Film Reviews by Timmy B

When Normal People was first shown, it was reported as being a cultural zeitgeist. Showered with awards & praise for the different elements (realistic depictions of teenage mental health, sex & the struggles young people face when they go out into the world,) it was something I was aware of, but had no real interest in seeing at that time. But when it popped up on my recommendations, as well as the fact that, in particular, Paul Mescal has now become a hugely revered actor, I rented it. But much like The Responder, another massively revered TV drama, it was quite middle of the road for me.

There are many excellent moments, such as the performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones & Mescal have excellent chemistry, as well as an easy working relationship, in terms of how clearly they trust each other. The other characters, particularly Connor's Mother, are also well written & provide an important balance to the emotion and drama. The locations are also stunning, particularly the beach scenes, showing how beautiful a place Northern Ireland is.

There are also some extremely powerful moments, particularly in the representation of mental illness. One episode, which I won't detail too much/spoil, shows a significant mental health breakdown with honesty, compassion, care & incredible acting. The decision to clearly show the enormous positives that happen by seeking out professional support is vital & hugely welcome for a mainstream series. In this respect, Normal People is to be rightly lauded & hugely praised.

So why the 3 stars, given all I've just said?

Quite simply, there are many elements which just didn't "work" in the sense of the narrative & content. The sex scenes for example, which a huge amount was written about, especially the use of an "intimacy coordinator," were both well-shot but also quite unrealistic, which you factor in how the entire series is supposed to be about depicting as real a relationship as possible between two young people. In Normal People's world, its mostly extremely vanilla with the same couple of acts, but then to really "push out the boat," we get a vague attempt to show more risqué intimacy, which again doesn't work within the context.

With characters, there are also some fairly unrealistic people as well. One guy in particular, considering the nuance & brilliant writing of the main leads, is just depicted as an out-and-out arsehole with no redeemable story arc, mainly to me because the opinions he has the writers didn't like, but had to embellish more so that he could be depicted as some reprehensible figure. Marianne's family also don't get much depth either, particularly the older brother, who again is just a ball of rage & bile.

There was absolutely some monumentally moving scenes, which were deeply affecting, but for me overall the series was just too bitty & uneven. I would still recommend it, but it never reached the grand heights it set itself.

After the incredible Starred Up, plus some memorable other performances in dramas (Dive & Harry Brown in particular,) I was always looking out for anything Jack O'Connell was in. And when I saw the premise of & look of this film, I immediately was interested in seeing it. A relatively recent conflict, a strong cast and from the trailer/synopsis, a chase film, made me think this would be a home run. But even though it was many years ago that I watched this film, I still have the same overriding feeling about it: a waste of incredible potential.

All the right ingredients are there, but it just doesn't have the impact that it should have. And the main problem was that I never related to or felt particularly moved by the protagonist Gary Hook. The film allows us the stereotypical early scenes of trying to establish a backstory of sorts, but this is almost blink & you'll miss it. If this is a character I'm going to be spending 90 minutes with, I want to relate to them and be so engrossed with their story that I am on the edge of my seat. But Hook is in many respects never more than just an average grunt who is put into an exceptional situation.

And what makes this more frustrating is that firstly O'Connell does the absolute best he can with the weak material he is given, but also when the script is good, he shines. But I never felt enough to care about his plight that much. I WANTED to care about it, and a couple of times I felt like the film was getting into gear, but it then just fell flat.

There are however some good moments. The initial chase sequence is expertly shot & Sean Harris as the undercover commander is excellent as always. The colour palette is also great, as are the locations.

But I wanted so much more. I feel that another viewing may change my opinion, plus I was watching it with a friend who really enjoyed it. However, it was never anything more than average for me.

I loved this film. Loved it, adored it, revered it. And the reason why is very simple: it is a film which shows the horrors of racism in 1960’s Deep South, but not by bashing its viewer over the head with many stark & horrific images. To be clear, and to scotch any bad faith criticism, I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that there should be no films made showing the horrors of racism. There have been countless stories told which show this, in amongst them some incredible ones like Selma, American History X & Detroit. My point is that the reason why Green Book was so impactful for me, in a different way, was because we have 2 characters who actually feel like real people, who we can relate to.

