Film Reviews by Timmy B

This film will probably be the most disgusting one I watch this year. It is a movie which is filled with loathsome individuals bemoaning how bad their lives are, whilst wallowing & swanning around one of the most elite universities on the planet. Every cliché you could imagine is turned up to a billion, but these have been updated to today's climate, obviously to try to look contemporary & edgy. Whilst it wants to come across as being a trailblazer of the very real battles fought today, instead it simply looks like a desperate loser vocally jumping on every single bandwagon possible to look righteous and on the right side of history.

Alma is a professor at Yale, who lives with her husband Fred. She is well-regarded & liked amongst her colleagues and students, but is also competing for tenure. One night, she hosts a boozy soirée in her flat. In attendance are Hank, a fellow lecturer, provocative letch & close friend of Alma's, who is directly competing against her for tenure; and Maggie, who idolises Alma in every way imaginable. After the party, a drunk Hank walks Maggie home. The following day, an allegation of sexual assault is made against him. The story follows the fallout of the accusations.

To say this film starts badly is an understatement. We are thrust into a world of sanctimonious, smug arseholes, who if you found yourself in the same room as them, would jump out of the window to escape. The writer has made the potentially interesting decision to make the characters all revolting in their own ways, but forgetting that being stuck around these creatures for over 2 hours is on a par with shaving your own eyeballs...

So, we have Hank, who prides himself as being provocative but also a "good dude," who gets more lecherous with every drink. And in the opposite corner, there is Maggie. Maggie is today's representation of everything a certain part of society would fall over themselves to praise to the hills: black, queer, in a relationship with a non-binary person ect. But she is also a deeply mediocre student who comes from eye-watering wealth, parents who have made many donations to Yale, a petulance that makes Veruca Salt look reasonable and repeatedly proclaims her virtues.

The worst example of this behaviour is when Maggie confides in Alma about the assault. Maggie gives vague details of this. When Alma has the temerity to ask "What actually happened?" (like, errr, the police would,) the response she gets is: how dare you question me about anything. Due process doesn't apply to me. To ask anything at all means you don't believe me which means that you are (insert every single woke cliché that comes to mind.) This attitude also conveniently extends to almost any question she is asked.

And this doesn't stop when Hank is immediately fired & hung out to dry (which is in itself outrageous simply from the perspective of having the right to a fair trial.) Despite this, Maggie acts like nothing has been done & she is being ignored, even when Alma publicly embraces her and says she will support her, in a nails-down-a-chalkboard scene complete with screeching music.

And the story just keeps going down this metaphorical cesspool, the virtue signalling becoming so revolting that I turned it off after an hour. To be absolutely crystal clear, in this film EVERYONE is revolting. Maggie's spoilt-brat student is in her own way just as disgusting as Hank's libidinous lecturer; and Alma's snarky professor is equally as rancid as Fred's sanctimonious shrink.

This is a film about a group of horrible horrible people doing horrible horrible things to each other. But for me, the worst thing is that it has used the #MeToo movement, which has been the inspiration for sensational drama before, as an excuse to portray a revolting story as an edgy, contemporary piece of work.

That rumble you can hear isn't justice, it's the next bandwagon which the filmmakers are waiting to jump on...

When it comes to pretentious films, the French are in a league of their own. Many of these types of movies, which are showered with awards & critical praise, are in fact naval-gazing, meandering rubbish which the ordinary filmgoer will either dismiss or turn off/walk out of the cinema. However, as detailed in the notes on the DVD, when L'Humanité swept the 3 main prizes at the Cannes film festival (Best film, actor & actress,) it wasn't your ordinary film watcher who booed and jeered, it was the majority of the attendees at the ceremony, who have in previous years fallen over themselves to praise utter garbage. That alone speaks volumes...

Pharaon de Winter is a police superintendent who is investigating the brutal murder & sexual assault of an 11 year old girl in a sleepy French town. The film also looks at his association with Domino & Joseph, his neighbours who he hangs around with when not working.

In my life, I have watched many films which have had as part of their storyline some element of police procedure (either following the detective or observing the case being solved.) So I have seen a lot of different portrayals/performances of the police, some flawless & seismic, others atrocious or totally unbelievable. But I have never seen a police detective as unrealistic or staggeringly implausible as Pharaon de Winter.

In the summary of the film, de Winter is described as "An introverted, almost child-like innocent." Whilst this is true in the basic sense, it comes nowhere close in describing exactly how stupefyingly nonsensical this character is. A police superintendent will have had a long career in law enforcement, normally starting out patrolling & arresting criminals, working their way up the ranks. De Winter is so pathetic, wet & limp, he couldn't arrest a toddler... He actively shies away from & looks uncomfortable when in the presence of minor arguments... And his behaviour & mannerisms are so strange, you wonder how he even functions as an adult, let alone solves crimes...

The film also has a weird obsession with extremely uncomfortable sex. De Winter's 2 "friends" are a couple of idiosyncratic oddballs who also happen to be exhibitionist nymphomaniacs. Early on in the film, they go at each other like rabbits whilst De Winter stands watching them awkwardly, having walked in through the open front door. Later on, Domino offers herself to De Winter by performing one of the most explicit acts imaginable in front of him. De Winter, who has for the entire film been eyeing her up in the most voyeuristic way possible, instead looks confused & then walks out. Oh, and this film is also obsessed with showing vulvas & female genitalia close up, which simply adds to the pretension & desperation to be controversial...

