Category Archives: Movies 2026

I read ‘The Stranger’ many, many years ago- although the version I read was called ‘The Outsider’. I couldn’t really remember all that much about the book except Meursault’s rather listless detachment with everything. The film places rather more emphasis on his relationship with Marie than I remembered, and the woman abused by his neighbour Raymond is given a name here- Djemila. The film finishes with her, rather than him.

I know that the director decided to shoot it in black and white to convey heat, but I don’t know that it worked that well for me. The water even looked choppy and cool at one stage (although it probably wasn’t). I would have liked to have seen it in a stark, dazzling white heat in colour, instead. It is subtitled, but there is relatively little dialogue and the subtitles were easy to keep up with.

My rating: 7/10

This movie is just SO good. I hadn’t heard anything about it, but I’ve been feeling that the world has taken its eyes from the Gaza Strip and the Israeli settlers are taking full advantage of our inattention. I wanted to remedy that.

It is told over three generations from the 1948 Nakba, through to the intifada of the 1980s and up to the 2020s. A wealthy Jaffa family is forced to flee their home and orchards, ending up in a crowded enclave where the grandfather still rues leaving Jaffa, imbuing his young grandson with passion for their home land.

It is absolutely brilliant. See it.

My rating: 10/10

Now, I’ll admit that this movie might not be to everyone’s taste but, attending as I do a spiritual fellowship (Unitarian Universalist) which also has its roots in 18th century non-conformism, both in UK and United States, I was interested to see this 21st century take on the Shaker religion- or as they were first known in England, the Shaking Quakers. The movie focuses on Mother Ann Lee, whose adherents believed was Christ returned in female form (she didn’t claim this herself, mind) . She was part of a general evangelical revival at the time, when there were many predictions of the Second Coming and the end-of-times. Born to a poor Manchester family, the film depicts her as always repulsed by sex, and probably takes liberties with the nature of her marriage, which resulted in four children, none of whom survived. No real wonder, then, that celibacy was one of the hallmarks of their sect, which is never good for attracting or increasing congregational numbers. On the basis of a vision, she took some of her followers to America, where they established a community and then, in order to keep the numbers up, she and, even more, her brother William travelled evangelizing and seeding new communities in different states of America. Their numbers peaked in the 19th century (i.e. after Mother Ann’s death) but now there are only three according to the internet, two according to the movie.

It took me a little while to realize that it was a musical (how strange!) and once I relaxed into that genre, it didn’t concern me so much that characters burst into song at the drop of a hat. Some of the songs were based on Shaker hymns (albeit much modernized) and the soundtrack used lots of bodily percussion with stamping and slapping during the dances.

I did find myself wondering “why this film now?” After all, films are hugely expensive undertakings and financiers need to be convinced that there’s an audience for it. Apparently director Mona Fastvold had a lot of trouble getting funding, and it was probably funded out of the pockets of Kaplan Morrison, who also produced The Brutalist. Searchlight pictures, a subsidiary of Disney, did the film distribution. I’m sure that the Christian movie production network would have distanced themselves from this heresy-filled movie, and faith and ecstasy are not a normal part of your mainstream historical movie. I found myself wondering if the movie harked back to a simpler, faith-filled time or perhaps the voluntary celibacy embraced by some young people today.

Anyway, I enjoyed it

My rating: 4/5

Jean Valjean comes over as the real good guy in the musical Les Mis but in this backstory, which actually appears in the original book, he’s no good guy. It’s 1815 and he has just been released from prison. Penniless, homeless and marked by his yellow convict passport, he is treated with suspicion by the villagers of Digne. He is taken in by Monseigneur Bienvenu, who lives with his sister and servant. He is a violent, frightening presence and he takes advantage of the opportunity to steal the silverware, only to escape punishment when the Monseigneur claims that he had given it to him.

This story was actually reprinted as ‘The Bishop’s Candlesticks’ in an anthology of children’s stories that my mother had before me and my husband said that he read it as part of a school reader when he was a kid. With its religious overtones and rather heavyhanded ethics, I don’t know that it would make it as children’s reading today (to say nothing of the language level). Although it’s an engaging exploration of forgiveness and redemption, which a child would benefit from, this is not a children’s film, with a fairly graphic depiction of imprisonment and menace.

My rating: 4/5

Seen because: it was a preview for the upcoming French Film Festival. It has English subtitles.

Filmed clandestinely in Iran (as the director Jafar Pahani had already been imprisoned for criticizing the Iranian regime) this movie somehow manages to combine farce with political commentary. Vahid, an ethnic Azerbaijani auto mechanic, recognizes a man who brought his car to his garage, as the man who had tortured him in an Iranian jail. He kidnaps the man, and is ready to kill him, when he starts to have doubts over whether it is the right man or not. His torturer had a prosthetic leg, and this man did too- but was he the same man? He carts his hostage to various people who had been in jail with him and who had suffered at the hands of the same torturer, and most of them, too, are not absolutely sure. But if they kill an innocent man, doesn’t it make them as bad as the torturer?

This is an excellent movie. In the last minutes of the film, I could hardly breathe. It won the Palme D’Or at Cannes as well as a special award at the American Film Institute, and was shortlisted for many other awards. It’s good.

My rating: 4.5/5

Seen because: I enjoyed his earlier film Taxi and I knew that this one had won many awards. I saw it as part of our Second Saturday Sinema with my Melbourne Unitarian Universalist Fellowship friends. Seen at Palace Westgarth.

SPOILER-ish

It’s just as well that I usually (not always) keep note of films that I have seen, because it was only by consulting this blog that I discovered that I had in fact seen the first Knives Out movie, just as my husband said I had. And it seems that I enjoyed it, too, just as I enjoyed this third movie in the series. As with the first movie, it has a brilliant cast including Daniel Craig as detective Benoit Blanc, along with Josh O’Connor, Glenn Close, Josh Brolin and Andrew Scott).

Josh O’Connor plays ex-boxer turned priest Jud Duplenticy who is assigned to the parish of Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude after punching another deacon. There he finds a small congregation in the thrall of the vindictive and thundering Monsignor Jefferson Wicks (Josh Brolin), who had taken over the parish from his grandfather. (Not quite sure how these familial links work with a supposedly celibate priesthood?) When Monsignor Wicks is found murdered in a small anteroom adjoining the altar, in full view of the congregation, which of the misfit congregation could have done it? Or was it Fr Dupenticy himself, even though the congregation could see him sitting there beside the altar?

Actually, I guessed who the murderer was early in the movie, which is most unusual for me. However, I was glad that the end of the movie tied up the convoluted plot neatly. Good fun.

My rating: 4 stars (out of 5) And it’s on Netflix already!