Film Reviews by Timmy B

Lollipop was a film which I heard about due to extremely positive word-of-mouth praise, plus is also in a genre which gives many opportunities for great drama (kitchen-sink/social realism.) It is obvious the impact & inspiration that filmmakers such as Ken Loach and Paul Andrew Williams have had on this micro-budget & gritty look at one woman's desperate fight to get back her children.

Molly (nicknamed Lollipop) is a single mother who, when we first hear her voice, is calling from prison, where she is finishing up a short sentence. She is released and, due to estrangement from her mother, lives in a tent whilst trying to sort herself out. She is then told, upon trying to get her children back, that because she doesn't have a home to live in (she was forced to give it up when she was incarcerated,) she cannot look after them. However, in a ludicrous & heartbreakingly cruel twist, because she doesn't have her children/is seen by the system as a single woman, she is low-priority to be housed and only qualifies for a 1 bedroom flat, which social services will not accept as suitable. We then follow Molly's desperate attempts to try & fight the sclerotic system which she is trapped in.

The main thing I loved about this film was it's raw honesty. Molly is presented as a real person, doubtlessly influenced by many of the women that writer/director Daisy-May Hudson met in her own life (the film is based on her experiences growing up within the housing/benefits system.) She is at times extremely difficult, partly due to the trauma of her upbringing, as well as mental health issues. But there is also, crucially, not a disingenuous attempt by the film to explain away all of her behaviour or make excuses for all of it.

I also really liked the fact that, as much as the bureaucratic element of the film was shown as heartless, the actual people who were in those positions were not demonised & made to look uncaring or evil. It was made clear that they were following a system which they had no control over, as well as doing everything they could to, despite Molly's extremely challenging behaviour, to try and help her.

Finally, the friendship she had with Amina was also the beating heart of this story. And the interactions and characterisation of these 2 friends was an absolute joy. Amina, who is a single mother as well as a refugee who has escaped from a war-torn country, has a similar struggle with homelessness as Molly, but from a different situation which is just as upsetting & difficult. But the chemistry & fun they have together, as well as the tears they share, are heartbreaking.

But this film is not perfect, and part of the difficulty I had with it was due to one mainly crazy decision which I will not reveal, which is made by Molly early on, which not even her children wanted her to do. I do absolutely accept & recognise that this is the film showing that, when you put desperate people under unbearable pressure, they will make decisions which are sometimes stupid. But I did feel that there was also an element of the script in that moment doing a lot of heavy lifting for Molly's extremely poor behaviour.

But there is incredibly acting & film production here. Sterling is a ferocious & amazing talent, making Molly someone who you genuinely root for, matched toe-to-toe by Ahmed's beaming and wonderful Amina. The film is also extremely tightly-edited and paced.

Whilst this is a difficult watch, it is also a film I highly recommend

This film is phenomenal. It is, like The Substance and The Wrestler, a film which takes the pop-culture baggage of a once-A list star whose light has since faded, then uses it to create a deeply personal and highly emotional portrayal of someone who has either reached a dead end in their life, or is brutally sidelined due to factors outside of their control (usually age.) And even with those who didn't really grow up with the knowledge of who they were (I was 7 when the infamous sex tape was leaked,) I still knew these references with regards to Anderson.

But what peaked my interest most in The Last Showgirl, apart from my love of both Substance & Wrestler, as well as the multiple glowing reviews, was something which I always come back to: I adore small films which, with an amazing script & actors, make a mockery of projects with 100 times the budget which are total rubbish. In the last 10 years, I can think of 50 films with a combined budget of the GDP of a small country, which cannot hold a candle to Trainspotting, London to Brighton or I Swear (which had budgets which wouldn't even cover one of the big film's marketing.)

Shelly (Anderson,) is a Vegas showgirl at Le Razzle Dazzle, an iconic revue, where she has appeared for over 30 years. She has poured her whole life & every fibre of her being into her career, neglecting her family/relationships. Then Eddie (Bautista,) the stage manager, drops the bombshell that the revue will be closing in 2 weeks due to declining ticket sales, leaving Shelly (as an older woman,) struggling with not only the loss of the show but also what she will do career-wise to keep the money coming in. Alongside this, her estranged daughter comes back into her life, with Shelly desperately trying to make up for the time lost.