For the first 90 minutes or so this film is, in a strange way, weirdly watchable. Whilst you never buy into the story & it is quite dull, there is a compulsion to see where it goes. However, after a while, the novelty wears off and I ended up fast-forwarding through parts of it, just to get past the long monotonous scenes of De Winter staring blankly whilst things happen around him.

But, once the ending arrived (which makes absolutely no sense & again I felt was just the director being esoteric & provocative,) I only had 1 question on my mind: how the hell did this win the main prizes at Cannes? The actors (who are both non-professionals) cannot act. The writer/director can do neither, unless he is angling for a career in poorly photographed pornography. And how this film ever got financed or made money is beyond my comprehension.

Whilst there was some haunting imagery & a valid point to be made in how investigating horrific crimes leaves indelible marks on your soul, this nearly 2 & a half hour film mainly succeeds in boring you senseless, with the occasional image of a pudenda to snap your focus back momentarily...

As an iconic actor, few have the resume of Harry Dean Stanton. Over 50 years, he has starred in some of the most revered & incredible films (although the only ones I have seen are Alien & Wild At Heart,) but he also was a cultural icon as well. His typical pose, both in real life and many of his performances, was propping up a bar somewhere, with a cigarette in his mouth and his hang-dog expression. This film, one of the last he shot in his lifetime, combines both his real life as well as the fictional backstory of his character. And it is a beautiful musing on a life extremely well-lived. 

Lucky is a bachelor who lives a basic existence out in the wilderness of the Californian desert. He does his morning exercises, before getting dressed & walking into town where he picks up groceries & then spends his days in front of the TV watching daytime rubbish before going to his favourite bar. Whilst he is a solitary man, he has many friends & is well-liked by the community. One morning, he collapses and is forced to confront his impending mortality, as well as facing some of the personal demons he has carried for decades.

As much as this film is called Lucky, it could quite as easily be Harry or Dean Stanton. Where the reality & fiction blur is never clearly stated, as both men have much in common. A cook in the US Navy who has been a solitary man for much of his life, going away on adventures across the world and who has a healthy appetite for hard liquor & cigarettes, there is a lot they have experienced. And as both hurtle towards the final chapters of their lives, there is much not only to look back on but also to confront. 

For me, the best thing about this film is its pace which, like its protagonist, is slow and steady. In no way is this a case of “Brace yourself for the chariots!” The closest this film gets to an action scene is Lucky challenging someone less than half his age to a fight in a bar. The director has mercifully made the decision to trust that Stanton can carry this film in his own effortless style, and so stays the hell out of his way and lets him command the screen. 

But something which I also found fascinating was how vulnerable Stanton allowed himself to be seen as Lucky. In many ways I found myself thinking of Michael Fassbender’s work with Steve McQueen in Hunger & Shame. There are many close ups of Lucky’s frail & spindly frame as his does his Yoga exercises, ablutions or moves around his home in his under-clothes, his body telling the story of his ramshackle & bohemian life. This is again a credit to the direction of Lucky, not feeling that huge amounts of exposition are needed.

There is also a lot of fun to be had, as well as emotion in unexpected places. One such example is Lucky’s conversation with Fred, another military veteran who walks into the diner. Whilst it is fantastic to see Stanton & Tom Skerritt back on screen together again, the conversation they have sharing war memories is absolutely heartbreaking. There is another lovely scene at a birthday party, where Lucky has been invited and ends up serenading the party in a shockingly profound & emotional song.

Reading some of the other reviews, a frequent complaint is the slow pace of the narrative. Whilst there are a couple of moments which probably could have ended up on the cutting room floor (hence the 4 star score,) being annoyed with the pace of a film which is all about quiet contemplation is as stupid as being angry with Titanic for showing a ship sinking…

The final shot for me was the best. In a moment where the fourth wall is broken, Stanton gives a wordless goodbye, both as his character and himself, beautifully wrapping up this musing on mortality, vulnerability and of a life incredibly well-lived. Lucky is a genuine one of a kind, much like the man playing him, and I am so glad that Harry Dean Stanton was given the opportunity to leave this as his legacy. 

Daniel Day-Lewis's first collaboration with Martin Scorsese was one which, had it been anyone else who asked the famously selective actor to star, almost certainly never have happened. Day-Lewis himself commented many years later "Too English, but Scorsese was a damn good reason to say yes." And he is excellent in a film which is as much about the style, mise-en-scene & costumes as it is about the actual story.

Newland Archer lives in 1870's New York City. A Gentleman lawyer, he is in the centre of the social scene made up of the most powerful families in New York, where status & appearance are everything. He is planning a society marriage to May Welland, a good-natured and genuine woman from another of the powerful families. However, there is the brewing threat of scandal when May's cousin, Ellen Olenska, appears, fleeing a failed marriage due to her husband's infidelity & her subsequent affair with her secretary. Whilst initially asked to advise Ellen in his capacity as a lawyer, Newland quickly falls for the fearless & uncompromising Ellen.

As much as for me the story was not something which I found always compelling, I was absolutely in love with what was on screen in front of me. It is an exquisite & beautiful film, shot to perfection & in terms of cinematography, there is in many ways nothing quite like it. Scorsese, along with DP Michael Ballhaus, have created a sumptuous & spectacular feast for the eyes. From the luxury of the dinner parties to the outdoor archery competition, the cinematography, as well as the mise-en-scene, is flawless. It absolutely blows my mind that Ballhaus was not nominated for an Oscar for his work, but it deservedly won Best Costume Design.

