
4. The extensive scenes of the concentration camps, the dead, the bodies, the survivors, the bulldozers… The impact 80 years later?
5. The strong cast, the musical score?
6. Goering story, World War I, his wounds, commitment to Hitler, the 1920s into the 1930s, his role of command, his decisions, legislation, anti-Semitic, final solution, complete and total solution? Interactions with the other members of the Nazi regime? His plan for surrender, in the car with his wife and daughter, prison? His plan for control, to be centre-stage, to make his statement? The disappearance of his wife and daughter?
7. Douglas Kelly, psychiatrist, reputation, military, invited to deal with the war criminals, his personality, his shrewdness, analysis, knowing that Goering spoke English, the discussions with Howie, the translations, perceptions of Goering, narcissistic, control? Writing his notes, the plan for the book? The range of meetings with Goering, Howie present, alone with Goering, the letters, his decision to visit his wife and daughter, the letters, the return? The attachment, later visits, the daughter and the piano? And the personal discussions with Goering?
8. Justice Jackson, his personality, legal background, Supreme Court, his assistant, discussions about bringing the criminals to trial, the assistant and her legal arguments, no precedent, the need for International collaboration, not just America prosecuting in another country? The background of the discussions, Roosevelt and his stances, the Congress, variety of legal opinion, the socials and discussions? The visit to Pius XII, asking for support, quoting 1933, the Vatican and the concordat with the Nazis, the experience of the war, Pius XII and his reputation, the respectful discussion, the political blackmail? The support?
9. The preparations in Nuremberg, rebuilding the hall, preparations, the international judges, the media?
10. Colonel Andrus, in charge, his personality, the touch abrasive, not approving of Kelly, his attitude towards the prisoners? In Switzerland, the transfer to Nuremberg? The cells, no amenities, the beds, mattress, toilets, to prevent suicides? Goering is, that they were German built?
11. Jackson, coming to Nuremberg, the audience contemplating the issues through him, his speeches, the meeting with Maxwell Fyfe? The support of his assistant?
12. The other accused, the presentation of who they were, their background, war crimes, anti-Semitism, their personalities? The reaction to imprisonment, assertion? The arrival of Hess, his salute, claiming amnesia, the time in Scotland? Interactions with Goering, pretending not to know him? Kelly using Goering to get information about Hesse? Using the letters as persuasion?
13. Kelly, on the train, the magic, the card tricks, the journalist, meeting her, his drinking, the interview with her, the headlines, the colonel dismissing him? At the station, returning home, Howie at the station, the powerful scene with Howie, explanation of his past, German, Jewish, escape, the United States, enlisting, wanting to bring down the criminals? The influence on Kelly, accused of not doing anything, his book, giving it to Jackson to prepare the case? His coming to the court?
14. Kelly and his interaction with the various criminals, discussions, the Rorschach tests, the responses and indications of their psychology, especially Kelly’s comments on Goering’s responses?
15. The arrival of Dr Gilbert, brash style, clashes with Kelly, suggesting writing a book together, the blonde information to Goering about his wife and daughter being taken, the fight with Dr Gilbert?
16. The trial opening, the accused, Goering delaying in standing and sitting, centre of attention? Jackson, his speeches, his interrogation of Goering, verbal fencing, accuracy, precision of dates, quibbling about translations? Jackson and his sense of failing (and not being appointed to the Supreme Court)? Maxwell Fyfe, his asking the question, the powerful sequence of his interrogation, Goering’s responses, going through the history of the Third Reich, Goering accepting it, the final question about still being loyal to Hitler? The defeat of Goering?
17. Kelly, the final visit to Goering, and the background of the magic trick, Goering and the cyanide pill, his suicide?
18. The hour for the executions, sudden, not letting the accused is one, no drugs, the test case, tantrum, Howie dressing him, escorting him to the gallows, Howie and the personal antagonism towards the accused, the hanging?
19. Kelly, the radio interviews, his book, drinking, assertions, the reactions? And the final sequence of him walking along the corridor, drunk, and his depression and suicide, cyanide pill?
20. The final information, the consequence of the Nuremberg trials, new standards for Justice and the law for crimes against humanity?

ZOOTOPIA 2

US, 2025, 108 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, Ke Huy Quan, Andy Samberg, David Strathairn, Patrick Warburton, Danny Trejo, Bonnie Hunt, Don Lake, Alan Tudyk, Shakira.
Directed by Jared Bush and Byron Howard.

