Film Reviews by TB

This film defies every metric you could possibly measure it against. It is so badly made, so atrociously scripted & so poorly acted it almost transcends all criticism. The script probably took longer to read than it did to write. It is full of bad editing, sound & production design. But it just keeps on plumbing ever more rancid depths.

For example, there is a moment of jaw-dropping racism by one female character, commenting about another, despite this woman being in a relationship with a mixed-race man... Also, pretty much every woman featured in this film in a prominent way is either a sex worker or treated as nothing more than a sex object.

Other such delights include the casting of an older porn star to play the mother of the protagonist, who at one point has clearly used Sharon Stone's leg crossing from Basic Instinct as horrible inspiration, but forgetting to actually cross her legs; the close-up view of another character removing & cleaning his tracheotomy pipe before inserting it back in with a horrible squelch; and a man raping a woman whilst wearing the chopped-off carcass of a pig's head... There are also more prosthetic penis's in this film than in the entirety of Lars Von Trier's filmography.

And finally, we come to the performances. And it's no stretch to say that the acting here makes The Room look like Citizen Kane. At one point, an actress delivers a dull, turgid monologue, attempting to muster anger but acting more like she's got bad stomach ache. Then, as she storms out, she walks into the rig & the camera visibly shakes. The lead actor, played by Gary Busey's son, appears to have inherited none of the slim pickings of his father's talent, such is his lack of ability. Whether it's attempting to be threatening or trying to turn on the charm, it all seems to be beyond him.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't even fall into "so bad it's good territory," simply because of how horrible it is to watch, both in performance & production. If you want to watch something along those lines, rent The Greasy Strangler. It has laughs, good jokes and just as much liberal featuring of prosthetics...

Having never watched a Noire thriller before, but instead played LA Noire, a computer game which unashamedly takes many of the themes, I was interested to see what this film would hold. Plus, the fact it was directed by Neil Jordan & starred Liam Neeson was also a strong selling point. 

As a film, I always enjoyed what was on screen, but it was never anything more than a fairly gentle paced story with a few curveballs thrown in. The recreation of LA in the 30’s was perfectly done, which is even more staggering when you consider all the outdoor scenes were shot in Spain. A huge number of the clichés which were associated with the Noire crime drama are present & correct, but are never shoehorned in, sitting instead comfortably within the narrative. The film is also a lot less violent than I was expecting. 

But it was only ever average. The story is a shallow as a kids swimming pool & if you are looking for deep meaning or profound scenes, then you’re watching the wrong film. This is a perfectly serviceable, relatively inoffensive hour 40 of watching different talented actors interact with each other, with some good staging & locations. 

Since the release of the novel in 1929, written by a veteran of the First World War, 3 film adaptations have been produced, each winning critical acclaim & awards. This latest version by Edward Berger & funded by Netflix is another good, if a bit all over the place, look at the horror of war. It is also extremely prescient in terms of the timing of it's release, coming not long after Russia invaded Ukraine, condemning yet another generation of mainly young men to slaughter & maiming.

The film follows Paul Bäumer, an idealistic young German man, from his initial recruitment from school through to the end days of the conflict. We see how he turns from an excitable & lively young man to a battle-scarred & deeply affected shell of a human. The friends from school, as well as the men he meets during training, are either killed or have a similar fate to him.

In terms of production, the vast budget that Netflix has provided has paid dividends & I can see why this film won so many awards. In particular the cinematography, from the beautiful skies to the blood-soaked battlefields, are stunningly lensed. Costumes & sets are also amazing, the making-of on the special features fleshing out the extensive recreation of these literal hell on earth places.

But overall the film was actually quite hard to follow. Even with subtitles & plenty of exposition, the story juddered & jolted all over the place. Plus the events were not always clear. I appreciate that there is the confusion of war factored in, but narrative wise, even towards the end I wasn't sure about certain characters.

