Film Reviews by Alphaville

It makes its first mistake right at the beginning, with a spoiler scene from the end followed by the dreaded title ‘8 months earlier’. Mind you, if they didn’t show our heroine holding a gun in an end-scene you wouldn’t stick with this bore of a film. You probably won’t stay the distance anyway. Staid direction, hand-held camera, a focus on close-ups of talking heads, one-note acting, protracted plot, no pace, an almost total lack of action… it would take too long to list everything that’s wrong with this.

Interesting biopic of Marie Curie, although as the title implies it’s equally a history of radium, polonium and radioactivity, which she discovered. There are even brief dramatic reconstructions of future events such as Hiroshima 1945. The science could be better explained and, as with most biopics that cover the subject’s whole life rather than focus on the most interesting part of it, the tone is uneven. After we’ve become involved in Curie’s personal and scientific life in Paris with her colleague and husband Pierre, the events of her later life with her eldest daughter, though equally important in reality, come across as an anti-climax on screen. Still, it’s a fascinating story of a remarkable woman and a very watchable film.

Korean would-be all-action blockbuster fails on all levels, with a predictable plot set on a hijacked subway train, amateurish characterisation and silly action. The opening set-piece sets the trend, with loads of extras gunning each other down but unable to shoot straight at any of the main characters. It’s all shot with a hectic hand-held camera and micro-edited into a jigsaw-puzzle of disjointed images. Doona Bae, so good in A Girl At My Door, is wasted in a thankless supporting role.

After a mysterious and exciting beginning, this develops into a protracted and less-than-engrossing political drama about a housing scam with racial undertones in 1950s New York. It’s something of a noir vanity project for writer/director/star Edward Norton, but he makes a good job of all three roles. As actor he plays a gumshoe with a Tourette’s problem and as director he contributes some winning moments. There’s an atmospheric scene in a jazz joint, for instance, where co-star Gugu Mbatha-Raw dances with him to calm down his tics. It’s just a shame it’s such a convoluted, overlong and not very interesting plot.

With a poorly constructed plot, sketchy characterisation and scattergun direction, it’s hard to drum up any interest in whatever’s going on. The climax is more involving, but overall it’s not one of director Benny Chan’s best. Standout action scenes on rooftops and the Tsing Ma bridge are too short due to tight filming constraints, but the exciting ‘Making Of’ features on the DVD show that what brave star Ekin Chang had to do would never be allowed in Hollywood.

A serial killer’s on the loose in 1960s communist Hungary and the cops are on his trail. It ain’t Hollywood, that’s for sure. In unnecessarily gruesome detail we see what the killer does to his female victims after he kills them. You may find some of the sadistic detail disturbing. It’s also confusing. An innocent man, who looks exactly like the real killer, confesses for no apparent reason. It might help to know that this is merely an error in casting.

Yet there’s much to like here. At last we have an East European film that isn’t bogged down in historic social realism. At last we have a director (Arpad Sopsits) who knows what to do with a drone and a steadicam. The plot bowls along from murder to murder and, if you have a strong stomach, the whole piece is different enough to be interesting.

Another endless talky home-made film (after Resolution and Spring) from writers/directors/stars Aaron Moorhead and Justin Benson. The concept, as ever, is small-scale spooky sci-fi with little plot development and minimal special effects. In this one a couple of guys (guess who) revisit a cult they once belonged to. Cue lots of talk. On the DVD Xtras they seem like nice guys, but their films are a trial to sit through for little pay-off. Last line of this effort: ‘You figure it out’.

A warm-hearted documentary about the great Italian cinemaphotographer Carlo di Palma, from his early work in post-war monochrome neorealism, through his contributions to the great Antonioni films such as Red Desert and Blow-up, to the dozen films he made with Woody Allen. With contributions from lots of famous directors and loads of film clips, this is a treasure trove for anyone interested in film. As di Palma himself says : ‘Life is less beautiful without a good film.’

A young couple are stuck in a suburban nightmare. They’ve been lured onto a deserted, labyrinthine housing estate that has no way out. You probably know more than that anyway from the Cinema Paradiso blurb. (Do avoid the trailer and the CP 'critic review’ below – they’re even more tell-tale.) The less you know the better as it will keep you watching to find out what the heck is going on. It’s sci-fi on a small scale. It ultimately makes no sense and it could do with more incident along the way, but there are some unsettling moments and the journey will keep you watching.