Performance-wise, whilst this might not be in the same league as the headline grabbing performances of Christy Brown, Bill the Butcher or Daniel Plainview, his performance of Newland Archer is a study in quiet, almost internal self-destruction. At many points, you see the burden that he has to carry manifest itself internally, with it looking like his entire being is being consumed from the pain & love he feels, along with the realisation that to act on what he feels would have catastrophic consequences for everyone.

Pfeiffer is equally brilliant, fully making us buy into not only the plight of Ellen but also the absolute scorn she feels for the society rules which in no way is she going to play by, as well as the joy of living her own life on her terms. Ryder as May is also excellent, as the woman who on the surface seems naïve but below is not only fighting her own battles, but knows exactly what is happening around her.

As much as I am not a big fan of costume dramas, this is a rare treat which looks stunning with exceptional acting.

For many people, Peter Jackson will forever be associated with The Lord of the Rings (which is an incredible calling card, don't get me wrong.) But when reading various articles & stories about Jackson, Heavenly Creatures was the film which in many ways put him on the map. And it also received rave reviews, particularly for the performance of Winslet, in her first motion picture performance. So I rented it with high expectations, of which sadly only some were met.

Starting in 1952, Juliet Hulme moves with her family to Christchurch, New Zealand. She is a fiercely clever, vivacious & independent 13 year old who exudes confidence. She then meets Pauline Parker, who is in many ways a social outcast (due to her extreme mood swings and a face often set in a permanent scowl.) The 2 girls instantly click and develop a friendship which is so close & intense, everyone else fades into the background. However Juliet's poor health & her father's work, which takes him across the globe, start to threaten and ultimately split up the 2 girls, leading to devastating repercussions.

One of the most commonly associated things with this movie, and which the script/marketing did little to correct, was that it was a lesbian love story between the two women. And whilst that absolutely generated headlines as well as controversy, it has received extreme pushback from Hulme as well as others connected to the case for simply being wrong. The closeness of their relationship never became a sexual one. Me highlighting this now might seem random, but the reason that I do it is because for me this totally changes the framing of the film and how I see it. When you have a film based on a true, tragic event, the idea that the reality is not shocking enough (especially seeing as how much is available from Pauline's diaries,) and that you need to add a gay love story into the mix is just bad taste.

But in terms of performances, the combination of Winslet & Melanie Lynskey as Juliet and Pauline is perfect. Winslet in particular is sensational, especially in the luminescence she manages to project out of the screen. Every room she enters is hers, her piercing eyes & manic energy suffusing everyone, either entering into her orbit or being repulsed by it. This energy is what makes the world the two girls create so believable.

However for me, one of the things which really didn't work was the fantasy/dream world and the creatures inhabited within it. I just didn't buy into it, as well as thinking that (appreciating the film was shot in the 1990's,) it all looked a little tacky & like it had been a rejected montage for a children's TV show.

But the jealousy, as well as the deep hurt and power battle between the girls and their parents, I really felt. If there was not the threat of one of them being taken away, I honestly think that the two girls would actually just have grown up & probably moved on as they got older, the friendship and intensity burning itself out. But as with so many of these catastrophic & tragic events, it just takes one spark to set off a devastating chain reaction.

For many viewers, especially those who love fantasy, there will be much to love here and would probably for them be a 5 star film. But many of the elements just didn't work for me, despite the incredible performances.

This is the 1st David Lynch film I have seen. As someone who is a huge film fan, I have not only heard his name, but also know the huge appreciation & cult reverence his works take on over time. One of my closest friends absolutely raves about this film, so I decided that this should be my introduction to Lynch’s world, as well as the fact that many of the cast I really like (Cage, Defoe, Dean Stanton.) And quite simply, it is like nothing I have ever seen, both in terms of its content (which I tried to watch with the mindset of seeing it in the 90’s, when this sort of violence & sex was not common in media,) but also the absolute fearlessness of the actors to play sometimes utterly repugnant characters.

Sailor Ripley is a wild-hearted but volatile man with a chequered past, who is madly in love with Lula Fortune, a free-spirited & extremely sexual young woman. This union is despised by Lula’s overbearing & extremely controlling mother Marietta. One night, Sailor is attacked by and kills a man set up by Marietta, being sent to prison for manslaughter. Once released, he reunites with Lula & they blow town, violating Sailor’s parole. Marietta, who had hoped that Sailor’s incarceration would break up the union, hires private investigator & sometime lover Johnnie Farragut to find her daughter and bring her back home. But the crazy world these characters exist in make this anything but simple... 

The thing I love most about Wild At Heart is quite simply the fact that the narrative, as well as the actors, are totally fearless. For a film released at the beginning of the 90's, the violence, sex & overall feel are totally in a league of their own. Cage, who had before been effectively a method actor (he lost significant weight & had 2 teeth pulled out for his role in Birdie,) throws himself with total abandon into his portrayal of Sailor, giving us a glimpse of not only Ben Sanderson from Leaving Las Vegas but also the mania he imbued with many of his later films. Dern plays Lula as not only a feisty & head-over-heels in love young woman, but also a deeply traumatised individual whose traumatic life experiences, as well as overbearing mother, she is trying everything to get away from.

