Reactions from 2006-07

Each member of the audience is asked to rate the current film. An A scores 100; a B 75; a C 50; a D 25 and an E 0. The index is the sum of the products of each score and the votes cast for it divided by the number of voters, expressed as a percentage.

2006-7 Feature Reactions

TitleABCDE% score
A Night at the Opera401120093
Sophie Scholl451340092
Merchant of Venice421450090
Moolaade271811088
Saraband291680085
Untold Scandal231551084
Hidden202432082
Billy Liar201571081
Brokeback Mountain201381081
A Cock and Bull...291663180
Mysterious Skin111701277
Mirror181776075
Woman of the Dunes152282175
Bombon El Perro1338101075
Sweet Smell of Success162677073
Partie de campagne91293070
Menschen Am Sonntag81675069
Dead of Night1116194067
Bob le Flambeur817159062

Our members comments are listed further down this page.

2006-7 Short Reactions

TitleABCDE% score
Entr’acte61572169

Our members comments are listed further down this page.

2006-07 Comments
A COCK AND BULL STORY – 29 March 2007

“Brilliant! Great stuff! Good fun. Funny throughout. Great music!”

“Light and entertaining.”

“A thoroughly enjoyable film – very clever!”

“Excellent, I loved the way it was filmed.”

“I really enjoyed Cock and Bull. I liked the mixture of a film of a film of a novel – well done to the makers! Very amusing.”

“Amazingly complex humour – Marx Brothers vs. the Goons via Laurel and Hardy. Excellent, with so many (different) agendas.”

“Riveting and hilarious. I just about kept up with the plot.”

“Great storytelling technique: made you work hard but you were well rewarded. Great (closing) credit sequence.”

“Witty, good fun, if – inevitably – bitty. Great end-titles! A good plug for Lancelot du Lac – we need this next season! Not to mention a Fassbinder …”

“Good fun but not very funny!”

“Pretty amusing in places but a little confusing at times. Not too demanding, intellectually.”

“Nearly very good. Perhaps a bit too real in some of the (film) shooting scenes!”

“A rather prolonged gestation!”

“Tried too hard – the early birth scene and artificial womb (episode were) desperately over-played.”

“A strange movie – not the usual National Trust Heritage tour.”

“This film about a film about a book might appeal to out of work actors but the last successful play within a play was (A) Midsummer Night’s Dream.”

“I must try the book again …”

“Good humour and repartee, all excellently filmed, but this must be one of the most irritating films I’ve ever seen!”

“The most tedious film ever. (What a bunch of) pointless egocentrics they were !!”

MIRROR (ZERKALO) – 22 March 2007

“Impossible to classify!”

“Indeed very beautiful.”

“Beautiful but … ?”

“I’m puzzled but it was beautifully filmed!”

“Difficult to make head or tail of it but the music was beautiful in parts.”

“Life is amazing – and so is memory!”

“(There was a) disturbing suspicion of inevitability, perfectly portrayed (but) only glimpsed occasionally on first viewing. Beautifully filmed and intensely engaging.”

“I definitely want to see this movie again.”

“Very hard to categorise. Stunning, baffling and beautiful. It should be seen many more times to get any real coherence or sequence (from it). Poetry lovely in parts but rather banal (and) odd-sounding at times. Only to be expected …”

“Very atmospheric and with stunning photography. I did not manage to make anything like perfect sense (out of it) but it was good. It was very hot and airless in here!”

“Beautiful pre-industrial scenes – more 19th than 20th century. I’m glad we were warned not to look for a logical plot.”

“Like War and Peace and A Tale of Two Cities, the combination of great external events and individual lives gave the film great impact.”

“Deeply enveloping – I hope to understand it in about 10 years’ time!”

“A strange beautiful film with a haunting score and an historical/reminiscence theme – a truly reflective experience! I enjoyed the newsreel footage.”

“Very useful introduction.”

“If you saw (this film) once a year, you might understand it but I’m too old to start (doing that) now!”

“Too deep for me – I’m now dazed and confused!”

“Difficult to get anything out of it.”

“Sorry, include me out.”

“Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear – where’s my black roll-neck sweater?”

MENSCHEN AM SONNTAG – 15 March 2007

“Good resolution in that the two couples’ (stories) didn’t end symmetrically – but what boring men !!”

“On the whole I think Annie had the right idea!”