Abysmal teen fodder featuring a bunch of over-sexualised young women caked in make-up and designer fashion outfits (as in the signature Ariane Grande video on the DVD Extras). The clichéd plot lurches from atrocious attempts at humour to generic over-edited action scenes. Woke-friendly diverse skin tones? Tick (see DVD Extras). Female empowerment has never been so negatively portrayed. Hard to believe it was produced, written and directed by a woman, who also gives herself a role. Elizabeth Banks, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The first quarter-hour features one of the best foot chases you’ve ever seen, with a resourceful kidnapper pursued by cop Aaron Eckhart. After that the film plummets to the gutter with misguided attempts at humour that make all ensuing attempts at action laughable for the wrong reasons. Worst of all, Aaron gets saddled with one of those hyper-irritating idiot teen girls who tend to pop up in films such as this. Usually it’s a daughter in trouble, but here it’s a social media nerd who live-streams everything and goes Whoo at appropriate points. Pity the killer can’t seem to shoot straight when she’s around. When the film ends with happy-clapping and cheering, the film’s decline into absurdity is complete. Such a shame after such a brilliant opening sequence.

This companion piece to Mandy begins with Nicholas Cage living an idyllic life with his family on a forest farm. It can’t last, of course. Weird things soon start happening, though at such a slow pace that it takes a while to build any momentum. When things do eventually morph into full-blown horror you either like this kind of stuff or you don’t. It’s better than most of its ilk, although it would be more interesting if someone could get our Nick to underplay rather than overact for once (compare, for instance, the impact of A Quiet Place). Some of the gross-out scenes are unintentionally funny and might have been more interesting played as such. Still, director Richard Stanley makes a good fist of the meagre material and it’s worth sticking with for the psychedelic climax. It’s also good to see Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong fame) still on screen.

It’s always good to see a mainstream genre film trying something different, and this is certainly different, with scenes of operatic intensity filmed in ‘phantasmagorical’ colour (or ‘abstract expressionism’ as the DVD Extras has it). Unfortunately the fact that it received a 4min standing ovation at Cannes says more about arthouse critics than the quality of the film. It’s sheer OTT nonsense. For every good thing about it (the opening King Crimson track, the colour palette, the synth score) there’s a bad thing (the awful title, the stylised acting, the glacial pacing).

In a companion piece to Color out of Space, Nicholas Cage is enjoying family life in the Pacific North-west forest (actually Belgium) when their idyllic existence is shattered by a band of clichéd cultish weirdos. Cue Nick going on one of his customary revenge killing sprees. It’s slow-paced, overlong, full of ridiculous cod-serious dialogue and shot mainly in sleep-inducing darkness. Fans of gore may wish to fast forward much of the build-up… not that the climax tries to do anything other than shock with grotesque visuals. It’s different enough to be worth a punt if you’ve got the stomach for it, but it could have been so much more.

I wanted to like it more. I really did. It’s a technically brilliant tour de force as we Steadicam around in the footsteps of two WW1 soldiers. The main problem is the film’s USP: everything happens in real-time as a pretend-single shot. As a result, plodding around with our two soldiers, in whom we have no emotional investment, soon drags. To add interest you can fast-forward to make them walk faster and you’ll miss nothing except time-filling banter. To add further interest, try to spot the joins in the supposedly single shot.

Following a well-executed plane crash, things pick up in the second hour with the occasional stirring scene, including a night chase through a burning town. But the film is always dragged back down to the mundane by the necessity to avoid an edit or change of viewpoint. Don’t expect any sweeping aerial shots or arresting changes of scene or tone here. As in other single-shot films (Russian Ark, Birdman), the technique is deliberately limiting, prone to longueurs (if only in getting an actor from point A to point B) and relentlessly viewer-unfriendly. Sure, it’s technically brilliant and expertly choreographed, but the whole is considerably less than the sum of its stand-out parts.

Boring, poorly shot, mostly score-free, documentary-style Columbian film – the kind praised by ridiculous arthouse critics before being rubbished by any discerning movie lover. It begins as a right-old mish-mash of scenes of teenage rebels playing soldiers in the wilds. If you stick with it, which is unlikely, it ends up in the jungle, where they continue mucking about.

The Making Of doc on the DVD shows that the director had all the equipment and resources needed to make a good film, but the amateurish end-result looks like a student’s first attempt.