The collection of idiosyncratic & often repulsive people they meet, from Johnnie Farragut to the disgusting Bobby Peru, are unforgettable. Peru in particular is so repulsive you don't know whether to laugh, cry or be sick. From his introduction to Sailor & Lula, leading up to the final explosive showdown, he is seismic. Marietta is also someone you feel not only sympathy for but also disgust. And Lynch expertly plays this out for both comedy & horror.

Finally, I have never seen a film which puts on screen the kind of images which are scorched onto my eyeballs. And Lynch just keeps on upping these visuals, experimenting with fire & sound, as well as the effects of graphic violence. The whole film has the wonderful air of an art experiment which has gone wonderfully, crazily out of control. And I loved it. This may be the first Lynch film I have watched, but it definitely won't be the last...

Straight-to-DVD films, although somewhat dying out as the disc format becomes evermore redundant in a streaming world, are their own (slightly infamous) genre. When you buy one, you know that the chances it will be good are pretty slim. They are often the gangster genre, rated 18, full of swearing and gratuitous violence & with acting/production values that any normal person would be embarrassed to put their name to. Bruce Willis in particular was ridiculed for appearing in a series of absolute schlocky garbage, given his incredible previous work, where he clearly turned up to do a couple of days acting for a massive pay-out (before his dementia diagnosis was made public.) Whilst there have been occasional great movies (Tucker & Dale vs Evil is a riot,) mostly it is atrocious tripe.

But what prompted me to add this film to my rental list was the many reviews I saw which praised it as an amazing little British film (one of my favourite genres,) with incredible fight choreography & a great lead performance. I had no idea who Scott Adkins was, although when I looked at his IMDB page he has made many appearances in action films I've loved, as well as building a reputation as a skilled stunt performer & actor. So I pressed play with the mindset not to take the film seriously, just enjoy it as a piece of schlocky entertainment. And I absolutely loved it.

Cain Burgess is a legitimate boxer who, whilst he was born into a criminal family, is in no way involved & has a clean record. His brother Lincoln is the defacto leader of the organisation, who loves Cain & accepts that his sibling wants nothing to do with criminality. After an errand he is running goes badly wrong, he is then sent to Belmarsh prison, the most violent in the UK. This environment forces him to change into a total psychopath, actively attacking inmates before they go for him, in order to stay alive. He swears revenge against the people who wronged him, escaping & hunting them down.

This film is a riot, mainly because it knows exactly what it is, with the filmmakers absolutely leaning into the genre's clichés with a good script & compelling protagonist. Everything that you would expect from this type of film is here & turned up to 11: the swearing is off the charts, ridiculous scenarios which would never happen in a million years (withholding of legal representation to an arrested man; a prison governor having the power to increase sentences; 1 character repeatedly attacking the protagonist without consequence...) and brutal violence. But it is so well-made & enjoyable, these tropes actually make it more enjoyable.

Adkins in particular is excellent, completely believable as the man who transforms from a Jack-the-Lad boxer to a scarred & psychotic prisoner fighting for his life. Clearly set in the Jason Statham mould of action star, Adkins has a mastery & command of stunt work which pays dividends in the fight sequences, which are as good as anything Hollywood can produce. Fairbrass (a man synonymous with Straight-to-DVD,) is also good in the small amount of screen time he has, the filmmakers clearly appreciating that less is more.

But what I most liked about this film was that quite simply it is a bloody good watch. It does exactly what it says on the tin, with no pretensions, just a cast & crew committed to making it the best movie possible. And it also makes a mockery of many obscenely expensive films which cost tens of millions and leave you feeling like you wasted 2 hours of your life.

An absolute riot and perfect film for a Friday night in front of the TV with friends & beer.

This was a film I had heard many things about before I watched it. I had become a devotee of Daniel Day-Lewis after watching his terrifying & incredible performance as Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York (to me his best work ever.) And whilst that role got him plenty of plaudits & attention after a period of time away from acting, the film that most people spoke of with rapturous wonderment and awe was My Left Foot. I sat down to watch it with my expectations sky-high… This film then proceeded to smash them, burning a beautiful & searing trail, leaving me in awe at not only Day-Lewis’s performance, but also the direction, script & real-life adventures of its amazing protagonist. 

Christy Brown is born into an Irish family in 1932, one of 15 siblings. The family is poverty-stricken & living on the breadline, with only his father’s meagre wages as a builder supporting them, existing in a small house with multiple people sharing beds. Christy is born with severe cerebral palsy & written off as an idiot, unable to speak and only able to use his left foot. But with the support of his loving mother, as well as Christy’s own determination & bloody-mindedness, he becomes a celebrated artist and writer. The film charts his incredible life & achievements, going back and fourth in time.

This performance was the first time that Day-Lewis fully embraced the method acting to which he would become so associated with. But that is the only mention I am going to make of it, mainly because I am so sick of that being the one thing which is discussed whenever his performances are talked about, in many ways reducing his work to sensationalist gossip. Irrelevant of whatever Day-Lewis does, the results are extraordinary.

This performance is in many ways one of the hardest to get right. There are so many pitfalls & dangers for an actor who was previously most well-known for playing a gay ex-Neo Nazi skinhead or a simpering English toff to then portray a severely disabled man who speaks in gutteral gasps & lives in a wheelchair. But from the moment you see his foot putting a record on a player & switching the gramophone on, you are transfixed. Never do you see anything apart from Christy Brown, living in poverty in Ireland, experiencing the difficulties which would come to shape him.

