marklv Reviews

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Great acting, boring lengthy story.............

[7/10 · 3 August 2023]

Let's be clear about this, the film is NOT about the story of the race to build the first nuke. There is NOTHING here about the Axis effort to build the bomb. This film is just about Oppenheimer, and it's not even a biopic in the true sense, it's just the story of HIS effort to build the bomb, with the assistance of a group of mostly Jewish scientists. Murphy is completely superb in the role, he IS Oppenheimer! This is one of the best acting performances I've ever seen and if Murphy doesn't pick up an Oscar then this world is mad. The storyline itself gets wrapped up in Oppenheimer's personal life and his later struggles to avoid being labelled as a communist and a security risk. There is little about Oppenheimer's early life and his family background; you are often made to feel that he was some kind of heroic figure when in truth he was a very flawed human being. There is even a scene when Oppenheimer's wife worries about him losing his job and their nice home - total BS because Oppenheimer was a rich man independently of his job. He inherited the equivalent of $4M in today's money when his father died early on in Oppenheimer's life and certainly would not have worried about losing his job. His job was a hobby, an obsessive hobby that he was brilliant at , but a hobby all the same - he did not need it to survive. The investigation story later on in the film was boring and lengthy, stretching out the film at least half an hour more than needed. It's necessary to call out Robert Downey Jr as Oppenheimer's FBI nemesis, Lewis Strauss, for a brilliant acting performance, and credit also needs to go to Benny Safdie as Edward Teller and David Krumholtz as Isidor Rabi, both of whom were excellent. The bit parts played by Branagh, Conti and Oldman were, predictably, executed superbly by these masterful actors. The female cast was a disappointment, but then they didn't have much material to get their teeth into, so hardly surprising. Overall I give this film 7 out of 10 for the great acting, but the storyline was poorly handled by Nolan, not one of my favourite directors. Lastly, the very loud sounds and music (if you call it that) during the film ruined much of the enjoyment.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

Deeply flawed but still watchable overall

[6/10 · 1 July 2023]

This is a deeply flawed movie, and this is largely because of its ridiculously far-fetched storyline and also because of the fact that Jones, is, frankly, too old to play the hero. College professors generally retire pretty late, often around 70, and this is roughly the age that Indiana Jones (played by an 80 year old) is when appearing in this adventure set in 1969 - an old, broken man, with a bottle of whisky as his closest friend. The result of all this is that we have someone who is obviously incapable of the physical efforts of his former self and has to rely on an energetic young sidekick to do that for him. The problem here is that the sidekick dominates the entire film, relegating Jones to almost a supporting role. And why use a female character to play the domineering sidekick? To me this seems yet again like bending over backwards to please the feminist lobby. It seems to be that the Disney political correctness has infected this film just like it has so many of the recent Disney productions. We just don't need this kind of crap.

The storyline is simply too absurd and ridiculous to be remotely believable. I won't spoil the story but time travel? Honestly? The bad characters as comically incompetent as in all the previous Indian Jones films, but here they are not even funny. In fact, there isn't much fun to be found at all. The actions scenes are often very pedestrian and unimaginative. What keeps the film going is the quantity of the action rather than the quality. The boy character seem completely superfluous and frankly unlikeable, just an annoying brat rather than a useful addition. Mikkelsen is a fine actor, but the bad guy he plays is neither particularly menacing, nor very capable. That's not Mikkelsen's fault, but that of the script writers.

Overall, there is just enough material to keep you entertained for the duration, but don't expect it to be as good as previous films in the series. A flawed ending to a celebrated series.

Rogue Heroes (2022–2024)

A commando comic on TV!

[4/10 · 3 November 2022]

Very unimpressed with this production. I guess it must be targeted at the 18-25 age group because it's unlikely impress anyone of mature age. The excessive gratuitous usage of the F word adds no value whatsoever, except to annoy the viewer, and the characters are all odious reprobates of one sort or another. Some of the events in the first episode are too silly to be remotely believable, like the Irish officer getting away with killing three military policemen who tried to hang him - too ridiculous to be remotely true - and the raid on the Italian encampment where all 50 of the enemy were killed without losses to the attackers. And Stirling's contempt and insubordination towards his superiors would have seen him court martialled and jailed in real life. And this is just episode one - I haven't even seen the others yet. This is an insult to the genuine SAS men who risked their lives in very dangerous missions. Pathetic!

The War Below (2021)

Fake History..........

