Film Reviews by Timmy B

The Worst Person in the World is an interesting watch. It has, more than many other films recently, really managed to find a way to look at relationships and the challenges they bring. This is coupled with focussing on a protagonist who is at times unlikeable and also extremely indecisive, not just the stock woman who decides that her life is not going well so changes everything in it, including her partner. The result is an at times highly emotional & honest look at modern dating.

We first meet Julie, a headstrong & pretty woman in her 20’s, who is restless and unsatisfied with the direction her life is going in. Within the first few minutes of the film, she has twice changed subjects, starting as a surgeon, then reading psychology before deciding her true calling is photography. She has some flings before settling down with Aksel, a cartoonist who has created a moderately successful, immature character which is in many ways a composite of his own feelings. Despite being financially secure, Julie starts to feel disconnected, then one night crashes a wedding & meets Eivind, who she forms an instant connection with.

The best part of this film is unquestionably Renate Reinsve, who richly deserved her Cannes Best Actress award. Julie could have, without Reinsve’s performance, been an extremely prickly & often annoying protagonist. And whilst this at times did come through, due to the writing, Reinsve was able to keep my focus. There is a lot of playfulness to Julie, which is definitely an essential part of her make-up and made me relate to her. She is feisty, vulnerable & mischievous, whether it is imagining a scenario where she could pause time & play about in the moment, through to getting her boyfriend’s attention by flashing him with a great big grin on her face.

Speaking of sexuality, this is also a film which treats intimacy extremely carefully. Julie is, unlike many other characters in these types of films, a woman to whom sex is an extremely enjoyable & important part of her life. She is a million miles away from a character to whom intimacy is a negative, which then makes you wonder exactly why they are pursuing love so intensely. And she is open about what turns her on, which gains respect from her partners, for being honest as well as open.

There are some moments where the story did start to test my patience, as well as a couple of times the plot went in nonsensical directions, but this was luckily not that often. The worst of these was actually in the first 30 minutes, when Julie & Aksel are invited to a party out in the country and this drags on & on.

However, this film also has a break-up scene for the ages, which absolutely broke my heart as it was done so carefully & beautifully. It includes some of the best dialogue in the film, as well as an honesty which is searing: Julie talks about her feelings, which in one sense make no sense and in another are how so many people feel when the basics of the relationship might be there, but the true feelings of love simply aren’t any more. And it ends with an intimacy which just feels right & not in any way gratuitous.

The only other time the film hit bumps in the road was with a couple of characters who it seems had been included simply to antagonise the audience with just how loathsome their intolerance & smug supposed superiority was. Although these were fleeting, it did leave a bit of a sour taste, as well as no doubt giving a small select few watchers a boost to their ego’s.

But this is an extremely moving, highly competently made & beautifully shot musing on relationships, life & all of the challenges we face in trying to love someone.

Occasionally, you will watch a film which is competently made, full of great performances, had a powerful (and in this case true,) story but which you cannot sit through, because you simply cannot bear to keep watching because it makes you so uncomfortable. And to be clear, I am not talking about some of the absolute garbage, straight to DVD rubbish which you feel is making you more stupid the longer you watch. I am speaking about films where the tension or subject matter just makes you so uncomfortable, you decide this film isn't for you. Those types of films come along relatively rarely, and I have watched a lot of challenging & controversial films (many of which I have loved,) but Nitram was for me simply unwatchable.

Nitram is a stylised drama about the perpetrator of the Australian Port Arthur massacre, Martin Bryant. Martin (the title Nitram comes from the bullies who called him that/his name said backwards, due to his educational special needs,) is an extremely developmentally challenged young man. He is prone to fits of anger & is obsessed with fireworks/explosions. He also has no sense of danger or responsibility, setting off fireworks in school playgrounds and attempting to give explosives to the kids. His home life is difficult & fractured, his father a gentle, kind man who worries himself sick with the mental disabilities his son has; his mother a cold & abrasive woman who has in many ways simply given up & shows her son almost no love or affection. The film builds up to the tragic consequences of Martin's boiling anger & rage.

From the moment this film starts, there is a tension in the air. And it is unlike almost any other tension you could imagine. When I think of the most pressurised & intense films I have watched, which include some of my top 10 such as Sexy Beast & United 93, none of them invoke the same unease & discomfort Nitram does. But whilst the previous films I've mentioned use that tension expertly, this film simply puts it on screen & it engulfs you. Martin is, in this film, an absolute demonic creature of hell, partly due to his disabilities and also the relentless bullying which he has put up with in his short life. He is now in many ways completely unmanageable as a person, totally unpredictable & with no sense of danger or responsibility. Metaphorically speaking, if he was put into a room with grenades, he would start pulling the pins out & throwing them out of the windows.

