Film Reviews by Timmy B

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.

I will never forget seeing this film. It is burned into my memory, such is it's power. I had heard rave reviews for it, then managed to score a ticket to an advanced preview screening weeks before it's release. From it's opening moments, with grainy mobile phone footage capturing horrific random violence, then watching as a seemingly mild-mannered & frail pensioner transforms into an avenging angel, I was captivated. But it is also a film which emphatically shows the negatives of this journey, not just becoming another Death Wish knock-off.

Harry Brown is a retired Royal Marine Commando, who lives a mundane & simple life on a London estate. He visits his wife every day in hospital, who is in the final stages of a horrific terminal disease. Aside from an occasional pint with his friend Len, he keeps an extremely low profile. Then one day, Len is murdered by a group of thugs who have been terrorising the estate & whose behaviour has spiralled out of control. After being told that the police will not be prosecuting them, Harry's anger explodes & he launches a one-man mission to exact revenge on the youths.

What I love most about this film is how carefully it is scripted & crafted. The world that Brown lives in is one which many people recognise, even though there were some commentators at the time who hysterically accused it of sensationalism. And whilst with every film there is dramatic licence taken, there were hundreds of stories of communities being terrorised by these sorts of individuals, who felt powerless to act.

It is also unashamedly shown, like with many of the best revenge thrillers, just how impactful Brown's actions are to him, in the sense of starting to enjoy & get satisfaction from the wrongs he feels he is righting, but never straying into the danger territory of cliché. Whilst some stories leave you at the end wondering whether the person becomes someone who cannot live without violence, there is a clear line drawn under this, which perfectly compliments the story arc.

Having said all that, I cannot in any way deny the satisfaction of seeing Brown terrorise & bring rough justice to some of the vermin who have not only killed his friend but brought fear to countless others. But the film is just as powerful when Brown himself opens up to one of these individuals, sharing his own pain from his military service.

As Harry Brown, Michael Caine is absolutely sensational. His decades of acting & wealth of experience pay dividends here, making Brown both a man filled with anger & pain, the two emotions constantly fighting each other but clearly destroying him. And that is such a rarity in these types of films, or if there is some attempt to give the protagonist layers, the actor is better at firing a gun than expressing personal trauma.

The supporting cast are great, in particular Emily Mortimer & David Bradley. Jack O'Connell & Plan B also bring suitably disgusting energy to their characters. Another perfect part of this film is the soundtrack. Mixing hip-hop & rap with traditional but beautiful brass original compositions, the music truly becomes another character. Daniel Barber's direction is also exceptional.

This is one of those films which genuinely is as good as you think it will be. And Caine proves once again why he is one of our greatest ever actors

One of countless films which enabled writer/director Clint Eastwood to not only play some variation of law enforcement, but also to slightly vary his tough guy schtick which served him extremely well in the Dirty Harry film series.

The Rookie stars Eastwood as street-wise & experienced detective Nick Pulovski. After a sting operation attempting to catch career criminal Strom goes wrong & Pulovski's partner is killed, he is partnered with young & fresh-faced rookie David Ackerman, much to Pulovski's chagrin. They then go after Strom again, determined to bring him down once & for all.

When it comes to originality, forget it. This film wears it's clichés like badges of honour. From the opening scene with Pulovski's partner being killed, to the showdown at the end, you know what you are in for. When I was watching this with my close friend who I see many films with, sometimes we just had to see the opening shots to know exactly what was going to happen. There were also plenty of times we burst out laughing at the sheer on-the-nose/clichéd dialogue that first Eastwood & later Sheen say on screen.

But this film also has some surprises, which elevate it above many other terrible cop thrillers released around that time. Far & away the best thing about this film is the absolutely incredible stunt work which is featured throughout it, from the opening chase featuring an articulated car transporter, through to the jaw-dropping escape by car out of an exploding building, all done for real with no CGI. The film, like many of Eastwood's movies, is also extremely competently directed by him, zipping along at a good pace & never being boring.

Another "surprise," but one which was both extremely weird & fairly unpleasant was a rape, committed by a woman on a man, which was filmed almost like a love scene, not a sexual assault, and which the film then revisits later on almost to get laughter but comes across as extremely bad taste.

One of the biggest surprises to me was the almost total lack of chemistry between Eastwood and Sheen. Here are two actors who, in their previous work, have unbelievable screen presence & charisma. But here, they never truly gel, which then makes Ackerman's later actions both far-fetched & odd. Raul Julia looks like he is having a ball, capitalising on his post-Addams Family success.

Overall, this is a decent film with a few twists & turns to keep you interested. However, when you know just how good Eastwood in particular can be, you do come away feeling slightly short-changed. Full marks to the stunt coordinator though

For many people, Deliverance is an iconic slice of American cinematic history. Made on a moderate budget but deliberately sabotaged by the studio to try & shut it down, it then became an enormous success both financially & critically, nominated for both Oscars and Golden Globes. It also launched the careers of John Boorman & Ned Beatty. The main reason I had rented it was because of it's iconic status as well as hearing Charley Boorman (the director's son,) talking about his cameo at the end. But the actual film itself was for me a very mixed beast.

