Film Reviews by TB

Oh Ridley Scott... When you're average, your work is indistinguishable from many other directors today, all fighting for people's attention (obviously I'm not including cinematography, sets ect; I'm talking the overall watching experience.) But when you're brilliant, there is almost no-one who can touch you, so high do you shoot into the stratosphere. For every Napoleon or Last Duel which is average, there is The Counsellor, Alien, American Gangster or Martian to provide a masterclass in sheer pleasure. And for this film, despite the controversy around it's production, this deservedly takes its place within the pantheon of Scott's finest.

The controversy I speak of was the original casting of Kevin Spacey as John Paul Getty III. After multiple accusations of sexual assault by Spacey (all since overturned, it is important to state,) Spacey was fired from the film & in a feat of organisational brilliance, Scott reshot every one of the scenes originally starring Spacey with Christopher Plummer, who was brought in at the last moment. The fact alone that Scott was able to pull that off, considering all the bureaucracy & working around people's schedules, is so difficult to do it's an achievement in itself.

But the reason I reference all of the above is quite simple: before anyone had seen a frame of it, the film was already tarred with the dreaded "production issues" brush, potentially meaning that for most people, it wouldn't be a good film/it would simply be another film known for a tortured path to release. But this film is absolutely bloody brilliant, in every way, shape & form.

All the money in the world (ATMITW) looks at the kidnapping of the grandson of Getty, who was at that time one of the wealthiest men in the entire world. Getty was also one of the most stubborn & shrewd businessmen and refused in any way to meet the demands of the kidnappers. Part of the reason, which as much as it's horrible to say, doesn't mean it isn't true, is that if he paid that ransom, it would give a green light to anyone to kidnap another member of his family. His mother Gail then has to effectively negotiate with the kidnappers, in a tense cat-and-mouse game, with the help of Wahlberg's Fletcher Chase, to free her son.

The film is unbearably tense, with a script that literally keeps you on the edge of your seat. The sets, cinematography, costumers, locations; literally everything is perfect. This film is also notable for the against-type casting of actors. Wahlberg, for example, never touches a gun or breaks out into violence, constantly being a steely presence, whilst everything around him threatens to collapse at any moment. But the real shock is Plummer. Known mainly for his family-friendly & gentle characters, here he is a cold-hearted, unsympathetic & ruthless man who may show some concerns about the taking of his grandson, but treats it almost like another business transaction.

The film, the whole way through, never drops the ball once. And when it finishes, I just sat back & said "Wow..." Both myself & my best friend loved it & it really is incredible, a stunning achievement in every way.

Ridley, when you make films like this, no-one can touch you...

Another incredible restoration, this time expertly done by the BFI for 4K Blu-ray.

The Proposition is set in Australia & tells the story of a ruthless gang, The Burns gang, and whose estranged members Charlie & Mikey are captured by burnt-out and emotionally extinguished Captain Stanley. Stanley is desperate to catch the psychotic leader Arthur Burns, who among many heinous acts oversaw the rape, murder & mutilation of a family, including the pregnant wife. As Arthur is feared & untouchable in many ways, Stanley offers Charlie a deal: he & his brother Mikey (who is extremely developmentally challenged/childlike) will be pardoned if Charlie kills & brings back Arthur to Stanley. However, this deal causes outrage amongst the Outback community that Stanley serves and sets in motion a series of brutal and bloody events...

When I first watched this film in 2006, I was much younger & didn't relate to it that much, despite being gripped at times. Now, 18 years later, it's impact is like a sledgehammer. Front & center is the look of the film: shot on location in the Outback, every sunset bathes your eyes in stunning colour, before being followed by heat that is so horrific & oppressive, you almost start to sweat. The cinematography here is masterful & on its own another character in the story.

Much attention & praise has also been given to the huge care & authenticity of the depiction of Australian/indigenous Aboriginals. The other cast are also superb, not one performance not ringing true. Winstone in particular, much in the same way as in Sexy Beast, totally subverts the archetypical caricature of how he is mostly seen. Morris Stanley looks like a man who is on the verge of either a total breakdown or heatstroke: an ex-serviceman whose humanity was destroyed on the battlefield & then whose soul was roasted to a crisp Down Under. Guy Pearce is also incredible as the man who knows he is a monster & tries everything to repay some of the debt he has built up over years of criminality & violence.