Hard to believe that it is nine years since the release of Utopia stop it, it has been kept alive by television and streaming. Eager anticipation for a sequel.

And, it takes a with the original finished, and officer is more of the same, thoroughly entertaining – and enough enjoyment for the children with the animals and their antics, enough for the adults with the story, the homage to various movie conventions, and smart dialogue.

As can be seen from the title, this is a wonderful society, living in harmony, a real Utopia for the animals. However, the animals are completely anthropomorphic, mirroring their human counterparts exactly. And this is where the message comes in, despite the difficulties, if animals can live in Zootopia, why can’t humans overcome bigotry, racism, fear, and create a human Utopia?

Once again, here is the young rabbit, Judy, who with her partner, Nick, has solve the case and they have become police celebrities since Utopia, and voiced excellently by Ginnifer Goodwin. And with Nick (once again Jason Bateman at his best), they have proven themselves – but a more difficult case looms and Judy is determined to solve it, the preferring to stay home! Their boss is a rather large, dark, ox police chief, voiced by Idris Elba.

There is quite a lot of banter this time between Judy and Nick, she over-eager, he over-reluctant. But, there is a mystery to be solved, a police case to be investigated and Judy is determined to triumph, forcing Nick (forcibly) along the way.

At first, some misunderstandings, especially in an automatic aversion to snakes. However, the snake is not the villain but rather a hero, a quest to find the document of his grandmother which says that snakes have a rightful place in’s Utopia. However, they have been excluded, and the villains a family of lynxes.

so, on the one hand, this follows the routines of the familiar police partnerships. On the other hand, there is the sinister family, rather mafioso like, and a whole lot of dangerous action and survival in some quite exotic landscapes, snow, cliffs, top of mountain resorts…

And, as with the first film, a lot of smart dialogue, plenty of puns (getting information from Zoogle, watching Ewe Tube), with perilous situations and romantic confessions and apologies.

Quite a number of new voice talent including Oscar-winner,Ke Huy Quan, and veterans Andy Sandberg, David Strathairn (as villainous brothers) and exuberant seen from Shakira.

The dialogue is very entertaining, often very witty, enjoyable with the parallels with human experience, the echoes of the movies, the to and fro banter between Judy and Nick. (This reviewer noted in the 2016 review: “If the makers can come up with another ingenious plot and smart dialogue, Zootopia 2 would be welcome”.

Yes, definitely welcome.

1.  Acclaim for the film, popularity, ages, different cultures?

2. The animation, the characters, textures: skin, fur, clothes? Expressions? In action?

3. The strength of the voice cast?

4. The musical score, the final song, moods?

5. The different genres and conventions? Family stories, families, buddy cops, authority and government and corruption, Mr Big, science fiction, the Godfather, action? Homage – the touch of parody?

6. The animals, anthropomorphic? Voices, expressions? The young, the old, the parents? The hopes, achievement and ambitions? Police chief,, the detective, the police, the Mayor and the assistant, the victims of corruption, thugs, the godfather, the scientists, the guards?

7. The theme of predators and prey? In the past, savage, the biology? The title of the film? The prejudice, manipulation, criminals, bigotry, racism, sexism, and the importance of multi-cultural society and harmony?

8. The continuity with the original, the situation for Judy and Nick, with the police, the chief, the vain horse mayor, the other members of the staff? Reputation? Keeping the reputation?

9. The situation, the social Gala, Judy dressing up, Nick reluctant, forcing him to go, the mystery of the book, the snake seen as stealing the book, action and mayhem?

10. The revelation of the truth, sympathy for the snake and snakes, the villainous of lynxes, the sympathetic links and his help (and the shock of the later betrayal)?

11. Judy and Nick and the banter, her challenging him, her determination, his reluctance, the series of adventures?

12. The sympathetic snake, the family situation, the snakes exiled, the need to find the book, stealing, the adventures with the book, the family in pursuit? The message on the cover? The background story in the flashbacks? The grandmother and the document?

13. The range of adventures, locations, in the snow, climbing the mountain, the Honeyman resort, the quest, finding the document?

14. The vain horse, in the employ of the family, the buildup to the final confrontation, the betrayal of the brother, the authorities and suspicions of Judy and Nick, everybody coming together, working out the solution, the vindication of the snake family? The welcome return?

