Film Reviews by Timmy B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A powerful film with an incredible soundtrack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magnificent & electrifying filmmaking