My son Julian (13) and my lady Tammy, themselves two horror-film aficionados, and I went and saw this theatrically, and we were all quite pleased, though at least Julian and I tend to go for the classic stuff. Well worth checking out, if you're in for this sort of thing.

**A good romantic comedy, with flaws and virtues, that didn't deserve four Oscars. Despite that, it deserves the appreciation of fans of this movie genre.**
Woody Allen is one of those directors that many people love, many people can't stand, and many people find just stupid. I've seen some of his films that I liked, and I've seen others that I hated, and I can understand why he is one of those who have never been able to assert himself and have a consensual recognition.
The film is a romantic comedy based on the relationship of a couple played by Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. They like each other, but they can't make the relationship work harmoniously. Of course, this leads to funny and embarrassing situations. Released in the aftermath of the “sexual revolution”, the film tackles the topic of sexuality bluntly and they openly discuss it. I don't know if it's necessary to say, but the dialogues are an important feature of the film, and the two characters are talking almost all the time.
One of the strengths of the film is its apparent simplicity and elegance: it is a simple film, so simple and apparently cheap that it smells of indie. There are no complicated visual effects, the cinematography is functional and has good lighting, the sets are very realistic, simple and pragmatic, everyone seems to be wearing their own clothes... And in the center of the spotlight is the acting couple in a magnificent work. They don't even look like they're there playing characters, they just look like themselves!
However, it is far from being a problem-free film. Sex is a topic approached in a sincere way, but it dominates their discussions, it is so omnipresent that it ends up being tiring, like those people who are always talking about the same thing and do not shut up or change the subject. Allen's style of humor is also far from leading to consensus: some like it, say it is informal, brilliant in its simplicity, and others already consider it simply stupid, tasteless and, at times, offensive.
The film was one of the great winners of the 1977 Oscars, and that for many people is something. In my opinion, I think Diane Keaton deserved the Oscar for Best Actress, she does a remarkable job. Likewise, I think the film deserved the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, the film's story and dialogues justifies it well, but Allen did not deserve the Oscar for Best Director, which would have been more justly given to George Lucas, also nominated for the first film of the “Star Wars” saga. And since these two films competed for the Oscar for Best Picture, it's really hard to understand how this film won the award. I think that even Allen fans accept that “Star Wars” deserved the statuette and that the academy just didn't want to do it because it was a sci-fi movie. Now, let's get to the point: is the movie good, is it really worth it? Of course, it's a subjective answer, depending on what you like. People who like romantic comedies with a lot of dialogue will enjoy it, but others can skip it without feeling like they've really lost anything by doing it.

Stand-up comic "Alvy" (Woody Allen) has a lively history with the women in his life. His marriages - of which there have been two - have all ended rather suddenly, as has his latest dalliance with the eponymous singer (Diane Keaton) who won't have sex with him unless she gets high first! Now this latest failure perplexes him. He thinks that over the years he would have managed to iron out the frailties in his character and so, by now, be able to retain the affections of a woman. What keeps going wrong? Woody Allen did pretty much everything on this production so is able to well focus the self-deprecating Jewish humour that threads through the feature as well as using the retrospective nature of the story telling to quite amusingly but also entirely plausibly assess not just "Alvy" but what scenarios from his life, loves, upbringing and choices helped mould the man into that rather flawed creature we now see before us. At times it is a little wordy, and he does recourse to in-jokes once or twice too many, but for the most part this is a confidently pitched double-hander with two actors who have an unique sort of on/off on-screen chemistry that makes this an engaging and enjoyable ninety minutes that might well ring true in many a bedroom.

