Film Reviews by Strovey

Directed by the late Roger Michell The Duke is a fine example of the type of film the British film industry makes well. Not so much nowadays but every now and then one of them pops up for our entertainment. A true story, that usually is in the spirit but not necessarily entirely accurate, about an event or person who fought against overwhelming odds to somehow win the day or at least the hearts and respect of the audience. Often infused with comedy throughout the story our hero will be flawed but charming and likeable and generally funny. It sounds cliched and awful written like this but when it is crafted well with a director, writers and actors who know what they are doing it nearly always works.

Such is the case with The Duke. The events shown happened, in fact a lot of the court case dialogue is true and the outcome of the case and the postscript confession is more or less how the story played out. Events have been compressed, Bunton was undoubtedly not as charming and lovable as skilfully portrayed by Broadbent and his wife was not around until the 1970s so we would have missed the hard-bitten working-class women turn from Helen Mirren if the film had been completely factual. Let us be honest where is the fun in that?

This rendition of an interesting footnote in sixties crime and obscure family story was approved by Bunton’s great-grandson, it is fun and likable and a wonderful way to spent 95 minutes of your time.

We are treated throughout the run time of glossy sixties-style side swipes to get us into that time period and alongside the drab grey aspect of the tiny house the Buntons lived in this works more than it fails. Jim Broadbent is on top form as the film focuses mainly on his cheerfully agitative character for most of the running time meaning he has to carry a lot of the film, luckily it is Jim Broadbent so all is safe. Ably supported by a very much ‘yang’ character of his wife played by Helen Mirren we get a possibly more realistic portrayal of the poor working class in that time period. Hardworking, proud, worn-down and tough Mirren just about saves what could be a relentless miserable character by showing a lighter more loving side to her persona as the film nears its end.

Matthew Goode and Anna Maxwell-Martin are in good form as another main staple for this style of film, the upper-middle-class toff who is surprisingly okay. You can justifiably shout ‘trite’ but somehow it feels comfortable and familiar yet not in an annoying ‘seen it all before way.’

CGI, Bradford and I believe Leeds fill in for 1960s London and Newcastle as filming on location in 2020 in those places just would not work any longer. Not being from the North I could not spot any errors or anything looking out of place and although the effects for London were a little obvious it was still decent work to get the feel for the settings.

The whole story whips along at a nice pace, never sags or gets baggy and is a welcome reminder of that well-made and entertaining stories about British eccentrics based on surprising truth are still being made and very well too.

Roger Michell is no longer with us but others will accept the batten and every now and then a slight but enjoyable gem will surface.

If nothing else The Duke is worth viewing for peak on-form Jim Broadbent and the court case dialogue which was apparently mostly what was actually said at the time. Recommended.

This is the original French version of The Man with One Red Shoe, or at least it strongly influenced the Tom Hanks starrer that I freely admit I cannot remember.

Certainly, going into the film with no preconceived ideas and not really knowing the type and style of film it was helped. What I found was a spoof of Le Carre-style espionage stories that funnily enough if you took out the comedic elements would have made an intriguing tale. As it is the comedy is there mainly from Richard’s Perrin whose gormlessness and accident-prone moments are surprisingly underplayed and do not spoil the broth.

This is not to say when Richard winds up to the physical comedy we do not get its magnificent pratfalls and silliness but they are self-contained and do not overpower the film or story for the entire running time. Mixed in with the more subtle relationship between the word weary Perrache, the excellent Paul Le Person, and his prissy and devious boss Toulouse, an equally lively and fun Jean Rochefort and your smile rarely leaves your face throughout the running time.

As I said though underneath the daftness there is an interesting if slight, spy story playing out that would have made a cool espionage movie. So much so the makers do not hide from death and the utter bastardy of the Secret Service. The beautiful Christine, played by the alluring and ultimately tragic Mirelle Darc is there to seduce and then hand over the unknowing Perrin to a sticky end. That she does not is part of the story.

Of course, we do get to see the much vaunted and now museum piece ‘bum cleavage’ dress which admittedly draped over Darc looks fine but really is very silly indeed.

The strength of this film, like so many I give my opinions on, is not the story or the writing, although that helps, it is the actors. Everyone involved give their best with Colonel Milan and Toulouse’s various hit and henchmen and women all playing straight and fleshing out what could be cardboard characters. In particular Perrin’s orchestra colleagues, and lover, played by Collette Castel and Jean Carmet compliment Richard as his ordinary and unknowing colleague, Carmet's comedy chops are on full display here, never too straight nor over-the-top but fully balanced as the cuckolded best-friend Maurice.