But not for a second does Day-Lewis's talismanic performance overshadow that of Brenda Fricker's as his mother. A woman with a will of iron, who loves Christy unquestionably and believes that he is more than the written-off & dismissed idiot which everyone else does, the bond they have is so tangible it bursts out of the screen. High praise must also be given to Hugh O'Conor, who plays the young Christy having to, in a short amount of screen time, set the stage & make us engage with someone who is as unique and idiosyncratic as they come.

And that last sentence is another reason why I so adore this film: it never for 1 second paints a treacly, facetious portrait of Brown as an individual who is perfect & inoffensive. Christy is an extremely strong-willed, difficult & obstinate man, who is sometimes hard to like. But whereas in one scene you find him antagonising & causing difficulties for himself, in the next his cheeky smile & caustic wit have you laughing uncontrollably.

There is no doubt of the significance this film had on the representation of disabled individuals on screen. And much more could be said about exactly why I love it so much. But quite simply, this is an exceptionally made, flawlessly acted & heartfelt film about an incredible man, who did remarkable things, but who was never anything other than himself, for better or worse.

And especially today, with the amount of absolute rubbish relentlessly churned out by film studios, I so wish we could go back to the days of incredible stories, told by amazing artists.

Stéphane Belcourt and Thomas Andrieu are 2 young men who live in the French countryside in the mid 80's. Stéphane is shy, reserved & bookish, but also knows exactly who he is and is comfortable with his sexuality. Thomas on the other hand is popular, outgoing & tough, but deeply conflicted with inner turmoil about his attraction to boys, openly dating the most attractive girls to disguise this. After Stéphane checks him out, Thomas initiates a passionate encounter between them which turns into a clandestine love affair between the 2, which then abruptly ends. 35 years later, the older Stéphane returns to his hometown, now a successful writer, for a festival but also to deal with the ghosts of his past.

In many ways, if you swapped the French countryside for a Thamesmead estate and didn't include the back & forth between past and present, this effectively is the same plot as Beautiful Thing, a extremely successful and moving coming-of-age story released in the 90's. But despite the sensitive approach to the subject matter and 2 committed performances from the excellent young actors, there is an emptiness to the narrative which this film never successfully breaks out of.

Whilst many films like this are predictable, and it was based on a true story, the clichés in many ways bog down the narrative, which is frustrating, especially as the 2 young actors & their chemistry are the beating heart of the film. One big difference between this and Beautiful Thing (which is to its credit,) is the many scenes of delicately shot intimacy between Thomas and Stéphane. From their first passionate & rushed encounter in the disused school gym, through to the many special moments in Stéphane's bedroom or an isolated lagoon in the countryside, you really believe in the bond between them, which makes the later heartbreak have immense emotional heft.

Jérémy Gillet & Julien De Saint Jean have brilliant chemistry, which was no doubt helped by the fact that they were cast before the film entered a period of development limbo, allowing them to get to know each other and form a friendship which is so beautifully displayed on screen. The older Stéphane, played by Guillaume de Tonquedec, is also a good study of repressed grief & lost love. Other positives include the locations, which are lensed with warmth.

But I cannot lie, I wanted this film to be more. But unfortunately, a weak script lets down excellent work.

After being blown away by Dogtooth & amused by The Favourite, I then watched Poor Things which I thought was average & Kinds of Kindness which was absolute rubbish. So approaching Killing of a Sacred Deer I was in a fairly neutral position, knowing that Lanthimos can make both incredible & incredibly bad movies. But this film is without doubt his best, and I was absolutely hooked from the opening frames.

Steven Murphy is a cardiothoracic surgeon who is both at the top of his profession and living a picture-perfect life (extremely wealthy; married to Anna, a beautiful & sexually submissive wife; 2 healthy children; a wonderful home.) He also frequently meets with a young man named Martin, an extremely idiosyncratic & manipulative individual, whom he supports in various ways. Slowly, Martin begins to take over Steven's life, whilst the family also begins to mysteriously fall ill with unexplained ailments...

The thing most people will take away from this film is the dialogue and how it is delivered. Rather than a normal flowing conversation, with different enunciation & timbre, everything is said coldly, almost robotically. Very quickly, the mood is set. And added to this, characters will randomly say extremely personal, awkward & deeply embarrassing things, seemingly out of nowhere. This often provoked a big laugh from me, before going back to a state of cringey tension waiting for the next thing to happen.

Lanthimos also uses sexuality to great & disturbing effect in this film. Early on, we see that Anna willingly performs somnophilia for Steven (pretending to be unconscious during sex,) which is just the start of extremely uncomfortable representations of sex. Kim (the teenage daughter,) alternates between provocativeness & indifference, whilst Martin's mother is a barely-repressed nymphomaniac. And all of this pours petrol on the fire in a world which feels empty as well as oppressive.

Performance-wise, there isn't one actor who isn't at the top of their game. Kidman has in many ways made a career out of playing women who are slowly seeing their lives destroyed, her ashen face and piercing eyes burning out of the screen. Watching her try to hold on to her sanity whilst life falls apart is a masterclass in understated restraint. Farrell, hidden behind a salt & pepper beard and long hair, expertly shows a man whose perfectly controlled life disintegrates before our eyes, marooned at sea with the bitter irony of his medical knowledge being absolutely useless in this scenario.

