simon-1303

This could have been many things - an explanation of garment making, an analysis of industrial relations, a review of global garment making economics, an exploration of working class relationships, a description of Indian state governance.

There is a bit of all of this in the film, but it is above all observational - the beauty of the textile designs, the dirt, mess and lack of health and safety of the factory, various industrial processes, brief interviews with various parties who generally say what one would expect. There is no commentary. It is thus impressionistic rather than fully explanatory. For a fuller analysis of a similar situation, read The Condition of the Working Class in England by Friedrich Engels.

A period in the life of a small boy in a remote village in the 1940s. His family, neighbours, employer, strangers, fears, hopes, goblins, cows... A limited cast and scope, as is appropriate for the life of a small boy in a small village. We see life both from the boy's point of view and also from that of the adults who dominate and influence his life, for good and ill. There's some historical context, as well as the timeless life of the countryside and human emotions and motivations. The lead actor is wonderfully convincing and is supported by a competent cast. There's a good use of country and town backgrounds. The plot works but it's the human interactions which stay with one. Entirely charming and with some real drama.

Seamy or at least black and white expose of 1950's London's sex trade in all its guises. Using actors and clearly of the period, this reveals and condemns all the tricks of the trade, from call girls to clip joints and high massage parlours to low class walk ups. It's hard to know which are less appealing: the deluded and self-deluded and desperate punters or the calculating and equally desperate working girls. The film condemns them equally, while revealing in details the titillation and barely legal disrobing designed to arouse man's baser desires. With a voice-over straight from the Department of Public Morals, and fascinating glimpses of a period long ago, this has something for everyone. Huge potential for unintentional humour and entirely convincing as to the facts of the case.

This is a wonderful film that works on so many levels. As a farce, it's up there with Charlie Chaplin or Monsieur Hulot. It's really funny. The score is absolutely brilliant. The acting is top-notch. As a satire on corruption and bureaucracy, it hits the nail on the head. The elements of surrealism work tremendously well in acting, sets and scenes: just extreme enough to make the point well without losing touch with the underlying reality. Through all this, key themes are maintained. The director also plays effortlessly with gender, age and hierarchical roles, switching and undermining them relentlessly. Innovative film techniques, too, are used exceptionally well: puppetry, collage, distortion plus many more. One could doubtless see this film a dozen times and still find something new. I unreservedly recommend this film!

I have rarely disagreed so much with the IMDb average. No.1 Most of the stuff in this film just does not happen. Ever. Even if it does, it doesn't all happen to the same bunch of people. Even if it did happen to the same bunch of people, it would be because of causal links, which were absent or weak here. No.2 There really wasn't much tension here, given it was a thriller format. The cuts back and forward in time meant you knew what was going to happen a lot of the time. Even when you didn't, plot developments were clichéd and predictable. Even when they weren't, they were signalled way ahead of time. No.3 Various specific plot elements didn't go anywhere or were pretty unlikely or happened just too easily No.4 There was far too much use of the phone to make up for a weak structure. And the personal interactions generally weren't convincing.

The acting of the main characters - Harrison, Cummins and Hartnell - are convincing but generally lack a great deal of passion. Everyone behaves pretty much as one would expect. There are many twists and turns in the plot but these are often fairly predictable; one is rarely surprised. The settings - prison, village, moor, country cottage, are just what they're supposed to be, no more, no less. The dialogue is convincing, and also just what you might expect. There is variety of tone and many moments of humour, darker points, philosophical themes regarding justice, honour and life. Generally, the film takes its time making its points, just so you don't miss them. So it rolls along in an amiable manner and is enjoyable to watch; however, it does lack some of the sparkle of the 1930 version.

There is some spectacular, heart stoppingly beautiful photography here of a range of scenery and animals, from arctic to tropical and everything in between. The camera techniques are varied and spot on from close ups to aerial work. Editing is tremendous and the commentary is spot on too, with just the right tone and some dramatic and telling facts about our world. Where the film falls down a bit is in trying to cover and integrate four themes - seasonal patterns, climate change, individual animal stories and hunter/ hunted interactions across multiple environments. Eventually it all gets a bit bitty and disjointed. Overall, well worth seeing especially given the issues covered but don't expect Oscar material.

