Film Reviews by Timmy B

In 2009, Sacha Baron Cohen released Brüno, which I rated 3 stars, due to some very funny set pieces, but also because it was clear the hidden-camera schtick he is famous for was now so well-known that people rumbled the setup before it even got going. It was a mess of a film, and I remember at the time many people saying Baron-Cohen needed a new direction. It was clear that he also felt this way, as his next major vehicle, The Dictator, was a properly scripted film which made some strong satirical points but was average at best. So Baron-Cohen returned to England and created a new character, which in many ways you could tangentially associate with Ali-G. However, where Ali-G was a genius comic creation of its time, Nobby is without a doubt the worst & most desperate character Baron-Cohen has ever created, for many different reasons.

Nobby (do you see what he did there?!?) Butcher is a Northern football hooligan. He is loud, obnoxious, stupid and obsessed with sex in every way you could possibly imagine (and many ways you can't.) He lives in the titular Grimsby with his partner Dawn and their 11 children. He was separated from his brother Sebastian when they were young and has pined after him all his life. Sebastian has since become one of MI6's top agents, and is the polar opposite to Nobby in every possible way. They are then brought together in a highly contrived scenario which results in Nobby "tagging" along with his brother, desperate to make up for lost time, as well as wanting attend the World Cup in Chile.

When this film was being marketed, the focus was mainly on how disgusting and repulsive it was and no, I'm not making that up. Much of this attention was on the infamous "scene" where the 2 brothers hide inside an elephant's vagina in the middle of mating season. What followed was not in any way funny, it was literally just disgusting. It is what happens when someone who has made a career out of pushing boundaries runs out of ideas and simply says "What is the most revolting thing I can possibly imagine which can be put on screen?" And the logic seemed to be, the more disgusting it is, the funnier it'll be...

But what actually ends up happening is you just sit, kind of slack jawed, whilst a conveyor belt of increasingly desperate & rancid set pieces are put in front of you. And, like many other films that have plumbed these depths, they are not only completely unfunny, but boring too. I found myself thinking of Dirty Grandpa, made by the same creative team, which took the road-trip genre and seemed to be in a competition with itself to see just how disgusting it could be and still get released.

Even the character of Nobby is clichéd rubbish. Gone are the days of Borat, an amiable & sweet man who actually had layers and was a 3-dimensional character you could root for. Nobby is literally Baron-Cohen doing an over-the-top impression of Liam Gallagher for 80 minutes and again, I'm not joking when I say that.

Grimsby is terrible in so many ways, you almost have to see it to believe it. Due to the popularity of the espionage genre, no doubt invigorated by the success of James Bond and Jason Bourne, the writers make it a spy comedy. But it is just clichéd stereotypical tripe, which is simply window dressing for the endless stream of crass sexual vulgarity that passes for humour.

And I want to be clear that I am a big fan of provocative humour, especially in this genre. Whether it is stand-ups like Jim Jefferies or Jimmy Carr, through to films like Superbad or Austin Powers, when that brand of humour is done well, there is nothing funnier.

But what is not funny is watching a film where literally anything you can think of which involves sex is reduced to the most disgusting depths you can imagine, then thrown on screen to see what sticks. And none of it is in any way funny, which is the most unforgivable thing of all...

Despite my rating & overall dislike of this film, one positive thing which it did generate was an enormous amount of respect to add to the already significant quantity that I have for Kate Winslet. She had just come off Titanic, at that time not only the highest grossing film, but also a cultural behemoth which is still influential to this day. She literally had the world at her feet and could have done what so many actors in her position do: book roles in massive studio pictures/schlocky crap with enormous paydays and "safe" storylines... Instead, she went after provocative & challenging roles in bold films. And Holy Smoke is pretty much the total polar opposite of the sanitised rubbish Hollywood churns out. The biggest tragedy of all is that that bravery is almost totally wasted...

Ruth (Winslet) is a free-spirited young Australian woman who goes travelling to India & gets sucked in to the cult of a Guru. Her parents, who are worried about losing their daughter, trick her into coming back to Australia and hire "de-programmer" PJ (Keitel) to take her to the remote Outback to extricate her from the Cult's grip. However, the 2 begin to play mind games with each other, leading to a debached & depraved affair.

The main positives for me was firstly the chemistry between Winslet & Keitel, and secondly the bravery of both in what is one of the most incomprehensibly strange films I've ever watched. Having seen a large amount of both actors work, even if the film they are in is bad, they are incapable of giving bad performances. Add into this the fact that they throw themselves with total fearlessness into the intimacy & sexual scenes, this film should be one which fully uses their incredible talent to tell a story which normally wouldn't get made.

But that is where the positives end. Watching this film, I spent large parts just wondering what the hell was going on. For instance, the supporting characters (Ruth's friends/family,) just made no sense. They were weird and totally unbelievable. Their actions defied logic. They spoke dialogue which made no sense and you just thought "Eh?" And Ruth's actions once they get to the isolated shack in the Australian Outback make things even stranger.

The two start what at first seems to be an affair but then descends into basically pushing each other to their limits by belittling & goading. One minute they are at each other's throats then the next kissing & screwing. Sexual politics then gets brought into the mix which leads to PJ wearing a dress for the final third, for reasons which I cannot fathom other than it was provocative & boundary-pushing for a film released in 1998.

