The Children are Watching Us (I bambini ci guardano) (Vittorio De Sica, 1944)

Wow. That’s all I can say. This film was so powerful and just amazing − a really beautiful, yet sweet tragic tale. And this is due to the characters, the little boy Prico − he was simply endearing and so honest and innocent he made me cry at the end of the film. “She’s gone” − that is the simplicity of the film − no built up complex narrative just the lives of individuals, the almost banal, everyday life of individuals made so significant. I truly understand the concept and power of neorealism after a film like this. The falling apart of a family where the mother, Nina, is still in love with another man, Roberto, causing her husband strife and uncertainty in their marriage − this was believable and nothing out of the ordinary but just so amazingly portrayed. My sympathies truly lied with the young boy and his father but I have to mention the whole “cast” of non-actors, who I believe were remarkable. It really was as if every life is important, the opposite of Hollywood narratives. If anyone, then the child was the main focus but in a way he was also the victim. He was the reason for secrecy and carefulness about what adults said in front of him yet also the cause for them to stay together or stop arguing.

I expected the title to be symbolic but it really worked well and conveyed so much more than I thought it would − this whole film was such an unbelievably surprising experience. Nina leaving at the beginning, well that was a real shock − especially after spending such a wonderful day with her child at the park. So too, was utterly devastating the death (suicide?) of the father at the end. As soon as I saw the people gathered around I knew something was wrong but I would have never guessed it would end this way − such a sad, lost life and definitely no happy ever happy which I was so used to. I guess that made it all the more poignant − the fact the movie end after the young boy “rejects” his mother after being told the news of his dad.

The film was made in two parts, with the second part almost like a new beginning for the family as the father takes them to the beach to try and erase the painful past. A lot of clever camera work too, which I guess I didn’t expect. For instance, at the beginning when there is the meeting of people living in the apartment about the elevator, the camera never cut to a close-up of a particular person, whoever was speaking, but instead there were shots of groups of people in the frame so you could watch the reaction of others. I guess this is what Bazin, preferring the ambiguity of long takes, would have praised. Another sequence, was when the young boy was on the train and hallucinating from a fever about water, the flowerpot he accidentally knocked onto the Paulina’s head, the puppets he saw in the park and his grandmother saying she wanted tranquillity − everything was put together in a sort of montage, I think, but it was a really surreal glimpse into the boy’s mind very skilfully done. Also, in the restaurant, the camera scans across as people on the various tables talk, providing an interesting way of viewing the conversation. I also really admired the shot of the boy running from a drunk (and then the police) on the beach, with the water blurring and his silhouette so beautifully framed − just pure art. 

This film, although tragic, just goes to strengthen my impression that the Italians really know how to do a tragi-comedy. I guess I can say in that way this film is in the same vein as Life is Beautiful, which is also so tragic yet has its subtle, everyday humour. It’s nothing like the exaggerated, obvious humour but everyday real smiles and light moments that just make the events so much more believable. Such as the scene when Prico is trying on a suit for boarding school, we see the sales assistant remove a hat from a boy, who for a moment, I thought was Prico, however we find out it was a mannequin. 

I was cringing during the scene of Prico on the train tracks in the path of an incoming train, I thought to myself, “This can’t be the end of him!” And at least he did survive, his soul, his life, his purity and innocence survive the film, perhaps in the end adding a touch of hope. It is such a moving film which is romantic in a way too and I definitely rate it as a masterpiece to be seen. A real work of neorealism, a real work of life on the screen − I loved it.

4.5/5

Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010)

Awesome. That’s what I thought as I walked out of the cinema. (Speaking of, watch until the end credits have finished to get an extra scene). Anyway, few film sequels match up to their original film and after hearing that “the rust was setting in” on the Iron Man franchise, you could almost say I was prepared to be disappointed if that was the case.

It may not be surprising to see I’ve written a positive review of Iron Man 2 but it would have to be a real bad film to get otherwise because firstly, I’m obviously slightly biased when it comes to Robert Downey Jr, which means that I may tend to judge films more on the performance of the main character (which in the case of actors such as Downey, is bound to be positive). Secondly, as I had heard mixed reactions I wasn’t expecting to be blown away and wasn’t going to delude myself if it wasn’t as great as I thought. So I guess I lowered my expectations a little so not surprisingly, this awesome film superseded them.

However, I honestly enjoyed this film. There was action, drama, some sci-fi and even some comedy thanks to Robert Downey Jr’s witty dialogue. (i.e. when Pepper and Tony Stark are talking about the blonde journalist who interviewed him in the first Iron Man. Pepper: “She did a spread on Tony last year.” Tony: “She also wrote an article.” Ooooh!)

I also have to mention the addition of some great actors in this sequel. Besides the fantastic Downey (who seems to just seamlessly be able to slip into any role) and Gwyneth Paltrow’s character Pepper, Mickey Rourke joins the cast as evil Russian Ivan Vanko, as well as Scarlett Johansson (who plays Pepper’s mysterious assistant and is an agent) and Samuel L. Jackson (as Nick Fury).