It's all happening here. A bored couple have various extramarital flirtations in a torrid atmosphere of dodgy financial dealings and lust-filled entanglements. Meanwhile the family as a family is rather left to look after itself. The acting, given that it is melodrama, is fairly good and the settings are entirely convincing. You might not like the Korean (or indeed any) version of America in the fifties but it is believable and indeed fascinating. The plot bounces along from one flirtation or crisis to another, while the female characters alternately support each other or eye each other competitively. There are resonances from a culture undergoing change and real issues and dilemmas, like all good melodramas, for the characters. What is the role of women? Is life about appearances or something more? What is the balance between thinking of the future and enjoying yourself while you can? Who is exploiting who in business, employment and relationships? Perhaps we're all using each other?

Based in an industrial provincial Chinese city, this is about the lives of a handful of people affected by a crime. There's a strong element of realism in the depiction of both lives and cityscapes of China today and this is the film's great strength. The story is told in an episodic way, with each episode unfolding fairly slowly. One had to be fairly alert to understand how each episode related to the main story and universal themes of the film, which are desire, loneliness, revenge and the justice system. However, the script is pared down, with relatively little dialogue or detailing of the lives depicted. There are elements of suspense and also an interest for non-Chinese in observing the detailed workings of a society. The acting is restrained but convincing. In justifying my lowish score, I would point to the relative lack of pace and complexity as factors against engagement.

Think theatrical for this one. Six friends and relatives are isolated in country house. They bicker, they matchmake, they fall in love, they have tea, they read or sing, they bicker again. Great acting, and well shot and edited, and there's some nice relationship friction. Though everything is taken a little too far, theatrical rather than realistic. And it's all a bit trivial, I'm afraid, like light theatricals. Then something goes wrong, and they argue more seriously as nerves break and relationships are put under strain. But, it's still six characters isolated in a country house. One can think of analogies: Agatha Christie's And then there were none, but the tension here is somewhat lacking. Everyone is basically nice and one never feels anyone is in very much danger, except through their own foolishness. That being the case, the point of the thing is a little unclear - not comedy, not romance, not slice of life, not really much of a drama. If you focus on the acting, you'll probably find it enjoyable enough.

This comment only covers the first half hour - you can probably guess why. OK, she is pretty and there are some funny lines. But aren't pie recipes a bit, er, boring? And haven't the following clichés been done to death, better, elsewhere? - dishy doctor, tongue tied lover, man bad in bed, irascible but lovable old codger, wacky friend, unlucky in love friend, mean boss, stingy and self obsessed husband? Instead of bringing something new to the party, this film just keeps recycling these tired old clichés in obvious, trite and unrealistic ways. I kept thinking, well, it's a comedy, it's only for fun. But obvious and unrealistic humour to work has to go over the top, like Steve Martin or Leslie Nielsen. Obvious and unrealistic humour about pies and men being meanies is just dull. Especially when it's essentially repeated every five minutes. Maybe it improved after I left. But I doubt it.

This is a modern morality tale for the GOP. In the film's first half, isolated goth leelee lifts an entertaining finger to her family, school and the world. Sure, everything is exaggerated to make a point, so it isn't at all realistic. Also, she's such a sweetie, even in the darkest moments: no room for the real world of genuinely dislikeable people. Her absent father from hell is John Goodman, hardly a credible hate figure. Her problem of course is no-one understands her - she even talks to her dead grandmother for company. Of course, she falls like a brick for the first nice person she comes across (older man with moustache and other issues). So, typical problems, lacking all realism and laid on with a shovel. Still, all great fun, as she cocks a snook at the world with some great one liners and you forgive the surrealism, a bit like Desperately Seeking Susan.

Where it all goes pear shaped is in part II, where she on a whim or two rapidly gets a job, has a great boss, cleans up, gets a flat, brings a family together, finds a nice boyfriend, comforts a dying man and reconciles with her family. As there is no inherent drama or observation of reality, the sudden lurch into motherhood, apple pie and family values becomes a simple homily. Hasn't this director read Voltaire's Candide? Pass the sick bag, Alice.

