Film Reviews by Timmy B

This is one of the only films I have watched where I genuinely cannot find a single thing wrong with it. Literally every single element is perfect. Its story is fiercely compassionate but never saccharine or reduced to kumbaya moments. The two characters are totally real, complete with flaws & deep emotional scars. And the hurt that is shown on screen you feel in your bones.

We are introduced to Tahir as he is interrogated by a policeman after being arrested. He is a deeply religious, gentle man who fled from war-torn Nigeria & has overstayed his visa, living on the streets and making money from playing the drums. He was arrested after being maliciously targeted by the police and, whilst incarcerated, had most of his belongings stolen. One day, he sees Hannah, who is struggling with addiction, begging on the streets & offers to help her. The two of them form an unbreakable bond which we then witness over a year, dealing with the highs & lows of homelessness and addiction. 

I cannot overstate just how profoundly this film affected me and I am staggered that it has not had the enormous success it so deserves. It is such a beautiful musing on how, no matter how bad your life is and your own personal demons, there is hope. The love which is shown on screen between the two characters is one of the most realistic I have ever witnessed, never for a second feeling forced. And this is down to the performances of Mackie & Connelly, as well as the direction from Paul Bettany. I actually cannot choose between them as to which was my favourite. Whilst Connelly has the naturally more headline-grabbing performance, don’t think for a second that Mackie is sidelined. The trauma which he wears like a second skin is on screen for every single second. 

This film also has some incredibly difficult moments, which are neither watered down nor done for shock. One moment, which sees Hannah’s fragile sobriety implode, is heart-wrenching to watch, in part due to the way she injects whilst Tahir watches powerlessly. Another scene where Hannah is desperately trying to find shelter results in one of the most rancid & horrendous moments I have seen put on screen. But the power of Connolly’s acting, her refusal to be broken & to support Tahir, takes your breath away with its impact. 

But if I had to choose one element of this film which I loved more than anything else, it is this: not for one second does this film hit you over the head or lecture you with its themes or story. In the past few years, I have watched so many films which think the best way to tell their story is to subtly or overtly preach to you, thinking that this makes for a good movie, when it for me does the opposite. When the acting, story & production are perfect, you don’t need to go down the route of treating the audience in that way. And when the moments of unbelievable bleakness happen, they hit like a sledgehammer. 

But, despite my praise for Connelly & Mackie, Paul Bettany deserves all of that and more. Considering this is his first film, as well as being shot on a nano-budget, what he has created stands toe-to-toe with the all time greats. In many ways, this film shares a lot with London to Brighton, another seismic story dealing with many of the same issues as Shelter. It is clear that the multiple revered directors that Bettany has worked with over the years have fed into his vision, creating this masterpiece. 

I loved this film. It is a mature, perfectly written & sensationally performed piece of storytelling. I was transfixed from the moment it started until its heartbreaking but hopeful end. It has & will probably always stay with me as an example of what a piece of drama can do.

This movie is one of the reasons I love film. That’s how good it is

After renting the first Dune purely on the fact that Denis Villeneuve was the director, I wasn't particularly blown away by it (I certainly didn't think it deserved the nearly-unanimous 5 star reviews.) But it was still entertaining and I did enjoy parts of it. Following that film's success, the sequel was green-lit and added new actors to the massive roll-call already cast.

Again, as much as this is a stunningly beautiful film to look at, it was never more than good for me. I didn't remember a lot of what happened in the 1st film, hence couldn't follow a lot of what was going on. But there was enjoyment to be had in just sitting back and allowing it to wash over me. There are also some unintentionally funny moments. Stellan Skarsgård made me chuckle every time he was on screen, simply due to his character (a great big, fat, repulsive slug-like creature, which is perfectly complimented by his raspy voice.) Austin Butler also is extremely good as the psychotic would-be ruler of the planet, extremely convincing in the hand-to-hand battles.

However the weak point for me, as with the first film, is Timothée Chalamet. He is just not in any way convincing, intimidating or believable. And this really comes to the fore in a later scene where he proclaims himself the leader of the people. He preens & screams, his high-pitched voice on the absolute edge of breaking, whilst trying to hold it together. And for me it just didn't work. And this gets worse as the film goes on. At one point, there is a scene where he is opposite Christopher Walken, trying to assert his dominance and power. Walken is an incredible actor, one of the best ever in my opinion. In films like True Romance, he does in 10 minutes what some actors fail to do in 3 hours. Chalamet is so out of his depth, it is almost cringe-worthy. But the film still lumbers on to it's conclusion, setting up part 3, which is currently being made.

For the fans, as well as a large number of reviewers, they will get exactly what they want and more. But for me, whether it is because I am simply not a massive sci-fi fan, or have not bought into the story, whilst it is a visual feast, it was simply a continuation of a story which I have only a passing interest in.