Overall The Tall Blonde Man with One Black Shoe is surprisingly fun for a slapstick spy comedy from nearly 50 years ago, Richard out-Benignis Benigini by dialling back from eleven and with dead-straight thriller threads weaved throughout the film, we have a good mix.

Certainly good enough to sit back, relax, take a look at French fashions and cars from decades back and laugh definitely strong enough to withstand a viewing many years later.

Simon Bird brought to the attention of the British public from The Inbetweeners and Friday Night Dinner amongst others, makes his directorial debut with Days of Bagnold Summer a slight, understated tale based on a popular graphic novel adapted by Lisa Owens. To say this is a typical comedic kitchen-sink coming-of-age drama is in itself an understatement. If any budding film reviewers or aficionados want to see the difference between a ‘typical’ British coming of age film and a US film then watch Days of Bagnold Summer with your favourite US film on the same topic.

Not only does the film underline the difference between the two filmmaking styles but in a broader more pompous sweeping statement you could say it does so for the countries' attitudes to a degree.

Nowhere in this film does anything huge or life-changing happen to any character. There is no big romance or broken-hearted schmaltz and syrupy sentimentality. Thus, some people viewing the film will say it is boring and ‘nothing happens’ but for me, that is the whole point. Relationships evolve organically and not at pivotal moments no matter what we are told in fiction and here Bird does this without explanation or signposting. It just so happens that Daniel and his mother have a different relationship than they did at the start of the story. Admittedly it seems a bit rushed and neatly packaged but let us face it where in 90-minute film territory here.

The sense of isolation is presented in the film with Bird using the house location interiors well, the ever excellent ‘very sensible’ Monica Dolan or convincingly miserable Earl Cave in the background framed by a door or window and the other in the foreground. In the same house but apart in so many ways. For a first-time and young director this is a confident and clever approach. There are some lovely long rang shots showing the characters as small and incidental to wider and larger backdrops which is a well-used film trick but here against the magnificent sweeping vistas of Bromley and the south London suburbs it brings a wry smile. It has to be appreciated the director and cinematographer, Simon Tindall, are working with a limited available palette and they do an impressive job.

The acting is British realistic if that were a style. Nothing flashy and each character has their own traits and personality that, as in real life, are stuck to. It could be said that Dolan’s Susan is a bit too sensible but from personal experience I would say not, I can remember teenage girls who were as sensible as that when I was a young lad. Equally, Cave’s Daniel could be said to be over the top although we have all probably either been that morose and miserable or have known pretentious kids who were like that, they may not necessarily have been our friends but I can conjure up a few like that from my memory as I sit here. So not as writ large as it seems.

Bobbing in out of the action are a roster of well-known British comedic talent with the peerless Alice Lowe dropping in as Susan’s more upbeat sister and Rob Brydon as a sort of love-interest teacher (I will not spoil the plot on this) and a brief but not unforgettable small cameo from the quirky and always strangely funny Tim Key.

Days of Bagnold Summer may not be ‘kitchen-sink’ realistic in its portrayal of middle-class suburban life but neither is it eye-rollingly dramatic and silly. Simon Bird shows an admirable restraint with sentimentality and audience handholding, some pet lovers may be taken aback, and even if the story semi-resolves a bit too easily and without an epiphany for any character I would say this slight tale is worth 90 minutes of your time.

The first two-thirds of this film are obviously a pastiche of gangster gang movies and musicals. It is clear that Takashi Miike does not want you to take the dance routines or gang-fighting seriously and as such overall it works, even for me, although I found it hard to see the humour in some of the set pieces thinking them just cheesy but not intentionally cheesy, so to my thinking that means Miike got it wrong - well for my sensibilities anyway.

The huge hump in the road though is that the musical numbers and parody seem to disappear in the final third of the film which becomes an anchor around the running time and sucks any fun you might have been having from the film, making it dull and a bit grey to watch.

The fight sequences, whilst never meant to be realistic, start to become a porridge of ‘ooffs’ and ‘aaahs’ as various folk queue up to get battered – again. The ragged choreographed dance sequences are few and far between as the film progresses and although camp and bit bizarre the absence of them as the film winds down takes what sheen there is off the film.

