Film Reviews by Timmy B

I had some basic knowledge of the events of the 1972 Summer Olympics, due to attempting to view the Steve Spielberg film Munich many years ago, which I found unwatchable, but may try again after seeing this. It was a terrorist attack which not only inflamed the conflict between Isreal & Palestine, but also, as referenced by one of the characters relatively early on, this was one of the first world events of post-war Germany. And the fact that the hostages were Jewish/the Israeli team really rubbed salt into the wound. But this film manages, with a relatively small budget, to make the event not only gripping watching, but to humanise many of the people caught up in it on both sides of the camera.

The ABC sports team are overseeing the 1972 Olympic games, which is being broadcast live for the 1st time. One of the overriding themes of the coverage is the fact that this is the first time West Germany has hosted the games and welcomed people from all over the world for the Olympics. We witness the usual editorial decisions and debate about what to show/how the footage is broadcast. Then in the middle of the night, gunshots are heard from the Olympic Village and it quickly becomes apparent that members of the Israeli team have been taken hostage. This then becomes a tense stand-off between the terrorists and negotiators, whilst being broadcast live all around the world (the 1st time an unfolding terrorist situation had been seen in this way.) We then follow the Sport team as they attempt to handle this broadcast.

In terms of storyline, it is an extremely tightly-scripted and engrossing piece. One point which was made a few times which only added to the tension was the fact the presenters/crew were not news journalists in any way, shape or form. They had only ever reported on sporting events and had no experience with this type of unfolding situation before. This made the decisions they took and the live feed they produced even more impressive. I also liked the fact, even though it was probably due to the budget size than a deliberate choice, that there were no well-known/A-List stars in this film. So the actors I saw came with no baggage/previous roles, but were simply the characters I saw on screen.

As the hostage situation goes on, you watch as the journalists come up with ever-more ingenious ways to report back/get supplies into the Village, which is sealed off by the police. In one amusing moment, a runner is able to don a disguise that not only works, but you also watch the live footage of them gaining access. Many of the people involved are also either extremely junior or have never done this sort of thing before. Our sort-of protagonist, Geoffrey Mason, is basically given free reign over running the broadcasting control room, making many of the big calls, despite his lack of experience. And the docu-drama is also very good at making us as the audience feel the enormous pressure that everyone in that situation felt on that day to ensure that the facts were told and the world shown this horrific event.

I mentioned in my title that it stands alongside the best of Paul Greengrass's work. I do feel that, as with pretty much anything he does, that if he had tackled this, the results would have been sensational. But I never lose sight of the fact that he would have been able to command an enormous budget as well as A-List actors for the roles. September 5 is a film which, with the budget it has, tells an extremely compelling & detailed story, using a group of excellent actors as well as clever use of the mainly single location within the control room.

Gripping entertainment

Chris McCandless is a young man who, when we first meet him, is graduating from university. He is an extremely clever, erudite & motivated man who is also totally disillusioned with pretty much every element of life in general. Despite the offer of a place at Harvard to study law, he decides, no doubt heavily influenced by the multiple classic novels he has read, to sell all of his possessions, break off contact with his family and live off the land. And the eventual goal, which he repeatedly refers to, is to trek to/survive in the extremes of Alaska. The film looks at not only his travels, but the key life events that shaped him.

First, the good stuff. It is no surprise that Sean Penn is an incredible director in terms of the way he builds characters, shoots locations (there is amazing cinematography) and sets scenes. Even characters who we only meet for a few minutes make an impression. The soundtrack by Eddie Vedder also perfectly compliments the film. In terms of actors, whether it is seasoned pros like Catherine Keener or Hal Holbrook, the scenes they are in elevate the material. But that's pretty much where the good stuff ends...

The biggest issue I had with this film was the total, almost sycophantic reverence it has towards McCandless, in pretty much every element of his actions. It starts off questionably, with McCandless at first emptying his bank account to a charity to "feed the poor" (which is of course a noble thing to do & actually someone actively trying to make a difference,) but then a couple of scenes later shows him burning the rest of the money he is carrying with glee. And his actions just become slowly more idiotic & vomit-inducing as the film goes on.

This is a man who, despite being genuinely intelligent, seems to have almost zero common sense, especially when he gets out into the Alaskan wilderness. His preparation for surviving (let alone attempting to live,) in one of the most inhospitable US states, is to read a book on what type of plants can be eaten, buying some extremely basic camping equipment and begrudgingly accepting supplies gifted to him by people who look on with a mixture of bewilderment & horror at the situation he is charging head-first into.

And at one point in the film, I remembered that when recruits go through military selection, their training on living out in the wild lasts for months with proper equipment & highly experienced soldiers supporting them... McCandless did absolutely none of this. What he did instead, which the movie romanticises, was to have this obstinate, uncompromising utopian fantasy that as soon as he got out into the wilderness and left every single element of modern life behind, things would be perfect...

But instead, despite some good experiences he had, he not only made his life needlessly difficult, but in the words of one of the park rangers "He didn't even have a proper map of the area. Essentially, he committed suicide..." In metaphorical terms, it is like watching someone in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean throwing all their supplies/food overboard, then drilling holes in the hull with a gleeful smile on their face, whilst the filmmakers look on with reverence and awe.

