opusv5

It's been some years since I've read the novels, but I was amazed at this series's adherence to them. Patrick's surreal, ultra intoxication in New York, where he comes to reclaim his dead father, is recaptured brilliantly, thanks considerably to Benedict Cumberbatch's excellent portrayal of the title character, a man who has tried to deal with the extended sexual abuse his father inflicted on him (this, I seem to recall, was given less emphasis in the novel than here), resulting in years of drug and alcohol abuse. Only toward the end of the series does Patrick come to terms with all this, a climax initiated by his mother's death and that of his father's best friend, an upper class viper well-played by by Pip Torrens. If anything, the series successfully shows the social milieu Patrick was raised in, a world whose denizens felt their social status allowed them to, like Patrick's father, indulge in whatever they wanted to.

This doesn't quite equal the first two films, but holds its own. Brydon (his hair better groomed to hide baldness at the back) and Coogan still amuse with their imitations of other stars/actors (Laurence Olivier being a first for them here), and while the scenery lacks plenitude, what is shown is well-photographed, with the two eating at cliff-side restaurants and visiting historic sites thankfully void of tourists. There is also lots of gorgeous sunshine, something parts of North America are lacking this week. The film ends sadly, and though I'm not sure if the event referred to actually happened, it perhaps concurs with this film being, reportedly, the last of the "Trip" series. Fun while it lasted.

This is a soap opera strange to the western world: characters going through everyday trauma within the violent milieu of "los narcos." While the titular character is based on a famous Mexican Narco who reportedly died while undergoing plastic surgery in the 90s, the characters themselves are fairly stock, the dialogue acceptable but often predictable, episodes ending in a melodramatic manner. What makes this series different - and realistic - is the viciousness and violence of the characters: Aurelio Casillas, and those he works with, and/or against. Casillas is treacherous; he kills and tortures at will. This is one of the series's strengths: these are not nice people; portraying them otherwise would be dishonest. Casillas does have feelings for his mother (Lisa Owens), his wife and children, but few others. Those trying to bring him to justice, such as super-cops Marco Mejias and Leonor, are sympathetic in battling not only criminals but corrupt politicians. Apart from the viciousness, there are several attractive females in leading roles, along with a small army of leggy strippers and call-girls whom the narcos have at their beck and call. This series could be considered something beyond entertainment: a sociological phenomenon that reveals a fascination with a parallel power structure that most people would really be better off viewing that participating in.

This back-story of one of "Power's" central characters may be the series's strongest entry yet, if only because it emphasizes character development and conflict, as well as realistic plotting and dialogue, rather than quick pace and violence (though there is violence). The characters are believable and well played, their dialogue authentic to the milieu (Joey Bada$$ being particularly effective as such). I hope the follow-up series keeps up the good work.

I'm giving rating this four stars more for style than anything, though dramatically it's fairly good; Ms. Keough's deadpan performance (criticized by some) is effective: one even admires her cool under pressure as she contends with difficult clients, office politics and corruption, and the threat of being exposed publicly (though the release of a viral video of her in action is never fully explained). The series' style is cinematic, with ambiance given to lighting, colour and spacing. The pacing is episodic, cuts abrupt; most episodes end curtly. As for why she makes her money that way: Sex sells. It's as simple as that.

Beatriz, an aging woman living in a shabby genteel part of Mexico City, has a past that her also aging husband won't allow her, or himself, to forget: her youthful promiscuity that, though she has long ceased such activity, he still thinks she indulges in with other men. He expresses this to her in the basest language possible. Meanwhile, he is having a relationship with a married hairdresser, the film's one sympathetic character. There is also an adolescent live-in maid, Dinorah, who involves herself in the couple's "relationship, " to the point of a near fatal climax.

This film deals with an inability to forget the past the past, misogyny, jealousy and obsession. Its basic theme is sex while having no erotic appeal. Indeed, it leaves one with an unpleasant aftertaste, if only because of the distasteful characters involved.

The photography, though, is enjoyable. Done in black and white, it captures the nuances of the interiors and exteriors of that part of Mexico City.

