Film Reviews by TB

I so clearly remember Brokeback Mountain being released, mainly due to the intense media interest surrounding it, which I always felt was totally overblown & stupid. Although there had, leading up to 2005, been other films which had gay romances, these had never been the main subject of a major film in this way. I will also never forget when I saw it at the cinema. I watched it in Brighton, surrounded by mainly older gay couples, and the emotion & tension in the room was something I had never experienced, such was it's power. But for me, the best thing about this film is quite simply it is a phenomenal story, beautifully photographed & perfectly acted.

In 1963, Ennis Del Mar hitchhikes to Wyoming in search of work. He ends up at the offices of Joe Aguirre, a formidable & uncompromising farmer, where he meets Jack Twist, a rodeo bull-rider who is also searching for work. The two begin to fall in love after spending time working & camping together on Brokeback Mountain, guarding sheep. Despite the deep connection, they know that they would never be able to be together, due to the rampant homophobia/dangers of being in a same-sex relationship. The film charts the 20 years of their lives as they struggle to manage this secret love.

There are so many things that I could say about this film, but what still sticks with me more vividly than anything was the cinematography & Ledger's performance. This film is simply incredible to look at. Every shot is beautiful, from the sun beating down on the rich green grass, through to the roaring fire round the campsite in the night. The colour palette is also a treat to watch. I so desperately want there to be a 4K remastered version of this film, as it would take something beautiful & elevate it to the next level.

And then we come to Ledger's performance, which for me is & always will be his best work. Whilst I don't want to in any way denigrate Jake Gyllenhaal's acting, I cannot adequately describe how moving & seismic Heath is in this film. This is a character who has, at most, half a page of dialogue over the entire film. And yet, due to the hauntedness & power of Ledger's acting, we know everything about what Ennis is feeling & his thoughts.

This is a performance of fearful looks, hats pulled down low & shrinking inside his clothes to make him as hidden as possible, such is the trauma & internal pain he is dealing with. But whilst he tries to hide away, he is also prone to bursts of furious anger & violence when threatened or upset. The pain of this film is often simply watching a man who cannot be himself trying to exist, whilst managing the deep love he feels for another man, which would be suicide to be open about at that time in America.

The other actors are also sensational. Michelle Williams brings real pain to the screen as she tries to manage her failing marriage & discovering her husband's secret. Anne Hathaway also brings a steely but painful presence to her role, as the straight-talking businesswoman who finds her love slipping away from Jack.

This is for me in many ways one of the most heartbreaking films about love I've ever seen, but also I want to clearly say that, as much as it is a story about 2 men falling in love, I never see it as simply a gay movie. For me, it was & always will be a story about love, which happens to feature a same-sex relationship. It's themes are timeless & the pain of not being able to love who you want is not just reserved for gay love. This film shows the destruction of people's very being when they are not able to love who they want.

Heartbreaking perfection

Falling Down is a film which it is clear is many different things to many different people. Fiercely controversial on its release, it still today is one of the most prominent & praised of Michael Douglas's career, mainly due to the enormous risk he as an A-List actor took with the subject matter. For me, it is many things, including a black comedy & morality tale, but there is one thing which stands out above everything else & which elevates the film from good to great: the total lack of enjoyment the protagonist has in/during his rampage.

William "D-Fens" Foster is a seemingly mild-mannered & dull middle-aged man. One day, in the scorching hot LA heat whilst stuck in a neverending traffic jam, his car air conditioning fails. For him, this is the final straw, resulting in him abandoning his car & setting off on foot across town to get to his daughter's birthday party. Along the way, he encounters the many trivial annoyances which are a part of life but which Foster will no longer tolerate, whether it is being harassed for money or given poor & demeaning service in a restaurant. He also repeatedly laments the state of the world, whether in constantly rising food prices or criminal behaviour.

In other "revenge/rampage" films, what you often find is that the protagonist will, whilst at first be hesitant or uneasy in some ways about what they are doing, begin to enjoy the violence/terror they inflict on others. But Falling Down offers no such adrenaline rush, as well as no easy answers. And in our protagonist, we have a man who is not only full of boiling rage, but also unbearable sadness & patheticness.