“Well observed and played Amusing and to some extent funny.”

“What happened to all those young people in hats on the trams?”

PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE

“Charming – captured the bittersweetness of Maupassant perfectly.”

“Some comparisons with Menschen am Sonntag but more interesting characters. Lovely river scenes.”

“Precisely the equivalent of J. L. Carr’s A Month in the Country.”

“Nice to watch.”

“(French) Laurel and Hardy!”

ENTR’ ACTE

“Marvellous. To-day we are so used to special effects in movies (bless the digital world) but here the multi-exposures, slow motion and focussing were still all hand crafted.”

“Scary and comical to start (with) but went off badly with some longueurs, eg the funeral cortege and the runaway hearse. Rather a disappointment. Ballerinas’ bloomers have (only a) limited appeal !!”

“Interesting but …”

“This film was a complete waste of time!”

“Three superb films!” The live music was a joy, particularlyt the Erik Satie. Thank you.”

“A for the pianists.”

“These old films are full of pathos and foreboding.”

“The introduction was too quiet – I couldn’t hear it!”

“Venue not A1 – I was cold and uncomfortable.”

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN – 8 March 2007

“Tender and true.”

“Very intense and true to life. The bleak, hard scenery matched the atmosphere of the story.”

“Fabulous performances from all the leading actors and actresses.”

“Beautiful scenery, haunting music and brilliant acting. Sad.”

“Wonderful photography and very well told story.”

“A good story, beautifully acted. Stunning scenery but too long by ca. half an hour.”

“Well acted and photographed. Very poignant but slowmoving in parts. Pity about the Country and Western but I suppose that’s part of the scenery!”

“Some lovely photography but very self-indulgent pace – typical of Lee. Dialogue often incomprehensible. Give me a light comedy like Saraband any day! Labored.”

“Wonderful scenery. Dialect not always clear, so I missed some of the wit.”

“A – despite much inaudible dialogue.”

“Beautiful but I missed quite a lot of the dialogue. Maybe I needed the Dialect Coach!”

“Dominated by wonderful scenery but too long.”

“Watching it for the second time, I didn’t get a lot more from it. Why do so many actors mumble so much?”

“Was this the English language version? I couldn’t make out what they were saying most of the time – if I had, it might have scored higher.”

“A short story made into a very long film.”

“There was not much to the story – the acting and (spoken) dialogue of the men was very poor. The photography and scenery was brilliant. Very difficult to rate this film.”

“Sterilised Hollywood nonsense!”

SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS – 1 March 2007

“Riveting from start to finish. You could actually hear every word of dialogue – wonderful!”

“A very tense and gripping film. the photography was very good.”

“Totally gripping – and what testosterone levels! Donald Rumsfeld must have watched (this film) a lot.”

“Hard to imagine why it was not a sweet success (in 1957).”

“Too good for American (audiences) then, evidently.”

“Sharp and to the point.”

“Great to see a film with a plot, again.”

“Great performances from Curtis and Lancaster, good atmosphere but what a convoluted plot!”

“Slick dialogue, excellent atmospheric photography and convincing acting.”

“Complex and fascinating.”

“Good quality Black and White (photography). I enjoyed the twist in the tale even if it was predictable.”

“Good acting but poor dialogue. (It) improved in the last half hour (but I) could have done with more of the music.”

“Remarkably modern but didn’t Hunsecker get Steve (Dallas) fired again – before he was playing and got set up?”

“Unhealthy relationships and more one-liners then Philip Marlowe.”

“Continual activity, noise, threats and counter-threats but somehow a lack of real tension. Appreciated the B and W, though.”

“So much of its period – how things have changed!”

“Unsympathetic cops rule OK.”

“Tedious”

“Very laboured. I can’t believe a film could be made on such a trivial issue.”

“Acting wooden, characters unsympathetic; the critics were right! Let’s have Saraband again.”

“Didn’t engage any sympathy. (I was) bored, irritated and disappointed. Both (films) a great let-down.”

SARABAND – 22 February 2007

“A wonderful film with flawed but sympathetic characters. It was an experience to share the pain of the protagonists.”

“Unbelievably searing, moving and beautiful. Such insight and realisation of character (especially that of Henrik). Marvellous; one of the really great films.”

“Flawless and plenty of humour too! Better than Scenes from a Marriage.”

“Beautiful and deeply observed – even the occasional laugh!”