By the end of the film, which inevitably was only going to end one way, I felt zero sympathy for Chris McCandless, as well as significant contempt. This was a man who the film repeatedly held up as some kind of inspirational sage & adventurer, but in reality was simply someone locked into a utopian delusion which rejected anything which didn't conform to this rigid ideology. And that last sentence is what makes the whole thing so stupid: if he had thrown himself with as much determination into proper military-style training, listened to advice, laid out a workable plan & got the right equipment, he could probably have lived out his fantasy with some success.

Instead, his stupidity cost him his life...

The "one-location" film is a genre which, when done correctly, brings stunning results & iconic stories whilst keeping budgets to an absolute minimum. It is in many ways the touchstone of serious talent. One of the most obvious/famous examples is Reservoir Dogs which, aside from a few establishing scenes, takes place inside a disused warehouse; but a more recent example such as Locke also got massive plaudits. However, in order to pull off this type of story, you need to have an incredibly tight and engrossing script, as well as excellent acting & set pieces. And unfortunately, The Surfer is a film which absolutely tries it's best within the confines of this format, but very quickly starts to become clichéd and monotonous.

The Surfer (his name is never given,) is a moderately wealthy investment banker who returns to his childhood home of Luna Bay in Australia. He is absolutely determined to secure the house he grew up in overlooking the beach, getting himself into serious debt to achieve this. However, his presence, as well as that of his son & other tourists, is met with increasing hostility and threats from the locals. However The Surfer refuses to be intimidated or give up, forcing a battle of wills against the locals, led by the charismatic Scally.

The biggest issue I had with this film was quite simply how clichéd & predictable it was, pretty much from the opening 5 minutes onwards. We see The Surfer being threatened, everyone from the neighbourhood acting exactly the same way. Then his life starts to fall to pieces, stuff gets stolen from him, he confronts the antagonist ect ect. I started to get a mental checklist in my head, wondering when each of the plot points was going to get hit. And it just became really quite trite.

The film also attempts to use present-day influences to make it feel current, the most blatant of which is to make Scally an Andrew Tate-like monstrosity, producing endless social media reels/vox-pops about masculinity. This has been done repeatedly, by many different types of media, and it just prompted an eye-roll, a resigned sigh and a wish that the writer/director had actually attempted to do something original.

The only real plus point, and hence why this film gets 2 stars and not 1, is that Cage is weirdly watchable for the length of time that I played it before getting bored. There is something admirable about his almost unflappable protagonist as more and more unpleasant stuff happens to him. And even though it wasn't enough to sustain me all the way through, it did make an impression on me.

Bringing Out The Dead is an extremely strange beast. It is in many ways a weird cousin of Taxi Driver, not only in it's strange, desperately-seeking-meaning protagonist (imagine if Travis Bickle was slightly more mentally stable & trained as a paramedic after being honourably discharged;) but also the idiosyncratic segways that the film lurches into, as well as a vehicle being the critical thing driving the plot forward (in this case an ambulance.) You can see in an instant why Scorsese was attracted to the material, as well as the chance to reunite with Paul Schrader. But the results for me were in no way the home run you'd expect.

Frank Pierce (Cage) is a burnt-out, mentally depleted paramedic who is based in Manhattan, mainly working the graveyard shifts. In his 5-year career, he has experienced every horrendous situation you can imagine, as well as losing huge numbers of people (who would never have been able to be brought back anyways.) One patient in particular has started to relentlessly haunt him, a young woman called Rose who he was not able to save and blamed himself for. Over the course of 48 hours, we witness Frank's slow descent into oblivion, as well as his desperation to find a meaningful connection with Mary, the daughter of a patient Frank is called to.

As much as there is the incredible imagery which was started in Taxi Driver & continued on here, as well as amazing performances from not only Cage but Rhames, Sizemore and Arquette, I was never completely taken in with the story. In a very strange sense, I mostly felt like I was an outsider, looking in on the story and never fully engaged with it. Normally with a Scorsese film, you are transfixed and taken in within the first few frames, even if I don't end up liking the film overall (Wolf of Wall Street being one example.) But not for one second did I have that with this.

There was plenty of religious imagery, as well as certain scenes which gently reminded you that Scorsese was originally going to become a priest before he stepped behind the camera. But never was I fully engaged with what was on screen. And in another interesting way, it is in no way the fault of the actors. Cage really did look like a man who was on the edge of a mental breakdown, as well as not having had sleep for days (the bags under his eyes bulging out & becoming more prominent as the time ticked on.) Ving Rhames was another highlight, his cigar-chewing religious paramedic a brilliant foil for some of the people they meet out on the streets.

But when the credits eventually rolled, as much as I'd enjoyed the journey, hence my 3 stars, it wasn't a film which stayed with me, which is even more crazy considering the breadth of talent involved both behind and in front of the camera. I never thought I'd see myself writing this, but Martin Scorsese has made a film which is mediocre...

