Monday, 12 August 2013


Set in Bangkok, involving drug gangs, prostitution and bent cops, this controversially received film at Cannes was apparently greeted with equally vociferous cheers and boos.
I think I'd more likely be falling into the former of these two camps, though I can see why it's been derided in some quarters.

Disturbingly violent in sudden flashes among long stretches of silence or very spare dialogue. Ryan Gosling in his 'buttoned-up-with-few-words' element here, as you can imagine. Kristin Scott Thomas as she's never been seen before - all icy determination in her single-minded pursuit of the killer of her son (Gosling's older brother). Not in the least interested in the circumstances of her son's death, whether or not there were any mitigations, she's venom-tongued in her spite for Gosling in not doing enough (so she thinks) in tracking down the killer and gets scarily animated in humiliatingly egging him on to exact revenge.

I don't think anyone could disagree that, visually, it's a beautiful-looking film, mainly shot at night, with red being the predominant colour.  It's a relatively simple story which ekes out the long, slow sequences and gives them even further tension the situation already had. Throughout the experience my nerves were on edge as I didn't know when the sudden ultra-violent acts would come. (There is one particularly nasty execution, the only really prolonged violent scene, in which someone is painfully despatched by the use of 'food utensils'.)

I suppose those critical of the film see it as all show and little substance. (After the final credits there was one cry of "Rubbish!" from a member of the audience when I went - though it must be said that he'd thought it worthwhile staying until all the credits had played out.) However, I do think it's a film of some depth. Certainly not for the squeamish, but I would recommend it as a fine cinematic experience, for which reason I offer a score of.............7.

I'm back - with a big "phew!", but also some "oh dear"s.

Computer returned couple of hours ago, but in not quite the improved state for which I'd hoped - and paid.
Won't bore you with all the details, but chappie thought he'd recovered all my missing docs and pics (he'd had it plugged in in his place for 6 hours continuously to transfer all my files), only to find that once again, when he set it up here, he couldn't find them. Eventually could only pinpoint some of them by putting on a 'search', which I can now also do myself - but it'll take ages to copy them one by one into files again.

Hope that I'll now be able to look at all your blogs, including those particular ones which I always had trouble with to open up. Will have to see.

The big 'plus' is that he's now fitted in a CD/DVD player, which had been removed previously. But that's for the future.

Another downer is that for some reason typing this blog is giving trouble. I can't use the cursor to, for example, jump back to correct mis-types, but have to use the arrows. A small nuisance, but it surely shouldn't have been worse than before.

Anyway, what you'll be interested in is some film reviews. Just got the one to do -  'Only God Forgives', which I'll do either later today or tomorrow, when I also hope to be seeing the Alan Partridge film, which ought to cheer me up a lot, if the reviews are anything to go by.

Meanwhile, until I get back to my routine I must just say 'thank you's especially to J.G., Bob S., Sol, Craig, Dr Spo & H.K. for their kind words of concern. Hope I'll be back in running order pretty soon..,

Thursday, 8 August 2013

I'm still here!

Just to let anyone know who's interested - This computer of mine was taken away for repairs couple of days ago. It just came this this morning but I've found that all my saved documents and pictures are missing. Chap is coming to collect it again shortly to see if they can be recovered, though with no guarantee, which would be very disappointing. He doesn't have time to complete process until early next week. So, no matter what the outcome, I'll be out of commission for at least a few more days. Then I'm going to have a lot of catching up to do - not to mention the two more film reviews I'll have by then.
      With fingers crossed that all my savings for the last eight years can be recovered - and hoping that you all are well.
                                              Till later,

Monday, 5 August 2013


(The film's rather odd title is only made clear in the very final shot, but it's not material to the content.)

I was moderately entertained by this New York-set (in b/w), crisp (86 mins) tale of a 27 year-old, apartment-flitting, aspiring-to-be-professional dancer (refusing to read the contrary signs), whose only constant is her female friend (deeper than her matter-of-fact male relationships), at least that's what she thought until friend Sophie makes a life-changing decision without telling Frances, whose sense of betrayal leaves her temporarily stunned. (Btw: Quite a lot of smoking going on this film, by an almost uniformly young cast.)

In the title role Greta Gerwig, whose name I didn't know (and looking remarkably facially similar at times to Chloe Sevigny) does a pretty good job.

