Film Reviews by Timmy B

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...

This film was such a pleasant surprise. When the romcom first became the behemoth it now is with films like Notting Hill, it was a fresh & vibrant take on the genre. But like so many things, when it became a ringing cash till, it then fell victim to Hollywood & the industrial machine which chucked out countless terrible duds, which whilst they sometimes made good money, were often total dreck. But there have always been some brilliant stories amongst the rubbish (Crazy, Stupid Love being one,) which made you remember exactly why this genre could be so good. And We Live In Time is another, taking a script which has in many ways standard ideas, but elevating it with brilliant direction & outstanding performances.

Told in a non-linear way, we look at various points in the lives of Tobias & Almut. He is a well-meaning, sensitive & emotionally scarred man who has just gone through a painful divorce; she a highly competitive & excellent chef who has put work above everything else until she accidentally runs him over in her car. They both have very different goals in life and ways that they view the world, but their love brings them together.

One of the best things about this film is how it is shot. John Crowley, who directed the magnificent Brooklyn, shoots in a soft colour palette which at all times feels natural without turning into the horrendous Hallmark-style productions which looks like they smeared the camera lens with treacle before filming. The scenes shot with candlelight in the farmhouse are a particular highlight. Alongside that, the production values are flawless, whether in the busy kitchen or the doctor's office, which is both scary & comforting.

Something else which predictably was picked up on by a few immature idiots in the media & amplified was the scenes of intimacy between Almut & Tobias, who are not cardboard-cut out characters, but made to feel like real people who love & have a sexual attraction to each other. Crowley himself has gone on record saying how important this element was to the story & I fully agree with him.

But where this film truly flies is the performances. Garfield & Pugh are both highly accomplished actors who have done powerful work alongside their comic-book/franchise commitments (Hacksaw Ridge & the Richard Eyre-directed King Lear are 2 notable highlights.) They have an excellent, easy chemistry as well as a trust which pays dividends on screen. Whilst Pugh got a larger share of the recognition, I personally felt that Garfield was the stronger of the 2, mainly because his role can be so difficult to get right without turning into a bawling, emotional wreck who drags the narrative down.

This is a deeply moving, carefully crafted and beautifully shot film, which takes on powerful & upsetting themes, starring 2 of the best actors working today. I really enjoyed it.

Paul Greengrass's name has become the byword for immaculately crafted, incredibly filmed & exquisitely acted reconstructions of horrific world events. United 93, The Murder of Stephen Lawrence & Captain Phillips are out-and-out masterpieces, for me in many ways the purest adrenaline hit of cinema (and don't for a second think I have missed out on The Bourne Supremacy; this review is about his dramatisations of real-world events.) But something else which sets Greengrass's work apart is his insistence on trying to, especially with Captain Phillips, look closer at the perpetrators & their lives. And this pays dividends when compared with so much of the Hollywood machine, which just relentlessly churns out "The good guys won..." And the reason I mention this is because of the glaring omission, which I will come to, with 22 July.

The film looks at the terrorist attacks in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik, a far-right Neo-Nazi, on 22nd July 2011. First detonating a powerful truck bomb in Oslo outside the Prime Minister's office, he then drives to Utøya island, which is hosting a summer camp for young adults for the Labour party, whose policies & view Breivik totally abhors. He slaughters & maims almost 100 party members, before surrendering to police. From there, the film takes us inside the legal process as well as the healing of the victims, mainly through the eyes of Viljar Hanssen, one of the most popular & idealistic young men, who is horrifically injured in the shooting.

The tension in this film, from the early scenes of Breivik making his bombs, intercut with the young adults arriving on Utøya for what they think will be a weekend of activism & fun, are flawless Greengrass. The coldness & precision of one contrasted with the carefree of the other is where this film maker excels. One early shot, of Breivik's luminous (and ironically chosen) bright white van driving through the vast dense forests of Norway, is a perfect metaphor for how Breivik sees himself. Greengrass is also excellent at making the massacre gripping without ever lowering it to gratuitousness, or a shock-value action scene. As the film was not being made for a 12A rating, the sudden & shocking violence was extremely jarring.

When the film changes gear and then becomes a tense court room drama, whilst the action scenes are over, the pressure doesn't let up. Breivik's lawyer, who was specifically chosen by him, then has to balance his client's wishes with his absolute horror for his actions. The film does allow a couple of moments where the legal & professional mask slips, which again are real gut-punches, but which are delivered with quiet devastation rather than screamed or shouted.

But the main reason this film gets 4 stars is due to something which Greengrass may not have intentionally done, but which for me is a deliberate & gross manipulation of the narrative: there are a couple of scenes which try to build a picture of how Breivik became this inhuman monster, including interviewing his mother. What the script totally avoids is the revelation that Breivik's mother was an absolute monster who psychologically & relentlessly abused him from the moment he was born, as revealed by multiple news stories. In 22 July, she is simply presented as a well-meaning & doddery mother who sits in her flat watching TV, playing no part in how her son was. That to me was really uncomfortable & also a rare moment where Greengrass does not fully reveal the truths, when normally his films are insistent upon it.

Cast-wise, we are again in brilliant territory. Gravli, as Viljar, has a real earthly quality to his performance, perfectly matched against Lie's cold psychotic Breivik. And in what can sometimes be a thankless role, Øigarden as Lippestad (Breivik's lawyer,) is the person who in the midst of the horrors, keeps a cool head as well as showing what has to be the case for everyone: a fair trial in a court of law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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