And because there is a lightness of touch and humour, this makes the scenes of racism much more horrific & impactful. The 2 star Cinema Paradiso review to me has been written in completely bad faith, it’s author already deciding how this film is to him, viewing it through his own ideological lens and not actually being prepared to enjoy the world that has been created, mainly due to the fact that this film doesn’t repeatedly keep screaming “RACISM IS BAD!” every 2 minutes. 

For me, the performances are what makes this film so amazing. As Tony Lip, Viggo is perfection: a larger than life, full-blooded Italian wild-heart, who absolutely has his own bigotries and trauma. But he is a real go-getter as a person, lighting up every room with his personality as well as his incredible warmth. And matching him toe-to-toe is Ali as Don Shirley. He is a man deeply traumatised & scarred by the racism, oppression & threats that have followed him from the moment he was born. He is also a man of stratospheric talent, whose gift of music is totally opposite to his insular, confrontational behaviour, borne out of the life he has had to lead in every respect. 

Whilst there are the standard road-trip tropes, these beautifully compliment the story, the two of them really starting to bond. And the ending is also one which, whilst heartwarming, is in no way a cop-out. The impact the two men have on each other's lives really is profound. Direction-wise, this is light touch & allows the actors to act, with lovely cinematography as well.

Finally, there is one other falsehood which received plenty of media coverage & in light of the Cinema Paradiso review, I want to ensure is corrected: members of Don Shirley’s family were extremely vocal in their criticism of the fact that they were not consulted/allowed their input to the film’s story. The reason for this, which wasn’t reported in anything like the same volume, is that Don Shirley himself, who told his life story to the scriptwriter as well as Tony Lip’s son, was estranged from all of his family. He further specifically told the writers not to talk to anyone about him. Whilst there was some regret from Ali about not speaking to the remaining Shirley family, this wasn’t a deliberate act. 

After the Bourne Supremacy I, like many other people, had an anticipation/expectation reaching into the stratosphere of what Ultimatum would do & if it would be able to both maintain the current incredible story quality as well as improving on it & subsequently the Jason Bourne universe. And when I first watched it in the cinema, I came away massively disappointed. It wasn’t the film I was expecting, but also there was another big reason for my dislike: I had read an interview leading upto the film’s release with the director Paul Greengrass, where he absolutely laid into & excoriated the Bond film series.

This sat badly with me for 2 reasons: firstly, there is no doubt that the existence of the 007 franchise, whatever its shortcomings, laid the groundwork for espionage films such as Bourne to be successful & actively interesting to the public; secondly, I am a huge Bond fan, again accepting that there have been a few times over the years where, yes, the films lost their way. So this didn’t sit well with me.

But then, after watching the film, another reason emerged which eclipsed the previous 2 & also was unbelievable rank hypocrisy: Ultimatum lifted wholesale various sequences from previous Bond films, the most glaring one being the Tangier action sequence, which is practically identical to The Living Daylights. And the action sequences themselves are also quite badly shot. The shaky cam & editing, (whilst not a patch on Green Zone, still the worst Greengrass film by some wide margin,) is still terrible & showed the rot was starting to set in. 

Another of Ultimatum’s big issues is the story itself. There are some completely unbelievable & also ludicrously stupid events shown, such as at one point Bourne casually strolling into & having no difficulty gaining access to a deep-cover CIA building. I also hated the final car chase through NYC, which was frantically cut & edited due to the fact that the vehicles were not travelling fast (whilst this was due to location restrictions imposed by the government forbidding cars driving fast, its doesn’t matter how much you manipulate the film, a car going 30MPH cannot be made to look faster.)

So why 4 stars? Quite simply, because on rewatching this many years later, it is a much better film. All the issues above remain & if I’d been reviewing this after I first saw it, the most I’d have given it would be 3 stars, but that would be pushing it. But this film also has many great parts, not least the opening which picks up beautifully from the end of Supremacy, and the end which references the 1st film’s most poignant moment. Despite the plagiarism, the Tangier sequence also has some incredible stunt work, as does the fight sequence against agent Desh.