This film deals with a pre-E.U. Europe where national borders are strictly patrolled and countries restrictive in their hiring. The protagonist, Antonio, a young Portuguese who is faced with compulsory military service - and, thus, participation in Portugal's colonial wars in Africa - chooses to travel to France to find work without papers because Portugal will not grant him the necessary passport. Another Portuguese has offered him opportunities there, and he knows a Frenchwoman, Dominique, a nurse who vacationed in Portugal. All disappoints, however, when his countryman offers him only exploitative labour on a building site and Dominique can only give him casual friendship. The film is realistic, depicting the lives and activities of the Portuguese in Paris in the 1960s, often doing work that Frenchmen and Frenchwomen disdain. The acting is naturalistic, and the film itself a good example of social realism. I should be better know, if only as a realistic time capsule.

This film is recommendable for its believability, characterizations and recreation (clothes, cars, radios, etc.) of 1950s Rio de Janeiro and an era when a stolid, unfair morality that discriminated against women and minorities was universally practiced. The two Gusmao sisters, daughters of a conservative Portuguese father, have ambitions beyond their background: Euridice dreams of studying piano in Vienna; the fun-loving Guida leaves Brazil with a Greek sailor. Her father is disgusted, and when she returns home alone and pregnant, disowns her. She, too independent to be ashamed, erases him from her life. Yet she tries to keep contact with her sister via letters to her more tolerant mother, who instead hides them.

The characters are realistic: Euridice, who conforms to bourgeois life by marrying an unimaginative postal official, still wants to study piano, yet ultimately rejects this option when she discovers their father's harshness to her sister. Meanwhile Guida , a single mother, does what she can to survive. Treated unfairly, she is is no repentant Magdalene: she still enjoys a good time. A major theme to the film is, despite their respective traumas, they inhabit the same city without being aware of it. This ties up decades later in a touching yet believable manner.

I just watched season two's final episode last night and found it the strongest episode yet. Franklin's incarceration in the L.A. county jail (reportedly worse than prison) was believably scary, likewise the dangers and beatings he encountered in the detention centre. That he toughens up toward the end to retrieve his shoes and checkmate his enemies conforms with the character: strong when he has to be. The acting was uniformly excellent. The single weakness would be Franklin's release from jail: even if it happened, it couldn't be quickly. A DEA agent retracting their testimony would raise questions and cause delays. I imagine there's a season three in the future. I'll watch it.

This film uses some gritty Montreal locations to tell of a man (David Boutin), a former delinquent and now owner of a sanitation firm who, out of concern for someone as lost as he once was, becomes involved with an adolescent, drug-dependent streetwalker. He tries to get her off the street, off drugs, and to convince her that she is an attractive person who could do better with her life. This gets him into violent trouble with the street gang that controls her, all ending with no one the better for his efforts. This film, without subtitles and due to blue-collar dialogue and speech, might only be understood by those who understand Quebecois.

I re-saw this film last night, and enjoyed it as never before. It's simple premise of two women who, having shared a (partly thanks to them) squalid flat while attending "uni" and reuniting six years later in London for a weekend showed life as lived by many. The dialogue worked, and even their coincidental meetings with Anna's former brief love (who doesn't remember her) and the sad young Welshman (Mark Benton), suffering from Tourrette's and who briefly lived with them, is not fanciful: even London's a small world. When the two part at the train station, one feels their friendship will continue: they can relate to and confide in each other as they can't with anyone else.

Having just watched the final episode last night, I'm a bit glad it's over, if only because its power is often draining: the frozen hell the expedition is trapped in, the factionalism that ruptures the crew, the miscegenated polar bear that terrorizes yet finally falls victim to its victims, and, most horribly, the descent into cannibalism (strongly suggested by actual cuts on some retrieved bones), initiated by Hickey. Jared Harris's performance as the conflicted but sympathetic Cpt. Crozier is particularly good and, in actuality, his whereabouts were never verified. Did he turn his back on a chance to return to England, or did he die of starvation, disease, and cold like many in the expedition? Anyway, this series motivated me to see an exhibition on the Franklin expedition currently showing at a museum in Hull, Canada. This series was good enough to want to know more.