***Talky romcom with Woody Allen and Diane Keaton is consistently amusing***
A twice-divorced neurotic stand-up comedian in New York City (Woody Allen) details his perspective on life and his relationship with the scatterbrained Annie Hall (Diane Keaton).
The best movie I’ve seen by Woody Allen is the excellent “Match Point” (2005), but that was a crime drama/romance/thriller whereas a lot of his films are talky romantic dramedies, which is the case with “Annie Hall” (1977), winner of Best Picture and other awards at the AA. Was it worthy of all the accolades and does it hold up? Well, I laughed consistently if that tells you anything.
The movie uses techniques that were probably innovative when it was released in 1977, like Annie’s immaterial essence doing something else why her body’s in bed with Alvy (Allen). The dialogue-driven approach is refreshing (today, that is) and the way Alvy sometimes breaks the fourth wall is amusing. I also enjoyed seeing the mid-70s period in the background, like “Messiah of Evil” (1973) on the marquee and a billboard featuring DESTROYER-era KISS.
The film runs 1 hour, 33 minutes and was shot in New York City & Long Island and the Los Angeles area.
GRADE: B

One of the most iconic Allen's movie. Funny and quite believable but I think I was expecting something else.

Sandra Bullock is clearly having some fun here as the accident-prone FBI agent who is roped into a scheme to prevent an atrocity happening at the upcoming "Miss America" pageant. Helped by the camply debonaire Sir Michael Caine as her fixer who manages to pull something of the silk purse from the sows ear, she heads off into this lions den of vacuousness, sexism and silliness led by a wonderfully two-faced Candice Bergen and her amiable sidekick William Shatner. It takes well aimed swipes at just about every stupid, stereotypical and misogynist attitude that surrounds these types of events - but it also demonstrates that many of the participants aren't quite as daft as one might expect. Bullock is on good form, the soundtrack helps a lot too - and as light hearted comedy films go; she and cutie Benjamin Bratt just about pull it off. Don't expect a Pulitzer prize and you might just enjoy it...

**Miss Congeniality easily wins anyone over with Bullock's captivating and uproarious performance.**
Sandra Bullock's comedy brilliance permeates every part of this movie. The supporting cast also delivers excellent performances, with Michael Caine, William Shatner, and Heather Burns shining in their roles. But this movie delights and rises above an average forgetful comedy because of Bullock's hilarious and singular portrayal of awkward and endearing Gracie Hart. Her physical comedy and tangible discomfort with all the beauty routines and dresses make almost every moment humorous and entertaining. The character development, goofy cast, and satisfying conclusion all support Bullock in winning big. Miss Congeniality is one of my wife's go-to favorites, and it's one I'm always willing to watch with her.

**A good comedy, albeit with an exaggerated and unbelievable story.**
This is perhaps one of the most enjoyable and endearing comedies of the 2000s. It's not a perfect film, it's far from it, but it manages to deliver on its promises and offers us an hour and a half of warm and friendly fun. It's one of those films that, while not being perfect, is ideal to watch as a family and doesn't make us waste our time.
The script has a very promising basic premise: faced with a credible threat to the security of the Miss United States of America beauty pageant, the FBI decides to infiltrate a female agent there. The problem is everything else that develops from here: the script exaggerates so much that it becomes unbelievable, even if funny. Gracie Hart, the main character, is not just an FBI agent with a tough profile and strong personality. She's basically an almost masculinized woman with the manners and demeans of a troll, who is then transformed into a model (basically) in a very, very short time! It's unbelievable and absurd. Of course, from there, the film unfolds more harmoniously, with excellent dialogues loaded with witty jokes and good material given to the actors.
Sandra Bullock is the main actress and, in this film, she achieves one of her most popular works. In addition to being excellent at what she does and giving us an impeccable job, she had the joy of playing a friendly character, worthy of the public's affection, who captures our sympathy with ease. Next to her, we can still see Michael Caine, in excellent shape and in a character full of humor. The film also has a good performance by Benjamin Bratt, Heather Burns, Candice Bergen and the participation of William Shatner.
Being a rather light humor film, it doesn't make a very strong bet on the technical aspects. Even so, I would like to leave a few notes: first of all, I believe that the special and sound effects did an excellent job throughout the film, and the same can be said of the design of the sets, costumes (with an obvious emphasis on the costumes of Bullock) and props. On the other side of the coin, I found the cinematography too uninteresting, and the editing didn't seem very inspired to me. The soundtrack does its job, highlighting almost only the song “One in a Million”, in the voice of Bosson.

