Film Reviews by Timmy B

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.

After the revival of the 28 Days... franchise with 28 Years Later, which did extremely well both critically & commercially, as well as the cliff-hanger ending, the sequel arrived with high expectations. And whilst the change of director (Nia Da Costa, taking over from Danny Boyle due to scheduling demands,) brings a new energy and zest to things, it also has an uneven tone, as well as a strange vibe which often didn't work for me.

Picking up a couple of hours after the events of the 1st film, Spike has now joined The Jimmy's, led by the psychotic Jimmy Crystal. After a brutal initiation, they continue their journey through the infected wasteland, committing heinous depravity as they go. And we continue to follow the story of Dr Kelson, who is trying to manage & treat the infected through a combination of kindness and medicine. These two polar opposites eventually meet, with staggering results...

As much as there was a lot to like in 28 Years Later, it also had it fair share of script issues, especially around Jodie Comer's character Isla. But it also must be said that, as much as this is the sequel to that film, they are actually quite different beasts. 28 Years was much more of a chase film, which included some quiet moments to balance out the frenetic action. The Bone Temple, whilst it still has the infected lurking around every corner waiting to pounce, is much more a character piece, looking at the polar opposite behaviours of it's 2 protagonists.

Dr Kelson is the more interesting of the 2, simply because we spent so much time and got to know him so well in the first film. Jimmy Crystal fares less well, not only due to the writing, but also due to the character himself. As much as he spins a witty yarn, which melds unsettlingly into his psychopathy, his monologues did become tiresome after a while. And I also found it stretched credibility that he was the leader of a rag-tag group of equally disturbed nominals who obeyed his every whim and didn't simply turn on him after a few scenes.

There were other elements which I also found disappointing, one of which was the side-lining of Spike in many ways. Alfie Williams is such an incredible actor, and the small amount that he does get given, he excels at. You know after seeing him in the 1st film that he is more than capable of commanding scenes, however he is often nothing more than a background character who is occasionally given some lines. This was such a let-downs after his sensational debut.

And the much-talked about torture scene was also unremittingly nasty & brutal without much reason to exist. It is established fairly clearly early on just how despotic the Jimmy's are, but to have a long protracted scene which just seemed to relish the violence but also the wilful cruelty was too far for me. The monologue that Jimmy Crystal gives is also fairly annoying after a while, going on far too long and probably looking better on the page than on screen.

But despite my frustrations, there were also some amazing moments. Samson continues his domination of the narrative, and the scenes he shares with Kelson are at times magical. The showdown scene, which I won't ruin, is a piece of unhinged magic & lunacy, perfectly coupled with the music and imagery that burns into your mind.

And the end scene prompted a cheer in me, as it again beautifully sets up the action for the next film. Despite the middling scores I've given the two recent films, there is enough in there for me to keep watching, as well as giving me plenty to think about. Here's hoping the next one knocks it out of the park

"Prince" Naseem Hamed is a legendary British boxer, who in his heyday was known for his theatrical ring entrances, his phenomenal talent/technique and his truly incredible ability at making people either love or hate him. But he was made into this incredible fighter by an Irish trainer called Brendan Ingle, who ran a boxing gym in a poverty-stricken part of Yorkshire. The film looks at not only his early life, but also the massive fallout as Naseem gets more successful & starts to push out Ingle, as well as the integral part that larger-than-life boxing promotor Frank Warren had in shaping Naseem's dominance & theatricality in the sport.

In some ways, I did debate whether to give this film 3 or 4 stars. Because as much as the performers are outstanding and the film manages to avoid a lot of the clichés that this genre has, it was also at times a bit shallow. Part of this has to do with the fact that Naseem himself isn't featured much as the story goes on, the narrative instead seeing the hurt & isolation that Ingle suffers, as well as his clear loyalty to his best pupil even after being snubbed so mercilessly in front of the boxing press. But I did genuinely enjoy it.

Casting-wise, Brosnan is watchable in almost everything I've seen him in. And you get the sense that he relishes playing such a larger-than-life Irishman who was changing young people's lives, especially when most Irish at that time were associated with the Troubles. I did also feel that the film was very fair to Ingle in showing that, at times, he was extremely controlling as well as insisting that he was put front & center of everything that Naseem did, like an embarrassing father with their gifted child. But the film does not do this in such a way that you start to loathe Ingle, which could so easily have been the result in less skilful hands.

