Film Reviews by Darius

This was not a box office success and it's easy to see why, as you would have to be something of a political nerd to watch a biography of a US Vice-President from 20 years ago. As somebody who falls into that category, I found the film absorbing. I had never fully taken on board how Cheney took advantage of George W Bush's limited interest and attention span ("he's only running for President to please his father") to expand greatly the normal limited role of a VP and take substantive control of foreign policy. The film shows how, through focus groups, Cheney and his team cottoned on to the fact that the American public would show much more enthusiasm for war against a country than they would for one against an elusive, amorphous concept or movement (Al Qaeda), and how this, along with the oil exploration opportunities for Halliburton, led them to push for the Iraq invasion. Christian Bale excellent as Cheney, whilst Sam Rockwell made George W come across as even more gormless than he did in real life.

This film has the same director (Alexander Payne) and leading actor (Paul Giamatti) as Sideways, as well as using some of the same background music, but to me it was not nearly as absorbing or moving. I watched it until the end and the plot and acting were passable, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me, lacking the humour (and scenery) of the earlier film.

An insight into what an annual holiday in one of the most popular resorts consists of for millions of our young people. Made me less likely than ever to consider a visit to Malia or anywhere similar (not that I'm in the target age range for such resorts!). A few questions - would the airline/hotel/package company really allow three unaccompanied 16-year-olds to travel unaccompanied? Would they not require at least one of them to be over 18? And what were the parents thinking of allowing them to do this? And is alcohol really so easily available in these resorts for under-18s? The film certainly opens up debate about what constitutes consent for sex when in a semi-conscious state. Should be required viewing for kids considering such holidays - and their parents.

Well-made, as you'd expect from Clint Eastwood. Tom Hanks excellent as ever and the short flight and the ditching on the Hudson well portrayed and gripping. Shame that the inquiry into the pilot's actions was misrepresented as a witch-hunt, whereas by all accounts it was nothing like that in reality.

OK plot/storyline. Perpetuates a few Irish stereotypes and couldn't vouch for Olivia Colman's accent. Charlie Reid is excellent and I have no doubt we'll be seeing more from him.

A film about a wannabe director trying to make a film is always going to be hard to pull off and this one failed for me. The characters were one-dimensional and irritating, with little in the way of a plot line. I found myself constantly looking at the clock to work out how much longer I had to endure. At least I made it to the (somewhat predictable) end. Perhaps you need to be in the film/music business to appreciate it. Phenix Brossard OK.

A real insight into the lifestyle and varied backgrounds of America's "nomad" community. Frances McDormand (excellent as usual) one of only two of the lead characters who were actors rather than real-life nomads. Allegedly, some of the nomads who are prominent in the film had no idea initially who Frances was and accepted as a fellow nomad. All in all an excellent and thought-provoking watch.

I don't know enough about this topic to be in a position to say how realistic it is. The plot, however, and the lad's circumstances that caused him to be drawn into the "county lines" business, come across as plausible. Certainly a film that will hold your attention and make you think. Given that, according to the end-credits, around 10,000 kids may be caught up in this, it is probably a film that needed to be made. Let's hope that those in a position to do something about it watch the film.

Most of us, even if we have visited the country, have little insight into Japanese culture and tend to see it as highly conventional and conformist. This exceptionally moving film shows us that, even in Japan, there are those who, through choice or otherwise, live an "alternative" lifestyle. The film centres on a widow who, to avoid the lonely old age suffered by so many in Japan, shares her home with an unconventional "family" who scrape a living through legitimate and other means, with "adopted" children whom they treat more or less as their own. Shortly after the "family" enjoys a visit to the seaside, we see how the whole arrangement unravels (***SPOILER ALERT***) when firstly the widow dies and then the "son", who shoplifts for the family (hence the film's title) injures himself whilst running away from a shop security guard and requires hospital treatment. This brings in the authorities, with negative consequences for all other than possibly the "son". The most depressing scene is where we see the girl, who the "family" rescued from abusive parents, and who had for the first time experienced something approaching love from her adopters, finds herself back with her still-abusive biological mother.

An excellent film that will stay with you long after having watched it.

Essentially Driving Miss Daisy with reversed roles. Viggo Mortensen plays an Italian-American nightclub bounder from the Bronx driving a black concert pianist (played by Mahershala Ali) on a concert tour of the Deep South in 1962. Most of the situations they encounter are fairly predictable - as is the gradual bonding of the two characters - but it's well-acted with some decent scenery.

Before Covid-19, we kept being told how unemployment was at an all-time low. This film lays bare how insecure and precarious some of these newly-created "jobs" are and gives us an insight into working conditions of come of those working in the Gig economy. We learn how the main character, a parcel courier, is "self-employed", so enjoys no such luxuries as holiday pay, yet has his round prescribed and gets fined £100 (on top of his day's earnings) if he has to take a day off for family reasons. When he gets beaten up and has his parcels stolen, he is required to pay £500 to cover the cost of two passports that were stolen, as well as £1,000 for the tracker he's required to carry around with him, which beeps if he leaves his van for two minutes to answer the call of nature (hence he's provided with a bottle to piss in). His wife, "employed" as a carer, endures similarly abysmal employment conditions, being unpaid for her two hours' "break" during her 14-hour day and having to pay her own bus fares to her various calls.

This film will cause those of us lucky enough to enjoy regular, full-time employment to count our blessings and caused me to reflect on my irritation recently towards a courier who put an empty Amazon package through my door. A powerful, angry film that everyone should see.

A passionate, powerful, heart-breaking documentary that doesn't pull its punches. It conveys in horrible detail the anguish faced by those who chose to stay behind in Aleppo and endure constant bombardment (cluster bombs, barrel bombs etc etc) from Assad's regime and his Russian allies. You constantly see helicopters lurking overhead, knowing they will be dropping some horrible explosive device onto the innocent men, women and children below (clearly no ground-air defence whatsoever) but not knowing onto whose apartment/hospital it will fall. You learn how the regime deliberately targeted hospitals to reduce morale and that the only reason for the survival of the second hospital created by the director's doctor husband was that it was makeshift and appeared on no map. You see the incredible courage of those who stayed behind - particularly of the director and her husband - and feel shame at the inaction of our government and others in responding to these atrocities. A film that you are unlikely ever to forget - and neither should you.

A bleak and powerful film, with strong performances particularly from the young actors. The experience of watching the DVD, however, was seriously marred for me by the incessant woman's voice providing English commentary as if for a blind person. I tried several times altering the settings to get rid of this, but without success. The on-screen subtitles would have been more than adequate.

Fast-paced and a bit confusing at times, particularly for those of us outwith the age range of the main characters of the film, but successfully gets across the utter futility and pointlessness of the South London postcode gang culture.

It was fortunate that I watched this film within a few weeks of finishing the book; otherwise I would have been confused. The director, John Crowley, in common with most directors, eschews the chronological approach and jumps back and forth. The cast is OK (I have no idea what an authentic Russian accent sounds like!). The non-chronological approach makes it difficult to become acquainted with the characters. I quite enjoyed it but doubt it would have made any sense to me if I hadn't recently read the book.