Film Reviews by Timmy B

Conclave was a film which, had it not had the acclaim & swept the board with nominations for every ceremony, I wouldn't have thought twice about watching. Edward Berger's previous film, the remake of All Quiet on the Western Front, was a competent but often cold film which I didn't massively enjoy watching, despite some excellent performances from the young cast. It was also far too long & the last 20 minutes I was struggling to keep engaged. But Conclave not only had the acclaim, but was filled with actors who I love to watch. So I rented it & was gripped within the first few minutes.

The film begins with the death of the Pope, which then starts the grindingly bureaucratic & potentially days-long selection of the new Pope. This is overseen by Cardinal Lawrence, a jaded but loyal man who is emphatic about the need for the conclave (selection process) to be conducted by the rules laid down by the Church. As the process continues, secrets & duplicity threaten to derail everything.

I really enjoyed this film. In many ways it is an embarrassment of riches. Following on from the success of 'Western Front, it is clear Berger was given free rein to craft the film he wanted, with the actors he wanted to work with. Fiennes is absolutely sensational, given a rich meaty role which he throws himself into. Lawrence is a man of multiple layers: a Cardinal whose faith has been in crisis but who is loyal to not only his old boss but also the religious institution he has devoted his life to.

In terms of supporting players, anything Stanley Tucci is in is immediately elevated. His Cardinal is a man who is trying to keep the center ground of the Church in place, whilst surrounded by some whose goal over the years had been to destabilise it. Similarly John Lithgow is great, a man who feels the role is destined to be his, but whose baggage is in the background.

But for me, over and above everything else, the best thing about this film is without question it's pace & runtime. Berger seems to have learned his lesson from 'Western Front, because whilst that film dragged, Conclave doesn't have an ounce of fat or bloat on it. The narrative is like a beautifully well-oiled machine, perfectly paced & every scene going on for exactly the right length. Similarly, the sets & costumes are perfect (on the special features, it was revealed somewhat amusingly that Cinecittà studios in Italy has a perfect replica/film set of the Sistine Chapel which can be constructed extremely quickly, such is it's continued use in projects.)

But I also love how accessible it was as a piece of entertainment for me as an atheist, but someone who has respect for different faiths that people follow (despite my disagreements with many elements of them.) The film shows you the nuts and bolts workings of this process, along with the fact that despite being religious men, there is the same level of scheming & mendaciousness that you would find in any big organisation which has the "ultimate job." It also reminds you that, despite the falling of religious adherence, the Pope is still one of the most important figures in the world today, head of a church with around 1.4 billion members.

This really is an excellent film, worthy of all the praise showered on it & featuring many of our best working actors at the top of their game. I really enjoyed it.

Sisters Paxton & Barnes are two missionaries from the Mormon Church, who are out in Boulder (Colorado) looking to convert people. They arrive at the home of Mr Reed, a highly eccentric & unfailingly polite older man who expressed interest in joining the church from a mail-in flyer. Once inside with the promise of Blueberry pie & meeting Mr Reed's wife (female missionaries are not allowed to be alone in the presence of a man outside of their church,) it is slowly revealed that in fact the 2 women have been led into a battle of wills both against Reed & his ideas about religion and the different institutions.

If you had mentioned Hugh Grant's name 15 years ago, most people would have an image in their mind of one of the different iterations of his rom-com characters (William Thacker, Charles from Four Weddings, Daniel Cleaver.) But there has been a notable change in his choice of roles, with everything from a lying MP in A Very English Scandal to a murderous sociopath in The Undoing. This continues with Heretic, although the film has very cleverly used his smiling & luminous personality/rom-com image as a cover for Mr Reed's sinister overtures.

The film starts and builds very well. There is a slow build-up and introduction to Paxton & Barnes, giving them time to become real characters in front of our eyes. And although if you have read the blurb/seen the trailer, you'll know what's coming, Thatcher and East's work is solid in making us care about the two women who have given their lives to the Church. Once Mr Reed appears, the chemistry between the 3 starts to build nicely, especially as the screws get turned on the hapless young missionaries. But then, like many horror films I have seen, boredom & restlessness starts to set in.

There are long sections of exposition, theories & talking. Whilst it is in parts interesting (Reed's deconstruction of religion is like listening to Christopher Hitchins in full flow,) I then started to get bored. There is only so long I can listen to extensive passages of dialogue whilst various cinematic tricks are played (lights flickering on & off, random noises ect,) before I start to lose both focus & interest. And once the setting changes to the basement, I then saw exactly what was going to happen and wasn't interested in continuing to watch it. For me, movies set in one location/house often don't work because the directors have to keep on coming up with new ways to keep you interested, which then starts to look desperate.

For many people, there is probably a very good movie in here, but for me, interest turned to boredom which then turned indifference.