Other random things include the friends/family turning up by chance and being totally blasé about the fact their highly vulnerable friend is lying naked on the bed, having obviously slept with PJ; a drunk Ruth being found in a highly compromising situation with 2 men who are effectively sexually assaulting her, which the film again doesn't seem to be too bothered by; and PJ's girlfriend turning up unannounced, again catching the 2 naked and being only mildly irritated, whilst PJ makes the sort of excuses you would normally hear on the Jerry Springer show...

I am sure that there are hidden depths to this film and narrative which I have missed, but I could not decipher what on earth this film was trying to do, aside from make a lot of pretentious points and put a huge amount of waffling dialogue into the mouths of 2 of the most talented & brave actors working today...

Mental illness is not a subject which you would immediately think of when wanting to make a film, firstly because of the very fine line that you have to toe in order for it to not be exploitative or mocking of disability. Then there is the spectre of the few successful films that have successfully been made, the most obvious being One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, which have become titans and revered for their powerful storytelling. But after the magnificence of The Fighter, which I still adore since first watching it 16 years ago, David O'Russell has followed that with this heartwarming, poignant and often extremely funny look at recovery and starting again.

Pat Solitano (Cooper) is released early from a psychiatric hospital after being convicted & sectioned. He is being treated for bipolar disorder, which was undiagnosed, when he almost beat to death a man who was having an affair with his wife. He returns home to his loving parents (De Niro & Weaver,) who are trying their best to cope with Pat's extreme outbursts, as well as dealing with his obsession with reuniting with his estranged wife, despite a restraining order. One night he meets Tiffany Maxwell (Lawrence,) a traumatised widow who is struggling with her own demons. There is an instant connection & the 2 become closer as they recover.

I just love this film. Quite simply, it is just a great story, filled with heartfelt & genuine performances and a strong script. In the early scenes, I did feel there was a slight risk of Pat's tics/symptoms overwhelming the film, like in A Beautiful Mind or Boy A. Luckily, O'Russell makes the wise decision to simply show these as a building of the character then allowing them to fade into the background. As a protagonist, we feel an immense sympathy for Pat, showing how the pressures of his job and undiagnosed mental illnesses simply broke a man who himself comes from a family with a long history of psychiatric conditions.

And on the opposite side, Tiffany is the perfect sparring partner for Pat. Whilst he is more reserved in how he conducts himself, she is the total opposite. From the first moments we meet her, over an excruciatingly awkward dinner where she casually asks Pat what different medications he is on, she makes no apology for who she is, even though she freely admits how upset she is that her generosity has been taken advantage of by so many, after her own terrible tragedy. She refuses to be a victim, her strength and determination shining through.

And I also adored the careful narrative structure of the film, to show that everyone is dealing with their own demons. Pat Snr (De Niro) clearly has OCD, Jake (Pat's brother) has anxiety and friends of Pat have different levels of mental illness which they successfully/unsuccessful deal with. No-one is mocked or belittled, no cheap laughs are generated at the expense of characters.

In terms of performances, this is an embarrassment of riches. Whilst you expect the best from De Niro and Lawrence, it is the smaller parts that for me were the most surprising. Even though he only has a few scenes, Chris Tucker was exceptional. Gone is the high energy & slapstick comedy of his previous work. Danny is someone who was close to Pat in the hospital and his repeated good-natured escapes, along with his goal to get his own life back on track after his stay, bring a real soulfulness to the world this movie creates.

This is one of those films which is just endlessly watchable. It doesn't overstay it's welcome, is the perfect length and also perfectly sticks the landing. I loved it

I appreciate with Bodyguard I am late to the party. I remember when it was released on 2018, it became a broadcasting sensation, debuting to massive audience numbers. Alongside this, it solidified Richard Madden as a major star and his performance as a potential James Bond audition. But as much as I admire it's fearlessness in it's representation of PTSD and male vulnerability at a time when this was almost never discussed, I found other elements just did not ring true.

David Budd is an ex-soldier who is secretly battling with horrific PTSD following tours in Iraq. He is now with the police in the Royalty and Specialist Protection Branch of the Met. In the opening episode, we are shown his incredible abilities at remaining calm under the most unbearable pressure, when he helps to talk down a suicide bomber. Following this act of heroism, he is promoted to Principal Protection Officer (PPO) for Julia Montague, an up-and-coming MP/Home Secretary, who is as fiercely ambitious as she is abrasive. Montague is the target of multiple attacks, as well as Budd being drawn into a conspiracy regarding his loyalty and behaviour. The situation is further complicated by Budd and Montague embarking on an illicit affair, becoming a dangerous conflict of interest.

With regards to the writing, massive respect has to be given, as I said in the introduction, to the tackling of David's PTSD in such an unflinching & traumatic way. It is very easy to forget, when living in the world we have today where there is such openness to discussing mental health, that back in 2018, there was an extremely limited amount of media dealing with this. The representation of trauma is upsetting, as you see the contrast between when Budd puts on his body armour and holster, then the broken man who sits alone in a bare flat drinking away his demons when he is off-duty. Madden, who deservedly won many awards for this role, is in his element here.