Argo is a film which will be many different things to many different people. This is displayed in the other reviews which are on the Cinema Paradiso site, with some absolutely furious about the way this film wilfully & blatantly rewrites history in order to make it look like the Americans (along with the assistance of the Canadians,) basically saved the day, like so many other flag-waving American films. This anger was increased ten-fold when it won Best Picture at the Oscars, alongside other awards.

But for me, and many others, I look at it differently. I am first & foremost a film lover, who jumps head-first into the incredible worlds which are created by writers, directors & actors. And as much as I also dislike the flag-waving Americanism of these types of films, I am also able to, if the film is good, separate this from the actual movie I am watching. And this is the case for me with Argo. I would also point out that the historical inaccuracies have been so roundly reported & critiqued that there is an effective counterbalance to the events which are distorted by the film makers. For some, that still isn’t enough, but it is for me.

Argo tells the story of the Iranian revolution & hostage crisis, predominantly the deep-cover mission to exfiltrate 6 US Embassy workers who managed to escape the storming of the American consulate. Having found sanctuary & shelter at the Canadian Ambassadors house, they wait to be evacuated. Meanwhile in Washington DC, the various intelligence agencies frantically work out how to bring the Americans back home without starting WWIII. Tony Mendez, a CIA veteran who specialises in evacuations, comes up with a plan to go into Iran using the cover of a film production company who want to shoot a sci-fi movie in the country. The film looks at the creation of and actual evacuation of the 6, by Mendez.

The main thing which sticks with me, both when I first watched the movie over 10 years ago, and tonight when I rewatched it to write this review, is just how well-made this film is. Ben Affleck is an extremely competent & skilful director, who is able to strike the difficult balance in film making of creating a story with serious subject matter but also a lightness of touch. The film zips along at a brilliant pace, never once losing momentum. The smoke-filled offices of the CIA & FBI, where these types of films can often be dragged down with the conversations/back & fourth arguments between different heads of departments, are filled with tension and don’t go on for a second longer than they need to.

When it comes to Mendez himself, Affleck also makes him extremely relatable, as well as openly showing the grave doubts he has, alongside the massive responsibility he has taken on in getting the 6 hostages out. It is said to him in no uncertain terms that if his/their cover is blown, they should hope to be shot first, to spare them the torture which awaits them. In no way is Mendez the stereotypical cocksure hero these films usually have, which again is a refreshing change.

Affleck & the writers have also sensibly put a large amount of humour into this film. Bryan Cranston, John Goodman & Alan Arkin all have excellent barbs in this film, which again adds to the lightness of touch. Cranston, taking a break from being Walter White, clearly relishes the change of role, chewing up the scenery for all he’s worth, especially as the mission threatens to go awry.

I really enjoyed this film. I totally bought into the world which it created, was gripped by it and also loved its structure. Whilst I would never have called it a Best Picture winner, it is still a reminder of the power of good cinema to transport us to another world for 2 hours. For those who simply cannot countenance it's rewriting of history, I simply say: Your loss

Killer Joe is an out-and-out masterpiece. In a time filled with films trying to shock but usually failing miserably, this is a brilliantly acted movie, filled with genuine surprises as well as brutal violence & sex. You find yourself at times going "Oh no... You're not gonna... Oh you are!" before bursting out laughing.

Chris Smith, a trailer-trash lowlife scumbag drug dealer, has been thrown out by his mother, who has also stolen his supply of cocaine, leaving him seriously in debt to some very bad people. In desperation, he returns back to his father & step-mother, with a plan: hire a contract killer (Joe) to kill his mother & collect the insurance policy, which is in his disabled sister Dottie's name, giving them an easy payday and clearing Chris's debt. However, things get complicated when Joe demands a retainer as security & claims Dottie...

With a film like this, if the cast were not totally committed to it, it would fail within the first 5 minutes. Characters are revealed in the most embarrassing ways imaginable, take part in sleazy sex & generally are the most unlikeable vile people imaginable. And yet they are also a perfect metaphor for what you yourself may very well be like if you were born into that pit of hell, scheming & screwing over your own flesh and blood, knowing that if you won't, they will.

Matthew McConaughey, in full McConaissance rebirth, is absolutely sensational. In 2011 you have to remember that, after an early career in more serious films, he then became Mr RomCom, churning out pretty much the same movie with a slight story variation. After a deliberate hiatus, he took on a series of totally against type films, including this one. Gone is the slightly goofy, relaxed guy looking for a good time. The perfect six-pack on the tanned torso has been transformed into a hulking monster, never more than a second away from violence, with the added power of being an officer of the law. McConaughey is genuinely intimidating. 