Catherine Breillat is, by any stretch, an extremely interesting and highly provocative filmmaker. From her initial works, she has been totally unafraid & fearless, especially when it comes to depictions of sexuality and nudity. Alongside this, she has also been involved in a well-publicised scandal concerning an actress alleging sexual assault. So, in no way is she a shrinking violet, especially considering the pressures & difficulties female filmmakers face before a roll of film has even been shot. Comparisons of Gaspar Noë can be made in many ways, which I absolutely say in a complimentary sense.

I had only seen one of her films, Brief Crossing, which I did enjoy, despite the avalanche of bile/man-bashing, which did become quite grating after a while. But this film was one recommended by Cinema Paradiso, so I added it to my list, curious not only by it's description but also it's title.

Jeanne (a facsimile in many ways of Breillat,) is a female film director who is in the final stages of a contentious & difficult film shoot. Her lead actress is an 18-year-old on her first film, who is working to an extremely strict contract regarding intimacy (which in a pre #Me-Too setting is ironically great to see, considering what we now know...) The lead actor is a petulant, eye-watering narcissist who makes unreasonable/idiotic demands and vanishes from the set with no explanation. And this situation is further complicated by the fact that the two of them cannot stand each other, so trying to shoot the final sex scene becomes battle of wills and egos.

Anyone expecting this to be a comedy will be left sorely disappointed (I think that the film's title is a deliberate rug-pull by Breillat,) although there are some extremely amusing scenes, particularly involving the ridiculously large prosthetic penis which has been made for the lead actor. For me, this film is much more interesting because of the various difficulties that the director faces in trying to realise her vision, whilst working within the constraints that are acting like a straight-jacket on her.

As someone who loves and is fascinated by films & their production, seeing behind the curtain was an extremely interesting experience. It also confirmed something that I had heard in interviews with casts/crew: the shooting of sex scenes is without doubt the most un-eroctic thing imaginable, having to act in a room full of people looking at you whilst the director shouts commands from behind a monitor.

The film is sometimes slow going, and Breillat indulges in her love of making her characters at times spew vast amounts of word salads & paraprosdokians. But I also empathised massively with Jeanne, who is shown as being a fully-rounded and believable individual. She has to be all things to the different members of the cast & crew: director, acting coach, counsellor, producer, set designer, accountant ect. Whilst she comes across at times abrasive, I enjoyed the journey I had with her.

She also had the patience of a saint when dealing with the lead actor, who has one of the most punchable faces & revolting attitudes imaginable. A man who has good looks but also rides on the coattails of his famous father, he is every bit the sanctimonious nepo-baby you picture when the term is said.

If you are a fan of Breillat, there is much to like here, especially the frank depictions of sexuality and the ways different people see sex scenes. But for others like myself, it is an interesting peek behind the curtain of the difficulties of filmmaking.

Last year, I watched The Worst Person in the World, a beautiful musing on a young vivacious woman deciding to change her life and following the different relationships that she pursued. I really enjoyed the film and when I saw it was part of Joachim Trier's Oslo trilogy, I was curious to look at the other parts of it. However, whilst there was some naval gazing in Worst Person, in Oslo, August 31st, the vast sections of awkward dialogue & boring silences many times completely suffocate the film's pace/structure.

Anders (Danielson Lie,) is a thirty something man who we first meet awakening from a one night stand with an old girlfriend. After a failed suicide attempt, we then learn he is in rehab for various addictions. On August 30th, he is given a day's release to go into Oslo for a job interview. We follow him as he meets with old friends, attends the interview and tries to make peace with many of the people whom he hurt.

One of the most frustrating things about Oslo, August 31st is that it has moments of genuine, deeply moving emotion & acting. Early on, Anders goes to meet Thomas, an old friend with whom massive quantities of narcotics and alcohol were consumed many years ago. And their conversations about the good times before everything went wrong, through to the difficulties that they deal with today (Anders with his addictions/recovery; Thomas the realisation that his life is now relatively empty & dull now that he has family commitments and a loveless marriage,) are powerful and saddening. The old adage "You don't care about time, but then you realise time doesn't care about you..." repeatedly crossed my mind, watching these two estranged friends who are both young and old simultaneously.

There is also an extremely moving scene where Anders goes for a job interview, which is a requirement of his recovery. And it is clear he has journalistic talent as the manager looks through his portfolio. But the feelings of not only worthlessness but also imposter syndrome are so great, they tear Anders apart. The emotions that Lie shows here are superb & heartbreaking.

But the narrative too often gets bogged down with not only naval-gazing but also random montages. And as much as there are moving scenes with Anders fighting with the poison of dependency, there are many other scenes of him being either petulant or straight-up narcissistic. A scene where he is informed that his parents are selling their house in order to fund the eye-wateringly high cost of his rehab is met with pouty surliness, followed by childlike complaining about how his sister got more than he did when they were younger.

As much as this may be seen as an unflinching look at how addiction destroys so much in the sufferer's life, there does have to be a likeable element to them for us to care. And after the early promise, I simply started to dislike everything about Anders: the petulance, the narcissism, the thieving, everything. And the pace of the film doesn't help matters either. Although it has a 90 minute runtime, it felt twice as long. After a while, I simply lost interest in Anders's plight.