But apart from some good production values & excellent use of London locations, the rest of the series actually left me relatively "meh." For every powerful moment, there was a large amount of padding, or attempts at rug pulling, not all of which worked. However, my biggest criticism is actually the chemistry between Madden and Hawes. As much as I like her as an actress, I felt that in many ways Hawes was miscast. This was a role that was screaming out for Emily Mortimer, who would have been absolutely perfect in it.

Hawes tries her best and does bring an icy determination to the more skullduggerous parts of Montague, but when it comes to the intimate scenes, it just wasn't particularly believable. Members of the government engaging in debauched affairs is nothing new, but here it is all a little safe.

Another element which I was surprised there wasn't more of was action scenes. This drama was marketed at the time as being as much about the hand-to-hand combat as it was brutal backroom take downs. But the limited amount of action was disappointing. I appreciate that there might not have been the budget to do anything too outrageous, but many other small films and TV shows have managed to have at least one memorable set piece. The closest we get is a car being shot at and doing a handbrake turn into cover.

For many, there is clearly a lot to love. And there are some great supporting turns, especially from seasoned pros like Gina McKee. But as much as there were a few rug pulls, I was expecting a lot more and was quite disappointed when the final credits rolled.

Many years ago, I rented Coco after seeing it get 5* reviews across the board and being named film of the year by multiple publications. I watched it and although I remember liking it, I wouldn't have given it more than 3 stars, feeling it was average Pixar fare. Then my best friend told it was one of his favourite films, as well as being one which profoundly moved him, so I thought I should give it another watch. I stuck it on my rental list & forgot about it, until it popped through the door. So I stuck it on and was transported into one of the most magical animation worlds I've ever seen...

Miguel is a precocious & sensitive 12 year old living in the Mexican town of Santa Cecilia. He adores music, but has to keep this a secret from his extended family, who detest even the slightest hint of a tune. This is due to his great-great grandfather abandoning the family generations ago to pursue his music. Despite this, Miguel idolises Ernesto de la Cruz, the most famous singer-songwriter in Mexico. During the Day of the Dead celebrations, Miguel accidentally transports himself to the Land of the Dead, whereupon he meets his passed relatives and has to get back to the Living before sunrise, or he'll be trapped forever.

Whilst there are so many different ways I could approach this review, I also have a limited amount of characters, so I want to focus on what I loved most about the film. And for me, the most moving element was the lightness of touch. We treat death in an extremely negative way, in the sense that many people forget the life the person had, instead focussing on the fact that they are no longer present. But what Coco does (and I have no doubt is also the theme of the Day of the Dead celebrations as well, such was the extensive research of the Mexican culture,) is to focus on the lives the Undead had. And it also finds humour, alongside sadness, in this.

I was so moved and enchanted by the beautiful, gentle and deeply affecting world that sprung from the magical minds of the creative team. The animation they created is nothing short of extraordinary. I watched this on a massive TV in 4K UHD and there is simply no other way to experience it. Every scene is bursting with colour & beauty, from the town of Santa Cecilia through to the beautiful world of the Undead. Miguel is a wonderful protagonist, full of wide-eyed innocence but also a strong heart and a refusal to have his love of music squashed out of him by bitter family members, irrelevant of their motivations.

Voice-acting wise, this is an embarrassment of riches. Apart from one actor, everyone else is of Mexican heritage, which adds a real weight to the quality of the acting, as well as the expressions and music which is included. Special mention must go to Anthony Gonzalez in his debut as Miguel, as well as Gael García Bernal as loveable rouge Héctor, our "guide" once Miguel is in the Land of the Dead.

And in another magical touch, as well as showing the breadth of topics which this film looks at, there is a touching storyline which features what could arguably be described as Alzheimer's, in the shape of Mama Coco. Something which has been shown many times is how people with even the most severe cases will still remember the songs which meant the most to them and which they grew up with. And the ending scene, which is nothing short of miraculous, allows the lessons and themes which we have watched for the last 90 minutes to be gently realised and perfectly wrapping up a wonderful adventure.

Whilst this is not my favourite animated film (I can't ever see anything beating How To Train Your Dragon for me,) it isn't far off. This is what makes so many people love and adore films, especially ones which take weighty, upsetting and sometimes difficult topics, then turn them into a wonderful adventure which not only moves you, but makes you rethink what you felt about death.

Boy A is a film which will have vastly different impacts depending on who watches it. For anyone under a certain age who hasn't lived in the UK, it will be a drama which looks at the rehabilitation and new life of a young man who has served a significant prison sentence for murder. But for anyone over the age of 35, it takes on a totally different meaning. The UK is a country which will forever in some way be scarred by the murder of Jamie Bulger, a 3 year old child, committed by 2 young boys who kidnapped him from a shopping centre and killed him in a way which can only be described as complete evil. And despite the changing of the young victim to a schoolgirl the same age as the film's perpetrators, the real-life case hangs heavy over this film.

Eric Wilson (Garfield) has just been released from prison, given a new identity and moved across the country. He is supported by Terry (Mullan,) a decent & fiercely compassionate case worker, who has spent huge amounts of his time readying Eric for his release, to the detriment of his own family. After choosing the name Jack, Eric takes a job at a factory, makes friends and begins a romance with Michelle. However, his new identity is at risk of being exposed, as well as his inner turmoil at living essentially a double life.