And finally, the story itself is great. And one of the main reasons for this is quite simple: there is not an ounce of fat on this film. It is a fantastically directed, tight & perfectly paced film. And welcomingly, it doesn't mess up the ending or give any easy answers. The world those characters exist in is a violent, dangerous & brutal one, where innocence is lost & life is grindingly difficult.

A gripping watch

Lars Von Trier is a man known for provocativeness & controversy. Whilst his films have often been revered for their stories & ingenuity, he is also infamous for multiple things, particularly the content of his films which includes graphic sexuality & brutal violence, to name just 2. This review is of the Director's cut, which is significantly different in tone, but not currently available for rent by Cinema Paradiso, though I hope it will be added soon.

The other thing which sets Nymphomaniac apart from pretty much any other film, especially one to star A-list actors, is the graphic & real sex which is shown. But this is also a great strength of the film to me for one reason, which was well-publicised on release: the real sex is done by porn actors, then the actor's faces CG'd onto them. Whilst this sounds silly, it really works & the CGI is perfectly done. And this totally destroys any controversy of the actors themselves doing it, instead allowing the viewer to completely accept this element of the film, which perfectly compliments the story.

Nymphomaniac is a film which is in many ways a classic Von Trier work, starting with the title. It was announced at Cannes & Charlotte Gainsbourg, who Von Trier referenced & was sat next to him, thought it was a joke. But it is a epic saga, following the life of a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac called Joe. The difference here is that the protagonist is a woman & the film delights at repeatedly challenging the stereotypes & judgements that the viewers have, particularly the notion that only a man can be a sex addict/this isn't something which women do.

The 1st chapter is great in terms of performances & script. Alongside Von Trier's trusted & multiple collaborators Stellan Skarsgård & Charlotte Gainsbourg, we have an incredible debut from Stacy Martin, playing the younger Joe. Martin is sensational & absolutely the best part of this film. She is everything you could want from the leading character & is so good that she completely eclipses Gainsbourg, who to be honest I didn't like that much in terms of performance.

There are also some wonderful cameos, the standout being Uma Thurman as a completely crackers & vengeful scorned wife, Mrs H. The 15 minutes, including an excruciatingly awkward cup of tea with the husband who dumped her 10 minutes before, their children, plus another lover of Joe's, is both wince-inducing & hysterical. Christian Slater also is profound as Joe's beloved father, who was the bedrock of her early life.

Whilst it is long, it is also excellent, although sadly things go downhill in Volume 2.

Concluding the epic film odyssey from Lars Von Trier, following the journey of a female nymphomaniac called Joe, sadly this is a bloated & often not particularly good conclusion, despite some excellent individual moments.

After the brilliance of Vol. 1, we follow Joe into adulthood. She has, right at the end of the previous film, lost the ability to feel any sexual pleasure, which then sends her on a spiral downwards. We also, from about 40 minutes in, transition from Stacy Martin to Charlotte Gainsbourg as Joe. And this for me is this film's biggest issue. In Vol. 1, we jumped back & forward in time, seeing both Gainsbourg & Martin as the different versions of Joe, which worked really well.

However, once Gainsbourg is solely on screen, the film becomes really cold & also brittle. By that, I mean that I genuinely didn't like Gainsbourg's performance when it is not offset by Martin's. Gainsbourg is an actor who never makes you that happy to be in her company, exuding a real narcissism & abrasiveness, combined with a line delivery that makes it sound like she is constantly lecturing you as the viewer, not welcoming you in to the story which in the first part, I really enjoyed.

There is also, whilst I appreciate that this is Von Trier deliberately being provocative & button-pushing, a couple of extremely repulsive & verging on dispicible actions/decisions by the adult Joe which the film shows, then attempts to reason away by critiquing the society we live in. There is no society in the world that would do anything other than condemn the actions of Joe as a parent putting her infant son at risk whilst she went out to get sexually pleasured. And the fact that this attempted justification is delivered by Gainsbourg with a face that looks like a smacked arse & a tone of voice that says "How dare you pass judgement on me!!" is just vomit-inducing. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, those type of actions are the lowest of the low.