15. And the parallels with contemporary USA, power, wealth, bigotry, racism, the need for harmony?

TWIGGY

UK, 2024, 94 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Sadie Frost.

For older audiences, this is a very entertaining and interesting visit to the past.

20 was the nickname, popularised by the media and the fashion world, was a teenager, Leslie Hornby, from Nice dead, London. Thin, lively, some ambitions to being a model, she was the opposite of the model stereotype. However, the mid-60s saw a change, the emergence of Jean Shrimpton, the changing clothing designs by such designers as Mary Quant. And, somewhat by chance, a photographer with an eye to change an opportunity, publicising a photo of Leslie Hornby and it soon becoming popular in the UK, then in the US, an almost instant star-making experience for the young girl who is sometimes referred to as Stick, Twig, and the name that immediately appealed and has remained for almost 60 years, Twiggy.

Actress, Sadie Frost, made any entertaining documentary about fashion-designer, Mary Quant. Now, she has interviewed 20 in her mid-70s, still something of a live wire in her activities as well as the buzz in her conversations. Leslie Hornby/Twiggy is still an engaging character to meet. Her memories are interesting, her comment sometimes insightful, being with her very enjoyable.

This documentary takes us through 60 years in the world of fashion, cinema, television, theatre, the media.

It is amazing to think back, and for Twiggy herself, to realise that her fame was rather instant and unexpected. She was in the US, she was on the covers of fashion magazines. And, then she fascinated film director, Ken Russell, and starred in his 1971 musical, The Boyfriend. Interesting interviews with Russell himself, excerpts from the film, and Twiggy herself reflecting on her inexperience, singing and dancing, and winning Golden Globe awards.

She has appeared in other films, especially W where she met her future husband, Michael Whitney, father of her daughter, Carly. Carly is also interviewed throughout the film. Difficulties in marriage, Michael Whitney drinking, having a heart attack in a New York restaurant while dining with his five-year-old daughter.

Number of talking heads appear, some surprising, especially Dustin Hoffman. There is also Brooke shields and Robert Powell. Reminisces about the stage people performance of Pygmalion with Twiggy as Eliza Doolittle. But the marriage to Michael Whitney meant that Twiggy stayed in the United States (but not losing her accent). And there were many opportunities, a television show with her singing and dancing, a Broadway musical with her friend and mental, Tommy Tune. Specialties like singing Christmas songs with Bing Crosby for a television special, screened after he died.

He has led a very eventful life, so often in the public eye. But, she has had happiness in a marriage with actor, Lee Lawson, since 1988, being a mother to Carly and to his son.

By the end of the film, we realise that this is definitely not the end, there are several more chapters to come…

GOD IS A BULLET

US, 2023, 156 minutes, Colour.

Maika Monroe, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau. Karl Glusman, January Jones, Jamie Foxx, Paul Johansson, Ethan Suplee, Jonathan Tucker, Brendan Saxton III..

Directed by Nick Cassavetes.

A brutal film about brutal people and brutal events. And, with some philosophical dialogue at times, a central character who attends church, speculations about what is the presence of God in the world… And with so much death, the title.

The film was written and directed by Nick Cassavetes, son of John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands, his films range from The Notebook to Alpha Dog. The film is based on a well-received novel of 1999.

Many audiences will be repelled by the violence and, with a long running time, may not want to continue with the film. And, it requires concentration, especially from the opening and the abduction of a young girl to a Manson-like family, slaughter and abduction sequence. The cult group is repellent, led by Karl Glusman, a range of henchmen and young women in attendance, glimpses of satanic behaviour but no major explanations of the nature of the cult and its beliefs apart from brutality.

The main action concerns a detective, played by Nikolai Coster Waldau, whose daughter to whom he is devoted is abducted. He goes on leave, encounters a young woman in rehabilitation who has fled the cult. They join up to recover the daughter. The young woman is played by Maika Monroe and her intense performance might be the main reason for seeing the film.

Jamie Foxx turns up as an outsider, a tattooist, who puts a range of tattoos on the detective to make his mixing amongst the cult more credible. And, there is an extraordinarily lurid bar with a mix of very strange characters.

The audience has to pay attention to the main action, and what are flashbacks concerning the young woman, some memory flashbacks to the aetective and his daughter, but the continued pursuit, complicated by various identities, the young woman making as if she is rejoining the cult, the deals, and a range of confrontations and shootouts.