I always give credit to films/media which have bold and sometimes provocative storylines. And this film touches on a profound trauma which still affects the UK decades after the horrific murder. But, there are unfortunately not many good elements which lift it out of the soapy territory which you feel the film is trying to break out of.

By far, the best part of this film is Peter Mullan. Pretty much everything I have seen him in, he elevates. Whether it is a couple of scenes or the whole narrative, he is never less than compelling, with a magnetic screen presence. And he is one of a rare group of actors that effortlessly switches between fierce compassion, such as this performance, and a terrifying anger & threat, in films such as Tyrannosaur. In the few scenes he has, he really elevates the film, which is made all the more pertinent when you wish he was on screen more. But for me, that's really where the positives end.

My main issue was actually with the way Eric/Jack is written, as well as Garfield's performance. I fully appreciate that Jack is in many ways still a child, trapped inside a man's body, whose innocence was lost by his significant prison sentence. But I found him unbelievably tiresome the longer the film went on. Garfield imbues him with a myriad of tics, stammering and incessant questioning which really starts to become annoying. There were a couple of points where characters ask him simple questions and he just splutters & grunts as he tries to answer, which then starts to look like overacting. And even though Garfield is an extremely accomplished actor who has subsequently gone on to do great work, the longer this film goes on, the more acting pills it looks like he has swallowed.

Other characters don't get served much better. The romance between Jack and Michelle tries to dig a little deeper, and the intimacy between them is sensitively handled, but again we are 2 chess piece moves away from Hollyoaks territory.

The biggest shame about all this is that there is actually a real sensitivity about how the young characters lives are affected by this horrendous murder, with legitimate questions raised, which the film rightly gives no easy answers to. But it never manages to be anything more that a melodrama with one great performance and a central protagonist who I found increasingly irritating, despite it's noble ambitions to be something more

I knew almost nothing about Misery, aside from it's infamy due to the hobbling scene which was occasionally referenced in other media. But it was often mentioned as one of the classic films with an incredible central performance which was Oscar-winning (and deservedly so.) What interested me most was the fact that it has remained so iconic decades later, losing none of the power that turned it's Angel of Death from a beloved literary character to one of cinema's most demonic villains.

Paul Sheldon (Cann) is a successful & famous author who created the romance novels about Misery Chastain, a young Victorian woman & her adventures in love. Although the series has brought him wealth & fame, Sheldon hates that this is what he is known for, instead of serious stories/writing. When we first meet him completing his new novel at his getaway in the mountains, he reveals that he has killed off the Misery character, to free himself creatively. After a catastrophic accident in a snowstorm, he is rescued by Annie Wilkes, a seemingly kindly & highly eccentric nurse, who takes him back to her house to convalesce. Whilst initially in awe of her patient & declaring herself his "number one fan," she reveals herself as a psychopath when she discovers Sheldon has killed off her favourite character. A shocking battle of wills emerges, as Paul fights to escape the clutches of his demonic jailor.

Like with so many of these types of films, as much as everyone (both in front & behind the camera) brings their A-Game, the only thing you will remember is Bates and her portrayal of Wilkes. From the opening shots of her, beaming with joy at the fact her hero is in her house and totally reliant on her to heal, through to her volcanic & shocking tantrums/violence, Bates is magnetic. And this performance is made all the more incredible when you find out this was her 1st film role (she was already an acclaimed stage actress.)

But what is also extremely unusual about the film, considering the time it was made, is how nuanced the creation & portrayal of Wilkes is. It is very clear that she has profound & severe mental illnesses, which the filmmakers summarised were due to an abusive childhood. However, unlike many of the media around mental illness at that time, Wilkes is never ridiculed or mocked. Yes, absolutely she is demonic and scary, but is also a fully 3-dimensional character. And she is shown in her lowest moments as an extremely vulnerable & broken person, as much as there is also significant rage never more than a second away.

The battle of wills between her and Sheldon is totally gripping, alongside the comedic elements of the film. Caan, despite being confined to a bed for 95% of the time, gets some great lines as well as a chance to create a litany of horrified expressions as he reacts to the pressure-cooker atmosphere he has found himself in, being physically and psychologically tortured by a woman who will declare her love for him one second, then maim him the next.

Misery is without a doubt a great adaptation. And this is due to Reiner's great direction, a brilliant script, quality production values and really sucking the audience in to this horrible world that only Stephen King could dream up. But this is and always will be Kathy Bates's film. She took the words on the page and created one of the most iconic & scary characters imaginable. And in a neat bit of symmetry, Bates was presented her Oscar by Daniel Day-Lewis, who did exactly the same thing years later with Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York...

Ana De Armas is quickly becoming one of my favourite actresses. In everything I have seen her in, she is brilliant. She was, by some distance, the best thing in No Time To Die, partly because she was only in it for 15 minutes, really proving that less can be more. Her character of Paloma was feisty, smart, brilliant and not overused, following in the great Bond tradition of characters who make a massive impression within one scene (joining Vincent Schiavelli as Dr Kaufman.) But I was also hopeful she could be great in this film/addition to the John Wick world, due to the losing of its way.