I adored this film. Loved every single second of it. Not one moment felt false/didn't ring true, never was I anything other than totally engrossed in what was happening on screen. The way it was shot, in gorgeous 16mm film, was perfect. The intimate scenes, shot closely, told the story flawlessly. And the performances were revelatory. Whilst Anderson obviously & deservedly got most of the plaudits, Curtis, Lourd & especially Bautista were all incredible.

In the same way that Anderson's image was playfully subverted, Bautista, known for not only his wrestling but also pummeling James Bond to a pulp, is here transformed into a hulking, broken teddy bear. Eddie is a genuinely gentle man but also someone filled with guilt over many of his decisions, as well as the regrets of people left behind, a mirror image of Shelly. And his performance not only perfectly compliments hers, but is also genuinely good acting. Another great thing about small films is that there is no CGI/digital trickery to hide behind, so amazing acting shines through.

Another thing that profoundly moved me was Shelly's genuine love & respect for her work. Many people, including her own daughter, dismiss her career as being one chess piece move away from a stripper. But Shelly really believes in & tragically continues to fight for the final pieces of the life that is slipping away from her, and which no amount of effort can stop. It is genuinely sad to see her being pushed to the sidelines, no more so than in a tacky audition where she is told by a director that she is past it in the most dehumanising way.

But don't for a second think that this movie descends into a syrupy schmaltzy pity-party. Shelly & her colleagues, alongside the wonderfully acid-tongued Annette (Curtis) wholeheartedly support each other. The script also doesn't shy away from showing the negative side of Shelly, with a couple of scenes of her either at her wits end or just being difficult. But you never lose your love and warmth towards her.

This film is amazing. I loved it and I genuinely hope Anderson is offered more roles in the future to showcase her amazing talent.

The curse of the video game adapted into film/TV series is a cliché that is 30+ years old. Some of the most barrell-scrapingly bad & atrocious films ever made are adaptations or inspired by video games, which were themselves amazing but only worked well within that gaming world. The moment you tried to transplant it onto the big/small screen, the magic was lost & you ended up just watching a poorly-made facsimile, wishing you were playing the actual game instead. There was, of the ones I've seen, only 1 of these adaptations that I really enjoyed, which was the 1st Hitman with Timothy Olyphant. It managed to, mainly through casting as well as some great action scenes, buck the trend of terrible films.

So when it was announced that The Last of Us, one of the most beloved games of the last few years, was going to be brought to the small screen, there was the understandable nerves, as well as the usual outcry when certain fan-favourite actors were not chosen (I have never followed this way of thinking, remembering the bile that was hurled at Daniel Craig when he was cast as 007.) But there were also extremely encouraging choices, the main ones being that HBO were financing it, so the budgets would mean the world could be fully realised, as well as making both the creator of the game as well as the man responsible for Chernobyl (another incredible HBO series,) showrunners. And the result is flawless.

Joel (Pascal,) is a burnt-out, emotionally destroyed man who in the first episode loses his daughter as the outbreak of a deadly fungal infection turns people into zombies. He is then tasked with transporting a difficult & challenging teenage girl, Ellie (Ramsey,) across America due to her potential of creating a cure for this deadly disease. Whilst at first the two clash, eventually they begin to trust & bond with each other as they struggle to reach the medical facilities.

Everything in this series is perfect. And this extends to decisions which you may think would cause uproar amongst the fan base or annoyance for fans of the game like me. Certain storylines are changed or significantly cut down; characters are excised completely or their story arc completely changed; significant events in the game are gone from the show, replaced instead with new characters. I mean the list goes on. But it all works perfectly.

