Forum Topic

Well the good news is that it is much better than his prior dire remake of the classic “Oldboy” but overall this film for me is not top flight Spike Lee, despite all the rave reviews it seems to be currently getting. Based on a true story of a black undercover cop who in the 1970s gets accepted into the Klu Klux Klan based on phone calls made as an undercover cop, the lead role is played impassively by John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington, who has long been one of Lee’s favourite actors. With a Jewish colleague (played deadpan by Adam Driver) impersonating him when he has to physically attend meetings with the KKK, the story itself might have made for an interesting police buddy drama given the KKK’s hatred of Jews and Blacks.

 However this film is primarily a vehicle for Lee seeking to make statements about the history of racism and the KKK in the USA plus the growth of Black Power in the 1970s up to the current US president and recent tragic events in Charlottesville. For about the first half you are not sure whether you are watching a black comedy (no pun intended) with a police procedural story underpinning it with lots of historical references (scenes intercut from “Intolerance”,  Gone with the Wind” plus numerous over flagged links to 1970s blaxploitation movies). Then for the second half, more parallel running of a terrorist type plot developing alongside spoofing of the KKK members and attitudes leads to the original story climax. That then morphs into an ending around more recent events as Lee tries to ensure you leave the cinema having got his point.

Sadly I left feeling I had seen a poor propaganda film patched onto a true police story that on its own, as written in this film script, was probably not that great. Spike Lee may have a lot of anger in him about US history and recent events but this film does not provide much understanding of how and why such hatred persists.

Joe Conneely ● 2800d

Suspect a first in being a Paraguayan feature film! The country's sad history has resulted in little international film output making this film a brave attempt, though heavily reliant on other Latin American and European countries film funding.The film is fascinating for several reasons. Despite the writer/director in this his first feature being male, it is almost wholly female character driven with any male actors being marginal at best. The tale, which gives the film its title, is of two once wealthy women living together who only avoid penury in their late 50s/early 60s, by selling off valuable family possessions.  The film is not so much a plotted script more a series of observations on social etiquette amongst the struggling rich classes of Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay. One of the two women gets put in jail for fraud (because of failure to pay her debts), leaving the other - a great performance by Ana Brun - to slowly awaken from her isolated existence in their mansion and become more worldly and independent. With a need for money she becomes a chauffeur to wealthy women friends despite not having a driving licence and through that process and visiting her partner in prison, more emotionally aware late in life (given the ages of the actors I hesitate to describe as "coming of age"!).Like many observational style films the pace is slow and episodic with greater emphasis on sounds and noises than action. I must admit towards the end I was  looking at my watch and there were only two other people in the cinema so suspect not going to be a popular draw despite its film festival awards to date.

Joe Conneely ● 2817d

Films solely about Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are few and far between. I can only recall seeing one called "A Life for Ruth" from the early 60s, with Michael Craig and the great Patrick McGoohan, which showed on TV across the 60s and 70s and a story around the issue of refusing blood transfusions . Based on this film which was funded by BFI, BBC Films and Creative England the truth seems to be they are not the easiest subject to make interesting films about given their beliefs and approach to life. This low key budget with no star names and a constantly drab Manchester setting whether inside or outside was a lesson for me in the beliefs JW worshippers have to strictly adhere to in being kept within the JW community, which seems to be very male dominant as depicted here. The film focusses around a devoted JW mother and her two daughters (the father it seems left some time ago) who have been brought up in the JW faith. Without giving the storyline away, the film probes the different ways in which their beliefs and devotion in the face of challenges and conflicts are tested.While all done at a very pedestrian pace and using the trick of characters openly voicing in  scenes their innermost thoughts, the film's real strength is the very even handed treatment of all sides as they handle their torment and avoids the emotional platforms that might be expected of bigger budget productions. In large part this may be down to first time director/scriptwriter Daniel Kokotajlo himself having been a JW previously. Definitely not an easy (or enjoyable) 90 minutes viewing though a bit more rewarding than "First Reformed" which I reviewed a few weeks ago in this Forum.

Joe Conneely ● 2831d

Within 5 minutes into this film and you know why with its depiction of  boxing and drug use it deserves its 18 Certificate! That brutal depiction of violence carries on for the rest of the film making it a pretty gruelling but ultimately invigorating experience to watch, if you can stomach it.Yet the film avoids all the cliches and traps it might have fallen into. Based on a true story and apparently popular paperback I have not read of a Liverpool boxer Billy Moore who was caught dealing drugs in Bangkok and sent to prison there, one immediately thinks of prior films like "Midnight Express". While this film was also made in a different country (Philippines) given its politically sensitive content, it uses Thai actors and real Thai ex-cons extensively to recreate the reality that Moore encountered More  importantly it avoids being a standard prison drama of a Westerner banged away in a foreign jail and the type of macho performances that Claude Van Damme, Jason Statham or many others would have depicted. This is because the lead role played by Joe Cole always feels as though he is struggling to survive and the authenticity of the scenes especially the Muay Thai ring fights are very realistic. Add to this that subtitles are not used at all in the film, means you are forced to share Moore's lack of understanding and fear at what is happening given everyone else speaks Thai. A very kaleidoscopic style of storytelling with lots of loose ends left involving corrupt prison officers, ladyboy relationships, prison cell gangs and beatings alongside  Moore's personal battle with drugs and redemption through being trained in Muay Thai boxing (using feet and fists) leaves you reeling as much as the camera during the fight scenes.

Joe Conneely ● 2838d

When I saw the trailers, I wondered if there was room for another film about Oscar Wilde but this covers the last three years of his life rather than his trial and imprisonment.1897, and Oscar Wilde is released from prison. He travels to Dieppe where his friends are helping him to start a new life as Sebastian Melmoth. His wife is allowing him £4 a week so long as he doesn't see Bosie, which he has no intention of doing. In fact, he hopes that Constance might take him back. Except that then Bosie turns up and Oscar is as helpless as ever. The two head for Naples but, when word gets out, Constance stops Oscar's allowance and Lady Queensbury stops Bosie's.They part and Oscar moves to Paris where he lives a hand-to-mouth existence and finds himself an amiable rent boy with a kid brother who is avid for his stories. Constance dies, leaving Oscar permanently cut off from funds and his sons. His health permanently damaged by his two years hard labour, he begins to fail and dies.There are flashbacks, including some good ones of Oscar at the height of his fame when fashionable west-end audiences worshipped him. One really clunky one when he is being moved from Wandsworth to Reading by train, handcuffed to a warden and barracked by a group of working class men 'We don't want none of your love that don't speak its moniker'. Ouch! Rupert Everett stars, directs and wrote the screenplay and maybe someone should have advised a rewrite of that scene.Very much worth seeing, though. Lovely cinematography.Everett (who is excellent) has been talking a lot in interviews about Wilde's massive talent. I can't be the only person who thinks he was only a very minor talent, can I?

Susan Kelly ● 2868d

After all the press and award nominations, I finally got to see this on general release. Well, its certainly not another "There will be blood" the prior film pairing of US director Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis, with Anderson's first non-US film and Day-Lewis's swansong performance we are led to believe.I must admit after all the publicity I was pretty underwhelmed. The story of Day-Lewis as a 1950s London based haute couture dress designer with Oedipal leanings and martinet behaviour in how he creates his dresses, inevitably treating his women as muses, certainly moves at the same pedestrian pace at which his dresses are made. The arrival in his life of a waitress who catches his eye (Euro actress Vicky Krieps in her first English film) who refuses to accept this treatment and the resulting power play between them takes its twists and turns at a leisurely pace. Yet that is where the film does score heavily with nuanced performances and every line of script counting (tales of Day-Lewis being blown away on set at Kriep's performance underline the evident chemistry). Yet for me the best performance comes from the third main actor being Lesley Manville (of Mike Leigh and stage fame), as Day-Lewis's spinster sister whose role is to manage his fashion house day to day and steer his private life so his creativity delivers.Two downsides for me were a music score that irritated me more and more as the film progressed (despite all the praise being heaped on it) and while Sara may dislike air war films (per her "Dunkirk" review) I now realize that fashion films are definitely not my bag!

Joe Conneely ● 3005d

After all the press and award nominations, I finally got to see this on general release. Well, its certainly not another "There will be blood" the prior film pairing of US director Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis, with Anderson's first non-US film and Day-Lewis's swansong performance we are led to believe.I must admit after all the publicity I was pretty underwhelmed. The story of Day-Lewis as a 1950s London based haute couture dress designer with Oedipal leanings and martinet behaviour in how he creates his dresses, inevitably treating his women as muses, certainly moves at the same pedestrian pace at which his dresses are made. The arrival in his life of a waitress who catches his eye (Euro actress Vicky Krieps in her first English film) who refuses to accept this treatment and the resulting power play between them takes its twists and turns at a leisurely pace. Yet that is where the film does score heavily with nuanced performances and every line of script counting (tales of Day-Lewis being blown away on set at Kriep's performance underline the evident chemistry). Yet for me the best performance comes from the third main actor being Lesley Manville (of Mike Leigh and stage fame), as Day-Lewis's spinster sister whose role is to manage his fashion house day to day and steer his private life so his creativity delivers.Two downsides for me were a music score that irritated me more and more as the film progressed (despite all the praise being heaped on it) and while Sara may dislike air war films (per her "Dunkirk" review) I now realize that fashion films are definitely not my bag!

Joe Conneely ● 3005d