And the longer this went on, the more I simply did not want to watch it. However, the reason I give it 3 stars is because in many ways, as a film which looks at the tragic events leading up to the bloodbath, it really made me feel it. I didn't want to keep watching, partly because of what I knew would be the result, but also because I hated the world this film thrust me in to. So in that respect, the film-makers absolutely achieved their goal, even though they would have wanted me to watch to the end.

Caleb Landry Jones, who richly deserved the awards he won, vanishes beneath the long, unkempt hair & hatred which Martin wears like a second skin. The only other performance I had seen him in was Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, as the innocent & horny ad manager. But we are in very different territory here. Happiness & fun is a distant memory, replaced by rage & fury.

For some, this reaction may be a recommendation to watch it. And I absolutely respect that. But you may reach the end and wish you hadn't pressed play...

Strange Darling is one of the only films I have seen recently which really does shock & surprise you. Whereas so many films promise rug-pulls and are just damp squibs, the characters & story here really does subvert your expectations. Then throw into the mix the non-linear structure, so richly exploited by Tarantino in his career, and you have a real treat on your hands. And finally, the decision for this to be a proper 18-rated, no holds barred film really raises the stakes of this cat-and-mouse thriller.

We are introduced to our 2 characters, The Lady & The Demon, who have met for a sexual encounter which may or may not be a financial transaction. Over the course of 6 chapters & an epilogue, the film proceeds to set up conflicting narratives, including who is chasing who, which of them is a psychopath and how did they end up in this situation?

For me, what I found most interesting as well as what will probably be the most controversial element to some people, is the deliberate blurring of the lines of female agency & vulnerability. Whereas a lot of films wouldn't even dare to exploit the idea that some women may use their gender as a way to manipulate & control a situation with shocking consequences, Strange Darling jumps headlong into this. There were a couple of wince-inducing, watching through my fingers moments, which to the film's credit, were completely earned and not just for shock value.

That this works so well is down to the excellent direction & casting. Both actors give their everything to these roles, which like so many films with provocative themes, would totally fail without their full & absolute commitment. Willa Fitzgerald in particular is absolutely sensational, using her charm & sexual appeal to become a Black Widow spider in human form. She is an absolutely lethal but completely believable protagonist. And opposite her, Kyle Gallner stars as the unstoppable force, who may have just met his match.

It is clear director JT Mollner not only owes much to Tarantino, but also Nicolas Winding-Refn as well. We are thrust into a world of bright, high contrast neon colours, insane set-ups & shockingly brutal violence. And speaking of the look of the film, this is the debut of actor Giovanni Ribisi as cinematographer, proving that he is not only a great actor, but has a striking visual eye as well.

My only criticism of this film really, and believe me it is only a slight one (but for me to rate a film 5 stars is not a frequent occurrence,) is there are several moments where the film does lose momentum. And those moments really stick out in a film which is so narratively tight.

But if you want to watch a genuinely subversive film, where you have no idea what will happen from one moment to another, alongside a great soundtrack & performances, this is one of the most original films of the last few years.

We are now firmly into Russell Crowe's new image & evolution as an actor. After an early career of mainly playing tough, handsome & impossibly-chiseled protagonists, culminating in Gladiator (the image of him holding a sword whilst screaming at the people in the amphitheatre will forever be iconic,) he has now changed into booking as many supporting roles as lead ones. Image-wise, gone is the gym-toned body, replaced with a more heavyset, everyday figure, again used to great advantage (as much as Unhinged is a fairly average B-movie, Crowe as it's unstoppable obese antagonist is genuinely unsettling.)

But it also has to be said that a lot of his filmography recently has not been great, and sadly this continues with Sleeping Dogs, which is a shame because sometimes when an incredible actor is cast in what would normally be a clichéd film, they can really elevate it.

Roy Freeman is a retired cop who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He is a part of a revolutionary new treatment where electrodes have been inserted into his brain, improving & bringing back his memory. He is contacted out of the blue by a woman from a death-row crisis legal charity, to ask for help in saving a man convicted of a brutal murder who Freeman helped to convict. He links up with his old partner & starts to piece the crime back together.