Like a lot of Takashi Miike films there is a huge element of self-indulgence and definitely a certain sense of humour that he works with, if it misses you then the chances are you will be bored to tears shortly after the start, if you can tolerate the self-indulgence you will watch to the end, and if you love Miike’s output you will love this addition.

As a parody of certain Japanese genres, I will admit I was mainly baffled as my knowledge of these topics is not strong. Was the leering almost upskirt shots of the women in the standard Japanese schoolgirl uniforms and statement or just standard? The dangerously paedophilic atmosphere at the ‘bar,’ was that a statement or just the norm for these types of films? It got a bit too voyeuristic for me and close to up-skirting at times. Clearly, the lack of understanding of where the director’s intentions lie is with me, but I did feel uncomfortable at times in sections that were meant to be quick plot points and just there for laughs, not controversy.

The acting is overegged for the type of story although I did feel that Satoshi Tsumabuki was not charismatic enough for the role of the bad-boy, generally though everything was fine in this department. The choreography was loose, but I believe this was deliberate with the director not wanting perfect tip-top dance moves, the songs were interesting and odd and obviously added postproduction in ADR which adds another surreal level to the viewing.

The settings were so chalk and cheese and on the nose that it had to be satire. The prep school being as preppy as possible and the college looking as if it was a surplus set from Mad Max. A bit too over the top for me, a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

For Love’s Sake is not a film for everyone, perhaps it is for a narrow band of manga and Miike aficionados but for the average movie watching it might be a Japanese step too far. For me, I am glad I watched it, but I would not go out of my way to watch it again.

A Takashi Miike film that is a tad quirky and strange? Surely not!

Elaine May who directed, wrote and acted in this black comedy was clearly a talent at a time when few women got to make a film in one of these disciplines let alone all three, she is probably better known for the similar but more polished Heartbreak Kid and the much-derided Ishtar which probably did more for her lack or output than anything else and her early years when she was the comedy partner of Mike Nichols.

A New Leaf follows the format of many seventies films with related topics, the main female character is kookie, eccentric and educated to the point of ignorance and the male protagonist, here played with ease by Matthau, is strong, determined and in this story lazy and mildly evil. So far so stereotypical, which I can forgive because of the year it was made, and because May works hard to get across a different take and plays her role with a clumsy charm that leaves the audience liking her despite her failings. Equally supported by Walter Matthau effortlessly at ease with his slime-bag character, including cod British affectations, and the superb and tragic George Rose who has to be seen as the prototype gentleman’s gentlemen before Gielgud and Denholm Elliot. A strong foundation to a story that in itself could be seen as the groundwork for the superb and similarly themed Heartbreak Kid that May directed only a year later.

If you then throw into the mix William Redfield in a small but memorable role as a frustrated bank manager explaining to Matthau that the ‘money is gone’ and James Coco and his louche uncle who is pivotal in to the fix that Henry finds himself in and you have perfectly cast and funny late 60s, early 70s film.

Much like The Heartbreak Kid, Harold and Maude and similar contemporary films the comedy is mainly deadpan with underlying darkness just showing through, after all in this story Henry Graham is lazy and arrogantly privileged who is more than happy to arrange for his new wife to perish so he can keep her fortune.

Ultimately, without recounting too much more of the story, The New Leaf is a witty, funny, fun and well-acted movie with some the best actors of that time on top form. Matthau only three years off The Odd Couple seemed to be able to turn his hand and his, err, unconventional looks to any role with sublime ease. Elaine May, not so well known, and unfortunately unknown to many, proved that her decision to go into the movie-making side of things was a loss for audiences everywhere. It did have me thinking that the ease at which Hollywood blamed her for losses and poor box-office performance which prevented her from fulfilling her potential was unfair and definitely due to her gender.

Rather than just a standard kookie comedy about an unpleasant character who will do anything to keep what he undeservedly had, we end up with a story about redemption, love and how even seemingly the worst of us has value.

I would recommend watching this and then watching The Heartbreak Kid to see Elaine May’s best work. There is a rumour that the working screenplay was chopped and cut about, and the film was edited without May’s input, allegedly the story was darker, with more unpleasant undertones but it is only on the hearsay of those involved as no outtakes or even the shooting script survived. It would have been interesting to see how different May’s vision from the final cut would have been.