The scenario seem quite improbable, the fiction of so many action and bikie and cult films from the past. But, with the strange behaviour, conspiracy series, theories, and the ever-divided USA since the first Trump administration, it may not seem so improbable.

CORRECTIVE MEASURES

US, 2022, 106 minutes, Colour.

Michael Rooker, Tom Cavanagh, Dan Payne, Brendan Mejia, Bruce Willis, Kevin Zegers, Celia Aloma, Haley Sales, Kat Ruston.

Directed by Sean Patrick O'Reilly.

The title suggests a film about prisons. And, it is.

However, this is a future world, a world created by graphic novels, as is this film. There are disasters all around the world (and an early news flash indicates that Australia may have disappeared!). Throughout the film there are inserts of television news flashes, continued disasters – but some comic bickering between announces, the top male announcer continually correcting his female assistant with her grammar.

At the film opens with a brutal attack by a strong hero-figure, killing a whole squad of violent killers. Then he is arrested, sentenced to a high security prison. And, it emerges that this is a government prison for men (not women) who have some kind of superpowers. If their lower leg is constricted by a brace, they are unable to exercise their power.

As the film goes on, we see a variety of superpowers, confronting behaviour amongst the prisoners, but also some sympathetic prisoners including Gordon, who has a capacity for conducting electricity, and the young prisoner, Diego, who superpower is to create an atmosphere of empathy. There is also a sympathetic large male with a distorted face. And, there is Bruce Willis, his last performance before his retirement from films, sadly, with dementia.

And, overall is the rather cynical prison warden, Michael Rooker playing it to the hilt. Kevin Segars is a brutal but somewhat done guard. Celia Aloma has ambitions to become the warden successor. There are some nice people on the staff, especially a sympathetic doctor. And there is a hyper brutal guard played by Kat Ruston.

The drama of the film consists of the warden preparing for his retirement and luxurious life after prison. His trying to deal with Bruce Willis’s character, allegedly wealthy, who superpower is rather mysterious. Several scenes of interrogation and interplay.

The climax is quite brutal as well. Somehow though Bruce Willis’s character is able to unlock some of the leg braces and so there is mayhem in the yard and throughout the prison as violent prisoners attack each other with their powers, also attacking the guards.

This seems to be a mysterious moment in the interview between the warden and Bruce Willis where, suddenly, Bruce Willis seems to have lost his power and is lying down, leaving the warden free after the mayhem escaped to his retirement.

The final twist, and audiences have to be alert to see it, just a simple look in the rear vision mirror to appreciate what has happened, an excellent twist at the end of quite a brutal film experience.

ELEANOR THE GREAT

US, 2025, 98 minutes, Colour.

June Squibb, Erin Kellyman, Chiwitel Ejiofor, Jessica Hecht, Rita Zohar, Will Price, Stephen Singer.

Directed by Scarlett Johansson.

The title of the film does not appear until the end – after we have come to know Eleonor very well. Had the title been at the beginning of the film it might have read: Eleonor the Abrasive. She is a bit of a tough case!

This is a star vehicle for veteran actress, June Squibb, turning 96 when the film was released – though her character is only 94! Recently, June Squibb was seen in an action comedy, Thelma. She is certainly a good advertisement for life in the 90s!

Eleonor is a widow, a convert to Judaism, now sharing an apartment in Florida with her longtime friend, Bessie, also a widow with family (a very moving performance from Rita Zohar). But Bessie is from Poland, lost her family during World War II, Auschwitz, moving to the United States. There are many very moving scenes where, just sitting at the table with Eleonor, Bessie recounts the sad experiences.

When Bessie dies, Elinore has to move back to New York, rather hard on her daughter, more cheery to her grandson. But, in Florida, we have seen some examples of how Eleonor can be more than forthright, sarcastic, rude. We know that she will be changed by the end of the film (or we hope so) but we are wondering how this will be achieved.

Her daughter arranges for Eleonor to go to the local Jewish centre and join a group, in fact a Holocaust survivor group, and, we dread it as she begins, but she tells Bessie’s story as if it is her own. And there are many consequences with Eleonor trapped in this new identity.

And, at the first meeting, there is Nina (a very pleasant Erin Kelleman), wanting to observe, write an article for her journalists’ course. And she is very moved because she has just lost her mother, an artist, in an accident, and her television personality father, Roger (Chiwitel Ejiofor) has become closed in on himself.