Contrary to what I was expecting, there actually was a strong plot to build this sequel on. Iron Man 2 begins with Tony Stark not wanting to turn in his suit to the authorities and claims no other country will be able to build the technology for a number of years. There of course, is the problem, as we saw in the first film, it’s not going to be too hard for someone else to eventually replicate the suit’s technology. Tony Stark is not a scientific genius (I think in this case Ivan Vanko is probably closer). So we know that Stark’s technology is not untouchable. So there lies the main crux of the story. Couple that with the rival weapon manufacturer Justin Hammer, who helps release the evil Vanko out of jail to help him build his own iron men, and you’ve got yourself an interesting plot. And fortunately, by the end of the film, Tony is able to invent a new element to get himself one step ahead again. Luckily, too he has a sidekick because it would be really unrealistic for Iron Man to defeat all those drones, in the final battle near the end, singlehandedly (not that the scenario is realistic itself − although maybe in the future).

Interestingly, I noticed that despite Russians often being cast as ‘bad guys’ in many Hollywood action films, Iron Man 2  realistically showed that conflict quite often comes from within as well. In other words, the film presents America as its own biggest enemy. World peace is not a simple thing that can be acquired (unlike perhaps some other superhero films suggest), which I think ultimately makes the plot a lot stronger and believable.

Another thing which probably has helped propel the Iron Man franchise to its amazing success is that it’s essentially about a real guy who becomes a hero − and from then on still remains ‘real’. It’s not a Batman or Superman who has this ‘super’ element inside them − for Tony (yes, although he does have the iron man heart), he is essentially powerless without the iron man suit. Tony Stark clearly has a big ego and loves the attention he gets but he also makes mistakes and has significant character flaws (i.e the amusing scenes of the drunk iron man at Stark’s birthday). He is more accessible and relatable to public (and more broadly, to the audience of the film) through his human personality and charm. So ultimately Tony Stark is not the hero, the suit is. And that makes for a great film.



5/5

The Little Match Girl (La Petite Merchance D’allumettes) (Jean Epstein, 1928)

A slightly haunting film (although the Christensen fable it’s based on isn’t exactly happy) yet interestingly shot. The film took a while to get my attention and then near the end lost it again. I particularly liked the film when the little match girl is hallucinating about being in the toy store:



Some of the characters and effects used were appealing. For instance, the dolls and the toy soldiers were cleverly done. As were the effects of the horses galloping and the little match girl (whose name I believe is Karen)’s hallucinations of Christmas trees. Since I didn’t really remember much about the famous tale, I wasn’t sure what to expect. However, it was a sweet yet tragic little piece that was skilfully adapted into a half-hour film.


3/5

Charleston Parade (Sur un air de Charleston) (Jean Epstein, 1927)

“This is how white Aborigines culture became fashionable in Africa”– the final line that reflects the plain peculiarity of this film. To sum up, it’s about a man whose face is painted black, in a spaceship that lands on an unknown island where he meets a girl, who loves dancing and who teaches him, while in exchange he introduces her to the telephone. When he mentions that she’ll eat him, she replies that “black meat makes me sick”– something I don’t think you’d find in many films today! Funny thing is that it’s set in 2028 but aside from that there isn’t much of a plot. However, we see some interesting editing, with slow motion and speeding up, as well as peepholes that give the impression we can see inside a small enclosed cylindrical room where the girl hides at first. There is a lot of dancing (I was half expecting some accompanying music to start playing in this silent film) but something about that girl just freaks me out and distracts me from the strangely painted black-faced man.

2/5

Sherlock Holmes (Guy Ritchie, 2009)

Better than I expected (and at the least I expected was a pretty good film). With the versatile and talented Robert Downey Jr at the helm of what is another remake, you can be assured of a quality performance. But what made this film rise above the multitude other film remakes is something I’ve been thinking about since I first watched it in the cinema.

First of all, there is a decent plot full of twists and constant conflict which keeps the film moving. The film begins with Sherlock and newly-engaged assistant Watson, played by the quite adept Jude Law, catching the serial killer Lord Blackwood, who appears to be some kind of sorcerer. Having warned Holmes before his hanging, Blackwood then mysteriously rises from the grave and continues his mission. The main storyline follows Holmes and Watson as they attempt to unravel this mystery and stop Lord Blackwood before he can target the British Parliament. There is no lack of material in the storyline and the audience is constantly kept in awe of Sherlock’s skills of observation and deduction.

Downey plays the role of Sherlock Holmes very nicely − he is perfectly suited to the role of a quirky yet charming detective. Add this to a strong supporting cast featuring Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong and Hans Matheson, and you’ve got yourself some great characters.

One of the reasons this film works so well is because it combines so many different elements − there really is something for everyone. You have intriguing characters (well, Holmes is at least), plenty of action (whether explosions or fights, such as the highly entertaining scene when Holmes is fighting in the ring), plenty of humour (both from Holmes’ witty dialogue and slapstick moments), a complex romance (between Rachel McAdams’s character Irene Adler and Holmes), not to mention the strong bond between Holmes and Watson who have a close relationship and act like a bickering married couple at times. The film also gives audiences suspense and mystery, and the way Holmes is able to so brilliantly come to instant conclusions is also a bonus appealing to the audience’s love of discovery (such as learning how to fake death). So there are clearly a lot of reasons to like this film. It combines many different strengths into one engaging and amusing tale - a feat I think is not often achieved in films nowadays.

5/5