But whilst he got most of the headlines, to me as much praise needs to go to Juno Temple, who plays the far more difficult role of Dottie, the developmentally disabled sister of Chris. This type of role is so difficult to get right, because it can be in danger of tipping into a grotesque impersonation of disability. But one of the main reasons this film works is because Dottie is not treated any differently to any of the others. She has her own agency, makes her own decisions and is also an extremely strong-minded woman. However the film also makes sure that everyone in their own way also cares about her, whilst screwing over everyone else. 

The other thing which makes this film so good is its brief running time. Friedkin is an extremely efficient director and this film doesn’t have an ounce of fat on it, perfectly paced & finishing exactly when it should. The scenes are brilliantly constructed as well. It is one of those rare things: a brilliantly acted, no-holds-barred story, performed by actors at the top of their game, making you as the viewer feel a whole range of emotions. 

I absolutely loved it. I just won’t ever look at a piece of KFC the same way again…

Gérard Depardieu is a titan of French cinema. This film, his first as a leading man, shows that, despite it's revolting contents, his power & command of the screen. Inexplicably, this was one of the most successful films in France in 1974, no doubt helped by the fierce controversy it ignited due to the actions of it's protagonists. But this really is a rancid film, filled with at times disgusting misogyny.

Depardieu & Patrick Dewaere play Jean-Claude and Pierrot, two amoral chancers who spend their days scamming people out of their money & property, but who also firmly believe that they are the ones hard done-by and deserving of everything (the word narcissism barely does them justice.) The story follows them as they move around France, causing problems wherever they go, usually ending up with them fleeing under cover of darkness.

This was a challenging watch from the get-go. We are introduced to Jean-Claude and Pierrot as they literally stalk & terrorise a woman as she goes about her business, revelling in her panic. These two big & athletic men eventually pin her up against the doors to her apartment building and proceeded to grope her, whilst the film invites us to laugh at her terror. Now, I know that times have changed and there are things that were acceptable back then which aren't seen as acceptable now (and believe me, I get sick of the seemingly constant offence-taking by a certain group of vocal people today,) but that act is just disgusting.

The film just seems intent on celebrating the actions of these absolute creeps, the camera acting as the most leery voyeur you could imagine. This extends to the two men intimidating a breast-feeding mother to allow one of them to suckle her, then paying her some money to try & make it not seem like the horror show it is; breaking in to a family home & examining underwear to gauge just how young the daughter could be; complaining that the woman they take prisoner doesn't display sufficient enthusiasm as they take it in turns effectively raping her... I mean the list goes on.

The final straw for me was when they persuade this woman, who the script inexplicably makes a cypher who either acts completely uninterested when being sexually assaulted or furious when she is ignored/slighted, to break them into her workplace to rob it. She then expects, having done this, some romantic attention. Obviously, Jean-Claude and Pierrot totally ignore her & proceed to burgle the shop, causing her to explode with rage. Jean-Claude then casually shoots her in the leg, the two men tie her to a chair whilst they finish the robbery, before fleeing into the night & leaving her to bleed out/get arrested.

And with this, I switched off the TV. I simply could not tolerate watching a celebration of these two absolute vermin, nor bear the idea of the next scene where they would no doubt complain very loudly about how badly they were treated and that a queue of women wasn't forming to cater to their every whim.

Avoid.

The Bad Boys franchise has been going since 1995, when the first film exploded onto the scene & really carved out a niche in the world of buddy-cop films. The 2nd, released a few years later, whilst not quite as good, had incredible stunt work & one of the best cars chases put on film. Then after a massive gap, Adil & Bilal took over the reins, releasing the monster hit Bad Boys For Life. They have wisely been brought back for this new film, alongside many of the returning characters.

Whilst the storyline is at times convoluted & a bit hard-going, it is a pleasure to be back in Lowery & Burnett's company. The chemistry between Smith & Lawrence is as rock-solid as ever, the script finding new ways to mine emotion and tension. We also have some lovely montages of Captain Howard talking from beyond the grave, Joe Pantoliano doing wonders with only a few minutes combined of screen time.

But where this film soars, and again full kudos to Adil & Bilal, is how it is directed, especially the action scenes. Despite some occasionally garish CGI, their camerawork & choreography is world-class. The camera whip-pans, flies about and there are a couple of amazing one-shot montages. The end fight scene is also brilliantly staged, making full use of the various props you would find in an abandoned alligator theme park...

There are also the usual action staples, such as an enormous bounty being put out on the duo's heads, which after one action scene, conveniently gets forgotten about by the criminal gangs; cops needing only 90 seconds time-out to get over the fact that there is an ex-multiple murdering gang member in their property; key people who normally would be under police watch who aren't & then get taken hostage; then everything conveniently getting wrapped up with news report exposition, saying everybody who was wanted has been fully exonerated within 24 hours... So like I said, a solid action film.