Nevertheless, I recommend A New Leaf to a watch unseen comic gem from the early 1970s.

From the man you brought you The Greasy Strangler, which you either hated or loved apparently, [I have not seen it], here is another equally divisive film.

Right from the get-go we have to An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn is going to make some people very angry, very bored and they will hate it. I understand why that would be because Jim Hosking’s film is most definitely a specific taste, and I would say after ten minutes you are either going to continue watching or turn it off and get on with something else.

The story is almost inconsequential and slight, but to Hoskings and writer David Wike’s credit there is a story that progresses and if you invest you do want to see what happens.

Overall though An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn is an absurdist comedy first and foremost. Everything you see on the screen is a deliberate, conscious effort to deconstruct acting and filmmaking. Lines by talented actors are delivered stilted with no nuance, background characters deliver their lines out of context, bellowing for instance, grimacing, it is all for want of a better word ‘weird’. But, and here is the rub, it does drag you in, some styles like this can push the viewer away, and I will admit I can be repelled by this type of film, but Hosking had enough film-making skill and a good enough cast to draw me in.

One look at the top-billing and anyone with an average film knowledge would know what they were in for. Aubrey Plaza and Jemaine Clement were made for this film and just turned up on the first day of filming without being asked, Matt Berry, again perfect for this type of role and drop in Craig Robinson and Emile Hirsch and you are ready to roll. Hirsch is stand-out as an alternate universe Jack Black entirely unrecognisable as the handsome actor you are normally used to.

Add to the mix the locations, bright colour palette, costumes and hair all following the same erratic and winding path and you somehow get a film that drags you in and wraps you up in a world that we know does not exist but does at the same time. It should not work but it does.

The music, all synths and electric as with other aspects of the film should not work but somehow it does, it is vivid and at times clashing but somehow it fits.

The absurdist comedy and set pieces in general work and the misses are few and far between so that film zip along with too much slack which truth be told is a pleasant thing in any type of film these days.

An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn is an extremely peculiar film but is engagingly entertaining like the strange kid at school who was never quite in line with anyone else but still interesting. All the main actors play to their quirky onscreen personas which fits what you see perfectly and although I have criticised Aubrey Plaza for not expanding on this in so many films her she almost plays the straight role and I found her dancing at the end strangely alluring.

This film is weird, daft, funny and odd but never, ever boring, even if you hate it I feel the makers will believe it has worked. As Andy Kaufman said, ‘At least you felt something’.

Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers is first and foremost a comedy but beneath that ‘wrapper’ the director and writer Satoshi Miki is trying to make comments about life in the city, the isolation that comes with this and the mundanity of being really ordinary. Bearing this in mind the targets have been hit more often than missed with Japanese stereotypes on full display.

The story, narrated by Suzume, is a series of sketches at times nonsensical and unconnected which can easily frustrate the unwary viewer, but Miki skilfully weaves throughout all the cartoonish action and set pieces the real message, what is normal? What is ordinary? Indeed, is it as desirable or undesirable as we can be led to believe?

Without doubt the laugh hits are higher than the misses, with some being genuinely ‘laugh out loud’ moments but the actors, and in particular Juri Ueno, are charming and good company, and mix in bright colours and ideas and you are getting a typical and non-typical Japanese comedy all at once. If you find that sentence confusing then you will get some idea how the film will leave you feeling.

The film is fun and joyful with some obvious parodies there to see (teen romance anyone?) and there could be less narration and more show throughout the runtime but with an obviously low budget the joyfulness of the wacky situations and characters should win over the most confused movie goer.

The trick is to relax and let Satoshi Miki’s weirdness flow over you, do not worry too much and enjoy the company of his band of fools.

Cyborg She, a mistranslation, is a charming movie that from where I viewed it seems to be a light-hearted romantic remake of Terminator, which is as mad as it sounds. The entire film focuses mainly on the two leads to the exclusion of any other characters, with the exception of Jiro’s obligatory comic friend played by Kiritani Kenta. Thank goodness that the alluring and beautiful Haruka Ayase and Keisuke Koide have good chemistry and the occasional pantomime gurning from the latter did not detract from this.

Haruke Ayase had the more challenging role having to be an entirely emotionless robot and another similar role [I will not spoil this though] which she managed confidently.