Thomas is a slightly shy 16 year old who is catching a ferry from France to England, travelling solo for the first time. On board the ship, he starts a conversation with Alice, a beautiful and vivacious thirty-something who has just got out of a passionless & dull marriage. As the night goes on, the two grow closer before going to Alice's cabin...

As much as I have given this film 3 stars, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. For me, it was a film which experimented with and was unafraid of exploring sexuality at both ends of the spectrum (Alice, a cynical woman who has no doubt had multiple sexual experiences over her life, with varying levels of satisfaction; Thomas, a young virgin whose testosterone is through the roof & meets a sexually frustrated woman who gives him the opportunity to lose his virginity.)

Both performers are also fearless in their acting & bravery, which Catherine Breillat takes full advantage of. After nearly an hour of slowly-building sexual tension, to then not have the payoff to this would render the film relatively pointless (and I have seen many films where this is the case, the most recent being One Fine Morning.) The intimacy is everything you would expect it to be: tender, awkward & honest.

However, there are some downsides to the film, the most prominent of which is the unbelievably poor quality of the film's production values. The cinematography/film quality is absolutely terrible in pretty much every way. The colours are lifeless, bleached out & grainy; the tone & contrast like looking at an old VHS which has been left sat in the sun for a year. There also, for a section of the film, is a white dot on screen which sticks out like a sore thumb, distracting you, as well as some dirt which is on the camera lens. Sound is equally bad as well.

And as has been alluded to in the other review, it is at times quite hard to put up with the continual bile of man-bashing which is vomited out of Alice's mouth, full of deep cynicism which might have looked good on the page but in practice would make most people (men & women,) get up and leave. For a woman who seems determined to have a sexual experience, as well as taking Thomas's virginity, she does pretty much all she can to sabotage things.

But the biggest surprise is left to the end. It leaves you with lots of questions, as well as making you really think about what you have just witnessed over 90 minutes. I enjoyed it, despite the film's issues. If you can tolerate some of the more annoying elements of the script, there is a good film to enjoy.

The 28... series has been an incredible example of what small-budget British film can do with a great script, some iconic locations and a brilliant production team. In 2002 Danny Boyle, who had made a highly successful career out of producing incredible cinema, created 28 Days Later. The result was a cultural & genre-defining behemoth which, whilst it was expected to do decent business in the UK, ended up grossing over TEN times its budget. It was also a film which was unconstrained by recent studio demands that the violence be watered down to achieve a particular rating, containing some of the most viscerally nasty images you could imagine. Even today, it is still held in high regard for its storytelling & emotional impact.

After the equally brilliant sequel 28 Weeks Later, the series then entered a sustained period of limbo. Boyle was quoted as saying “The rights were held by a group of people who no longer talk to each other, so nothing will happen until that changes.” Then suddenly, it was announced that 28 Years Later was to be made, with an incredible cast. And it was definitely worth the wait, even though it has made some extremely questionable choices script-wise.

After the rage virus has ravaged the UK, decades have passed. A group of people have established an isolated community on Lindisfarne, which is protected by the tide & keeps the infected out, alongside a heavily-fortified gate. The inhabitants include Jamie (Johnson,) Isla (Comer) who has serious health issues including seizures & unpredictable behaviour and Spike (Williams,) their 12 year old. Part of the initiation of becoming an adult within the community is to trek to the Mainland & kill an infected. However Spike, who is desperate to get medical help for Isla, sneaks her out to seek out the mysterious Dr Kelson, who he feels may be able to help.

First, the good stuff: Boyle has clearly lost none of his magic touch when it comes to producing gripping cinema. The pace, cinematography (by genius regular DP Anthony Dod Mantle,) sound/soundtrack & acting are all 1st Class. Boyle has in many ways stacked the deck with talent, choosing sensational actors who have all done solid work. There is also a much larger budget, which shows in the multiple locations & set pieces. And for me the best part is the discovery of Williams, who plays Spike. Like Owen Cooper in Adolescence, Williams is an incredible actor. I have often argued that child actors are the best of all, as they have so much ability which has not been artificially moulded through intensive drama school training. Williams is revelatory.

But for me, the reason this gets 3 stars is mainly due to the unbelievably disingenuous and “convenient” writing of Comer’s character. Isla is a totally unstable, deeply traumatised & extremely sick woman. In the establishing scenes, she will randomly scream out, attack, have hallucinations and be paralysed with pain. So, in other words, in a setting where the slightest sound will bring hordes of infected sprinting towards you within seconds, the idea of taking her to the mainland is on a par with attempting to do your own eye surgery... But conveniently, as soon as she gets to the mainland, she either is able to run (impressive for someone who has spent years in bed sick,) or the circumstances the two are in mean her lack of mobility isn’t a problem... And the debilitating pain attacks/screaming out also strangely vanish as well...

