Film Reviews by griggs

Carlos is a gripping, globe-trotting epic that strips back the myth of Carlos the Jackal. This revolutionary-turned-terrorist ended up on band posters like a Che Guevara knock-off for the rave generation. Edgar Ramírez is electric in the lead, oozing charisma, menace, and just enough self-doubt. His Carlos is part rockstar, part egomaniac—fuelled by politics, vanity, and a desperate need to be feared.

Director Olivier Assayas brings serious style to the table. There’s a kinetic energy throughout that keeps the near-three-hour runtime feeling surprisingly lean. The sun-soaked, grainy ‘70s palette makes the whole thing feel ripped from a vintage newsreel. At the same time, the pacing dodges the usual biopic bloat. It’s a slick blend of character study and crash course in Cold War chaos. A proper binge-watch for anyone into espionage, ego, and men who think a pair of aviators makes them bulletproof.

Having watched Seven Days in May, I’ve completed Frankenheimer’s Paranoia Trilogy—and what bleak, brilliant films they are. Set in a near-future America (i.e. the late 1960s, a couple of years after its release), this is full-blown Cold War anxiety played out in the corridors of power, with coups plotted over bourbon and classified memos. It might be the most grounded of the three films, but that doesn’t mean it lacks punch. There’s a creeping dread throughout, which is more unsettling because everyone involved thinks they’re doing the right thing.

Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas are fantastic as ideological opposites on a collision course. Frankenheimer directs with his usual sharp eye for composition and tension. It doesn’t quite have the operatic madness of Seconds (my all-time favourite film) or the razor-sharp satire of The Manchurian Candidate. Still, it rounds out the trilogy (in my watch order) perfectly: tense, intelligent, and the terrifyingly plausible idea that an ultra-conservative coup on US soil. But don’t worry, that could never happen in the real world… could it?

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers is a gripping little noir four-hander where everyone’s dragging secrets like suitcases full of bricks. It’s a tale packed with betrayal, guilt, and people trying—and failing—to escape their pasts. I really should save films like this for Noirvember. Still, I can’t resist anything with Barbara Stanwyck. She dominates every scene—never second to any man, and certainly not here.

Kirk Douglas, in his debut, gives a surprisingly nuanced turn as the guilt-ridden, spineless husband. He may be a wet lettuce, but he’s compelling all the same. The fact that Stanwyck apparently gave him her seal of approval says a great deal.

The film, while engaging, is overstuffed with side plots, and I kept wanting more of Stanwyck’s magnetic presence. It holds your attention, but now and then, it strays past noir’s sweet spot and tumbles into full-blown melodrama.

Nothing But Trouble feels like a nightmarish fever dream from the mid-'80s, even though it limped into cinemas in '91. Dan Aykroyd—still riding his post-Ghostbusters high—goes full mad scientist here: directing, co-writing, casting Chevy Chase, and subjecting us to not one but two hideously unfunny roles, complete with grotesque prosthetics and a nose that looks suspiciously phallic. He ropes in Demi Moore and a game John Candy—both being the only ones to emerge with any dignity intact.

The origin of Nothing But Trouble is almost as baffling as the film itself. Aykroyd claims the idea came after being pulled over in a small town and taken to court for a minor traffic offence—hauled before a local judge in a surreal scene that stuck with him. Rather than process the moment like a normal person, he turned it into a grotesque comedy-horror hybrid, apparently inspired by a viewing of Hellraiser.

There are giant mutant babies and a junkyard theme park. It's a whirlwind of unoriginal tropes and chaos from start to finish—but not the fun kind. Then, Tupac, yes, Tupac, randomly shows up for a musical interlude that reeks of studio interference—going nowhere and adding nothing. In a film already bursting with nonsense, it's like someone accidentally spliced in a music video, and nobody bothered to cut it.

It's the sort of mess you watch in disbelief, wondering how anyone said yes to it, often finding yourself chuckling at the sheer absurdity of it all rather than anything intentional.

La Cocina is a solid, if slightly uneven, kitchen-sink drama—quite literally, since most of it takes place in a subterranean, windowless kitchen beneath a swanky, tourist-trap restaurant in Times Square. The highlight is a gripping 14-minute single-take sequence set during the lunch rush, where knives fly, orders pile up, and the dreaded ticket machine begins to accelerate like a ticking bomb. All the while, the kitchen quietly floods, unnoticed by the staff, adding to the mounting dread.

It’s hard not to think of Boiling Point, which maintained that pressure for an entire film with a single continuous shot. La Cocina doesn’t go that far—it lacks that level of confidence or control—but the influence is clear. Still, this film brings its own flavour. The underground setting, the leaking soda machine, the sensory overload—it all makes the space feel less like a kitchen and more like the engine room in Das Boot: claustrophobic, boiling, and always seconds from disaster.