Director and writer Jae-young Kwak manages to mix in some drama, romance and sentimentality that should have some of the hardest filmgoers dabbing at the corner of their eye. Cyborg She approached in the right frame of mind is an enjoyable two-hour romp through the multi-layered life of Jiro, with two main characters that will keep you invested in their story throughout. No mean feat.

The visual and special effects, whilst not all top-notch are particularly good when they need to be, as the story reaches its climactic conclusion.

Here we span centuries, disasters, time-jumping and heroic robots but at its heart is a romantic comedy with all the warmth and fun that genre should bring, which is a credit to Jae-young Kwak. If there is to be any criticism I would say the editing, especially near the end needed to be tighter to make the story’s conclusion clearer and coherent but that is a quibble. You will understand the main gist of the film regardless of how you get there.

If you were to say you throw in Terminator, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, I Robot and Back to the Future into a big pot boil them all up to make a romantic comedy you could be forgiven for predicting a horrible mess. Although some aspects of the story might be a tad difficult to follow at times Cyborg She is far from this.

It could be said that Ghostbusters: Afterlife is pandering to the ultra-fans and old people who, now arthritic and grey, long after the original Ghostbusters. True the set-up follows on from the previous story and a not-to-surprising reveal at the end brings us full circle. The observant will notice set pieces and effects as clear and obvious nods to the original but come on folks, Ivan Reitman is the original director’s son, so to some extent it is in his blood. After the huge pile-on for Ghostbusters [2016] some of which was deserved but a lot of was extremely vindictive the makers of ‘Afterlife’ saw what happened and could have been forgiven for making a simple update treatment like Disney Star Wars sequels – rinse and repeat and keep the disgruntled happy.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is not a simple repaint of an old ship. If you watch the beautifully crafted and framed shots, vistas as wide as a fan’s smile, gorgeous set-up scenes bathed in beautiful golden ethereal light, exquisitely captured and directed by cinematography Eric Steelberg, you could be forgiven if points thought you were watching an entirely different type of film. I was mesmerised by some simple scenes. To add to this many horror filmmakers would do well to watch this film to see how some scenes that are ‘scary’ do not need to be shot in murky unwatchable dark. To say I was impressed by this aspect of the film is an understatement.

Simple said Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a heartfelt and splendid love letter to the original duo of films. You can see it in the top-notch casting, the coherent story and the enormous sense of fine the runs throughout the running time.

The film builds up the story slowly which allows good character development, so you know who is who and why they are there. All along the way we have clever Easter eggs to the original story and characters, with one of my favourites Annie Potts popping up early on.

To the credit of the makers, the film does not overly rely on too much CGI and on-screen effects and for some of the criticism levelled at this take on Ghostbusters I just cannot see this as a rehash or reboot but a careful attempt to continue the story, or legacy if you prefer, of the original films.

There are touching moments throughout and although the ending seems a bit rushed and too on-the-nose Ghostbusters: Afterlife for me is a well-made slice of love to the original films, with very good casting and acting and some stunningly simple and beautiful cinematography that takes it above and beyond a simple love-letter, which it is, to those 1980s films.

Quite simply Ghostbusters: Afterlife is enjoyable fun but with that extra polish and sparkle that takes it beyond the run-of-the-mill.

I really liked it.

Ron’s Gone Wrong is the first animation by Locksmith Animation and as such, it is a fine strong effort. The story is modern and will be relevant to the target audience although not ground-breaking and does not say anything new.

The film itself moves with a good pace with all the acts or set-ups moving smoothly into the next so that the viewers' interest does not wain. The entire story focuses on Ron the robot and Barney the lonely ‘weird kid’ with peripheral characters dropping in and out to create situations or move the story along.

The voice acting is good throughout and helps flesh out the characters with the unrecognisable Zach Galifianakis excelling in the difficult role of Ron.

The message of the film is earnest and hopefully not wasted on the modern young viewers because no matter how ‘pat’ or familiar it seems it is true that fame is fleeting, the stupid things that happen to us and mistakes we make are not eternal and we should like our friends for who they are not how much like us they are. Certainly, these points are made well and a soft mallet is used, not always the case in these types of films, especially when aimed at younger audiences.

The comedy is clearly aimed at the younger film watcher so moments where I did not laugh or felt seemed forced should not really count against the film or my viewing enjoyment as they really were never on the screen for me and there was enough fun and joy in the story which was universal anyway.