And this stretches credibility so far it just completely snaps. The later scenes, including with Fiennes, which are extremely moving & do offer a compelling view on how we view death, simply cannot pull the wheel back. This is a film which sadly uses too many convenient instances to try and tell the story. Whilst much has also been made of its allegories regarding the UK’s place in the world, as well as the changes after Brexit, for me, the disingenuousness of its characterisation fatally undermines it.

High Life was a film which was recommended to me by Cinema Paradiso. Whilst I am not a big science fiction fan, what interested me with this film was it's small scale/low budget, along with a great cast and a synopsis that promised big ideas. But, as with many of these types of films, any interest is quickly replace by boredom & monotony.

Monte (Pattinson) is a convict who is on a space mission which was offered to him as an alternative to the prison sentence he was serving. He, along with a group of other prisoners, are sent into nothingness to complete the mission with the potential of freedom if they complete it. The film follows Monte as he attempts to raise his baby daughter.

In this film, we simply watch a sequence of extremely slow-moving events, such as Monte carrying out repairs on the shuttle, tending to a garden within the ship, with random flashbacks to the time he spent with the crew on board. The convicts are managed by Dibs, who is also carrying out her own experiments on the crew. Few words are exchanged and we learn almost nothing about their lives before they were sent into oblivion.

Around 40 minutes in, there is one of the most surreal and strange sequences of sexuality ever filmed. I thought I had seen the most pretentious interpretive dance sequence regarding sex/intimacy in the Luca Guadagnino film Queer, but that isn't even in the same stratosphere as this. Dibs goes into a random room, complete with a big metal dildo, and does the most indescribable and ridiculous dance moves you have ever seen, whilst strange music plays.

Shortly after this, the disk stopped working (or my 4K Blu-Ray player had simply had enough of broadcasting ridiculous images and froze.) I was on the verge of switching it off anyway. I am always open-minded to trying new films, but it has to have SOMETHING interesting to keep me watching. This film was just an exercise in naval-gazing & 45 minutes of my life I won't get back.

In 2005, The Thick Of It was dreamed up by Armando Iannucci. It's impact on not only the way satire approached UK politics, but also the fact that any drama or comedy-related entertainment which looked at political machinations was measured against it, was seismic and will probably never be superceded. During the final months of Boris Johnson's shambolic time as PM, I remember hearing from pretty much all political sides of the news media some version of "Even The Thick Of It couldn't have created situations as crazy/dysfunctional/horrific as this."

And whilst Roadkill is a serious political drama, The Thick Of It's influence can be felt subconsciously all over it, not only in the shady backroom deals between people, but also the brutal manipulations of the media by either helpless or deeply immoral people. But despite some excellent acting as well as interesting scenarios, it also at points feels seriously undercooked as well as improbable.

Peter Laurence is a machiavellian Tory politician. Immediately as the series starts, we meet him walking out of court where he has just won a substantial libel victory against a newspaper which alleged he was being illegally paid vast sums of American money to lobby & stealthy privatise the NHS. Despite the win, it is made pretty clear that not only was he guilty, but he also has multiple other skeletons in the closet, lining up to potentially bring him down...

It is obvious from the first few minutes who Laurence is primarily based on, but thankfully it is not only Farage who the writers have plundered ideas from. There is a mix of New Labour as well as Liberal Democrat in his character, as well as some interesting playing about with stereotypes and assumptions. For example, Laurence is emphatically anti-racist as well as having a totally different position on justice than his colleagues. And whilst he is loathsome in many ways, there is also a level of nuance that makes him the kind of politician that people like, if nothing more than because he embraces his flaws.

But when it comes to the other elements of the 4-parter, it is really hit and miss. There are multiple clichés which the series doesn't really do much with (everyone sleeping with everyone, irrelevant of their position in the law or politics; Laurence making no effort to hide what he is doing, skulking around with his bright red cabinet briefcase in dodgy parts of London ect.)

I also didn't like how the storyline seemed to run out of steam in the last 20 minutes. Whether it was due to budget limits or simply that they did not have enough ideas or story to stretch out to 5 parts, everything was conveniently wrapped up. This was despite the narrative teeing-up a potentially shocking demise/bringing down to earth of not just Laurence but the other storylines as well.

I did however really like the storyline regarding a surprise addition to his family. Those scenes are some of the strongest & Laurie is great at balancing Laurence's drive with his own remorse. It was also a series filled with poignancy as this was the last performance from the late, great Helen McCrory before her tragic death from cancer. She dominates the screen as the embattled Prime Minister, knowing that the walls were closing around her whilst still trying to maintain dignity & control. There are very few people who exude the kind of razor-sharp presence on screen as her and she will be sorely missed.

Smokin' Aces was a film which, despite being all over the place and not particularly well-reviewed (including by me,) made a solid profit at the box office. Joe Carnahan, the writer/director who created the original film, then moved on (wisely) to other projects. However, as we all know, anything in Hollywood which makes even a few bucks gets given the sequel treatment, so Smokin' Aces 2 was released.