Comparisons have been made with some of Woody Allen's films, but I think that's unfair as it then becomes a judgment of the success, or otherwise, of emulation. However, when it comes to entertainment value there's no doubt in my mind that Allen, at his best, is way superior to this particular film. Even when Allen is not on his best form, his dialogues have a quality of hooking me early on. They have an intellectual 'clout', even when largely improvised, which this film lacked. The script here, though hardly vacuous, had only occasional flashes of memorable character interchange.  
   Another comparison I've heard mentioned is with Mike Leigh's hugely enjoyable 'Happy-Go-Lucky' in which the marvellous Sally Hawkins plays the irrepressibly optimistic (some might say "maddening"), giggly lead. That was a film I really warmed to and loved. Not so much here. There is a slight resemblance of that film's main role to this Frances' character but it's only a passing one. (I'm not even sure if director/writer Noah Baumbach would even have been aware of Leigh's film.)

A bit better than just 'fair enough', and maybe an undemanding film to wile away part of an afternoon, I award it a.........................6.

Monday, 29 July 2013

Film: 'THE WOLVERINE' (in 2D)

I haven't seen my favourite-looking actor of the present generation playing this role since I saw the original 'X-Men' film in 2000. I would have given this one a miss too but was smitten by seeing clips of him in the trailer and on TV, sporting those fabulous mutton-chop whiskers, which give him a more feline than a lupine appearance. I don't think H.J. has EVER looked as scintillatingly hot as he does in this. On the other hand, I don't recall seeing his engaging and totally disarming smile even just once during the entire two hours plus.

But that aside, this Japan-based, relentlessly serious, dull film was a waste of time for this cineaste. Loud sounds and visual tricks with the lavish use of computer effects do not an interesting film make.
We get an awful lot of seeing Jackman acting with all the stops out, showing his anguish and inner conflicts. I found it easy to empathise with his struggles but that was probably only because I like him so much. Otherwise I didn't find the story in the slightest way remarkable - though most of it being set in Japan was a further slight point in its favour.

Btw: I'd read a hint to stay for the final credits, which I did - unlike the rest of the audience, bar three or four. After all the acknowledgments have appeared, and rather oddly placed, there is a further couple of minutes of film of H.J. meeting up with two very familiar faces (you can probably guess who they are), which will be cause for diehard fans of the series to rejoice, though hardly for me.

Not much else to say. If the lead had been played by another actor I would probably have scored it by 2 points less than I'm going to - but in that case I wouldn't have bothered seeing it at all.................3/10

Friday, 26 July 2013


This is the final instalment of the so-called 'Cornetto Trilogy'.
I liked 'Shaun of the Dead' - and 'Hot Fuzz' a bit more than 'Shaun' (unlike some viewers). So I was agreeably disposed to watching this one - and, by and large, it delivered, though without quite eclipsing the earlier two .

Simon Pegg (whom I've always found particularly watchable) plays his most obnoxious character to date - a loud-mouthed, manipulative, heavy-smoking, me-first liar and general slob (and with hair dyed black into the bargain!) He rounds up four of his former teenage chums to complete again the pub-crawl they had started when celebrating their leaving school, they having lost touch with each other since then. The other members of this now middle-aged quintet are all names which aficianados of British film (and TV) will recognise - Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, Nick Frost and Eddie Marsan. It's Pegg, of course who calls the tune and they go along with him, mainly for old time's sake rather than with any obvious enthusiasm. (The film's title is also the name of the final pub on their 'itinerary' - a double meaning with a hint of things to come!)
   They start on their 'liquid journey' as intended but very soon it all takes a most bizarre turn. It's difficult to know how much more to say without giving away the direction the rest of the film takes. I was vaguely aware that something very strange would happen without knowing exactly what, and will confess that I was pleasingly surprised (well, a bit) when it did. As the film's still pretty new I'd better leave it at that - though very soon everyone will know, even those who don't see it.
      For me, Freeman and Considine, though good actors, didn't seem entirely comfortable in their roles, but not to the extent of detracting from the fun. The major downer for me was the length - just 10 minutes short of two hours. Comedy, more than most other genres, should not overstay its welcome. It's more effective when closed down while leaving people wanting more, than to unnecessarily prolong its stay by engaging in an attempt to rationalise all what's been happening - especially when it culminates, as it does here, in the expected firework display of special effects. It's the old saying about the length of a film and diminishing returns.
    But on the way there were definitely LOL moments and I did enjoy the start and, even moreso, the middle of the film.