In a weird way, whilst writing this, I actually thought of the Expendables series. Because Smith & Lawrence are now in the territory of the older action-hero star, and they absolutely hold their own. And the one thing this film is, which Exp4ndables absolutely wasn't, is loads of fun. This is a solidly directed, plenty of bang for your buck movie. Whilst at times it was hard to follow, it is still a solid entry in the series.

Roll on the sequel

In 2011, Killer Joe was released. It was an absolutely messed up, shocking, brilliant piece of madness, revelling in the violence & sexuality of a trailer-trash American family. Whilst many people remember it for Matthew McConaughey's towering central performance (and one of the key parts of his "McConaissance" rebirthing,) for me one of the other unforgettable parts was the role of Dottie, played by Juno Temple. She was absolutely fearless in her portrayal of this naïve, feisty & sexually curious young woman. This was a part which, if there had been any self-consciousness or awkwardness, would have meant the film as a whole failed, seeing as it in many ways revolved around her character.

So when I heard about a film she shot immediately after Killer Joe, which again had a provocative & daring plot to it, I was interested. I had also heard good things about Riley Keough, so was interested to see the chemistry between the two. And finally, as this was a small-budget film, it could take more chances than one with a large budget, which to me is always where the best stories can be told. Unfortunately, any hope I had of a good watch were very quickly scotched.

This film is so bad, so boring & so dull, it almost defies any metric you measure it with. Temple plays Diane, a young woman who the story very quickly sets up as the most unreliable, forgetful & clumsy person you could ever meet. She doesn't know anything about anything, such as forgetting basic instructions which a 5 year-old could remember; everything she has or gets given (keys, phones,) she loses, and generally goes through life acting as if she needs to be in the care of an appropriate adult, using her immaturity as a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's a wonder she manages to get dressed in the morning.

One night, while going from shop to shop asking to use their phone (due to losing hers,) she meets Jack, a Tomboy who loves skateboarding & rebelling against everything in sight. There is a spark which starts between them, as they explore their new love, against the backdrop of Diane being sent to school in France at the end of the holidays.

Whilst the plot is familiar to so many coming-of-age films & can be extremely powerful if used well, that set-up, as well as everything else in this film, is totally wasted. To call Diane a tiresome & exasperating character is the understatement of the year, which only seeks to drag the narrative down even further. After a night out where they first kiss, Jack invites her back to her flat, where it is clear Jack (as well as any normal person,) expects that they will kiss again & this could lead to more... Diane seems genuinely confused & bewildered as to why she is there.

And the script's setup of Jack as a take-no-crap strong willed woman just goes out of the window when it meets this scenario: she simply would not tolerate someone acting this stupid who she is investing so much in. Later, during a scene of intimacy, Diane repeatedly stops things to ask fatuous & nonsensical questions, to which no answer Jack gives is good enough.

There is a weird subplot involving some demonic monster, who we see lurid close-ups of, which just adds to the nonsensical nature of the story. What is this? How does it relate to the story? To those questions & more, the only answer I had was: I don't care. Alongside this, the film is shot & lit terribly, again dragging everything down.

I lasted about 40 minutes, then fast-forwarded through to see if things got better... They didn't. I wasted part of my life watching this rubbish, please don't waste yours.

And finally, Juno Temple, you are worth so so much more than this piece of rubbish. When a film is so badly made & written that one of the greatest young actresses working today cannot breathe any life into it, you need to get out

The Bikeriders is one of the best recent examples of a film with stunning production values & casts which has no real story to speak of, beyond just observing the actions of it's characters. Director Jeff Nichols was inspired after reading the same-titled photo book, documenting the lives of the Outlaw biker gang (here reimagined as the Vandals,) as well as the extensive recordings of Kathy, one of the wives of the bikers.

The plot (what you could charitably call it,) looks at the life of Kathy Cross, from her first encounter with Benny & his motorcycle gang, through to their wedding just 5 weeks later, then their subsequent lives intertwined with the changing circumstances within the Vandals.

For the first 40 minutes or so, you really do become intoxicated with this world. Every single element, from the lovingly recreated biker outfits (painstakingly made to be exact replicas of the original leathers,) through to the locations & bikes themselves, is absolutely flawless. When viewed in 4K Blu-ray, it is literally like you are sat around the campfire or in the smoky bars listening to the gang.