If anything parts of the story and in particular the characters introduced seemed to be building towards something that was never resolved for me. It is as if a different film was written and storyboarded and changed several times but the makers forgot that a few scenes or lines still pointed towards parts that were no longer in the story. Nothing major but I found it noticeable as I was anticipating something occurring further down the running time.

Overall, Ron's Gone Wrong is a good voice-acted, well-animated slice of fun that does get a message across about the modern social media, connection-obsessed world. It does it with some heart and a sense of fun and you cannot really say they're preaching because that is the whole story's intent.

Ron's Gone Wrong is a good slice of animation hokum, it is not award-winning, but neither is it cookie-cutter here we go again. A good effort and not disappointing to watch. Ron Went Right you could say.

This could be the best way to approach this long-awaited big-budget and modern version of Dune. I knew it was about great dynastic houses who control a desert world and there were lots of intrigue and double-crossing on a grand scale and that was about it.

If you are going to make this grand science-fiction vista there really is only one director for it, a man who has proven repeatedly he has the ear for grounded science-fiction Denis Villeneuve.

With the help of his screenplay team of Spaihts and Roth he has crafted what is a complex and wide-ranging story into something that is watchable and more importantly understandable and engaging. No mean feat. The only concession that was made, and it was understandable, was that this was always going to have to be a ‘part one’ the story is too large and impossible to truncate into a single film, even a three-hour film. I can confirm that this has worked. I know members of my immediate family who know nothing about Dune and are not really science fiction aficionados who really liked the film and understood what was going on.

The effects, costume and set designs are perfect for this story and I could wax lyrical about them but saying perfect really does sum up that whole look and feel of the story.

The story is definitely has a feel of Star Wars and Game of Thrones, with exploding rockets and laser blasts, even a ‘power’ and waring families that are trying to be in control of…well everything but the most important and valuable resources. But if you want to deconstruct further this really is very Shakespearian in the sweep and feel of the story.

If there is any criticism the House of Atreides is too heroic and any who do not finish the film’s run time all meet their demise in heroic ways. A bit pat to say the least.

Another strength for the film is some particularly good casting, everyone here is placed into their role due to their strengths, Jason Momoa, frankly annoying as Aquaman, is great as the ‘jock’ style best friend of Paul. Oscar Isaac, always excellent value for money, is the heroic Henry V of Dune and Rebecca Ferguson as a water-downed Lady Macbeth perhaps? I am going too far and losing this analogy, but it was so easy to do.

This brings us to the lynchpin that the whole film revolves around, Timothée Chalamet, even with a great screenplay, effects and set design this can only disguise a poor film or performance so far. Fortunately, Chalamet is a good actor and in the right role, here modern dreamboat and louche works well with the character of what some would see, within this world, as a spoiled privileged brat. This is the reason I think he did not work so well in Little Women, too modern, even for an update of a period piece.

Skarsgård is good as the Jabba of this story, slimy, self-seeking and repulsive, although why anyone in the story would trust him enough to do a deal with him makes little to no sense. His henchman is the mountainous Dave Bautista, very on dimensional, and just plain evil. Why do evil henchmen spend so much time in the gym is beyond me, but Bautista works with what he has and works well.

Dune is not difficult to follow, does not drag its feet and is intriguing and good enough for me and my family members who watched it to look forward to part two.

Which I shall.

Stellan Skarsgård is the familiar face for most movie-goers in this Norwegian-Scandinavian crime-thriller-comedy. He is an angel of death for the mobsters in the chilly North much like Liam Neeson was in the virtual shot-for-shot remake Cold Pursuit. Skarsgård fills the role as the unlikely action hero better, more realistically or comically even in this film due the fact that whatever you think of his fine acting skills he really does not look like a man who would shout at you let alone bring ‘righteous justice’ upon your head.

Billed as a comedy it must be said there are few if any belly laughs in the runtime but more than a couple of ‘snorts’ or giggles. Perhaps the dark humour flew over my head, or it is a cultural thing, but I just failed to see the laughs. The absurdity of the set-up was there, and I suppose some deaths were predictable silly but people being killed one after the other is not that funny. I must disclose that while I like parts of Tarantino’s output I do not particularly find the constant ‘amusing’ deaths and murders particularly funny in his stories. The Coens are better at this type of humour, you could say they have that elusive twinkle in the eye.