And as has been commented on by Douglas & the screenwriter Ebbe Roe Smith, what Foster is over & above everything else is what so many in America at that time were: precariously employed/only a couple of paychecks away from poverty, coupled with an anger that they had done everything right & had nothing to show for it.

The other point which the story hammers home, alongside Foster's total disenfranchisement of his actions, is how disgusted he is by the sort of people whose opinions & views would normally be associated with this type of behaviour. So when a racist & homophobic Neo-Nazi praises him, Foster quickly & clearly tells him exactly what he thinks of him & the evilness of his beliefs. This again makes this so much more than just a simple revenge film.

But despite Douglas's incendiary performance, don't think for a second that Robert Duvall is sidelined. In what could have been the standard, clichéd burnt-out cop on his last day before retirement is turned on its head. Prendergast very quickly realises that the situation is far more dangerous & combustible than his superiors understand, as well as knowing he is far more competent & able than his colleagues treat him. The pursuit becomes a genuine cat-and-mouse chase, resulting in a showdown which you genuinely don't see coming.

And when you get to the final scene, again there is no catharsis, no rush of adrenaline. You find yourself taking a step back, looking at your own life & thinking that if the cards had fallen differently, you could be that guy (just to be clear, I don't mean going on a violent rampage, I mean being in those circumstances with no hope.)

Falling Down is a film which takes a great big mirror & firmly turns it on you, forcing you to not only examine the world around you, but how you react to it. Which is what great cinema should always do

Denzel Washington is a stalwart of cinema & the screen. Since the beginnings of his career in the early 80’s, which then exploded at the end of that decade with his Oscar win for Glory, he has built a reputation as a brilliant actor, even in the films which were misfires. But it was only in 2014 that he was finally persuaded to take part in an action film with the potential of it turning into a franchise/series. However, he has chosen wisely & this is not a simple case of taking the cheque & starring in something rubbish. For starters, he is reunited with his frequent collaborator Antoine Fuqua & also with a great cast including Chloë Grace Moretz & Martin Csokas. And he also has a great script, which importantly & actually quite rarely for an action picture, really allows time for character building to be done.

Robert McCall is a retired US Marine & DIA officer. He has left his life of espionage, combat & violence behind him and now works a menial job in a hardware/DIY store. It is also shown in subtle ways the enormous internal pain he goes through, a combination of PTSD & loss, the latter being the premature death of his wife after he left the military. One side-effect of this trauma is his inability to sleep, meaning he spends a lot of time reading at an all-night diner. Over time, he strikes up a friendship with a Russian prostitute called Teri & they bond. However, one night Teri is confronted by her pimp in front of McCall, then later ends up in hospital after being savagely beaten. McCall then begins to wage a 1 man war against the Russian mafia.

There is a huge amount to like in this film, especially the work of Washington, Moretz and Csokas. Denzel’s ability to command the scene is used to perfection here, whether it is the trauma of trying to deal with the nightmares and visions inside his head, or his fury at seeing a vulnerable woman being disgustingly exploited. Moretz also does great work, really making a profound impact with what is often treated as a story point to give the hero the reason to start his crusade. As noted on the special features, Moretz spent considerable time talking with prostitutes in order to fully inform her performance. One of the other reasons for the impact is, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that we are allowed to spend a decent amount of time with her as a character. And rounding this up, we have Marton Csokas as Teddy, although in no way is he a cuddly bear or harmless. A monster in human form, he is sent by the head of the Russian Mafia to clean up, following the initial attacks by McCall against the pimps who harmed Teri. 

The subsequent story, where McCall slowly eliminates everyone connected with the Mafia, leading to the big showdown, is great. And the whole film itself is really good as a whole as well. Direction is good, music/soundtrack great & stunts brilliant. It also nicely lays the ground for part 2, which is just as good. 

After the brilliant & surprisingly good 1st film, plus the large box office haul, it was only a matter of time until we got a sequel. But welcomingly, the standard of quality has been maintained & number 2 is again a great film, doing everything that a good sequel should: honour the themes & tone of the first film, don't mess with what worked, don't change too much and improve on what the initial film started. Another massive positive in this film's favour, although it isn't always a guarantee of a good film when this happens, is that the entire crew/director & the main cast have returned. And finally, another element of the series which has been kept & expanded upon is the amount of time given with characters/allowing the world we are in to be fleshed out. The different people McCall meets, from the young man teetering on the edge of joining a gang to the older gentleman who he regularly see, are all allowed breathing space & time to actually be real people.