But as the film went on, I then started to get a bit fidgety. Because there is only so long you can be in that world (and not be really interested in the subject matter, which I'm not,) before you start thinking "Errr... this is a lovely setting but I genuinely want a story to keep my attention." And sadly The Bikeriders almost completely runs out of gas in this sense. We see the normal conflicts that this sort of film would have, which are significantly elevated by the incredible cast, but there is nothing more than that.

Speaking of cast, this is the other ace up the sleeve the film has. Jodie Comer, who literally is incredible in everything I have seen her in, makes for a compelling narrator. Adding yet another accent to her incredible repertoire, she is the feisty & vulnerable protagonist of this film, with an acid tongue & buckets of humour. Austin Butler, after his stratospheric turn as Elvis, also does good work here, really putting soul into a role which many others would probably have played as simply a sultry heartthrob. But Tom Hardy is the standout, his Johnny a man with a sharp mind, handy with his fists & a innate knowledge that he cannot keep living the life he does, trying to manage a gang which is constantly evolving & changing.

If you have even a cursory interest in either bikes or that time period, there is much to love here and you would probably add an extra star to my rating. But as much as I wanted to love it more, quite simply the lack of story is this film's Achilles heel.

The Silence of the Lambs is not only one of my top ten films, for me it is genuinely one of the best films ever made, no question. At the time it was released, it sent shockwaves through audiences, many of whom probably were not particularly drawn to horror but found themselves totally immersed in Jonathan Demme's masterpiece. Since then, it has spawned countless imitations & influenced untold numbers of other works, be it film or TV.

And Longlegs unquestionably not only owes most of its look & feel to it, but also tries to ramp up the occult element which was only hinted at in Lambs. However, despite it's clear reverence for its source material, it is never more than good for me, despite a wonderfully idiosyncratic & creepy turn by Nicolas Cage.

Lee Harker is a newly recruited FBI agent based in Oregon who, whilst carrying out door-knocking duties as part of an investigation, predicts/has visions which turn out to be right, with horrific consequences. Her ability to tap into these paranormal visions quickly sees her promoted to the case which been baffling law enforcement for years: a series of brutal murders which somehow involve an individual called Longlegs. Harker begins to crack the case, whilst at the same time dealing with her own personal demons.

Whilst I have only given this film 3 stars, there is a lot of good stuff here, as well as an incredible Cage performance. And make no mistake, this is not the standard Cage performance you have seen a variation of in countless films, some great, some dreadful. Transformed by incredible prosthetics & make-up, Cage is an abomination, a creature spat out of Hell itself. Whenever he is on screen, the film soars, whether it is his creepy introduction or the skin-crawlingly unsettling interrogation between him and Harker.

Monroe fairs less well, Harker being someone who I never really rooted that much for. Whilst Monroe strains every sinew to make us believe her character as well as draw us into the story, she is just too cold & uninteresting to care much for. There are a few scenes where she breaks down but, unlike when Starling does this in Lambs & your heart breaks for the incredible young woman battling to catch the killer, I felt very little for Harker. Her performance has no warmth or anything really relatable.

But alongside Cage, there are some good elements. Blair Underwood is absolutely sensational as Harker's superior, a hard-bitten detective who gets some of the best lines & never strays into cliché, as much as I really wanted him to spit out a line such as "I'm too old for this s**t!" The look of the film is also extremely haunting, whether it is a snow-covered house isolated in the middle of nowhere, or a police station filled with a warren of tunnels. The 90's mise-en-scene is also done perfectly.

But I cannot lie, I so wanted Longlegs to be better than it was. There were a lot of the right ingredients in there, plus it also mercifully was not too long, but it just didn't fully click for me. However, I did enjoy being in that world and Cage alone is worth the entrance fee.

Joker was a total bolt-out-of-the-blue. After the stratospheric, tectonic-plate moving performance of Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, followed by the massively criticised interpretation by Jared Leto (much of which I felt was unfair, considering just how many problems there were with Suicide Squad's production as well as the acknowledgement that a significant portion of his performance was cut,) the general consensus seemed to be that the Joker character was untouchable, no-one ever able to play him again.

Then Todd Phillips came along, conceiving a completely standalone story of how the Joker was created, with a moderate budget (which meant he was much freer in his creative decisions than if having to adhere to the numerous demands DC would have forced him to follow,) as well as one of the most gifted actors working today, Joaquin Phoenix. The result was the highest-grossing R-rated film ever (over a billion dollars,) and a highly-disturbing, deeply original film.

It was then announced, after a significant amount of time passed, that a sequel was to be made, looking at the aftermath of the first film's events, as well as introducing Harley Quinn into the mix. Further eyebrows were raised when it was announced the film would be a musical, taking an even deeper & idiosyncratic dive into the world that Phillips and Phoenix had created. I had no real interest in seeing this film when it was released in cinemas, which was compounded by the overwhelmingly negative backlash from fans of the 1st film, as well as absolutely tanking at the box office.