And although I won't spoil the ending, it left me with a genuinely foul taste in my mouth: the ultimate act of selfishness & cruelty in the impact it would have to other characters.

For many reviewers, it was a powerful musing of emotion, struggle and the inability to conquer the demons which haunted Anders. But I just found myself not caring and looking at the Blu-Ray player display waiting for it to be over. Yes, the powerful moments stayed with me, but they were few and far between.

The prison drama is one which the British have done sensational work in. Whilst arguably one of the most famous is Scum, recent films including Bronson and Starred Up have provided visceral and searing looks into not just living but surviving inside. And to this incredible roll call, Wasteman rightfully takes it's place. It is a devastating, tightly-paced and at times unbearably tense potboiler, with 2 incredible central performances.

Taylor (Jonsson) has been inside for 13 years. He tries to keep a low profile, although is also reliant on drugs to be able to tolerate the violent & unpredictable prison he is incarcerated in. After his previous cellmate is brutally beaten over a debt, he is informed that he is eligible for early release due to his good behaviour if he enlists in a rehabilitation scheme & continues to stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, he is then given a new cellmate in the form of Dee (Blyth,) a man with a hair-trigger temper, who has been thrown out of a previous prison and is intent on shaking things up, much to the horror of Taylor.

The 2 main things I came away with after watching Wasteman is firstly the incredible performances from Jonsson & Blyth; and secondly how well this film is made, from the amazing way it is able to raise tension & genuinely have you watching between your fingers, especially in the last 20 minutes.

Jonsson is quickly making a name for himself as an incredible actor. The only thing I had seen him in before this was Alien: Romulus (where he was far and away the best part of it,) but his status as an up-and-comer has been steadily building. And his performance in Wasteman is incredible because of how understated but powerful his acting is. Many times when you have 2 opposing performances (one domineering, the other understated,) the theatrical of the 2 totally overpowers and nulls the subtle one, often due to how interesting those over-the-top portrayals can be.

But Jonsson is far too committed & brilliant an actor to be sidelined. We root for Taylor every moment he is on screen, having seen how devastating prison has been for him, both in the depravation of his liberty/being away from his son, as well as living in an environment where violence erupts repeatedly out of nowhere.

And in the opposite corner, Blyth gives a monumental performance as Dee. We first get introduced to him singing "Oh the good life" as he goes to his cell. Within 2 minutes, he has dumped his stuff, stripped naked and asserted his authority, whilst Taylor looks on with a mixture of bewilderment & horror. Dee then sets about asserting his dominance & undercutting the established drug dealers, leading to brutal consequences. Covered in tattoos & stacked to hell, Dee is a walking nightmare, as well as an extremely charming & engrossing anti-hero. The chemistry between him and Jonsson is perfect.

And their performances are complimented by the tight direction & production of the film. The prison is shot as an absolute nightmare hellhole, the mise-en-scene so effective you can almost smell the sweat through the screen. The music and sound are also excellent.

But this drama is not for the faint-hearted. It is a no-holds barred & brutal story, but filled with characters who you can relate to as well as a story arc that genuinely surprises and shocks you with it's twists. You are laughing one minute then cringing the next.

A brilliant British film

Lily O'Connor (Deyn) is a determined, funny & loyal young woman who lives in the North of England. Despite her vivaciousness, she also suffers from epilepsy due to childhood abuse, resulting in repeated debilitating seizures/fits. This condition has meant that she has never left her hometown due to the anxiety of being in a strange place with no-one she knows. One day, one of her brothers gets in touch to tell her their mother has died and left a large inheritance. However, Lily is determined to find her other brother (and protector when she was younger) Mikey, who hasn't been seen for years, to give him his share & bring him back into her life.

Many famous models have become actors, and whilst there has been some terrible work done by them, they have also produced some of the greatest acting performances ever (Charlize Theron in Monster and Halle Berry in Monster's Ball come to mind.) And whilst those were both bravura & risky roles, most actors will ease themselves into acting before tackling something more challenging. However, Agyness Deyn clearly didn't get that memo.

To portray Lily, not only did Deyn do extensive research, but she was also unafraid to be extremely vulnerable, especially in the aftermath of her seizures. We have barely met Lily when we not only see a seizure from her perspective, but also watch as she clears herself up, including the results of toilet accidents. Very quickly it is established this is a film which will pull no punches, which is absolutely to Deyn's and the filmmakers credit.

But it isn't only Deyn's bravery that stuck with me. She also creates a genuinely interesting & dynamic character in Lily, someone who I really enjoyed spending time with. And Lily is also made a fully 3-dimensional character. There is no saccharine & facetious patronisation of her, but neither is she a character whose behaviour gets extremely annoying. We see her early life, including growing up in an abusive home, through to the trauma of being separated from Mikey by child protection services. And you never doubt her drive & desperation to find Mikey again.