After the events of the 1st film, some things have changed. For starters, Robert McCall seems in many ways slightly more at peace. He also has grown out his hair, wears more comfortable clothing & changed his job. Now working as a taxi driver, he spends his time driving round the city, encountering many of the inhabitants. Most are lovely, but as is the way, some are scumbags. However, his new-found peace is shattered when one of his friends is murdered & the circumstances just don't feel right. McCall is then pitted against new foes who are even more dangerous than the Mafia he took out in the previous movie.

Washington again is magnificent. I was watching this film with my best mate & part way through the film he said to me "I could just watch Denzel drive around all day, interacting with the different people he meets." And I felt the same way. McCall is such an interesting & dynamic individual, so it is a pleasure to be in his company. Melissa Leo, McCall's handler & close friend, is also great, giving him one of the only constants & comforts in his life. But we also have some new characters as well, front & center Pedro Pascal's Dave York, one of McCall's old colleagues, who has no idea he was still alive. Finally, there is Miles Whittaker, a young black man whose brother has been murdered & is teetering on the edge of falling down the dark & violent rabbit hole of gang culture/violence. The scenes of McCall taking Miles under his wing, whether as a gentle calm man or, when he catches Miles arming himself with the gang, roasting him & threatening to take his gun and shoot him, are all powerful.

There is much to love in these films & there is still a freshness to them. The final showdown also makes excellent use of the various deadly skills McCall has learnt during his military service. And welcomingly, things are set up perfectly for a 3rd film, which has just been released & which I'll be seeing tomorrow. Hopefully it'll be the send-off the character deserves.

But number 2 is powerful, great filmmaking from a cast & crew at the top of their game.

The only film I'd seen Mathieu Amalric in was as the villain in the James Bond movie Quantum of Solace, in which he played a one-note baddie whose primary trait was that he was a slimy Frenchman. But in the lead-up to the film's release, I remembered a lot of people talking about him being one of France's premier actors (and thus judging him only on that performance was unfair.) When scrolling through his IMDb, this film jumped out as not only did he write, act & direct it, but it also won awards at Cannes. I am always interested in seeing small-budget films, especially with writer/director/actors in them.

Unfortunately, this is a boring & surprisingly dull film, considering it having as it's subjects a troop of burlesque dancers. Amalric stars as Joachim, a washed-up former premier talkshow host/producer who had left France to go to the States but comes back with a company of burlesque dancers to put on shows around the French Republic. The dancers are extremely strong-willed & have no interest in listening to Joachim, preferring instead to mainly cause chaos in the hotels/towns they stay in.

In the 40 minutes I watched it, I simply saw a sequence of events which only tangentially connected to each other, but was in no way interesting. Joachim was shown either screaming down his phone at someone or standing around with a glazed expression whilst various people insulted him. There was some attempt to build characters out of the (real-life) dancers which amounted to almost nothing, even though this could have been extremely interesting.

But by far the worst thing about this film was the sound mix, which was absolutely atrocious & at times impossible to understand. For most of the part I watched, I had to turn my TV up to maximum volume simply to hear what was being said, but then the music/show sequences were "normal volume," so all of a sudden loud music would blare out, meaning I had to turn the volume down, before another dialogue scene which was quiet, meaning I had to turn it back up again.

After a while, I paused the film to use the washroom & saw it still had an hour to go, so switched it off. Whilst it may get better, I had run out of patience. Why it won awards at Cannes is beyond me...

After the incredible first John Wick film, made on a small budget with an original idea, did huge business at the box office, a sequel was inevitable. But unlike many follow-ons which simply repeated certain elements of the formula which worked & tried to introduce some new ideas which wouldn't alienate the fans, it is clear that the writers/director really took their time to work out exactly what they wanted to do & where they wanted the series/story to go. The result is an excellent & at times incredibly shot & choreographed sequel which builds on that world, as well as giving adrenaline junkies world-class action scenes to salivate.

John Wick visits a mob garage where his car is being held, slaughtering the mobsters & brokering a peace with the brother of Viggo, who he killed in the previous film's finale. He is then visited by Santino D'Antonio, whom he swore an unbreakable blood oath with, to carry out a killing. Wick refuses, then is attacked & forced to carrying out the contract. By doing so, he becomes a wanted man & has to fight against the army coming to attack him.