But when I finally did watch it, despite my 2 star rating, in a weird way I simply cannot hate it. Something which I had felt for a long time, after hearing the various complaints about it, was that Phoenix and Phillips did exactly what I'd expected them to do: not go down the road of making a traditional sequel. The 1st film was an absolute middle-finger to the standard, schlocky & clichéd-riddled rubbish relentlessly churned out by the major studios. Everyone involved with the film was staggered by it's success.

But the flip side of that was that it gave the creators not only the confidence but also the carte blanche to do WHATEVER they wanted for the sequel, alongside an enormous budget & the best production team available. And the result is exactly what you'd expect...

This is without doubt the biggest (big-budget) vanity project I have ever seen. Allegedly based on mainly Phoenix's ideas & musings, it is a beautifully shot, incredibly designed and completely scattershot misfire. Whilst for the first 40 minutes or so, I enjoyed it, it then loses its focus, going off in multiple weird & nonsensical directions. The much-publicised musical numbers start off as an interesting way of telling the story, before becoming an overused & eventually boring millstone around the film's neck.

The majority of the movie concerns the trial of Fleck, as well as his meeting with Quinn & their subsequent falling in love. But this never really works that well, the film frequently going off on tangents & side-stories which slam the brakes on, as well as inflicting another musical number on us. Phoenix & Gaga's chemistry is also not that great, despite some good moments (their 1st meeting is the best of these,) which also hamstrings the film.

But having said all of the above, I didn't hate it. In a strange way I actually respected the total obstinacy of the filmmakers NOT going down the route which would have been so easy for them to do, giving them a guaranteed payday as well as probably a half-decent box office return. Folie à Deux is emphatically the movie they wanted to make, and there are no compromises in that sense.

And in the world we live in today, to have a film which actually has the cojones to do that is so refreshing, it deserves a strange kind of respect.

Tightrope is a film which was released unashamedly to play up the image of Clint Eastwood after the massive success of the Dirty Harry film trilogy. Eastwood plays Wes Block, a cop who has gone through a messy divorce but also is committed to raising his two daughters as well as he can, whilst balancing his hunt to track down the stalker & killer of women.

Whilst it is interesting to see Eastwood playing against type, especially in how the film, in contrast to many others of it's time, shows the trauma & fear women have when they are being terrorised whilst trying to go about their daily lives, it is also quite boring. I have to be honest and say I did fast-forward through some parts of it, which I just didn't find interesting, although it must be said the end chase makes extremely good use of locations & jump-cuts. Marco St. John is also an intimidating & horrible screen presence as well.

It was extremely well-reviewed for it's time and probably for good reason, but I also am not a massive Eastwood fan, so it was probably lost on me.

When Crank came out in 2006, there was simply nothing else like it. Over the course of 90 minutes Chev Chelios, a recently retired hitman who was poisoned by a rival gangster, created carnage around the streets of L.A trying to keep his adrenaline up, whilst seeking revenge against those who had wronged him. And there were no limits to what Chelios did to keep himself alive, whether it was doing coke off of a filthy nightclub floor or starting a fight with pretty much anyone he crossed paths with. It was a proper, no-holds-barred action film, glorious in its ability to shock & offend.

However, when I watched it, I remember thinking that it should be left as a standalone film, a shot of genius with a perfect ending. But as it made a lot of money in comparison to it's budget and this is Hollywood we are talking about, of course a sequel was made. And it was as bad as I feared it would be.

After the events of the 1st film, Chelios is scraped off the ground & taken to a makeshift operating theatre, where his almost indestructible heart is taken out & a battery-powered one fitted. His heart has been demanded by mob boss Poon Dong, who has heard the legend of Chelios's heart & wants the organ to replace his failing one. Chelios escapes from the theatre & tracks down his heart, whilst continually shocking himself to keep the battery powering his artificial heart working.

Whilst there are many things I could fault with this film, one of the worst is the change in tone. The 1st film was, despite it's often shocking content, very light-hearted & funny, winking at you in the audience at how crazy this world it had created was. And this in turn made the film flow much better within it's unconventional narrative. But all of that has been jettisoned in this film. It has a really cruel, unpleasant tone, the writers/directors thinking that this is the natural evolution of the story. And alongside this, the pacing is all over the place. So whilst in the 1st film, very quickly things start moving, here the narrative stop-starts-stop-starts, making it extremely disjointed.

