Film Reviews by Timmy B

I cannot for the life of me remember why I added this to my rental list. It was probably because it had received some good reviews, plus I have before discovered some absolute gems in terms of small scale foreign films which got almost no publicity but which were incredible (Holiday & Y tu mamá también immediately spring to mind.)

I put this film on & within 10 minutes started fidgeting. Despite some interesting & at times beautiful cinematography, very quickly I could see that we were going to spend a very large amount of time having long drawn out conversations with characters who I didn't care about, trying to inject suspense into a story which was boring.

I kept with it for a decent chunk of time, to see if it was able to spread its wings and take flight... it didn't. I then switched it off, forgot about it and it was only when prompted to write this review that I remembered parts of it. For some, it may be compelling, but for me it was just another film with high pretensions which had almost nothing to say.

Shot weeks after he wrapped on Call Me By Your Name, this was another chance for Timotheé Chalamet to show his range as an actor. And whilst he gives it his best shot, along with a great performance by Steve Carrell, unfortunately this is a relatively lightweight drama with not much substance. 

Based on a true story, Beautiful Boy looks at the life of Nic Sheff and his father David. Jumping backwards & forwards in time between Nic’s early years and then when he leaves home to go to university, it follows his descent into addiction, particularly crystal meth, as well as his father’s desperate attempts to try to help him. 

There is a very lovely & loving feel to the film, clearly showing that Nic grew up in a supportive environment, despite his parents splitting up when he was a small boy. Rather than be judgemental about the situation, it instead tries to in many ways be a fly on the wall, looking at the slow breakdown of both Nic & David’s lives. 

However, the simple truth for me was that underneath all this empathy, including some extremely poignant & beautiful scenes between the two of them, there wasn’t that much substance to the film. We simply watch as Nic goes down a spiral of addiction, then resorts to crime & petty theft to get a fix, before going back to his parents when things inevitably go wrong. Whilst I accept this is what happened, there needs to be a compelling film around this. 

But the performances are very good. Carrell adds another string to his already significant bow, playing a father literally at the end of his tether, trying to do everything he can to help his son whilst knowing it is a losing battle. Alongside psychopathy (Foxcatcher) and moral banker (The Big Short,) Carrell is able to really flex his dramatic chops with this role. Chalamet is also good, his ability to communicate the horror of the life he has found himself in perfectly complimenting the performance of Carrell. 

As much as I’d wanted to like this film more, it simply wasn’t that compelling & the script certainly could have done with more development. 

After the incredible Lone Survivor and Deepwater Horizon, Peter Berg & his co-star Mark Wahlberg continued their collaboration together, again looking to examine in a docu-drama style way a catastrophic event, as well as the actions of the many ordinary people caught up within it. And as a proud Bostonian, after the bombings which hit the marathon in 2013, there was really only one story to tell. Patriots Day looks at the lead-up to the bombing, then follows the aftermath, as well as the enormous collective effort to not only catch the bombers but also to rebuild the community in the wake of the tragedy.

When I first watched this film, I actually didn’t like it that much. I was in many ways expecting a continuation at the same massively high level of quality as the duo’s previous collaborations. And Patriots Day is not in that same league. One of the biggest issues, which in one way there wasn’t too much they could do about, was the fact that in this film Wahlberg is playing a composite character, as opposed to real individuals in the previous movies. And the fact that it is multiple people’s experiences shoe-horned into one character simply didn’t work. To quote one of the other reviews, the film is quite bitty & uneven.

Wahlberg’s Tommy Saunders is a rough & ready cop who is also a physical wreck. We meet him as he is taking part in a raid on a property. He is forced to police the Boston marathon event the next day, where the Tsarnaev brothers detonate two bombs, killing & maiming countless people. From there, Saunders becomes an integral part of the investigation at all stages, through to the capture of one of the brothers.

But despite my earlier criticism, this film benefits from being rewatched. And the second time I watched it, I actually really enjoyed it. Yes, the same issues are still there, but for me what shined through most was the massive effort to include & show how ordinary Bostonians were impacted & also came together. There is a sharp, sometimes caustic but also friendly humour that they have, which even extended to the police who were not shown as being universally popular in the film. 

Also, one of the other strings to particularly Berg’s bow is how good he is with action scenes. The tension & build-up, as you follow the brothers inching closer to carrying out the atrocity is unbearable at times. Berg also includes elements of footage from the day to devastating effect, the most prominent one for me being the genuine CCTV footage of one person’s escape. As the pursuit gains traction, you really find yourself buying into the world that the film has carefully been laying the foundations of. And whilst not all of it works, a decent amount of it does, which means there is a lot of enjoyment to be had.