The cast are also amazing, my favourite being Pamela Landy, Joan Allen really raising the standard of everyone around her. David Strathairn was also great as Noah Vosen, as well as Scott Glenn as Ezra Kramer. And leading all of this is Matt Damon as Bourne. Despite this film’s issues, he is a brilliant protagonist & a fully believable action star. There is no doubt to me that Bourne would not be able to be played by anyone else. 

So whilst this is a convoluted mess, it is also a good film & one I do recommend, although obviously with caveats. 

I rented this purely because it was directed by Gavin O'Connor who, after Pride & Glory and Warrior, basically gets a free pass for life. Whilst he has also directed some rather poor films (Jane Got A Gun being one, although that film's production troubles are legendary & O'Connor was parachuted in at the last moment, so I doubt even the greatest director in the world could have turned that around,) I remained hopeful that because of the cast, this film could be good.

But this film is quite simply boring. Dull, long, meandering & uninteresting. I couldn't relate to it in any way, didn't care about it and switched it off after 40 minutes.

So why the 2 stars & not 1? Because I give this film one massive piece of credit & respect: the main character is autistic & the director/production went to enormous lengths to not only accurately show the trauma/impact of serious autism, but also to not in any way use it as a easy shorthand/exploit it as a convenient story angle to leverage sympathy or false compassion.

That is so rare in films made then that, despite not being interested in the script or story, I give it that massive piece of credit.

It's still rubbish though...

The opening action sequence/set piece of Flight is breathtaking. As in, a momental, staggering & technically flawless piece of filmmaking. Over the course of 30 minutes, we watch the perfect build-up to what then becomes the most realistic, real-time plane crash in cinematic history (there may be other sequences before this film, but nothing which I believe would be on the same level.)

However, after this monumental opening, the rest of the film, dealing with the court case/investigation, just cannot keep up & hold our interest. The sub-plot involving Kelly Reilly, who is an incredible actress, may have been written with the best intentions, but just feels shoe-horned in to try & give Washington's burnt-out & world-weary pilot a moral core. Plus, the inclusion of John Goodman as a Big Lebowski-type character for comic relief again jars, despite some very good lines.

Watch it for the opening, but your interest will probably start to wane as the film progresses.

Underdog sports films are one of the most prevalent & popular genres in movies. And there are of course many different spins on this theme. Champions, a remake of a Spanish film, uses the Special Olympics & disability as a way to take a fresh look at the genre. Sadly, despite some excellent actors & clearly huge amounts of heart from the filmmakers, this is never more than a surface-level look at the particular scenario & the attitudes towards disabled people in general.

The absolute best thing about this film is the complete lack of any sentimentality or patronising towards people with disabilities. So instead of cardboard cutout characters, with lashing of Hollywood patronising, instead we are shown very real & complex people who also have a wicked sense of humour.

The different characters are shown as individuals who also hold down jobs & are incredibly skilled at what they are able to do, once again directly posing the question/challenge to those who feel that these individuals cannot do anything apart from forever be dependent & isolated; the actual question should be "Why are more opportunities not being created which, with some amending & accomodation for their needs, ensures they become fulfilled as well as highly loyal employees?"

But despite all of the good elements of the film, for me it was never more than 3 stars, quite simply because it is never more than surface level in terms of story. Unlike The Peanut Butter Falcon, which had a sensational & beautiful story behind it, full of depth, this film focuses on Harrelson's redemption. Whilst that is absolutely fine to show that, as well as Harrelson being great in the role, I wanted the film equally to find something to do with the many brilliant actors apart from only relatively small bit roles.

There is of course much to enjoy here & I absolutely recommend watching this film. I just wanted it to be so much more than it ends up being.

After the huge success of The Hurt Locker & Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow again looked to real-life events for inspiration for her next film. This is about the Algiers Motel incident which occured during race riots in Detroit, looking at the police's response to & subsequent fallout from it.