This is absolutely a shocking & stark war film and I thought to myself that I would need to watch it again. But I also have to be honest & say that for me, it was not the seminal masterpiece that some have hailed it to be.

Still, a very good effort

In 2014, Christopher Nolan gave the world Interstellar, a blockbuster film about space which was also notable among more recent films for its insistence on sticking as close to scientific fact as possible. However, and this has been my issue with all of Nolan's work, there is a coldness to his films, even when dealing with emotional subject matter.

Then Ridley Scott was announced as director to The Martian, based on the hugely popular novel, with Matt Damon as the lead. Somehow, I missed it in the cinema, but heard rave reviews from everyone who had seen it, including my best friend. I finally rented the 4K Blu-ray which had the director's cut on, and within 5 minutes, could see what all the fuss was about.

This film is incredible. Every element of it is perfect, from the performances, to the locations/cinematography & most of all the script. In a film full of complex ideas as well as a clear insistence to be as scientifically accurate & researched as possible, it is a joy to be a part of this story. You as the audience are guided through without being patronised, as well as being enlightened with man's sheer capacity & ingenuity when under the most extreme of circumstances.

Damon has always been great as the everyman protagonist, but here he plays both an ordinary & extraordinary man. Left behind on Mars after the mission goes awry, he then realises that there is a possibility of him being able to escape & make it back to Earth, if he in his words "sciences the s**t out of this." The other actors are also brilliant, from Jessica Chastain through to Donald Glover.

But most of all, what I loved was just how much of a good time this movie is. It is a proper, good old fashioned thriller film, which grabs you, transports you to another world & entertains you throughout it's entire runtime. Partly this is down to the skill of the cast & script, but to me the lion's share of credit must go to Ridley Scott. When he is at his best, like with this film or American Gangster ect, he is just a master at the top of his game.

I loved this film & you will too

In 2012, Prometheus was released, heralding a new chapter/start of the Alien world & franchise. Despite enjoying it in parts, I also appreciated it's flaws. But many of the fanbase were much more vocal about their hatred of it, even after multiple warnings from Scott that this was not another Alien sequel. But, clearly stung by the criticism, Scott then has attempted to move closer again to the Alien world, as well as having a great big Xenomorph on the poster/Blu-ray cover, to get pulses racing. But this is a terrible film in pretty much every way.

However, I want to get the good points out of the way first, as there are a couple. Firstly, and the main reason why this film gets 2 stars, is how it looks. After the mainly inhospitable terrain of LV-223 in Prometheus, Scott & the writers set this story on a lush planet, full of trees, forests & waterfalls. Unlike the mainly grim & dark planets the other films are set on, here we are treated to a stunning visual feast, Scott clearly using every penny of the budget on making this the best looking of the Alien films.

Another good point is the first action scene when things start to go wrong. In what could almost rival the original's chest-burster scene in terms of shock & horror, the medical room incident is genuinely nasty & unsettling. When I first saw this, despite some missteps (more on that in a minute,) I mentally was clapping my hands with glee & thinking "Now we're talking! This is getting good!"

But those are really the only good points in this absolute car crash of a film...

For starters, every single character in this film is so overwhelmingly stupid, you wonder how they manage to get dressed in the morning. For example, they ignore basic protocols (such as removing all their masks/protection 5 minutes after stepping foot on a planet which no-one has ever surveyed, leading to the subsequent events.) The newly-instated captain is later led by another character, who has so many red flags around him it becomes almost a joke, over to a great big egg & doesn't seem particularly concerned about the danger he is in.

There are also, like Prometheus, far too many characters vying for our attention. A common criticism which I also share is that the only 3 I remember are Daniels, because she is the lead, so it's impossible not to know who she is; David, because he was the best thing about Prometheus, and Tallahassee, because he wears a cowboy hat...