Mentioning characters whose story arcs are changed completely, the best episode without question is the story of Bill. A minor character in the game and whose presence in that is thankfully limited (there is only so long you can be around a conspiracy theorist, unstable nutjob before they really start to grate;) in the TV series, he becomes a fully-rounded, vulnerable & extremely interesting character. The relationship he has with Frank is the beating heart of this series.

As Joel, Pascal is again incredible casting. His chemistry with Ramsey, who has the almost-impossible task of playing a precocious, teenage girl with an attitude the size of an ocean, is amazing. You can tell the deep bond they had & have in real life.

But there is also for me another reason why this series hits so hard: the world was emerging out of the COVID pandemic, so the number of parallels here mirrored what we as a people were coming out of. And you could feel the influence & impact of the mental exhaustion/fear that so many had which was expressed through The Last Of Us.

I have not played the 2nd game as yet, so will not watch the second series until I have done. But the impact this 1st series has had on me is profound. This is the absolute peak & cutting edge of incredible TV drama, taking the amazing source material of a game and turning it into an emotional rollercoaster which makes you laugh, cry and root for these characters every single step of the way.

In other words, what great cinema/TV can do to you

When I was 7, Robbie Williams left Take That. I was not a fan of their music, or even properly remembered the event happening. But it was the start of a lifelong admiration & reverence for not only Robbie's music, but also what the lyrics he wrote meant to me. He was vulnerable, open & honest at a time when most artists were emphatically not, sometimes brutally so towards himself. And he is a genuinely Marmite individual, some people absolutely detesting the arrogance, swagger & braggadociousness.

For me, that side never really bothered me, because I could always see that, behind the phenomenal showman that he is, he is a real person struggling with his own demons. Better Man is a hyper-stylised biopic which takes his life story & injects into it a fantasy element, such as Williams being portrayed as a monkey (he has stated many times that considers himself to be a performing monkey when he is on stage.) That the film manages to pull this off is in itself incredible, but there is an amazing story which elevates this high above most clichéd & dull biopics.

We follow Williams as he goes from a child in awe of his father's cabaret act, through to the teenager who is being raised by a single mother, and the start of his career in one of the most successful boy bands this country has ever produced. The film also does not shy away from showing not only Williams's descent into drink & drug addiction, but also his extremely difficult behaviour/mood swings, which alienates everyone around him and is constantly threatening to destroy not only his career but also his life.

Something which was featured in pretty much every review of this film was that you had never seen anything quite like it before. And whilst that might sound both strange & ludicrous, it is absolutely true: you really haven't seen anything like this. Sadly, due to this film absolutely tanking at the box office and becoming one of the biggest bombs of all time, it is highly unlikely we are ever going to see anything like this again, outside of the occasional big-budget streaming project.

The centerpiece of this brilliant madness is Robbie's gig at Knebworth, which turns from a triumph into a version of hell inside his own head, taking the form of a mad gladiatorial fight-to-the-death between him & his demons. You sit there, slightly dumbfounded but also laughing as this crazy film just keeps upping the madness. The drug-induced stupors are also horrible in their rawness, in particular the destruction of his relationship with Nicole Appleton. And as I mentioned earlier, in no way are Williams's actions sanitised or watered-down. His behaviour is abhorrent, cruel & selfish. And the film becomes all the more emotional for showing this.

However, despite my huge reverence for Robbie, this film isn't the home run I'd expected it to be. The storyline often meanders, and whilst huge amounts of his life story is left out, there is at least 15 minutes which could have been cut. As much as I appreciated the care taken to illustrate Robbie's early life, I feel it could have been done just as efficiently with some select cuts.

But this is still an emotional hammer blow of a film. It is impossible not to be moved seeing the young Robbie struggling after his father walks out on him to chase his dream of stardom, through the hell of his addictions then the loss of a significant family member who he cast to the side whilst pursuing his vices & career.