The last time I was this naked in public I was coming out of a uterus!
Miss Congeniality finds Sandra Bullock as FBI Agent Gracie Hart, who must go undercover in the Miss United States beauty pageant to prevent a psychopath from committing untold homicide.
The premise is simple, it's a Pygmalion/My Fair Lady scenario that transforms the rough and tough Gracie into a viable contestant for the pageant. Thus we have all the comedy that comes with her literally battling everyone, including her own opinions on pageants, as she is being asked to be something she doesn't believe is in her make up. The mystery of who the killer is who's on the loose is strong for a good portion of film, and even once it's known and drama takes centre stage, it's still hard to get the smile off of your face.
The jokes are plentiful, with Bullock finding chemistry with all of her co-stars. She's a very under valued comedy actress, and her ability to bond with an entire cast is marvellous to observe. Reference sexual tension with Benjamin Bratt, the jousting hostilities with Ernie Hudson, the way she bounces off of the other beautiful girls, and best of all the by-play with Michael Caine, who is playing a camp stylist and walks in to lift the laughter roof off the rafters in every scene he is in.
It doesn't push the boundaries of comedy, but it's thankfully a consistently funny piece of work, aided by a super cast on form who make a better comedy out of what the screenplay suggested it had any right to be. 7/10

This has all the ingredients of a classic crime drama - a great cast, some slick writing and a healthy dose of suspense. Sir Anthony Hopkins as the meticulously fiendish aeronautics engineer/millionaire ("Crawford") who discovers his wife is up to some mischief and so takes matters into his own hands (or does he?). Ryan Gosling ("Willy Beachum") is the sloppy and complacent prosecution attorney with his eyes on a big, private sector, promotion away from the district attorney's office so is initially easy prey in this sophisticated game of manipulation/counter manipulation. When he begins to cotton on that he's being played, then the rest of the plot makes for a really enthralling, tensely written and deviously plausible story. We are never in doubt as to who did what - but can they get away with it? That's the million dollar question in this well crafted battle of wits. Well worth watching.

This is my kind of film. Suspense throughout, mystery till the very end... I could write a long review about the film but I realise it wouldn't be that different to what others have already said about it, so my only criticism goes to Anthony Hopkins.
I enjoy watching Anthony Hopkins. I really do. He is a brilliant actor and deserves all the credit he gets. However, his acting seems rather repetitive. He is always assigned to play the role of a man who is highly intelligent, mysterious, always a man of wisdom. Yes, this makes him an interesting character to watch, but we have seen it so many times. The funny thing though this never gets boring. So, I guess, hats off to him for his ability to make us watch the same character over and over again.
Would I watch this film again? Well, I guess so, only if it was on the telly and there is nothing else to watch it. Would I make my friends watch it? Possibly.

**Gripping!!**
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Some of you may find (or I should say try to) faults in this gripping courtroom drama but for the rest this movie is a lovely, more than just about courtroom, dual between the ever talented Anthony Hopkins and the not just about looks Ryan Gosling.The chemistry between the two is really difficult to not feel right from the first time in the courtroom where the Hannibal Lecterish Crawford gestures Beachum to adjust his bow tie.It is amazing how the movie grips you despite knowing the fact right from the start who is the killer.Though Crawford is too smart to be believable, the way its played it doesn't raise the slightest of doubt in your mind about its actual existence.Beachum's urge to put the devilish Crawford behind bars for trying to kill his wife and then getting away with it can be seen greatly in the scene in the hospital when Beachum tries to stop Crawford from pulling the plug of his wife's ventilator.The only thing i found missing was the almost lifeless, short lived, romantic relation of Crawford and Nikki Gardner(Rosamund Pike who looks stunning in the movie).Maybe it wouldn't have helped the movie's plot in any way except Crawford's asking for a favor from Gardner's dad later in the movie that's why they didn't put too much efforts to make them a couple.In all a great courtroom, psychological, thrilling, drama with great acting.And i'd better not forget to mention David Strathairn's portrayal of DA Lobruto which was too good and I'd have loved to see more of him... Don't miss this one if you like an intriguing courtroom drama!!