I am a huge fan of the first 3 Wick films, as they were what I adore about action movies: tightly scripted, memorable characters and incredible action/production values. Then the success seemed to go to the producers heads, resulting in the 4th film being an atrocious bloated mess. So if Ana could do to John Wick what she did for Bond, this could really be something special. And I'm delighted to say that, mainly due to her, Ballerina is an absolute riot.

Eve MaCarro is a woman who witnessed her father being murdered at the hands of The Chancellor, who heads up an international assassin group. She is taken under the wing of Winston, who then gives her the opportunity to avenge her father's death by training under the stewardship of The Director, who runs the Ruksa Roma ballerina assassin group. Within this world, she also comes into contact with a certain John Wick (who is in the middle of the events of films 3 & 4)

The main thing that I loved about this film, which had started to go from the Wick franchise, was a real sense of fun & lightness. Once you get past the obligatory first few scenes of Eve losing her father and the training montage, the film is so joyful and silly, whilst containing some of the best action/stunts in films today. There was a couple of moments where I was almost crying laughing, due to the way the fights scenes were shot. In particular, one scene which used a trolley of smashing plates, I rewound a couple of times just to enjoy the moment again.

Whilst there is so much I could say about the film itself, I actually just want to heap as much praise onto De Armas as possible. She was with the production from the beginning, was integral to the formation of and design of her character, then absolutely threw herself fearlessly into the stunts. From watching the special features, I was blown away by her absolute and total commitment to the role, including many months of gruelling stunt work and an insistence on doing as many of the stunts as possible. I also have absolutely no hesitation in saying that without her, this film would have failed, full stop.

Whilst it is a somewhat tired clichéd, when an action film protagonist is miscast, especially a female character, you end up in "Meg Ryan as a fighter pilot" territory, which is the death knell of any movie. But you never doubt for a second De Armas as Eve.

I also loved the fact that, not only are there returning characters from the Wick universe (including sadly the last performance by Lance Reddick before he passed away,) but John Wick's presence is more than a glorified cameo. It would have been so easy for the writers to write a small scene where he has a walk-on part, just to be able to put his name in the credits. But he plays a significant role in shaping Eve's storyline and is involved in the climatic final scenes as well.

The long & short of it is that, if you loved the previous John Wick films, you will adore Ballerina. It takes everything you liked about the franchise before it got silly, introduces a new character and a great story for her to be in, then runs with it. Whilst I do have some gripes, hence the 4 stars, when it's good, nothing can touch it.

And Ana De Armas is sensational

Anne (Drucker) is an extremely successful & brilliant lawyer who specialises in cases involving young people, whether it is access/rights for parents going through divorce, all the way up to more serious assault & child protection matters. She lives with her CEO husband Pierre and 2 adopted children in a gorgeous chalet in the middle of the French countryside, in exquisite luxury. Then Pierre announces that Theò, his estranged 17 year old son from a previous acrimonious relationship, is coming to live with them due to his extremely difficult behaviour & getting into trouble with the police. After initially disliking each other, Anne & Theò embark on a passionate affair, which threatens to be exposed, whilst Anne also deals with the previously buried trauma she has experienced.

After a long hiatus, Catherine Breillat has returned with this remake of the popular and critically acclaimed Danish film Queen of Hearts. But what will shock people who are familiar with her previous work is the lack of explicit sex & provocativeness that featured so heavily in films such as Romance, Brief Crossing and Fat Girl. In many ways, and I say this in no way critically, Breillat has made a film which is a conventional adult drama, which I never thought I'd see myself writing.

And, from what I have read on IMDb, Queen Of Hearts is an extremely provocative film which in no way shys away from explicit imagery. So I find the change of tone interesting, and slightly disappointing in one sense. I really enjoy films which are unafraid, irrelevant of the content, to push boundaries with their storytelling. And despite not loving a lot of Breillat's work (this is the highest rated of the films of hers I've seen so far,) I've always respected her fearless approach to provocative stories. There was a part of me that really wished this film was more bold in its depiction of the affair, simply because that is something Breillat does so well.

But I cannot lie, I really enjoyed this film. For a start, it looks absolutely gorgeous. All the previous films of Breillat's I've watched have had dreary, sometimes lifeless and washed-out cinematography. But this is a world away from those productions. The colours are vibrant, bold & rich; the sound design excellent and atmospheric; the locations picture-perfect.

The performances are also great, none more so than Léa Drucker's, an actress I have not watched before but who is extremely technically skilled. She effectively switches with ease between ice-cold and collected to struggling to hold together her emotions when remembering trauma from her past. Olivier Rabourdin, who is the face you have seen in multiple French films, plays Pierre with the energy of a man who has put his career above everything else and is desperately trying to salvage the life he threw away.

When it comes to Theò, I was a little bit more reserved. To play the role of the scheming, manipulative but also sexually liberated young man who breaks hearts is not easy. And whilst Samuel Kircher gave it his best and was effective in the early scenes, I felt he got more out of his depth the longer the story went on. By the end scenes, I just didn't feel that he was credible, although the script does also wrap things up extremely quickly & not particularly logically.

But despite this criticism, this is a really good adult drama which explores female sexuality, as well as how even an older woman with everything to lose can be seduced by a literally walking red flag. And as much as I wanted it to push the boundaries more, I was always absorbed with the drama on screen.

