2022 - October
Brighton Rock (1947) 4/4
Murder in Reverse (1945) 3/4
The End of the Affair (1999) 3/4
The Human Factor (1979) 3/4
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022) 2/4
Footsteps in the Fog (1955) 2/4
The Good Nurse (2022) 2/4
Dark Harbor (1998) 1/4
Murder in Reverse (1945) 3/4
The End of the Affair (1999) 3/4
The Human Factor (1979) 3/4
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022) 2/4
Footsteps in the Fog (1955) 2/4
The Good Nurse (2022) 2/4
Dark Harbor (1998) 1/4
List activity
17 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
8 titles
- DirectorAdam Coleman HowardStarsAlan RickmanPolly WalkerNorman ReedusA couple, trying to get the last ferry to their island, help a young drifter out of the rain with a ride. They later meet him again and invite him home. The much younger wife spends time with the drifter. Twists follow.19-10-2022
"Dark Harbor" is a psychosexual drama that tries to pitch its tone somewhere between the tension of "Knife in the Water" and the symbolism of a Dennis Potter play but settles for the melodrama of "Dead Calm" and the labyrinthine plot twists of "Deathtrap".
Alan Rickman and Polly Walker star as a bickering, middle-class married couple on a weekend sojourn to their fancy house on a picturesque private island. They are a poorly matched couple indeed. She, Alexis, is a nature-loving romantic, he, David, is a tutting fuddy-duddy with an annoying habit of speaking on her behalf. "She doesn't smoke".
It's a baffling choice to cast a pair of English actors to play an all-American couple. While their performances do hold up, just about, their accents sure don't. Rickman's, in particular, stands out as a damning example of the kind of stagy, overstated vocal concoction you might hear on a BBC drama. Polly Walker, on the other hand, chooses the smarter option and barely even affects an accent. Her monologue about her days at Yale is delivered in proper National Theater RP.
The best performance in the film is delivered by Norman Reedus as a mysterious tramp who invades the lives of David and Alexis. They help him out when they find him stranded in the rain on the side of a road and from then on simply can't get rid of him. Or won't. And why should they, he brings a kind of danger, a mystery, a change to their boring, routine, conflict-laden lives.
Reedus is rather good as the unexpectedly soulful and soft wanderer. He doesn't overplay the part and make him openly villainous but he does manage to suggest an undefinable kind of threat as if his presence is the straw needed to finally break the back of their strained marriage.
This is a rather familiar story and "Dark Harbor" offers only a slight variation on the theme. Be that as it may, a film like this has two requirements to work. The first is that we actually care about the characters. Unfortunately, we don't. The screenplay by Adam Coleman Howard and Justin Lazard gives us only the curtest of sketches of Alexis and David. They have no depth, no complexity, and nothing original about them. He is an unlikeable snob and she is his whipping girl lacking in agency and bite.
The other element is a constant sense of menace, edginess, a palpable danger that the fixed lives of the characters are about to implode any second and tragedy shall ensue. Dennis Potter does that ever so well but Howard and Lazard don't. The film has no atmosphere, no tension, no suspense. It ambles along episodically between vaguely poetic monologues and plot twists without a discernable purpose or pace. The actors, meanwhile, seem lost and undirected. Each of the three actors is starring in their own film and survives entirely on personal charisma.
All of this is underscored by a gratingly old-fashioned and loud score from David Mansfield which tries to be faux-Hitchcockian but only ever manages to sound faux.
Besides Walt Lloyd's misty cinematography, there is nothing at all noteworthy about "Dark Harbor", a pompous attempt at a Potteresque (or perhaps Pinteresque) thriller. A stronger directorial grip could have perhaps made the screenplay into watchable cable fodder but Howard does not pull it off.
1/4 - DirectorMontgomery TullyStarsWilliam HartnellJimmy HanleyChili BouchierDock worker Tom Masterick is wrongfully convicted of a murder charge. His death sentence is commuted to a long prison term. When released as an old man, he vows to show that his alleged victim is still alive.19-10-2022
For years now, "Murder in Reverse" has been one of the top titles on my list of films I'd most like to find. As a dedicated "Doctor Who" fan, the idea of seeing a rare film in which William Hartnell is not only the leading man but also the hero as opposed to a gangster or a bullish cop was enticing beyond belief. On top of that, the plot of the film, one involving a murder that may or may not have been committed 15 years before, sounded fascinating.