It is telling that a sequel whose predecessor was not only successful at the box office but also managed to attract some serious star-power (Affleck, Reynolds, Garcia,) went straight to DVD as well as only being able to attract the likes of Vinnie Jones & Tom Berenger as "headline actors." It is absolutely ghastly, loud, obnoxious & ugly to look at.

However, it remains seared into my memory for a very specific reason: I had gone to see a then-friend who had been unwell & was stuck at home. He invited me over and then showed me the Smokin' Aces 2 DVD, saying he had liked the original and was excited to see what this was like. I went along with it and we put it on. One of the opening scenes features Vinnie Jones's character torturing someone, who is tied down & has a halo brace bolted to their head whilst horrific brutality is done to them, which the film shows in the most pornographically fetishistic way imaginable.

At this point, said-friend was violently sick and we both came to the conclusion that what he had just brought up was actually more pleasant to look at than what was on the screen...

In 2002, Narc was released. I will never forget watching it and being absolutely blown away & gripped by this seismic, bone-shakingly impactful masterpiece. Made on a nano-budget whose funds sometimes didn't appear (but whose cast & crew continued working, despite no money,) it was one of those films which obliterated it's competition, which was almost always considerably better-financed & promoted Hollywood schlock whose stories couldn't hold a candle to Narc's gritty & brutal script.

Having created Narc, Joe Carnahan in many ways could have done whatever he wanted. And he took his time with his next film, which often is a good sign that someone who has had success is being careful with the follow-up. And on paper, Smokin' Aces sounds amazing: reuniting with Ray Liotta, alongside a cast of either A-Listers (Affleck,) or up-and-comers (Reynolds;) the budget to fully realise his vision without compromise; multi-strand narratives which when done right yield amazing results; a script with crazy action sequences ect.

But despite all this potential & promise, the result is a near total write-off...

Buddy Israel is a one-time mafia member & Vegas showman who turns FBI informant when his luck runs out. His nemesis Sparazza issues a $1 million bounty for Israel's heart, which is leaked & starts a frantic race by contract killers to track him down and collect the bounty. Israel is holed up in a Vegas hotel, which becomes the battleground of the many competing hitmen to claim the prize.

When you read the set-up, it sounds like it could be an absolute riot, especially when in the right hands. But Carnahan completely loses control of things. The many narrative storylines are all over the place, badly edited & filmed, meaning you frequently lose track of who is who and what they are doing. After a while, you end up just getting annoyed and not caring.

Speaking of annoying, this film is full of teeth-grindingly irritating & revolting characters. Whilst you have the standard & sometimes inspired people (Keys makes a big impact/debut,) these are overwhelmed by characters who I absolutely detested. The Tremor Brothers are 3 Neo-Nazis who graphically slaughter everyone in sight; a kid with highly exaggerated behavioural problems is one of the most punchable creations ever put on screen & who Carnahan seems to think is hysterical; and Buddy Israel is just a contemptible & boorish idiot who the film thinks, because he can do some sleight-of-hand magic tricks, will keep our attention...

But even films with a rollcall like that can still be saved with great action scenes. However, again Smokin' Aces catastrophically drops the ball: the film spends considerable amounts of time building up to what you think will be an incredible action sequence, when all the contract killers collide in the hotel (just imagine what could be achieved in that setting with the budget they had,) but then completely blows it.

The editing is all over the place, so instead of a traditional action sequence, the film just lurches in every direction, desperately trying to swing for everything & hitting almost nothing. A lot of things happen very loudly & violently, with the film randomly cutting away to other scenes before going back to the action, totally killing momentum. And any investment you may have still had in the film is lost.

There are some good elements, plus the final reveal does pack a bit of an emotional punch. But it is genuinely so disappointing & frustrating that the man who made Narc has then created something which had so much potential and squandered it. It is the cinematic equivalent of a multiple pile-up, and not in a good way...

After Phantom Thread, Daniel Day-Lewis released a statement saying "he would no longer be working as an actor" (whilst many media outlets called it a retirement, Day-Lewis strongly refuted this, simply saying he was focusing on new challenges.) And for many years, apart from the occasional paparazzi picture, one of the greatest living actors of all time was as quiet as a church mouse. But then, an aforementioned paparazzi shot pictured him on a film set, igniting a blaze of excitement as to what he was up to. Shortly afterwards, it was announced he was returning to acting, starring in Anemone, a film co-written by him and directed by his son Ronan, a painter & filmmaker. And boy was it worth the wait.