Speaking of David, he has been brought back for Covenant, but we also have another clone, because in Hollywood, 2 is better than 1... So we now have Walter who we meet in the beginning & is the "good" clone, and David who is the "bad" one. But whilst there is some fun in a couple of scenes to watch them interacting, overall it's just fairly boring. And it was further decided by the writers that now David needs to have multiple soliloquies, speeches that seem to go on & on, which just made me mentally switch off.

There are other moments which are pointless as well, such as the needless killing-off of a character, which is done off-screen & then casually shown in passing to us as the audience, almost as an afterthought & tying up of a loose end.

By the time the action starts to ramp up, I was bored senseless. I didn't care what was happening on screen, whether it was double-crossing, being chased/escaping, or an Alien on board a flying spaceship, screeching & trying to kill the people on board. And then we get the obligatory set-up to the next film, which was meant to be a grand reveal, but which I could see coming a mile off.

Please can this series now be left alone, so that the memories of the original & best are not continually trashed.

This is the first thing of Taika Waititi's that I've watched and was genuinely curious about the premise. A common theme through a lot of my reviews is that there isn't much originality any more. So when you hear of a film where the setting is Nazi Germany, features an imaginary Adolf Hitler and is about a Hitler youth member who discovers his mother is hiding a Jewish girl in the attic, I was interested.

The opening is quite funny & there are some good jokes. Sam Rockwell is a particular highlight as a demoted German officer, plus I also did think that Roman Griffin Davies was a good lead. However, this film was far too scattershot. It basically seemed to be throwing different jokes & ideas at a wall and seeing what would stick. So we have the attempted satirisation of multiple antisemitic tropes, said from the mouth of a 10 year old, most of which just fall flat.

And the inclusion of Waititi as Hitler, as much as I can see the thinking behind it (a Maori-Jew heritage man playing one of the most racist & infamous anti-Semites) again just doesn't really work. Waititi mugs away, throwing out lines that probably sounded funny when he wrote them down, but here they mostly fall flat.

I watched for an hour and then gave up. I did want to like this film, but I also fully accept that this isn't my type of humour. There are many people who did love this film, and it did win the Oscar for its script. However, unlike some of the other reviews, it also didn't make me angry, it just didn't land for me...

After winning the Best European Film award at the Cannes film festival, 5 star reviews in film publications like Empire and finally starring Léa Seydoux, who I think is a sensational actress, I put this on my rental list. I had high hopes, especially after reading the synopsis, however despite a lot of excellent things about this film, it also has one massive problem...

Seydoux stars as Sandra, the daughter of a well-regarded & beloved former philosophy teacher. Her father has a degenerative disease similar to Alzheimer's, and as the film starts, the help that Sandra is initially providing to him is not enough for his needs. She, along with the other members of her family, as well as her father's friends, move him into the care sector, having to deal with all the emotions that brings. At the same time, she reconnects with Clément, a close friend of her deceased husband. This then turns into an affair which Sandra hopes becomes something more.

Despite my criticism of one element of it, there is much to love here. Seydoux is exceptional, proving once again why she is such an incredible actress. The emotional journey we go through with Sandra is at times heartbreaking. The extremely carefully handled & sensitive scenes of her helping her father as his disease worsens are profoundly moving, especially as I have a parent with Alzheimer's & have experienced many of the situations shown. This also extends to the quiet moments after Sandra has left her father and is in quiet or emotional contemplation.

The production of the film is also excellent, with a soft pallet, bright colours & good locations. The director is low-key & unfussy, with scenes allowing the actors to act & the story to unfold at a gentle pace.

However, this film has a major failing which actually detracted from the viewing for me. We are told that there is a burning love & desire between Sandra & Clément: the trauma for her losing her husband & leaving her to raise their daughter alone; the upset for him that his marriage is failing, along with the unrequited love he clearly had & has for Sandra. And the film builds on this very effectively for the first 30 minutes or so.