There are so many great things with this film, which is my favourite out of all of them, but the one which stands out more than any is quite simply how well-made it is as a film. As in, a genuinely thrilling, engrossing & exciting action film. Whilst Reeves is of course impeccable with his stunt abilities/choreography, the team surrounding him is also at the top of their game. Whether it is car chases or hand-to-hand combat, everything grabs you & makes you marvel at what is on screen.

But then the film goes into the top tier with the finale, nowhere more so than in the pursuit & fight in the mirror maze. The level of planning & CGI required to pull off that scene & actually make it work is almost beyond my comprehension. I sat open-mouthed at what was in front of me, really believing that Wick would not be able to fight his way out of this one.

Casting wise, alongside Reeves, it is fantastic to see Laurence Fishburne alongside him. Although their screen time is limited, the shorthand they started in The Matrix is back & you can tell how pleased they are to be back together again. Ian McShane & Lance Riddick are of course flawless, plus we also have a fantastic new addition in the form of Ruby Rose. I am a massive Rose fan, as the presence she brings is almost unmatched. Her stunt work is also incredible & she really needs a franchise of her own to truly show.

This film is a blast. I absolutely loved it & it is to me the pinnacle of the John Wick films.

The first Bridget Jones film was in many ways perfect. It took the romcom structure & really did wonders with it, creating a protagonist in Bridget Jones who was relatable whether you were a woman or a man. Partly this was down to the excellent performance by Renée Zellweger, but I also give huge credit to Sharon Maguire, the writer & director. Like Mary Harron with American Psycho, she took an extremely popular novel & character, writing a perfect script-to-screen transition which fleshed out everything you could possibly want.

But unfortunately, the inevitable sequel then did huge damage to all the hard work that was so hard fought for in the first film. It was a dull, boring & also lazy film which seemed to think that simply bringing back some of the greatest hits of the 1st film (such as having ANOTHER fight between Mark & Daniel, not a patch in any way on the genuine built-up animosity of before,) would service the fans and also disguise the flaws/thin story. And despite the big box office, it received mainly negative reviews.

So, when it was announced that Sharon Maguire was returning for the 3rd film, I was genuinely hopeful that the magic would return & undo some of the damage done by the previous entry. Unfortunately, this film is even worse than Edge of Reason, so much so I switched it off after 30 minutes.

And one of the biggest issues is with Zellweger herself & something I feel is the elephant in the room which cannot be discussed, but needs to be in an honest way. Zellweger has, between the 2nd & 3rd films, had some kind of procedure cosmetically. For the record, I AM NOT, IN ANY WAY, passing judgement or criticising anyone who wishes to change their appearance in whatever way they choose to. My opinion here is based solely on the character in this film series. And in the previous films Zellweger was, as Bridget Jones, a completely believable woman who was ordinary-looking/had the same worries about beauty as pretty much every other woman in the world.

But, in this film, quite simply it looks like Bridget Jones has had plastic surgery. Gone are the looks that we as the audience fell in love with because they were the same flaws we have. We don’t have the every-woman (as was so notably shown in the first film, even having as a signature song “I’m Every Woman,”) but someone whose face is found in every high-end beauty magazine. And this is the anthesis of who Bridget Jones is. And this is not in any way referenced or noted by anyone else. Zellweger is simply put back into this world, looking totally different, and the film just acts as if nothing has changed.

Once you get past this, you then have a script/story which just isn’t interesting. We have the usual set-ups, including the introduction of a new character who is designed to be this mystery new man who could change Jones’s life forever (and who is conveniently a billionaire, because these people just randomly wander around, with no security, at music festivals.) Mark Darcy is also brought back, but the events of the previous film, where they were basically about to walk down the isle, seem to be totally forgotten here.

To be honest, I didn’t get much further than that. I just lost interest. It was massively disappointing, having been such a fan of the 1st film and honestly hopeful that having the original team back would give this film a shot in the arm, for this to be the result.