But the film was nowhere to be found. Unlike most of Hartnell's filmography made up of inconsequential B-movies widely available on YouTube or on cheap DVDs, "Murder in Reverse" seemed to have been swallowed up by the Earth. Not even a clip was available online, nothing beyond an enticing, hand-painted poster and glowing contemporary reviews praising Hartnell's performance and describing the film as one which "has the courage to treat a serious matter seriously."
As the years passed, I'd keep checking the internet every few months for "Murder in Reverse". Every time I'd join a private tracker, a trading group, or a new forum dedicated to British film & television, I'd always ask around for this elusive film. But my search yielded no result. In fact, had the film not had a rare screening at the BFI in 2010, I would have believed it lost.
And then it just turned up. Without warning. One day I woke up and as I often do, I went on the Roobarb Forum, the top place for intelligent discussion about British film and television. There, on a thread dedicated to William Hartnell, was a quickly dashed-off post, buzzing with excitement, announcing the imminent airing of this rare film on the wonderful Talking Pictures channel which has brought us similarly long-forgotten goodies before. Thanks to them, I was now finally able to see "Murder in Reverse".
Over the years, the film has accrued an almost mythic quality among connoisseurs of old British cinema. As most of these reputations are, it turns out that its brilliance has been somewhat overinflated. The truth is, the film is a curiously old-fashioned thriller, one that must have seemed wildly outdated even in 1945 with its theatrical performances and long, static dialogue scenes. But it is also a wonderfully enjoyable film, if you, as I do, have a soft spot for such things.
The plot concerns one Tom Masterick (William Hartnell), a stevedore at the Limehouse docks who was convicted of murdering his wife's caddish lover, a slippery chap by the name of Fred Smith (John Slater). Masterick had protested his innocence claiming to have seen Smith board a ship by the name of Chester the day after his supposed murder. But police inquiries determine there was no such ship and Smith has never resurfaced. 15 years later, released from prison to a post-War England he no longer recognises, Masterick has only one goal in mind. Prove his innocence!
The plot outline promises a fascinating Odyssey across post-War London following the determined and hardened Masterick. While such a film would have no doubt been fascinating, "Murder in Reverse" instead focuses more on a hapless young journalist (Jimmy Hanley) and his wily girlfriend (Dinah Sheridan) who are the only ones to believe Masterick innocent. Thus the film splits into two halves one of which is decidedly more interesting. Hanley and Sheridan are likeable and charismatic performers but the brooding thriller plot is what we are here for.
Thankfully, the part of the film focusing on Masterick does not disappoint. Hartnell is, as legend would have it, indeed superb in this part both as the young, brash stevedore and the broken old man released from prison. This is a part that truly tests his acting skills and he is simply electric. He is not the subtlest of actors and there is a fair bit of shouting and eyebrow arching, but, boy, is there energy and scorn in those eyes.
The other half of the film reeks of cheap padding. Long, stilted dialogue scenes in oft-reused sets. Blandly lit and framed in dull long shots. The film is directed by Montgomery Tully whose static direction makes it feel like a very early talkie. One of those films in which all the actors in a scene had to crowd around a single microphone hidden in a vase.
And indeed, on the rare occasions when the talking stops the film seems to come to life. Every so often, there is a wonderfully cinematic scene. For instance, the wonderful moment in which Masterick, in a flashback, reads the letter in which his wife tells him she is leaving him. He glares silently at the camera as he slowly backs out of the room, his murderous rage simmering, glowing, burning the film stock.
Then moments later, there is a wonderfully down-and-dirty fistfight. A decidedly unheroic scene in which Masterick and Smith face off in a crowded pub. While the scene does begin with Masterick rolling up like a cowboy to a saloon, what ensues is a brutal and deliberately clumsy beatdown followed by one of the most insane chase scenes in which Masterick pursues Smith up a crane wielding an antique sword! It's pure Fritz Lang!
The last wonderful scene I'll highlight comes much later in the film when Masterick finally tracks down the elusive Smith. Smith is working at a pub and Masterick sits by the bar. In a single shot, as the camera follows Smith serving his customers, we see the pursued man slowly realize that his time has come. His confidence drains away, his hands begin to shake, his face becomes pale. Masterick simply watches the man turn into a puddle before him.
There are other interesting moments in the film as well such as the scene in which Masterick's best friend Sam is unusually played by a Chinese actor. An odd Confucious quote aside, this is some impressively progressive casting for 1945. Another great moment is the very end of the film... But, I don't want to spoil that. Watch it for yourself and let the film surprise you.
"Murder in Reverse" runs for 75 minutes and I will be the first to admit that at least 25 are pure padding. Combined with the film's stilted direction and technical ineptitude not uncommon for low-budget films of the era, there is some wading to be done. But there is gold in this here mountain and I found "Murder in Reverse" to be a significantly more engaging and clever thriller than most of its contemporaries, especially those boring Edgar Wallace quickies. The script is surprisingly clever and occasionally witty, the music composed by Hans May catchy and atmospheric, and there are some wonderful location shots of 1945 London. However, it is, without a doubt, William Hartnell's intense and menacing performance that kept me hooked all the way through. I am an old "Doctor Who" fan so I am biased, but don't take my word for it. Watch "Murder in Reverse", as you finally can, and see for yourself just what a good actor Hartnell really was.
3/4 - DirectorArthur LubinStarsStewart GrangerJean SimmonsBill TraversIn early-1900s England, a maid tries to blackmail her master into romancing her when she discovers that he murdered his wife.21-10-2022
Stephen Lowry (Stewart Granger) has just killed his wife. A spoonful of poison a day had kept her bedbound and out of his affairs for months and now, at last, he is free of her controlling grasp. Now, after a suitable period of playing the perfect widower, he plans to marry his boss' daughter Elizabeth (Belinda Lee) and spend her money with reckless abandon.
There is only one troublesome hitch in his otherwise perfect plan. She is Lily (Jean Simmons), a meddlesome maid nicknamed "her ladyship" by the other servants and a sleuth to rival Jessica Fletcher. She figures out what Stephen has done and accumulates enough proof to send him to the gallows. But what good would that do? No, she isn't after justice nor is she after money. She is after Stephen himself. "I know where my place is," she tells him ominously, "it's by your side and I shall never leave."
Even for a Victorian melodrama "Footsteps in the Fog" is torrid. It's all gaslight and fog, deerstalkers and walking sticks. The performances follow suit and there is chest-clutching galore. A lot of bumbling cops, lordships with grandiose moustaches, and wily maids skulking about wood-panelled studio interiors. If this is your kind of thing, you're in luck.
The one outlier is Jean Simmons, eerily convincing as the clingy schemer - a sort of Victorian Glenn Close. It's a terrific performance equal parts charming and menacing, innocent and cunning.
Her co-star Stewart Granger gives his usual stiff-upper-lip turn as the murderous lawyer. What Lily sees in him god only knows. He's far too old for her and miserably lacking in charisma. Still, truth be told, very few actors carry off that Gothic cool as well as Granger.
A big problem with the film, however, is that neither Lily nor Stephen are profiled as characters enough that we would for a moment care about what happens to them. She, in particular, is a complete cypher and it seems to me that the filmmakers changed their minds about her from scene to scene. Is she mad or not? Is she merely in it for the money or is she truly in love with Stephen? The master, for his part, is far banaler which makes him even less likeable. A corrupt opportunist makes for a bad protagonist.
Perhaps that is why Elizabeth and her other suitor, the young barrister David (Bill Travers) were introduced. To serve as "the good guys", but unfortunately they are both terminally boring and played in an artless, stick-in-the-mud manner by a pair of actors who seem lost in their overly lush costumes.
The third act is somewhat redeemed by an entertaining turn from William Hartnell as Lily's blackmailing brother-in-law. Another villain in a movie crawling with psychopaths. But Hartnell at least seems to be having fun chewing the scenery and hamming it up for all its worth.
Otherwise, "Footsteps in the Fog" is a mildly entertaining but overly stilted and old-fashioned thriller. For all its villainy, there is no hint of sexuality or desire between Simmons and Granger, nor is the bizarrity of their relationship explored in any great depth. We would have to wait for "Play Misty for Me" for that and compared to that movie, this is pulp at its most escapist.
2/4 - DirectorHalina ReijnStarsAmandla StenbergMaria BakalovaMyha'laWhen a group of rich 20-somethings plan a hurricane party at a remote family mansion, a party game turns deadly.22-10-2022
"Bodies Bodies Bodies" does a great job of portraying the anxiety of being introduced into a tight-knit group of people. This is the situation in which one of our protagonists, Bee (Maria Bakalova) finds herself. An outsider in every sense of the word - a shy, retiring Russian immigrant dating a rich party girl Sophie (Amandla Stenberg) - she is taken by her girlfriend to a party held at her childhood best friend's mansion.
The two park in the house's massive driveway and Bee excuses herself for a second claiming she forgot something in the car. Instead, she fixes her makeup in the car mirror and takes a deep breath. Very relatable.
Every friend group has its unique, dysfunctional dynamic but Sophie's friends vibe on the side of viciousness. Although they seem close and are all smiles and hugs, the edges soon begin showing as Bee stands horrified and confused on the sidelines.
After a game of "bodies, bodies, bodies" - a Cluedo-type detective game played in the sprawling mansion - turns up an actual corpse, the hidden currents of their friendship begin showing. Suppressed emotions and long-held resentments bubble up to the surface as suspicions abound and accusations are made.
This is when "Bodies Bodies Bodies" is at its best. When it allows itself to be honest, sharp, intense. There is a terrific extended scene in which the characters finally tear into each other and phrases such as "your parents are upper middle class" and "she hates your podcast" are brilliantly weaponised. In that one scene, the film manages to be both funny and true. Both satirical and believable.
It doesn't help that the film is populated by one of the most obnoxious groups of humans you're ever likely to see. They are whiny, rich brats stoned out of their minds, irrational to the point of mental deficiency, and completely unable to work together in order to save their own lives. Imagine the cast of "Girls" in a horror movie!
And here is where "Bodies Bodies Bodies" is at its worst. Director Halina Reijn and writer Sarah DeLappe have such an obvious and unbridled contempt for their characters they are utterly unable to view them or present them as three-dimensional human beings. Reijn and DeLappe turn them into grotesque representations of the worst Gen Z stereotypes imaginable. No depth, no complexity, just fakery and obnoxiousness.
It seems to me that the entire film has been constructed to mercilessly mock and humiliate the vacuous, toxic friendships of the digital era. But the filmmakers spend too much time making fun of their characters instead of analysing them, making us understand them, and treating them with the compassion they don't show each other. It doesn't help merely to point out a problem, you have to help us, the audience, understand its roots and show us how to solve it.
Why do all the characters have to be dumb? Why do they all have to be unlikeable? Why, oh why, is the one sympathetic character, the outsider Bee so lacking in agency or guts? I would have loved to see her take charge, shake up these self-obsessed rich kids, and make them work together. But she never gets the soapbox because the film always keeps her in the background, observing, not getting involved.
Therein lies the major failing of "Bodies Bodies Bodies". It becomes so invested in its own cleverness and satire that it forgets to make its characters complex, interesting, and understandable humans. It's impossible to become invested in stereotypes and even harder to root for them when the killings start.
The film is advertised as a slasher but it's not really. The horror tropes and cliches serve only to set the story up in such a way as to strip down the characters to their self-serving essentials. Despite some atmospheric cinematography from Jasper Wolf and an absolutely phenomenal, Carpenter-esque score from Disasterpeace, the film never truly takes off as a thriller. There is no empathy for the characters, no real sense of mystery, and the direction is too pedestrian and lacking in bloodlust for that.
No, "Bodies Bodies Bodies" is really a pretty cynical and bleak teenage dramedy which shows some promise and has some truly fantastic moments but ultimately fails because of the writing which is far too sarcastic, thin, and snide for my liking. I've never enjoyed movies in which the creators hate their own characters. Empathy, analysis, and understanding is what I turn to art for, not cackling.
2/4 - DirectorJohn BoultingStarsRichard AttenboroughHermione BaddeleyWilliam HartnellIn Brighton in 1935, small-time gang leader Pinkie Brown murders a journalist and later desperately tries to cover his tracks but runs into trouble with the police, a few witnesses, and a rival gang.24-10-2022
"Brighton today is a large, jolly, friendly seaside town in Sussex, exactly one hour's journey from London. But in the years between the two wars, behind the Regency terraces and crowded beaches, there was another Brighton of dark alleyways and festering slums. From here, the poison of crime and violence and gang warfare began to spread, until the challenge was taken up by the Police. This is a story of that other Brighton - now happily no more."
That is the text which opens "Brighton Rock", John Boulting's now iconic film of Graham Green's crime novel and indeed the contrast between the sunny, jolly Brighton seaside and its dark, noirish, ruthless underbelly is highlighted from the very beginnin in which a nosey journalist is brutally murdered on a fun ride. Don't be decevied by its setting, this is one bleak movie.
The murder of the journalist kicks off a series of events leading slowly but surely towards the downfall of Pinky Brown (Richard Attenborough), a bullish 17-year old who despite his cherubic face and small stature controls the rackets in Brighton. But his grip on the town is loosening with the arrival of the infinitely richer and more experienced businessman Colleoni (Charles Goldner) who makes Pinky only one offer: "get out of town or we'll drive you out".
But Pinky is nothing if not determined. Despite the best advice of his older partners in crime, he takes on Colleoni and the whole world as only a teenager can.
The brewing gang war is not Pinkie's sole concern, however. He also has Ida Arnold (Hermione Baddeley) to worry about. Ida is a loud-mouth entertainer on the Brighton pier - the proudest representative of the town's jolly, sunny side. But she is equally as pig-headed as Pinkie and nothing will stop her from getting to the bottom of the journalist's murder which she was a witness to. Even once the police has abandoned the investigation, she ploughs on and gets dangerously close.
Pitting Ida against Pinkie is a master stroke and brings the constrast pointed out in the prologue right to the heart of the story. Pinkie may have his muscle and his ruthlesness but Ida's moral determination for justice is what proves to be his match.
In order to prove Pinkie's the killer, Ida decides to track down the only other witness. Unfortunately, Pinkie gets to the girl, Rose (Carol Marsh). The relationship between Rose and Pinkie is one of the absolute highlights of the story. A smitten teenager, Rose falls for Pinkie's manipulative charm and declares that she will follow him wherever he goes. The destination is clear from the start and even Pinkie knows it: hell. So the battle of wills between Ida and him becomes less about justice and more about the soul of this young girl.
Catholicism looms large over "Brighton Rock" which is not a surprise if you know anything about Graham Green. There is a lot of talk about damnation, forgiveness and mercy and in an act of supreme sarcasm, Pinkie, the brutal killer and gangster, is a devout believer which only adds another layer to his character. A man who believes in the fires of Hell and continues along his murderous path is nothing short of psychotic.
Attenborough is a superb if unexpected piece of casting. He brings a kind of quiet yet simmering tension to his performance. You have a feeling that underneath his calm exterior, Pinkie is always ready to pounce, fight or flight, coming up with his next move and eagerly eyeing the nearest exit.
The film is absolutely brimming with great characters. Hermione Baddeley's loud, screeching Ida is one. A woman you believe would and could move heaven and Earth to get to her goal. Also wonderful is the wide-eyed and innocent Carol Marsh, one of the finest ingeniues ever to grace the screen.
The first-rate supporting cast also numbers William Hartnell, wonderfully cunning and sharp as Pinkie's most loyal soldier; Harcourt Williams as a Shakespeare-quoting drunken lawyer; Nigel Stock as a caddish gangster who would rather party with girls than get into a gang war; Charles Goldner's chillingly calculating Italian businessman who casually eats grapes while threatening Pinkie's life.
John Boulting is an unlikely man for the job and, sure enough, he's no Carol Reed or Alfred Hitchcock. Still, Green throws up a lot of balls into the air and Boulting juggles them admirably. Despite many complications and twists, the plot remains crystal clear. The adaptation by Terrence Rattigan is one of the finest ever put to screen.
Boulting's direction is a little safer and more pedestrian than that of the aforementioned masters but he builds up a terrific sense of urgency and suspense as the film races towards its rain-soaked climax. The extended opening sequence in which Pinkie and his gang stalk the hapless journalist throughout Brighton is a cinematic tour-de-force. His sense of helplessness beautifully portrayed as hitmen come at him from the crowds of tourists.
Last but not least I'd like to mention the terrific score by Hans May (modern-sounding and full bodied) and some lovely, moody photography by Harry Waxman. I was especially impressed by the way he differentiates the sunny seaside of Brighton and Pinkie's dingy hideaway. Just look at those wonderful sets with pealing walls and broken banisters. Who says crime pays, eh?
4/4 - DirectorTobias LindholmStarsEddie RedmayneJessica ChastainDenise PillottAn infamous caregiver is implicated in the deaths of hundreds of hospital patients.26-10-2022
I first became aware of director/writer Tobias Lindholm when I watched his exceptional series "The Investigation". It covered the bizarre and frankly absurd murder of journalist Kim Wall by a lunatic, submarine-building millionaire. What made that series stand out in a sea of cookie-cutter true crime shows was how far it went to avoid being sensationalistic or exploitative. The killer is never seen nor is his name ever spoken. The gruesome details of the murder are not lingered on and are barely ever described. What the series focused on was the methodical investigation by the Danish police. Covering the policeman's daily grind in sometimes excruciating detail it turned what could have been a leering, inappropriate expose into a genuinely compelling procedural. The most fascinating and engaging episode devotes an hour to the lead investigator calculating the vectors of the tides.
When I heard Lindholm would be covering another true crime story, the horrific serial killings perpetrated by a nurse at nine different US hospitals, I was immediately intrigued. Much like "The Investigation", "The Good Nurse" is told from an unexpected point of view, at least at first.
Our protagonist is another nurse named Amy Loughren (Jessica Chastain), a single mother of two. Overworked and underpaid, Amy is secretly suffering from a heart condition which usually requires hospitalisation and a transplant. But this being the US, Amy can't afford to stop working or she won't be covered by health insurance. So, she continues exerting herself and keeping her life-threatening condition a secret.
Enter Charlie (Eddie Redmayne), a new nurse at the hospital brought in by the stingy management to help Amy out during the night shifts. Charlie is, like Amy, a good nurse. He is caring, warm, refers to the patients by their first names and treats them like humans. He soon susses out that Amy is not well and instead of reporting her to their superiors offers to help. He drives her to work every evening, babysits when she's pulling a double shift, and covers for her when she's too unwell to work. For Amy, Charlie is a godsend.
Now, we, the audience, know there's something wrong with Charlie. The film opens with a rather striking shot featuring a room full of doctors and nurses running around trying to save the life of a flatlining patient. The camera slowly moves towards the only still figure amid the commotion. That's Charlie, looking shifty and self-conscious in a situation in which everyone else is hurried and professional.
At first, it seems like the film is going to focus intently on these two overworked nurses one of whom develops a heart condition and the other who becomes a serial killer. The two central performances are excellent. Eddie Redmayne, in particular, seems born to play this role. He is eerily effective as the overly friendly, quiet, kindly yet guarded Charlie. This might be his best performance yet.
And indeed, every time the film strays away from Redmayne and Chastaine, it becomes significantly less interesting. Unfortunately, as the story plods along, this becomes the norm. More and more, the film becomes overrun with diligent cops, interfering administrators, corrupt city officials, and sleazy lawyers. Stock characters from every law drama you've ever seen. And as the film gets sidetracked by the factual nitty-gritty of the investigation, my attention began to wander considerably.
The biggest problem, however, lies in Lindholm's direction. The film is so low-key, so understated that it barely registers. In its clinical, distanced recounting of the facts, it completely fails to reach the levels of tragedy or absurdity in order for us to genuinely care about Cullen or his victims. The story is terrifying, of course, but the film never truly brings it to life. Instead, the horror of the situation stays on the level of information rather than experience.
While "The Investigation" focused intently on the police and their methods, "The Good Nurse" dithers and wanders through a series of subplots. It wants to be about Amy and her daughters, Amy and her heart condition, Charlie, the police, the hospital, the politics... And yet it never focuses on any of these stories. Everything remains awfully surface-level and unexplored. We are shown what happened but Lindholm never seems interested in investigating why it happened or how it happened.
I rarely criticise editors in my reviews but I am surprised that Adam Nielsen allowed a movie this loosely constructed and poorly paced to go out under his name. The film stretches a thin if potentially intriguing story to a gruelling two-hour runtime. I am all for quiet moments and slow-burn thrillers but "The Good Nurse" is so lacking in substance, character, and emotion that its slow pace only highlights its deficiencies.
This brings me to Krysty Wilson-Cairns' screenplay. An underwritten, stodgy affair full of wooden, expository dialogue and sorely lacking in characterisation. The superb cast does a great job of filling in the gaps but we learn so little about Charlie or Amy that it is hard to become invested in their stories. Besides her heart condition, we know so little about her. Why did she become a nurse? What drives her to be so dedicated? Where is her husband? Where are her friends?
On the other side is Charlie, another character who remains an enigma. Why does he kill? Was he always this way? Is his kindness an act? Does he genuinely care for Amy? I don't know.
It is easy to say that the screenplay doesn't offer this information because we don't really know anything about Charlie Cullen but catharsis and exploration are the reasons art exists and if a true story offers neither of those then why turn it into a movie?
In the end, I have to ask: what does "The Good Nurse" offer me as a viewer? Nothing. It doesn't help me understand these heinous crimes. It doesn't warn or criticise anything in particular (look to Paddy Chayefsky's evergreen "The Hospital" for a much more incisive and biting critique of the healthcare system). God knows it doesn't entertain. So why watch it? The last one I can answer. If you must watch it for the excellent performances but, in general, you can easily miss "The Good Nurse", a limp American debut for Tobias Lindholm.
2/4 - DirectorOtto PremingerStarsRichard AttenboroughNicol WilliamsonDerek JacobiWhen a leak of information in the African section of British Intelligence is discovered, security man Daintry is brought in to investigate.27-10-2022
Like so many thrillers, "The Human Factor" is far more notable for its style than substance. The story itself is a muddle of cliches and improbabilities but the way it's told makes it fun. Unusually, however, the style does not consist of exciting set pieces or noirish atmosphere but good old-fashioned British absurdism. The novel may have been written by Graham Greene but it is the screenwriter Tom Stoppard whose authorial voice shines through.
The film begins with the most quaint interrogation scene I've ever seen in a movie. MI6 officer Maurice Castle (Nicol Williamson) is asked to have a word with a security chap named Daintry (Richard Attenborough). He was on his way to lunch but he can spare a few minutes. Daintry introduces himself by pointing out he knew a cousin of Castle's at Cambridge. "He's at the treasury because he got a first at mathematics," Castle explains. "I got a poor third in history so I'm in the secret service." A perfectly pitched ice-breaker causes both men to chuckle amiably.
Daintry is sorry to bother Castle but he's performing a security check. Purely routine, you understand, but sometimes some rules get neglected. Like the one about taking work outside of the office. Castle silently hands over his briefcase which Daintry searches. "Oh, you get your cheese from Patterson's," asks Daintry upon finding a receipt and a pleasant chat ensues about cheese shops.
Now, of course, Daintry is not implying anything. He has complete confidence in Castle but occasionally his job requires him to embarrass himself and ask grown men to empty their pockets like schoolboys. Castle hands over his raincoat without as much as blinking and Daintry searches it. When he finds nothing suspicious, more casual chat is exchanged about a shooting weekend and Castle goes to his lunch.
As he explains to his colleague Davis (Derek Jacobi), Castle has twigged what Daintry is after. They suspect there's a leak in their office and are snooping around. But since it's neither of them, there's nothing to worry about, right?
At the aforementioned shooting weekend, Daintry reports his findings to his boss, the venerable Sir John (Richard Vernon). Castle is almost certainly not the leak. Son of an old-fashioned country doctor, mother was a head warden during the blitz and attends Conservative party rallies. Davis, on the other hand, is a whole other kettle of fish. He went to Reading University, drinks altogether too much, attends the wrong kinds of clubs, and is girl crazy.
It is agreed, Davis must be the leak. But how to deal with him? A trial is out of the question and what they want the least is to tip Davis off and have him "catch a midnight flight to Moscow". So, the services of the fanatically enthusiastic Dr Percival (Robert Morley) are engaged. Davis is a young man, healthy and "these antibiotics make life so difficult" but he'll come up with a way to deal with the poor chap.
Of course, Castle is the leak. Not that he's a Communist but he owed a chap a favour. Otherwise, however, he's a terribly boring man who likes his whisky on the sideboard and his dog on the lawn. No interesting variations! But his life is about to become very interesting as Daintry starts snooping more and more around his office and Davis begins feeling sickly.
"The Human Factor" is an unbelievably Stoppardian spy film sometimes reaching the levels of absurdity and quaintness of his later play "The Dog It Was Who Died". The Englishness is ramped up to 11. It's all whiskies and umbrellas, politeness and talk of the weather. And in between all the bonhomie, people are murdered, secrets sold to the Russians, and marriages broken up.
As I said before, the story is a complete muddle and largely uninteresting which is why the film occasionally drags when it gets too caught up in plot mechanics. For the most part, however, it is a hoot watching these dark machinations play out in quaint little English villages and dull offices. Here, spies act like business managers, nuclear bombs are talked about like shipments of apples, and spycraft is nothing to get too excited about. It's John le Carre on tranquillizers.
The film is wonderfully directed by Otto Preminger who perfectly pitches the tone of the film. It's as low-key and lacking in stylishness as its main characters. Most scenes play out in long single-take shots and the set design is as bland and boring as it gets.
The cast is populated by first-rate British character actors and, as ever, it is a pleasure to watch them perform. Nicol Williamson, Richard Attenborough, Derek Jacobi, John Gielgud, Richard Vernon (a vastly underrated British actor), and Robert Morley turn in very wry performances. Morley, in particular, is funny as the well-mannered doctor who takes a little too much pleasure in killing.
The sole weak spot in the cast is Iman, in her acting debut, delivering an absolutely awful performance as Castle's South African wife. She's as stiff as a board, lacking chemistry with Williamson or any kind of rhythm to her flat, unemotional delivery.
"The Human Factor" has a very thin and uninteresting story but the characters and the overall absurdist tone of the film make it stand out from the usual spy fodder of the 1970s. After all, what other thriller film has an extended scene in which a security officer and his prime suspect attend his daughter's wedding?
3/4 - DirectorNeil JordanStarsRalph FiennesJulianne MooreStephen ReaA desperate man tries to find out why his beloved left him years ago.27-10-2022
In 1939, a cynical novelist Maurice (Ralph Fiennes) meets and falls in love with Sarah (Julianne Moore), a passionate woman married to a most distant and cold man. They begin an affair which lasts all through the war and is ended abruptly by Sarah.
In 1946, two years after the end of the affair, during a miserable, rain-soaked night, Maurice runs into Sarah's husband Henry (Stephen Rae) whose distance has turned into profound sadness. His hangdog face, a mask of despair. He suspects his wife of having an affair, he tells Maurice.
"I am a jealous man," the novelist later writes in his diary but there's more to his anger. He has never gotten over Sarah and their idealised, passionate love affair and even though it has ended, he feels just as cuckolded as Henry by this new, mysterious lover of hers. So, he hires a private detective to follow her and discover his identity but more than that, he yearns to discover why she left him.
It is a remarkable story turned into a classic novel by Graham Greene who writes a love story torn between Catholic guilt and lust for the flesh. Maurice and Sarah are clearly right for one another in a way Sarah and Henry aren't, but despite that their actions are still immoral and doomed to be punished.
The novel is adapted and directed by Neil Jordan who turns it into an awfully torrid story which continually oscillates between grand opera and soap opera. Sarah and Maurice make love, their naked bodies entwined on white sheets, as German bombs fall around them, almost on cue with every thrust. The dialogue is purple, florid, and camp full of poetic declarations of love and coy wordplay. "I am jealous of your shoes because they'll take you away from me," intones Maurice in a particularly sickening scene.
Jordan is so determined to wring tears from his audience's eyes that one feels squeezed like a lemon. You can almost see him standing behind the camera grinning maniacally, shouting "more passion, more passion". The result is a film which turns a carefully structured meditation on love and Catholicism into overwrought melodrama. Just listen to that saccharine, sweeping score! I bet they couldn't put more strings into a recording studio if they tried.
Lacking is the austerity, the reserve which makes the release of Maurice and Sarah's affair cathartic. Lacking is also Greene's signature wry humour and a feel for English absurdity. How ridiculous a situation this is - to have a jealous husband and his wife's lover investigate the poor woman in tandem. And yet none of that is evident in this film which is awfully self-serious and curiously stiff.
And yet "The End of the Affair" does work almost in spite of Jordan. For one, the cast is tremendous. Fiennes is perfectly cast as the vicarious, arrogant bohemian. Moore utterly convincing as the stiff-upper-lip English wife. Together, their sexual chemistry is visceral. Caught in between them, almost like a third wheel, is the equally terrific Stephen Rae, pitiable but curiously unsympathetic as the husband.
The best part in the film, however, belongs to Ian Hart as the bumbling private eye whose partner is his young son. Hart delivers the most believable performance in the film - earthy, unmannered, likeable. His scenes are the only ones in the film that have those signature touches of Greene's humour.
"The End of the Affair" is a melodramatic adaptation of an intellectual novel. It's a hamfisted take on a delicate matter. And yet by the sheer force of the performances at its heart and the superb source material it manages to pull together into a fascinating if not entirely satisfying movie.
3/4