zjerunk Reviews

Scandal (1989)

Highly underated, fairly accurate historically , film about the 1963 Profumo Scandal that took a British government down.

[10/10 · 8 March 2021]

*** For trivia buffs and fans of the late great Dusty Springfield.

The film was screened in competition at the 1989 Cannes Film Festival. The theme song "Nothing Has Been Proved" was written and produced by Pet Shop Boys and sung by Dusty Springfield. Neither the movie and song were released in the UK market at that time because, putatively, aspects of the story were still covered by the official secrets act. It was not released in the UK, and saw only limited distribution where it was released. Never the less, this film portrayed the story quite accurately with what had become public. The the lyrics of the song tell the story of the Profumo scandal of 1963 which brought the government down.

Another bit of trivia, the startup and production money was raised by publisher, Robert Maxwell, the father of none-other-than. Guylaine Maxwell.

With John Profumo's death in 2006,some more of the information on the scandal was released to the public. This led to new speculation that this was more than a simple sex scandal

THE FILM: The locales, the superb cast, for their characters were well chosen, and the atmosphere and of the morals of the day were accurate. Only 17 years after WW2, the country as a whole was feeling financial pinch whereas the gentry has money for recreation, but the lower middle class wanted some of that. Girls from poorer working class families gravitated to the gangster run clubs of Soho. Even the landed aristocracy landed there. Thus, this 1992 film tells the story of public figures involved in a sex ring scandal, and leaves it there with its tragic conclusion.

In my opinion this film was made 15 years too early. If we could preserve the cast as it was that would be perfect. It's a shame because we are almost 30 years after the release. I am not a fan of remakes because they are notoriously bad, But this film screams for a remake because the story in incomplete as it is one part of two but I don't want to reveal spoilers, so just watch it and enjoy.

Good Ol' Freda (2013)

If you were ever a Beatles fan, then you simply must see this movie!

[10/10 · 13 September 2014]

This is not a tell-all movie. It's about Freda, from Freda herself, who thought herself the luckiest girl in the world.

When you think you've seen every documentary about the Beatles or Beatles phenomenon, along comes this absolutely charming film about the member of their organization almost solely responsible for the unbridled love their fans felt for them on a global scale.

Freda clearly loved them as family, and never stopped loving them. It's as if she's speaking of her brothers. As she tells her story, you'll be transported back in time, and you'll feel that excitement you felt when you first discovered the Beatles. Freda's loyalty never waned, and the joy and glow she felt in her job and relationship with the boys just radiates off the screen.

Get Carter (2000)

A bad film made worse.

[1/10 · 28 September 2013]

A bad film made worse. Why on earth do that. Michael Caine, who I love, did the original for the money. He was riding the crest of the wave after Ipcress File, etc. Nevertheless, a good actor can't change a bad script, plot or idea. In his early days he was, like most, a mediocre actor with marketable looks, but he got better with age.

Sylvester Stallone plays his alter egos, either Rambo or Rocky. Putting him in a bad story, poorly scripted, with worse casting you get Rambo in a suit and a bad movie. Sly never really improved. He endured. Mickey Rourke was was more notable, but he too always plays Mickey.

They should have burned the script for Get Carter after the original and put everyone associated with it in a witness relocation program so things like this don't happen again.

The Master (2012)

Disappointing.

[1/10 · 28 April 2013]

This is a plot-less film about an alcoholic drifter who gets mixed up with a delusional charlatan. Neither one changes. End of story.

The principal actors were certainly of high caliber, but again I was reminded of another film. When Michael Cain was asked why he did Ashanti, he replied, "for the money."

As I was trying to formulate some sort of deep review of this film I had a flash back to a scene from Hill Street Blues: In the squad room Howard Hunter, the priggish SWAT guy, announcing his thirst, opens the fridge and takes an apple juice bottle, opens it, takes a swig, and immediately spits it out, screaming, "why don't people throw their spoiled food out!" Time lapse, next scene, one of the other detectives goes to the fridge and exclaims, "I have a doctor's appointment. Who's the smart ass who tossed my urine sample?"