As the film draws to its conclusion, we do get some warmth in the shape of Joe's relationship with P, again a fantastic debut from Mia Goth. Willem Defoe also appears, after his starting role in Von Trier's previous film Antichrist, although he gets away far more lightly in this film. Finally, Jamie Bell is also great, as the punishment-obssesed sadist K. In a departure from his normal roles, he plays K as a Northern-accented, quiet psychopath, who looks more like someone who would visit your house & change your boiler rather than a person who straps you to a sofa & beats you until you are hideously disfigured.

The ending is unexpected but also well-handled, plus there is a final, excellent joke which is the best line of the whole 2 films. It's just a shame that after an excellent start, the film becomes too long & weighed down by its own righteousness & self-importance, leaving you ultimately unsatisfied, which is ironic for a film which is ultimately concerned with climaxing...

When people in the UK talk about films which actually moved the needle of change & provoked both outrage & action to change the very way of life, Cathy Come Home is almost always mentioned. First released as a television play on the BBC, it ushered in a new wave of filmmaking, using the medium of entertainment media as a way to expose & shock people into the horrors that were happening, just out of their view.

The story of Cathy & Reg, an idealistic couple who meet and fall madly in love, before a set of circumstances over which they have no control tip them into a downward spiral, is devastating. Reg's dreams of being able to live in a beautiful house & provide for his family, alongside Cathy's want for a wonderful life to raise their children in, are dreams that all young families have. It is also shown clearly that Reg is a hard worker who simply wants the chance to improve his life for himself and his family.

The scenes of people claiming to want to help, but still forcing the family further down into the straight jacket of an inflexible benefits system, is heartbreaking, leading up to the final devastating scene in a train station as Cathy attempts to flee.

This is monumental British filmmaking and prompted real change, including the founding of the charity Shelter. However, in many ways the change simply hasn't continued. Towards the end, I remember thinking of the disgusting comments made by then-home secretary Suella Braverman about individuals who were homeless being engaged in "a lifestyle choice." One watch of this shows you how hollow & dispicible those sorts of comments are, tarring hundred of thousands of decent people with the same brush.

After a successful career as a actor & then director, Peter Berg made a huge impact with this brilliant film, set in Saudi Arabia after a spate of terrorist attacks. Part of the brilliance of this film is due to the powerhouse producing & guidance of Michael Mann, whose fingerprints are all over this film in terms of tone & action.

Jamie Foxx plays Ronald Fleury, an FBI agent who is sent to the Saudi capital, along with a crack team, to root out the culprits of a series of horrific terrorist attacks on the American campuses of oil workers. They are paired up with Colonel Faris Al-Ghazi, a deeply distrusting man who initially resents the American support sent to help him, but slowly forms a bond with the team.

The tension is expertly handled, then when the action finally comes, it is a masterclass in direction, stunt work & pacing. What starts as a frantic car chase then turns into a desperate search through a nest of terrorists inside an apartment building.

Finally, what really completes this film is the ending. It is absolutely perfect in terms of showing the futility of the situation that the Middle East finds itself caught in & drives home the pointlessness & never-ending cycle that results in needless bloodshed & trauma.

A wonderful masterpiece.

This is an unbearable watch. As in, a couple of times I had to pause & come back to it. It shows in unflinching & clear detail the horrific mass slaughter of disabled & "problem" (in the Nazis eyes) people inside sanatoriums in Germany. The protagonist, based on a real boy sent to one of these institutions, is fiercely willed & free spirited, as well as highly intelligent. He very quickly sees what is happening & then works to do all he can to disrupt the evil at work.

But for me, the worst & most traumatic element of the whole film, which I also have no doubt is true, is the portrayal of the nurses & medical staff. The doctor in charge, Dr. Veithausen, is a "lovely," softly spoken man who seems to be every inch the caring doctor who you would trust to help you. He is popular with the patients & even plays games with the more boisterous children. Then he calmly goes into his office & researches the quickest ways to slaughter the individuals in his care.

