Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Testimony (1987)
7/10
Technically brilliant, narratively a struggle
1 August 2006
Tony Palmer's tour de force biopic of the great twentieth-century Russian composer is, cinematically, a work of genius. Aided by Nic Knowland's stunning cinematography and the director's own well-observed production design, the film is visually compelling and a fine manifestation of cinema as art.

Palmer edited the film himself, and it shows. On the one hand, he has an imaginative grasp of montage - there are thrilling sequences of images denoting the 1917 Revolution and the hagiography of Stalin. On the other hand, it isn't always clear from the sequences of images what point he is trying to put across; the Babi Yar sequence is confused in its apparent attempt to equate Stalinism with Nazism.

One thing is clear, however. Without a good knowledge of Shostakovich's life and his music, a viewer cannot get the most out of this film. Even if like me you have read the composer's disputed memoirs several times, you often find yourself asking: "What year are we in now? Who is that character? Which part of his life are we dealing with?" Narrative clarity is not Palmer's priority, and perhaps it shouldn't be; but newcomers to Shostakovich would not be advised to start here.

Kingsley's performance as Shostakovich is impeccable. Although he doesn't resemble the composer precisely, his bearing and delivery convey the composer's inner torment and private battles with perfection. Veering between nervousness and furious sarcasm, he brings across all Shostakovich's difficulty of reconciling his private vision with his public role. Mention should also be made of Terence Rigby as Stalin - wordless for at least half the film, he carries a malevolent presence which suggests the sheer imposing terror of the man himself.

In other respects, the film is flawed - the appearance of household names in small roles is distracting (Frank Carson as a Russian clown, for heaven's sake!) and Russian names are frequently mispronounced and mistranscribed. Including footage of present-day musicians performing Shostakovich's music is not as incongruous as it sounds; but it is a pity that the works are sung in English, robbing them of the natural poetry of the Russian to which they were set.

That 'Testimony' is a labour of love is unmistakable; that it is, technically, one of the most compelling pieces of British cinema is indisputable. But it is too long, the parallels between Shostakovich and Stalin are perhaps foregrounded too much, and there is a danger that this enigmatic composer will seem even less accessible after watching. That does the composer a disservice; but, on the other hand, let's be grateful that this film was made at all.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gentille (2005)
5/10
Tentative
23 October 2005
Just seen this at the London Film Festival. While Gentille does have its moments of genuine humour and gentle pathos, it feels like four or five films stitched together. The writer- director seems uncertain which of many possible stories she wants to tell and ends up developing none of them. Emmanuelle Devos works hard at turning her lead role into something meaty, but she is confounded by the film-maker's lack of conviction and apparent tentativeness over what the film is really about. Is it a mid-life crisis? A sex comedy? A study of intimacy - or of insanity? Well, it seems it's all these things and less.

Many of the characters come and go in piecemeal fashion, never properly introduced, abandoned almost as soon as they have entered the stage. The film's best bits put together might make an enjoyable short, but it wouldn't give the viewer any further insight into the main protagonist's mindset.

The result is a pleasant, harmless but ultimately dissatisfying and rather whimsical character study; like snacking on several entrées but not having a full meal.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Lamentably bad
27 April 2002
Now has my vote as the least enjoyable bad film ever (as opposed to the

enjoyable bad films, like Robot Monster). Who thought it would be a good

idea for Van Dyke to reprise his 'nearly but not quite entirely unlike

Cockney' accent? The songs are rubbish, the direction clumsy, and great

performers like Robert Helpmann are embarrassed. If you were sorry that

the British film industry ran out of money, watch this again and be

glad. No other country, surely, could produce something this twee and

squirm-inducing.

Why oh why do they put it on TV every other year? Are kids this easily

pleased? God
13 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Briefly
20 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I expect everyone else has already said what I want to say, so I'll be

brief:

1) The visuals are stunning, and the special effects seamless.

2) The performances are high quality, even managing to overcome a fairly

portentous script.

3) Much of the novel (part one) is retained, and those parts which are

cut are unimportant.

4) The grandeur of Tolkien's vision is preserved, even if some of the

charm is lost.

5) The female characters are promoted way over their significance in the

book (but that's the 21st century for you).

(POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILER FOLLOWS, FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK.)

6) Can anyone tell me where the battle between Gandalf and Saruman is in

the book?

7) Why is it that the IMdB user comments section always cuts off the end

of my comments? Can someone explain this
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A small treat for Wagner fans
28 October 2001
This won't mean much to people who don't like Wagner or opera in general, but for us fans it's a delightful insight into the staging of various Bayreuth productions, not least Herzog's own Lohengrin. Like Wagner's work itself, the film drags a bit in places but is mostly inspiring and enjoyable.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hannibal (2001)
5/10
A bit disappointing
30 May 2001
Lacking the wit, verve and panache of Demme's original, this gruesome follow-up falls short on several counts. Without the character's surprise element, Lecter becomes just another monster, though the audience is encouraged to root for him as the movie progresses, and Oldman the victim becomes the bad guy. Excellent though Julianne Moore is, she can't eclipse memories of Jodie Foster, and she is sidelined for great chunks of the film, which is a shame. Giancarlo Giannini's role is played out very predictably, and this rugged, impressive actor is not given justice to his talents. And, frankly, when the movie runs out of ideas, it ups the gore quotient (especially in the particularly emetic dinner sequence, which seems to be played at a slow pace deliberately to have the viewers vomiting in the aisles). Mamet's influence on the script is obvious in places, but you have to hunt for it the rest of the time, and can one really believe that these same talents were behind the masterpieces of The Spanish Prisoner, Thelma and Louise and Schindler's List? Oh, please.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Simply wonderful
30 May 2001
David Mamet should be cryogenically frozen, and revived two hundred years in the future, so that generations to come can appreciate how much wit, talent and intelligence can reside in one human being. 'State and Main' is gloriously funny, blowing the lid off the movie business in a way that few other films have managed ('The Player' attempted the same thing, but the movies parodied in that film are of a much bigger budget than 'The Old Mill').

Performances resound with talent - this is a delicious cast, featuring some of the best character actors in Hollywood (oh, and Alec Baldwin, who has rarely been better, though he appears to be playing himself). Philip Seymour Hoffman confirms himself as an actor of enormous intelligence and capability, and perhaps he will now not be restricted to playing geeks and outsiders. And I just wanted to leap through the screen and kiss Rebecca Pidgeon over and over again (her looks really have improved with age, bless her).

The movie occasionally dips into attempts at farce or whimsy, but these are momentary lapses in an otherwise fine entertainment. David, you are forgiven for co-scripting the abysmal 'Hannibal' - we want more of this kind of stuff, and the sooner the better.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Genuinely epic
29 March 2001
Blessed by brilliant cinematography, this refreshingly old-fashioned epic with modern touches only enhances Ang Lee's status as a versatile, intelligent and inspired director. That it has been showered with awards internationally (including in the US, not famed for its comfort with subtitled pictures) is as much a testament to its ability to communicate with and enthrall a diverse audience as to its producers' aggressive pre-Oscars marketing. The leads display both a tremendous presence in their more contemplative moments, and powerfully breathtaking energy in the action sequences. I hope that I, like Michelle Yeoh, will be on this kind of form when I'm 38...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed