Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

LONE WOLF

Australia, 2021, 103 minutes, Colour.

Hugo Weaving, Diana Glenn, Tilda Cobham-Hervey, Josh McConville, Stephen Curry, Marlon Williams, Chris Bunton, Lawrence Mooney, Tyler Coppin.

Directed by Jonathan Ogilvie.

Lone Wolf is an unusual Australian production, directed by Jonathan Ogilvie (The Tender Hook). Ogilvie has adapted Joseph Conrad’s story, The Secret Agent, which was filmed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1936 with the title, Sabotage. It was also filmed in 1996, with an 1890s setting, starring Bob Hoskins and Robin Williams.

Conrad’s novel has now been brought into the present, and the situation and location is an international meeting to be held in Melbourne. The basic outline of the novel is present, Conrad the manager of the shop (Josh McConville), pornographic books and tapes, the clientele, but his being involved with an anarchist group who meet at the shop and play cards, is contacted by anarchists to carry a bomb and to cause an upset but without any injuries. The anarchists know that he is also a police informer. He lives at his shop, Winnie his companion (Tilda Cobham-Hervey), and her younger brother with a disability, Stevie (Chris Bunton).

However, Ogilvie draws on the conventions of Found Footage film, surveillance cameras in the streets, the shop, cameras within the shop, plus footage from Stevie who likes to film, especially in the house but also on an excursion to the beach.

The key idea is that a parliamentarian and his police assistant (Hugo Weaving and Stephen Curry), approached by an officer who has a crisis of her own and presents them with an edited version of all the found footage, building up the story of Conrad, the contacts, his commission – and it seemed to go wrong and the discovery of his mutilated injured body.

However, there are further complications with Conrad – and, especially, with the Minister and his assistant, ambitions, cover-ups…

1. Adapted from Joseph Conrad’s novel? Hitchcock’s 1936 version, Sabotage? Christopher Hampton’s 1996 version, Secret Agent, set in the 1890s?
2. The background of anarchists, meetings, disruption of society? Ordinary citizens? Double agents?
3. 21^st-century politics, international meetings, finance, protests, sabotage?
4. The Melbourne sitting, the vistas of the city, the shop and the streets, the interiors of the shop, the ministers office? The musical score?
5. The visual style, the variation on Found Footage? Surveillance material, the placing of the cameras, government surveillance, police surveillance? Spying and privacy?
6. The compilation of the video material, the editing, the narrative, the anarchy scenario, the report? Stevie and his camera, his footage, the beach, at home?
7. Conrad, the shop, the books and videos, pornography? The range of customers? The group, their meeting at the house, playing cards, the range of characters, the priest? Winnie, her relationship with Conrad, her looking after Stevie, disability? His camera? Conrad and his visit to Sydney? The meetings, the contact from the anarchists, knowing that he was a double agent, wanting him to carry the bomb, the pressures, an explosion without fatalities? The drama in the house, with Winnie, with Stevie? The plan, the reporting of the explosion, the grim skeleton, presumed dead?
8. The anarchists, the characters, their aims, the international meeting, lies, victims? Conrad as the Lone Wolf?
9. His survival, the plan to leave, Winnie and Stevie? And his death?
10. Contemporary protests, politics and anarchy?

THE MOUNTAIN/ TE MAUNGA

New Zealand/ Aetearoa, 2024, 89 minutes, Colour.

Elizabeth Atkinson, Terrence Daniel, Reuben Francis, Byron Coll, Troy Kingi, Sukena Shah, Fern Sutherland.

Directed by Rachel House.

This is a film for youngsters, about youngsters.

The three characters who set out on a climb of Mount Taranaki (on the West Coast of the North Island of New Zealand) are 11 years old, as were the three children who acted here for the first time. And The Mountain will be a film that youngsters, probably between 9 and 13, will not only enjoy but find both interesting and entertaining, well worth talking about.

We are introduced to the three, a girl and two boys. The girl, Sam (Elizabeth Atkinson), is doing some martial arts moves but we soon find that she is in hospital, has cancer, is fussed over by her mother, but has never known her father. Then there is a chubby boy, Mallory (Reuben Francis) doing imaginary strumming. He is a sad boy, his father somewhat withdrawn at the death of his wife, and Mallory grieving for his mother. Then they encounter a Maori boy, Bronco (Terrence Daniel, with his bicycle, feeling rebellious towards his father a security guard at the hospital.

Sam’s great desire is to achieve something, climb to the top of Mount Taranaki, not quite aware of her Maori background, but moved by the mountain and its mystery, a religious and psychological link, parenting mountains. In fact, as the three come together and set out on the venture, Bronco, proud of his Maori heritage, speaking the language, knowing the traditions, a believer in earth harmony, devout in his respect for his heritage, helps the audience appreciate what is happening and what was a venture, then an adventure, now a quest.

The young audience can identify with these three characters, unknown to each other at first, steps in bonding, help in danger in crossing a bridge and one falling into the river, making decisions to camp out, communications with their parents, the decision whether they can get to the top or not.

While the parents are supporting characters here, they are quite well drawn, the over-loving mother, her daughter’s crisis in wanting to know something of her father, Bronco’s big father, a nice man but not realising how he has neglected his son, Mallory’s father caught up in grief, failing to appreciate his son’s sadness and emotional needs. And there is an enjoyably deadpan friend character, Peachy.

Which means then that the Mountain is a family film in the best sense.

The local photography has moments of beauty, the mystery of the mountain. The emphasis on the Maori heritage is explicit, opening up the culture to a wider audience. And, there is a common sensed approach as to how the quest finishes, real, rather than romanticised.

And a compliment to actress, Rachel House, seen in many New Zealand and Australian film and television productions, always down-to-earth with a touch of humour. This is her first film as director, has adapted a story which originally was three Pakaha /white children, incorporating the strong Maori elements.

Because senior primary school students would enjoy this film and find it helpful to discuss, Pixar’s original Inside Out came to mind, that enjoyable film which dramatised and personalised children’s emotions. And they are right here on screen, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear. It would be very interesting to hear teachers and children talking about the Inside one emotions as they see them in the three children in The Mountain.

1. The title, Mount Taranaki, the Maori title, a goal for a quest, the parenting Maori tradition of mountains?
2. The location photography, the town, homes, hospital, outside the town, the beauty of the mountain, night and day, clouds and sun, the mountainside and the track? The musical score? (And the popular song themes?)
3. The target audience, youngsters, especially 9-13, for parents and appreciation of children, for teachers, for discussions and values?
4. The introduction to Sam, martial arts, 11, hospital, the other patients, cancer, her friendship with Peachy, their discussions? Peachy deadpan? The protective mother? The absent father and the mystery? Her being drawn to the Mountain, wanting to climb it, something interior in her heart, her need to articulate it? The decision to climb the mountain, not to tell her mother, plan with Peachy, the escape? The balloons?
5. The introduction to Mallory, air guitar, chubby, 11, his mother’s death and his grief, communicating with her, his father, sad, the photo, weeping? Her love for mountain climbing, his wanting to climb with his father? His father’s reaction to him, putting him down? Going to school?
6. The introduction to Bronco, Maori, relationship with his father, father seen on the roof, security guard, while Sam and Peachy were trying to elude him? Bronco and his bike? Feeling his father neglected him? The importance of the environment and rubbish? Wonders with nature? Speaking the Maori language, knowing the background, explaining the mystical elements?
7. Their coinciding, Mallory and Sam’s list, the food, the tents…? Their going together?
8. The bonding, misunderstandings, the episode with the bridge, Mallory falling into the water, unable to swim, dog paddling, Sam’s important stick, Bronco with the lassoo? Eating, Bronco and his prayer? The fog, the path, the parents coming, going off track, camping for the night, Mallory and Bronco talking, their concern about Sam, whether she could go on? Her injury? Her determination, continuing, the two boys deciding to form a barrier, that she would not pass? The clouds passing, the vision of the top of the mountain, satisfying Sam?
9. The parents, overprotective mother, not revealing the father? Bronco’s father, security guard, the clashes, Bronco feeling neglected? His concern? Mallory’s father, concern, Peachy trying to avoid the search, their travelling together, phone communication, their not being in the hut? Their being reassured, the continued search? Finding the three, and the apologies from each parent?
10. Sam back in hospital, accepting her illness, the possibility of her death, the Maori background? Mallory with his father? Bronco reconciled with his father?
11. An authentic exploration of three children, their sadness, their hopes, relationships with parents, parents and reconciliation with their children?

MURDER IS EASY

UK, 2023, 117 minutes, Colour.

David Jonsson, Matthew Baynton, Morfydd Clark, Penelope Wilton, Douglas Henshaw, Mark Bonnar, Sinead Matthews, Jon Pointing, Tom Riley.

Directed by Meena Gaur.

Looking at the many negative comments on the IMDb, one wonders whether the choice of the Nigerian as the central character set up prejudicial reactions to the film. On the other hand, the many Agatha Christie fans who like her stories and appreciate different interpretations, have enjoyed it.

In checking on the Wikipedia synopsis of Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel, this version keeps very close to the characters and the plot developments. It had been filmed in 1982 with Bill Bixby as the investigator, Lesley Anne Down as his associate, Helen Hayes as the old lady, Miss Marple like, who observes the murders – and Olivia Haviland as the murderer.

The cast here is not so well-known. In changing the investigator (who in the original returns from overseas postings) to a Nigerian, it has something of the same effect. Although, this is 1954 and there are some immediate reactions to his black presence.

The investigator encounters a Miss Marple like character on a train, played by Penelope Wilton, who tells him of murders in her village (more dangerous than St Mary Mead) and then she herself is murdered. He travels to the town, encounters a young woman at coroner’s sessions, judged accidental deaths, but she is engaged to a self-made peer who has ambitions to transform his village into a modern development.

He seems to be the obvious murderer, plenty of motives and, later, revealed to be fanatical in his attitude towards anyone who opposes him, working with God, so he says, to strike down his enemies. And, with this explanation, it might seem that Agatha Christie has decided that the obvious person is the killer. However, there is a twist and after the detailed explanation about how the villain might have committed all the murders, there are the visuals scenes of the actual killer and the actual murders, building up to a confrontation and rescue.

The end of the novel, the couple is married – not quite the easy romantic fix in this one!

1. The popularity of Agatha Christie novels? This one from 1939 but set in 1954, the Nigerian character, the major and his overseas service, minister and his service in India and his Indian wife, comments about Nigerian independence, British rule, Partition?
2. 1954, the scenes in London, the streets and the betting? The train ride, the village, the names, accommodation, shops and pubs, the mansion, tennis, doctor’s office…? Real feel? The musical score?
3. Luke Fitzwilliam, the opening, his nightmare, the fire and chase, the knife? This recurring? And the finale with the knife? His background in Nigeria, coming to England, political service, the job in Whitehall? The encounter with Miss Pinkerton, friendly, the story of the murders, the betting, his placing the bet, the race and her winnings, her death? His discussion with his friends, their taunting him about his job, independent in Nigeria, is very Britishness?
4. His decision to investigate the situation, arrival, the sessions, accidental deaths, the encounter with Bridget? Some reactions to his being black? Accommodation? No vacancies – giving the money, vacancies? The invitation to the reception? Bridget and her engagement to Lord Whitfield? His manner, the back story, the development? His deals during the war, acquiring the peerage?
5. The story of the murders, the Weir, falling from the building? The further deaths, the minister and his attack and collapse, his later death? The maid, the poison? The outspoken objector at the hearings and his death? The doctor, under suspicion, his collapse and fall at the engagement party?
6. The visit to the poor return, the hostility in the pub, the change, friendship, the women at the engagement party, engaging them for the expose of the murderer?
7. Fitzwilliam and his discussions with Bridget, his investigations, the experience at the Weir with the water, the rescue? His presence at the maid’s death? The later suspicion of him by the police? His involvement with Lord Whitfield, the tennis game, the attraction to Bridget? The engagement party? Lord Whitfield’s reaction?
8. The range of suspects, the doctor and his medication, the revelation of his eugenic books and ideas, the Indian wife and her daughter? Rose and her attraction to the doctor, her being shocked at the books? The doctor and his opportunities, suspicious behaviour, playing up to Lord Whitfield? The surprise of his collapse and death?
9. The major, walking the dog, or haughty towards Fitzwilliam, Is Speaking the language, finding the right time, collaboration, the information from Scotland Yard?
10. The minister, his arguments against Lord Whitfield and the development, his Indian wife, daughter? The funeral?
11. Miss Waynefleet, in the background, the death of her maid? Her back story, emerging, as stories about Lord Whitfield, the buildup of the case against Lord Whitfield, his outbursts about God being on his side, threatening Fitzwilliam?
12. Investigation, the discussions, the clues toured Lord Whitfield, the realisation about Miss Waynefleet, her drugging Bridget, the walk, the talk, attempting to kill her, the rescue?
13. The final solution, Fitzwilliam and his decision to return to Nigeria for independence, and the attraction for Bridget?

YOUR LUCKY DAY

US, 2023, 89 minutes, Colour.

Angus Cloud, Elliot Knight, Jessica Garza, Sterling Beaumon, Moussa Hossain Krais,, Spencer Garrett.

Directed by Dan Brown.

Your Lucky Day is a brief gritty thriller. Its action is confined over a couple of hours one evening. And the action is generally confined to the interiors of a takeaway store. It was written and directed by Dan Brown (not of the da Vinci Code).

The basis of the story is an ordinary customer winning a lottery worth $156 million. In the shop there is the manager pleased to verify the winning as well as a young couple, the wife pregnant.

However, we have seen the central character, Sterling (Angus Cloud who then died in real life of a drug overdose at age 25), in a drug deal gone wrong and his being ambushed and robbed. He intends to rob the store, wants to get the lottery ticket, is interrupted by a patrolling policeman, the shooting, the owner of the ticket being killed, the policeman wounded.

This sets a situation for moral dilemma, moral choices, self-preservation, the store owner checking the surveillance cameras, the planning for an explanation of who owned the ticket and its claims, the possibility of dividing the winnings amongst the group.

The wounded policeman contacts his father and a group of fellow officers who are in fact are corrupt. They then come for the ticket, a siege, deaths, the husband away from the store driving the bodies away in a vehicle, the pregnant wife still in the store – but then showing all kinds of shrewdness, physical prowess, sending off the attackers.

Some more deaths, the police, and a final plan for the mastermind of the police with the young couple to divide the winnings, claim that the ticket was theirs and a generous dividing of the money with the policeman who rescued them.

During the final credits there is a brief sequence where a security guard approaches the vehicle with the bodies…

A contemporary parable about greed, violence, truth and lies, and the undermining of integrity.

1. The irony of the title? Winning the lottery? Consequences? Greed, violence, manipulation?
2. The setting, the confined time, the shop, action in the shop, sequences outside, Abraham and the car and the bodies, the police on watch, the security guard? The claustrophobia of being confined to the shop? The musical score?
3. The tone of the opening, Sterling and the drug deal, the young man, the setup, his being robbed? His going into the shop, intending to rob it?
4. Those in the store, at the counter, Abraham and the pregnant Ana Marlene, Mr Laird, his manner, the lottery ticket, checking it out, his joy at winning? The response of the others?
5. Sterling, his action, the confrontation with Laird, the struggle for the ticket? Cody, seeing the situation, entering, his gun, the shooting, Laird dead, Cody wounded?
6. The situation, Sterling and his behaviour, the setup, the issue of the surveillance footage, Mia, using his wits? The reaction of the couple? The threats, the uncertainties?
7. The power of the ticket, the greed, one $156 million, the dealings, the plans, as brother-in-law coming in, the danger, getting rid of him? The security guard? Planning the setup? Moving the bodies? Abraham persuaded to drive the bodies away? Ana Marlene’s reaction? Amir, the plans, the dividing of the money?
8. Cody, wounded, phoning his father, his father and his friends, the police, yet corrupt? The plan about the ticket?
9. The arrival of the police, confrontations, the death of year? The death of Sterling? Ana Marlene, her reactions, the elaboration of background, her skills, outwitting the attackers, the deaths? Her being captured? Her singing The Bells of St Mary’s, Abraham hearing it, his return?
10. The taking of Abraham, the capture of Ana Marlene, the mastermind waiting in the car, Cody, his reactions, the death of his father?
11. Ana Marlene using her wits, the final plan, the ticket, that the couple had the ticket, dividing it with the policeman who rescued them?
12. The policeman and his TV interview, the village generosity of the couple? The happy baby? The future?
13. In the credits, somebody moving up to the car with the bodies?
14. The theme of greed, opportunism, personal integrity?

MOVIEPASS, MOVIECRASH

US, 2024, 96 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Muta'Ali.

A documentary which will be of interest to moviegoers.

There are all kinds of financial incentives to entice audiences to come to the movies, special low prices on a particular day, membership of exhibition companies for discounts…

This film is about a plan set up by two African-American businessmen/idealists, Stacy Spikes and Hamet Watt. The plan was for subscribers to invest $9.60 a month and receive a pass which enabled them to see a film of a day anywhere, anytime. They acted on their plan, Spikes having a background in movie business and promotion.

However, it needed many subscribers. Two white businessmen became interested, Mitch Lowe and Ted Farnsworth, practically taking over the company, then ousting the founders, claiming that they originated the idea and company, all kinds of business schemes and extravagant promotion events, and the failure of the company, the rest of Lowe and Farnsworth. The documentary ends with the information about their trials and ongoing appeals, the fate of the two founders, the publication of Spikes’ book, the getting control again of MoviePass but the question of whether it could be financially viable, financially successful.

Which means then that this is a story of venture capitalism, risk-taking, exploitation, the vanity of the venture capitalists, investing in quite a number of companies, failures but reinvestment, extravagant lifestyles until they are caught up with.

The film relies on documentary footage of the time, the moviegoers, news items about the capitalists…

And talking heads, especially Stacy Spikes, bespectacled, quiet, convincing in his speaking to camera and recounting the enthusiasm, the hardships, the disillusionment. There are also interviews with Hamet Watt. As regards the exploiters, there are quite some interviews with Mitch Lowe, talking about his intentions, his background, financial faces, the breakup of his marriage, excuses… And then we find out that the interviews were filmed just before the warrant for his arrest.

As regards Ted Farnsworth, no interviews, but plenty of video material with his self-promotion, his contacts, the extravagant shows, enjoying the life of the rich and famous.

Of interest to those who want to explore capitalist ventures, risk-taking, financing. And for those who really would like to have some kind of MoviePass so that they could go or often to the movies they love.

THE THREE MUSKETEERS: PART 1, D’ARTAGNAN/ LES TROIS MOUSQUETTIERES, D’ARTAGNAN 

France, 2023, 121 minutes, Colour.

François Civil, Vincent Cassel, Romain Duris, Pio Marmai, Eva Green, Louis Garell, Vicki Krieps, Lyna Khoudri, Jacob Fortune-Lloyd, Eric Ruf.

Directed by Martin Bourboulon.

The novels by Dumas, pere et fils, excited 19^th-century readers – and were popular around the world. Audiences revelled in the stories of the Musketeers, of the Man in the Iron Mask, the Count of Monte Cristo.

And there have been many film versions, swashbuckling in the 1930s with the Ritz Brothers, the spectacular MGM treatment in 1948, Richard Lester’s several films, action with some comic touches, American productions in the 90s, the 2000s. And, now, a spectacular French version, no expenses spared. And, it was released in two parts.

The first part of the film focuses on D’Artagnan, his origins in Gascony, confidence, riding to Paris, brashness, duels and encountering the Musketeers themselves. But, he is eventually embraced by them, finally becoming a musketeer himself. He is played very genially by François Civil. And, there are French film veterans as the of the musketeers, Vincent Cassel as Athos, Romain Duris as Aramis, Pio Marmai, less prominent in the films but jovial, Porthos.

At the beginning of each of the film is there is quite some explanation of the political background, the 1627 setting, clashes between Catholics and Protestants, the king wanting peace. There is also the complication of the relationship of the Queen with the Duke of Buckingham, her giving him her necklace as a memento, the king demanding to see it, the expedition to England by Milady and the confrontation with D’Artagnan.

There is also the story of the lady in waiting, Constance, her devotion to the Queen, the recovery of the diamonds in time, and data falling in love with her.

The King is played by Louis Garell in a quite uncharacteristic rule. Vicki Krieps is the Queen.

It is one is introduced in the first film, played with suave intensity by Eva Green. In the first film, she falls from a cliff in England when confronted by D’Artagnan, She features in the beginning of the second part, links with Cardinal Richelieu, getting a written pardon from him, but then being captured, D’Artagnan confronting her, her stealing documents to indicate who is the traitor in the war. Then she disappears but returns, confronting Athos and the memories of her past, further intrigue, to the Duke of Buckingham, unmasked, escaping and pursued until the final confrontation in flames with D’Artagnan.

The second part highlights the Civil War, the siege of La Rochelle, the various factions, the staging of the battles, hand-to-hand fighting, the bombardment of the British ships.

There is pathos at the end of the film, Constance allowing Milady to escape but then a hood over her head, taken to be hanged, D’Artagnan intervening but unable to save her.

There is the possibility for the story to be continued as Athos, returning home, finds one of Milady’s earing is in her son’s bed…

1. The long popularity of the Dumas’ novels, the many film and television versions? 21^st-century version? A French interpretation? The contrast with so many of the Hollywood versions?
2. 1627, initial explanations, Louis XIII, religious wars, power, Cardinal Richelieu, Protestants, factions? Links with Britain?
3. The visuals of the film, costumes and decor, buildings, interiors and exteriors, vastness? Yet the ordinary parts of the city, dirty, crowded? The sumptuous court sequences, the Cathedral wedding? Atmosphere of the period? The musical score?
4. Audience knowledge of the Three Musketeers, the characters, their stories? Athos and his Protestant background, older? Aramis and his ecclesiastical connections? Porthos as jovial? The younger D’Artagnan, his origins, proving himself, becoming a musketeer? All for one and one for all?
5. The title of part one, D’Artagnan? Age, appearance, his father’s background, his ambitions, looks, riding the horse? Arrival in Paris, over-eager, challenging the three men, the duels? Moving, the fights, the Three Musketeers? The episode with the coach, the Countess, the message, the killings, the fights? The presence of Milady? Beginning of further intrigues?
6. D’Artagnan, the encounter with Constance, the attraction, the offer of lodging, her work at home, her presence in the court, with the Queen? D’Artagnan’s attraction, falling in love? His becoming a go-between? Constance, her personality, the court, fending off D’Artagnan? The issue of the necklace?
7. The King, status, personality, relationship with his brother, relationship with the Queen, her affair with the Duke of Buckingham, his suspicions, the advice of Cardinal Richelieu, his religious stances, the urge to war against the Protestants? His personal manner and behaviour?
8. Cardinal Richelieu here and his ambitions, his allies, bridges, aristocracy? Plot against the Queen? Milady and her writing notes, the death of the Countess, her taking her place, the meeting with D’Artagnan, his overhearing, her attack on him, his escape?
9. The jovial musketeers, D’Artagnan as a cadet, their admiring him? The situation with Athos, the dead woman, his being arrested, tried, Protestant, condemned to death?
10. The Queen, deceived by the note, the arrival of the Duke of Buckingham, the relationship, the memento of the necklace? The attack, the fights, the Duke and the Queen, his departure?
11. The King, suspicions about the necklace, wanting to see it? going to England, disguised the ball, with the Duke, the seduction, taking the necklace? D’Artagnan commission to go to England, at the ball, with the Duke, the pursuit of Milady, the chase along the cliffs of Dover? Her falling into the English Channel?
12. The tension, D’Artagnan returning, the Queen substituting a necklace, the demand of the King, Constance receiving D’Artagnan, the kiss, the necklace, the reaction of the king? Of Cardinal Richelieu?
13. The King’s brother, planning, the arranged marriage, the ceremony and the Cathedral? The Protestants, the release of Athos? Their being disguised as monks, the choir? The ceremony? The shot, Athos and the warning, the King’s life saved? The fighting, the arrests? The king deciding to go to war against the Protestants?
14. Athos and his being pardoned, D’Artagnan officially becoming a musketeer?
15. The sinister characters, overhearing, the violence, the attack on Constance?
16. The suspense and the film to be continued?

THE THREE MUSKETEERS: PART 2, MILADY LES TROIS MOUSQUETTIERES, MILADY 

France, 2023, 121 minutes, Colour.

François Civil, Vincent Cassel, Romain Duris, Pio Marmai, Eva Green, Louis Garell, Vicki Krieps, Lyna Khoudri, Jacob Fortune-Lloyd, Eric Ruf.

Directed by Martin Bourboulon.

The novels by Dumas, pere et fils, excited 19^th-century readers – and were popular around the world. Audiences revelled in the stories of the Musketeers, of the Man in the Iron Mask, the Count of Monte Cristo.

And there have been many film versions, swashbuckling in the 1930s with the Ritz Brothers, the spectacular MGM treatment in 1948, Richard Lester’s several films, action with some comic touches, American productions in the 90s, the 2000s. And, now, a spectacular French version, no expenses spared. And, it was released in two parts.

The first part of the film focuses on D’Artagnan, his origins in Gascony, confidence, riding to Paris, brashness, duels and encountering the Musketeers themselves. But, he is eventually embraced by them, finally becoming a musketeer himself. He is played very genially by François Civil. And, there are French film veterans as the of the musketeers, Vincent Cassel as Athos, Romain Duris as Aramis, Pio Marmai, less prominent in the films but jovial, Porthos.

At the beginning of each of the film is there is quite some explanation of the political background, the 1627 setting, clashes between Catholics and Protestants, the king wanting peace. There is also the complication of the relationship of the Queen with the Duke of Buckingham, her giving him her necklace as a memento, the king demanding to see it, the expedition to England by Milady and the confrontation with D’Artagnan.

There is also the story of the lady in waiting, Constance, her devotion to the Queen, the recovery of the diamonds in time, and data falling in love with her.

The King is played by Louis Garell in a quite uncharacteristic rule. Vicki Kireps is the Queen.

It is one is introduced in the first film, played with suave intensity by Eva Green. In the first film, she falls from a cliff in England when confronted by D’Artagnan, She features in the beginning of the second part, links with Cardinal Richelieu, getting a written pardon from him, but then being captured, D’Artagnan confronting her, her stealing documents to indicate who is the traitor in the war. Then she disappears but returns, confronting Athos and the memories of her past, further intrigue, to the Duke of Buckingham, unmasked, escaping and pursued until the final confrontation in flames with D’Artagnan.

The second part highlights the Civil War, the siege of La Rochelle, the various factions, the staging of the battles, hand-to-hand fighting, the bombardment of the British ships.

There is pathos at the end of the film, Constance allowing Milady to escape but then a hood over her head, taken to be hanged, D’Artagnan intervening but unable to save her.

There is the possibility for the story to be continued as Athos, returning home, finds one of Milady’s earing is in her son’s bed…

1. The long popularity of the Dumas’ novels, the many film and television versions? 21^st-century version? A French interpretation? The contrast with so many of the Hollywood versions?
2. 1627, initial explanations, Louis XIII, religious wars, power, Cardinal Richelieu, Protestants, factions? Links with Britain?
3. The visuals of the film, costumes and decor, buildings, interiors and exteriors, vastness? Yet the ordinary parts of the city, dirty, crowded? The sumptuous court sequences, the Cathedral wedding? Atmosphere of the period? The musical score?
4. Audience knowledge of the Three Musketeers, the characters, their stories? Athos and his Protestant background, older? Aramis and his ecclesiastical connections? Porthos as jovial? The younger D’Artagnan, his origins, proving himself, becoming a musketeer? All for one and one for all?
5. Continuation of the story? The focus on Milady? The continued story of D’Artagnan? Of the Musketeers? Of the King and the Queen? Of the religious wars?
6. Athos and his story of his wife, the betrayal, branding, her being hanged, his visit to his son, promise to return after the war? Audience awareness of Milady, the issue of the Queen’s diamonds, the confrontation with D’Artagnan, her relationship with Richelieu? Are being captured and imprisoned? The confrontation with D’Artagnan, his thinking she was Constance, the escape, the pursuit, her documents and the identity of the mastermind?
7. Contact with Richelieu, going to England, the confrontation with the Duke of Buckingham, Constance recognising her, her arrest? Constance coming to see her, unwilling to give her a knife, Constance in the change of clothes, her escape?
8. Athos finding out the truth, the confrontation with her, his love, her drawing the knife, the Musketeers arriving in time, Athos letting her go, D’Artagnan pursuing her, in the burning building, the final fight, her death?
9. The civil war situation, Protestants and Catholics, the king wanting peace, his brother leading the battle, thanking his brother, in action? Betrayal?
10. The battle sequences, the staging, La Rochelle, the battlements, the cannon, the British ships and their destruction? The hand-to-hand fighting?
11. The role of the Musketeers, the role of de Treville, involvement, the fighting, undercover, the betrayals?
12. The background story of Aramis, his sister, her pregnancy, going to confront the father, temptation for a duel, the cabin, his death, the presence of Porthos, going back to his sister, her place in the conference, tending the wounded, his wounds, falling in love with her? The happy ending? Aramis and his reaction, celebrating the wedding?
13. The various factions, Chalais and his betrayal, with milady, with Constance, the King’s brother killing him?
14. D’Artagnan, visiting the Queen, searching for Constance, the Queen and her relationship with the King, memories of Buckingham, sending Constance to him?
15. The trial, the entry of the Musketeers, the revelation of the truth, the pardon, the condemnation of his brother?
16. The story continuing – and Aramis finding Milady’s earing in his son’s room…?

INSIDE OUT 2

US, 2024, 96 minutes, Colour.

Voices of: Amy Pohler, Maya Hawke, Kensington Tallman, Liza Lapirar, Tony Hale, Lewis Black, Phyllis Smith, Ayo Edebiri, Lillimar, Grace Lu, Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green, Adele Exarchopoulos, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan,  Paul Walter Hauser, June Squibb, Frank Oz, John Hertzenberg, Flea.

Directed by Kelsey Mann.

So, this is what puberty is like!

In 2015, Pixar studios won the Oscar for best animation film, Inside Out. It was very very popular, children enjoying it, parents given food for thought. The basic idea was quite creative, imagining the different feelings inside an 11-year-old girl, Riley, who had to move to San Francisco because of her father’s new job. And how to manage these feelings? The answer is in personifying them, engaging cartoon characters up there on the screen, working in the control studio which stood for Riley’s inner life. And, a very entertaining range of voices.

It has taken eight years and more for the sequel. And most audiences have found it well worth the wait.

But, how to replicate the ingenuity in the screenplay, and to engage the audience – and broaden it? The answer is that it is Riley is now 13, has reached the stage of puberty. And, of course, there are quite a number of new feelings.

Audiences will remember the leadership of Joy (again Amy Poehler), counterbalanced by Anger, reactions by Disgust, and, lurking there, Fear. And the very attractive emotion eliciting quite some pathos which sometimes takes over, Sadness. Joy is in control in the control room, and the emotions enjoy themselves in Riley’s reactions, devoted to her parents, good student, kindly in helping others in embarrassing moments, and, an interesting choice of sport for the film, talented in ice hockey. The feelings are able to relegate bad memories to a storeroom – where a huge character, called Dark Secrets, lurks. And, in the present, an old lady emotion, Nostalgia, keeps appearing but is told to go back and wait for 10 more years!

Everything is going smoothly and then the new brigade of emotions arrives, wanting to take over, different emotions for a 13-year-old and her changes in life. They are led by Anxiety, intervening all the time, various scenarios for Riley’s future, and mixing her up with instant changes of moods, answering her parents back, extremes of happiness, invited to a hockey camp by a top coach, learning that her two friends will be going to a different school, becoming very erratic in walking out on them, foot in mouth with the new friends often – not easy being a young teenager.

Along with Anxiety feelings of Ennui (Boredom personified, long-haired, languid, French accent), and, rather green, Envy. There is also the very large Embarrassment who blushes and hides as Reilly so frequently become self-conscious.

Mom and Dad are puzzled. The veteran feelings are also puzzled and decide to go on a rescue mission, rebelling against Anxiety’s takeover.

The Inside Out films show Pixar studios (remembering Toy Story) at their best, vivid, full of colour, the feelings in all shapes and sizes, and a great variety of voices – with going back to look at the voice cast to appreciate this.

As, with the previous film, there is a lot for parents to think about, to appreciate a lot of the emotional turmoil, erratic changes, moods, they might then remember from their own teenage years and understand their children better. And, there is a great deal to think about for the teenage audience who might find this wonderful personification of feelings holding up a mirror, delightful and humorous, to their own mood swings.

Looking forward to Inside Out 3, and how many more moods there will be in later adolescence!

1. Popularity and awards for Inside Out? The appeal to younger audiences, parent audiences, understanding of emotions via cartoon characters and personifications?
2. Memories of the first film, welcoming of the second film? Riley moving from 11 to 13, puberty?
3. The style of the animation, colourful, vibrant, motions, the settings, the mind control in the Sense of Self? The range of characters, colours? Shapes and sizes? Movements? Riley’s world, the realistic world, at home, at school, playing hockey? The musical score? The skills of the voice cast?
4. The premise of the headquarters for mind and emotions control, Sense of Self? Look and sound and personalities of Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, Disgust? Their interactions? Each of the contributions, the vitality of Joy, the reserve of Sadness, the outbursts of Anger, the hiding of Fear, the reactions of Disgust?
5. Riley, the audience knowing her in the past, liking her, turning 13, relationship with her parents, their concern and love, her playing hockey, her helping Bree with the spilt coins, Grace helping, the bonding? The sharing, playing together?
6. Everything going smoothly and control, Riley and her emotions, removal of past memories, said memories? The arrival of the new emotions? Their look and sound? The shape and colour and voice of Anxiety? The green of envy? The languid look and French accent of Ennui, boredom? And the huge shape and behaviour of Embarrassment?
7. The effect of Anxiety taking over, the plan, relegating the Sense of Self? The continued moments of embarrassment? Ennui intervening only when necessary?
8. Riley, skill at hockey, the coach, the invitation to the summer camp, hopes, the three friends, the news that the other two were going to different school? Anxiety and the others taking over, the erratic and mixed emotions, her reaction to her parents? The behaviour at the camp, the mistake and everybody being penalised, embarrassment? Her admiring Val, the other team members, playing up to them, the discussions about popular groups and her being embarrassed? The temptation to give up her friends? The confusion?
9. Behind-the-scenes, the old emotions and their strategy, going back, the old memories, the Dark Secret, Sadness and her getting the commission to investigate? Riding on the Stream of Consciousness, the different vehicles, broccoli…?
10. Anxiety, looking at the results of Riley’s confusion? The move to coordinate, to work together? The humour of the old lady of Nostalgia appearing and being told to go back and reappear 10 years later?
11. Riley, the end of the camp, with her parents, with Val and the others, reunited with her friends?
12. All the emotions content, Riley moving from childhood into adolescence? The finale at a looking at her phone, the selection of the team, her smile?

THE THIRD MURDER

Japan, 2017, 124 minutes, Colour.

Masaharu Fukuyama, Suzu Hirose.

Directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda.

Hirokazu Kore-eda has been a significant Japanese writer-director for more than 20 years. Many of his films previous to The Third Murder have been concerned with family, Nobody Knows, Like Father, Like Son, Our Little Sister, I Wish. This film is quite a change of pace.

Over several months, the director consulted with a number of lawyers, staging potential cases so that he could understand the workings of the court, the role of lawyers, especially defence lawyers, the nature of charges, the modification of charges, pleas for lesser penalties…

The film opens strikingly with the central character killing another. The audience has seen this scene.