Barry Keoghan, in one of his first major roles, plays Martin as both a charming psychopath as well as a pathetic young man who, despite his seeming control of events, is deep down a miserable creature who gets no pleasure from his games. But for me, the best performance was Raffey Cassidy as Kim. I say this because it is so hard to play the sort of role she does (bitchy teenager in the throws of adulthood,) without it descending into either foot-stamping strops or becoming completely detestable. Her command of the screen, as well as her bravery with the sexually provocative element of the character, meant whenever she was on screen, everyone else almost faded into the background. And when you consider the mighty titans she is performing against, it makes it all the more remarkable.

From the other reviews here, I can see that for many this film was too slow, arty, ponderous, dull ect. For me, whilst that was my reaction to Kinds of Kindness, I cannot understand why so many felt that for this film. The slowness has been expertly created to increase the tension, making the events on screen so uncomfortable you are almost watching through your fingers.

I absolutely loved it and hope that Lanthimos works with this group of actors again soon

Liar Liar is genius. If you are a fan of Jim Carrey's brand of humour, this film is your nirvana. Whilst it was criticised by some for being effectively a one-joke film (which in many ways it is, I won't deny that,) the script, story & acting are to me as good as Ace Ventura, maybe even more so when you consider the moments of genuine pain, contrition & guilt shown.

Fletcher Reede (Carrey) is a high-flying & successful lawyer. He is divorced with a young son who he adores, as well as feeling tremendous guilt for the way his marriage fell apart. The reason for this is due to his pathological & incessant lying to anyone & everyone, whether for personal gain or not wanting to do something. His son Max is repeatedly heartbroken & upset by his father's failure to be in his life, as well as seeing his mother move on without his father. After being let down again by his father on his birthday, Max makes a wish when blowing out his candles that for 1 day, his father wouldn't be able to tell a lie. His wish comes true, leading to Fletcher's life falling apart with hysterical consequences.

Watching Carrey as Fletcher attempting to navigate this new world where everything he says is the truth is a masterclass in comedy. Throughout this film's runtime, literally there is a laugh every 30 seconds. When the truth compulsion kicks in, the mic-drop line in response to his boss's question, followed by the look of bemusement & horror on his face is priceless. And the film just continues in this way, Carrey letting his improv skills run riot with sensational results. A confrontation with a rival lawyer involves a skit which I cannot believe got filmed with the cast keeping a straight face. Whether it is a run-in with the police or finally coming clean to his downtrodden & exploited secretary, the laughs just keep coming.

But as I said earlier, the other reason this film is so impactful to me is because of the times when it shows a very different & vulnerable side to Fletcher, which was not something comedy films, especially big Hollywood productions, did at that time. And this was no doubt influenced by Carrey's own extremely painful dealings with relationship breakdowns & solicitors. In sober moments, it is clear that Fletcher hates what he has become but has fallen so far down the rabbit hole of lying (aided & abetted by his career rewarding him for dishonesty,) that he is trapped in this nightmare scenario.

The most powerful moment with this is when Fletcher is talking to his estranged wife (whilst in the middle of his truth-telling compulsion) and says truthfully what he is, followed by the horrible realisation of the words he has uttered, finally being truthful to himself. And the range of emotions which Carrey shows in that moment really make you feel it, irrelevant of whether you have children or not.

By the time we get to the crazy finale, this movie has firmly cemented itself in the annals of comedy films as one of the best in recent years. Carrey, as well as the rest of the cast, are operating at the peak of their powers and the result is without question one of the funniest films I have ever seen: insanely quotable, flawlessly performed and endlessly watchable. A stone cold comedy classic

For many people in the UK, they will recognise John Davidson, if not from the documentaries he was featured in, then from the appearances in other media due to his Tourettes syndrome condition. Characterised by motor & verbal tics, shouting, swearing and other actions completely out of their control, it is for many an unbearable existence. And added to that, the tension after-product simply exacerbates everything. It is a Catch-22 condition in every sense of the word. And as we follow the story of John, from his childhood in the early 80's through to the present day, we see just how much the misunderstanding & ignorance of the condition affected not only him, but the others around him.

We first meet John as a teenager starting his new school in Scotland. He is popular, boisterous & a talented goalkeeper, with a bright future ahead of him. Then slowly, a myriad of tics, swearing & spitting of food start to make his mere existence unbearable. In early 80's Scotland, this results in endless punishments, ostracisation & ridicule from everyone. His family life is destroyed, due to the tension & anger generated by his outbursts.

Once he leaves school with no qualifications (forbidden from taking his exams,) he has few options, living with his mother who is at her wits end. Then he meets Dottie, the gentle & kind ex-mental health nurse and mother of his friend. She takes him in and gives him a new lease of life, along with a hope for a better future.

What this film emphatically is not is a saccharin sweet, syrupy tearjerker where John's tics are used as a way to leverage emotion from the audience. Never for 1 second is John mocked, but also neither is it forbidden to laugh with him at some of the funny things he says. The writers have wisely realised that if this film had no humour to balance out the unbearableness of John's life, this would be an almost impossible watch.