A powerful film with an incredible soundtrack

P.T Anderson is someone whose work I have watched for years. He never makes a boring film, in the sense that all his work is in its own ways highly idiosyncratic & unique. And I am endlessly grateful, which is a running theme throughout my reviews, for the people/media which is different from the relentlessly churned-out crap which is released mainly by the big studios. And you could never accuse Anderson of making anything close to that. Whilst I have loved some of his films (Punch-Drunk Love & There Will Be Blood spring immediately to mind,) I have also been indifferent towards other stuff of his (for all it's great content, The Master was far too long, and multiple reviews stated that Inherent Vice was all but unwatchable.)

One Battle After Another I actually saw in 70mm IMAX, such was the hype around it. And when I saw it the first time, despite liking certain elements of it, I was actually fairly indifferent, mainly due to trying to keep track of the multiple strands around resistances & political movements. However, as confirmed by my star rating, my 2nd viewing was far more fulfilling. And I do genuinely like it, despite still having some reservations.

For me, the supporting characters absolutely stole the show. Teyana Taylor & Sean Penn were absolutely brilliant, throwing themselves headlong into this crazy world. The scenes they shared (sadly all too brief,) were amazing. I also really liked Chase Infinity as well. She manages to do something which so many before her totally fail at: not make a precocious teenager so annoying you cannot stand it when they are on screen.

Music-wise, unsurprisingly Anderson has again reteamed with Jonny Greenwood, who has an ability to make some of the most memorable & brilliant scores imaginable. Although nothing comes close to 'Blood's soundtrack, the tracks here perfectly compliment the action on screen.

Not for the first time, as much as he wasn't "bad," Di Caprio for me was the weakest link in this film. He throws himself in with passion and commitment, but like with Gangs of New York, he just didn't click for me. It is yet another role which Christian Bale or Ewan McGregor would have absolutely made their own.

For many people, this film is a masterpiece. And I also feel that as I watch it again (which I fully intend to do,) I may have a renewed appreciation for it. But whilst it is very good, it is by no means the landmark piece of cinema many reviewers proclaimed it to be. But I am endlessly grateful that geniuses like Anderson are given massive budgets to make the crazy & incredible art that seems to spring so effortlessly from their creativity.

The Girl... film series, when the originals were first released, was a trailblazer in terms of its impact and success as part of the Scandinavian stories which dominated the media in the late 2000's, alongside dramas such as The Killing and Wallander. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was the first of these films, which not only attracted rave reviews but also did extremely good business at the box office. I tried to watch it at the time of release, however the long runtime, alongside only watching about 30 minutes of it before getting bored, meant I left it until now to try again. And whilst it has flashes of genius as well as committed performances, it was not the masterpiece it had been reviewed as, including by Cinema Paradiso's own critic.

As the film begins, we are introduced to Mikael Blomkvist, a idiosyncratic & determined journalist who has just lost a significant libel case against a corrupt businessman. Alongside the fine, Blomkvist is sentenced to time in prison, but in the gap between the end of the trial & beginning of his incarceration, he is hired by Henrik, the head of the Vanger business empire, to investigate the disappearance/potential murder of his niece Harriet. In the background, a mysterious hacker called Lisbeth Salander is circling both Blomkvist and the case, with the 2 ending up working together to solve the mystery.

One of the most notable things about this film is it's extremely violent content. Unlike many thriller films which insinuate darkness & brutality but are actually quite mild, there are a couple of scenes of extreme violence, particularly towards women, which are extremely distressing. And whilst this is not gratuitous, it remains deeply shocking as well as setting the tone for what will come.

The story itself is suitably intriguing, including some genuine bluffs and rug-pulls which kept me guessing. There are also a couple of good action scenes as well.

Rapace & Michael Nyqvist share excellent chemistry, as well as a believable working partnership. You do see how two people from polar-opposite backgrounds can come together to work, as well as in some ways helping each other out with the difficulties and demons they both share. The supporting actors are also very good, especially the more disgusting members of the Vanger family.

But I found the film overall extremely long plus there were some strange issues, the main one being the way it looked. The Scandinavian countries are known for their incredible beauty & nature. But the film is shot quite poorly, including using a bleached-out colour palette which doesn't look particularly good on the screen.

