svenrufus

Let's get the good bits out there first. I thought Matt Damon and Michael Douglas were both very good in their roles, Douglas especially going against type. That was impressive. It was well filmed, and the sets were every bit as striking as you'd expect given the subject matter.

But despite all the glitz of what I was looking at, the overall was rather drab and workaday. At first I was thinking that was perhaps a reflection on the fact that the rich and famous also live fundamentally normal lives, the same stories played out in terms of relationships and human weaknesses, so the mundane nature of their experience can't really be hidden by the shiny baubles and jewellery, but in the end I feel that there was something else missing from this.

A bit like Liberace himself perhaps, this is a film that depends more on style than substance. 'It looks fabulous, so maybe no-one will notice how thin and meagre the rest of the work is' appears to be the underlying ethos for the film, and that's disappointing given the personnel involved.

I can't quite get my head round why that is. It could be that the source material is not the full picture given how one sided the account really is (I only found that out after seeing it and that struck me as a possible issue straight away.) Perhaps the fact that it was supported by HBO rather than a more experienced film studio gives it a more televisual, functional feel than might have been achieved elsewhere, but I don't really know why that should be the case, other than the fact that I don't watch any TV any more, partly because it leaves me feeling like what I watch lacks something vital, similar to the way this film makes me feel.

I was looking forward to the film, and am glad I've seen it now, but it didn't live up to my expectations.

I've just watched this again yesterday after a few years since I first saw it, and then watched it again tonight because I was so completely captivated by it. This is exactly what happened when I first saw it too, and now I know I'll be listening to the soundtrack on hard rotation for a few days at least.

For me, this film doesn't put a foot wrong. It's perfectly paced, to match the pace of the developing love story. The music is mesmerising at times, heartbreaking at others. The acting is subtle, but spot on. The filming is beautiful, even with the jerky camera work, it matches the rough edges of the lives of the characters. All the things that I've seen people criticise this film for, I would argue are things that work perfectly for this film, this story, the love affair and the struggles.

There is something about this that puts me in mind of Brief Encounter - I don't hold it in such high esteem, but it is a wonderfully pitched story, that asks you to look deep into it to understand what the characters aren't saying, what they aren't doing, and to be able to reach an understanding of their choices while feeling the turmoil their own brief encounter puts them through.

Life rarely gives us the Hollywood plot line. The twists and turns of our daily encounters mean that choices aren't always clear cut, but are so often compromises. Guy and Girl here face those compromised outcomes - what might have been, have they got all they could or could have hoped for. All of this is clear when you look at them through the film, and the music supports that understanding, sometimes driving the point home like a knife. This is genuinely one of the most beautiful and gut wrenching films I have seen.

I was lucky enough to get tickets to a preview of Brooklyn last week, and in a rare change from the normal routine, I went into a film knowing absolutely nothing about it.

It was such a full house, that I ended up staring up at the screen from well outside my usual comfort zone at an awkward angle, too close to the screen, and away from my girlfriend which wasn't a great start, but once the film started I was quickly caught up in the magnificence of Saoirse Ronan's performance and forgot about any of those minor gripes.

Ronan owned this film, from first to last. The storyline itself is a somewhat thin and a follows a well-trodden path but Ronan gives it such heft, and brings the intensity of her character's experience and development full force such that any deficiencies of the story seem inconsequential. It was only after leaving the screening that I really looked back at some of the plot points and realised how contrived it had been in places, but for the time I was watching it, I was simply living it through the potency of the acting. Ronan was brilliant in this, and I struggle to think of any recent performances that can match this for the confidence and sure-footedness that she showed. I think she's in with a good shout for an award or two for this role.

It's worth mentioning Julie Waters as well, who reliably entertains and impresses in all she does. Between her and Saoirse Ronan, they made sure that Brooklyn passed the 6 laugh test – and also the 6 cry test. I laughed, and cried, and laughed as I was crying, and cried as I was laughing pretty much throughout the whole film. A thoroughly enjoyable film, where the central performance takes the audience on an engrossing and emotional trip through an otherwise somewhat slight storyline.