But the reason this is a 3 star film is because, despite Deyn's performance, the script is in many ways not very good. Lily's other brother Barry is an extremely irritating, Del-Boy type figure (without the charm,) who acts like an extra out of The Wolf of Wall Street. The overacting, twitchiness and machine gun-like spewing of anecdotes & exposition very quickly start to grate. And the inconsistencies of the story becomes quite annoying at times. One of the other characters, Mel, who rescues Lily and takes her under her wing, is given precious little backstory, which is a shame as she is a genuinely interesting part of the story who I wanted to see more of.

But I did enjoy this film, despite these issues. It is a small-budget film which has an interesting protagonist, takes chances and is never boring.

The main point which needs to be clearly stated at the start of any conversation about Left Behind is that is it a piece of religious propaganda which uses as it's touchstone a series of books about the Rapture/Revelation as described in the Bible. And if the book covers claims are to be believed, it has shifted tens of millions of copies all over the world (but primarily in the USA,) so it's storylines regarding the snatching up of all devot believers into Heaven (The Rapture,) and the subsequent narrative arc of those "Left Behind," are catnip for those devoutly religious people looking for a specific type of story. So for an American audience, this film wears it's colours/themes on its sleeve.

However, what turns it from the sort of low-budget tripe you'd find playing during the afternoon slot on a Gospel TV channel into a film which was shown in cinemas was firstly it's budget, which is much greater than anything those TV production companies could afford; and secondly the casting of Nicholas Cage. This was released during the period of time when Cage was saying yes to ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING (the period being after his early, critically-acclaimed work/Oscar win, and before he started to again make incredible films such as Pig & The Bad Lieutenant,) and resulted in absolute barrel-scrapers such as USS Indianapolis, Mom & Dad and Tokarev.

And the reason for writing all of this is because, if you are not the target market, this film is not only absolute garbage, but totally incomprehensible. The discussions about extreme Christian doctrine are so on-the-nose & blunt, it is like you are in a surreal parallel universe. Within 5 minutes, one of the main characters is accosted by a woman who sounds like she is part of a cult, spewing out ideological religious arguments at him, completely out of nowhere.

The Steele family, whose father Rayford (Cage) is the protagonist & a pilot, is quickly established as being driven apart due to his wife's sudden & extreme conversion to Christianity. The first time we meet her, she sits down for a conversation with her daughter (who is practically estranged due to her mother's views) and the film attempts to, in a wince-inducingly manipulative way, not only justify her beliefs, but to cast her as an oppressed & maligned speaker of truth who has all the answers, if only her family would listen to her... When the conversation implodes, she sits on the sofa with a look which is a weird combination of sadness & smug self-righteousness, before standing at the window watching her distraught daughter taking her brother away from the lunacy which has made the home intolerable.

And the film just keeps going down this extreme spiral. When the "Rapture" happens, meaning millions of people vanish into thin air, the film attempts to drum up tension, but it just looks like a load of extras have been directed to run around half-heartedly whilst either shouting, looting or dodging cars which suddenly have no driver. The film also doesn't in any way attempt to tackle the notion that it's maybe a little bit disgusting that unless you believe exactly the religion in that world, you are effectively left to rot on Earth...

Meanwhile, up in the sky, Rayford attempts to make sense of what is happening, mainly from the awfully constructed pilot's cockpit. And in a neat bit of symmetry, you also get the feeling that Cage's looks of exhaustion & confusion are from the very real realisation that he is starring in yet another piece of absolute garbage which further sullied his once-incredible filmography.

The most surprising thing of all about this film is that, despite it's critical panning, it actually made money. Having watched it, the fact it turned a profit is the only thing that convinces me there may be a God. It definitely wasn't anything on screen...

Fatal Attraction is one of those movies whose name alone conjures up many different mental images. It catapulted Glenn Close into superstardom, and despite her massively varied career, Alex Forest is the role most people associate with her, so powerful & psychotic was her performance. But Fatal Attraction is also iconic because it was a really, really good film. And as a three-hander, few films come close to it.

Dan Gallagher is a hotshot lawyer who is married to Beth, a beautiful & loyal wife, with a sweet daughter (Ellen.) They live in a stunning New York apartment and are happy. One night at a party, Dan has a brief interaction with Alex, the beautiful & highly sexual new editor. This turns into a filthy weekend when Beth & Ellen go away. But whilst Dan thinks of the tryst as nothing more than a one night stand, Alex becomes completely obsessed with not only being with Dan, but destroying anything which gets in her way.

Whilst I could go in many different directions with this review, the main thing which stuck with me, over and above Close's performance, is just how perfectly this whole film is made. And by that, I mean that it is one of those rare big Hollywood films which is so stripped down in its approach that less emphatically becomes more. These types of films, even today, want to fill the screen with special effects, images, CGI and every other type of manipulation you can think of. But what the director Adrian Lyne has done is to craft with extreme care the shots/setup, and then let the actors act and trust that the script is good enough to keep the audience engrossed.

So we have scenes where tension is built in extremely simple but brutally effective ways, whether with natural lighting or sound effects. The camera work is also great, switching between smooth establishing shots and frantic handheld when the tension ratchets up.