**The following is a long form review that I originally wrote in 2012.**
The movie is incredibly convoluted, so it's hard to know what to say that definitely won't end up being a spoiler, so maybe it would be better if I just stuck to talking about the actors, as it's a crazy bunch of them for McDonagh to bring together.
Don't believe the trailer, and certainly don't believe the posters. _Seven Psychopaths_ has nothing to do with either of them.
Olga Kurylenko (_Max Payne, Quantum of Solace_) is shamefully under-used, but at least Martin McDonagh acknowledges that his film's female characters are not a focus point, and their weakness is his own failing (in a rather surreal way). I've adored her ever since I first saw her in _Hitman_, and was absolutely blown away by her _Centurion_ performance. Though she does practically nothing here, it's always fantastic to see her get more work (particularly in such a great film).
Woody Harrelson (_Natural Born Killers_, _Defendor_) has also been one I've kept my eye on for some time now. He's a believable psychopath, a strong actor, a funny dude and he has great presence. I've yet to be annoyed by him. Ever.
Sam Rockwell (_Choke, Iron Man 2_) has only recently gained my appreciation, but fuck is he great. I'd seen him and loved him in so many things before, but I never drew the connection. Now in _Seven Psychopaths_, I feel he has his strongest role to date, moreover, he is certainly the greatest character of the film.
Abbie Cornish (_Limitless, Sucker Punch_) is Australian. I'm Australian. So there's that... No, she's great, I just never really locked her in as a favourite like I do with so many others. Again, in _Seven Psychopaths_, that's not fault of her own. The script allows little room for women, which is unfortunate, but well handled. She gets much more screen time that Olga Kurylenko, but it would still have been good to get more of her.
Christopher Walken (_Pulp Fiction, Sleepy Hollow_) is the sort of guy that I'd watch a movie just 'cause he's in it, and I don't even know why.
Collin Farrell (_In Bruges, Fright Night_) meshes with me spectacularly poorly. It's hardly like I hate the guy or anything. He's a perfectly adequate actor with a great accent, I guess I just never got the hype. He manages to be the star of _Seven Psychopaths_, but have the show stolen out from under him by pretty much everyone else on screen.
It's rare that I give a film a rating of 80% or more, so if that means anything to you at all, then I implore thee, go watch _Seven Psychopaths_, it's well worth the price.
84%
-_Gimly_

Here's Mel to give the Brits an inaccurate historical thrashing, again...
The Patriot is based around one Benjamin Martin, an ex-soldier, who now happily living as a family man finds himself thrust into conflict at the break of the American Revolution.
He loves the Brits does Mel Gibson, "Gallipoli", "Braveheart" and here with "The Patriot", see the pattern anyone? As with the aforementioned "Gallipoli" and "Braveheart", certain liberties have also been taken with events in "The Patriot" so as to glossy up for the eager Hollywood contingent. It's not my want to scribble about the facts of Benjamin Martin (Re: Francis Marion), or William Wallace for that matter, information as such is but a mere click away on the world wide web.
So casting aside the artistic licence factors, is "The Patriot" any good? Well nearly it is -- nearly. Gibson is fine, he shoulders the burden of the film with great gusto and no shortage of emotional depth. It's very easy to accept him as a staunch family man who transforms into a blood thirsty warrior. The problems, acting wise, lay away from Gibbo's central performance. Surrounded by caricature villains (though Jason Isaacs' Tavington is deliciously vile) and underwritten characters (Chris Cooper wasted and Joely Richardson is but a mere prop), Gibson has no choice but to hog the screen. So much so it ultimately turns into a one man star vehicle, which for a costume war epic isn't a great thing really.
Roland Emmerich ("Independence Day" and "Godzilla") directs and handles the battle sequences very well, there's lashings of blood as men line up to shoot and dismember one and other. While cannonball's whizz, bang and tear off body parts, it's grim, yet oddly rousing stuff. Not even the overtly flag waving and sloganeering on show can off set the impact of the well constructed battles. There is of course lots of tragedy to be found in the film, and these are some what surprisingly, tenderly handled by Emmerich, but mostly it's via an on song Gibson, who remains one of the few modern day male actors capable of believable grief. All of this is given a John Williams score that suitably flits between rousing and ethereal, and things are further boosted by the sumptuous photography from Caleb Deschanel.
There should have been more thought given to the racial (slaves) aspects in the conflict, and this coupled with the bad errors of under developed characters hurts "The Patriot" as a filmic exercise, not so as to stop it being entertaining, but more to stop it being a one man show. But as it is, thanks in the main to Gibson, and in spite of the overtly evident faults, it's an above average drama. 6/10