But then, we never (aside from a 10 second interlude much later on in the film,) actually see any of the passion that they have shown to us as the audience. There is the start of some type of intimacy, then it immediately cuts to afterwards, when a few words are said and then the next scene starts. And when you compare that to the care & love shown by Sandra towards her father (which the narrative beautifully does, in rich detail,) the film then becomes quite one sided. Having spent the first section getting to know Sandra & seeing her life, to have one of the most important elements which the film is saying to us profoundly affects her not shown leaves the narrative quite rudderless.

What makes this even more prevalent for me is that Seydoux is an actress who, with Blue is the Warmest Colour, has shown how powerfully she can act in those types of scenes. It is almost like the writer/director had an idea of what they wanted to do, but then decided to tone that down, in effect hamstringing one of the central story themes.

I did enjoy the film, plus it is easy, if slightly sad viewing. But I just feel that it could have been so much more if the romance element of it was properly explored.

On the eve of the 2016 election & just before Trump's presidency, Michael Moore made this documentary as an answer to many of the issues that plague America, by looking outwards to other countries that have had similar social issues/tragedies, and seen how they dealt with them.

So we fly off to Norway to see how criminals and prisoners are dealt with, including an incredible interview with the father of one of the teenagers murdered on Utøya by a Neo-Nazi; how drug addiction is managed in Portugal, being treated as a health issue instead of a crime; workers rights in Germany as well as the teaching of history, and other countries including France & Slovenia/their policies.

The film has many good points, but unfortunately this documentary falls into a similar trap to other ones in this genre: too many ideas which are poorly executed. And what makes this stand out even more is how good Moore's previous works have been, particularly Bowling for Columbine & Sicko. With some better editing & more discipline, this could have been great, not just good.

Having said that, if you are a fan of Moore's, as I am, there is much to enjoy & this is a solid 3 star effort worth a watch.

After the middling but also well-shot Out of the Furnace, Christian Bale again teamed up with Scott Cooper, this time for a Western drama dealing with loyalty, duty & family. But unlike their previous collaboration, this is an incredible film.

Bale stars as Joseph Blocker, a Captain with the US Army. Set in 1892 Blocker, who is an emotionally burnt-out soldier who has seen more than his fair share of slaughter, is ordered under threat of court martial & stripping of his pension to escort a dying Cheyenne warrior & his family back to his homeland. The warrior Yellow Hawk is a sworn enemy of Blocker's, hence the blackmail by his superiors to escort the dying Chief. Along the way, these two men begin to learn a grudging respect for each other, as well as realising the only way they will make it through is by working together.

I don't know where to start with this film, as every part of it is incredible. Bale, who has again transformed himself from a rake-thin steelworker (in Furnace,) to a thick-set & emotionally battle-scarred veteran, is flawless. Within the first 5 minutes of being with him, you know the pain he is in; the humanity he has lost & the desperation he has to leave that world behind, only to be forced into escorting & protecting a complete pariah who he would happily kill in an instant. Wes Studi is also exceptional, summoning his considerable gravitas & range to play a man who knows he is dying & has to trust a man who he knows wants him dead. And topping this all off, Rosamund Pike again gives a multilayered performance as the traumatised widow who sees in Blocker the one flicker of salvation she can hope for in the unforgiving world she exists in.

The cinematography is stunning. Cooper's films always look gorgeous & this is no exception, the frontiers & wild lensed perfectly. The soundtrack is also beautiful. Much like The Proposition, another gruelling & inspiring Western, this journey challenges your preconceptions, allowing you to come to your own judgements, whilst never losing focus of the characters on screen.

Welcomingly, the ending is also everything you could want from this film, leaving you emotionally moved, but also not posing any easy answers. There are none of those in this environment & the film never for a second short-changes you.

A masterpiece

After a fantastic career as an actor, with 3 of his performances consistently in my top 10 films of all time, Ewan McGregor now steps behind the camera for his directorial debut, as well as playing the lead role. But whilst I give massive kudos to him for choosing such a big & in many ways deeply layered story to tell as his first directing effort, unfortunately it just doesn't all come together particularly well.