For me, having seen the previous work & results that Berg, Wahlberg and their team can achieve, looking back on this film now, it would have actually made a stunning TV series, which meant that a lot of the events which had to be cut out in order to have a sensible running time could have been properly fleshed out. It is clear to me that the creative team care deeply about the events & people affected, which also importantly included extremely close collaboration with the Boston population, especially who live in the streets where the final scenes happen. 

So whilst there are some significant problems with this film, it is also a genuine attempt to honour the victims of this disgusting tragedy, showing the decency that the overwhelming majority of people in the world have, especially those who are part of a tight-knit community.

When Tom Cruise started the film version of the highly popular Mission Impossible TV series, it became a cultural behemoth, doing both massive business at the box office, but also critically adored, raising the bar & changing the dynamic of what the audience wanted & expected from action films going forward. It also was launched with perfect timing, as in the previous year, James Bond had been rebooted after a 6 year hiatus to similar adoration & box office takings.

After the success of the 1st film however, things went off the rails. John Woo, who had been brought in after his success in the Far East cinema, managed to create a film which was the highest grossing of 2000 but also one of the most poorly received, by both critics & audience members. So, when looking to create the 3rd film, Cruise took no chances & turned to JJ Abrams, who had recently created the iconic TV series Alias. The result is a staggering, technically flawless & stunningly acted piece of perfection. And despite the multiple sequels of extremely high quality following this one, for me, none of them have come close.

Ethan Hunt has retired from active field duty & now trains new recruits. He has also met & proposed to Jules, his beautiful fiancée who is blissfully unaware of his real job. Hunt is approached by the head of the IMF due to one of his protégés, Lindsey, being kidnapped whilst investigating Owen Davian, an international arms dealer. Despite Hunt's best efforts, the mission goes awry & he is forced to hunt down Davian personally.

Everything about this film is wonderful, but for me, the way the film starts just literally grabs you by the throat. Cruise, strapped to a chair, is subject to a horrific interrogation and for the first time in the series, shows real vulnerability & fear. From then on, the action never lets up. We see taken all over the world, with incredible stunts & a story that really makes you care about every element of it.

Cast wise, alongside Cruise, we have Michelle Monaghan as Jules &, like everything else she is in, her performance elevates the film. Jules is in no way just the smiling damsel in distress, but a fully-formed incredibly strong woman who is the beating heart of not only Hunt but the film as well. The rest of the team are also great in their respective roles. However, this film belongs to Phillip Seymour-Hoffman. Owen Davian is a monster, a complete & total psychopath who, from the moment you first see him, makes you physically uncomfortable & reviled. His plan & the way he simply takes apart physically anyone who crosses him just knows no limits.

This film is amazing. I loved it and the fact it has stood the test of time & is still today every bit as incredible as it was when it was released is a testament to it. Watch it and be blown away.

Films which involve religion/challenge the orthodoxy that is deeply ingrained within cultures have always made for excellent viewing when they have a strong script & good actors. The deconstruction & impact, when examined compassionately, can be profound. Added to the list of those films comes Disobedience, which looks closely at two women of the Jewish faith, caught in a love triangle with their childhood friend, dealing with love, loss & judgement.

Ronit (Weisz) is a photographer living in New York. One day, she receives a phone call, informing her that her father, who is also a senior Rav, has died. Ronit is estranged not only from her family but also the entire Orthodox Jewish community where she grew up. She returns to England for the funeral, where she is shocked to find that her close childhood friend Esti & their mutual friend Dovid, who has also been mentored as the Rav's successor, have married. Ronit is not welcomed back into the community, ostracised & rejected by others. However, the rekindling of the powerful feelings between her and Esti become too much to be able to hide.

Weisz & McAdams, who are both excellent actresses in their own right, absolutely bring their A-game here. As Ronit, Weisz is able to convey extraordinarily powerful emotions of heartbreak, strength & hope, sometimes all at the same time. McAdams ably matches her, making Esti feisty, but also sadly a prisoner of the religious limits placed on her by everyone (mostly men,) around her. Seeing her able to finally be free & be her true self is profoundly moving.

As much he is also very good, I did feel that Alessandro Nivola was the weakest of the 3, although this is no slur on him as an actor, more poor scripting. The role of Dovid is a difficult one to pull off, as basically he has to be the stereotypical up-tight religious husband/man of faith, whilst fleshing out the different little minutiae within that. Although he does get the opportunity to do that towards the very end, sadly for me, his full circle was lacking some of the heft given to the two women & their journey.

The subject matter is handled sensitively, as well as the love scenes. One particular moment which stayed with me was the incredible singing at the hesped, inter-spliced with the tortured emotions of the three characters.

An excellent film & thoroughly recommended.

I was first shown this film many many years ago by a lesbian friend of mine, who was discovering her sexuality and loved, among many things, the unashamed boldness & sexuality this film had. This was made well before Brokeback Mountain was released, so was something of a controversial, mini-budget film, but was still extremely well-reviewed & won the Best British film award at the BAFTA's.

