Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
The Honeymooners (2003)
Gritty Irish Neo-Realism
This movie heralded in the Irish Film Industires era of gritty post modern neo-realism. To some it may seem made on a cellphone and scripted by a 13 year old and none too bright one at that. Others will see a slice of contemporary life. The cheap alcohol consumed on an empty stomach and the continual sucking on cigarettes suggests the nausea of life in a post-modern society, the continual need to suck to fill the vacuous nature of existence. People will complain about the shaky hand held camera not realizing that this is a metaphor for Irish life: shaky at the best of times and wouldn't you know it the devil of a hangover and how did I get into this mess. Gritty post modern Irish neo-realism or me kid sister making a film on her cell phone because she's got the grant money and it has to be finished by Tuesday and in the mail. Does it matter? That's a thought to be going on with now. and that's me kid sister, genius or what have you? You decide.
Something in the City (1950)
I saw this movie over fifty years ago when I was about six or seven and it still stays in my mind. The story was excellent. As I remember it the story was told mostly through action. Richard Hearne, who was always instantly recognizable as television's Mr Pastry, did a great job. I do not know if the film was made for television but it appeared superior to anything that I had seen on television at the time. Possibly I saw it on television after it had a run at theaters. For awhile Richard Hearne was one of British television's biggest stars, comparable to today's Mr. Bean. Sadly he has almost completely disappeared from memory along with an early golden age of British television in the 1950s.
Sword of Honour (2001)
A Splendid Effort But...Read The Book
This is a splendid effort by all concerned, especially given the time constraint of about 200 minutes. As well as men and women are still marching off to war to save Western civilization, the movie has a contemporary message. The brevity of the movie, given that it tells a story, originally told in three novels goes against it. So much plot and many characters have been left out seriously compromising Waugh's comic vision. Waugh's original novels contain very amusing dialogue and much of the novels are just dialogue, the writer creating character out of what people say. Although the script used snippets of Waugh's dialogue,there is lots and lots unused. However, the script writers and all the people involved in the production did a masterful job of salvaging something of Waugh's original story. The other major flaw is in the casting of Daniel Craig as Guy Crouchback. Craig does not have the aristocratic presence to play Guy. His features, stature,and movement suggest a working class hero; he is great for contemporary characters where class is not an issue. But Waugh's works are all about class and Daniel Craigdoes not look the part of an aristocrat. He would be fine as a Lawrencian hero, Birket in Women in Love, for example. The rest of the casting is more or less spot on with some splendid choices of actors for Guy's father, Virginia, Ivor Claire, Ritchie-Hook,and Trimmer and everybody else. The book is both so much more outrageously funny and profound about life than the movie. Read the book but enjoy the movie,too; the chaps who made the film have obviously put on a good show in difficult circumstances. I am now going to reread the book for the umpteenth time. The movie inspires that.