I did want to like this film more, however it didn't have the impact that I was expecting. I do plan to watch the David Fincher remake, as I feel it may right some of the wrongs of this film and has mercifully not toned down the content

Flow was a film which, from the second I heard about it, was garlanded with praise and 5-star reviews. It was called a masterpiece, with praise especially for the fact it was created by a small team of Latvian, Belgian & French animators with a minimal budget on free-to-use software. This was then solidified when it won the Oscar for Best Animated Film. After seeing all of these achievements, as well as always being interested in small-budget films, I rented it. And whilst I absolutely give it credit for its storytelling, it is by no means the home run which it has been portrayed as.

Flow (which has no dialogue, features no humans and only has the noises of the animals portrayed,) follows a black cat who lives a basic and easy life within the forest. It has a warm bed to sleep on at night and, despite us never glimpsing its owner, seems well-fed and cared for. One day, whilst out walking, it is caught in the middle of a natural disaster and swept away by a catastrophic tsunami which throws the feline together with a number of other animals including a lemur, golden retriever and secretarybird. Despite the clash between them, they end up on a large boat navigating the terrain together.

In terms of originality, there is not much of it to be found here. An animated story featuring a group of animals working together is almost as old as time. There is however good work in showing the audience, through the basic reactions of the animals, the lowering of guards as well as starting to trust and work together. As someone who also loves cats, I felt that the animation captured the attitude of cats well, with our furry protagonist going from playful to angry to scared to curious seamlessly. Music-wise, there is a basic score which compliments the action well.

I think one of the reasons why this film was reviewed & awarded so highly was due to its comments on global warming and rising sea levels. The way this is done, showing the affects on animals, not humans, speaks to a different part of ourselves. And the scenes of the animals fighting against and battling the awesome power of nature are absolutely moving. But for me, it just didn’t have the impact that say The Day After Tomorrow did.

I absolutely give it credit for its simple story, but it is no more than a 3 star film for me.

Elephant is a film which, in terms of how it is shot and viewed, will no doubt divide people, as well as the built-in expectations viewers will have due it's inspiration from the Columbine Killings. For many, it is an extremely boring film, full of slow tracking shots, which takes place in and around a school and filled with sometimes extremely strangely behaving characters. For others, it is an intense pot-boiler which uses the dullness & monotony of an ordinary day to ratchet up the tension, with the knowledge of the horror which will be unleashed.

But Elephant is also unique because of the massive split in the critical reception to it, as well as it's totally left-field Palmé Dor win. I remember being shown it in Media Studies and my teacher expressing surprise that a film like this had attracted this type of award for what was almost a TV movie. It's power is undeniable, but that doesn't mean it's a good film...

We follow the lives of several teenagers at a school in Portland, Oregon. They are going through the usual struggles & worries that young adults of their ages go through (weight, relationships, what they will do when they graduate;) and everything is painfully ordinary. Then, 2 of the pupils turn up with bombs & guns, beginning a massacre which will change everyone's lives forever.

The film itself is in many ways an updated remake of the identically named Alan Clarke short film about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, including the long tracking shots & sparse dialogue. Clarke's film was and is a piece of genius filmmaking, a visceral scream of anger against the anonymous violence which was targeted against the population of Northern Ireland. However, the same cannot be said for Van Sant's film, for one very simple reason: it's runtime.

Clarke's film is a 38 minute masterpiece, which perfectly suits it's structure & pacing. It doesn't go on a second longer than it needs to, not losing any of its impact with unnecessary bloat. Van Sant somehow stretches his film out to nearly THREE TIMES that, so you end up watching extremely protracted footage of kids walking down hallways and around a dull school building. However, I also did appreciate some of the merits in this approach, because when the shooting happens, it really is unpleasant & visceral.

Performance-wise, no-one was really memorable. The teenagers in no way look like your typical school kids, more like the cast for an episode of America's Next Top Model. As much as the film is about the monotony of the ordinary life, there has to be something interesting in it...