[3/10 · 8 January 2022]

First of all, there were 19 large explosions at Messines, not one cataclysmic one. Secondly, it's not true that 10,000 German soldiers were killed in the explosions - this utterly grotesque figure has been touted to promote this event as having been spectacularly deadly. The number of Germans killed by the explosions could not have exceeded 1,000 and was probably around 500. The 10,000 figure was for all the Germans missing on the day of the battle, and 7,200 of these missing were later found to have been captured by the British forces. These massive explosions had a big effect in stunning and frightening the Germans, who surrendered in large numbers, but they were not as deadly as one would imagine. What was definitely deadly was the mass artillery barrage from the British forces which followed the mine explosions - this was both accurate and highly destructive.

No Time to Die (2021)

A suitable ending......

[8/10 · 11 October 2021]

I won't spoil the review by describing the story line and the surprising and explosive ending, but, needless to say, the ending is well crafted and apt. Though long, I never felt the film was too long, and there was enough action to hold the attention for the whole duration of the film. The weakness of the film lies in the story line, which is a rehash of a previous story from another Bond film in the distant past, and I wish that something new and unusual had been created, but they decided to keep to the same old formula. As a film it was a good watch, but as a Bond film it lacked innovation. What will be interesting to see is how the post-Craig Bond will emerge.

The Man in the High Castle (2015–2019)

Far Fetched, Inaccurate and Often Ridiculous

[4/10 · 6 October 2020]

There are some entertaining aspects to this series, but for the most part it's little more than a comic book depiction of a future Nazi state. Too many black and white stereotypes, little character development of anyone other than Smith and laughably awful acting - Himmler in particular. And worst of all the 'Nazis' calle themselves Nazis, something that would NEVER happen in reality. The word 'Nazi' was a derogatory abbreviation of National-Socialist and Nazi leaders ALWAYS referred to the Third Reich as being National-Socialist, NEVER Nazi. And there is too much focus on Japan, occupied USA and Germany. What about other major countries like Britain, France, Russia, Italy, etc? What happened to them? Why are they not mentioned? The whole story seems to be little more than a Marvel comic on screen.

Joker (I) (2019)

A study in human pain - masterful

[9/10 · 7 October 2019]

The mastery behind this movie is that avoids any unnecessary storyline and focuses on the torment experienced by the key character, Arthur Fleck, aka "Joker". This is a study in human pain, as experienced by a wretchedly unlucky man who faces a life of utter misery in a world of banal, casual cruelty, inflicted as if absolutely normal. It is, to all intents and purposes, a film all about one man - the other characters are merely adjuncts. If this film has a fault, it is that it ends too suddenly, without an adequate climax, but the performance of Phoenix is completely masterful and mesmerising. If this doesn't win an Oscar I don't know what will.

Darkest Hour (2017)

Churchill - but for the tabloid newspaper readers!

[6/10 · 19 January 2018]

This is a poor film that was chiefly rescued by an outstanding performance by Gary Oldman as Churchill, fully the equal of Robert Hardy, and very good performances from the other leading actors. In spite of that, the Churchill we see here is a blustering buffoon who shouts at anyone who disagrees with him and relies on people in the street (including the obligatory ethnic minority types) telling him whether he should make peace with Hitler or not. Utter nonsense, of course, and completely non-historical. Churchill had very good reasons for continuing the war and defying Hitler and without these reasons he would himself admit that he would have had no choice but to negotiate. These reasons were not analysed and all we get here is an obese blowhard who throws hissy-fits and invokes ancient history to justify his decisions. This is history for the tabloid readers, not for the intelligent audience seeking 'real' history. This film was a huge missed opportunity to delve deep into a fascinating period of history and find the rationale behind many of Churchill's decisions.

The Man in the High Castle (2015–2019)

Fascinating subject, ridiculous story line, mediocre acting

[4/10 · 27 December 2015]