I am not going to give a comprehensive breakdown of the story, as the less you know, the more you get out of it. The cast themselves are excellent, in particular Will Poulter as the commander of the officers who has poison and evil running through every fibre of his being. Boyega is also great as the black outsider desperately trying to de-escalte the horrific & tinderbox situation, which threatens to explode at any moment.

Be warned: this is an extremely unpleasant & difficult watch, but a gripping film.

The pairing of Marion Cotillard & Brad Pitt should be in many ways a match made in heaven. And with Robert Zemeckis on directing duties, there was much to be excited about. However, this at times boring & underdeveloped film was only ever moderately entertaining, despite some inspirational flourishes.

Pitt and Cotillard star as Max Vatan (a Canadian spy,) and Marianne Beauséjour (a French resistance officer.) They are placed together as cover for an operation but quickly fall in love & then plan to live together. However, suspicion starts to fall on Marianne & Max must prove his new love's innocence in the face of suspicion & the threat of both of them being executed.

As much as this film clearly has been made with a lot of love & care, it is only sporadically successful, mainly in its technical aspects. As a couple, Pitt & Cotillard's chemistry is mostly dreadful. I have never been a fan of Cotillard's & again here she seems to have been brought in for her sultry French beauty & not much else. This is a role which should have been given to someone like Audrey Tatou, who could have done wonders with it.

In fact, the overwhelming emotion I got from watching this was blandness. I sat through to the end, mainly to see if the time I had put into watching it was worth it (it wasn't really, despite some unexpected twists,) but there was just about enough to give it 3 stars. Just don't expect to remember anything about it the moment it finishes.

After watching & loving The Brave One, I was interested to see more of Neil Jordan's work. And when researching his filmography, there is one movie which immediately jumps out, due not only to it's success including multiple award nominations/wins, but the continued firestorm of controversy that still surrounds it. After watching it, whilst I can see why some people reacted to it with shock, it is much more than the lurid headlines.

Fergus is an IRA volunteer who is part of a group who kidnaps Jody, a British soldier, to attempt to force the government to release a member of the IRA, saying they will kill him unless their demands are met. Whilst the other members are hostile & violent, Fergus forms a bond with Jody. When it is clear Jody is going to be killed, he makes Fergus promise to go to London, find his wife Dil and tell her how much he (Jody) loved her. After the hostage situation goes awry, Fergus deserts the IRA & moves to England. However, when he meets Dil, he finds himself in an unbelievably complex situation challenging everything he thought he knew about himself.

In terms of acting, Rea is amazing. A highly accomplished theatre actor who had worked extensively before & after this film with Neil Jordan, he is excellent. The conflict & internal torment that Fergus feels is etched all over Rea's face, whether in his loyalty to the IRA, his own beliefs or his falling-in-love with the wife of the man he was partly responsible for the death of.

Forrest Whittaker is also great, having to in 20 minutes make the sort of profound impact that sustains the story for its hour 40 runtime. And rounding this all off is Jaye Davidson as Dil. This is by far the most difficult role to play, as it requires unbelievable levels of nuance & ability. And for the most part, Davidson is outstanding, really making us believe & feel intense pity & compassion for a deeply conflicted person.

However, despite the 4 stars (and make no mistake, I really enjoyed this film & it's willingness to go to places which in the 90's were completely ignored by the film industry,) there are some issues which occasionally can distract from the story. For example, as much as Davidson is great, there are a couple of scenes where the performance suddenly goes from amazing to wooden & leaden, especially the delivery of lines. And this is quite jarring, like it was being read from the script, seeing as most of the time the acting is amazing.

Also, despite there being valid reasons for this (when you watch the special features & know the film's history of trying to get made/funding, it's staggering it managed to even get off the ground,) the film as a whole doesn't look particularly good. The sets, even when factoring in the micro-budget, look terrible & tacky, like the cast-offs from another low-budget film. Dil's flat makes Withnail & Marwood's flat look like the Ritz. The cinematography is also often more distracting than mesmerising; I think the look they were aiming for was a kind of dream-like smokey atmosphere, but this often just looked like the film stock wasn't processed correctly. This film is crying out for a 4K remaster.