      A respectable comedy, then - fast-talking, generally sharp-scripted and slickly edited - but more than a mite too long. I had been half-minded to give it a '7' but now, on the morning after, I think nearer the mark would be.....................6.5

Wednesday, 24 July 2013

Film: 'WADJDA'

I'd really wanted to like this well-received film more, but my hoped-for pleasure was distracted most of the time, though it was not the fault of the film itself.
This is a film remarkable for being made in Saudi Arabia by a Saudi Arabian woman, Haifaa Al-Mansour, as both director and writer - perhaps a small but not insignificant indication that that essentially closed-society country may be starting to shed something of its insularity.

The main strand concerns the titular schoolgirl who sets her heart on buying a bicycle - in the first place in order to race her young boy pal, the two of whom share a playfully joshing friendship. Riding a bicycle is considered an unacceptable thing to do for a young girl (or, indeed, for any female) in this patriarchal society where the conduct of females is severely constrained.
The part of the story concerning the bicycle doesn't actually overwhelm the film. Several other strands are in play, mainly the girl's education where the (female) teachers, inside the school, wear westernized dress and hair-styles (as does the girl's mother at home) but when they go outside all have to be shapelessly black-robed from head to foot (girls with head covered), with just the letter-box slit for the eyes, and sometimes not even that. And it's this part that really got me distracted. There was nothing in the film we didn't already know about, but seeing how women have to conduct themselves, under pain of law, when non-familial men may be nearby got to me, especially as here when it's presented as an 'incidental' of no great argument in an otherwise quite admirable film. (When I get angry I'm unable to externalise it, even when there's the opportunity to do so. I always leave it seething inside which, I know, is unhealthy - and I found myself doing this during a large part of this film).
Compounding this, the schoolgirl, in order to acquire money to purchase the bike, decides to take part in a school competition for knowledge of and recitation from the Qur'an. I suppose this is not very different from my own schooldays when we were forced to learn the Catechism by heart and be tested on it by a (usually cantankerous) priest, ever eager to pounce on the slightest error. But seeing the same thing going on again with children at a vulnerable age brought up my anger once more. But, as I say, we all know it goes on right now in many parts of the world. (Incidentally, for years I've been reading a page from the Qur'an daily, as well as a chapter from the Bible - though both, I must stress, not for devotional reasons - rather the reverse, in fact.)

Another strand of the story concerns the girl's mother at home - glamorous, once she's discarded her outside-wear black robes - and the cooled relationship with her husband who's on the search to take a second wife. He is also 'westernised', (plays TV games) and actually does not appear to be an unreasonable guy, at least on the surface..

The film, I suppose, takes a predictable path - with one rather unexpected (to me) 'blip' towards the end.
But overall, it was satisfactory.
If I'd been able to detach my own feelings and just sit back and watch it dispassionately I might have appreciated it more than I did. But even so, it gets from me a quite reasonable, though unspectacular, score of...........................6.

Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Royal baby? More like Royal BALONEY!

Re; the final paragraph below: 
Before anyone reads this post, I must point out that since writing it yesterday a number of my followers have commented that they had doubts about what I say below regarding Prince Andrew becoming first in line of succession if Charles pre-deceases the Queen. I am indebted to Andrew Brown (comments below) who pinpointed the evidence to show exactly how I was wrong - and that in the mid 18th century there had been the case of George III who succeeded his grandfather after his own father, Prince Frederick, died before his father George II, the crown thus leaping over a generation.
With this error now pointed out, I leave the article intact as I wrote it. My humble apologies for not having thoroughly checked the facts beforehand. (And Peter, why did you ever tell me that porky-pie? - which I believed!)

Oh, spare us all this "Awwwww - coo-coo - three cheers - royal gun salutes - I'm-crying-with-joy" flapdoodle!  I've already had more than enough of channel switching, thank you.

While being mildly republican, I'm in no way bellicosely anti-monarchist - at least not while Her Maj clings on. That may well change when the Prince-in-waiting-ever-so-long ascends to the royal throne. I think I'm right in saying that no British/English monarch in history will have been at such an age as he will be when he does eventually take over.
This new sprog could well be a middle-aged man by the time his turn comes, by which time there'll have been plenty of opportunity for him to have been inculcated into all the jolly-hockey-sticks life of the privileged, he'll long since have been 'blooded' into his first experience at the noble 'sport' of fox-hunting (oh, what spiffing fun!), very likely have been induced into the hush-hush exclusively male world of freemasonry - and, no doubt, gained his valorously-earned stripes in the armed forces, having risen, (by his own, unassisted, sheer dogged efforts, no doubt), to a rank of considerable seniority. Well, good for him. Hurrah!