Alternate history is a fascinating area to explore, with potential for a writer with courage and deep historical knowledge to create a realistic alternative society to the one in current reality. Unfortunately, the opportunity was missed in this series, just as it was in the equally ridiculous 'Fatherland'. The story is stereotypical in its depiction of Nazis and Japanese as paranoid brutes oppressing the brave and innocent Americans etc. First of all, why would the Germans and Japanese even wanted to occupy the USA? And then what about Canada, which isn't even mentioned? Hitler had no intention of occupying America - he wasn't remotely interested in America and only wished to gain hegemony over Europe and the Soviet Union up to the Urals. Germany could never have completely defeated the USA even if it had been the first to discover how to make nuclear weapons. In August 1945 it took two bombs to force Japan to surrender at a time when Japan's strategic situation was hopeless and its armed forces on the brink of collapse. To crush America when it was outproducing Germany in planes, tanks, vehicles and weapons several times over, and putting 12 million men in uniform, would have taken several nuclear bombs, maybe 8, 10 or more, dropped on all major industrial cities like New York, Chicago, L.A., Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, St Louis, Pittsburgh etc. Given the technology of the time there is no way that so many nuclear bombs could have been produced in such a short period of time. Even the US in 1945 could only make one bomb every 7-8 weeks. The best that Germany could have hoped for is a strategic strike designed to undermine morale and force the US government to negotiate an uneasy truce. As for Japan occupying the west of the USA, that is even more ridiculous. Japan only had an interest in building an east Asian empire and had no wish to rule over mostly white nations with no cultural affinity to Japan. And what about Italy? Would Italy, Germany's closes ally, not have received a chunk of American territory, maybe a southern strip from Florida to Texas? Also, why no mention of Britain and Russia - have they vanished from the earth somehow? As for the story line, it's simply too boring to even discuss.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

The Man from C&A....or M&S....or Brooks Brothers........

[5/10 · 22 August 2015]

Boring - this is what this film is; the first half hour was so slow that I was tempted to walk out. In bringing back this 60s classic they forgot to add any decent action until very late on and the whole story line was so stupid and unlikely that I shook my head in disbelief. Let's make the 'nazty Nazis' the villains - in the 1960s? Yeah right. Compared to Mission Impossible V, let alone Bond, this was more of advertisement for classic 1960s sartorial elegance than anything resembling a spy thriller. The two male leads had all the charisma of men's underwear models and there was never much in the way of genuine excitement, let alone tension. You always knew that the 'nazty Nazis' were a bunch of hopeless goons and that our heroes would make short work of them, with the help of a British aircraft carrier (!). Guy Ritchie has proved yet again what a vacuous and shallow director he is with this weak effort - lots of glitz and no substance.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

The Best one Since The First One

[9/10 · 22 August 2015]

Really good action movie, shot in beautiful locations, with a funny sidekick (Simon Pegg), one really nasty son of a b___ as a villain (Sean Harris) and a stunning, gorgeous female agent (Rebecca Ferguson). In short, it had all the ingredients for a great film, and that's what it is. I got my money's worth and more besides. Much better film than the silly Man from Uncle. I'm amazed how Cruise can still perform such physically demanding roles at his age, he must be super fit. Alec Baldwin is also very effective as the CIA boss; the part seems tailor made for him. The car and motorbike chases are exciting and very well handled. Of course it's all far fetched nonsense, but this is escapism. Go and watch it.

37 Days (2014)

Interesting but flawed account of the days leading up to WW1

[7/10 · 23 March 2014]

The main reason behind this mini-series was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1, so this programme certainly had an educational purpose behind it. Unfortunately, the only saving grace of this rather clumsy attempt to tell the story was the brilliant performance of Ian McDiarmid, who despite being far too old to play Sir Edward Grey, was astonishingly convincing in the role. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the continental characters were very poorly played, with some over the top hysterics from Kaiser Wilhelm and Von Moltke in particular -shouting and gesticulations taking the place of cogent discussion. The actors playing the Kaiser and the Tsar, in particular, looked nothing like the genuine individuals, and tried to make up for it with poor acting. There was also very little from the Austro-Hungarians, other than their ambassador coming up with poor excuses whilst being reprimanded like a naughty schoolboy by Sir Edward. The other continental characters conformed very much to national stereotypes. Finally, three hours did seem rather too much to explain the events - a single, edited two hour programme would have been much better. The first two episodes contained some periods of rather unnecessary tedium, only redeemed by the third one.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Hysterical, but not in a funny way..........

[5/10 · 18 January 2014]

The one good thing about this film is Di Caprio - as usual he is excellent and never fails to entertain. The film itself is fatally flawed; the characters are very one dimensional and the leading character, brilliantly played by Leonardo Di Caprio, is a sleazy and obnoxious parasite for whom it is very difficult to develop any sympathy whatsoever. Scorsese is used to handling such individuals from his gangster epics but depicting Belfort as some kind of financial gangster somehow fails to convince me. Sure, there are some very funny scenes, but most of the story gets lost in over the top shouting, swearing and general hysteria. You can't help thinking that the main characters all belong in a lunatic asylum even before the film really gets going. No doubt the many Scorsese fans will praise him to the hilt, but this effort is a disappointment when compared to his many previous successes.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

Boring and banal......