“Beautifully filmed – the usual thought provoking Swedish film.”

“Full of life’s harmonies and dissonances – beautifully played.”

“A quite brilliant film (but) I don’t ever want to see it again.”

“Thought provoking and sad but not with out hope.”

“I enjoyed this (film) but I’m not sure I understood much!”

“A tragically depressed family but somehow they survived, and reconciliation was always a possibility.”

“Well acted and photographed but Johann was such a horrible old man it was difficult to say that I enjoyed watching this film.”

“Emotionally exhausting – especially seeing this for the second time!”

“My third viewing – (the film) becomes absorbing every time. Superb acting, lighting, [indecipherable], relevant music, etc.”

“Not a lot of laughs but there was one joke!”

“Perhaps it’s my perverse sense of humour but there were a few laughs, however ironic.”

“A rather depressing film.”

“Poor Karin, poor everybody.”

“I’d like you to know (that) I’m feeling very depressed – but exquisitely so!”

“How did they manage to stay alive long enough to finish the film?”

“Very good interiors – rooms and people.”

“Lovely muted colours.”

“An interesting movie (but) I expected a different story.”

“Am I the only person to be puzzled by the not-tied-up [loose] ends?”

“The acting was good but (the film) was more like watching a twelve act play.”

“It could have been done on the radio but then, of course, we wouldn’t have understood it!”

BILLY LIAR – 25 January 2007

“Great period feel, some lovely photography and perfect acting.”

“Wonderfully observed – took us back to our youth.”

“Good fun – lots of nostalgia.”

“It was good to see that checked duffle bag again!”

“Evocative of a (past) era.”

“A great evocation of a lost world! Clever picture of the dismantling of a way of life.”

“An evergreen. Black and white much appreciated.”

“Very moving as well as humorous.”

“Real good, old fashioned humour but weren’t the sex scenes a bit chaste, even for the sixties?”

“Very enjoyable but I must admit that, by the end, I wanted to give Billy a good shake!”

“I thought I was watching a comedy but a very different film crept in.”

“Basically sad. (He) couldn’t make the break in many places. Very humorous, too.”

“A bird in a cage.”

” When I saw it forty years ago, it all seemed so normal.”

“Oh dear …. it hasn’t worn too well!”

“I can’t believe how dated the film was. I roared with laughter years ago (but now) I am going home very depressed!”

“Difficult to comment after seeing it so often – nothing really to add to the excellent notes provided.”

“I loved the bagpipes, especially as it’s Burns’ Night. Many fond memories were re-ignited.”

“Give him the money, Barney!”

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE – 18 January 2007

“A triumph. (The film) told the story well and looked fabulous.”

“Fantastic. Al Pacino and Shakespeare – a perfect match.”

“Excellent, lavish production – finally I got to enjoy Shakespeare! The music was wonderful.”

“Excellent. I wonder why they waited so long to make such a wonderful film.”

“Time flew by – so it must have been good.”

“Excellent cast: very enjoyable.”

“Sumptuously costumed and photographed – quite enchanting but the language remained the real star.”

“Brilliant film and twists in the plot but sad about Shylock.”

“Al Pacino – what versatility! He is still my heart throb. Sound improved in second half, as happens in most films – very irritating!”

“Fine performance by Al Pacino and beautiful photography but the scenery, music and background sounds often distracted (me) from the dialogue.”

“Beautiful to look at. Excellent acting by Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons but the speech (was) not always audible.”

“Speak up!”

“Sound rather poor at first.”

“Very well realised and extremely beautiful. Sound track too quiet at times. A longer cast list would (have been) good. A great success and good to be reminded of the Quality of Mercy (speech) which I had to learn 60 years ago … Great court setting.”

“A nicely crafted and traditional piece.”

“Will would have been pleased with this film!”

“You may try, however hard
But you’ll never beat the Bard.
At least three plays in one
Are strung. That’s how he’s won!”

“Beautifully filmed but did we need it? With the exception of a magnificent performance by Al Pacino, (the dialogue) was generally badly spoken. And did we need those naked breasts for the groundlings?”

“Tom Stoppard and Pinter write plays as powerful, complex as Shakespeare but while 100% of Londoners (of the day) tried to see Shakespeare’s plays, sadly most today will be watching Celebrity Big Brother!”

“Better than I expected but why don’t some of these actors go to RADA? Al Pacino’s diction was appalling and the sound at the beginning left a lot to be desired. Shakespeare is best left to the stage!”