As everyone's being so nice about this, I thought I should put the other side. It's a bit interesting, being so old, and some of the camera-work and acting is good on occasion. However, above all, it's melodramatic. The characters stick to one or two emotions each throughout. The plot is exceptionally hackneyed and simple and what drama there might be is largely eliminated by the fact that 90% of the film is in flashback. There are very few actual events, as the scenes are so long. Also, almost no dialogue is shown in inter titles, less than in many silent films. So, you could watch it at 4x normal speed and not miss anything. The director attempts to inject some drama through frantic cutting and atmospheric lighting but simply emphasises how little activity or plot development is taking place. Another weak attempt to add drama is some horrendous overacting. You might wish to make allowances given the age of the film, though there were many better films of the same era.

The fun stuff here are children/ teens in conflict and affection with each other and their parents. It's also interesting to see the rare picture of parents exploiting their children. There are large dollops of humour and characteristics of family life that anyone would recognise and appreciate. Like all Naruse, the film work and editing are admirable. The script, too, is credible and of interest. However, it's a little difficult to care for some reason. I think there are too many children - 9 - and the film print is probably even greyer than it was to begin with. Both characterisation and the drama are limited and sibling rivalry and generational conflict are timeworn themes. Still, not all bad by any means and worth watching.

This starts as broad if uncomfortable comedy, based on the battle of the sexes and the strains of marriage in an imperfect world full of imperfect people. Slowly, tragic themes emerge as the desperation of the characters for love and security becomes clear and their aspirations become at the expense of each other. The comedy is rather obvious, with some character clichés and crude approaches.

The tragedy is more subtle, with Ken Uehara expressing a world of feeling in a single glance. By the end of the film, the characters accept mundane reality in place of dreams though with disillusioned resignation rather than the contentment a sentimental Western film might display.

The film's style changes, too, from unsatisfying short sequences in the first half to more typical Naruse long takes by the end.

The context here is tightly drawn in scope around a couple and their colleagues and friends, and the intended theme of marital discord is consistent and pervasive. The plot weaves around within these constraints, bringing out the various aspects of the eternal battle of the sexes. What do you do if your spouse is boring? How do you respond if your spouse is much admired? If your marriage is a cause of distress, whose fault is it? And how do you put it right? Good acting, if a little melodramatic and obvious compared with some of his other films. Effective use of limited interiors but little exterior work, so a more limited palette in sets and prominent cast than is sometimes the case. Really, it has a definite feel of a play turned into a film, with limited use of cinematic inspired techniques. As ever, interesting insights for foreigners like me into Japanese customs. An amusing script helps, as does an extremely watchable leading actress.

So, not one of Naruse's best, but all Naruse's are worth watching and this succeeds in being thoroughly entertaining, particularly if you are or have been married.

This is a bit sad but great. Think Kes, the Railway Children and other great children's classics. There's sadness but never sentimentality because children just have to deal with what happens to them.

Here, the kids have single parents, other kids get at them, there's uncertainty and dislocation. Responsible adults can be unfair and ignore or deceive their children. Still, they make friends, have interests and pastimes and are often looked after by friendly grownups, even if their parents aren't perfect. As ever, the strong group culture of Japan, as portrayed, is supportive, even if sometimes oppressive.

The filming is wonderful, not a redundant interior or exterior shot in the pacey 78 minutes and the acting is great by all concerned. Several locations are used well and tied together with street and travel scenes.

Take your kids or not - you'll love it.

Most Naruse films seem to be about geisha's or ex-geisha's. This however is a tale of everyday farming folk, as in the long running UK radio soap, The Archers. Much of the long 128 minutes is spent demonstrating paddy field farming techniques. However, there is a fair bit of family drama around marriage, succession, land, kids leaving home, children disappointing parents and vice versa, the prevalent theme being the way industrialisation enables young people to escape from the unappealing nature of farming and the control exercised by their elders.

Some beautiful scenery, brought out by Naruse's filming/ editing and intermittently convincing characters go some way to compensate for a glacial pace and a somewhat over attention to details. However, drama is only present from time to time so some patience is required.

This is about a fairly dysfunctional family: multiple fathers who seem to have left the scene and bickering adult siblings with problems. I scored this a bit low because I wasn't sure what was going on. One could see the big picture of sis trying to get out from under but otherwise, it seemed a mishmash of interactions which were fairly predictable and didn't take the plot anywhere.