[2/10 · 3 January 2014]

Definitely one of the most boring films I've ever seen. Stiller's mediocre acting ability isn't even worth one tenth of Danny Kaye's and this feeble attempt to remake the glorious original is an insult to the greater (and hugely funnier) actor. The Stiller character is just a geeky, annoying loser who I found difficulty finding any empathy for. There were a few genuinely funny moments in the film but mostly long periods of complete tedium. Sean Penn was wasted in a pointless cameo role and the entire storyline was implausible and lacked any real substance or depth. The female love interest wasn't even very interesting, but then, looking at Stiller's character, it's unlikely that he would be aiming high.

American Hustle (2013)

A poor effort........

[2/10 · 3 January 2014]

Not sure what this film was supposed to be. Whatever it was, it failed in every respect - lots of talking and swearing, and very little action left me feeling bored and frustrated. There was nothing wrong with the acting - Bradley Cooper is making a career of playing idiots and he again did well here, playing an odious FBI imbecile particularly well. Christian Bale also did a good job as the unkempt, unclean and slimy Rosenfeld. The female leads also did a good job. The problem is that I was never sure whether this was a comedy or a gangster movie; it had elements of both without falling into either category and therefore failed to engage my attention for very long. As for the dialogue, it was mostly banal and meaningless. Shame to see such good actors wasted on this garbage.

The Sweeney (2012)

Worse than awful!

[1/10 · 3 August 2013]

If I could give this film a minus rating, I would. Regan is an odious, ageing violent moron who speaks as if he has a tennis ball stuck in his mouth all the time, and Carter is a slimy foul mouthed council estate chav who can't string a sentence without saying 'fu*k' at least once and enjoys being in the police because he can beat the sh*t out of people and get paid for it. With police like these I'm rooting for the criminals! If you expect a story line, forget it - this is just shouting, swearing, fighting and shooting for 1 hour 50 minutes. Character development is non existent and the London Docklands location is completely stupid and unrealistic - they are not exactly investigating banking crime! As for the acting, well there just wasn't any - I see better acting on EastEnders - it's that bad. This has got to be one of the absolute worst films I've ever seen.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

A huge disappointment!

[3/10 · 19 May 2013]

Those who like the director's quixotic approach will no doubt have enjoyed this film, but to me it seemed incoherent and lacking character development. The only genuine character seems to be Nick Carraway; everyone else, including Gatsby, seems a caricature, not a real person. I was immediately annoyed by the thumping rap music which Luhrmann inserted, instead of using original 1920s music, presumably to appeal to younger audiences. The whole effect of this was to remove realism and inject surrealism - it just didn't work. Similarly, the surreal rapid close-ups didn't add anything meaningful either. When watching this film, the whole impression was not one of following the storyline of a great novel, but rather of being constantly bombarded by a mosaic of incoherent and haphazard images, without any clear context. Gatsby seemed to be a nonentity, just a pawn in some mysterious chess game completely outside his control. Di Caprio, a superb actor at his best, was simply not given the opportunity to show his talents and develop the character; he muddled his way through the role as best he could. Carey Mulligan was awkward and unconvincing as Daisy. Tobey Maguire and Joel Edgerton clearly came out as the best actors - Maguire was particularly impressive as the dazzled Carraway.

In summary, I didn't feel that this movie was the right vehicle for Luhrmann, who is more suited to direct fantasies than screen adaptations of great novels. His visual pyrotechnics failed to impress me.