The plot kicks off when money goes missing, triggering a top-down manhunt. The undocumented Latino staff—previously invisible—suddenly find themselves under suspicion in what morphs into a grim, Noir-tinged mystery. Upstairs, it’s all charm and curated smiles, with attractive white waitresses fronting the operation, while a smug, exploitative owner hides behind his fashionable suit and secure immigration status, sending his lackeys to do his dirty work.

La Cocina doesn’t always stick the landing. Its social commentary can be a bit blunt, and its storytelling loses focus at times. But there’s a raw, urgent energy when it hits its stride—especially when the pressure’s turned all the way up.

You can’t accuse Luca Guadagnino of taking it easy—he churns out films like he’s on a deadline from the gods. But with Queer, you do start to wonder: is he spreading himself too thin? It’s moody, stylish, and impossibly pretty, as if Guadagnino is seducing cinema itself. Every shot aches with longing; every glance lingers like a lover’s touch. Daniel Craig oozes charm—older, cooler, and more dangerous than ever. He glides through the film like he knows he’s being watched—and he likes it.

But the film never gets its hands dirty. It teases, it toys, it unbuttons your shirt and whispers something filthy—and then politely excuses itself. No grip, no thrust, no release. Just mood, musk, and the ghost of a film that should've ruined you. It should have been a visceral experience, tearing through flesh, drawing blood, and leaving you trembling. It should’ve left bruises. Instead, it leaves perfume.

The Cars That Ate Paris is an oddball slice of early Aussie cinema that never quite figures out what kind of film it wants to be. It sets off like it’s heading toward something surreal and sinister but quickly stalls. The fictional and rural town of Paris is pitched as a self-sufficient outpost clinging to the past, full of wary smiles and buried secrets. It hints at Wicker Man -style creepiness but never builds enough tension to deliver on that promise.

Peter Weir, making his feature debut, focuses more on quiet character moments than any real sense of momentum. We follow Arthur, a confused outsider with a thousand-yard stare, as he wanders through a town that’s equal parts sinister and silly. There’s a supposed clash between generations—grizzled locals and teens in souped-up deathmobiles—but it’s mostly background noise.

The infamous spiked car is admittedly a cool design. Still, its delayed entrance and underwhelming impact just sum up the whole film: more concept than execution. There’s a thin layer of satire under the surface, but it’s too murky to land.

Yes, there’s a whiff of Hot Fuzz in the setup—a quaint town with a violent streak—but where Edgar Wright went full throttle, this one mostly putters around the paddock. Curious? Sure. Essential? Not really. Disappointing? Most definitely.

The Force of Evil is often labelled a noir classic, but for me, it’s more of a cult curiosity—ambitious but ultimately overrated. There’s no denying the film’s central idea is compelling: two brothers caught in a corrupt system, each blaming themselves for the other’s downfall. John Garfield plays the slick lawyer chasing success, only to realise too late that he’s sold out his own brother. At the same time, Thomas Gomez gives a weighty turn as the elder sibling who may have sown those seeds to begin with.

The film is loaded with symbolism—none more evident than Garfield’s final descent down a shadowy staircase—but it’s not always subtle. The characters narrate much of the story, spelling everything out in case we miss the point. The dialogue has moments of poetic rhythm, but it often feels more performative than natural.

What’s perhaps most interesting is the context. Made during the rise of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the film’s paranoia and internal moral conflict take on extra meaning. You can feel the unease running beneath the surface. Still, despite the good intentions and flashes of brilliance, it left me more cold than captivated.

The Baby is entirely bonkers. It’s one of those films where you spend most of the runtime wondering if it’s meant to be a dark comedy, social commentary, or just a mad fever dream—and then the ending slaps you with something so horrifying and twisted, you just sit there gobsmacked.

It’s not good in any traditional sense, but it's truly bizarre. The fact that it plays it all straight adds to the weird, hilarious tension. Ruth Roman is terrific as Mrs Wadsworth—equal parts Joan Crawford glare and Joan Collins sass—and Anjanette Comer keeps a straight face like a champ.

House of the Devil is the kind of film that makes you feel like you’ve stumbled across a forgotten VHS in your local video shop circa 1983. From the grainy cinematography to the brilliant production design and period-perfect editing, Ti West nails the ‘80s aesthetic—it’s lived-in, not just styled.

It’s also surprisingly tense. There’s a real Hitchcock-style suspense at play, with a creeping, slow-burn horror vibe that calls to mind classics like The Omen, Rosemary’s Baby, and The Changeling. You can tell where it’s all heading, but the “how” and “why” keep you firmly in its grip.

That said, I did find myself wondering if it’s more style than substance. Is it a clever tribute, or is it borrowing too heavily from the past? Either way, it’s a fun and faithful throwback with an authentic atmosphere—even if it never becomes its own thing. Still, it’s well worth a watch.