As someone who has seen the degradation of a family member with Alzheimer's, the early scenes are profoundly moving & obviously meticulously researched. Freeman's house is full of notes to himself, going from how to cook pizzas to what his name is. Mercifully, unlike in A Beautiful Mind, where Crowe's acting looked like a painful impression of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, here the performance is more nuanced & careful. We also spend a good 20 minutes slowly getting to know Roy, mirroring his discovery of a new day.

However, this performance, alongside other great actors like Marton Csokas & Karen Gillan, is dragged down by a script/story which is just painfully dull and almost always boring. When a storyline involving a murder mystery isn't done well, you are always teetering on the edge of soapy, schlocky territory. However, Sleeping Dogs doesn't just teeter, it falls headlong into it. The acting becomes more & more hammy, the scenarios less believable & interesting.

There is the customary rug-pull/bait & switch, but this again just feels like clutching at straws and desperation. The only thing which sets this apart from many other soapy TV dramas is the higher level of violence, as well as a scene of autoerotic asphyxiation, earning it an 18 rating.

Horror is enjoying a resurgence in film & TV media. But whilst a number of recent movies are enjoying a new found audience & acclaim, there will be many more which fall into the familiar trap of either being boring and/or filled with characters you either hate or have no interest in at all, meaning the ratcheting-up of tension totally falls flat. In a Violent Nature manages to do both, in a film riddled with clichés which I switched off after an hour.

A group of spoilt, annoying brats on spring break from college, staying in the Canadian wilderness, walk through a graveyard & steal a gold pendant which is keeping a demonic creature at bay. Said creature then awakes, determined to track down & reclaim this pendant, slaughtering whoever gets in his way.

For me, it is difficult to effectively communicate just how boring & dull this film is. One thing which is clear is that writer/director Chris Nash is either obsessed with Terrance Malik or fancies himself as the horror version of him. The dense forests and wilderness is practically another character, the camera straying slightly behind the monster as it stalks through the trees. There are also many times when the creature will stop & take stock of the surroundings, trying to ratchet up the tension... which totally fails.

Interestingly enough, this approach of melding nature with horror has been done fairly recently, by Lars Von Trier in Antichrist. However where Von Trier, along with cinematographer Anthony Dodd-Mantle, made what most people would think of as a beautiful piece of nature into an oppressive hellhole, Nash simply shoots everything like someone with a smartphone.

The collection of college-age characters are equally repugnant & annoying. Listening to them, complete with modern-day gripes (there is a debate about cancel culture with all the nuance of a testosterone-filled Tiktok influencer,) is the cinematic equivalent of toothache. But, this doesn't even have the desired effect of making you hate these people so much you are glad they are picked off in increasingly gory ways. You simply don't care.

Whilst a couple of the kills are inventive & gruesome (one character's death having a squelch & splatter which harkens back to the 80's horror this film so clearly wants to ape,) that was the only memorable thing in the hour or so I watched before switching off, and definitely not enough to sustain the protracted & painfully slow pace.

Although I have seen a couple of the Superman films over the years, I never was a huge fan of the character. I happily watched the Dean Cain-starring TV series as a small child, but usually just because that's what was on at the time. And whilst I also enjoyed Man of Steel, it was only as a film-watching experience, not as a fan. So when my best friend asked me to go with him to see the new Superman, I was fairly indifferent but interested to see what the take would be.

The reason I have included this in my review is because it is important for me to say that I have no idea about the mythology & background story of Superman, so some of the film will be lost on me. However, I also believe that when watching an origin story, there should be enough for people who don't know the lore to enjoy themselves. But this is just a big loud dumb mess, and not the fun kind.

Whilst there are some good elements story-wise, most of the jokes and humour don't land, or come across as laugh-hunting. Most of the best moments are the small, intimate ones between Clark & Lois, really breathing life into what could have been a one-dimensional plot device. But the rest of it was either not well written or just schlocky exposition alongside the explosions.

Corenswet however is brilliant, as is Hoult, who originally auditioned for Supes. They really understand & get what sort of film they are in, their chemistry working well. The others are a mixed bag, although there was a big roar of laughter in the cinema when a certain character makes a cameo.

At the end of the day, I can see why this film attracted both great & terrible reviews. Ultimately, if you like big, loud fun with a profound message, along with decent CGI & battles, you will find everything you want and more. But equally, if you like those things but want a good script/story for them to sit alongside, you will be disappointed.

Amy Winehouse was a complete one-off: a searing talent which to me (as much as I am an atheist,) was practically God given. But she was also a woman whose significant personal troubles (relationships, addiction,) meant she was often both traduced & reduced to tabloid fodder, held up as an example of completely out of control self-destructive behaviour. Her death at the age of 27 was both shocking & unsurprising, her name joining the pantheon of geniuses whose talent was only matched by their seeming determination to destroy themselves.