And for me, this is the absolute crux of this film: whenever you mention Nazi to someone, they will almost certainly picture in their mind the most sadistic, demonic & evil looking person imaginable. However, the reality is that these were mostly completely "ordinary" people who in many cases believed fervently in what they were doing. And when that hits home in the way this film makes you feel, it is horrible to just sit there watching this barbarity committed by smiling & gentle people who you'd pass on the street without a second glance.

Essential viewing but highly upsetting

A film of incredible nuance, delicate but devastatingly powerful performances & a magnificent script.

Casey Affleck stars as Lee Chandler, a man completely broken by grief, who lives the most low-profile existence imaginable: aside from his job as a building complex handyman (where he often gets into arguments with the more difficult residents,) he spends his days alone and/or drinking to numb his trauma. He then gets a call out of the blue, informing him that his beloved brother Joe has died & has left Lee to raise Joe's son Patrick. Lee then has to return to Manchester by the Sea, where he is a pariah & outcast, to try & raise Patrick.

I won't say too much more about the story, as the less you know, the more you get out of it. All I will say is that when it comes to performances & script, this is up there with the best I've ever seen. Casey Affleck is phenomenal & richly deserved his Oscar, as is Michelle Williams. The standout sequence, when the two of them meet for the first time in years, is completely heartbreaking & flawlessly performed. Lucas Hedges is also deeply moving, as a young man trying to process his grief & a new father figure.

But don't be put off by the melancholic sounding tone: there is plenty of humour to be found here, with many laugh out loud moments. The locations (this film was partially shot in the titular town) are stunning.

This film will do many things to you: make you laugh, cry & be profoundly moved. It is also one of the best films of 2016

Whilst it has one of the most provocative & image-baiting titles you could possibly create, especially in 1974, this is actually fairly light on gore, instead going all in for mental terror & shock. Creating the set-up that has since been copied a million times (group of carefree & fairly clueless young adults on a road trip, being taken off course & then terrorised by a demonic creature,) it then proceeds to slowly kill off the group one by one in ever more horrific ways.

It is also an unashamedly low-budget film in every sense, almost revelling in this whilst also full of highly inventive camera work & staging.

However, for me, in the middle part, I just couldn't take it seriously and spent a good section of it laughing out loud. The first time we see Leatherface, it is meant to be this horrific reveal & searing onto our brains this unrestrained evil... He jumps out of the shadows, kills one of the group, drags him into a room then slams the door with a roar like Harry Enfield's character Kevin. And from there I just couldn't stop laughing.

The scenes of him then pursuing one of the women in a protracted chase sequence, consisting of an out-of-shape actor holding a blatantly fake prop with a smoke machine attached to it & finished with some massively over-the-top sound effects alongside the obligatory grunting, is one of the funniest things I've ever seen in a film. I just couldn't take it in any way seriously.

But the end scenes, particularly the dinner scene, are extremely unpleasant & nasty, bringing us firmly back into horror territory. The ending is also well done as well, really keeping us on the edge of our seats.

As much as this wasn't for me a scary horror film, I did really enjoy it in parts and it absolutely is memorable. And for the squeamish readers of this, despite the relentlessly nasty tone & atmosphere, there is amusingly very little actual violence.

Baz Luhrmann is truly cinematic marmite. His style, which is never boring & extremely distinctive, has as many admirers as it does detractors. My own view of him is equally as mixed: Moulin Rouge is a flat-out masterpiece, pretty much perfect & completely brilliant in terms of its execution & look, as well as it's musical numbers/wild experimentation of musical styles; William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet is another great film, although I did feel that it was a little overlong & frequently meandering; then finally The Great Gatsby which was actually fairly unwatchable & I gave up on, despite the pedigree casting.

But when I heard he was directing an Elvis biopic, I was actually quite excited, as this sounded like the perfect project for Luhrmann to put his stamp on: one of the most influential, larger than life entertainers the world has ever seen, who's influence not only affected music but even subjects as controversial as politics & race. Also, the massive back catalogue of Presley's music would be rich pickings for Luhrmann. But this is another big misfire in so many ways.