Van Sant also fills the film with random & sometimes provocative ideas, the strangest of these being the gay subtext between the killers, which immediately created controversy due to there being no evidence in any way of this being the case with the Columbine killers. I feel this was more Van Sant deliberately putting this in, knowing the backlash it would create.

Your enjoyment, if you can call it that, depends entirely on your patience with the way it is made. I can say with absolute certainty that if I hadn't been made to watch it in class, there is no way I'd have got through it, probably switching it off within about 40 minutes. And there is an irony in that time, which I use as a yardstick when watching any film I don't engage with, in that that was the length of the original Elephant.

If you have the patience, it's an interesting watch, but definitely check out Alan Clarke's masterpiece.

Recently, I wrote a review for the Gus Van Sant film Elephant, which was loosely inspired by the Columbine High School massacre. The film attracted controversy as well as praise, including somehow winning the Palmé Dor, which many people including myself were staggered by, seeing as it was at best a 3 star film. But it also reminded me of the original short film that it was based on/copied many of the elements of, which was seared into my memory when I first saw it and has stayed with me ever since.

The film looks at the random killings of innocent people by terrorists. We follow unnamed gunmen as they arrive at a location, search for their unnamed target, execute them in cold blood, then casually walk away. This is repeated many times over the course of it's 38 minutes. We learn nothing of who the victims are, what they have done, or why they needed to be executed.

When you first start watching it, with no real idea what it is about, you could have any number of reactions (shock, horror, confusion, perplexity ect.) But as it slowly goes on, you find yourself quietly horrified by every element of it. This is killing as it is in the real world: no special effects, no soundtrack, no glamorous protagonist saying a witty line. Ordinary men in casual clothes turn up to their targets workplace to end their lives without a second thought.

When it was first broadcast, it provoked a firestorm of controversy, from a general public who mainly saw the Troubles through the lens of the news media. They had never been confronted with something which was so basic and yet so brutal. In the world today, we have in many ways become completely desensitised to violence, as it is such an integral part of the media we consume (films, TV series, games, footage from war zones shown on social media platforms.) But in 1989, this was something which almost no-one in ordinary life had experienced.

For me, despite being released decades ago, it has not lost a miniscule of its power. It is a piece of media which has a ferocious & visceral anger behind it, which is a direct influence of its title, referring to the elephant in the room that no-one talks about but everyone can see. Between 3,500-4,000 people lost their lives due to violence in the Troubles. And this film was, in it's simplicity, one of the strongest pieces of media released at that time which showed the murders in all their horror.

Magnificent & electrifying filmmaking

I first saw Panic Room 15+ years ago and remember being gripped by it's astounding cinematography (including multiple incredible camera moves & tracking shots, gliding around the townhouse as light as a feather,) as well as a multitude of incredible performances from Foster, Stewart, Whittaker ect, all flawlessly marshalled by David Fincher's perfect direction. I saw it had recently been remastered in 4K, so put it on my rental list. And in many ways it is as good as I remembered.

Meg (Foster) is in the middle of a messy & ugly divorce. When we first meet her, she is shopping for property around NYC with her precocious daughter Sarah (Stewart,) buying close to her ex-husband due to shared custody. She is shown a massive multi-floored townhouse which has a unique addition: a panic room which enables the occupants to shelter inside, completely cut off from the outside world. On their first night after moving in, a trio of burglars break in, determined to access something inside the panic room. A frantic game of cat-and-mouse then ensues after Meg & Sarah manage to take refuse inside the panic room...

As much as this film has an excellent script and performances, for me the production values are the biggest star here. Every single element of that is perfect. The sets, lighting, cinematography, sound, literally everything is exactly what you'd expect from a Fincher film: flawless perfection. As mentioned earlier, the camera is effectively another character, following the action, going through walls and doors, with no limit on its reach.