However, the attacker has quite a back story, murder and robbery 30 years earlier, a jail sentence, now released, fired from his work at the factory, killing the owner. He appears throughout the film, generally composed, discussing the issues, but changing his motivation and implicating the wife of the owner, the revelation that the owner was abusing his daughter, the issue of stealing a wallet, sending the money to his estranged daughter…

The other central character is the young lawyer whose father, a prominent judge, has condemned the murderer 30 years earlier. The young lawyer wants to get to the truth but is caught up in the role of defence, the modification of charges, the attempts to identify the correct motivations. He goes to the countryside to talk with his father, to talk to the murderer’s wife who spurns him. He also has his personal story, a divorce, the little daughter, a sympathy towards the daughter of the murdered man.

Ultimately, there is a court case, with the murderer then denying that he killed the factory owner. The issue of the film seems to be looking at the characters involved in the crime and the issues, different perspectives, possible perspectives. Audiences may be thinking of Kurosawa’s Rashomon with the same events seen from quite different perspectives. The director was to use this theme for his 2023 film, Monster.

1. The work of the director? Family films? Issues with different perspectives?
2. The city of Yokohama, homes, buildings, legal offices, courts? The visit to the countryside, life in the village? The musical score?
3. The prologue, the dark, Mishumi, the attack on the factory owner, his death, burning the body? The audience seeing the crime?
4. The legal situation, Shigemori, status as a defence lawyer, the reputation of his father, his personal life, divorce, the scene with his daughter? The superior, handing over the case to the younger lawyers, a guilty verdict, death penalty? The discussions, the legal aspects?
5. The impact of the film for the audience in judging the character of Mishumi, the role of the defence lawyers, listening the charges, formulating defence? Issues of truth?
6. The story of Mishumi, the crime 30 years earlier, his jail sentence, security in jail, getting out, working at the factory, the clashes with the owner, his talking gambling, his being fired, dislike of the owner? Audience impression of him in the interviews with the lawyers? Changing his story, the lawyer believing him, the audience believing him or not?
7. The possible motivations, resentment at being fired, stealing the owner’s wallet, the story of the wife hiring him to kill and the payment to him, the variation for the money and the fake labels and the success of the company, his sympathy for the daughter, her limp, the story of her being abused by her father? The lawyer imagining the scene with the two at the crime? Mishumi and his taunting the lawyers with the various possibilities?
8. Shigemori, his continued interest, his being told to leave the case, his assistants, the interviews, with the victim’s wife and the issue of a relationship, her story about the fake labels, the interview with the daughter, the story of the abuse? His compassion? Is interview with Mishumi’s wife, her disdain, his daughter, the limp?
9. Visiting his father and their discussion?
10. The building up of the case, altering the charges? In the court, Mishumi and his denial, the impact on the proceedings of the case, the details of the court, the lawyers, the role of the judge? Is being found guilty?
11. Shigemorie and his visit to Mishumi after the event, the discussions, what really happened, the different perspectives, the nature of truth?

ROCK HUDSON: ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWED.

US, 2023, 104 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Stephen Kijak.

Rock Hudson was a popular Hollywood star from the 1950s to the 1970s in film and then on television. He began as something of a heartthrob star at Universal Studios but then made an impact, directed by Douglas Sirk, in Magnificent Obsession and All That Heaven allows, co-starring with Jane Wyman. And then he made Giant and was Oscar-nominated. 1956 to 1966 he appeared in quite a range of films, westerns, dramas and, especially romantic comedies with Doris Day. In 1966, he appeared in Seconds, a black and white serious drama which confounded his audiences.

During the 1970s into the 1980s, he appeared on television with McMillan and Wife and also appeared in Dynasty.

This documentary traces the film career of Hudson with a great number of clips.

However, Rock Hudson is known as the major Hollywood star who contracted AIDS and died of AIDS, 1985, aged 59. His homosexuality was known in Hollywood, it was a well kept secret, even a sham marriage contracted with his agent secretary, Phyllis Gates. While there were rumours and innuendos, Hudson kept his private life very private.

This documentary is interested in that private life, his Navy service, his finding an agent, opportunities wrecked at Universal and then the momentum of his more serious career. There are a great number of interviews with Hollywood personalities, agents, actors and, especially, a range of partners. There is quite a deal of footage of Hudson with his friends and partners, video material, many photographs – and the interviewees remembering him, praising him, the sexuality issues, the impact of AIDS, Hudson and his illness, even while filming Dynasties (and a notorious kissing sequence when he was ill with Linda Evans and her comments about the issue). There are stories of his treatment, flight to Paris, medical authorities wary, friends and associates frightened, as so many were at the time, of contracting AIDS.

Which means that this documentary is for film buffs but also for those who want to know more and understand more about Hudson and his life and AIDS. Hudson was supported at the end especially by Elizabeth Taylor, who starred with him in Giant, her fundraising, raising consciousness, and support from Doris Day. There are some sequences where he appeared with Ronald Reagan – but the Reagans were reluctant in 1985 to tackle the issue of AIDS.

One of the main features of this documentary is the extraordinary selection of clips from the widest range of Hudson’s films, clips used to illustrate what was happening in his life, taking them out of the context and putting them into his context. Film buffs will enjoy trying to identify the various films. An example is a sequence with Bill Ives from The Spiral Road, 1962, with Hudson talking about the disease and treatment but presented in the documentary as if he were talking about AIDS.

In fact, Rock Hudson was the only major Hollywood star to have died of AIDS.