However, it cannot be overstated just how incredible Austin Butler is as Presley. This is a chameleonic, Daniel Day-Lewis level performance, with not one element ever feeling forced or even acted. Especially towards the end, when footage of the real Presley is spliced in with Butler's performance, you realise the masterclass in acting that you are witnessing. If Butler continues on this trajectory, we are in the presence of the next De Niro or Ledger.

But the sheer power of his performance is a completely double edged sword: Butler is so good, so perfect & so flawless, the rest of the film and especially it's shortcomings are just completely exposed. And where to begin with them.

For a start, this film is far, far too long; an obscenely bloated & never-ending slogfest. At one point I paused it to use the facilities, thinking that it was relatively near to the end: it still had over 50 minutes left & I was half-tempted to turn it off. Also, as a film it is really poorly written. Our "guide" through this movie is Colonel Tom Parker, Presley's manager & the source of significant controversy, due to multiple allegations of his exploiting & mismanaging Presley/his vast fortune. The film for the lion's share of it almost seems to be a way to try to rehabilitate his reputation, although it must be noted that later on this pretense is dropped.

But Parker is shown as such an extreme caricature that you never enjoy his company & he starts to affect the viewing. I can see why Hanks was cast, to try & make him in some way likeable, but not even he can turn this ship around.

And finally, for me, as much as lots of ground is covered in terms of events in Presley's life, not much sticks. If you asked me now to name the most impactful moment of Elvis's life from this film, I'd struggle to pick one that really resonated, despite many of them that were thrown on screen.

Some people will absolutely love this film, whether for the large amount of musical experimentation, or the huge budget being used to incredible affect in realising the world that Elvis existed in (and to be clear, the film visually is stunning, which is a given for a Luhrmann picture.) But I just didn't connect with it really at all, which is a shame given my love for Moulin Rouge.

See it for Butler but not much else.

One of Christopher Nolan's favourite films is 2001: A Space Odyssey. He is also on record as talking about how impactful the moon landings/NASA space missions were to him as a young man. His tribute to this is an often jaw-dropping & incredibly filmed visual feast with amazing performances, which then totally loses its way in the last 20 minutes.

The film is set in a world where the planet is dying. Harvests are failing, the human race is genuinely under threat & there is the constant threat of chaos/the breakdown of order. Cooper is a spit-and-sawdust Texan who was an astronaut for many years until he left following a near-fatal space mission that went wrong. He now works as a farmer, along with most of the population around him, desperately trying to exist whilst the atmosphere/ecosystem collapses due to blight. He is then recruited to lead a mission to search for other habitable planets in different solar systems.

The music, acting & general story are all excellent & powerful. Matthew McConaughey, in his first film released after winning his Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club, is a fantastic protagonist: we really root for & become extremely emotionally involved with Cooper's story arc, as well as his love for his children. The IMAX/70MM film segments are stunning, especially in the 4K UHD Blu-ray version. Hans Zimmer's score is also flawless, particularly his use of the organ.

However, the ending of this film is so stupid, so idiotic & far-fetched, that it threatens to derail the whole experience. And to be clear, I fully appreciate that the film has been scientifically researched & the series of events COULD happen. But that doesn't mean that it is likely to, or that this potential in any way makes the events any more realistic. It is just stupid.

But so much good stuff comes before it that I still love it overall & simply turn the film off before it veers into crazy territory. I would advise you to watch it all the way through once, then copy what I do. Far more enjoyment will come from it for you.

When Normal People was first shown, it was reported as being a cultural zeitgeist. Showered with awards & praise for the different elements (realistic depictions of teenage mental health, sex & the struggles young people face when they go out into the world,) it was something I was aware of, but had no real interest in seeing at that time. But when it popped up on my recommendations, as well as the fact that, in particular, Paul Mescal has now become a hugely revered actor, I rented it. But much like The Responder, another massively revered TV drama, it was quite middle of the road for me.