Shutter Island (2010)

Good but not great

[7/10 · 20 March 2010]

This film is certainly not a 'one star' - those reviewers who gave it such a low ranking are probably doing a knee-jerk reaction to a film that frustrated them. This is not a film for immature teenagers or twenty-somethings looking for visual excitement, it's a film that requires thought and attention. That aside, the formula is the same one as used in other movies like 'The Others' and 'A Beautiful Mind' - things are not the way they first appear. Given the fine cast it is no surprise that the performances are all very good, and I was especially impressed by the superb Ben Kingsley. Unfortunately the storyline is really rather thin to sustain a two-and-a-half-hour film, so the focus tends to be more on studying the personality of the character played by Di Caprio than running through an interesting plot; this is the fundamental weakness of the film. The wartime experiences of the leading character could have opened up some fascinating twists and turns but that was not exploited; also, as some reviewers have said, the ending was all too predictable once you realised that the leading character was not what he first appeared as. Nevertheless, the excellent acting alone made this film enjoyable for me, and, while not a masterpiece, it is certainly worth watching if you are prepared to be patient.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Ridiculous cartoon strip movie

[3/10 · 20 December 2009]

This must be Tarantino's worst movie. Not only is the storyline utterly absurd and implausible, but the characters are straight out of a comic book for 10-14 year old boys. I cannot understand why this loathsome piece of cinematic garbage gets such good reviews from people who really should know better. What is so great about a bunch of American Jews, hellbent on violent revenge, who go into occupied France to kill (murder) as many Germans as possible? And the idea that the entire Nazi leadership, including Hitler, would gather to a cinema in Paris to watch the premiere of a new Nazi movie, is so stupid and implausible that it's not even funny. At least Tarantino's previous films, though as insanely violent as this one, did have good story lines and were credible. This one is straight from the mind of an inmate of some lunatic asylum. Fans of Tarantino will praise everything he does, but this creation is well below his best. The only positive thing about the movie is the superb performance of Christoph Waltz.

Italiani brava gente (1964)

Communist propaganda, but entertaining

[5/10 · 10 August 2009]

Having seen this film/movie in its original language, of which I am a fluent speaker, I am left with the impression that this is little more than propaganda. The Russians are portrayed as valiant heroes and heroic, unrelenting fighters, or else as cheerful, happy peasants who are subjected to brutal exploitation by demonic Nazi troops. The Italians appear as annoyed and unwilling soldiers, far kinder than the 'evil' Germans, but totally naive about war. Once you ignore the obvious political connotations of all this, the film is actually quite entertaining; certainly a good war film, though nowhere near the great Hollywood epics.

In reality, by 1942, no less than 300,000 Italian soldiers, comprising 12 full strength divisions and support staff, were employed in southern Russia, guarding the northern flank of the German offensive towards Stalingrad, alongside Romanians and Hungarians. All the Axis allies forces - not just the Italians - lacked sufficient artillery or adequate winter equipment and motorised transport. Consequently, when the Russians launched their Winter offensive, it was directed against these weaker forces rather than the Germans. It was not surprising when these forces broke and ran in disorder. Morale was also not high - most of the soldiers were poorly educated peasants who were badly treated by their superior officers.

The film is worth watching as an example of seeing 'the other side' engaged in a war that most Brtiish and Americans know relatively little about. Just make sure you ignore the pro-Soviet tone.

Life Is Beautiful (1997)

Charming, but shallow..........

[6/10 · 2 March 2007]

I am not one of those who believes this film is great. Good in parts, but certainly not great. What I don't understand is what this film really is supposed to be - is it a comedy or a drama? Or both? Or maybe a children's film? The humour is childish, sentimental and old fashioned, which gives it an odd charm, while we never hear a rude word or see any blood or violence - this is in the middle of WW2! After watching the film in full I felt that this was like a Disney movie from the 1950s or 60s: charming, mildly entertaining, but always shallow. It also implied a long disproved myth that the victims of the holocaust were turned into soap.

Schindler's List (1993)

Wonderfully made film, but very flawed.............

[6/10 · 5 February 2006]

The problem with 'Schindler's List' is that, although superbly made by one of the most talented directors who ever lived, it has an agenda: to convince people of the Holocaust. I mean, why add all those dramatic scenes of children being led to their deaths, the gassings, bodies burning etc? What did all that add to the film story apart from try to shock the viewers? Schindler himself was, in reality, far removed from the nice man portrayed by Liam Neeson. Most of what he did was not because he particularly cared about the Jews, but because they made him lots of money. He was also a serial womaniser and adulterer. Basically, the film is a sentimental Hollywood melodrama which happens to be set at a time of great cruelty, motivated by blind fanaticism. An opportunity was lost to analyse WHY the Nazis hated Jews so much, what were the fundamental roots of the German-Jewish conflict? Instead Spielberg went for the safe option of creating brutal German robots and innocent, perplexed Jewish victims. And the final scene when Schindler gave his speech was frankly ridiculous. Final verdict: magnificent film, subject matter not properly presented.