Four friends decide to go on a canoeing trip down a river which will soon be closed off by the state. Lewis (Reynolds) is an adventurer & outdoor enthusiast, who has been on trips with Ed in the past. Bobby & Drew have been persuaded by Lewis's bombastic personality and promises of adventure to come along for the ride, both of whom have no experience in these surroundings. Whilst at first the quartet have a good time, they are then attacked & a horrific assault is committed on one of them, leading to revenge & a desperate fight to survive.

For many, the best part of this film, as well as one of the most well-known, is the opening "Duelling banjos" scene between one of the men & the severely inbred son of one of the locals. This is both unexpected & also highly entertaining, making the later events all the more shocking. There is some good chemistry between the actors, especially in the establishing scenes between them.

However, this film is incredibly uneven in many ways. For example, the cinematography, whilst beautifully composed by Vilmos Zsigmond, also at times looks absolutely horrendous. There are scenes which were clearly meant to be set at night-time which are instead shot during the day then darkened artificially post-production in the film lab. These look so bad, so terrible & so garish that for me it genuinely affected my opinion on the film, even when factoring in when it was made.

There are other moments which again are really badly staged, such as one character managing to shoot not only someone else, but also himself, at the same time, with two separate arrows... which is physically impossible.

But this film manages to impact you in many profound ways as well. The infamous sexual assault is unbelievably nasty & brutal, as well as the stark religious imagery & the uncompromising hell which these men go through as they fight to survive. There also needs to be massive respect given to the 4 actors, who did most of their own stunts, including Jon Voight, who actually climbed the sheer cliff face on his own with no assistance.

But despite all I have said, this was for me absolutely not the masterpiece which many others hold it up as. It is a shocking & well-acted film, but also an extremely uneven one.

The Aristocats is one of the first films I remember watching as a child. It's combination of bright colours, iconic songs ("Everybody wants to be a cat!") and perfect voice acting made it a winning choice. And it has aged wonderfully over the years. It also had for me a couple of moments which are so funny, I burst out laughing every time (Roquefort cracking the padlock & O'Malley's reaction to the van braking.)

The tale of Duchess & her kittens being catnapped by the greedy butler of her owner in order to claim the estate after she passes is a simple one, but is populated with the classic characters found throughout Disney's stories. And in O'Malley, a tough alleycat who is instantly smitten with Duchess, you are taken on an adventure through the backstreets & countryside of France, complete with great music.

A brilliant adventure suitable for any age

The coming of age, exploration of sexuality drama is one which has been told in many different ways. Because of this, it can be hard to find new & compelling ways to add to it without it just being a re-hash of many previous films. But Giant Little Ones is admirable in its decision to go in unexpected directions, managing to avoid the multiple clichés which the genre has.

Frankie & Ballas are high-school royalty, popular & best friends since they were young. They spend all day together & tell each other everything. At Frankie's birthday party, after many drinks & when everyone has gone home, the two best friends end up experimenting with each other sexually, before Ballas runs away, scared of what the situation may mean. He then turns on Frankie, as does much of his friend group. Frankie then has to come to terms with this, whilst dealing with conflict in his own family as well.

The most admirable thing this film does is to emphatically not go down the normal clichéd route of two guys being intimate & then the whole film being about them not only coming to terms with their sexuality, but then the fairytale ending. Yes, the experience is the catalyst for the change of circumstances within their lives, but the film is just as interested in the other difficulties & challenges Frankie faces.

There are some solid performances & this also clearly was a passion project/meant a great deal to Maria Bello, who not only stars but also executively produces it, the events mirroring some of her own life experiences. Sadly, despite all this, alongside the choice to deal with some extremely traumatic incidents which weren't often mentioned in this type of film genre, it comes across as extremely soapy in many ways. Despite it's 15 certificate, if you took out the swearing, it often is like watching an episode of Hollyoaks or Coronation Street.

But there is plenty to admire about the narrative, plus an extremely powerful scene between Frankie & his recently out father, which the story thankfully again avoids becoming a Kumbaya moment. And the fact that the film is not just about the same-sex moment between the two friends, but many of the difficulties of growing up & finding out who you are, is to it's credit.

A solid & at times powerful story of self-discovery

Over decades, Stanley Kubrick quite simply reinvented & changed cinema forever, to the extent that Steven Spielberg called 2001 "our generation's Big Bang." When you watched a Kubrick film, you knew you would genuinely see something which would become a trailblazer & the stuff of legend. After a 12 year gap following the release of Full Metal Jacket, he returned for what would become his unexpectedly final film (passing away 6 days after finalising it.)

The expectation & anticipation was off the scale, heightened by the casting of unquestionably the 2 biggest movie stars on the planet at that time, who also happened to be married to each other, costarring together in a film which was marketed as an explicit sexual romp. But Kubrick's final act is not what many cinema-goers expected it to be.

Dr Bill Harford is a highly-regarded & popular doctor, who has a picture-perfect life with his beautiful wife Alice & young daughter, living in New York City. One night after smoking weed with Alice, she confesses to him that on a recent holiday, she fell in love with a handsome sailor & considered abandoning Bill & her family, and has since fantasised about the potential passionate encounters with this mysterious man. This leaves Bill heartbroken & when he is called out on a medical emergency, he then goes on a nighttime odyssey through the seedy underbelly of New York.