What this film does so well is to show that, despite the numerous setbacks John has to deal with, including vicious attacks & arrests, when he is given the proper support, he thrives. From when he starts work at the community centre, giving him a reason to get up in the morning, through to fulfilling the promise he made to a mentor to spread understanding of Tourettes, these are his hard-won achievements.

The emotional journey that you are taken on is also profoundly affecting. Many times, tears started streaming down my face, as the pain or the pride you are witnessing impacts you to your bones. Moments in hospital, a reconciliation & testing experimental treatments all absolutely floored me.

In terms of acting, we are in the absolute peak of British talent. Scott Ellis Watson & Robert Aramayo are incredible as the young & present day John. There is so much care in how they portray him, to the extent that Aramayo lived with him for a time to be able to fully realise his portrayal. Maxine Peake & Peter Mullan do some of their best work as Dottie & Tommy (the manager of the community centre,) and special mention must go to Shirley Henderson, again doing so much with limited screen time.

On the poster for this film, one of the quotes was "This film could change someone's life." That statement is wrong... This film WILL change not only one, but many people's lives, not only sufferers of Tourettes but their families & those within education, health & law enforcement. It is a starter gun for what I hope is serious change of how this condition is seen, as well as turbocharging research into it being able to be managed better.

And finally to John, thank you for sharing your life story, allowing us to see your experiences growing up as well as your determination to ensure that the future for Tourettes suffers today will be more accepting than the hell you managed to survive. You are an inspiration

Up until the early 2000's, the main character that probably came to people's minds when you mentioned satirical espionage films was Austin Powers, Goldmember being released the year before this film to record-breaking box office numbers. So it was only a matter of time before a British film mocking one of our most famous exports would be made. Thankfully, Rowan Atkinson was the man to bring this to the screen, reviving his character Richard Latham, who had been created for a series of Barclaycard adverts, now rebranded as Johnny English.

Johnny English is a bumbling & useless MI7 agent who is pretty much a glorified messenger within the organisation. Displaying a confidence which always comes before an almighty fall, combined with a collection of anecdotes displaying heroism which would fall apart at the slightest probing, he is elevated by accident to lead investigator when every other MI7 agent is killed (ironically due to his incompetence overseeing security at a gathering they are attending.) The Crown Jewels have been stolen & English is tasked with getting them back, accompanied by sidekick Bough as well as the enigmatic Lorna.

I really like this film, mainly due to Atkinson's flawless comedy skills as well as the extremely tight & brilliant direction by Peter Howitt, who I feel doesn't get anywhere near enough credit. To create a good & funny pastiche film which doesn't descend into desperate laugh-hunting is much trickier than people think. For every great film like this, there are many terrible ones. Johnny English manages to deftly balance the need for a character who is clumsy but who also does have a small amount of common sense. The idea of the character being someone so stupid that he couldn't hold a gun the right way round or know how to drive a car would have been a teeth-grindingly painful & moronic experience, which the filmmakers wisely avoid.

There are many surprising moments in this film, one of which is the great stunts which you wouldn't expect in this type of movie. The centerpiece car chase is inventive, despite it being a shame that they probably didn't have the budget to utilise all of the gadgets which were packed into the Aston Martin in a full-blown action scene around London. It also has a cracking theme song from Robbie Williams, alongside a good soundtrack clearly taking its cues from other spy films.

Performance-wise, Atkinson is as mentioned excellent, but there is also plenty of room for others to make impact. Ben Miller nicely underplays Bough, half in awe of his boss & half embarrassed that he makes so many glaring errors. Natalie Imbruglia brings a vibrant sexuality as well as a confidence to Lorna, also making her character's arc at the end believable. John Malkovich is to me the only fly in the ointment. Unfortunately, whilst this is an unapologetically over-the-top film, Pascal Sauvage is often too hammy in the realisation of the character. For every funny moment, there are at least 2 where it either isn't funny or any humour just gets suffocated by overacting.

But when this film is funny, it really is. For me, the crowning moment involves the Archbishop of Canterbury being absolutely humiliated in front of billions of people on TV, followed by English's absolute mortification & desperation to row back from what would be to most people a reason to vanish and never be heard from again. The laughs per minute are high & the comedy light, never straying from the clear desire from everyone on the film to make something funny but not serious.

Whilst I never bothered with the sequels, this is a solid & extremely funny film for people of all ages to enjoy. Highly recommended

It is the year 2000. Guy Ritchie has turned the Cockney-geezer film genre into an all-conquering behemoth with Lock Stock & Snatch, leading to a slew of imitations and knock-offs. Most were atrocious, totally missing the point of why his films worked (a great script & characters alongside the violence/swearing,) and into that hall of infamy goes Honest, a film which made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The Chase sisters are 3 East-End 'Landan gals' who live in a grimy, miserable house with their chronically depressed ex-boxer father and have no prospects in life, aside from becoming a gangster's mol. They decide to start committing robberies, disguising themselves as men & targeting jewellers. During one robbery, Gerry is caught by blue-eyed dreamer Daniel, who falls in love with her & becomes entangled with the sisters as they attempt to escape the gangsters and police.

This film defies so many metrics which you could measure it against. It is so badly made, scripted, shot & acted, you find yourself shaking your head and chuckling in disbelief. If I was to try to describe it, it is like the filmmakers watched Guy Ritchie's filmography, then put on Withnail and I and thought "What if we tried to combine the 2...?" The result is a total write-off, which is even stranger considering the writers are Dick Clement & Ian La Franais, who wrote some of the best British comedy of all time.