It's well-shot and edited; Naruse always is; but without any evident direction, it's hard to stay engaged. I'm afraid I nodded off a bit, so perhaps I missed something, but it wasn't easy to stay focused when nothing much was happening. What there was was crashing great points without much subtlety; unusual for Naruse.

This is a series of vaguely connected episodes set in and around a geisha house. Staff come and go. There are money transactions between everybody. Naruse knows this area to perfection and uses this knowledge and some tremendous actresses to portray both interesting day to day details and some of the major issues. Linked themes are the ending both of careers and of businesses in the context of a decline in the popularity of geishas and their traditional entertainment skills in post war Japan. Even less than in other Naruse films, there is little depiction of the geisha with clients and more about their 'off stage' lives.

As ever, Naruse's camera-work and editing is tremendous in capturing scenes and actions.

This is a modern fairy story. It's a little hard to talk about without revealing the plot, but major themes are the evil consequences of arrogance, the redeeming power of guilt, the importance of a woman's virtue, the need for expiation of one's sins, the role of family and the power of forgiveness.

There's a fair bit of Noh in it, which is an acquired taste for some, but even if you don't understand any allusions, the film is still worth watching.

As ever in Naruse, some beautiful scenes, excellent camera-work and convincing interaction. It is a little stilted and contrived compared with his other films, and the acting is less powerful, with much less emphasis on womens' characters, but this is doubtless a response to the Noh context.

This is a gentle, affectionate take on a middle aged bar hostess, struggling to bring up a child alone and facing financial, sexual and end of career issues, as well as the implied disapproval of society. There is plenty of humour, though, and acute observation of people and relationships in their everyday lives.

Apparently slow initially, one gets gradually drawn in to care for these essentially good characters, even the weak and slightly unreliable ones (generally men).

The set pieces of bar life are particularly well observed. And the mutual respect and simple good manners of Japanese society as depicted is always fascinating to Western eyes.

As ever with Naruse, the camera-work is so effective one is hardly conscious of it as one engages with this picture of a determined but dignified struggle by a virtuous woman.

I really enjoyed this straightforward story of two hardworking working girls. Naruse's great camera-work and expressive actors conveys the hard life, physically and emotionally, of working girls and the positive and negative sides of family ties. Never sentimental, carefully chosen scenes brilliantly illustrate an effective if familiar story of decline and fall, or rather fall and decline.

Naruse can be a little claustrophobic and hermetic, even static, but switches of location keep the story fresh and each scene moves the story along.

Relationships are entirely credible and dialogue (intertitles for this silent movie) is dramatic and appropriate.

On a personal note, look out for the ever so cute No. 2 actress Sumiko Mizukubo, the 'Japanese Sylvia Sydney' apparently, on account of 'her small size and the shape of her lips'.

This is not really a drama; instead it's social,economic and political history told through sophisticated conversations between the protagonists and the odd set piece confrontation. Interactions are illustrative rather than performed. The positives are the real life settings using period buildings and cityscapes, the fascinating costumes and furnishings and the generally well done portrayal of interactions at the highest level. The subjects range widely: commerce, banking, arts, architecture, politics, diplomacy, government, though they are not covered in detail, with Rosselini skimming the surface in an appealing though superficial way. One might say one gets a feel for the themes of the period and it will be enjoyed more by those who don't know much about the period already.

So it doesn't have much on personal or family relationships, convincing conflict or intrigue, a sense of how the elite actually lived or much at all about the poorer section of the population. Think of it as a traditional history textbook with very rich illustrations.

This is a great use of anyone's five hours. Sure, the desert setting and faded print can leave it a touch monochromatic (beige), and the pace can be sedate, but how many films cover the period of what happened in the months and years after the Resurrection? Rossellini masterfully conveys the faith that allowed the early Christians to persist against persecution and, when their teachings fell on stony ground amongst the Jews, to overcome the constraints of tradition and go out to preach amongst the Gentiles. One hears the passionate debates of the very early Church and understands the inner strength of believers that drove every decision to travel from one's home, every willingness to suffer for a greater cause. With largely credible sets and actors and dramatic scenes, one follows every twist and turn with real empathy.