Jem Stoker is a devoutly religious ex-special forces soldier living in North England in the 1990's. He is in a relationship with Nessa, the ex-wife of his brother Ray, and has adopted her son Brian, whom Ray abandoned before he was born. Ray has subsequently gone to live off-grid in the countryside, unable to exist in normal life, mainly due to horrific PTSD from his own military service during the Troubles. This rejection has had a catastrophic effect on Brian, who is in a terrible downward spiral, leading Jem to go and bring Ray back to civilization to support his son.

Despite the relatively large budget for this type of film, one of the best parts is that it is emphatically a small, intimate piece, which is unafraid to have long silences. The calibre of actors is such that we know exactly what they are thinking without either of them needing to say a word, the quietness filled with anger, tension & sadness. Day-Lewis, whose 1st Oscar was for a performance where he mainly communicated through his body language, is a master of this type of acting. And in Sean Bean, we have a veteran actor who can say so much with a weary sigh & furrowed brow.

The other thing most people will take from this film is it's unique look. Having a director who is a classically-trained painter with his own distinct style and the budget to let his imagination run free has produced stunningly beautiful as well as highly idiosyncratic imagery, which is both haunting & powerful. The appearance of a giant white being, seen in Ray's PTSD visions, is the best example of this.

However, there are some very strange missteps, which are all the more glaring considering the calibre of talent involved. The biggest of these is when Ray reveals the horrendous incident he was involved in on patrol. And what should have been not only a heartbreaking revelation, but also a showcase in portraying trauma, feels weirdly flat & unimpactful. Day-Lewis pours his heart out, Ray's pain finally able to be heard by someone who not only understands but is also his own flesh and blood, but it can't hold a candle to his monologue in Gangs of New York.

Weirdly, the look of Ray, as well as his mannerisms, seems to be in many ways a facsimile of Daniel Plainview. Now, whilst that would be for many actors phenomenal praise, Day-Lewis's talent is such that I was slightly disappointed with this recycling.

But despite those slight issues, I loved this film. It's look, overall impact & mise-en-scene are all flawless. The colour palette/tone were a feast for my eyes and the 2 hours I spent in this world were incredible. Special mention must go to Samantha Morton as Nessa, a woman who has lost so much in her life but still tries to do what's right for her family. It is only a shame we don't see more of her opposite Day-Lewis.

Day-Lewis has hinted that he may continue acting, after his profoundly happy experience making this. Whatever he does, it is so wonderful for him to be back, creating wonderful characters and reminding us just why he is one of our greatest actors. Welcome back Sir Daniel, we have missed you

This film will probably be the most disgusting one I watch this year. It is a movie which is filled with loathsome individuals bemoaning how bad their lives are, whilst wallowing & swanning around one of the most elite universities on the planet. Every cliché you could imagine is turned up to a billion, but these have been updated to today's climate, obviously to try to look contemporary & edgy. Whilst it wants to come across as being a trailblazer of the very real battles fought today, instead it simply looks like a desperate loser vocally jumping on every single bandwagon possible to look righteous and on the right side of history.

Alma is a professor at Yale, who lives with her husband Fred. She is well-regarded & liked amongst her colleagues and students, but is also competing for tenure. One night, she hosts a boozy soirée in her flat. In attendance are Hank, a fellow lecturer, provocative letch & close friend of Alma's, who is directly competing against her for tenure; and Maggie, who idolises Alma in every way imaginable. After the party, a drunk Hank walks Maggie home. The following day, an allegation of sexual assault is made against him. The story follows the fallout of the accusations.

To say this film starts badly is an understatement. We are thrust into a world of sanctimonious, smug arseholes, who if you found yourself in the same room as them, would jump out of the window to escape. The writer has made the potentially interesting decision to make the characters all revolting in their own ways, but forgetting that being stuck around these creatures for over 2 hours is on a par with shaving your own eyeballs...

So, we have Hank, who prides himself as being provocative but also a "good dude," who gets more lecherous with every drink. And in the opposite corner, there is Maggie. Maggie is today's representation of everything a certain part of society would fall over themselves to praise to the hills: black, queer, in a relationship with a non-binary person ect. But she is also a deeply mediocre student who comes from eye-watering wealth, parents who have made many donations to Yale, a petulance that makes Veruca Salt look reasonable and repeatedly proclaims her virtues.

The worst example of this behaviour is when Maggie confides in Alma about the assault. Maggie gives vague details of this. When Alma has the temerity to ask "What actually happened?" (like, errr, the police would,) the response she gets is: how dare you question me about anything. Due process doesn't apply to me. To ask anything at all means you don't believe me which means that you are (insert every single woke cliché that comes to mind.) This attitude also conveniently extends to almost any question she is asked.

And this doesn't stop when Hank is immediately fired & hung out to dry (which is in itself outrageous simply from the perspective of having the right to a fair trial.) Despite this, Maggie acts like nothing has been done & she is being ignored, even when Alma publicly embraces her and says she will support her, in a nails-down-a-chalkboard scene complete with screeching music.