 But will it happen? Oh, we do all hope so!

(I repeat here, the following paragraph is factually incorrect. Andrew will not become heir apparent. S-o-r-r-r-r-y!) 
Although everybody must want Chas to live until he's 150 (at least), it is by no means certain that he will outlive his mum. (The Queen's own mother saw her 101st.) But (and perish the thought!) suppose.....just suppose..... there were to be an 'accident' - for example, the lovely Camilla crossing her legs at an unfortunate moment, and thus most tragically breaking her husband's neck - then the succession would pass, not to William, as even most British people (ignorant of their own history) assume it would, but to the eldest son of the previous monarch, not the eldest grandson - so Andrew would become king. The order of succession would be turned almost on its head. Andrew would be succeeded by his daughters, then by their children, if any - then would follow Edward ("He's not gay!") and his two children - then, Princess Anne (if she's still around) followed by her children.........and only after all that motley group would come William, followed, finally, by yesterday's arrival, who'd now be way down on the succession list. So, Charles honey, an awful lot hangs on your survival - and if you were to pop your clogs before 'mummy' does, an awful lot of people are not just going to be surprised and disappointed, but damn near outraged!

Of course I only posit a possibility of what could happen. Might be interesting times ahead!


Monday, 15 July 2013


Moderately interesting true-story dramatisation of brief, tempestuous marriage of 'renowned' English painter, A.J. Munnings. (Who? Yes, me neither.)
Set in Cornwall in period just prior to WWI, the emphasis is on the painter's bloated sense of self-worth (mainly in painting women and horses), his put-downs of his wife's artistic efforts and of modern art in general, his philandering, and the doubts of his spouse-to-be regarding him even before the wedding day.
A love-triangle provides the engine for this tale, the 'interloper' being a soldier acquaintance to whom she is more attracted, with tragic results.

Dominic Cooper plays the artist effectively. When he appears in unkempt state he can provide, for me, quite an attractive 'piece of rough', though in this film that aspect of his presence is tempered by his often having a cigarette in his mouth, something I personally always find a put-off.
I didn't know any of the other main actors, though I was familiar with a couple of them in the lesser roles. Emily Browning as the female love interest is excellent. In fact all the acting is of a high order - but special mention must be made of the savagely beautiful Cornish coast. I only wish we could have had an extended scene or two there rather than fleeting shots. Photography was superb. (More than once, it got me thinking of Daphne Du Maurier's precocious masterpiece, 'Rebecca'.)

By no means a bad film, though also nothing to write home about. It might have assisted my appreciation if I'd known of, or even heard of, the artist and his milieu.................................6.

Sunday, 14 July 2013

Aaaargh! 'Wordpress' so annoying! Can't make comments on three blogger-pals' posts.

(Written two days later than main post below - Problem now resolved. See my own comment at end.)

This is the fourth consecutive day when I've wrestled with this.
At the moment there are three blogs involved which I studiously follow and like to comment on:-

Spo-Reflections @

Stephen Chapman @

Tai Huu Le's Blog @

All these have 'Wordpress' in common, though I don't know why, up to last week, I could post comments without any further ado. Now, when I try to do the same they just don't register. I can type out a comment and press the 'post comment' key, then it disappears. (I don't have the alternatives of  Twitter or Facebook accounts)

I've tried to register with Wordpress but it seems that some years ago I must have set up an account - and now can't locate the password. Recovering it from WP has been virtually impossible. When I try to register anew it tells me they've already got a 'Raybeard' - and when I indicate that I can't find the password it's not sending notification to my nominated primary e-mail account - or any of them - to allow me to recover the p/w or to process a new one! After a little while all this mucking about gets me locked out of WP for at least half an hour at a time. Frustration is high!  

So, until I can resolve this, I seem unable to communicate with these three through their blogs (though I do have e-mail addresses as a last resort). I'd be interested to know if anyone else who follows any or all of these bloggers has encountered the situation of just recently having to sign in to Wordpress to make a comment. What I can't understand is "why now?" when before it wasn't necessary.

Meantime all I can do is to keep trying - and using up needless computer time. Grrrrrrrrrrr!!! 

Btw: Dr Spo/Stephen/Tai - despite this hiccup I am still reading your blogs! 

Added following day: Oh hell! Now there's another one, a fourth! - - How on earth do I overcome this problem? I've got the need to 'converse'. If I can't I'll burst!