In terms of the changed tone, we now have violence which, whilst before was cartoon-ish, here is really nasty. Within 10 minutes of the film starting, Chelios tortures someone for information in the most sexually repellent way imaginable. I remember sitting in the cinema surrounded by people who were massive fans of the original, just feeling the atmosphere changing whilst this scene played out, no-one laughing, just feeling disgusted at what was on screen. There are several scenes of wince-inducing self-mutilation as well, again not funny but rancid.

We also have a new roll call of characters who are mainly poorly written & in some cases unbelievably irritating, none more so than Ria, an Asian prostitute with a screeching voice & behaviour so annoying, you just wish Chev would shoot her and put all of us out of our misery. Johnny Vang is cut from similar cloth, a sleazeball who Chev chases for most of the story, without a particularly good pay-off.

There are some funny moments amongst the dreck, plus as much as Statham clearly looks like he regrets signing on for this film, he is always watchable, even in rubbish. But Crank 2's biggest problem is that it feels the only way it can justify it's existence is to make everything so extreme that it then just becomes an exercise in tolerating rancidness. We are shown a conveyor belt of disgusting things, with the film throwing everything against the wall & hoping some of it sticks. But this then means the 1 or 2 good moments get lost in the bile.

There are plans for a 3rd film, but I hope it doesn't come to fruition, because there is no doubt it will simply go even more extreme & repugnant.

Micro-budget, stripped back films with mostly unknown actors usually tend to go one of two ways: they are a complete disaster, with terrible performances & a reliance on shocks to disguise/elevate the material (hence the hundreds of straight-to-DVD disasters that are released every year;) or they are absolute brilliance, showing the incredible drama that can be wrought from a tiny budget, putting blockbusters with 100 times the amount to shame, with films like the nano-budget London to Brighton my absolute favourite. Dead Man's Shoes (DMS) is the sort of film which grabs your attention from the moment it starts until it's final shocking scene, indelibly etched in your mind.

Richard (Considine) is a soldier who returns to his Northern hometown Matlock, reuniting with his brother Anthony, who has severe learning difficulties. Richard quickly tracks down the local drug dealers, a group of criminals who targeted Anthony whilst his brother was away serving, bullying & belittling him. It then becomes clear that Richard is out for revenge, mercilessly hunting down the individual members of the gang for their crimes not only against Anthony, but the town in general.

In interviews, Considine has spoken at length about the ideas which became the script inspired by real-life stories from where he & Meadows grew up, "atrocities which nobody really paid for," in his own words. But rather than it being set in some small American town, like so many of those types of films are, DMS is set in a rundown Northern village, where the industry has long since vanished & petty crime is rife.

One of the many things I love about this film is it's stripped-back feel, which whilst it was primarily due to the tiny crew & budget, also perfectly fits within the story. There are no glamorous mansions or sets, with pretty much everything shot on location using natural light. The colour palette is cold & harsh, just like the action on screen.

This also extends to things like the choice of cars. You might expect that this film would give the gangsters an expensive sports car, as a result of their drug-dealing. But they drive around in an old Citröen 2CV, which only reinforces how pathetic they all are. Even the criminals in this part of the world are not that rich, which in turn means they get their excitement through making other people's lives hell.

As Richard, Considine is sensational. Years of serving in conflicts have turned him into a man who can flick from calm to rage in an instant, demonstrated in chilling fashion during a confrontation in a pub. As he slowly begins to hunt down the gang, he becomes an unstoppable one-man force, someone who you feel could walk through concrete walls, striking terror into the criminal's hearts as he picks them off in ever-more shocking ways.

But just as much praise should go to Toby Kebbell, who took over the role the day before shooting started, after the actor cast dropped out over concerns at how to portray Anthony's disabilities. A role like this is one which is so, so difficult to get right: overplay it and it becomes a grotesque impersonation, underplay it and the impact & driving force of Richard is meaningless. Kebbell absolutely nails it, which makes the abuse inflicted upon Anthony all the more horrific, especially an extremely distressing scene where he is effectively sexually assaulted for the amusement of the gang.

This film is not easy viewing. It is full of menace & threat, cruelty & violence. But this only increases its impact on you as you go on this journey. And never is there any enjoyment to be had from the violence, which so many of these types of films revel in. Every character, even Richard, is damaged & broken, thrown together in a location which whilst on the outside looks beautiful, is full of violence and fear.

This one will stay with you...

Crank is a totally bat-s**t crazy film. If you explained the basic concept to people, they would immediately think along the lines of a Speed-style film, with the ticking bomb scenario, but in this case keeping adrenaline up to prevent a heart attack. What would never enter into their head would be the ways this adrenaline is kept up, from snorting coke off the floor of a grimy nightclub to taking massive doses of artificial stimulants which have awkward side-effects... But this is where Crank goes from being a good premise to an outrageously fun romp.