But I did enjoy it. It is very well written, not just wanting to provoke & shock; it deals with big, weighty subjects without judgement (sexuality, belonging, indoctrination, freedom) and finally, really has a good ending. Definitely worth a watch.

Films which deal with sexuality & religion, highlighting the tension and animosity, as well as often the need for any such same-sex attraction to be kept secret, have been produced for decades. They follow mainly the same storyline, with a few changes here and there.

You Can Live Forever follows this well-trodden path, but does have some positives that do elevate it above the standard clichéd mess. It is well-shot & the rural locations in the Canadian countryside are used to striking effect; the story itself is tightly written & edited, mercifully not overstaying it's welcome; but most of all, the performances from the two leads.

Like Disobedience (another excellent film looking at two women who fall in love within the confines of an extremely strict religious environment,) the two actors cast have great chemistry. They also clearly enjoyed working together, not only from the chemistry on screen but also the bloopers on the special features. Welcomingly, the film allows them time not only to be shown bonding but also being intimate together, in the sense that rather than showing the start of intimacy then cutting away, the film allows the love they have to be shown & evolve, which then makes it more believable.

An average film still worth a watch if you have a spare 90 minutes & don't want anything particularly challenging.

A film which attempts to send up & satirise the fluffy, soapy films of Rock Hudson & Doris Day, which were known as "no-sex" comedies. Despite the efforts of the cast & also the production values, it hits as much as it misses sadly.

Barbara Novak is a novelist who comes to 1962 New York to sell her book Down with Love, which promotes female emancipation & women not needing men/rejecting relationships. She then hears about Catcher Block, a high-profile writer & known lothario. The two then begin a cat-and-mouse game to try & outwit/one-up each other, whilst trying not to fall in love.

The film very clearly has a particular style & is actively made to send-up & satirise a certain genre of films as well as a certain period in time. But, for me, as much as I loved the look of the film as well as the excellent chemistry & playing-off between McGregor & Zellweger, the rest of it was very hit-and-miss.

As someone who hasn't seen any of the movies this film is satirising, a lot of the jokes didn't land/scenarios didn't make sense (which is also given as the reason why the film financially bombed & only had average reviews.) As a film on its own, there was enough to make watching it relatively OK, but the honest answer was that this film wasn't made for someone like me.

If you are someone who has seen a lot of these films or is of a certain age, there will be massive amounts to enjoy. But as much as it is an unusual watch, it was wasted on me.

After Spotlight, the incredible film about the exposing of the horrific & dispicible crimes of thousands of Catholic priests all over the world, pretty much every investigative film involving the evolution of a story which launches a seismic change across the globe is compared to that film, so profound it's influence still is. Into this genre comes She Said, looking at the work of 2 New York Times journalists exposing the disgusting behaviour of Harvey Weinstein, as well as unpicking the enormously well-funded & highly intimidating machine of client journalists/lawyers he surrounded himself with.

The film takes place inside both the corridors of the actual New York Times building, as well as all over the world, as the journalists chase down leads & convince terrified & emotionally broken women to recount their experiences, as well as speaking to the men who enabled Weinstein and his behaviour, turning a blind eye & being paid handsomely for this convenient "loss of sight."

One element which is both highly distressing & hugely impactful is the playing of the actual recording of Weinstein intimidating & attempting to again sexually assault an actress who he had groped previously and was wearing a police wire.

As Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor, Carey Mulligan & Zoe Kazan are great. Both highly skilled actresses with incredible presence, they embody the role of their characters. The film also welcomingly shows their lives outside of the investigation, including a profoundly moving look at the effects of postpartum depression suffered by Twohey.

However, this film has one incredible scene between Kazan & Samantha Morton, who plays a real-life woman called Zelda Perkins, who confronted Weinstein after he raped her colleague. As someone who saw the interview at the time with Perkins (type in Zelda Perkins newsnight interview into YouTube,) Morton's performance is so accurate, you would think you were watching the actual woman. I'm talking a Daniel Day-Lewis level of performance. It is masterful.