McGregor plays The Swede, a former high school soccer player who has the fairytale, picture perfect life: married his high school sweetheart who also happens to be a model, runs a successful family business & has a daughter who is happy & fulfilled. However, this starts to rapidly fall apart after his daughter becomes entangled & indoctrinated by extreme political forces.

Production-wise, everything is on point: it is shot very well, the sound is good, locations perfect. Performances are also solid, Jennifer Connelly & Uzo Aduba the standouts. But the film just tries to do far too much, setting up multiple strands which it then tries to give equal attention to but then coming across as turgid & unfocussed.

Some of the characters are also not well-served by the screenplay, such as Dakota Fanning. When you see her performance in films like Man on Fire, you know how incredible she can be. Here, she plays an extreme hippie with a view on society which could rival anything the far-right could dream up. But she also speaks in a whisper most of the time, ranting on ever more extreme tangents which just become boring & trite.

Sadly, as much as I enormously admire the boldness of McGregor's ambition, plus also the fact that he stepped into the breach at the 11th hour after the film's original director/team collapsed, this story is too much for him, or for that matter probably most directors to try and make sense of. Interestingly, in an interview subsequent to the release of this film (and reflecting on it's critical & commercial failure,) McGregor expressed an interest in directing a film much more like his experience on Trainspotting: low budget, short shoot, snappy story.

I am sad that he didn't get the chance to do that type of movie as his first directing gig, but I absolutely look forward to & will watch whatever he does next.

Clint Eastwood continues his streak of all-American hero films with this dramatisation of the actions of the US commercial aviation pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger who, after taking off, hit a flock of birds & suffering complete engine failure. Sully & his co-pilot managed to safely land the plane in the Hudson river, resulting in no loss of life & only minor injuries. The film looks at the crash & the resulting investigation.

Unlike Captain Phillips, as much as the real-world crash is handled well, the film then loses its focus somewhat and becomes fairly average. There is a welcome focus on Sully's PTSD after the crash, as well as the nerves about appearing in front of the committee. But in many ways this is superficial, and we never really get under Sully's skin.

There was also significant criticism from many within aviation & the safety part of it of the representation of the board/the handling of the crash. And this is entirely justified: the film makes them look predominantly like absolute arseholes. Even the real Sully was upset by this depiction of them.

For me, this was fairly average fare, but absolutely a film with it's share of issues. However, take it with a pinch of salt & accept that it is a piece of entertainment and you'll have an enjoyable 90 minutes.

When I heard about this film, it was spoken about in almost revered terms: a masterpiece as well as a true descent into hell. But watching it, the main thought I had was boredom. It took me a while to actually understand what was going on, getting my head around the huge number of cuts & narrative choices, then when I did start to get on board with it, my attention was frequently wandering. There is absolutely some profound imagery, as well as impactful performances from all the main cast, however this doesn't solve anywhere close to the number of issues this film has.

As it starts to be layered on too thickly, the ultimate example of "more is better" not actually being the case, we are subjected to seeing these characters's descent into hell up close & personal. Except they never are that profound, because I never related to any of them on anything more than a superficial level. As in, it was simply looking at desperate people in bad situations and thinking "Oh, that's horrible!" And combined with that was the feeling that the filmmakers were over my shoulder cackling & saying "Look how much we are torturing these people!"

I don't doubt for many this is a massively impactful film. But it's desperation to shock then becomes it's downfall.

This was one of those films which I first heard about through reading film magazines such as Empire. It was a small British film (which I love & are often better than anything Hollywood can produce,) which had played multiple festivals & received rave reviews from everyone who saw it. It then managed to be highly successful (given its budget,) at the box office, as well as winning multiple awards. When I finally saw it, I understood why, as it absolutely blew me away.