And the story just keeps going down this metaphorical cesspool, the virtue signalling becoming so revolting that I turned it off after an hour. To be absolutely crystal clear, in this film EVERYONE is revolting. Maggie's spoilt-brat student is in her own way just as disgusting as Hank's libidinous lecturer; and Alma's snarky professor is equally as rancid as Fred's sanctimonious shrink.

This is a film about a group of horrible horrible people doing horrible horrible things to each other. But for me, the worst thing is that it has used the #MeToo movement, which has been the inspiration for sensational drama before, as an excuse to portray a revolting story as an edgy, contemporary piece of work.

That rumble you can hear isn't justice, it's the next bandwagon which the filmmakers are waiting to jump on...

When it comes to pretentious films, the French are in a league of their own. Many of these types of movies, which are showered with awards & critical praise, are in fact naval-gazing, meandering rubbish which the ordinary filmgoer will either dismiss or turn off/walk out of the cinema. However, as detailed in the notes on the DVD, when L'Humanité swept the 3 main prizes at the Cannes film festival (Best film, actor & actress,) it wasn't your ordinary film watcher who booed and jeered, it was the majority of the attendees at the ceremony, who have in previous years fallen over themselves to praise utter garbage. That alone speaks volumes...

Pharaon de Winter is a police superintendent who is investigating the brutal murder & sexual assault of an 11 year old girl in a sleepy French town. The film also looks at his association with Domino & Joseph, his neighbours who he hangs around with when not working.

In my life, I have watched many films which have had as part of their storyline some element of police procedure (either following the detective or observing the case being solved.) So I have seen a lot of different portrayals/performances of the police, some flawless & seismic, others atrocious or totally unbelievable. But I have never seen a police detective as unrealistic or staggeringly implausible as Pharaon de Winter.

In the summary of the film, de Winter is described as "An introverted, almost child-like innocent." Whilst this is true in the basic sense, it comes nowhere close in describing exactly how stupefyingly nonsensical this character is. A police superintendent will have had a long career in law enforcement, normally starting out patrolling & arresting criminals, working their way up the ranks. De Winter is so pathetic, wet & limp, he couldn't arrest a toddler... He actively shies away from & looks uncomfortable when in the presence of minor arguments... And his behaviour & mannerisms are so strange, you wonder how he even functions as an adult, let alone solves crimes...

The film also has a weird obsession with extremely uncomfortable sex. De Winter's 2 "friends" are a couple of idiosyncratic oddballs who also happen to be exhibitionist nymphomaniacs. Early on in the film, they go at each other like rabbits whilst De Winter stands watching them awkwardly, having walked in through the open front door. Later on, Domino offers herself to De Winter by performing one of the most explicit acts imaginable in front of him. De Winter, who has for the entire film been eyeing her up in the most voyeuristic way possible, instead looks confused & then walks out. Oh, and this film is also obsessed with showing vulvas & female genitalia close up, which simply adds to the pretension & desperation to be controversial...

For the first 90 minutes or so this film is, in a strange way, weirdly watchable. Whilst you never buy into the story & it is quite dull, there is a compulsion to see where it goes. However, after a while, the novelty wears off and I ended up fast-forwarding through parts of it, just to get past the long monotonous scenes of De Winter staring blankly whilst things happen around him.

But, once the ending arrived (which makes absolutely no sense & again I felt was just the director being esoteric & provocative,) I only had 1 question on my mind: how the hell did this win the main prizes at Cannes? The actors (who are both non-professionals) cannot act. The writer/director can do neither, unless he is angling for a career in poorly photographed pornography. And how this film ever got financed or made money is beyond my comprehension.

Whilst there was some haunting imagery & a valid point to be made in how investigating horrific crimes leaves indelible marks on your soul, this nearly 2 & a half hour film mainly succeeds in boring you senseless, with the occasional image of a pudenda to snap your focus back momentarily...

As an iconic actor, few have the resume of Harry Dean Stanton. Over 50 years, he has starred in some of the most revered & incredible films (although the only ones I have seen are Alien & Wild At Heart,) but he also was a cultural icon as well. His typical pose, both in real life and many of his performances, was propping up a bar somewhere, with a cigarette in his mouth and his hang-dog expression. This film, one of the last he shot in his lifetime, combines both his real life as well as the fictional backstory of his character. And it is a beautiful musing on a life extremely well-lived. 

Lucky is a bachelor who lives a basic existence out in the wilderness of the Californian desert. He does his morning exercises, before getting dressed & walking into town where he picks up groceries & then spends his days in front of the TV watching daytime rubbish before going to his favourite bar. Whilst he is a solitary man, he has many friends & is well-liked by the community. One morning, he collapses and is forced to confront his impending mortality, as well as facing some of the personal demons he has carried for decades.