There are many excellent moments, such as the performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones & Mescal have excellent chemistry, as well as an easy working relationship, in terms of how clearly they trust each other. The other characters, particularly Connor's Mother, are also well written & provide an important balance to the emotion and drama. The locations are also stunning, particularly the beach scenes, showing how beautiful a place Northern Ireland is.

There are also some extremely powerful moments, particularly in the representation of mental illness. One episode, which I won't detail too much/spoil, shows a significant mental health breakdown with honesty, compassion, care & incredible acting. The decision to clearly show the enormous positives that happen by seeking out professional support is vital & hugely welcome for a mainstream series. In this respect, Normal People is to be rightly lauded & hugely praised.

So why the 3 stars, given all I've just said?

Quite simply, there are many elements which just didn't "work" in the sense of the narrative & content. The sex scenes for example, which a huge amount was written about, especially the use of an "intimacy coordinator," were both well-shot but also quite unrealistic, which you factor in how the entire series is supposed to be about depicting as real a relationship as possible between two young people. In Normal People's world, its mostly extremely vanilla with the same couple of acts, but then to really "push out the boat," we get a vague attempt to show more risqué intimacy, which again doesn't work within the context.

With characters, there are also some fairly unrealistic people as well. One guy in particular, considering the nuance & brilliant writing of the main leads, is just depicted as an out-and-out arsehole with no redeemable story arc, mainly to me because the opinions he has the writers didn't like, but had to embellish more so that he could be depicted as some reprehensible figure. Marianne's family also don't get much depth either, particularly the older brother, who again is just a ball of rage & bile.

There was absolutely some monumentally moving scenes, which were deeply affecting, but for me overall the series was just too bitty & uneven. I would still recommend it, but it never reached the grand heights it set itself.

After the incredible Starred Up, plus some memorable other performances in dramas (Dive & Harry Brown in particular,) I was always looking out for anything Jack O'Connell was in. And when I saw the premise of & look of this film, I immediately was interested in seeing it. A relatively recent conflict, a strong cast and from the trailer/synopsis, a chase film, made me think this would be a home run. But even though it was many years ago that I watched this film, I still have the same overriding feeling about it: a waste of incredible potential.

All the right ingredients are there, but it just doesn't have the impact that it should have. And the main problem was that I never related to or felt particularly moved by the protagonist Gary Hook. The film allows us the stereotypical early scenes of trying to establish a backstory of sorts, but this is almost blink & you'll miss it. If this is a character I'm going to be spending 90 minutes with, I want to relate to them and be so engrossed with their story that I am on the edge of my seat. But Hook is in many respects never more than just an average grunt who is put into an exceptional situation.

And what makes this more frustrating is that firstly O'Connell does the absolute best he can with the weak material he is given, but also when the script is good, he shines. But I never felt enough to care about his plight that much. I WANTED to care about it, and a couple of times I felt like the film was getting into gear, but it then just fell flat.

There are however some good moments. The initial chase sequence is expertly shot & Sean Harris as the undercover commander is excellent as always. The colour palette is also great, as are the locations.

But I wanted so much more. I feel that another viewing may change my opinion, plus I was watching it with a friend who really enjoyed it. However, it was never anything more than average for me.

I loved this film. Loved it, adored it, revered it. And the reason why is very simple: it is a film which shows the horrors of racism in 1960’s Deep South, but not by bashing its viewer over the head with many stark & horrific images. To be clear, and to scotch any bad faith criticism, I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that there should be no films made showing the horrors of racism. There have been countless stories told which show this, in amongst them some incredible ones like Selma, American History X & Detroit. My point is that the reason why Green Book was so impactful for me, in a different way, was because we have 2 characters who actually feel like real people, who we can relate to.

And because there is a lightness of touch and humour, this makes the scenes of racism much more horrific & impactful. The 2 star Cinema Paradiso review to me has been written in completely bad faith, it’s author already deciding how this film is to him, viewing it through his own ideological lens and not actually being prepared to enjoy the world that has been created, mainly due to the fact that this film doesn’t repeatedly keep screaming “RACISM IS BAD!” every 2 minutes. 