Point Break is in many ways one of the ultimate 90's cult films. Its poster, with the iconic headshots of Reeves & Swayze against a wave breaking, is recognisable all over the world. It's sheer balls-out machismo & testosterone screams out of every frame on the screen. And for many people, the melding together of 2 high octane pursuits (surfing & bank robbing,) fit perfectly together. Throw into the mix the script which was partly written by the genius James Cameron (then Bigelow's husband,) and you should have a certified classic.

However, despite all the amazing action & surfing scenes, for me Point Break actually wasn't that good a film in terms of it's story. And it shocked me when I watched it, as this is the same woman who directed the incredible Zero Dark Thirty & Hurt Locker. The story is not only far-fetched, but doesn't really work at all. There are the standard clichéd scenes of learning to surf, the protagonist finding his feet (literally) within the surfing community & falling in love with the hot girl who has previously dated the main antagonist (an exceptional Lori Petty.) There are also discussions in the moonlight on the beach about philosophy & beliefs.

But there were precious few times when the film actually gelled & flowed. The narrative felt chopped up, stopping & starting, often just as the story was starting to get going again. And as much as there was some great chemistry, with some more polishing, the script could have been so much better.

When it comes to performances, my favourite was Lori Petty as Tyler. Not only does she play an extremely strong & fiercely intelligent woman who easily goes toe-to-toe with the macho men surrounding her, but you genuinely buy into the love she has for Reeve's Johnny Utah. Reeves himself also does good work, totally believable in the actions scenes (amusingly this film was probably one of the reasons he got the part of Neo,) as well as a vulnerability when he finds himself entangled within the group. And Swayze completes this triumvirate as the off-the-chain Bodhi, a man for whom no crazy adrenaline rush activity is enough, whether it's catching waves or robbing banks.

But despite my criticism, I give full credit to & revere the stunt work on this film. From the frenetic foot chase through to the parachute jumps (Swayze refusing to use stunt-doubles for the vast majority of his action,) this is world-class. I do also appreciate that for many people, the failings of the story/script are in many ways irrelevant, because you are there for the ride. But for me, it always has to be anchored by a strong story to make you care about what is on screen.

A good film, but with the pedigree in front & behind the camera, it should have been so much better.

Ralph Fiennes & Tilda Swinton are 2 absolute icons in their own right. Starring in some of the most impactful, challenging & provocative films ever made, their work is often unique & gripping. So when they signed on to star together in A Bigger Splash, I was immediately on board. Add in to the mix Matthias Schoenaerts (incredible in Bullhead, ironically the role which landed him this part) & Dakota Johnson (so much more than her role in the Fifty Shades films,) plus the fact this was made by Luca Guadagnino, you have pretty much the perfect set-up.

Marianne Lane is a legendary & iconic rockstar, who has had throat surgery & lost all ability to either sing or really speak. She was also rapidly approaching burn-out, so has gone totally off-radar & staying on a remote Italian island with her partner Paul. Their days of sunbathing naked, swimming pool sex & peaceful walks in the Italian countryside are then blown apart by the arrival of Harry Hawkes, Marianne's eccentric ex & producer, bringing along his newly-found daughter. Tensions then start to rise in this sun-drenched paradise.

Despite the mainly overwhelmingly negative reviews here, I had an absolute blast with this film. To be fair though, I can understand the annoyance of people towards Harry Hawkes (Fiennes.) For many viewers he will simply be too brash, annoying, over-the-top, irritating & every other metaphor like that you can think of. And often, these characters will also really annoy me too. But I not only totally bought into the world Harry exists in (record production surrounded by drink, drugs & every type of debauchery imaginable, which would affect almost anyone,) but also the brilliance & electricity of Ralph Fiennes and his performance. I would venture that nobody else could have played this role.

But that doesn't for a second mean that Tilda Swinton is sidelined. The woman is an absolute genius & titan of cinema, her talent unmatched. Here, she completely turns the standard burnt-out rockstar cliché on its head, mainly by insisting (and getting the script changed,) to make Marianne near-mute following throat surgery. This means Swinton acts almost primarily through her presence & motions, telling us everything with almost no dialogue.

Johnson & Schoenaerts also have great, meaty roles, he as the recovering alcoholic & painful introvert, she as the sexually vivacious young woman who wants to experience everything imaginable, irrelevant of the consequences.