Harmless fun. 'Chicken Little' isn't anything standout, but there is solid humour and a satisfactory premise to follow.
I like the references to pop culture, Zach Braff is enjoyable in the titular role and the run time is nice and short. It's forgettable, but I'm sure the core target audience will rate it. It does comes across as two separate plots, they are actually connected but it can feel like the opposite in a few moments.
There's not much else to note really. It'll divide opinion obviously, but I think it just about sneaks under the 'good' category in my books.

quite good. i love the beatles and this has been a movie ive been wanting to watch for a LOOONG time so seeing it on Netflix, i was really happy, but it could've been _much_ better in my opinion

Sorry - but I don't understand. How can you take quite an original idea - man gets hit by a bus and awakens to a parallel existence where only he remembers the Beatles - and turn it into this one-joke film? Himesh Patel, himself, is quite engaging but he has nowhere near enough to work with to stretch this out for two whole hours!! Lily James tries her best to assist but there's no getting away from a very weak screenplay. The soundtrack is superb but most of that was written elsewhere 50-odd years ago. There is a sort-of swipe at the modern day music business and at the industries that support "solo" artists, but any potential for a more satiric review of the business is lost in the banality of it. Pity!

I really enjoyed this movie. Right out of the gate, you must accept that it is a fantasy rather than science-fiction, because the latter genre usually tries to give some sort of explanation for why something happens, but here we just take it as it is.
The dialogue is mostly witty and fun, and the characters got my sympathy. I had a slight problem with the two lead characters having always been platonic, as it was never fully explained why that was. But I was able to put that aside. Plus I really liked seeing the third lead character, the Mini Cooper (okay, yes, I have owned one for nearly twenty years).
Part of the ending could be considered predictable, and part of it was, but another piece of the conclusion astonished me in its originality, so it worked for me. One interesting subplot revolved around a couple of people who shared the knowledge about the Beatles that drives the story, and I was surprised and pleased at how they resolved that subplot.
And yes, to deal with the elephant in the room, most of the songs presented in the movie were better when the Beatles performed them, but isn't that the point? I had no problem setting that fact aside and enjoying this harmless and entertaining film. Oh, and I appreciate what a good sport Ed Sheeran is in this movie, allowing the lead character to more or less beat him in a songwriting contest (though of course Ed really won). In this movie, everybody wins (Well, except of course for the fictional Beatles, unless you can imagine they would prefer where the fantay lands them.)

‘Yesterday’ takes its genius idea and unfortunately turns it into a generic film. Both director Danny Boyle and writer Richard Curtis have proven their creativity before, but here it's just wasted along with everything else.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-yesterday-great-concept-disappointing-execution
Head to https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/sff for more Sydney Film Festival reviews.

One of the best movies I've watched in years. A masterpiece in every sense from the storytelling going through the production and ending with the masterful photography. It remainded me other such "childhood memories" masterpieces like Amarcord or even Bergman's Fanny and Alexander. The movie shows a year (circa 1970) in the life of a middle class, intellectual family through the eyes of their domestic helper, Cleo. She comes from a small town, has an indigenous background and works for the family within one of these arrangements (common in underdeveloped parts of the world) where the worker is treated somewhere between older sister and slave. She is emotionally involved with the children in a reciprocal relationship but she still has to work with very few (if any) worker's rights. The relationship is indeed complex and its treatment is the main strenght of the movie in my view.
For those of us who where partly raised by these amazingly loving women the movie is an emotional tour-de-force.
For the rest, the movie is a must. Please watch it.