For me, the performances are what makes this film so amazing. As Tony Lip, Viggo is perfection: a larger than life, full-blooded Italian wild-heart, who absolutely has his own bigotries and trauma. But he is a real go-getter as a person, lighting up every room with his personality as well as his incredible warmth. And matching him toe-to-toe is Ali as Don Shirley. He is a man deeply traumatised & scarred by the racism, oppression & threats that have followed him from the moment he was born. He is also a man of stratospheric talent, whose gift of music is totally opposite to his insular, confrontational behaviour, borne out of the life he has had to lead in every respect. 

Whilst there are the standard road-trip tropes, these beautifully compliment the story, the two of them really starting to bond. And the ending is also one which, whilst heartwarming, is in no way a cop-out. The impact the two men have on each other's lives really is profound. Direction-wise, this is light touch & allows the actors to act, with lovely cinematography as well.

Finally, there is one other falsehood which received plenty of media coverage & in light of the Cinema Paradiso review, I want to ensure is corrected: members of Don Shirley’s family were extremely vocal in their criticism of the fact that they were not consulted/allowed their input to the film’s story. The reason for this, which wasn’t reported in anything like the same volume, is that Don Shirley himself, who told his life story to the scriptwriter as well as Tony Lip’s son, was estranged from all of his family. He further specifically told the writers not to talk to anyone about him. Whilst there was some regret from Ali about not speaking to the remaining Shirley family, this wasn’t a deliberate act. 

After the Bourne Supremacy I, like many other people, had an anticipation/expectation reaching into the stratosphere of what Ultimatum would do & if it would be able to both maintain the current incredible story quality as well as improving on it & subsequently the Jason Bourne universe. And when I first watched it in the cinema, I came away massively disappointed. It wasn’t the film I was expecting, but also there was another big reason for my dislike: I had read an interview leading upto the film’s release with the director Paul Greengrass, where he absolutely laid into & excoriated the Bond film series.

This sat badly with me for 2 reasons: firstly, there is no doubt that the existence of the 007 franchise, whatever its shortcomings, laid the groundwork for espionage films such as Bourne to be successful & actively interesting to the public; secondly, I am a huge Bond fan, again accepting that there have been a few times over the years where, yes, the films lost their way. So this didn’t sit well with me.

But then, after watching the film, another reason emerged which eclipsed the previous 2 & also was unbelievable rank hypocrisy: Ultimatum lifted wholesale various sequences from previous Bond films, the most glaring one being the Tangier action sequence, which is practically identical to The Living Daylights. And the action sequences themselves are also quite badly shot. The shaky cam & editing, (whilst not a patch on Green Zone, still the worst Greengrass film by some wide margin,) is still terrible & showed the rot was starting to set in. 

Another of Ultimatum’s big issues is the story itself. There are some completely unbelievable & also ludicrously stupid events shown, such as at one point Bourne casually strolling into & having no difficulty gaining access to a deep-cover CIA building. I also hated the final car chase through NYC, which was frantically cut & edited due to the fact that the vehicles were not travelling fast (whilst this was due to location restrictions imposed by the government forbidding cars driving fast, its doesn’t matter how much you manipulate the film, a car going 30MPH cannot be made to look faster.)

So why 4 stars? Quite simply, because on rewatching this many years later, it is a much better film. All the issues above remain & if I’d been reviewing this after I first saw it, the most I’d have given it would be 3 stars, but that would be pushing it. But this film also has many great parts, not least the opening which picks up beautifully from the end of Supremacy, and the end which references the 1st film’s most poignant moment. Despite the plagiarism, the Tangier sequence also has some incredible stunt work, as does the fight sequence against agent Desh.

The cast are also amazing, my favourite being Pamela Landy, Joan Allen really raising the standard of everyone around her. David Strathairn was also great as Noah Vosen, as well as Scott Glenn as Ezra Kramer. And leading all of this is Matt Damon as Bourne. Despite this film’s issues, he is a brilliant protagonist & a fully believable action star. There is no doubt to me that Bourne would not be able to be played by anyone else. 

So whilst this is a convoluted mess, it is also a good film & one I do recommend, although obviously with caveats.