As much as this film is called Lucky, it could quite as easily be Harry or Dean Stanton. Where the reality & fiction blur is never clearly stated, as both men have much in common. A cook in the US Navy who has been a solitary man for much of his life, going away on adventures across the world and who has a healthy appetite for hard liquor & cigarettes, there is a lot they have experienced. And as both hurtle towards the final chapters of their lives, there is much not only to look back on but also to confront. 

For me, the best thing about this film is its pace which, like its protagonist, is slow and steady. In no way is this a case of “Brace yourself for the chariots!” The closest this film gets to an action scene is Lucky challenging someone less than half his age to a fight in a bar. The director has mercifully made the decision to trust that Stanton can carry this film in his own effortless style, and so stays the hell out of his way and lets him command the screen. 

But something which I also found fascinating was how vulnerable Stanton allowed himself to be seen as Lucky. In many ways I found myself thinking of Michael Fassbender’s work with Steve McQueen in Hunger & Shame. There are many close ups of Lucky’s frail & spindly frame as his does his Yoga exercises, ablutions or moves around his home in his under-clothes, his body telling the story of his ramshackle & bohemian life. This is again a credit to the direction of Lucky, not feeling that huge amounts of exposition are needed.

There is also a lot of fun to be had, as well as emotion in unexpected places. One such example is Lucky’s conversation with Fred, another military veteran who walks into the diner. Whilst it is fantastic to see Stanton & Tom Skerritt back on screen together again, the conversation they have sharing war memories is absolutely heartbreaking. There is another lovely scene at a birthday party, where Lucky has been invited and ends up serenading the party in a shockingly profound & emotional song.

Reading some of the other reviews, a frequent complaint is the slow pace of the narrative. Whilst there are a couple of moments which probably could have ended up on the cutting room floor (hence the 4 star score,) being annoyed with the pace of a film which is all about quiet contemplation is as stupid as being angry with Titanic for showing a ship sinking…

The final shot for me was the best. In a moment where the fourth wall is broken, Stanton gives a wordless goodbye, both as his character and himself, beautifully wrapping up this musing on mortality, vulnerability and of a life incredibly well-lived. Lucky is a genuine one of a kind, much like the man playing him, and I am so glad that Harry Dean Stanton was given the opportunity to leave this as his legacy. 

Daniel Day-Lewis's first collaboration with Martin Scorsese was one which, had it been anyone else who asked the famously selective actor to star, almost certainly never have happened. Day-Lewis himself commented many years later "Too English, but Scorsese was a damn good reason to say yes." And he is excellent in a film which is as much about the style, mise-en-scene & costumes as it is about the actual story.

Newland Archer lives in 1870's New York City. A Gentleman lawyer, he is in the centre of the social scene made up of the most powerful families in New York, where status & appearance are everything. He is planning a society marriage to May Welland, a good-natured and genuine woman from another of the powerful families. However, there is the brewing threat of scandal when May's cousin, Ellen Olenska, appears, fleeing a failed marriage due to her husband's infidelity & her subsequent affair with her secretary. Whilst initially asked to advise Ellen in his capacity as a lawyer, Newland quickly falls for the fearless & uncompromising Ellen.

As much as for me the story was not something which I found always compelling, I was absolutely in love with what was on screen in front of me. It is an exquisite & beautiful film, shot to perfection & in terms of cinematography, there is in many ways nothing quite like it. Scorsese, along with DP Michael Ballhaus, have created a sumptuous & spectacular feast for the eyes. From the luxury of the dinner parties to the outdoor archery competition, the cinematography, as well as the mise-en-scene, is flawless. It absolutely blows my mind that Ballhaus was not nominated for an Oscar for his work, but it deservedly won Best Costume Design.

Performance-wise, whilst this might not be in the same league as the headline grabbing performances of Christy Brown, Bill the Butcher or Daniel Plainview, his performance of Newland Archer is a study in quiet, almost internal self-destruction. At many points, you see the burden that he has to carry manifest itself internally, with it looking like his entire being is being consumed from the pain & love he feels, along with the realisation that to act on what he feels would have catastrophic consequences for everyone.

Pfeiffer is equally brilliant, fully making us buy into not only the plight of Ellen but also the absolute scorn she feels for the society rules which in no way is she going to play by, as well as the joy of living her own life on her terms. Ryder as May is also excellent, as the woman who on the surface seems naïve but below is not only fighting her own battles, but knows exactly what is happening around her.

As much as I am not a big fan of costume dramas, this is a rare treat which looks stunning with exceptional acting.

For many people, Peter Jackson will forever be associated with The Lord of the Rings (which is an incredible calling card, don't get me wrong.) But when reading various articles & stories about Jackson, Heavenly Creatures was the film which in many ways put him on the map. And it also received rave reviews, particularly for the performance of Winslet, in her first motion picture performance. So I rented it with high expectations, of which sadly only some were met.