Guadagnino creates an amazing & electric atmosphere, crackling with jealousy & sexual tension. In many ways, the first 10 minutes are a carbon copy of Sexy Beast (the perfect idyllic couple being blown apart by an unstoppable force,) although this is done much more slowly & deliberately here. We as the audience know that this mixing of characters, all of whom are extremely potent individuals, will be catastrophic & have far-reaching consequences. But the writing & actors keep you gripped.

The other elements of the film are brilliant as well. Every Guadagnino film looks & sounds amazing, with the beautiful island of Pantelleria becoming almost another character. The soundtrack, full of Rolling Stones tracks & opera, is also perfection.

As much as the brashness has clearly put some viewers off, I loved my time spent in this world & these amazing, idiosyncratic characters.

In 1973, this film exploded Martin Scorsese, Harvey Keitel & Robert De Niro onto the cinematic & public conscious. The story of mob enforcer Charlie (Keitel) who is attempting to support & shield his unpredictable & highly volatile best friend Johnny Boy (De Niro) from the litany of loan sharks after him for huge debts, whilst still fulfilling his Mafioso duties, has become cinematic legend. It is also interesting to see many of the traits this film has which influenced their next collaboration, Taxi Driver.

But whilst there are many great points, such as the performances (especially De Niro's,) and the incredible on-location shoot, there were many times where the story didn't really go anywhere. There is an absolute & undeniable tension, especially as the film reaches it's conclusion, but there was also a lot of padding which developed the setting but not much else.

One thing to add, as for many film fans me not giving this 5 stars/raving about it is tantamount to sacrilege, is that this is unquestionably a film of its time. But I always review these films honestly, so if I watch it again and feel differently, I will absolutely adjust my review. I did enjoy it, it just didn't hit me the way Taxi Driver & Goodfellas did.

In so many ways, 8 Mile shouldn't work. The rags-to-riches/redemption story, using the medium of music or sport in particular, have been done so many times before, in so many different ways. Whilst you have the classics such as Rocky, movies following this arc are ten-a-penny, with many of them clichéd-riddled & trite. Also, as much as this movie is based loosely on Eminem's/Marshall Mathers's life growing up in Detroit, normally casting the actual person as the protagonist, especially when they aren't a trained actor but known for something else, leads to screams of nepotism & results in a terrible movie.

But 8 Mile is, to quote one enthusiastic review "the rap Rocky." It is a sensational, brilliant & deeply hopeful story about friendship, family & the belief in yourself to change your life. And at the center of this is a lead performance which has everything you could possibly want, and more.

Jimmy "Rabbit" is a young Detroit man whose life is in a downward spiral: he comes from a broken home, with a depressed mom who throws herself at any man who shows her attention, often neglecting Jimmy's young sister; he has just broken up with his girlfriend who allegedly is pregnant in order to keep his car; he barely scrapes a living doing menial "blue-collar" work and like so many others, is just trying to find a way out of the grinding poverty he exists in. But Jimmy also has an incredible skill for rap, an integral part of the Detroit community identity. Actively encouraged by his many friends, Jimmy looks to win the weekly rap battles & gain recognition.

One of the best parts of this film for me is how authentic it is. Every single person, from Jimmy to his coworkers, feels real. The millions of films where there are the stock characters who are just in the background & contribute nothing to the narrative are nowhere to be seen. Partly this is due to shooting on location in Michigan, but also the hiring of local people for these roles. It is a sad but true fact that, with the levels of depravity in that US state, you would simply point the camera & shoot what is in front of you, with very little set design needed.

But this realness also seeps into the relationships you see, mainly around Jimmy's wide variety of friends of all races. There is a real community strength on screen, as well as an honest look at friendships which are tested to breaking point but never crumble. And there is the feeling of hope which runs through the entire narrative: these people may be in poverty, but they are not broken. There are no easy answers but there is also the belief in themselves & their town.

And leading all this is Eminem & his incredible debut. All of the brash, Slim Shady arrogance is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we have an incredibly nuanced, completely open & vulnerable performance, with a character we start rooting for from the opening credits. Jimmy is who we would like to think we could be in that situation: loyal, strong, caring & never beaten, no matter what horrors are thrown our way. And it staggers me that, 22 years later, we haven't had another film for him to show his incredible talent for acting (I'm not talking about cameos in things like The Interview.)