Catherine Breillat is, without doubt, one of the most provocative filmmakers of the past few decades, which is made even more significant when you consider how few female writer/directors there have been. In a genre which is often extremely difficult to have success in, to be a woman and triumph in it is very rare. But she has also been the subject of controversy, mainly due to not only the frank depiction of sexuality in her work, but also allegations against her by actors she worked with.

Over the past few months, I have watched a few of her films, at first interested to see what she produces, but also because I enjoy watching films which are challenging, even if I don't particularly like them. Brief Crossing was an interesting premise which featured good performances, even if Breillat somewhat ruined the screenplay with the relentless man-bashing by the female protagonist. Then I watched Sex is Comedy, which was a satirical & often unflinching look at the massive difficulties of bringing Fat Girl to the screen. So to now watch the film which that film inspired is an interesting experience.

Anaïs Pingot (Reboux) is an overweight & awkward teenage girl who is on vacation with her family. She has a love/hate relationship with her sister Elena, who is everything she is not: thin, beautiful, attractive to boys and confident. On a walk into town, the pair run into Fernando (De Rienzo,) an Italian who instantly makes moves on Elena, isolating Anaïs. As the relationship progresses, Fernando pressures Elena to go further than she is comfortable to, also affecting Anaïs's bond with her sister.

As with a lot of Breillat's work, there is a huge amount of discussion about sexuality and the female perspective on this. The characters can at times be abrasive, but they are also original creations which makes it a refreshing change. What I enjoyed most was the examination of the relationship between the 2 sisters, as well as the boldness of their performances. There is no doubt that Roxane Mesquida has the tougher of the 2 roles, but her bravery & talent shines through. But this doesn't mean that Reboux is sidelined. Anaïs is the representation of so many people who have been left behind, socially isolated and outcast, and whose hurt speaks for those discarded by the tribe.

The ending is quite strange as well, but then this is a Catherine Breillat film, so you are never going to get conventionality and the characters walking off into the sunset happily ever after. For some, it is the most prevocative part of the film, however for me it left more questions than answers, which I have no doubt is exactly what she intended to happen.

If you are a fan or interested in Breillat's work, then there is much to interest you here. However I have no doubt that for many, the abrasiveness, idiosyncrasies and frank depictions of sex will put them off. But I am so glad that there are filmmakers like Breillat working today, who are actually trying to do something different.

I say this with no hyperbole or exaggeration: the original/animated version of How To Train Your Dragon (HTTYD) redefined how I felt about animated films. I had seen my fair share of them in my life, with some having more of an impact than others, but I never actively seeked them out. Then I heard the critical praise for HTTYD and was interested, but never thought it would have the impact it did.

Within 5 minutes of starting it, I was totally immersed in that world. It is to me, without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest animated film ever made. I love every single second of it. Not one thing isn't perfect: voice acting, animation, soundtrack, story, themes, humour, sadness, character arc. Every single element is masterful, with the ability to make me laugh one minute, then cry the next. Even though the 2nd film wasn't as good as the 1st, the world that had been created shone through and is a place I adore being in.

So when there was the inevitable announcement, after the massive success of the animated versions, that there was to be a live-action remake, I was actually quite resistant to it. I detest Hollywood's desperation to grab everything that makes money, whether it is good or bad, and simply remake and churn out endless variations/formats of the story. But I also do not pass judgement on something until I have seen it. And the again positive reviews gave some encouragement that this could be good. So I rented it and pressed play...

This is effectively a shot-for-shot remake of the animated film. And that sentence is in many ways the death-knell for it for one simple reason: why are you watching a largely CGI-world with live actors when you could be watching the actual original, which is simply flawless. And that's exactly what I kept thinking, repeatedly, as this film went through the motions. Every scene, I remembered how the animated film played out, compared it to this, then thought "Why does this film exist? What point does it serve? What is gained by creating a facsimile of the original masterpiece?"

And I want to make clear, I am not criticising the production values, CGI artwork of the dragons, acting or use of IMAX. It is impossible to hate something which has been crafted so carefully with what is clearly love for the source material (hence my 2 star rating.)

But to me, this film is nothing more than a great big ringing cash-till. This has been commissioned and produced by a studio which is simply interested in making as much money as is possible from a piece of intellectual property. And because it is clear the amount of love and adoration there is for the animated film, the producers have simply hedged their bets and said "Just duplicate it with a couple of things slightly changed to differentiate it..."

And it made an eye-watering amount of money, which has led to the inevitable sequel and the cycle continues...

Believe me, just stick to the animated film. You'll absolutely adore it and if you have already seen it and are thinking about watching this, just don't...

Like many people, I watched 101 Dalmatians when I was a kid, mainly remembering it for Cruella Di Vil, a villain whose aura and menace almost screamed out of the screen at you. She was a genuinely terrifying creation, joining the rogues gallery of eccentric British antagonists. Recently, I found myself thinking about it again so decided to take a trip down memory lane. And I absolutely loved every part of it.