If I were a child, I would love it, but I am a grown-up man 😔
The Grinch picture is so bright, so contrasting, so my eyes were satisfied enough.
The Grinch itself is designed very attractively, which is good for children, but it's hard to believe that this character can be as mean as the Grinch should be.
Unfortunately, the story itself is quite predictable, and it's hard to keep your eyes open during the whole movie. While this is not bad for children, it may not appeal to a grown-up audience 🤷 ♂️
His transformation at the end, where his heart grows, was too fast and lacked sufficient explanation. I couldn't believe that I hadn't missed a crucial part leading to this transformation, so I watched it twice and didn't find that part.
9 - for a young me
6 - for the current me

A much more family friendly story about 'The Grinch'.
I like it. It has a few issues but still does most things right, it's definitely solely made for families but that's not a negative - it does make sense to make an animated version of this Dr. Seuss book.
With that noted, I don't rate Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead role. I don't think his voice suits the role at all, it needed someone who sounds more menacing and treacherous. I never felt, away from his obvious acts, any horrid side to Grinch here - though perhaps that suits the aforementioned family vibe they were aiming for.
Away from Cumberbatch, I thoroughly enjoyed Pharrell Williams' narration and it's cool to hear Angela Lansbury in a minor role. The plot to this 2018 film is solid, but the thing about it that stands out most to me is the humour - which I found consistently amusing, there are some funny gags in there.
Overall, this is a film I'll look back on as being good - even if it could've been greater, especially with a more suitable lead. If we're comparing this and the 2000 production, I think I prefer this one? It's close, Jim Carrey is great in that but this one's pacing is much better.

It was a little too eccentric. I would've thought they would make the storyline similar to the 2000 remake, this time with Jim Carrey voicing the bullying mayor!
Still, this film had its laughs, along with a voice cameo from Made in Chelsea's Toff!

The Grinch was a movie I really wanted to see before Christmas but life was so busy and I just didn't have enough time. I am so glad I finally managed to see it.
LIKED:
- the animation is absolutely stunning! all of the colours and the contrast with the snow was amazing.
- Max was the most adorable puppy ever! for some reason, it reminded me of Dobby a bit :D
- a big part of the story was told in verse and there were many quotes taken directly from the book.
DISLIKED:
- I kind of wanted more songs
- Grinch wasn't portrayed as mean as I expected
OVERALL:
It was cute, adorable and very Christmasy! Yes, it was cheesy but it is supposed to be like that. I think I prefer it as an animation.

So I paid £7 to fall asleep! Alas, even my kids aged 11 and 14 found it uninteresting. Grandma came along, she loves all animation films, but even this failed to capture her interest. We were expecting some new twists in an already well-known tale, but hey-ho, not this time.

After hearing negative reviews from others I was reluctant to see this one at first but I went with my gut feeling and saw it and wow I am so happy I did this movie made my Christmas already it's just what we need in the world today a movie about people putting aside their differences and enjoying just being together

Demon Slayer: Mugen Train won’t make you a fan of the franchise if you aren’t already, but it will absolutely strengthen your love for it if you’re already an established fan. It’s also an anime film that covers just about everything; it tries to tear at your heartstrings, it has two awesomely sinister villains, it has significantly kick-ass action sequences, and it further develops a supporting character you were only briefly introduced to previously. Mugen Train is outrageously funny and action packed and is an impressive feat of animation even if you aren’t an anime fan.
Full review: https://geekshavegame.com/demon-slayer-mugen-train-review-drawn-to-a-tasty-flame/

THIS ANIMATION IS AWESOME!!!!!
Idiot fan : Yes, but what do you mean aw--?
**AWESOME!!!**
Idiot fan : Umm...yes. I got that. But--?
Look at me!! Look. At. My. Mouth. **AWESOME!!!**
Idiot fan : >sigh--
**AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWESOME!!!!**
Idiot fan : [stares] ... Thank you.
You're welcome. .... Don't forget. This animation's--
Idiot fan : I know! [in low uninspired voice w/ jazz hands] "Awwwwsome!"
NO!! Season two is going to be **MEGA-AWESOME!!!**

Waited for so long to see this and at the end it did not disappoint. It's a rich story of the demon slayer and stuck in a world of weirdness and dreams. stuff gets real on the train and ends up being a filler for the series of the beginning for the next series I assume . Good watch for a weekend.