I loved this film. It is an authentic, real & heartfelt look at people who graft, struggle & believe in themselves & their friends. From the opening shots to the final showdown, it is brilliant.

After the juggernaut that was Cocaine Bear, a B-movie which was loosely based on a true story, did gangbusters at the box office (considering it's budget & release when cinemas were still struggling after COVID,) it was no surprise that it would inspire many copycats hoping to cash in on this particular gravy train. After all, when you have an expensively produced Hollywood film which is designed to emulated trashy micro-budget thrillers, it is very easy to simply make a cheap trashy film which has some ropey CGI & a roll call of actors looking to book roles in anything that pays a few dollars. And so this "mockbuster," the official term for these types of films, was born.

But, as much as I started this with an open mind, very quickly it falls into that trap that so many of these rip-offs do: it's boring. In the opening scene, we see the origin of the "Meth Gator," a huge amphibian who ends up chasing some drug dealers & ingesting a suitcase full of narcotics, which then transforms it into this unstoppable behemoth. These drugs also make it impervious to bullets & able to leap high into the air to conveniently eat the drone tracking it...

In the 30 minutes I watched it, there was a lot of dull exposition, some halfhearted attempts at tension & some stupid redneck characters who should have had "Dead meat" & "Sacrificial lamb" tattooed on their foreheads. All of this is forgiveable if the film itself is fun & enjoyable, but this just isn't. It's just another film attempting a cash grab, after it's creators & producers saw which was the cinematic wind was blowing.

When the 1st series of True Detective was released, it genuinely was a game-changer. Whilst it not only had a sensational & brilliant script, amazing direction & flawless performances, it also heralded the start of TV series's (for decades looked down upon as inferior to films,) attracting A-list talent on both sides of the camera. But whilst it's impact on TV as a whole is undisputed, the same can't be said for the series going forward.

Series 2 was atrocious, trying to take some of the themes from the 1st series & wrapping this in a boring & convoluted story. The critical backlash was also significant, following the uniform adoration of the previous series. Series 3 did pull the wheel back a bit, in no small part thanks to Ali & Dorff's performances. But it still was mediocre. Then for 5 years, the anthology lay dormant, until a complete refresh was announced, the 1st without creator Nic Pizzolatto's involvement.

On paper it looked so perfect... Jodie Foster, flawless in almost everything, returning to a police/officer role after The Silence of the Lambs; the enormous budgets/clout of HBO, the various elements of the True Detective world which could be used and finally a staggering cast including John Hawks & Christopher Eccleston. But despite some brilliant individual moments, this is on a par with series 2 for enjoyment.

The occult & supernatural theme, which was a key element in series 1, but one which sat beautifully within the narrative, here is front & center. And whilst this gets very trite VERY quickly, what it also becomes is an extremely lazy way for the writers to attempt to ratchet up tension. So, characters will have visions/hallucinations which perfectly finish at the right time or create a new plot device.

Also, in line with a lot of media content produced, a very large number of the hot-button issues in society today are included in the storyline, such as global warming, indigenous rights, LGBTQ themes ect. I want to be explicitly clear here that I am not going to go down the lazy rabbit hole of just saying "woke" as the be-all-and-end-all to dismiss this, because stories are a crucial way to inform people of these issues.

My problem & another reason why this series is rubbish is because all of those issues & more are simply shoehorned in/thrown into the narrative as if to say "Look at all these things which we have put into this show." It is like a great big gloopy soup of multiple hot button problems thrown onto the screen with very little nuance.

Over 6 episodes, we are taken through the story, with some good elements & tension. But Foster's character in particular spends a lot of time simply being a bitch, with hints of previous trauma to do a lot of heavy lifting for this. Eccleston is wasted, Hawkes doesn't fare much better & Reis ill-served by the script which often simply relegates her to clichéd partner stuff.

But where I really started to hate it was in the lazy callbacks to previous series, mainly the 1st, as a way to try & bridge the narratives. For example, a random character is introduced as being related to another with no mention of it again, solidifying the impression of it being a lazy throwback. This happens several times, again simply mentioning lines in passing.

The final straw was the uttering of an iconic line as an attempt at some kind of pay-off, as which point I just wanted the series to be over so I could actually go & watch a decent series, not just reheated crap which felt so self-congratulatory it was vomit inducing. The final episode, including something which happens to a character which they simply could not come back from, was the final nail in the coffin.