A drunken college professor dies accidentally, but not before the mother of a striptease artist (as they were then known as) he has befriended has fooled him into leaving the daughter his estate. The ensuing legalistic conflict goes beyond actual law to confront guilt, morality, morals, and the hypocrisy governing those in the "adult industry" who are desired yet despised by those not above seeking their favours. This was one of the better, and more mature, episodes in the first season of a good series. That the stripper in question was shown - and realistically so - as a decent, bright person trying to better herself makes one question stereotypes. Salome Jens was particularly good as the stripteaser.

This unusual "horror" film enjoys excellent, effective mood, atmosphere, and music. Its careful pace won't please some, but works well in suggesting menace beginning in a Michigan suburb strangely devoid of adults or apps, continuing to the deteriorated inner city and the ultimate climax (though not quite the one that got Jay, the central character, into her psychic mess). Despite showing sexual contact as having very unpleasant consequences, the film probably won't stop couples coupling in the back seat of a car.

I'm giving rating this four stars more for style than anything, though dramatically it's fairly good; Ms. Keough's deadpan performance (criticized by some) is effective: one even admires her cool under pressure as she contends with difficult clients, office politics and corruption, and the threat of being exposed publicly (though the release of a viral video of her in action is never fully explained). The series' style is cinematic, with ambiance given to lighting, colour and spacing. The pacing is episodic, cuts abrupt; most episodes end curtly. As for why she makes her money that way: Sex sells. It's as simple as that.

I'd like to see this Brit opus, which I viewed on TVOntario in 1989, again. As told through the eyes of a young girl, the story concerns a newly-arrived teacher in a rural Northern Irish community. Her unorthodox behaviour and attitudes create confusion, hostility and some admiration. There is a sub-plot where the class goes to Paris and views the famous statue of the title. Religion is under the surface in all this: the new teacher is viewed suspiciously because she never declares what foot she digs with. It's a good film deserving of a higher profile than it seemingly has.

I taped this around Christmas 2009 and have since made a habit of watching it on Boxing Day (Dec. 26). While it's not a great film, it's imaginative and likable, with nice performances from Winninger, Aubrey Smith, Ouspenskaya, et al. The idea of an afterlife that can be benevolent and not particularly religious seems a bit unusual for Hollywood. The spirit of generosity at Christmas and afterward is not too gooey and makes the film an overall feel-good experience. One note: when the estranged husband of Helen Vinson shoots her and Carlson, the character played by Charles Winninger is able to save the young man, who will doubtless be reunited with Jean Parker, but not Vinson. She is judged more harshly than justly. In this sense, the film could have kept within the bounds of generosity: though superficial and selfish, she didn't deserve to be killed. Nonetheless, it's a period piece nice to visit when there's snow on the ground.

This film is definitely from that much-quoted "golden age" of x-rated films (the theatres these films were shown in,though, were anything but golden). There is a basic story, actors spout dialogue (the one playing Krieger seems to have acting experience), and the camera-work is average at best. What distinguishes this entry is Linda Wong, one of the few porno actors (male or female) who could reasonably be called a knockout: attractive face and figure. As one blogger here queries, this film has at least a passing resemblance to "Apocalypse Now." But "Apocalypse Now" was based on "Heart of Darkness." Perhaps those involved in this film knew this work, and used it.

I've just finished an on-line viewing of this opus on the CBC's website and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think it's well-acted, well-done and worthwhile: "Coronation Street" is a national, even international, phenomenon, and seeing its very beginnings is at least educational. It's interesting that William Roache is played by one of the Roache family--the actor himself felt that the show he had been cast in was only to run 13 episodes. The woman who plays Pat Phoenix was, I think, better-looking than the actual actress, and played here with conviction: Pat Phoenix was about to quit her acting career when offered the role of Elsie Tanner. That the show was conceived and initially pushed forward by a man, Tony Warren, who felt strongly that he had something to say that others would want to see shows the power of perseverance. As a long-time "Street" watcher, I am glad he, and those who supported him, got what they wanted.