“Any comment would be superfluous.”

“A circumcised script desperate for 21st century sympathy.”

HIDDEN – 11 January 2007

“Riveting from start to finish.”

“Very enjoyable. Best since Sophie Scholl!”

“An intriguing film which I watched even more closely thanks to Ann Miller’s great introduction. I particularly enjoyed the discussion afterwards. More of the same please!”

“Interesting movie. Maybe if you saw it a couple of times you would see and understand more and more details.”

“Reminiscent of Trainspotting! The shots of nothing happening were both evocative and creative, giving time for reflection. Uncertainty, even at the end, was an important part, making me concentrate on the political and other messages. I spent much time in France in the late 50s/early 60s, with all the political issues, eg Algerie Francaise.”

“Very good suspense right through – (the film) left a lot to the imagination.”

“Somewhat confusing. There was obviously so much hidden but ultimately it seemed as if France was denying the Algerian thing ever happened.”

“Rubbishy sub-titles!”

“Quite baffling and very French.”

“Truly baffling.”

“New Year’s lack of resolution?”

“What a waste of life – and two hours of mine !!”

“Most puzzling film – could it have been the rooster wot did it ??”

A NIGHT AT THE OPERA – 14 December 2006

“Good fun. What a hoot! Brilliant – 100%!”

“Comedy of genius. Comic genius.”

“I have not had such a laugh for a very long time!”

“Such a good laugh!”

“Wonderful – the funniest film I’ve seen in ages.”

“Firing on all four for 90 minutes – who wants [or needs] culture ??”

“I can’t remember laughing out loud so much at any film, so I must forgive a couple of lame musical numbers.”

“Only the music dates!”

“Absolutely hilarious – who says the old ones aren’t the best?”

“A real classic – clear soundtrack, with no extraneous noises or unnecessary background music. Let’s have more of these earlier films!”

“An extra-ordinary film! What talent and energy – inspiring nonsense, and so well done.”

“Much better than the Royal Variety Performance – in fact, a Tour de Force!”

“Why can’t they make films like that to-day?”

“My first Marx Brothers film – what fun!”

“First time I’ve seen a Marx Brothers film and I’m sorry to say it didn’t really do it for me – only the catastrophic opera scene really made me laugh.”

“Unclassifiable. As a film, it was dreadful but very, very funny.”

“Any comment would be otiose – B. Driftwood.”

“I’ll never take ‘Live from the Met’ seriously again!”

UNTOLD SCANDAL – 7 December 2006

“Beautifully filmed. Beautifully constructed.”

“Beautiful colours, interesting story.”

“Brilliant photography and characterisation.”

“A sumptuous film – like the touch of fine silk. Very sensual.”

“Gripping story made still more interesting by the removal of (the usual) preconceptions as a result of the (to me) alien setting. And what gorgeous textiles!”

“Superb photography with excellent scenery!”

“The third film this season to make fabulous use of colour.”

“Visually stunning – a great transfer of this story to a different cultural setting. Great film.”

“Wonderful sense of atmosphere and the reading back to the old paintings was very evocative.”

“So much beauty, so much ugliness, so much waste.”

“Very pretty photography but too long in coming to an end after the point had been made!”

“Exquisite. Well paced but flagged towards the end.”

“Beautiful – at times a little slow. A good, if cynical, tale.”

“Beautifully photographed and skilfully acted but a bit drawn out.”

“Beautiful to watch and [but?] we were stuck with the story!”

“A very beautiful film but plot very confusing and pace awry – some editing needed. How many possible endings were there? Very erratic (sub-)titles.”

“The similarity of appearance (to a Westerner) of the characters made it sometimes hard to work out who was currently being seduced. Very honest photography but a little too long – too many epilogues.”

“Poetic and beautiful but confusing. Who was who?”

“I think we all should have been given a family tree to start with!”

“Beautiful photography but not a patch on the French original – we needed it with French dialogue to appreciate the wit (and intrigue). Too long.”

“Very hard to judge. Beautiful in a (familiar) non-surprising way, the story well known. What was the moral? That men and women are equally unscrupulous in their different ways …. ? NB: It was cold in here!”

“Stylish, and faithful almost beyond the call of duty …”

“An excellent adaptation – with excellent hats!”

“Never trust a man who wears his hairnet in bed!”