A few years later, the family/record company commissioned Asif Kapadia to make a documentary of her life, which was an absolutely incredible & profoundly moving look at her rise from a precociously talented young girl to the all-conquering global superstar, then finally as the extremely unwell woman who was powerless against her demons.

But the documentary generated significant outrage from Winehouse's family, especially her father Mitch, understandably so seeing as he comes out of it extremely poorly. So we now have Back to Black, fully endorsed by the family, to tell Amy's story from her perspective, as well as looking at the origins of many of the songs from that album.

One thing which is important to dispel from the off is that this film is in no way simply a vehicle to rehabilitate the Winehouse family's reputation after the documentary. I myself was concerned that this would be the case, but the filmmakers were extremely clear that the family had no creative control over the process.

I really, really enjoyed this film. And interestingly, I actually think that the documentary does it a favour: if you've seen it, a lot of the questions you may have had will have some kind of answer, but that also allows the film to put meat on the bones of the story. We see Amy at various points in her life, in a film which feels completely authentic. Her grandmother, Amy's biggest influence, is given plenty of time to show why she was so special to the singer growing up. Camden Town, where Amy lives & frequently made reference to, is also another major character in the film, including shooting in many of the places Amy actually spent time in, including the pubs she gigged in as a young talent.

But my biggest praise is towards not only Marisa Abela's mesmeric performance, but also how Amy is portrayed. In no way is this sanitised or muted for fear of alienating the viewer (unlike with Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody.) Winehouse is shown as an extremely strong-minded & obstinate artist, as well as a highly volatile & sometimes violent woman. And what the movie does perfectly is show that not only was it highly likely that she had significant mental illness, but that she was in many ways trapped in a spiral of her unpredictable behaviour.

In many scenes, whilst there are these outbursts, there is also significant attention given to the aftermath, whether it is waking up on the floor after a violent seizure caused in part by drowning herself in alcohol, or breaking down & agreeing to go to rehab. And that is totally to the film's credit.

The only fault I can pick with this film is that we are never fully shown just why Amy became so besotted by Blake Fielder-Civil. As much as there are multiple scenes of the 2 of them falling in love, he was never anything more than a drug-taking lowlife who seemed to ride on the coattails of her success. And when a big part of the film is about her love for him, it does affect the film's quality.

But throughout all of it, Abela is incredible. She does all her own singing, as well as playing Winehouse with reverence & perfection. In a time of many biopics (Elvis, Freddie, Elton, Marley,) this performance really does stand out. And like the best biopics, at the end I just felt sad. I so wish that Amy had been able to get the help she needed, but her star was just too bright...

June Squibb is an absolute treasure. After a long & varied career doing mainly supporting roles, she came to wide public attention in Alexander Payne's critically successful road movie Nebraska, garnering an Oscar nomination in the process. Now, many years after that success, she has been given her first lead role in Thelma, another road movie which takes a gentle look at the determination of a elderly woman to bring a man who scammed her to justice.

Thelma Post (Squibb) is a 93 year old widow who lives in a big Los Angeles apartment. She is a spiky, vivacious & active woman who, despite her age, is still very much her own person. She is close to & supported by her grandson Danny, who is a good-hearted but aimless & directionless young man, whose constant nagging to take it easy and let him do everything for her has become grating. One day, she receives a scam phone call, convincing her to send $10,000 to a PO Box. Once she realises she has been conned, she decides to go on one last adventure to get her money back, assisted by her friend Ben (Roundtree.)

Whilst I only gave this film 3 stars, don't for a second think that it is not a gentle & extremely watchable adventure. As has been highlighted by many reviews, one of the best things about it is it's emphatic & pointed refusal to treat Thelma & her older friends in a patronising or mollycoddled way, which is a beautiful contrast to how many of the other characters do. One of the most amusing ways it does this is in an early scene, where Thelma & Danny are watching Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible, running across London rooftops (funnily enough showing the moment where Cruise mis-judged a jump & broke his ankle,) this being used as a juxtaposition of Thelma's impending adventure and the concern those around her would have that something similar would happen to her. The script instead treats her & Ben in particular as people who have had a rich and fulfilled life, but still have the spark of adventure inside them.