One of the directions the film goes in is that Eleonor, a convert, goes to synagogue every Saturday, observing young girls with the bar mitzvah, regretting that she never had one, going to the sympathetic rabbi – and his text for her is the story of Esau and Jacob, Jacob’s deceiving his father, Isaac.

Nina and Eleonor bond, Eleonor beginning to mellow, sharing emotional stories, Eleanor a good listener, shopping with Nina, buying a bright red suit for her bar mitzvah ceremony.

And, then it happens, but you will have to see the drama in the synagogue and how everything will be resolved.

Bessie’s conversations in storytelling with Eleonor are inserted throughout the film and, especially at the end, moved by her sincere sadness, we listen, tearfully, to Bessie’s memories and her grief.

A pleasing film, delight with June Squibb’s portrayal of Eleonor, the tangle of her telling Bessie’s story as her own, friendship with Nina and the reconciliation, Nina and her father, a mixture of laughter and tears.

This is a first feature film directed by well-known actress, Scarlet Johansson.

1. An American story, the Jewish story, Holocaust story – in the 21^st-century US?
2. Florida, apartments, the beach, shops? New York, the Bronx, the apartments, the streets, Jewish centre, the synagogue, the University, television station? Atmosphere? The musical score and atmosphere, the popular songs, and I’m Still Here, Blue Skies?
3. The title not appearing until the end, Illinois initially abrasive, the audience anticipating the change – and the joy and sadness of the change?
4. Eleanor, midwest background, marrying Harry, family, relationship with her daughter, grandson? That it husband? The friendship with Bessie, Bessie’s background, Poland, the Holocaust, her telling her story, the sadness? The bond between the two, the room, getting up, breakfast, shopping, wanting the Kosher objects, and abrasive with Charlie the attendant? Abrasive with the friend at the checkout counter? Bessie, sad, in hospital, pretending that she was related to the founder of the Stern Hospital, Bessie dying, Eleanor sitting alone at the beach?
5. Eleanor and the phone calls with her daughter, the flight, meeting them at the airport, grandson, the bond, clashes with her daughter? Going home, her comments, criticisms? Her daughter, divorced, working, the difficulties with her mother, no affirmation? The prospects for Eleanor, into care?
6. In New York, going to the Jewish centre, the initial encounter, the music and singing group and her reaction, going to the Holocaust group, the introduction, Nina and her presence, observing? The question to her, her taking on Bessie’s identity, telling the story, the pathos, the response? Nina and wanting to write her essay, wanting to interview Eleamor? The emails, phone calls, arriving at the apartment?
7. Roger Davis, his program, in denial, The Fabric of New York? The audience appreciating Nina as his daughter, the death of her mother, her father’s distance, not mentioning her mother, not really listening, absorbed in his work? Her feeling neglected? Her personality, alone, gay identity, talking with Eleanor, Eleanor understanding, the bond between them, Eleanor continuing her story? Nina writing the story, giving it to her father, her father’s affirmation of the story? Wanting to take it further, Nina and the students and the professor, Eleanor’s wariness, Roger and his wanting a television program? The setup and the synagogue?
8. Eleanor, converted to Judaism for her husband, attentive, explaining synagogue to Nina, Nina not practising but being Jewish? Eleanor regretting not having a bar mitzvah, the young girls, the celebration after the ceremony, chattering, Eleanor wanting a bar mitzvah, talking to the rabbi?
9. The preparation for the bar mitzvah, the story of Esau and Jacob, deceit for a good purpose and its relationship to Eleanor’s telling the story? The going together shopping to get the red outfits for the ceremony?
10. Eleanor, telling the lies, her motivation, sharing Bessie’s story, the response, continuing? Going to the synagogue with her grandson, the roadblock, getting the taxi, her mother and grandson following, and the denunciationat the Synagogue, the members of the group disillusioned, Nina shocked? Eleanor trying to explain, the results?
11. Nina and the conversation with her father, his expressing sympathy, on the television program, his telling the truth about Eleanor, her watching it in the aged care home, her daughter and grandson watching it, the members of the group? Roger and his explanations of Eleanor’s background, her long friendship with Bessie, wanting to tell her story and identifying with it? Nina at the studio?
12. Nina, visiting Eleanor, the reconciliation, her mother and grandson coming?
13. The flashbacks throughout the film, the character of Bessie, the pathos of her story, tearful, the device of having the flashbacks and the audience hearing Bessie’s version of the story, and the final, the two of them together, and coming to terms with the loss of Bessie, and more affable taunts people?