A spaghetti Cornetto trilogy? 75+%
A lone man on horseback is seen travelling slowly towards us from a distance. Soon there is a seemingly senseless act of violence. It isn’t clear to me whether this ‘loose end’ is resolved later on in the film or whether it mainly functions as worldbuilding, for the benefit of the viewer, letting them know how little value human lives have in this place.
After the opening credits follow on from this, the film proper begins. We see two men in a train carriage. The face of one is obscured as they are reading the Holy Bible, according to the text on it. We come to know the man with the obscured face as the film unreels. Not really having read any reviews or such like of this film, I wonder if I am the only person to ponder at the end of this man’s journey whether that introduction to him was in earnest or ironic. It’s perhaps hard to tell. After all, Americans see no tension between loving Jesus and loving money, as the ‘prosperity gospel’ theology attests.
The main story concerns two independent bounty hunters in America’s frontier, near Mexico. There is uncertainty as to how the two bounty hunters (the film uses the term “bounty killer”) chasing the same bounties will play out. Is conflict inevitable between them? We have a sense of when all this action takes place, as, at a later point in the film, one of the minor characters is part of a humorous scene where we can see the disruptive influence of the recently introduced passenger train service to the region.
The early action of the film put in mind video games for me, with how some action games might have small bounties for the player to chase when they first start and increasing in size as the gamer becomes more proficient at taking on their targets and seeks larger rewards to gain better equipment or what have you. As the bounties in the film increase in size, they seem to correlate with “on rails” video games. In other words, I found this film to have more of a sense of linearity to it than its predecessor, “A fistful of dollars”.
One of the bounty killers looks familiar for those who have seen “A fistful of dollars”. It’s the character played by Clint Eastwood. So, obviously, there is a physical resemblance of the two characters and perhaps they even dress identically. However, to me they seemed two different characters, as in it’s not the same person. As I mentioned in my review of the earlier film, Eastwood’s character had a playful aspect to him there. In this next film in the sequence, though Eastwood’s character is not exactly humourless, his humour is more wry or sardonic. No, that doesn’t quite capture what I’m wanting to say here. In the first film, ‘Squint’ Eastwood was playful and he shared that quality with at least one other character (I have in mind the ‘hanging around’ scene), whereas in this film Eastwood’s character plays his cards held tightly to his chest. In other words, he is amused by some things but is not letting on to anyone else that he is (I have in mind the scene I mentioned earlier, with the minor character talking about the impact of the introduction of trains on him).
Wikipedia mentions these first two films being part of a trilogy: “The dollars trilogy” or “The man with no name trilogy”. Since I don’t find myself considering the Clint Eastwood character in both films that I’ve seen so far to be the same person, I’m leaning towards taking these films as being like “The Cornetto trilogy”, in that they are three unrelated films with the same principle actors and loosely bound together. I have to admit to being totally clueless about this “Cornetto trilogy”, despite having seen the first two: “Shaun of the dead” and “Hot fuzz”. Apparently all three films make passing mention of Cornetto ice creams. That is what makes them a ‘trilogy’. Perhaps Clint Eastwood’s poncho is Sergio Leone’s Cornetto counterpart? Maybe the third film in this ‘trilogy’ will prove me wrong but it doesn’t seem a “trilogy” at the moment like the Star Wars films are.
An interesting facet to these first two films of the ‘trilogy’ that I have seen so far is how one is supposed to relate to returning actors. As I’ve said, I’m viewing Clint Eastwood’s characters as being different. Another returning actor is Gian Maria Volonté, who once again plays the principle villain of the piece, although he is clearly a different character in both. He must necessarily, of course, be of the same ethnicity. In any case, we have two archetypes in common for both films: the poncho wearing man with no name and the swarthy villain. An action archetype in both films is a scene with a beating, although the one in the first film was the more brutal, I think. The only other returning actor that I noticed was Joseph Egger. Since this paragraph and below was written a couple of weeks after I started this review, things like this aren’t fresh in my memory, unfortunately.
