Reviews

I saw this film on the last day of the Berlinale and it's seduced me right away. The room by room 360 degree rotating camera scenes did remind me slightly uncomfortably of estate agent guides however the film deserves a lot of credit for its subtlety and restraint. The characters are entirely realistic and multi-dimensional, a rarity in films dealing with class and race. In particular the exchanges between mother and daughter for me exemplified the balance and impartiality of the film.

I would thoroughly recommend this whether you are looking for an examination of class, race and family or just wish for a couple of hours of stunning scenery, endearing characters and beautiful music.

What I found most enjoyable about this film is the way it straddles the sport-biopic genres. It maintains the acute acting and psychological fullness of a biopic, aided by a fantastic performance by Miller, while being in keeping with the Hollywood highs and lows aspects of great sports movies.

Those not interested in sport should not be put off by thinking this will be a typically superficial or one dimensional sports film. But those sporty types will also find plenty to satisfy them.

As a big cycling fan I was already well aware of the Obree story and I can assure people that is every bit as incredible if not more so than is shown in the film. Naturally the constraints of a film mean that the Obree story is cut short and we don't see how the Superman position was banned or Obree's subsequent depressions especially after his brother died (indeed his brother is completely missing from the film). But by choosing to limit the time scale it describes it allows time for greater detail particularly in investigated his relationship with the priest and Obree's wife.

Equally the film doesn't embellish the truth a great deal in order to increase the drama. Indeed the world record attempts are incredibly understated, as they should be. Obree was never well known in Britain despite being very popular on the continent. As a result the film isn't filled with cheering crowds but rather focuses the isolation he experienced within Scotland in spite of his amazing achievements.

What an earth has happened to Parisian cinema? Much like its architecture Paris's cinema seems to suffer under the shadow of its predecessors. The beautiful wholeness of Paris as a city means it is near impossible for Parisian architects to create anything modern and fresh for fear that it will jar too badly with its classical surroundings. Similarly Paris cinema suffers under the shadow of the nouvelle vague, its public is too obsessed with its own ageing image that anything fresh and original is drowned out by tribute after tribute to a dead past (La Haine being a rare exception).

If Honore had wanted to make a film about the modern Paris the action would have taken place completely within the confines of Paul's bedroom. Instead Jonathan bizarre jaunt across Paris which is neither interesting, funny or iconic in anyway takes up half the film.

Even the sections which do focus on Paul offer painfully inept psychological profiles compared to similar studies in German, and particularly Eastern European cinema.

Frankly I wouldn't waste your time with this one and instead seek out some of the more exciting French cinema coming out of Marseille at the moment.

Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty.

Like many people I came to this movie having been a big fan of the book, and again like many my main question was whether the film could successfully convey sensuality through image and sound as well as Patrick Suskind had done through language. For about the first hour the answer was a resounding yes. The early scenes in the fish market and particularly the first murder were expertly handled. Yet there is a fine line between sensuality and stylisation and as the film developed I felt it was slipping more towards the latter than the former. This culminated in the final few scenes which seemed to disintegrate into the ridiculous and eventually the downright comical. This was a particular pity for the last scene which, with its echos of the Orpheus myth should have been spectacular but was merely slightly grotesque and silly. Still it is worth seeing for those early scenes and for Alan Rickman who's a pleasure to watch as usual.

This is a tough film both for Lynch fans and for people new to his work. By that I don't mean it is confusing and difficult, but it is a hard film to watch. Usually Lynch films provide you with fantasy worlds that are both beautiful and frightening. The beautiful aspects give you something to cling onto as the darker aspects of the films unfold, they stop you from becoming frustrated (what is going on? this is pretentious garbage) until you are ready to fully embrace what the media seem to call "Lynch World".

The difference between Inland Empire and previous Lynch films is that it creates a world of madness not fantasy and you are dropped into it rather than lowered into it. This is reflected in all aspects of the film; structure, style, script, music etc. The film is shot more like a Japanese horror flick rather than the Wizard of Oz, gone is the beautiful cinematography of Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway. Aside from flashes of red and blue the film contains no bold colours. The settings are Sunset Strip and Poland rather than upstate Washington, small-town America or Mulholland Drive (stark and bleak not beautiful). Equally the film is structured in short mixed up scenes, if you released a film with the scenes in the order that you shot them it would be something like this. Similarly the dialogue is almost spontaneous rather than crafted.

As a result after 30 minutes I thought I was going to hate the film. Indeed the beginning despite Grace Zabriskie's mesmerising performance is incredibly frustrating. As far as I can tell the Bunny scenes serve no purpose and seem terribly self referential and the short sharp scenes make it hard to immerse yourself. My only advice to people is to stick with it. Once Laura Dern says "that sounded like something from our script" and we become aware that it is not only us who are finding the boundaries between film and reality merging the film takes off.

I shan't labour you with my interpretation but needless to say the film leaves plenty of scope for interpretation, but also gives you enough closure not to leave you completely baffled. Critically the grittier subject matter of prostitution and homelessness that are interwoven with the wider theme of fantasy/madness mean that the critical scenes such as the Japanese girls speech, the Polish sections and the scenes with the man with the wonky glasses are that much more poignant and justify Lynch's new style. Equally it makes the moments of comedy in the film ("******* brutal murder", the black guy during the Japanese girl's speech and the musical sections) that beautiful mixture of tragedy and humour.

I will be interested to see what people who aren't familiar with Lynch's work make of the film. Certainly seeing it the context of his other films gives it a heightened significance, particularly coming after Mulholland Drive. But it is difficult for me to comment on how it stands on its own as a film.

I'm amazed that of all the reviews I've looked at nobody seems to have noticed one of the main points of this film, or at least how I saw it. It seems like one big homosexual fantasy, camp clothing, a glorified nude Ferdinand, a definite sexual tension between Ariel and Prospero, and as a final climax, a group of men in tight sailor suits dancing the hornpipe. This whole approach, once you get used to it, provides you with all sorts of fantastic scenes and images. The sight of an innocent Ariel being pulled towards a disgusting nude Sycorax in order to perform "her earthy and abhorr'd commands", is one of the darkest I've ever scene in a Shakespeare film. However by the end of the film I'd grown tired of the style and the final hornpipe dance was just too much to take. Still overall its an interesting interpretation of the play.

The first thing that should be emphasised I think is if you you get the chance I strongly recommend you see the play at the theatre, somehow Pinter's famous pauses seem longer on the stage, and the claustrophobia of the piece is maintained far better than when you watch it on the screen. Nevertheless if you have seen the play (or even if you haven't) you really should watch this film version. Firstly it is directed by the fantastic Peter Hall, one of the great stage directors of the era (and still a great stage director) and thus he is able to remain true to the stage format of the play, while also maintaining a strong cinematic emphasis, this is not just a recording of a stage play. Secondly it features some truly fine actors including the fantastic Vivienne Merchant. Being Pinter's wife she seems to have a unique understanding of the words and is able to convey this onto the audience, her first conversation when she meets Lenny (Ian Holm) particularly sticks in the mind. Ian Holm and Paul Rogers are also fantastic along with the rest of the cast who have names as well known on the stage as they are on the screen. Overall I don't believe I've seen a finer adaptation of a play for the screen.