Pongo is a Dalmatian dog who lives with his owner (or "pet") Roger, an ambitious but luckless musician. After Pongo forces a meeting with the attractive Anita and her Dalmatian Perdita, they fall in love and move to a house. Perdita becomes pregnant with puppies, but these are stolen by Cruella Di Vil, Anita's demonic & wealthy friend, who plans to kill and make coats out of them. Pongo and Perdita then desperately run away from home with the aid of the dogs of London to locate the puppies and bring them back.

Trying to single out the best bits of one of Disney's greatest animated films is almost a fool's errand, but for me the voice acting is probably the highlight. Whilst Betty Lou Gerson as De Vil is the one that will stick with you, I think that there is not one mediocre performance across the cast. Even the animals who only have a few seconds of dialogue make an impact, such as Tom Conway who voices the Collie, desperately calling out to the dogs in an awful snowstorm, or George Pelling as the Great Dane.

Having not seen the film for 30+ years, the other thing I hadn't remembered was just how funny it was. At times, there was a genuine belly laugh every 30 seconds or so. My own favourite was probably the cat Sgt. Tibbs creatively using the Captain (a horse) to brutally dispatch Jasper and Horace, De Vil's gormless goons. But, as much as the film can make you laugh, it can break your heart in the very next frame. As much as this is a children's film, it doesn't shy away from the peril & difficulties the puppies/animals face.

And, like every Disney film, the animation is a combination of classic drawings alongside more experimental art. I particularly loved the way London was able to be portrayed one minute as a beautiful city, deserving of it's name "The Big Smoke," then turning into an ominous and dangerous city, such as during the birth of the puppies or after they are stolen.

I loved this film. It is a masterful and brilliantly told adventure, using the wonders of animation to tell a gripping story about the love parents of any type, whether human or animal, have for their children. I also loved the indirect but extremely powerful message of adoption and how, irrelevant that the vast majority of the puppies not being theirs, both dogs and humans take all of them in without a second thought.

The portrayal and impact of rape has led to some of the most powerful and unforgettable films/portrayals ever put on screen. At it's best, you get films such as The Accused (propelling Jodie Foster's career into the stratosphere and garnering her the 1st of her Oscars,) or Elle (Isabelle Huppert giving one of the greatest screen performances I have ever seen.) But unfortunately there have also been some terrible films as a result. The tragedy with Descent is how good it starts, laying the groundwork for a powerful look at sexual assault, but then squanders that early promise.

Maya is a fresh-faced, confident student at an elite university. She is popular, well-liked and vivacious, throwing herself into frat parties and the social scene, partly to escape the bad memories of a recent breakup. One night, she is at a house party and meets Jared, a smooth-talking football player and letch. Whilst she at first rebuffs his advances, she agrees to a date, after which she ends up back at his. He then violently rapes her. The film then looks at how she rebuilds her life and plans her revenge.

For the first half an hour, this film is really good. The build-up, tension and horror is brilliant. The tone, which makes you feel uncomfortable from the first few minutes, is used expertly to ratchet up the tension. As it is highly unlikely someone would simply watch this film without knowing the story/subject matter, the wait leading up to what you know will be an extremely distressing attack is horrible. And, like other portrayals of rape in not only the aforementioned films but others such as Monster, it is visceral and deeply upsetting, made worse by the slew of racist bile he whispers to her.

And this continues on after the attack, showing how this has totally changed Maya, from how she isolates herself down to her body language. We really feel how this unspeakable attack has ripped her soul out and broken her. Whilst Jared continues on with his life, seen by everyone else as a cool guy instead of a disgusting rapist, Maya is left bereft.

At this point, you would expect the film/narrative to look at how she rebuilds herself. But after the powerful opening, the film totally loses its way and actually becomes quite boring.

We watch as Maya inhabits the club scene, slowly rediscovering herself. But it just doesn't gel and continue the compelling narrative of the first half. There is an attempt at metamorphosis, including Maya standing at the mirror trying to give herself encouragement, but it just falls flat. And then we are back to the college setting, where she lures Jared to a flat before exacting her violent revenge, with the help of one of her friends.

It is clear that what has happened is the writers/director (Rosario Dawson & Talia Lugacy) wanted to make something looking at the horror of rape and what justice could even look like after that. And they came up with the initial attack on Maya then the revenge attack against Jared. But the story in-between those 2 events just seems to have been written on the fly, which explains why the middle section of the film just feels like padding. After sitting through that for 40 minutes, it just kills the pace.

And the biggest tragedy of all is that Dawson is absolutely of the calibre of Foster, Huppert and Theron. With the right script, this could have been an absolutely phenomenal & provocative look at the effects of rape. But despite a great cast, including Chad Faust who deserve plaudits for his brave performance, the film just becomes a wasted opportunity.

When you watch a David Fincher picture, you know exactly what you'll be getting production-wise. The best metaphor I can use to describe them is a Swiss-watch level of precision. Silky smooth cinematography, seamless cuts, pitch-perfect sound and a beautifully realised world. The man has made several iconic films in the form of Seven, Fight Club and Panic Room, and we are now back with a mesmeric & detailed character study in The Killer. Everything you know and love about Fincher is present, teaming up with Michael Fassbender for a look at the cold world of the contract killer.

The Killer (Fassbender) is a hitman who is at the elite level in his field. When he is on a job, his entire focus & thoughts are on the task at hand. However, after a career of perfection, he misses a crucial shot and then becomes the hunted. We follow him as he hunts down those attempting to kill him, jetting all over the globe.