Performance-wise, Foster is given yet another incredibly strong female character to inhabit. From the opening shots of her trying to hold her life together after the break-up from hell and crying silently in the bathroom, through to her metamorphosis as an unstoppable & avenging mother, she is amazing. Stewart, in one of her 1st roles, matches her toe-to-toe, never for one second making Sarah the sort of hideous, foot-stamping brat that it could so easily have become. The pairing of them is outstanding casting. Similar kudos must go to Whittaker & Yoakam.

One of the best parts of the film is the ingenuity & thinking of both Meg and Sarah, as well as the burglars. The script allows for plenty of moments of lateral thinking, as well as giving the intruders a large amount of common sense, again something that is rare in Hollywood productions (I have lost count of the number of supposedly intelligent/experienced characters who act so stupid you wonder how they dress themselves.) There is also a nerve-wracking montage when one of the characters suffers a medical emergency.

The only real fly in the ointment is Jared Leto. As much as Junior is written as an immature & feckless idiot who thinks he can run the show despite being massively out of his depth, Leto makes him both unrealistic & extremely irritating. It is a moot point on an otherwise incredibly gripping film.

Alongside the rug pulls and double-crosses, the ending manages to both live up to the incredible build-up and be a satisfying resolution.

This is a perfect Friday night film, which will slowly grip you, as well as make you consider whether you might need a panic room yourself. Just make sure you hook up the phone if you get one...

A Real Pain was a film which I heard the critical buzz about from the moment it was first premiered, mainly due to Kieran Culkin's performance, which saw him collect literally every single award it was possible to be nominated for. But I had no great interest in seeing the film until it started to appear on multiple best-of year lists. And despite some reservations, I really enjoyed & was profoundly moved by it.

David and Benji are Jewish cousins who have lost touch in recent years, despite before being close. Whilst David has followed the standard career/life path, working in a good job & having a family, Benji has led a scatter shot & almost nomadic life, which is partly due to his erratic & unpredictable behaviour. When their grandmother, who survived the Nazi occupation of Poland & escaped to America dies, she leaves in her will the money for the 2 to travel to her hometown, as well as seeing the concentration camp she was held in. It is also a chance for the 2 men to spend time in each other's company, confronting the pain they both have.

Whilst Culkin's performance is what most people will remember, the film itself is exceptionally well-made. Eisenberg, who not only stars but also wrote & directed, has created a genuinely impactful film, which at its core is also the best thing about it: an extremely simple, stripped-back story about the pain & difficulties 2 men in the present day feel, contrasted with the horror that their relations had to endure simply to live. There are no fancy filmmaking tricks here, no flashy special effects. Even the soundtrack is mainly delicately played piano pieces which perfectly compliment the story.

Speaking of Eisenberg, this is amusingly the 1st performance of his that I've seen (and I haven't seen that many,) that I could tolerate and actually really liked. Unlike in Batman V Superman, where he was literally insufferable, David is a profoundly decent man who has many of his own demons that he has numbed & never properly dealt with. He sees the trip as not only a way to break out of his life, but also to try & understand his cousin after his own traumas.

But Culkin is the real star here. Benji is a completely unpredictable man, who whilst he can be extremely annoying, is also a deeply moral & caring person. Much of this is down to the fact that Culkin was allowed to extensively improvise, creating not only many of Benji's idiosyncrasies, but also dialogue as well. And make no mistake, there were times that I genuinely didn't like him. I did feel, despite the film really being well-written, that Benji was full of hypocrisies that the script conveniently ignored. So he would have a meltdown about one particular thing, which was legitimate & justified in the context, but then a few scenes later be perfectly happy with putting himself in the same situation which before was intolerable to him.

But the film also goes to places you would never expect. We are shown around the actual Majdanek camp, with it being the first time they allowed a film crew to shoot there. And after the humour & uncomfortableness which had preceded this, the actual time inside the camp was absolutely heartbreaking. Eisenberg handles the scenes with complete dignity & respect. And the chats between David and Benji also reveal the deep traumas which they are both grappling with.

This film stays with you. It is a staggering, powerful achievement for a movie with a small budget shot entirely in Poland. And it also manages to make a film about the Holocaust not only deeply moving, but also funny.

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.