One of the other wonderful things this film does is to not make Thelma a picture-perfect, stereotypical grandmother who smiles sweetly & feels she has to blend into the background. She is an at-times tricky & obstinate woman, who refuses many of the aids which have been developed for older people, not to control them, but to assist them & stop an accident which could be devastating for them. By doing this, Thelma feels like a real person (although she was based on the writer/director's own grandmother, obviously in everything there is dramatic licence.)

But the main reason I gave the film 3 stars is due to the many times where the script attempts to inject comedy into scenes, but which are unbelievably tiresome & derail things, no more so than with the writing of Thelma/Danny's parents/daughter & son-in-law. At one point, when they are frantically in a car trying to find Thelma after she goes missing, the narrative stops for them to have an argument about how Waze is not a good satnav app, then the father panicking about turning onto a freeway. In other scenes, the parents incessant squabbling where they are in the nursing home or out searching for her, ranging from why their son's relationship failed to how they didn't exert enough control over Thelma, whilst played for laughs or impact, just came off as annoying.

But despite this, I did enjoy watching it. Malcolm McDowell, despite being 80 when filming, has lost none of the electric presence he brings to his roles. And Fred Hechinger really does wonders with his role, the polar opposite of the murderous Roman dictator in Gladiator 2. And leading the charge, June Squibb alone is worth the price of admission.

Sean Baker truly is an independent film titan, in many ways an American Danny Boyle or Nicholas Winding-Refn. Mainly making films shot on a shoestring budget (whilst Anora is the exception to this, it's $6 million dollar pricetag is still small change in the grand scheme of things,) he populates his stories with many highly idiosyncratic & feisty characters, predominantly sex workers or people tangentially connected to the industry.

But for me, whilst he has attracted huge acclaim from many film reviewers, I felt quite differently. Whilst I loved the ability & chemistry between the child actors & Willem Dafoe's cranky motel manager, The Florida Project was not the masterpiece I was lead to believe. Following on from this, Red Rocket was another case of beautiful production & colour palette combined with a protagonist who wasn't charming, funny or someone you wanted to spend nearly 2 hours with. So when Anora won pretty much every award going & swept the Oscars, I was interested to watch it, but also skeptical.

We follow Ani (Anora,) an idealistic & extremely motivated stripper who works at a seedy club & clearly is meant for better things. One day, she is requested by her boss to entertain Vanya, the spoilt & revolting son of a Russian oligarch, primarily because she speaks his language. This encounter goes from a private dance at the club to going round to his parents mansion, then Ani being offered a massive sum of money to pretend to be his girlfriend for a week. During these 7 days, consisting of non-stop partying, drug-taking & every type of revolting behaviour imaginable, Ani falls in love with, then agrees to marry Vanya. However, this shotgun wedding horrifies his family, who dispatch their goons to break up the union & drag Vanya back to Russia.

This film is saved by Mikey Madison. If she had not been cast, this film would have absolutely floundered. As much as a couple of the supporting characters are funny, she is the feisty & genuinely believable center of the story. And her fearlessness is on screen from the opening moments, with multiple scenes of nudity & intimacy, which she totally commits to, making Ani the fully fleshed-out character that Baker can write so well. I also really liked the motivation she had, combined with a street-smart & sharp tongue, especially towards a fellow poisonous stripper.

However, having said all of that, this film has for me a massive problem: despite Madison clearly giving it her all in showing the genuine love & committal Ani has for Vanya, she is made to look absolutely idiotic by his behaviour. Vanya is a total & complete scumbag, petulant and so narcissistic it makes your eyes water. He is totally supported & reliant on his parents wealth for everything, and would be nothing without it. And having set Ani up as a streetwise & smart woman, the film then asks us to do the most ludicrous mental juggling act possible of accepting that she would not only be blinded by love, but genuinely believing that this creature had hidden depths & wasn't just shacking up with a beautiful woman who he met whilst on a night out.

And I couldn't get past this hurdle. Baker's determination to try & make us believe this, even after Vanya flees when his parents mobster buddies turn up, rapidly runs out of road. And the more hysterical Ani gets insisting this love is real simply adds to the idiocy. There are some funny moments, as well as a great character in the shape of Igor, who brings so much to the role of the lunkhead hired muscle.

When we finally get to the end, there was no massive pay-off, although the final scene was touching in the sense of showing how someone reprehensible could make amends for their previous actions. It was all just a bit "meh."

I am absolutely glad that Sean Baker is creating these types of films, to counteract all the crap released en masse by the studios. However his choice of characters leaves a lot to be desired.