Starting in 1952, Juliet Hulme moves with her family to Christchurch, New Zealand. She is a fiercely clever, vivacious & independent 13 year old who exudes confidence. She then meets Pauline Parker, who is in many ways a social outcast (due to her extreme mood swings and a face often set in a permanent scowl.) The 2 girls instantly click and develop a friendship which is so close & intense, everyone else fades into the background. However Juliet's poor health & her father's work, which takes him across the globe, start to threaten and ultimately split up the 2 girls, leading to devastating repercussions.

One of the most commonly associated things with this movie, and which the script/marketing did little to correct, was that it was a lesbian love story between the two women. And whilst that absolutely generated headlines as well as controversy, it has received extreme pushback from Hulme as well as others connected to the case for simply being wrong. The closeness of their relationship never became a sexual one. Me highlighting this now might seem random, but the reason that I do it is because for me this totally changes the framing of the film and how I see it. When you have a film based on a true, tragic event, the idea that the reality is not shocking enough (especially seeing as how much is available from Pauline's diaries,) and that you need to add a gay love story into the mix is just bad taste.

But in terms of performances, the combination of Winslet & Melanie Lynskey as Juliet and Pauline is perfect. Winslet in particular is sensational, especially in the luminescence she manages to project out of the screen. Every room she enters is hers, her piercing eyes & manic energy suffusing everyone, either entering into her orbit or being repulsed by it. This energy is what makes the world the two girls create so believable.

However for me, one of the things which really didn't work was the fantasy/dream world and the creatures inhabited within it. I just didn't buy into it, as well as thinking that (appreciating the film was shot in the 1990's,) it all looked a little tacky & like it had been a rejected montage for a children's TV show.

But the jealousy, as well as the deep hurt and power battle between the girls and their parents, I really felt. If there was not the threat of one of them being taken away, I honestly think that the two girls would actually just have grown up & probably moved on as they got older, the friendship and intensity burning itself out. But as with so many of these catastrophic & tragic events, it just takes one spark to set off a devastating chain reaction.

For many viewers, especially those who love fantasy, there will be much to love here and would probably for them be a 5 star film. But many of the elements just didn't work for me, despite the incredible performances.

This is the 1st David Lynch film I have seen. As someone who is a huge film fan, I have not only heard his name, but also know the huge appreciation & cult reverence his works take on over time. One of my closest friends absolutely raves about this film, so I decided that this should be my introduction to Lynch’s world, as well as the fact that many of the cast I really like (Cage, Defoe, Dean Stanton.) And quite simply, it is like nothing I have ever seen, both in terms of its content (which I tried to watch with the mindset of seeing it in the 90’s, when this sort of violence & sex was not common in media,) but also the absolute fearlessness of the actors to play sometimes utterly repugnant characters.

Sailor Ripley is a wild-hearted but volatile man with a chequered past, who is madly in love with Lula Fortune, a free-spirited & extremely sexual young woman. This union is despised by Lula’s overbearing & extremely controlling mother Marietta. One night, Sailor is attacked by and kills a man set up by Marietta, being sent to prison for manslaughter. Once released, he reunites with Lula & they blow town, violating Sailor’s parole. Marietta, who had hoped that Sailor’s incarceration would break up the union, hires private investigator & sometime lover Johnnie Farragut to find her daughter and bring her back home. But the crazy world these characters exist in make this anything but simple... 

The thing I love most about Wild At Heart is quite simply the fact that the narrative, as well as the actors, are totally fearless. For a film released at the beginning of the 90's, the violence, sex & overall feel are totally in a league of their own. Cage, who had before been effectively a method actor (he lost significant weight & had 2 teeth pulled out for his role in Birdie,) throws himself with total abandon into his portrayal of Sailor, giving us a glimpse of not only Ben Sanderson from Leaving Las Vegas but also the mania he imbued with many of his later films. Dern plays Lula as not only a feisty & head-over-heels in love young woman, but also a deeply traumatised individual whose traumatic life experiences, as well as overbearing mother, she is trying everything to get away from.

The collection of idiosyncratic & often repulsive people they meet, from Johnnie Farragut to the disgusting Bobby Peru, are unforgettable. Peru in particular is so repulsive you don't know whether to laugh, cry or be sick. From his introduction to Sailor & Lula, leading up to the final explosive showdown, he is seismic. Marietta is also someone you feel not only sympathy for but also disgust. And Lynch expertly plays this out for both comedy & horror.

Finally, I have never seen a film which puts on screen the kind of images which are scorched onto my eyeballs. And Lynch just keeps on upping these visuals, experimenting with fire & sound, as well as the effects of graphic violence. The whole film has the wonderful air of an art experiment which has gone wonderfully, crazily out of control. And I loved it. This may be the first Lynch film I have watched, but it definitely won't be the last...