FOLLY TO BE WISE

UK, 1952, 93 minutes, Black-and-white.

Alistair Sim, Elizabeth Allan, Roland Culver, Colin Gordon, Martita Hunt, Janet Brown, Peter Martyn, Miles Malleson, Edward Chapman, Cyril Chamberlain, Michael Ripper, Robin Bailey, George Cole.

Directed by Frank Launder.

Frank Launder and his writing partner, Sydney Gilliat, contributed a great deal to British cinema in the 1940s and 1950s. They worked with Alistair Sim in The Happiest Days of Your Life and then in the Belles of St Trinian’s.

Alistair Sim was something of an institution and British cinema at this time, especially with An Inspector Calls and his two-to-forced as Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol.

This is a very British film of the period, based on a play. And, the action is confined to offices, the hall, pubs, homes. The emphasis in.is on dialogue.

Alistair Sim is the chaplain, William Paris, who has a responsibility for organising entertainment on Saturday evenings, something artistic and intellectual instead of the soldiers gathering at the pubs.

The basic idea is to have a Brains Trust evening, a professor who conducts one on the BBC, Colin Gordon, an artist, Roland Culver very persuasive, antagonistic towards his wife, Elizabeth Allan. There is also the local Grande Dame, Martita Hunt, the local labour member, Edward Chapman. There is also the very absent-minded and deaf doctor, Miles Malleson and who does tell a joke which gets everybody laughing.

A range of confusion, Paris trying to MC the whole event, clash between husband and wife, basic question about marriage from Paris’s secretary… And some squabbling on stage as well as at home, discussions about marriage and, 1952, a reconciliation at the end which might strained credibility.

1. The title, saying, knowledge, wisdom – and the brains trust?
2. British films, the 1950s, small-budget, local stories, comic touches, strong British cast?
3. The setting, the military, the chaplain and office, the hall, the local pubs, the parade ground? The musical score?
4. Based on a play, emphasis on dialogue, action confined to offices, halls, homes, pubs?
5. The military situation, 1952? The recruits, training? The role of the officers, adjourning to the pub, the spirit amongst the men?
6. Captain Paris, an Alistair Sim character, his manner, style of speaking, enthusiasm, the touch of the dithery? Harassed? At the recital, the few in the audience, applause? His role as providing entertainment, the discussions with Jessie, the ensembles, the singers, cancelling appointments? The idea of the brains trust?
7. Walter and Jessie, his puzzle about her eagerness for education, her earnestness? Their work for Paris? The idea of the brains trust, Jesse and her eagerness? The visit to the Sprouts, the encounter with Angela and Professor Mutch? The proposal, her enthusiasm, the professor agreeing, George and his difficulties?
8. The relationship between Angela and the professor, George and his art, arrogance, manner, treatment of Angela, long friendship with the professor, the professor staying with the couple, his BBC success?
9. Preparations for the Brains Trust, the request for questions, the soldiers responding, Paris going through them, some projections, Jessie and her question? Later slipping it in? The friendship with Lady Dodd, her manner, agreeing to come? The local politician and his manner? Walter and the curtains and decoration?
10. The gathering, George and his drinking, the discussions? The doctor, his arriving late? The crowd in the hall, the slow clap, the beginning, the issue of the master of ceremonies, Paris and his role? The first questions, slight, the contributions, George and his drinking, cantankerous, the professor on edge, Angela, Lady Dodd, the politician and the exclusion of politics? His sensitivities?
11. Jessie, the question about marriage, the handling of the situation, Paris wanting to stop, Lady Dodd and her answer, the beginning of the situation between George, Angela and the professor, tensions, Jessie insisting, the audience backing her? Her motivation, want to know about marriage and how it worked? Walter behind-the-scenes? The interval, the continuance, Jessie and her speeches, Walter and his eventual long speech and Jessie’s romantic response?
12. The doctor, not hearing, absent-minded, eventually telling the joke and everybody enjoying it?
13. The aftermath, driving away, ousting the professor, Paris and the others in pursuit, the confrontation in the house?
14. The comeuppance for the professor, Paris and his interventions, Jessie, challenge to Angela, George and his change – and the credibility of the reconciliation?