In Order of Disappearance tries hard to be in the same universe as Tarantino or the Coens but it gets an honourable mention only.

The English name for the film comes from each chapter wherein a black name card appears on the screen naming the victim, their full name and dates of birth and death, which was a detail that I thought was amusing and well done.

Playing off against the talented Skarsgård in what is basically a three-hander is the late Bruno Ganz, immortalised in meme forever as the ranting Adolf Hitler, and Pål Sverre Hagen in some way a tall, lean, serious Norwegian version of Nicolas Lyndhurst, both actors highly successful in their own markets but perhaps not so well-known in the English language film market like Skarsgård. Ganz is impressive as the old patriarch that rules absolute, and Hagen must be a first as a vegan, divorced psychopathic drug baron. For my sensibilities he was too over-the-top as he tried to show how unbalanced he was whilst trying to stay ‘controlled’ but having said this it may have been tailored to the style and feel of the story. He was certainly memorable.

The crisp snowy backdrop is very Fargo and a beautiful stylish setting. The set piece murders and disposals whilst gory are also stylised and dare I say a bit silly at times, and this is where the film caused me the most consternation. I liked the setting, the acting seems suited to the story, but the mood or feeling is somehow off.

Initially the gangsters, the murders, are played straight and unpleasant but as we move along it is as if two different versions of the scripts got muddled up. Suddenly a cold calculated gangster does the most stupid thing anyone would do in a situation. Impossible set-pieces pop up with unlikely outcomes and finally the last five or ten minutes appear to be an alternate ending accidentally left in the final cut.

In Order of Disappearance or Kraftidioten which does not translate to English satisfactorily, is well-made, acted and beautifully shot but the writing by Kim Fupz Aakeson cannot seem to settle for what the tale is. This is disappointing because a very impressive film is just below the snowy surface of this movie.

It might pay to watch this film alongside Cold Pursuit, which I have not seen, to find out which one bears up the best. Oddly enough, throughout the runtime I had a peculiar feeling of déjà vu although I know I have seen neither film, I could not shake it. Not sure if that says something about In Order of Disappearance or me.

Who would have thought that in 2022 one of the most controversial films I would have given an opinion about was an all-female-lead remake of 1984’s Ghostbusters? But this is the world we live in nowadays. So let us start with a concise summary, Ghostbusters (2016) is nowhere near as awful as people made out six years ago and ever since. It is entertaining enough. It is not a great film and so flawed it could open a shop to sell the excess flaws it has but equally it has not precipitated the end of the world and Leslie Jones is not the Devil Incarnate.

It is fair to question the wisdom of remaking the original Ghostbusters, but it is likewise fair not to judge it on a film that was 32 years old and viewed through the prism of youth and in various people’s cases childhood. What you remember then and what occurs now are not only different countries but different planets. Clearly people clearly cannot let go of the past and have not really grown up.

Having said this, I am not going to be the champion of Feig’s Ghostbusters either. Using all female leads is well-intentioned and actually a promising idea but it is executed poorly. The main problem? This brings nothing new to the story, other than gender. That is it. If we are going to champion female actors and make films for them, and we should, there is plenty of room in the world of filmmaking, give them something to work with, give them a distinctive voice, say this is what women bring to this world. Too many times, with the best intentions I am sure, producers, writers, directors, even the actors themselves look at a story or film and just replace all the male leads with female leads, put a reference to tampons or other ‘women thing’ in and say, ‘job done’. It is not, it is lazy thinking, pat and doing a huge disservice.

Herein lies the rub, Ghostbusters is a giant Saturday Night Live sketch, with female members of that cast, and somehow what could be a strong point is fumbled.

Considering the extended version of this Ghostbusters is well over 2 hours long we have no real character development and just seem to pop onto CGI ghost set piece to the next set piece. I still could not really work out what suitably weird and creepy villain Rowan North [Neil Casey] was trying to do and in the end gave up trying to figure it out. Watch the ghostly stuff and laugh at any funny bits. This is how you spend your time but it does not necessarily make a good film.

Fuku-Chan of the Fukufuku Flats is an odd Japanese film, mainly comedic it shoehorns in mental illness, loneliness, romance and unbreakable friendships alongside mystery and even perhaps tragedy. It sounds Shakespearian and in a way you could say it is – but with a modern Japanese twist.