You are left in awe at the level of journalism & tenacity it took to bring Weinstein's crimes to light, and this film ably & compassionately tells this story.

A difficult but excellent watch.

This film, judging by the enormously divisive response to it, can be taken one of two ways: it is either a provocative & scarily effective horror film about the totally out-of-control youth who have no moral limits & taking heavy inspiration from Lord of the Flies; or a disgusting representation of the working classes, looking like the closest thing possible to a Daily Mail reader's view of the state of Britain in 2008, as well as talking inspiration from real-life criminal cases. For me, it was a combination of both, although my 4 stars is because, as I say in the title, looking at it in 2023 it has many horrible precedents with the level of criminal activity committed by minors.

Jenny & Steve are a deeply in love couple who are holidaying in a picturesque English village, camping in the woods. However, from the moment they arrive, there is tension in the air. The local youths are out of control & violent, and the adults/parents extremely defensive & almost excusing their children's behaviour. The group eventually turn their attention on and start hunting the couple, led by Brett. Jenny & Steve then find themselves fighting to survive, surrounded by the hostilities of not only the youths but nature as well.

The film itself really is nasty, filled with graphic, unflinching & horrible violence, paired with a cruelty which is in many ways worse than the savagery. And as much as it is mainly violence committed by the youths towards the adults, the dividing lines between the children is also stark: some of them absolutely revel in it, whilst others clearly are scared & simply are part of the group to prevent the onslaught being directed towards them. It is also a fact that, despite the enormous amounts of violence in our films today, it will always be shocking when youths are shown committing it.

The film however is written & directed in a much cleverer way than your standard Nick Love-style Outlaw film. The characters for a start are much more believable & sympathetic. This is also down massively to the performances by Fassbender & Reilly. This film was made before Fassbender in particular was the cultural phenomenon he has become & he is excellent. But this film belongs to Reilly. She really is amazing & you root for her every step of the way. She perfectly balances vulnerability & strength, never anything less than an iron-willed protagonist.

Unfortunately, there are also some real failures with this film, not least the extremely simplistic way the parents, as well as the working classes overall are portrayed. There is practically nothing positive shown in any way about them, aside from that they are all wilfully bad parents who can never hear anything bad about their offspring.

However, there is also a truth which, whilst it is uncomfortable & some people don't want to see it, is stark: the real-world levels of antisocial behaviour among this age-group. In my own career on the railway, I see this first hand. And the level of this is now totally out of control. So it certainly hits home & has a horrible prescience to it, which no amount of shrill screaming & claims of victimisation from the usual crowd can obfuscate.

Digitally restored & released on Blu-ray for the first time, this is in many ways one of the seminal blaxploitation films, and one which loudly announced the talents of Pam Grier to the world, as well as becoming one of the most successful movies of that genre & time.

Foxy Brown is a tough-as-nails woman who lives in an often violent unnamed US state. Her brother is a lowlife drug dealer who she has to often come to the rescue of. Her life has been on hold, waiting for her soulmate Dalton Ford to escape from his work as a deep-cover narcotics officer & leave hospital after he was almost killed. He is then brutally murdered & Foxy swears revenge against the people who killed him.

Many of the tropes of blaxploitation are here, including a strong central lead, although the casting/writing of a female character broke new ground; gratuitous nudity, over-the-top action/violence & a cracking soundtrack. There are also some fairly well-shot action scenes, including one which shamelessly borrows from Live & Let Die, itself heavily influenced by blaxploitation.

The main draw & best thing about the film is Pam Grier and her performance. She is a towering presence & also really good at the emotional scenes. Whilst the tone of the film is extremely pulpy, she manages to really bring all the elements together.

However, despite Grier & the other elements of the film working well, it also must be said (and hence why I only gave the film 3 stars,) that overall, it is quite disjointed & also often doesn't flow well. It is more a series of vignettes, some of which work, some of which don't. And whilst that may be the charm of blaxploitation as a genre, it was something which for me really stuck out, especially given how good Grier is.

Still absolutely a good watch, as well as a milestone in the genre, but you may be left wanting more...