Chev Chelios (a typical name for a Londoner living in America...) is a professional hitman who has just retired & plans to live a quiet life, keeping a low profile. He wakes up with a splitting headache, beaten, bruised & with a heart that is barely beating. Upon playing a video message left for him by his attackers, he has been poisoned by gangster Ricky Verona with a deadly substance, which will stop his heart unless he keeps his adrenaline up. He then pursues Verona & his associates across L.A, whilst keeping his adrenaline up in ever more outrageous ways.

For me, the two things I love about Crank is firstly Statham's performance (which I will get to later,) and the way this film literally throws all the rules that films are supposed to follow out of the window. Clichés? So what? Logic? Never heard of it. A standard storyline? You're watching the wrong film mate. From the first moments (in what other opening do you see a gangster being filmed boasting about his criminality, as well as poisoning someone, then leaving the footage for him or... errrr.... the police to find, giving them the most open-and-shut conviction imaginable,) you know this is something different. Crank revels in the absolute chaos it creates. Whilst the L.A. setting is one you initially recognise, scratching the surface you will find a collection of people who are anything but normal.

We follow Chelios as he drives like a maniac in cars & bikes, instigates mass brawls in nightclubs & strip-bars, alongside many other crazy ways to keep his heart rate up. And all the while, there is a crazy grin on your face, as you wonder what the hell he is going to do next. In many ways, Crank is the most pure video-game style film you could imagine, with Chelios it's demented avatar.

But this film would be absolutely nothing without Statham's performance. Quite simply, if there was any self-consciousness from him or awkwardness, the film wouldn't work. He fully commits himself into every crazy situation the script throws at him, from expletives appearing on his forehead to riding a motorbike in a hospital gown with his bare-arse on display to running around streets with an erection that could crowbar-open a bank vault. You are mesmerised, horrified & laughing all at the same time.

Jose Pablo Cantillo also deserves special mention for his equally crazy big-bad, a Latino gangster who it is clear harboured animosity towards Chelios before the events of the film, but is now scared & furious in equal measure at the one-man wrecking ball coming his way.

And when you put all this together, it makes for an incredible movie. There is literally nothing else like Crank that you will have seen before & precious little after it which is as well-made and engrossing as it is. The craziest thoughts in your head will probably be nothing compared to what is up on screen. I absolutely loved it and it is the type of movie which you were staggered got made/financed when it did and can never be replicated, despite a sequel which upped the outrageousness but lost the originality.

A film which was front & center of the renaissance of the British film industry in many ways (by this I mean films released which were commercially successful as well as intriguing & idiosyncratic in their stories, which is such a welcome change from the endless stream of comic book/franchise drudge showing in cinemas,) there is much to like here.

The story itself is based on true events which scandalised Britain just after the events of WWI and was in many ways one of the first examples of widespread trolling, decades before social media infiltrated itself in so many of our lives. There are also extremely powerful & upsetting scenes of the discrimination which was rampant back then, whether towards women or minorities, as well as the demonisation of single mothers who may have fled a situation to save theirs & their children's lives.

Colman and Buckley are clearly having an absolute ball, their bristling encounters igniting the screen whenever they are together. It is also lovely to see that, despite the fact that she is not only an Oscar-winning Best Actress but also the film's producer, Colman allows the other actors, especially Buckley, to command the screen. So many actors in her position would use this sort of film as a vehicle to showcase their own status, with the other performers simply window-dressing. But there is not a bit of this here.

However, this film also has it's issues. The script itself is at times quite tonally uneven, as well as being probably 10-15 minutes too long. Unfortunately, and something that has been picked up by other reviewers, the other major issue I have is with the way the film handles the representation of minorities. It is clearly shown that the 1920's was a time of repression & if you were a woman or minority, you were disrespected in multiple despicable ways. But what this film does, diving into headfirst with huge force, is to double/treble/quadruple down on this progressive representation with slowly more tedious results.

As I have stated in many other reviews, I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of Woke & simply write-off this whole film, because not only is that trite, but also extremely lazy. My frustration & mentioning of it is criticising it from a filmmaking & scripting perspective. And in Wicked Little Letters, everyone in the police force is male, white & so stupid it's a wonder they could get dressed in the morning, apart from the one woman who is mixed race & cracks the case single-handedly. One of the protagonist's partners is black & his one significant action is to break up a fight between bigoted old white people. The list goes on & on...

And these endless different things are just repeatedly shoved in your face on screen, until you actually start to get annoyed with it. In many ways I thought back to both Empire of Light (also starring Colman,) and the 4th series of True Detective, in the sense that it becomes a great big gloopy soup of themes, with so many important issues fighting to fit into the story.

Despite all I have just said, I did enjoy the film. I just wished that it was more focussed & concise in it's delivery.