For many people, simply mentioning Straw Dogs conjures up mental images of horror, or if they haven't seen the film, the hysterical & venomous press coverage of it. It is a film which I had wanted to see for many years for a very simple reason: so often the reputation a film has, especially a controversial one, is either totally wrong (many people accused Trainspotting of glamourising drug use when it does anything but,) or people becoming fixated on a particular aspect of it which then becomes the main topic of conversation, totally writing off the actual quality/impact of the film (far too many to name.)

And in many ways, mainly due to it being released when films were really starting to push the envelope in terms of depicting sex/violence (the same year A Clockwork Orange made it's debut,) it was guaranteed that controversy would (ironically) dog this film. But, despite the stellar cast & crew, to me this film is almost total rubbish.

David Sumner (Hoffman) and his wife Amy have moved from the USA (his country,) to Amy's father's house in the Cornish countryside. It is insinuated, but not explicitly stated, that the move was due to the increase in violence in America, prompting mathematician David to apply for a UK grant to escape. However, the town they move to is full of extremely immoral & dangerous people, including men from Amy's past life who massively resent the presence of David. This leads to increasingly violent repercussions & the terrorisation of the newly married couple.

The irony with writing this review, which I have struggled in some respects to put together, is that as much as I have given it 2 stars & it has some of the worst dialogue I have heard in a major motion picture, I cannot deny the horrible impact it had on me. The extended rape scene is without doubt the most horrendous thing you can imagine. It is sub-human behaviour, made all the more unsettling due to the reaction of Amy during it. The slow ratcheting-up of tension also really gets under your skin, making this an extremely uncomfortable watch.

But despite having said all that, I simply hated everything else about this film. The characterisation is terrible, from the totally unbelievable chemistry between David & Amy (how they ever had more than 1 date, let alone exchanged vows is beyond me,) through to their completely illogical actions. David goes (in 1 scene,) from being meek & mild to domineering to the life & soul of the party. He also seems to be totally emotionally repressed, showing his wife almost no affection or support in any way.

As for Amy, the film genuinely doesn't seem to know what to do with her, after Susan George fulfilled the "beautiful & sexually provocative" requirements of her character (this is no slur on George, who does outstanding work with what she is given but cannot fix the significant script issues.) Amy also changes her character traits at the flip of a coin: 1 minute she is a loyal wife trying to support her husband, then berating him for hiring a group of useless builders who she cannot stand, then 30 seconds later deliberately walking topless in full view of them...

There is much more I could say, however honestly, as much as I watched to the end, this was simply to see if the film got better (which it didn't.) For some people, this is Peckinpah's masterpiece, an exercise in slowly turning the screws on a hapless couple with horrific violence to really traumatise it's viewers. But for me, along with many others, it was simply an exercise in watching an extremely poor script being acted out, with ridiculous contrivances (the fact that no-one in the surrounding areas saw a full-on siege taking place for over 20 minutes, including the farmhouse being set on fire & multiple gunshots, and didn't call the police, is one of the most stupid things imaginable.)

Whilst it's place in cinematic history is guaranteed, that doesn't mean it's any good...

After seeing multiple films in which Saoirse Ronan was the best thing in them, this film to me was going to be a home run: a look at addiction set in & around one of the most beautiful parts of the UK, with one of our best actresses delivering a masterclass in trauma & recovery. However, as with many other times where you feel that something is a certainty, the finished product is very different.

We are introduced to Rona as she is dancing in a nightclub & very quickly see she has a serious problem with alcohol, ending the night minesweeping leftover drinks from the bar before being thrown out by security. She then returns home to her family farm in the Orkney Islands to help with the lambing season. Her mother, a devout Christian woman who believes that she can cure her daughter with prayer, suffocates her with attention & subtle attempts at controlling, whilst her father is more laid back. We follow her as she attempts to get her life back on track as well as dealing with her demons.

This film is absolutely terrible. It is so boring & badly made, it almost makes me wonder how it was green-lit. In the 30 or so minutes I could watch it, we just see a lot of random events, interspersed with old wives tales & legends of the Orkney Islands. The narrative and direction is all over the place, the timeline jumping about without giving any thought to the fact that not only does this make the film unwatchable, but also means you never really know what is happening. Then after a while, I found myself not caring.

After half an hour, I switched it off. I simply wasn't interested in spending any more time trying to work out what was happening, why I should care & if the film was going to get better.