MYSTERIOUS SKIN – 30 November 2006

“A brave choice – powerful and very believable.”

“Gripping and disturbing.”

“An astonishingly powerful film.”

“Very powerful film, beautifully acted – chillingly convincing picture of how paedophilia destroys children’s personalities.”

“Powerful. It taught me a lot about some very unfamiliar (some of them very unsympathetic) people.”

“Powerful, hard-hitting and hard to watch in the best possible way.”

“Powerful film – I missed some of the dialogue.”

“Not really my cup of tea but very involving. I found it hard to make out what they were saying at times.”

“A hard and difficult story, although with some redemption. Avoided a happy ending – a lot to think about.”

“A very sad film.”

“This movie makes you speechless.”

“I found this a very difficult film to watch.”

“Should be made compulsory viewing.”

“Unpleasantly fascinating.”

“Compelling and self-indulgent. A curiously unsatisfactory ending.”

“Thanks for two hours of gratuitous filth – you should be ashamed of this choice.”

BOB LE FLAMBEUR – 23 November 2006

“Charmant ! Good fun.”

“Spot on! The director developed the action so clearly – you could guess what’s coming but that made it the more (enjoyable). 1956 a good year – our wedding then!”

“Very atmospheric – a real picture of Paris low life.”

“A good show all round!”

“Good fun! Slow to get going but gradually became more gripping. And THANKS to the Committee for all the hard work.”

“Slow start. Difficult to follow plot (but) it improved with time.”

“A bit disjointed but refreshingly old-fashioned.”

“Slick, well made and engrossing but derivative – another film noir about an old con who plans one last heist. A cinematic parallel to the photographs of (Robert) Doisneau and others. I hated the American sub-titles – ‘See you!’ ”

“Too much intrusive music – and ghastly US sub-titles.”

“I wish the police were all like that.”

“Curiously flat, un-involving film. Lacked the verve, pace and innovation of early Godard. They tout a lot more aggressively in the Pigalle now!”

“Lovely cars, though!”

“The good old days when you could leave your car unlocked on a Paris street …”

“Nice twist – or bust?”

“The improbable winning streak went on … and on … and on …”

“Maigret meets Dragnet. Not as good as either, though.”

“Dreadful acting, highly derivative (plot). The major crime committed was littering – they were all at it!”

“This was a yawn a minute, except at the end when I thought I detected Dick Barton Special Agent coming to sort out the villains! It was (almost) his signature tune, if you had fallen asleep just then.”

WOMAN OF THE DUNES – 9 November 2006

“Amazing, enthralling, beautiful. The symbolism was laid on with a trowel but was acceptable. Entomologist very well done – the reformed rat, one might say.”

“Beautiful, lyrical cinemaphotography. A tad too long and (it was) a strain trying to read the sub-titles but a great mythic feel to it. A Japanese Sisyphus. The villagers were somehow Brechtian and reminiscent of the Caucasian Chalk [Circle].”

“Best and most creative film for a long time but my first impression was (that) I’ll never feel the same about a sandpit again!”

“The contrast between the sexes – especially how they treated and respected each other – was very marked. The woman, through her own soft (and) gentle attitude, seemed, in the end, to influence and change the man.”

“An amazing film – and the nature of the sand!”

“Profoundly sad, profoundly cruel.”

“How could anyone imagine such a scenario? Fascinating and very profound.”

“Been there, done that.”

“Let’s have all the other Teshigahara/Takemitsu collaborations!”

“I enjoyed the photography.”

“Cinemaphotography and linking music very inventive.”

“Er … thought provoking.”

“It provoked (much) thought, especially his ways of finding a purpose.”

“Much beautiful and powerful imagery but too long. (The) ‘It’ scene was worse than Lord of the Flies. A surprise ending.”

“Not since Lawrence of Arabia have I wanted a drink so much! Seems to me this might (have been) some sort of allegory of life. The second week running when radios were featured – this time the need to have one, not to get rid of one [or several]. Also, the need for cigarettes seemed to be a feature of the supplies sent down.”

“What a weird film but very interestingly shot.”

“A for Yuna’s introduction.”

“Sorry I missed some of the talk – it seemed interesting.”

“I think introductions to films, if read out, might be provided as handouts or posted on the Website since some members may prefer to get to grips with the film without a preliminary commentary. However, the discussion afterwards was a good idea. Sun, sand, sea and …. sake? (The film) reminiscent of Waugh’s A Handful of Dust.”