I'm not so young anymore and I've seen a lot of art in my life. When one of my daughters got her first job in a video store years ago, she asked me what sort of films should she watch to be a discerning viewer. I said to her to watch it all, and then you'll know what is good and what is crap.

What is a mystery to me is why some people upon seeing an enigmatic, meandering piece of garbage feel they MUST find art in it. Trust your judgment: If looks like crap, the chances are that it is crap. Just because you hear hoof beats don't look for zebras, and don't blow a gasket looking for deeper meaning.

I would file this one along with "Limits of Control," in the trash can. Save yourself the 137 minutes and clean your bathroom instead.

The Limits of Control (2009)

Deep, yet somehow meaningless. Pithy, yet shallow.

[1/10 · 10 November 2011]

Such a howler that I don't know where to begin. I checked the spoilers check box but should explain I did so because I wasn't sure if the absence of a plot is a giveaway. Its trailers totally misrepresent this film. Perhaps someone may come forward and enlighten us to what they believe to be a (very) well hidden plot. Anything this film had to say could have been said in a three minute short.

One positive feature several reviewers mentioned was the beautiful scenes and scenery. Most were natural scenes whose beauty exist through the grace of God or the architects who designed these structures and places in Spain. Granted there were a few well composed still shots, but in the absence of a film with a story I think we give undeserved credit to the cinematographer and director.

I'd have to describe this film as a director masturbating, and the three "name" actors, John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, and Bill Murray, being content to believe they had sex, while running off with their paychecks. On the part of the writer, director, and actors this film is pretentious self delusion. It is sophomoric tripe from someone who could afford the film gear, the film stock, and had money to burn.

This film reminded me of two things: One, an exercise by groups of musicians deciding to play some atonal & arrhythmic improv, perhaps a mime artist in the background, and everyone is pretending this is high art. It always made me wish instead for a child with a hammer and a grand piano. Music by definition has rhythm and melody (tonal organization)! A film or a play, effectively a visual book, should have a story.

Two, the emperor's new clothes. A few years ago John Stossel did a piece on 60 Minutes on bottled water. The crew filled a number of fancy bottles bearing fake labels with tap water from the garden hose behind a southern California restaurant. The patrons who were bottled water consumers, and professing to have brand preferences were invited to sample and rate the various "brands" in the test. Evaluations of the samples, by any one taster, were as varied as snow flakes and they were just as adamant about the differences between samples. One bottle, labeled "Eau du Robinette" (Tap Water in French) even conjured up the flavor of spring water from the French Alps for one customer! This is the placebo effect at its finest! BTW, Placebo = I please (in Latin). Don't let this film bamboozle you.

Deep, yet somehow meaningless. Pithy, but vacuous. Crap, yet colorful. Inscrutable, but shallow. So, enough sarcasm from me. Just because a director puts a film out doesn't mean that we must contort our brains into believing it's automatically of some high standard they produced previously. Everyone is capable of producing garbage! It's bad enough that the writer and director deluded themselves with this pretentious swill, I think the reviewers who claim to find hidden meaning in this film are also either deluded or delusional. No matter how you cut it and slice it, this was garbage. Total wombat vomit! It's shame that the cows which yielded the gelatin for the film stock perished in vain. From the returns figures, I'd say the investors lost their shirts on this dog. For my part, I borrowed it free from the local library and I want a refund as well as my time back!

Manon of the Spring (1986)

Qualifies as a classic Greek tragedy.

[31 July 2011]

I have many favorites, and this is one of the crème de la crème. This is a visually stunning film more like beautiful photographic montage. It is simple, tragic story well told, unlike many of today's plots - implausibly lame, suffering on a CGI crutch for 85 minutes. The simple story is about enduring truths which have been the mainstay of the Greek classics and Shakespeare: Our human strengths, our failings, our virtues, and our vices. The story may be a fiction, but its kernel is not. It is stories and story telling like this which has kept our rapt attention for four thousand years.

First we should understand that this film is NOT A SEQUEL, but the second half the novel by Marcel Pagnol which would have been too long as a single film, and out of necessity, was shot as two. The first half is titled, Jean de Florette. Neither film stands alone as satisfactory because, obviously, it would be incomplete, and naturally, is also important that the two halves be viewed in sequence. For a fairly dispassionate précis of the plots, I suggest reading the ones on Wikipedia and the discussion boards, so I won't be repetitive here.