The biggest myth to debunk is that this is emphatically not the hardcore sex-fest or erotic thriller which was promised by the marketing material, leading to frenzied ticket sales and the anticipation of seeing Cruise & Kidman naked in the heat of passion. I personally found this way of thinking both ludicrous & funny: one of the most technically acclaimed directors ever suddenly deciding to make a soft-core porn film, let alone Cruise and Kidman agreeing to do it.

Because Eyes Wide Shut is a very different & at times slow-going morality tale. Yes, there is sex & nudity, but this is in no way erotic. The much talked-about orgy is in many ways extremely unerotic, due to the music & the very real sense that most of its participants are in some way imprisoned within that life. Kubrick is clearly far more interested in not only the fragility of marriage & relationships, but also how one revelation can lead to a seismic breakdown of everything you held dear.

Unfortunately, despite all the beauty on screen (by this I mean production design, cinematography & lighting, which of course being a Kubrick film are world-class,) this film is also very boring. Harford is, despite Cruise clearly giving it everything, an extremely boring protagonist in a story which is itself often prone to naval-gazing (Cruise himself has gone on the record stating his dislike of the character, despite his awe of working with Kubrick.) Some of the other actors don't fare much better either, although Alan Cumming has a memorably creepy cameo as a hotel concierge.

But this film is in many ways saved by Kidman. Her performance is extraordinary. Alice is an extremely complicated character, who knows in that moment of honesty, what she is doing, the devastation she is about to unleash. But she is also unbelievably fragile & clearly scared of the consequences of her sexual yearning. The fantasy intimate sequences with the attractive sailor, far from being erotic, are an uncomfortable look at just how far her desires go, irrelevant of their ramifications.

There is no doubt Eyes Wide Shut will stay with you, both as a visual experience but also as a parable about life & relationships. And for many people, if they manage to get all the way to the end, they may not like it that much. But despite my 3 star rating, I was profoundly moved by it, even though it was at times a long slog. And this is in many ways Kidman's best performance, despite my love for Moulin Rouge & Destroyer. She breaks your heart & gives you no easy answers.

Syriana is incredible. It is a film which I saw not long after it was released in 2005. I watched it an almost empty cinema, which was the perfect place to view it (no annoying noises from other people, or hushed whispers of "I didn't understand that.) And believe me, there would have been a lot of that. This film is deliberately confusing, with multi-strand narratives & characters interacting with each other. For many people, that would immediately put them off. But the film is so well-crafted, so perfectly performed & paced, that if you stay with it, it will blow you away.

In loose terms, the film looks at the impact of a new oil deal in the Middle East. We follow the workers on the ground who, despite loyalty & hard graft, have been laid-off without a second thought; the energy analyst who is reporting on oil deals who gets sucked into the orbit of the Emir's business after a tragedy; the lawyer working on behalf of the legal firm investigating if there is criminality in this merger; the secret service agent who is attempting to track down a stolen American missile after a sting goes wrong, plus other different strands relating to this stories.

This is intrinsic, dense storytelling but it is also a masterpiece of subtly. Clooney, who won pretty much every award going (including an Oscar,) is electric. To look at Bob Barnes, you would never think he is a spy, much less imagine that he is capable of espionage. Podgy, with a salt-and-pepper beard & an easy-going manner, he becomes a dogged & relentless pursuer of the truth following a deal gone bad. Never more is this shown than a midnight meeting with a powerful handler of his whom he turns the tables on. Damon also does strong work, reminding you that when he isn't playing Jason Bourne or another action hero, he is a powerful presence.

I loved the locations the film uses (over 200 of them,) taking us all around the world as the different parts of the story interconnect. At times, you are in total confusion as to who is involved with what and how that effects the storyline. And the film offers no easy answers. I cannot think of another film within recent memory which not only challenges you, but takes the time to make fully-rounded & believable characters.

Syriana was also unique in that it was an American Hollywood film which took the time to show just how people can be sucked into terrorism & suicide-bombing, without it being either a sappy saccharine sob-story or simply a plot device to make the other parts work, without fully committing to it. These aren't simply "Bad Muslims who hate America & want to destroy it," but complex & desperate people who through circumstance go down a dangerous & deadly path.

The only other thing I will add to my review is that this is a film that has to be watched a minimum of two times, in order to fully appreciate & understand it's nuances, complexities & story. But it's impact will stay with you forever.

Stunning filmmaking

Tim Vine is an institution. Still going strong after decades in the business (his debut on TV was in 1996 I believe,) this show contains his one-liners alongside extremely random & weird props and sight gags.

But even though there were several absolutely brilliant one-liners and gags, it simply couldn't sustain an over 1 hour show, something Vine makes humourous reference to many times but towards the end is in danger of being too truthful... Even as a big fan of his, it stretched my patience.

I don't for a second lose sight of just how hard it must be to write a comedy show, especially once you get into the circuit and have to keep producing new material. But there comes a point where maybe a break and a bit more time writing could be a good thing.