At the start of my review, I also hinted at this film's infamy, which was partly due to it starring 3 members of the girl group All Saints in their acting debuts, but mainly (whether this controversy was deliberately created by the media, the film's distributors or a combination of the two I don't know,) due to the singers appearing topless & in sex scenes, no doubt hoping this would guarantee it headlines as well as the #1 spot at the box office. Of the 3, only 2 of them disrobe, one of which is blink-and-you'll-miss-it, with the other unlikely to satisfy anyone who only watched the film wanting to see serious debauchery... Oh, and the film absolutely tanked at the box office, partly due to it having an 18 certificate & the vast majority of All Saints fans being in their mid-teens...

The tone of the film is completely off. There is liberal use of jump cuts, a drug-fuelled bender and supporting characters whose character traits are either screaming toff or psychotic Hispanic drug dealer (although he gets a jaw-droppingly offensive but hysterical line of dialogue when shouting at a parking warden.) The 3 actresses have swallowed so many acting pills, it is almost painful to watch. Their Cockney accents would make Dick Van Dyke embarrassed (even more crazy considering 1 of them is Camden born-and-bred,) and their line delivery ranges from passable if they were in a TV soap to sounding like they are reading the script to a 3 year old.

So having written all of this, why do I give it 2 stars? Because it is so bad, it becomes ironic & funny. At one point, the father, who hasn't got out of his chair for years, knocks out a man at least 30 years younger than him with a few punches. The sisters, who are meant to be master criminals, call each other by their real names & struggle to hold a gun the right way round. The police are so incompetent they believe that a guy who is loosely wearing a white jacket over his normal clothes is a doctor & allow him to wheel their suspect out of hospital. At one point, there is a scene which is meant to be an orgy but instead looks like a load of naturists were offered some lunch & expenses paid to go into a circus tent, strip off and look awkward. I mean the list just goes on.

But once you accept just how bad this film is, coupled with actors who are taking it seriously & making themselves look ridiculous in the process, there is a grim humour to be had from it.

It is a tradition, certainly from Timothy Dalton onwards, for actors who have played 007 to, once they hang up the Walther, take roles which are the complete polar opposite from James Bond. Pierce in particular starred in everything from Mamma Mia to playing a disgraced ex-Prime Minister in The Ghost Writer. Daniel Craig has continued the tradition, shocking many people with some of his choices, which always makes me laugh, because those people clearly didn't see any of his pre-007 work. Craig was similar to Ewan McGregor, in that many of his early parts were in extremely provocative films such as Love Is The Devil & The Mother. So you can imagine the reaction from certain people when they watch him in graphic gay love scenes...

William Lee is a middle-aged man living in Mexico City in the 1950's. He is openly gay & spends his days drinking the bars dry, whilst desperately trying to bed every man he meets, not only for pleasure but also to try and find a connection to the aching loneliness he feels, a void he also fills with heroin. Into this malaise comes Eugene Allerton, an impossibly-chiseled & handsome GI, who Lee begins to pursue with increasing desperation.

As much as I loved him in Casino Royale & Skyfall, I honestly think that this is Craig's best performance. The inner turmoil & anguish that courses through every part of Lee is flawlessly realised. Within 10 minutes, you feel you know everything about Lee, whilst his pain & isolation bleeds out of the screen. And matching him in many ways, Drew Starkey is excellent as Gene, not just playing the sultry heartthrob, but a young man just starting out in life, experimenting with his sexuality without fear, but still a sense of loss.

The first half of the film is flawless, shot at Cinecittà Studios. It is a given that Luca Guadagnino can craft scenes that look, sound & feel so authentic you could be sat in the bar next to Lee, smelling the cigarette smoke and hard liquor. The sets would make Kubrick jealous & the characters Lee meets, even ones that have 90 seconds of screen time, all feel authentic. We watch Lee fall head over heels in love with Gene, even as Allerton remains just out of reach, never confirming whether or not he is gay (openly flirting with women in front of Lee.) We also see Lee shooting up, before watching the effects take hold & the sadness seep out of him, again showing just how incredible Craig is as a performer.

But then the film nosedives...

Lee is obsessed with taking a potion he has heard about called yagé, which can produce incredible results including telepathy. He then persuades Gene (by paying his travel expenses,) to come with him as he goes deep into the Ecuadorian jungle. And the moment we leave Mexico City, the film gradually descends into the most tedious, navel-gazing watch imaginable. I became so bored watching a character who I was at first fascinated with, blindly chase after a MacGuffin and ending up sat at a table in a poorly-decorated jungle set opposite Leslie Mann, who looked like she had wandered off a village Christmas panto where she was playing the Wicked Witch... The overacting in these scenes is almost nails-down-a-chalkboard painful, reducing incredible actors to looking like they are being directed by Tommy Wiseau...

And I haven't even got to the drug-induced hallucinations, which are like something out of a pretentious art project that has a multi-million dollar budget, with a director who thinks "Let's throw in some interpretive dance to really be cutting edge!" At one point, I shouted out "For God's sake, just end!" But the film keeps plodding on, just refusing to end, until it finally does & I was left slightly slack-jawed at what I'd watched.

And that is this film in a nutshell: you go from being completely swept away in the majesty of the story, to saying out loud to finish because you just want this to be over...