“Could Yuna’s notes appear on the Website for download?”

“We didn’t need so much detail about the film beforehand – we could see that easily. In fact, with such a long film, a briefer talk would have been enough.”

“I should like to see a shorter version – a good editor could work wonders.”

“Piffle, which needed a damn good edit!”

“Pilgrim’s Progress with sex!”

“The art of torture?”

“Very profound but not a good holiday destination!”

“It reminded me of Felixstowe.”

“It made me glad I live in Abingdon!”

“A gritty drama?”

MOOLAADE – 2 November 2006

“A great piece of work. Wonderful, well directed propaganda.”

“Beautifully done, if in part propaganda – but what propaganda!”

“So much in this film! The dignity and cleanliness of rural Africa; so much hanging on one woman’s courage; the unexpected intervention of Mercenaire. Almost any outcome seemed possible. We (ie, I) would welcome more films from Senegal!”

“A lesson in how to make a political film. Beautifully shot and argued. The radios worked wonderfully as a central symbol, with the inevitable burning reminiscent of the Third Reich. Often like a Greek tragedy.”

“Reminded me of Shakespeare …”

“Excellent. Wonderful atmosphere conjured up of their culture and life. It would be nice to think that this film will be shown around the Senegalese village halls!”

“Quite apart from its other merits, I enjoyed he film for its portrayal of village life in another culture.”

“An amazing challenge from such inspired women – leaders of Rights. Excellent acting. A picture of universal appeal.”

“Thank God I’m a free woman living in this (free) society. It is hard not to hate such narrow minded men.”

“A wonderful film, full of drama, courage and beauty. It was just a shame that the sub-titles didn’t match the dignity of the characters. Well, hell no!”

“The sub-titles could’ve done with a re-write. Otherwise really powerful.”

“A legend for our time. Misinterpretation of Islam but (the people were) far too civilised and well dressed – there seemed to be no poverty!”

“Slow to build up but (what) a powerful ending.”

“It seems churlish (to make this comment) but the film didn’t really hold together, did it?”

“One up to the women – is the media (really) that bad an influence?”

DEAD OF NIGHT – 19 October 2006

“Very interesting. Enjoyable; witty ending. Bring[s] back memories!”

“Good fun – amazing how accents have changed!”

“Another world! Entertaining.”

“Very good – stood up well for a film of its age. Some very creepy moments, especially the mirror story and the ventriloquist’s dummy tale.”

“Nice period piece. Golfers’ tale the best. Ventriloquist bit was confusing.”

“Great fun, with a suitably melodramatic sound track!”

“Terrific story and (a) well made film. Pity about some of the acting but, sixty years on, we’re just too sophisticated!”

“This probably worked well in 1945 but the horror didn’t do much for an audience (of) to-day.”

“If shown in 1946, the film might have been a B but now … The dummy wasn’t the only wooden actor, eh? Sound track too loud.”

“What a frightfully good film – I saw one just like it in a dream once!”

“Bizarrely entertaining – I enjoyed the Black and White. A passing thought – when these 30s and 40s films are re-mastered, is it possible to filter out the {to modern ears} clipped ‘quacking’ (style of dialogue) of middle class voices?”

“Creaked a bit – and the sound track (too) but I liked the Radford/Wayne sequence and Venetian (?) [indecipherable] too!”

“Episodes were of uneven quality, particularly Nauton Wayne and Basil Radford reprising their Charteris/Caldecott act, which was silly and too long. On the whole, however, it was possible to suspend disbelief and the film (then became) effectively spooky.”

“They don’t make ‘em like that anymore – and gosh, did they smoke!”

“(The film was) maybe a total escape from WWII back to people doing comedy acts with music hall resonances – all mixed in with a newly intense interest in what they thought Freudian analysis was. Some good laughs!”

“Hitchcock’s day off, I suppose!”

“1945 was clearly a remarkable year!”

“A cheesey treat to begin with but wore a little thin.”

“Good for a while but sagged badly with (the) golf and ventriloquism episodes.”

” ‘Room for one more inside, sir!’ – Number 6 [Prisoner ref.]”

“Precursor of Groundhog Day? How they talked and how they smoked! (Pre mobiles and pre cancer!)”

“Patchy. How many of them later died of lung cancer?”