The pace is gentle and slow-building and of course you get what someone from my part of the world might say is over-the-top gurning and histrionics, but truth be told this is main staple of Japanese films, in particular comedies, so I must guess from a position of ignorance that it is a culture thing.

The film is a usual Japanese mix of comedic and insane situations with extremely odd buy endearing humans thrown into strange and confusing situations mixed with a calm and stoic sense of not belonging, not quite being in tune with the world they live in. Yet the world this sits in is not only odd but cruel and hard too. Not 100% Japanese filmmakers trait but a definite wheelhouse Japanese directors and writers live in. If you like this style or storytelling you will enjoy Fuku-Chan, there is a definite lagging and bagginess at the midpoint but not enough to detract from the overall story.

The performances are at worst ‘okay’ and at best particularly good. The main ‘central’ character is Fuku-Chan ‘himself’ played with astonishing insight and skill by well-known Japanese comedian Miyuki Ohshima, it would be a lie to say that I did not realise it was a female playing a man, certain ways of walking and postures, no matter how hard she tries does show through and perhaps she tries too hard on some male traits but overall a very successful performance. Why? Well, it does not really matter as it works but certainly I did not feel that Ohshima brought anything different to the performance or character that I could discern. This is not a criticism because as I said it works.

The supporting characters who orbit Fuku-Chan are played convincingly enough that you would are happy to spend time with them and be happy, sad and joyful for them, Even the most perplexing and mentally disturbed character is rounded enough.

Fuku-Chan OF Fukufuku Flats is an entertaining film that gives enough pause to make you think and ends on a positive note. It will not change your worldview and will not stay with you for days and weeks afterward but that in itself is not a negative. It is a well-made thoughtful Japanese comedy film that depending on your exposure to Japanese films and personal sense of humour will make you laugh or not. Hopefully, it might make you seek out other films from these sources and for me this is a good world.

Fuku-Chan of Fukufuku Flats is not a world-beater but hopefully it can open viewers to other cinematic worlds.

Mads Mikkelsen is well-known in the English-speaking world nowadays having successful work in both major movie outings and TV shows. I have to say from my own perspective his, lesser-known, Danish work is much more interesting and thought-provoking and without doubt downright weird. Mikkelsen along with Kass, Bro and a few other Danish thespians work as what most probably can be called a troupe with director/writer Anders Thomas Jensen, who himself was on the fringes of the Dogme movement, so if you dig out Mikkelsen’s work after viewing his more mainstream stuff you should be aware of what branch of the tree it grows from.

From ballet dancing to Jensen and onto Star Wars. An odd journey for Mikkelsen and a metaphor for this film in some way.

Men & Chicken is not an easy watch. Gabriel is the most likable or relatable character in the entire movie and everyone else is repulsive or just too odd. Yet somehow they are funny and despite themselves and how you see them, it is difficult not to warm to each of them as the film moves along.

Be warned there is little that is taboo in the runtime and nothing that is not addressed either directly or indirectly and we are stranded on the odd and uninviting island of Ork.

The film really gets running once we reach the island which and this is not apparent to start with appears to Dr. Moreau’s Island run by Fred Karno’s Army. The brothers live in a run down and revolting large mansion where animals run freely, some odd animals too, and they seem to spend their time bickering over family rules and trivial things, the dinner plate is a disturbingly odd and strange example, like all familiar conceits but taken to odd and disturbing extremes.

It is by any standard an awful thing to view but you cannot look away.

Depending on your point of view Men and Chicken is not an easy watch, there are those that might be offended or bored and turn off, others will love this. It really is, for want of trite observation, a true Marmite film.

The entertainment is there. Violence, mainly played for realistic and painful laughs, sexual deviance, oh yes it is there, gross-out humour, dark, pitch-black, comedy and as with much of Jensen’s output a final and positive outlook on the world and his characters. This is definitely a trademark.

Men & Chicken is an odd and weird look at the dynamics of an extremely dysfunctional family and people, you do not really want to spend any time with them, but the longer you do the more you stay. It is a car-accident slowdown to view type of film. The acting is exactly what is needed for the story, Anders keeps it zipping along at a good pace, very little slack to let the mind wander, and overall if you can put you with some gross ideas – especially what Gabriel gets up to – it is worth a viewing. I will add a caution though, it is clear there is an audience that will not like anything about this film, except for Mr. Mikkelsen, but how can anyone not like good old Mads?