This three-part series was just broadcast by TVOntario and gave a compelling, well-acted, and probably realistic account of what happened just a few years ago in a town that I wouldn't have imagined had a "red light" area (I'm recalling a TV production of "East of Ipswich" I saw years ago). The rough and suddenly dangerous lives of street prostitutes, some quite young and even presentable-looking, who walk the streets to feed a drug habit was well-done, as were their individual backgrounds and the difficulty they had keeping off substance abuse. I remember news reports of the time saying that public and official (including Prime Minister Blair) reactions to the killings were sympathetic to the victims (reaction to the victims of the "Yorkshire Ripper" was, reportedly, less so), and here the police are portrayed as compassionate if somewhat overwhelmed by the situation. The actual killer is apprehended toward the end of the third part; there's no explanation to his motive, only that he himself frequented--and finally murdered--streetwalkers. If anything, this drama recalled "Band of Gold," set in an even rougher milieu and with some of the same actors (David Bradley and one of the police officers) involved.One note of hope: the conclusion of the drama says that some of the girls were able to straighten out and leave the dangerous streets.

The trivia feature of the box set I've just purchased says (through subtitles) that this series was a great favourite of Jim Jarmusch. He may have liked it for the same reasons I do: it's a self-parody that is meant to be enjoyed as such. The series kept to the spirit of fun by not over-indulging in violence: there were at least as many kicks and punches as bullets flying, and those bullets never drew blood. The villains were take-offs on stereotypical baddies; the plots, while un-original, were again enjoyable as take-offs. The show had substantial sex appeal, though I confess (especially being Canadian)that I don't find Pamela Anderson that compelling physically. She does (or did) keep in shape, though, and can look good in hot pants. And that's part of what made V.I.P. enjoyable: good-looking, well-dressed people getting themselves into and out of ridiculous situations.

I just saw a French-language (w/subtitles) DVD of this film, which is/was famous for Martine Carol's bathing au naturelle. That is not the film's only nudity, and the film was probably thus censored upon release in the USA. Otherwise, the costumes and overall production values were impressive for the era, considering that European cinema didn't have Hollywood's finances. Martine Carol played the part adequately while showing a good figure for someone past the age of thirty (we could all do as well). I'm not sure if Pedro Armendariz spoke French, but he plays the part of Lucrezia's brother César credibly. This film is condensed and probably filtered history, though it is possible that the Borgias, especially Lucrezia, may suffer from a bad press. They had many enemies, some deserved, who may have exaggerated their deeds into misdeeds.

I bought a used VHS tape of this recently, and saw it for the first time in decades (I'd seen it on TV in 1972). I believe it's based on a real incident or incidents that took place in NYC in the mid-sixties. That two punks can hold a subway car hostage is realistic always; people don't want to get involved, and that could include any of us. Nonetheless, that that street crime has become more vicious--and armed--since then does diminishes its power. Then again, a switchblade can be as dangerous as a gun, and Musante's brandishing it would have been scary at any time. A well-acted piece, and interesting to see the late Ed MacMahon in a film. It was also interesting that this was Martin Sheen's first screen role, and as an aggressive punk. In reality, he's one of Hollywood's leading pacifists.

This is a wonderfully shot film whose story, while not totally believable, could serve as allegory. Perhaps the family of the Mexican fisherman-diver played by Armendariz would have been happier if he had not discovered the pearl at all, but the poverty that endangers their baby's life makes his joy at this discovery (in a good underwater scene) credible. Immediately afterward, he finds himself beset by freeloaders and robbers (including his own brother), and the spiral continues until it ends in flight, hunger, death and a sort of redemption: the pearl is hurled back into the sea that spawned it. Apart from the story, the highlight is the Mexican scenery, the village and villagers, and the skillful and evocative camera angles. As one reviewer wrote, it's unlikely a villagers' celebration would have been as elaborate as the one shown in "La Perla," but it is enjoyable. Perhaps one semi-cynical message that could be gained from this film is that if you strike it rich, tell as few people as possible.

This is a strong drama set in a Barcelona tourists and probably many residents of that city never see. It takes place in and around a public housing project inhabited by Arabs, Africans, and Gypsies. The central character is a young handicapped man entranced by rap music. His best friend is an African who has a difficult relationship with the father he lives with, along with a persistent drug problem. Both of these people make their living through petty crime, but decide they will now hustle toward a goal: opening a rap music studio. Through trial and error, they almost do so, only to see their dream studio literally go up in smoke when they are falsely suspected by a local gangster of having robbed him. This film is a powerful, downbeat depiction of people who survive--but barely.