Speaking of men with no name, in this film, ‘Squint’ Eastwood’s character is referred to as “Manco” and it seemed to be an actual name to me. The translation app on my PC translates this variously as “one-armed” (for Spanish and Italian) or “not even” (for Latin). Not sure how good my translation app is but it’s not really clear to me how Clint’s character is “one-armed”.
When the film concludes, there is a sort of ‘maybe, kind of, not really’ ambiguity to it. There probably really isn’t, as far as what that character would do in that situation, after retrieving a certain item. It’s just good that the film ends there and you are free to ponder what that character will do with that item.
Random notes:
* I’m scoring this film 75+% (since I don’t round up, the + sign adds an extra star to my rating here). This film has more implausibility to it than the first film which makes it harder for me to get lost in the story. The main way this is demonstrated is how characters interact with each other. I couldn’t believe that Manco would accept a proposition from his rival to do something, as that set off alarm bells for me, as far as possible double-crosses go. Likewise, Manco getting accepted for a heist. Character motivations and actions often just didn’t seem believable to me.
* Ennio Morricone is credited for the score, unlike in the first film, where, for some reason, he is credited as “Dan Savio”. As far as dramatic music goes, this feels his best score so far, especially effective with the percussive textures during the El Paso bank robbery scene. One thing niggling at me is that I can’t place what other piece of music some parts reminded me of. A few notes perhaps put in mind some 1960’s surf-rock song...maybe something by The Shadows but maybe something else which I can’t recall at the moment (the scene leading up to the bank robbery). A flashback scene has some eerie music. After the robbery scene, I wonder whether I hear the words “Go! Go! Go!” as part of the score...it sort of sounds like words are being used but maybe they’re just meant to be suggestive vocalisations? More toward the start of the film, it sounds like the vocalisations are “We can ride!”.
* There is an odd mix of childlike depictions of violence (which are perhaps more Classical Hollywood Western in style, although I have not seen too many of these and not since I was a child in any case) and more realistic depictions of the consequences of violence. So, you will see a man fall to the ground after being shot but the shooter’s gun was facing toward the ground, not the victim. And the victim does not bleed. On the other hand, on very rare occasions you will see graphic bullet wounds in freshly made corpses. It therefore seems like a transitional moment in cinema between these two styles...sort of like The Wizard Of Oz was for black/white and colour films, perhaps.
* There’s a scene where Manco forces an occupant of a hotel room to leave, so that he can have that room for himself. For me, this reflected badly on his character.
* Architecture...when Indio’s gang enters El Paso, one of the first buildings looks like a prop, as far as the first storey goes. The “Cosmopolitan Theatre” has the UK spelling convention. Of more interest, it looked to me like a heavily secured internal section of the El Paso bank had an unsecured window at its heart...but maybe we can rationalise this by thinking that the bank is as weird as The Overlook Hotel in Kubrick’s film The Shining? One shot of a town’s main street made me wonder if it was shot in a studio, probably due to weather effects.
* The fight scene between two bounty hunters is very formal, stylised and ritualistic. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! This contrasts with another scene in the film which put in mind Jon Pertwee era Doctor Who fight scenes, with the Doctor’s risible ‘Venusian karate’ (just looked that up for the term. In any case, it looks pretty harmless!). \
* Print quality: sometimes bits of film seemed to be missing. Maybe you’d see a white patch on Mr. Mortimer’s face. Another time the effect is cooler, as the missing film makes it look the fresh corpse has a bullet hole.
* Just the random nature of the morality in this film...some actions seem to conform to a moral code but then the same character can do many greatly immoral things. Hmm. People are strange.
Recorded on 10/10/2024 at 9:35pm SBS World Movies. Running time of c 2:06:12 hours, without 5 lots of ad breaks, which increased it’s running time to c 2:24:42 hours. In both cases, I edited to the start of the MGM lion’s roar before the film started to the end of its roar at the conclusion of the film. Viewed 16-17/11/2024. Rated M for violence and AD (audio described) which once again meant, unfortunately, that were no closed captions.