JdF & MotS were both shot at the same time in 1986 with a budget of $17 million making it/them the biggest budget French films up to that time. JdF grossed $86M worldwide, and of that sum, only $4.9M was from the USA. MotS grossed $56M worldwide, of which only $3.9M was from the USA. In other words, culture films are not a good fit for the American viewing audience, and the gross revenue numbers bear this out. The rest of the world seems to bear out this conclusion.

Foreign language films rarely do well in the USA for the simple reason that the vast majority of the viewing audience are unilingual anglophones who do not wish to burden themselves with having to work at "understanding" their entertainment - they wish to merely consume it. If it requires the work of reading subtitles or thought, it becomes unpalatable. This film requires your attention and thought!

But to be fair to the US viewers, the subtitles are at times incomplete or inaccurate, and unlike the spoken word, they do not convey the emphasis or importance of certain bits of dialogue well. The plot is woven steadily throughout the film, so the viewers with no understanding at all of the French language are missing essential dialogue, and therefore plot.

The bottom line is this: You will either be entranced by these two films and love them, or you will be bored by the first 15 minutes, and you'll translate that into "bad film." If your highest quality level of reading is Marvel comics then I suggest you stay away from this one.

However, I recall years ago walking into a video store where this was playing on all the monitors. All the patrons in the store, ranging in age from 5 to 75 years, were standing transfixed watching this film. There was something magical about it!

Jean de Florette (1986)

Qualifies as a classic Greek tragedy.

[10/10 · 31 July 2011]

I have many favorites, and this is one of the crème de la crème. This is a visually stunning film more like a beautiful photographic montage. It is simple, tragic story well told, unlike many of today's plots - implausibly lame, suffering on a CGI crutch for 85 minutes. The simple story is about enduring truths which have been the mainstay of the Greek classics and Shakespeare: Our human strengths, our failings, our virtues, and our vices. The story may be a fiction, but its kernel is not. It is stories and story telling like this which has kept our rapt attention for four thousand years.

First we should understand that this film is only the first half the novel by Marcel Pagnol which would have been too long as a single film, and out of necessity, was shot as two. The second half is titled, Manon of the Spring. Neither film stands alone as satisfactory because, obviously, it would be incomplete, and naturally, is also important that the two halves be viewed in sequence. For a fairly dispassionate précis of the plots, I suggest reading the ones on Wikipedia, so I won't be repetitive here. I also recommend reading the boards for comments and discussions.

JdF & MotS were both shot at the same time in 1986 with a budget of $17 million making it/them the biggest budget French films up to that time. JdF grossed $86M worldwide, and of that sum, only $4.9M was from the USA. MotS grossed $56M worldwide, of which only $3.9M was from the USA. In other words, culture films are not a good fit for the American viewing audience, and the gross revenue numbers bear this out. The rest of the world seems to bear out this conclusion.

Foreign language films rarely do well in the USA for the simple reason that the vast majority of the viewing audience are unilingual anglophones who do not wish to burden themselves with having to work at "understanding" their entertainment - they wish to merely consume it. If it requires the work of reading subtitles or thought, it becomes unpalatable. This film requires your attention and thought!

But to be fair to the US viewers, the subtitles are at times incomplete or inaccurate, and unlike the spoken word, they do not convey the emphasis or importance of certain bits of dialogue well. The plot is woven steadily throughout the film, so the viewers with no understanding at all of the French language are missing essential dialogue, and therefore plot.

The bottom line is this: You will either be entranced by these two films and love them, or you will be bored by the first 15 minutes, and you'll translate that into "bad film." If your highest quality level of reading is Marvel comics then I suggest you stay away from this one.

However, I recall years ago walking into a video store where this was playing on all the monitors. All the patrons in the store, ranging in age from 5 to 75 years, were standing transfixed watching this film. There was something magical about it!

Baby the Rain Must Fall (1965)

Not the worst movie ever, just the worst I've ever seen.