Sadly, I am now done with the True Detective format. What was once the potentially genre-altering brilliance of series 1 has now become just another trite TV show which sullied it's once remarkable name.

Avoid

For a very large number of people, whilst they might not even know the title of this film, they will have seen the poster. The iconic image of Béatrice Dalle, in a white profile on a blue night sky with stars, was everywhere in the late 80's/early 90's, on bedroom walls & in the back of film & TV scenes. It has also become a cult film, mainly among the young men who flocked to see it because of its frank & fearless sexuality.

Watching it, having seen almost none of the other French films around that time, what struck me most was the profound influence it has had on many of the films that followed it, as well as clearly having had a considerable impact of those writers/directors. Both The Dreamers and Blue is the Warmest Colour owe a lot to it, whether in the depiction of relationships/intimacy on screen or simply setting up a scene & allowing us as the audience to observe/get lost in the world these characters live in.

And that last sentence embodies what I loved most about this film: to be in that world & share time with these two dynamic & real people. This film would have totally & utterly failed had the 2 actors not been fully committed to it, whether in the fearlessness of the nudity/sex scenes, or simply the playing off of each other as they progress from living in a shack on the beach through to a big French house in a beautiful little village.

Where the film for me doesn't work is in the depiction of the struggles of Betty with her mental health. She will go from happy & joyful one minute to having full meltdowns & destroying everything in sight the next, but this never really is shown to affect Zorg in the way you might think. The 1st meltdown in the film, where she literally destroys the house/belongings of a man she has known a week, prompts almost indifference in him. Then when she does it again shortly afterwards, he simply watches her, despite the fact it is established very early on that he is living almost hand-to-mouth.

As the story progresses & their relationship goes through it's ups and downs, this is the one thing which constantly derails the film narrative. I found myself eye-rolling at these points, because it turned the film from a fearless & frank love story into a high-budget version of EastEnders or Coronation Street. However, I do give the film massive credit for showing how devastating mental illness is at that period in time, when for most people whenever they thought of psychiatric illness, their mind instantly went to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Betty is an extremely relatable & vivacious woman, far more than a one-dimensional love interest.

If you have 3 hours to spare and want to go on this journey, there will be plenty to love. But you may finish it & wish the writing/story was a bit more tighter.

Brett Easton-Ellis first exploded into the literary world with Less Than Zero in 1985. A story of completely no-holds-barred & uncensored depravity, it quickly became a cult novel as well as a best seller. It also firmly established Easton-Ellis's vicious & satirical view of the world, along with the characters he created. Other novels followed, including American Psycho, looking at this brutal vision of his from different angles.

Obviously, when it came to adapting the novels for films, there were mixed results. The greatest of these, as well as my own personal favourite (it went straight into my top 10 films of all time, where it has stayed & will never be beaten,) was American Psycho. Featuring a masterful, incredible performance by Christian Bale, it was also highly successful as well as becoming a cult behemoth.

However, the real star of the film is Mary Harron, who took the novel, it's themes & story, then used those to craft her original script (along with Guinevere Turner,) into the masterpiece I love. If you had tried to literally film the novel with all the various characters & their idiosyncrasies, it would have been a very different & fairly repellent film.

And that is the problem with The Rules of Attraction.

In the 40 minutes I watched it, I was shown a conveyor belt of the stereotypical Easton-Ellis characters, each given their own montage & look into their back-stories. They are all loathsome, spoilt rich kids who are indifferent about the world around them, with no charm or anything even remotely likeable. The film itself is almost an exercise in tolerating the worst society can produce being paraded in front of you & challenging you to in any way relate to or want to follow their journeys.

Gone is the charm or humour in watching these creatures live their lives (although there were a couple of bitingly funny lines,) instead being thrown into a cesspool of revolting acts (within the opening 10 minutes, a woman is raped & her rapist sick over her, whilst another man voyeuristically films this; whilst this is happening, the woman provides a dull, disinterested narration of this.)

After 40 minutes, I just found myself thinking that I really had no interest in wasting any more of my time watching this garbage. When done right, antiheroes can be some of the best protagonists in films (such as American Psycho...) But when this is not done well, you just find yourself having to spend time with people who in real life you would cross the road not to be in the same street as them.