Watching Why Don’t You Play in Hell? is like being trapped in a cinema that’s caught on fire, and instead of running for the fire exits, you’re blocking the aisles and cheering. Sono throws everything at the screen–violence, absurdity, sentimentality–and somehow, it still, or at least smoulders in your brain long after. It make’s John Waters’ Cecil B. Demented look like a restrained Hollywood Golden Age studio picture rather than a midnight movie by comparison. It’s overwhelming, ridiculous, and weirdly moving. You don’t just watch, you get swept up in his deranged energy. And when the credits roll, you’re exhausted but strangely elated–like you’ve just survived something brilliant and bonkers.

Why Don’t You Play in Hell? is pure chaos in the best and worst ways. It’s like someone dared Sion Sono to make Kill Bill on a sugar rush–with yakuza, wannabe filmmakers, exploding teeth, and buckets of blood. And somehow, it all circles back to the mad joy of making movies. There’s an infectious love of cinema here, even if it’s wrapped in complete nonsense.

It’s messy, loud and deeply silly–but that’s sort of the charm. It plays like a home video with a Hollywood body count, and even when it doesn’t all hang together, you can’t help but smile at the madness. Sono clearly doesn’t care about polish or subtlety–he’s going for broke, and it’s oddly endearing.

Taipei Story predates Yi Yi, A Brighter Summer Day, and The Terrorizers, but it already contains the emotional DNA of Edward Yang’s later work. Co-written by Yang and Hou Hsiao-hsien—who also stars as the male lead—it’s a film about a couple, perhaps a city, caught between fading pasts and uncertain futures. Their relationship decays in slow motion, framed by a Taipei changing faster than anyone can handle.

Yang’s touch is subtler here, less polished than his later work, but no less potent. There’s a quiet devastation in every scene, a sense that life is slipping through these characters’ fingers. At the same time, they remain paralysed by nostalgia or indecision.

It’s not as expansive or intricate as A Brighter Summer Day, but it shares its sense of looming dread. And though it lacks the narrative trickery of The Terrorizers, it’s just as precise in capturing isolation. A sombre, aching portrait of modern disconnection—and a vital early entry in Yang’s legacy.

L’Eclisse is a film I didn’t expect to love—yet here we are, a near-perfect experience. Until now, I’ve struggled with Antonioni’s work: Blow-Up and The Passenger left me cold (though both are due a rewatch), Red Desert and L’Avventura nearly broke me, and only La Notte truly landed.

It opens with a breakup and follows the tentative, probably doomed connection between Monica Vitti’s disillusioned translator and Alain Delon’s slick stockbroker. Set mainly in Rome’s eerily quiet EUR district, the city feels more like a ghost town than a capital, amplifying the film’s alienation and emotional drift themes.

As ever with Antonioni, it’s mood over momentum, texture over dialogue—but this time, I was fully invested. Vitti is magnetic, all hesitation and grace, while Delon smoulders in sharp suits and moral vagueness.

The less said about the brief but baffling blackface scene, the better—Antonioni includes it early on as a throwaway gag, with Vitti returning from Kenya in costume. It’s meant to be playful but now comes across as casually racist and painfully out of touch, a reminder of the blind spots of the era.

And that final montage? Chilling, gorgeous, unforgettable. If this is what the end of love looks like, I’ve never seen it rendered more beautifully.

After Dark, My Sweet really threw me. On paper, it’s classic noir—damaged drifter, femme fatale, a dodgy plan spiralling into doom. But instead of moody shadows and rainy alleys, it’s all sun-scorched streets and bleached-out landscapes. It feels less like a thriller and more like a fever dream, drifting through a cracked and crumbling world.

Jason Patric absolutely nails it as the ex-boxer teetering on the edge. He’s quiet, twitchy, and weirdly tender—like a man who’s just about holding it together. His performance crept up on me. There’s real emotional weight beneath the surface.

That said, the film’s slow—really slow. It’s not big on plot twists or action, and at times, I found myself wondering where it was all going. But the atmosphere is spot on—drenched in dread and that sinking feeling of inevitable failure.

It’s not one I’d rave about, but I respect the mood it builds.

Hallow Road is a tidy little thriller built on a long-shelved Black List script that mostly delivers. Nearly the entire film unfolds inside a car, with Rosamund Pike and Matthew Rhys acting through phone calls while cycling through various shades of panic. Rhys has less to do, but both leads give solid, committed performances. There’s real tension at times—though oddly, my biggest fear was Pike’s phone battery dying. I'm not sure that was the intended horror, but it got me.

It’s a simple and effective setup that rattles along at a decent pace. Yet, it somehow manages to feel both over- and underwhelming. The ending is clearly signposted, and when it arrives, it feels like the film skips over a few crucial details. Still, it’s enjoyable enough for what it is—tense in the right places, well-acted, and crucially, it doesn’t outstay its welcome.