And Amir El-Masry is absolutely perfect as Naseem, as well as the 2 child actors who portray his early life. For example, after the opening scenes where the family is relentlessly racially abused (something the film shows repeatedly and something I commend,) you really feel the joy he has as his obvious talent and ability silence all the doubters.

However, there are some things which don't land particularly well. The representation of the media, in the composite character of Vicki Quinn, at times felt like it had been forced into the script and didn't always ring true. And I also did feel that Naseem's brother Riath, whilst he may very well have behaved appallingly, was in many ways just the stereotypical family member who is whispering poison in the protagonist's ear and splitting the characters apart.

But I want to end this review on what for me was ironically the best & most enjoyable element: 23 years ago, Brosnan and Toby Stephens starred Die Another Day, without question one of the worst Bond films ever made, but in no way the fault of either actor. And it is so wonderful to see them reunited in Giant, especially the fact that they share multiple scenes together as two extremely eccentric & egotistical men. The chemistry they have is a joy to watch, as they chew up scenery and dialogue with relish. And it made me hope that they work together again soon, as it is so clear how well they act in each others company & bring out the best in each other.

Amongst film fans, Uwe Boll is infamous for his output of absolutely atrocious films, many of which are ranked as being the worst ever made (Postal, Alone in the Dark ect.) Using a now closed German tax loop hole, he was consistently able to raise the funds to continue this crusade against cinema, irrelevant of how little money the films made or the critical excoriation they received. But despite this reputation, his films were never seen as grossly offensive, more falling into the category of "So bad it's good" or just plain rubbish.

However, Citizen Vigilante became infamous even before it's release, after being denied a ratings classification in Germany, which meant it could not be exhibited. This banning simply added fuel to the fire, turbocharged by Elon Musk offering the film for free, determined to get as many people to see it as possible. And no matter how bad you think this film can get, it simply plunges further down the cesspit of despicableness.

Michael Sanders (Hammer) is an American ex-soldier operating in an unnamed EU country. He is horrified by the crime & attacks he sees, so with his significant wealth and resources, he delivers his own brand of vigilante "justice."

Before I attack the film's themes, it is worth mentioning just how badly made it is. The editing, camera work, pacing, script, sound, literally everything is shocking. There's almost no point in trying to deconstruct any particular element of it, because every part is incompetent dreck. A child with a basic DV camera could do a better job...

But for me and probably most other people, it is this film's story/themes which are the most rancid part of it. It is like Boll asked the most morally depraved & demonic AI system to spend the day watching both GB News and Fox News, then to vomit out a script based on the worst fear-mongering those channels transmit. But what this film is, in the purest sense, is pornography. Whether it is sexual, violence, xenophobia or racism that this film smears across the screen, either overtly and subtly, it is done in the most leary and voyeuristic way imaginable.

In the opening scene, a young white mother is walking with her son when she is stabbed by a black man with an enormous knife, which the camera has fetishistically watched him take out of his waistband then plunge into her neck. We then get treated to multiple different angles as this woman collapses in front of her son, blood spraying everywhere. Later on, we are given a front row seat to a gang rape, with both the victim and perpetrators looking as close to the age of 16 as is possible.

Other delights include men openly spiking women's drinks, Sanders luring multiple police to a house where he slaughters them and demanding that his solicitors ensure that tenants/families are immediately evicted from his properties as soon as they are late with any payment of rent, irrelevant of the circumstances. Then of course, we have the sexual exploitation of women within one of Sanders's properties. He walks through a corridor of prostitutes, the camera taking great care to ensure we see every angle of their bodies, before choosing one & being taken to a filthy room where you can almost smell the cum of previous Johns. This then leads to the most bizarre sex scene I have ever witnessed, incorporating Sander's extreme cleanliness OCD into the mix.

This barely scratches the surface of the depravity contained in this film. I have before seen TV/film which is terrible, usually due to acting or script. But this is so much worse than that. This is a genuinely hateful film, which from it's opening frames shows the most heinous depravity & xenophobia, ratcheting up the animosity towards anyone who isn't like it's protagonist. And Boll made this knowing full well the impact it would have, as well as the sort of people who would be inspired by it.

I genuinely hope I never see a film this reprehensible again

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

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

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

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

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

Gripping entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead, his stupidity cost him his life...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A brilliant British film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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