In 2011, Gareth Evans wrote & directed The Raid. It still is one of the most seminal & groundbreakingly breathless pieces of brilliance I have ever seen, with flawless action sequences & a story which was simple but made you care. However after this, his output didn't build on this promise. The Raid 2 was a huge disappointment, primarily because it took the world so perfectly created in the 1st film & suffocated it under meandering & endless exposition/dialogue. And by the time you got to the incredible action Evans can do so well, you just didn't care.

Gangs of London righted the ship somewhat, giving us a compelling story & performances, alongside the sort of action scenes normally reserved for the big screen. But I was waiting for a big film to revisit the potential so clearly on show in The Raid. So when it was announced that Evans had teamed up with Tom Hardy, one of the best young actors who genuinely can do action & martial arts (he is purple belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu,) I was pumped. And after a long delay, we now have HAVOC.

Patrick Walker is a burnt-out, exhausted cop who has more skeletons in his closet than a jail full of gang members. He is on the payroll of Lawrence Beaumont, a mayoral candidate who claims to be determined to clear up the corruption but happily contributes to it with no feelings of hypocrisy. A drug deal which involves his son Charlie goes catastrophically wrong, leaving a trail of dead bodies and an army of triads swearing revenge. Adding into the chaos is Walker's fellow corrupt colleagues, who are determined to tie up the loose ends themselves.

The single biggest stroke of genius this film has is Hardy. Walker is, on paper, action hero cliché 101 (he even has a daughter he has repeatedly let down, with an ex who won't let him see her for Christmas.) But Hardy genuinely makes you feel & care for Walker's plight, as well as fully buy into his incredible fighting skills. And Walker many times takes an absolute beating in this film, as he battles to maintain his sanity, protect Beaumont's son & girlfriend, and stopping the gang war spilling out of control.

And when it comes to the action, we are once again in the sweet spot of cinema. The brawls are vicious & brutal, with everything from meat clevers, metal poles & even harpoons being utilised in ever-more wincing ways. Hand-to-hand combat is captured in frenetic & brilliant cinematography, the camera weightless as it is thrust straight into the thick of action. The gun fights are equally demented, with pistols able to fire scores of bullets without needing to be reloaded, as well as baddies having whole clips being emptied into them & their lives being saved by backstreet doctors.

But unfortunately, there are also some gaping flaws with this film, chief among them its look. Whilst it is incredible this entire film was shot in Cardiff & in parts you genuinely believe you are in Chinatown or a US state, the CGI is at times absolutely horrendous. The look Evans is going for, a kind of snow-swept desolute hellhole, sometimes looks like those twee dramas you get on the Hallmark channel.

The story itself also sometimes comes to a shuddering halt with narrative choices & characters who feel like padding. But when it is good, it is great. Timothy Olyphant in particular is great, utilising his phenomenal ability to bring intensity & threat to any situation. And in what is effectively a glorified cameo role, Luis Guzmán makes an impact as the father of Charlie's girlfriend.

Ultimately, if you are a fan of incredibly brutal & amazingly shot action, you will find much to love, as well as forgiving the shortcomings. However, for many, the look & length may put them off.

When Spotlight was released & went on to Oscar glory, it reinvigorated the investigative drama and proved beyond a doubt that you don't have to send actors running down corridors to create tension, simply give them an excellent script/story & brilliant direction. Spotlight's success also clearly influenced other films around that time, with mixed results. Somehow (and I still can't believe quite how they managed to do this,) Spielberg, Hanks & Streep made The Post one of the most boring films imaginable, despite the powerhouse of talent involved. But there was also a French film, from a very different director, which is brilliant.

François Ozon is in very different territory to his normal works. His previous film, L'Amant Double, was an erotic thriller which did not shy away from showing the more provocative & intimate scenes. Whereas in By the Grace of God, the sexual activity is associated with horrendous trauma, abuse & life-changing injuries.

The film is based on the crimes of French priest Bernard Preynat, although the other characters are based on composites of many of his victims. We follow Alexandre Guérin, a successful banker who on the surface has the life anyone would want (loving family, successful career, beautiful home, devout wife,) who discovers that Preynat, who was moved from the parish, is working with children again; François Debord, a medical professional who is far more volatile & reported the abuse to his parents, fracturing his family almost irreparably; and Emmanuel Thomassin, a haunted & horrifically mentally/physically scarred younger man, who unlike the previous 2 men, has had a life of disarray & addiction, as well as having multiple toxic relationships.

Like Spotlight, the film is crafted unbelievably carefully. Generous amounts of time & world-building are given to develop each of the characters, plus Preynat is also mercifully not turned into the caricature which so many writers might be tempted to go down (a demonic, almost pastiche-level evil being,) but as a pathetic & cornered old man whose protection from the Church has finally run out of road.