But for me, as for so many others, Close is the main draw. She makes Alex an extremely layered & complicated person. Whilst it is easy to simply write her off as a total psychopath (and don't get me wrong, there is plenty of evidence of her craziness,) she is also a character who you start to wonder how she came to be how she is. And she also makes extremely valid points about how, in the late 80's and still happening today, women are used almost as playthings to be enjoyed and then discarded, especially by extremely wealthy men.

But despite my praise for Close, Douglas & Archer absolutely hold their own. Douglas in particular is amazing at playing a man whose life is slowly destroyed due to one night thinking with his penis instead of his brain. The looks of horror on his face when he is confronted with the latest crazy action by Alex are extremely satisfying to say the least.

Whilst a different ending was originally written & tested poorly with audiences, I have to be honest and say I am glad that the re-shot ending is the one used. Fatal Attraction is many things, but most effectively it is a thriller which knows exactly what it is. And the final confrontation is a scene for the ages, which is still referenced today (such as in Bridget Jones.)

One final thing I loved was how absolutely unchained this film was in terms of its rating & content. This was a no-holds barred film which was unafraid to show not only frank sexuality, but also psychological trauma. From it's opening moments, it gripped me and didn't let go. And my God is Glenn Close scary when she turns on the psycho...

The film based on a true story has over the past few decades given us some absolute gems. Whether it is action-orientated like United 93 or Deepwater Horizon, through to biopics like My Left Foot or Oppenheimer, the power of film/media to tell a life story is unparalleled. And speaking of Deepwater Horizon, I did find myself thinking of it a lot whilst watching Last Breath, although sadly due to it being a significantly inferior film to not only it but the documentary it is inspired by.

Chris Lemons is a deep-sea diver who works at depths of upto 1000 feet, maintaining the pipelines in the North Sea. It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world as, if anything goes wrong, you are trapped on the seabed in a highly pressurised environment with extremely limited help. During one expedition, a combination of total system failure & horrendous weather ends up with Chris cut off from not only the ship but also his "umbilical cord" which is providing his air. There is then a frantic race to get back to rescue him.

In terms of true story material, the amount of potential here is an embarrassment of riches, something which the 2019 documentary beautifully uses to tell it's story. So you'd imagine that, with a decent budget and the same creative team, the film version with professional actors would be a home run.

The film starts off like a facsimile of Deepwater Horizon, with us following Lemons as he says goodbye to his fiancée and gets on board the ship. We are then shown the effort & manpower required to get the maintenance ship out of port and on its way. But whilst Horizon expertly drew us in with observing the different processes & also the horrible subliminal hints that things were about to go very very wrong, Last Breath goes through the motions of this, but then totally abandons it and goes down the standard biopic route.

And whilst the film has some very good moments, there is also a flatness to it which means that parts don't propel the narrative on or simply feel like a scene of exposition.

Partly I think this is due to casting. Woody Harrelson elevates pretty much everything he is in and his role as the grizzled diving-bell veteran is by far the best in the film. And in another piece of good direction, despite the fact he is the biggest name in it, he never takes over scenes, simply allowing his humour or gravitas to lift the story. But despite their efforts, Cole and Liu make extremely little impact. David Yuasa (Liu) is basically portrayed as a stereotypical, robotic Asian man who is highly disciplined with no personality until the last scene when he suddenly takes out a picture & feigns some emotion.

And as Lemons, Cole tries his best, but his acting is never more than 2 chess piece moves away from looking like he has just wandered off a Channel 5 soap. He comes across as simply a good-hearted grunt, with almost no personality. And having watched the documentary, that is emphatically not the case. The scenes with his fiancée are embarrassingly directed, like they are in a Hallmark tear-jerker. And the less said about the end scene on the beach, the better...

But having said all of the above, at times it really did move me. When this film works, it really impacts you. Even simple things like the initial rescue attempt being foiled due to Lemons's forward-thinking before he loses consciousness makes you both cringe with frustration as well as be in awe at his composure as he runs out of air. And the radio chats between the crew, especially the banter with Harrelson, are great.

But there is without doubt a better film that could have been made out of this story. And as much as I was entertained & moved, the feeling of missed opportunity was something that stuck with me. If Paul Greengrass or Peter Berg had been the director, this would have been a 5-star film

Spike Lee is a filmmaker with a lot of history behind him, and I say that as someone who has only seen 1 other of his films, Inside Man, which although it was a police procedure thriller, also included a subliminal critique of racism in the actions of some of the characters. But Lee's name is synonymous with films looking at racism, oppression and discrimination, from Malcolm X to Do The Right Thing. But what interested me most about seeing BlacKkKlansman was firstly the extremely positive reviews, but also the combination of humour alongside an outrageously audacious true story.

Ron Stallworth is a young, idealistic black man living in Colorado Springs. He has always wanted to be a police officer and ends up as the first black man to join the force. Whilst at first assigned a menial job which exposes him to the worst behaviours of his fellow officers, he soon hatches an audacious plan: investigating the Ku Klux Klan & "joining" their organisation as the 1st black member. Whilst he conducts extensive conversations with high-ranking officials (including, amusingly enough, David Duke) he obviously cannot go to gatherings. So in his place goes fellow white officer Flip Zimmerman, a lapsed Jew who starts to become affected by the constant poison he is surrounded by.