From the opening moments, this film grabs you. We get a front-row seat to what it takes to be a hitman, watching as the unnamed Killer meditates, grabs micro sleeps, practices yoga and hear his stream-of-conscious inner voice reciting his mantras whilst he stakes out his target. It is a horribly addicting look at contract killing. As with so many of these types of films, the killer's ethos/code is central to his character development, so when things go wrong and they have to fight back, you start to see the real & fallible human they are.

Fassbender's work is extraordinary. I first got a glimpse of his "physical" acting and ability to convey so much with none/very few words in Shame, still to me his best performance. And whilst the protagonist here could so easily be a soulless cypher with only 2 expressions, Fassbender makes him a fascinating Rubik's cube. And the supporting players also bring their A-games, including a wonderful Tilda Swinton, doing incredible work with 10 minutes of screen time.

But whilst much of the narrative takes place in dingy building sites or in a variety of vans/aeroplanes, there is also an incredibly choreographed & bone-crunchingly violent fight when the Killer is caught off-guard. This is a Jason Bourne level of combat, but not sanitised for a 12A rating. It is also in parts extremely funny, due to the fact neither assassin wants to be heard and for the police to be called.

The technical achievements here are wonderful as well. I re-watched Panic Room recently and was reminded of just how incredible Fincher shoots, especially the camera movement & tracking. And this continues in The Killer. The camera moves in ways you marvel at, that would leave Scorsese breathless. The sound design, especially when watching using headphones, is also flawless.

If there is a fly in the ointment, hence the 4 star rating, it is due to the ending, which has itself been the source of some controversy with viewers and reviewers. Obviously I'm not going to spoil it, but quite simply it makes no sense. And the film then just ends abruptly, leaving you going "Eh?" Whilst it could deliberately be Fincher doing a rug-pull, challenging us as the viewer, it just leaves you scratching your head slightly.

But as a whole, the film is incredible. I loved being in the world that was created, and special mention must go out to Atticus Ross & Trent Reznor for a brilliant soundtrack. I just hope that this entire team gets back together again soon to produce more incredible work.

We are now, without a doubt, living in full Christopher Nolan obsession times. There is practically no other filmmaker who generates not only complete reverence but also sky-high anticipation for anything and everything he does. Solidified during his incredible handling of The Dark Knight trilogy, every film of his now comes with the same levels of expectation that Kubrick used to generate, back when films like 2001 completely rewrote what we as the audience expected when we went to the cinema. And make no mistake, I am so grateful that this titan of storytelling is so powerful in his craft, as well as his fanatical defending of cinema, film and physical media.

But... and it gives me no pleasure in saying this, with The Odyssey, Nolan is now for me missing as much as he hits. Odyssey now joins Tenet, Dunkirk and Inception as films which whilst they were visually spectacular, have serious story/script issues, some more than others. For example, Inception is such a cold, at times miserable experience, which was made all the more stark by The Adjustment Bureau dealing with many of the same topics and being almost flawless. Dunkirk was a film where you really had no-one to root for, just multiple nameless people in a war zone saying stilted dialogue. And Tenet was absolutely terrible, full of pretentious ideas which not even the cast could fully understand...

The Odyssey retells the famous poem by Homer of Odysseus, King of Ithaca, who takes part in the war of Troy then has to make his way home, battling against demonic monsters & gods. Back home in Ithaca, his wife Penelope has to try to cope with his kingdom being overrun with parasitic suitors & her son Telemachus determined to rise up and become King.

The biggest issue for me with this film was simple: I was never, ever taken in by it. I always felt like an outsider looking in. Over 3 hours, I watched many battles, quiet moments and confrontations, but it never grabbed me. I was never invested in the character arcs, despite some good performances. And when you compared this to Oppenheimer, where within 5 minutes you were totally engrossed by and hooked by his journey, in The Odyssey, I can honestly say I didn't care. The soliloquies & exposition, whilst absolutely said with feeling and passion, were just like many other historical dramas I have watched.

I remembered feeling exactly the same way with The Last Duel, another historical drama with Damon as the lead. Directed by Ridley Scott, another master filmmaker, it was full of battles, confrontations & exceptional production values but again left me feeling cold & unengaged. I'm not for a second saying Damon is at fault here, more that these types of films can often not land, especially with the politics which inevitably is intertwined within them.

But having said all that, I still have given The Odyssey 3 stars, and that score is quite simply because of everything else about it, which is exceptional. I watched this the way it was meant to be seen, in 70MM IMAX film at the BFI IMAX. This is the 1st film completely shot in 70MM, after adaptations were made to the cameras, due to the massive amounts of noise they generate, making recording dialogue almost impossible. And in terms of production, cinematography, sound, colour palette, costume, spectacle, I mean literally every single thing is jaw-droppingly incredible. This is the sort of film that not even a master of the epic like David Lean would be able to muster.

And that is why I have so much frustration towards it. I adore films and never set out to dislike anything I watch. I go in with an open mind and want to be blown away. And in The Odyssey, quite simply the spectacle is there, the script is not. I wanted to care about the characters and their journeys, but the story left me unmoved.