Johnny Saxby lives & works on a Yorkshire farm, owned by his parents. The hours are long & gruelling, with even more pressure put on him due to the fact that his father has suffered several strokes. Johnny is a wild & free spirit, who frequently drinks to excess, can be unreliable & difficult to be around. He is also gay & has many fleeting dalliances, but never anything more. Due to the level of work the farm needs, alongside his father's failing health, a Romanian man called Gheorghe is hired to help. As they start to work together, Johnny begins to fall in love with Gheorghe, although he will have to completely change his ways in order to keep them together.

Everything about this film is perfect, starting with the look of it. Shot on location on a real farm in Yorkshire (the 2 actors, once they signed on to the roles, had a 2 week bootcamp working on farms to gain a view into this unforgiving life,) everything about the film feels authentic, as well as beautifully shot. As a regular visitor to the North, I cannot think of another film which so beautifully captures the nature & weather of this magnificent part of the UK. You can almost feel the atmosphere of the farm, such as the warmth from the animals or the various smells.

The other element to the film which I really liked was the pointed refusal to make Johnny a simple character, in terms of showing his traits. Johnny is at times genuinely unlikable, difficult, abrasive & cold. But he is also someone who works incredibly hard & is also loyal to his family. One of the most devastating & powerful moments in this film comes during a scene helping his father, turning two simple words of gratitude into an emotional hammerblow.

Performance wise, every cast member is flawless. O'Connor, Secareanu, Hart & Jones literally are their characters, the actions they do & the lines on their faces telling a million stories without saying a single word. I also liked the fact that this was a very raw love story in terms of how it shows the love between the 2 men. This is a film full of honesty, whether in the representations of sex or the exhaustion of hard manual labour on a farm.

This film is beautiful, poetic & emotionally devastating. It stays with you long after the credits roll, as any incredible film does. Stunning work from all involved

Coming after Batman V Superman, which was itself a divisive & not particularly popular film, this looks at the evolution of Diana Prince from her roots on Themyscira through to her role as Wonder Woman. Mentioning Batman V Superman, Wonder Woman was absolutely one of the best elements of it, so I was looking forward to seeing what this film would do, especially seeing as it was directed by Patty Jenkins, who made the magnificent Monster, the story of Eileen Wuornos.

There are many good things about the film, starting with the cast. Gal Gadot is perfectly cast, as is Chris Pine as her love interest. The stunts are also good & Themyscira is brilliantly realised.

However, this film is also far too long, monotonous & lumpy in parts. There is also more than one occasion where Diana will scream about "saving the children," then jump into the center of a firefight, chastising those around her for not doing the same, whilst failing to show/making her not realise that she is the only one impervious to bullets...

Overall, a 3 star film which is perfectly passable, but not something I'd watch again.

From the makers of Trainspotting (who if you look closely there is a cheeky Easter Egg/reference to in one scene,) comes this film set at the turn of the millennium, just as computers, gaming & the promise of virtual reality were starting to gain traction.

Justine is a 17 year old virgin, who is frustrated at seeing her friends all either have carefree sex or be in relationships. Her best friend, a geeky guy called Chas, who also has a crush on her, takes her to a computer fair where she goes into a machine which then brings to life her idea of the perfect guy. We then follow Jake (her creation,) as he navigates the new world he has been brought into.

Whilst there are some inspired visual flourishes, along with some retro music that brings back memories of my childhood spent listening to the Pepsi chart with Dr Fox, this is actually a quite rudderless & meandering film. Any profound questions that are raised about expectations & navigating your way in the world as a young woman are only cursorily approached before being dismissed with statements about how much was spent on perfume being the reason why one character hasn't been successful with men.

There are also, and this is much more my humour, some unintentional funny moments which are not treated as such in the film; the main one being when the house of the parents of one of the characters gets half destroyed & there is basically no reaction from either of them...

When unintentional humour gets more of a laugh than most of the jokes, you know you're in trouble. An interesting look back at how things were 25 years ago, but nothing more than