[1/10 · 26 November 2008]

I think it was General Paton who said, "No soldier is ever so useless that he can't at least serve as a bad example to others." I wish I could be so gracious in my characterization of this waste of celluloid and gelatin. As another post so eloquently said, Steve McQueen and Lee Remick must have lost the same bet!

A group of friends and I watched it TWICE just to be sure we hadn't missed any redeeming moments. This movie was so bad that I routinely mention its title as the benchmark of being the worst movie I've seen in over 50 years! Not the worst movie ever, just the worst I've ever personally seen. If it were shown in Gitmo....THAT would be torture!

Harry's Game (1982)

Treat yourself, and watch this film!

[10/10 · 2 January 2007]

Those of us who were fortunate enough to see Harry's Game in 1982 on TV were watching a stitched together version for broadcast distribution. It was originally made as a TV mini series in three one-hour parts. The recently available British DVD (PAL region 2) is shown in its original episodic format.

The other postings have said enough to describe the story, so I won't go into it. We've seen the story in many incarnations, but the real attraction to this film is the film making.

Typical of British cinema, it is very Spartan: no superfluous music, sound, or special effects. The costumes are "everyday," and the sets are actual row houses, typical of the times and area. This gritty story plays out without cinematic distractions or any of the nauseating political correctness which has become "de rigueur" in today's films.

It has been said about music that a simple melody well played is far more beautiful than a symphony butchered. Similarly, one can say about film that a simple, believable story well told is far more captivating than a howler of a story tossed together with a dog's dinner of special effects. Think of this film in terms of Zen.

** I will say the very opening of the film with the haunting Celtic vocals by Enya and Clannad instantly caught my attention. At the time Enya was merely the vocalist in the family band, Clannad, and in 1981, was an unknown in North America. However, I knew immediately this was a voice destined for greatness. For Enya fans who only know her music, the "Theme to Harry's Game" refers to this marvelous film.

This is yet another example of the abysmal ignorance of marketing on the part of the British film industry. Evidently the owners of the property don't like making money. The only thing this film lacked was a marketing budget and someone to market it.

For film lover's who are disappointed by the dearth of North American releases of marvelous British, Aussie and European films, I would highly recommend purchasing a region free DVD player, and ordering your films from England. There are several sites which sell them very cheap. Also, if you like French cinema, set your browser to detect French language hits also when you search film titles. Lots of great used titles available on ebay.fr or amazon.fr.

10 Rillington Place (1971)

Superbly done dark film

[10/10 · 24 December 2006]

For anyone who has lived in GB during the period this film is set in, the realism is stunning. The darkness of the times, the grim and gritty environment are masterfully recreated, and the cast could not have been better chosen: John Hurt, as the naive Evans, and Richard Attenborough, as the sinister Christie, give truly impressive performances.

These two actors are in quite a few of my favorite films. This is the only one where they are featured together.

This is yet another example of the abysmal ignorance of marketing on the part of the British film industry. Evidently the owners of the property don't like making money. The only thing this film lacked was a marketing budget and someone to market it.

Aussie (PAL TV system) viewers could purchase a region 2 disc from GB and play it on a region free player. This one is long overdue on a Region 1DVD.No such luck for Region 1 (NTSC TV system)though.

If you collect good films, this is certainly one to buy.

Paper Mask (1990)

Excellent medical thriller!

[8/10 · 24 December 2006]

The attraction of the story is that it is entirely within the realm of possibility, and all the more so in view of the seemingly increasing incidence of medical impropriety these days. Hitchcock like in its use of the inevitable as an instrument of suspense, this gem will keep you glued to your seat to the end.

If Robin Cook or Michael Creighton had written this, their names alone would have made this a blockbuster.

The only shortcoming of this film is that the people responsible for promoting it at its first release evidently didn't have a clue. This is yet another example of the abysmal ignorance of marketing on the part of the British film industry. Evidently the owners of the property don't like making money. The only thing this film lacked was a marketing budget and someone to market it.

This is a film that should be released on DVD as a 20th anniversary edition or some such thing, and properly promoted. The owners are sitting on a valuable asset.

In the mean time, if you spot a VHS copy, snag it for your collection. You'll be glad you did.