We watch as the 3 men, along with their families & eventually others who come forward, form their own group which they take public to force the Church to confront not only the rampant sexual abuse within their parishes, but also to properly punish the men committing these heinous acts and destroying multiple lives in the process. For me, I also welcomed the fact that these characters were sometimes challenging & abrasive, especially Debord.

The only real issue I have with this film is that towards the end, the story & narrative starts to falter, which is then compounded when it abruptly ends, with a quick epilogue about the court case. And it is a real shame. I felt like the film was in many ways rushed to completion, which just made it all the more frustrating, considering how for over two thirds of it, it was impeccable filmmaking.

But I still recommend it, for the performances, direction & script

Civil War is clearly being made to show what could potentially happen in the next few years, and what did nearly happen in some respects in '21. The notion of a despotic leader refusing to give up power & causing a split in the country they run is nothing new, but here it is given a shocking & all-too-real edge, clearly taking inspiration from world events.

Lee Smith is a battle-weary & PTSD-riddled war photographer, whose iconic pictures have won her every type of award, which she has seemingly had in exchange for her sanity. She is linking up with an old colleague, fellow photographer Joel, on a seemingly impossible & suicidal mission to locate and interview the embattled president. This requires them to travel across multiple conflict-ridden states to reach the White House. Along the way, they are joined by Sammy, their mentor, and wannabe war photographer Jessie, much to Lee's protests.

The battle scenes, as well as the smaller moments, are brilliantly shot. You really feel, due to the staging & camera work, that you are in the thick of battle, with bullets whistling overhead. Dunst is also excellent, as is Stephen McKinley Henderson as the father-figure to the main protagonist. Cailee Spaeny unfortunately drew the short straw in terms of character, with her struggling to make the evolution from the blue-eyed & innocent hero-worshipper to battle-scarred photo journalist an original or compelling journey. This is in no way a slur on Spaeny's ability, just simply poor writing.

And this theme carries on throughout the film. The journey these characters make is at times good & certainly well-shot, but often my mind wandered. Various scenes simply weren't that interesting, or feeling workmanlike in order to give a slice of exposition or the set-up to the next part of the story.

The ending battle is again well-shot, but isn't the big payoff which is the writers think it is. We simply watch a battle clearly inspired by multiple Call of Duty games, which also is nonsensical in its setup. There is simply no way that the President would be where he is following the events of the film. There are other plot holes which are so ludicrous they verge on pastiche, as well a convenient lack of any responses or action from the outside world.

But this film does have an ace up it's sleeve in terms of cameo appearances. An actor makes a brief appearance as a disgusting, despicable racist, which is so impactful that the movie loses some momentum which it never regains afterwards. That is the main takeaway you have from this film.

A good effort but a better script would have done wonders for the story

Yorgos Lanthimos genuinely is a Marmite director & writer. In one respect, it is an admirable trait, considering how when most people in the entertainment industry get the first whiffs of success, they change both themselves and their style. This is something Lanthimos could never be accused of, consistently creating weird, deeply idiosyncratic & often highly sexualised works, with the rare benefit of being able to cast A-List actors in these roles.

But the risk of Lanthimos's style is when a story doesn't work or keep your attention, it just becomes an exercise in watching the screen and trying to keep following what is happening, whilst getting more & more bored. And this is how I felt watching Kinds of Kindness, a triptych of stories with tangentially connected events.

I just sat watching a collection of characters saying stilted & off-paced dialogue, acting out a story which progressed at a snails pace, made no sense and slowly I became less interested in following. Jesse Plemons plays a man whose life is controlled by a creepy & weird older man (Defoe,) who makes extreme demands of him then gifts random rewards when he completes the tasks. Whilst looking for logic in a Lanthimos film is as pointless as trying to kick water uphill, it simply wasn't interesting.

The following story, concerning a man (Plemons) whose wife has gone missing at sea, follows a similar pattern. She returns but he believes that she is not his real wife, but someone pretending to be her. Again, there is a lot of stilted & meandering dialogue, alongside sudden and shocking bursts of violence & sex, but none of it is funny or engaging, just boring.

I kept going with it for probably an hour 40 before giving up. It is one of the most pointless films I have watched recently, which took a chunk of my life I will never get back. And, whilst at this point, Lanthimos fans would probably say something along the lines of "But that's his style, you just don't get it," I loved Dogtooth. It's not Lanthimos's style I hated here, it's the rubbish film he made...