The main thing I loved about BlacKkKlansman was how well-written it was. The film, whilst it takes plenty of time to introduce/observe the various characters, zips along at a break-neck pace and keeps you horrifyingly hooked with the investigation. The tension every time you think Zimmerman's cover is going to be blown is massive and it is a credit to both the direction/writing, as well as Driver's performance, that it never feels either overtly dramatic or fake. I appreciate that there will have been dramatic licence taken, but never did it become garish.

As for casting, there is a certain amount of amusement that, after working multiple times with his father, John David Washington takes over the leading man role. Possessing hints of Denzel's beautiful baritone voice with his own energy & screen presence, John David really does nail Ron. We root for him, laugh with him and look on with horror at some of the situations he finds himself in, especially when surrounded by racists who all have firearms and are straining every sinew not to shoot him down.

Strong work is also done by Adam Driver, especially his journey which in his own words, "Was born Jewish but then found myself hiding it," but simply cannot bear the disgusting & despicable anti-Semitism which is vomited out non-stop around him at gatherings. Special mention must also go to Laura Harrier as Patrice. In a role which could so easily have just been the stereotypical damsel in distress, she is a fully rounded and strong woman who fully commits herself to the cause of black liberation.

The final point to add is that, like Borat Subsequent Movie Film, this movie is also nakedly political in its closing montage, drawing comparisons with the events of history involving lynchings with the events of 2017, especially the Unite the Right rally which ended in murder and bloodshed. Whilst some viewers will absolutely despise this, the events of the 2 hours building up to it make for some extremely uncomfortable symmetries between the history and the present.

In this film, like in so much else of his work, Spike Lee provokes, challenges and confronts his viewers, offering no easy answers...

More than anything, Lars Von Trier is known as a provocateur of cinema. His films, which are infamous for being full of extreme violence, profanity & graphic real sex, cover a wide range of genres and themes. And one of the most infamous of his works is The Idiots, a film which was also one of the 1st to adhere to the Dogme 95 filmmaking rules. When it was released in '98, it provoked a firestorm of controversy for pretty much every element of it. Film critic Mark Kermode has repeatedly stated his absolute hatred of it, once to Von Trier's face, one of many critics who absolutely loathed it. So it comes with massive amounts of baggage before the film even starts rolling.

In an unnamed Scandinavian country, a group of adults spend their days "spassing:" acting mentally/physically disabled, even though they have no disabilities. On one such trip, they are joined by Karen, a depressed woman who watches them intrigued in a restaurant. She comes back with them to where they live (a mansion in the countryside,) and proceeds to tag along with them as their exploits grow more extreme.

Just the plot of this film (ordinary people faking mental/physical illness,) is enough to outrage a good proportion of people. And there are no half-measures with this acting out: every type of behaviour you can imagine is shown, with sometimes toe-curling results. And that's before you get to the real sex in an orgy or a man in a women's changing room getting an erection.

There's no doubt The Idiots wants more than anything to provoke you into either furious anger or disgust. And to be clear, if I'd been watching it when it was first released, there is a good chance I'd have had that reaction (having a best friend who is physically disabled undoubtedly adding fuel to the fire.) However, in 2026, it not only looks like the desperate piece of provocation it is, but I actually found it to be boring & tedious more than shocking.

For starters, there are much better provocateurs out there in the form of Gaspar Noë or Michael Haneke, people who have crafted genuinely intriguing & shocking films. But also, some of the motivations & actions of the characters are genuinely done by real people in the world who will, with a straight face, feign some kind of disability, black-up to take opportunities from ethnic minorities or lecture other people about privilege whilst benefitting from wealth most could only dream of.

So when I see a group of entitled, sanctimonious wasters who claim they are fighting back against the bourgeoisie whilst living for free in a huge mansion in the middle of the beautiful countryside, with access to a significant amount of credit to enable them to buy expensive caviar and maintain minibuses/cars, all whilst screaming about the inequalities of the world, I just find it boring. There are so many of these types of people in the world now that The Idiots genuinely looks like it has jumped the shark.

Added into the mix, the "Dogme rules" means that the film is shot extremely basically (Von Trier used an expensive but still basic camcorder,) so the whole thing looks absolutely terrible & garish. There is also frequent site of boom mikes in the background.

However, having said all of the above, there were a few moments of humour which absolutely had me screaming with laughter. The best of these was with a genuinely concerned member of the public when he sees one of the group in the driving seat of the minibus, in an almost Borat-style set-up. Those moments really were genuinely funny in their own right. But they are few and far between.

For those who want a genuinely shocking film-watching experience, but who haven't watched much recent controversial output, they will find much to satisfy them. But for those like myself, who have seen many "problematic" films/TV series, The Idiots just comes across as a relatively boring, desperate attempt to provoke, rarely succeeding.