“Not enough torture for me!”

SOPHIE SCHOLL: THE FINAL DAYS – 12 October 2006

“The most powerful film I have ever seen.”

“The best film I have (ever) seen at ABCD Film Soc. The need for such heroism does not seem to exist in this country at this time. Are we lucky or unlucky? Or perhaps, after all, there is such a need …”

“An intensely moving film – outstanding in all respects.”

“Powerful, moving and inspiring!”

“A really powerful film.”

“Gripping from start to finish. Despite the foregone conclusion, the tension held (up) throughout – brilliant and moving.”

“Very powerful (film) with a moving picture of relationships, especially [during] the interrogation. Extremely thought provoking.”

“Moving and intelligent – a story told without varnish.”

“Excellent, powerful and in a way uplifting in portraying the conscience and principles which were so strongly maintained.”

“Compelling, courageous – even now – and [providing] much food for thought. It could happen again, somewhere …”

“Well crafted: I was absorbed by it throughout.”

“Such a pure form of narration. Only in the final credits did we get a focus that shifted (away) from Sophie, or any flashbacks.”

“Completely gripping – only let down slightly by some melodramatic music. An astounding central performance (by Julia Jentsch).”

“A powerful representation with excellent acting.”

“Film and performances powerful (but) handled with a light touch.”

“Beautifully filmed and acted. Music too ? [portentous?]”

“Very authentic in atmosphere. Superb central performances.”

“Superbly acted – a very disturbing film.”

“Sehr gut acting from Julia Jentsch and Alexander Held.”

“Splendid. Moving and thrilling but, as in third-rate cowboy films, all the baddies looked (like) thorough baddies. I recently saw a German/Austrian documentary which included much authentic footage from 1945. The baddies, in real life, were (from the) educated gentleman [middle] class and comported themselves as such! Certainly different – thanks.”

“A very strong and compelling drama. The heroes were very, very heroic but the Nazi tirades and responses (were) rather stereotyped. A gripping narrative, despite the overstatement.”

“A good film overall. The acting on the part of Investigator Mohr was a bit overdramatic, even for a Nazi. I enjoyed the musical score and appreciated the montage at the beginning of the end credits. I was disappointed not to see an escape plot twist in the finale. Only kidding!”

“Oh no, not World War II again – Wrong! – (Instead,) two hours of entirely credible tension, although most of the action was confined to ‘talking heads’.”

“What can one possibly say? Very moving, brilliantly portrayed (but with rather) strange music to accompany such a serious subject.”

“A story of courageous people simply told – no romance, no (big) stars – very un-Hollywood! A bit too long with some very Jaws-like menacing music marring (the film) just a little.”

“So much menace in the music. I wonder how much of the film showed [the situation] as it actually was. It is because of people like Sophie that I joined Amnesty International.”

“The trivialising credits were a serious error of judgement.”

“The script was written, and all the hard work done, sixty three years ago …”

“Rather too clean and pretty.”

“I had some concerns about (the film’s) veracity.”

“Just too heroic…”

BOMBON EL PERRO – 5 October 2006

“A good start to the season.”

“Beautiful. Gentle and good natured. Touching and charming.”

“Delightfully simple.”

“Gently good natured humour. An optimistic film.”

“Engaging, gentle, authentic and (of a) rare quality.”

“What a charmingly naïve leading man. I didn’t want it to end!”

“Gentle – Villegas showed a wonderful (degree of) patience in adversity.”

“Coco had the look of Tony Hancock and a similar smiling, melancholy shyness.”

“Wry, funny, a bit disjointed – meandering is (perhaps) right.”

“A real shaggy dog story.”

“It’s all in the breeding.”

“El boloches del perro!” [The dog's bollocks!]

“A different take on One Man and his Dog!”

“A very gentle film with humour and lovely music, proving (that) not only is a dog man’s best friend but also his passport to happiness.”

“I’m quite reconciled pit bulls, (they’re) really rather attractive! A nice film and Coco a lovely character.”

“Whoever said “Never act with children or animals” may have had a point. A canine Oscar is due here.”

“The best thing about this film was the impression of the plains of southern Argentina.”

“Aren’t the roads straight in Patagonia?”

“I sat at the front, so maybe that was the problem but it was filmed too close up to be comfortable.”

“Somewhat disappointing.”

“Too heart warming for my taste!”

“Not enough sex for my taste!”