The creative partnership between Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone shows no signs of slowing down, if anything changing up a gear with their latest collaboration. It is clear how much they love working together and the trust they have in each other, and this continues in Bugonia. Whenever I watch a new Lanthimos film, I am always unsure as to what I am going to see, and not always in a good way. His work has varied from the masterpiece (Killing of a Sacred Deer) through to the unwatchable rubbish (Kinds of Kindness.) But Bugonia is unafraid to go to not only dark but surreal places as well.

Teddy Gatz is a disillusioned, isolated & conspiracy theorist beekeeper who lives in a dilapidated home with his autistic cousin Don. Teddy is highly disturbed & has undiagnosed mental illness, spending every free moment he has online. He is convinced that there are aliens in disguise on Earth, one of which is Michelle Fuller, a extremely ambitious & brutally ruthless businesswoman who is not only Teddy's boss, but is also tangentially connected with his family as well. Teddy then kidnaps Michelle & imprisons her in his basement, demanding that she communicate with her mother ship to free the Earth.

After reading that summary, most people would go "Eh?" Some others, including myself, who have seen the terrible effects these conspiracy theories can have (the deliberate vandalising of mobile phone masts which cut off the emergency services for hours is a particularly disgusting example,) approached this with a degree of skepticism & trepidation. But this film is most interesting to me because of how it treats Teddy.

The easy thing to do would be to absolutely ridicule him, which might generate some comedy but actually be quite boring & obvious. But Lanthimos is careful to show exactly why he believes what he believes, as well as the horrific trauma which powers this. And whilst the film doesn't implicitly endorse his actions, neither does it go down the easy road of writing him off.

Stone's work is also interesting, mainly due to the deliberate subversion of her kind, clean-cut & gentle image. Fuller is not only an absolute bitch, but one who jumps headfirst into the facetious, syrupy faux-concern which you only ever see from businesses which have spent thousands on soulless training courses to appear to be concerned for their employees but instead are looking for ever more creative ways to exploit them whilst pelting them with word-salad tripe. It was scary how well Stone created this monster.

Once the tables have turned & Fuller is no longer in control, that's when the cat-and-mouse mental games start. It is a thrilling battle of wills, watching Plemons and Stone face off against each other. There are shocks a-plenty, especially in the final 3rd.

In terms of production, I adored the way the film was shot. VistaVision was the perfect choice and the whole look is absolutely incredible, especially the colours. It really added to the fairytale-like quality & mood. The sets, especially after watching the special features, were also amazing. What the team managed to create in a random part of London was jaw-dropping.

But I won't lie, I did feel weirdly uncomfortable & dirty by the time the film ended. I think this is probably to do with not only the ending, but also the general acceptance of some of the more extreme elements of the story. The treatment of Don, as someone who Teddy keeps saying he loves, yet forces him to do things he doesn't want to do as well as belittling him in front of Fuller, didn't sit well with me, even with the argument some would make about Teddy's own mental illness.

If you can go with it, this film really tries to do something different, which is always to be applauded. But it's ideas and weirdness may put off some viewers who don't particularly want to spend 2 hours with people who wear tin foil hats...

The Smokestack twins (both played by Jordan) are returning to their home state of Mississippi, during the height of the Jim Crow segregation laws in 1932. After years serving in the military, before going over to the other side of the law & becoming involved in criminality, they return to set up a Black-only Juke joint. Their return, including to the family they left behind, is both welcomed and greeted with anger. However, on opening night, a trio of vampires arrive, prompting the twins and their friends to band together to fight to survive until sunrise...

In many ways, I couldn't make up my mind about Sinners. It is filled with multiple brilliant ideas, great music and some of the best cinematography I have seen outside of a Christopher Nolan film. But it is also a narrative mess, a film which beautifully sets up it's ideas, then becomes scatter shot in it's execution. It's frustrating to me that a film which had so much potential doesn't stick the landing as much as I hoped it would.

Because when it goes off in various idiosyncratic ways, it is often brilliant. My favourite moment is when there is a random break from the action, the camera roving out into the wilderness to find all the vampires surrounding the lead vampire Remmick (O'Connell) singing Irish ditties and tap dancing to the music. These kind of wonderfully weird, totally left-of-centre moments are brilliant.

I also adored the cinematography. Ryan Coogler made an amazing video where he talked about the importance different film stock had on the production & look of the film. And I loved how he would switch between them, most noticeably when it switched on screen from 35mm to 70mm IMAX film for the climatic fight. The colours, especially the smoky atmosphere inside the club also massively benefitted from the grainy texture of the film stock. This is without a doubt for me my favourite part of Sinners and Autumn Durald Arkapaw richly deserved her Oscar for the brilliance she brought to this film.

But the issues for me are mainly due to how the film has multiple ideas and strands, however it is extremely narratively all over the place. So we will be in a particular scene, then it will randomly cut to other characters, throwing off the pacing of that scene. Then later on it'll return to that scene and you have to again put yourself back into the groove of the action. I also felt that some of the themes didn't particularly gel well together, as much as I respected the film trying new things, some of which worked and others that didn't.

I did enjoy watching the film, however I did wish it was a smoother narrative experience and was more cohesive. But I am certainly glad to have storytellers like Ryan Coogler around, to counter against the massive rubbish being released by studios and streaming services.