Mona lives with her brother Phil in the Yorkshire countryside. Phil was an alcoholic & petty criminal who has found God & poured away all the alcohol in their late-mother's pub, instead turning the space into a base for his Christian congregation. Phil's near-hysterical/extreme religious preaching has made Mona feel even more isolated from her brother, who she was once extremely close to. She one day meets Tamsin, the extremely wealthy young woman who has been suspended from school & is spending her days riding her horse around the beautiful outdoors. Mona starts to fall deeply in love with Tamsin, exploring this new emotion.

For me, the thing I loved most about this film is how it was shot. It really does look like the most incredible dream sequence you can imagine. The colours are soft & pastel, the focus sometimes hazy, which when added to the brilliant sound mixing/wildlife sounds, really does make you feel like you are in the most amazing dream world imaginable. The performances are also great, Blunt & especially Considine incredible. The story also has a few surprises up its sleeve, adding to the intrigue & sexiness.

Finally, despite it's 15 rating, to me this was never much of a controversial film, despite the initial reactions. This is a thoughtful, delicate & sweet film, exploring innocence and first loves.

I remember this getting stellar reviews back when it was released in 2008, so went to see it entirely off of the back of this praise. I was absolutely blown away, but also extremely moved by the genuine emotion & horror that came out of the screen and buried itself in my subconscious. This is a film with a jet-black humour as dark as night, macabre in the extreme, totally unfearing in how it looks at & mocks the very worst traits we as humans have. For many, it was & still remains extremely offensive/controversial, but to me this is where it's brilliance lies.

Over the opening credits, a voiceover states that after a killing, the narrator was then told to get out of London & go to Bruges. Ray & Ken then arrive in Bruges, ostensibly on a city break. It then transpires that the two men are contract killers, who after a job gone bad, were ordered to get out of the UK & lie low, awaiting further instructions. Whilst Ray immediately hates the city Ken, as the older & more gentler of the two, is perfectly happy to wander around & sightsee, whiling away the time. However, amongst the various scrapes the two get themselves into, news then comes from home which changes everything, as well as an unwelcome guest...

This film pulls absolutely no punches in any way, delving into the sort of humour reserved only for the most provocative stand-up comedians. No subject is off-limits, whether it is race, disability or even child abuse. But it is also a film which has running throughout it an extreme vulnerability which, back in 2008, was something very rarely tackled for this sort of movie. It also forces you to challenge your own way of thinking about things. The insinuation that because a man of God has been killed, an invisible but devastating line has been crossed, is also added into the mix as well, referenced through wondering about Hell and purgatory.

The performances are note-perfect. Colin Farrell, who has to quote one reviewer "Been in the last-chance saloon more times than pretty much anybody" really displays not only a knack for comedy, but also perfectly balancing this against the mental breakdown he has as the film goes on. And as Ken, Brendan Gleeson really does become the father figure & mentor that anyone would want. His gentle demeanor as well as his belief that, despite being someone who kills people for money, that people are good & have the capacity to change, is a powerful one. And rounding everything off, as well as being my favourite character, is Ralph Fiennes as Harry, the pair's boss. Possessing an unbelievably foul mouth, as well as a fuse as short as Begbie's, Harry is an East End gangster who may speak in a clipped, almost satirical gangster voice, but who is absolutely hysterical as well as scary.

The final thing which I love about this film and which anyone who knows me can attest to, is just how quotable it is. Whether it's the multiple creative ways Ray describes how much he hates Bruges, through to Ken describing very matter-of-fact his thoughts on Harry, the sharpness & caustic wordplay is perfect.

Martin McDonagh, who directs as well as writes, moves to film after his highly successful career in playwriting. In Bruges shows he is a natural & unbelievably talented genius. And whilst his subsequent films have been interesting & in some cases great, this for me will always be his masterpiece.

Like Bohemian Rhapsody, this is a film which is dominated by a stunning central performance which the rest of the movie cannot reconcile with or support with a script worthy of it. Gary Oldman is magnificent, completely disappearing behind not only the incredible prosthetics but also the many different layers of Churchill the man. Churchill has been played by so many actors in so many different parts of his life that everyone has their own idea of the man. 

And there is no doubt that Oldman adds another incredible dimension to this cannon. His Churchill is by turns difficult, moody, temperamental but also there is a real fear behind the pomposity. It was him and him alone who from the first moment he encountered Hitler, knew the monster he would become, as well as his plans for world domination. However, it is everything else which is lacking. 

The various other elements of the script & story is just fairly rote, despite the weighty subject matter it is dealing with. One of the worst things I can say about it was just how forgettable it was. I can immediately think of various bits of the film with Oldman electrifying the surroundings around him with his presence. But as to what a lot of those scenes were about & the story elements within them, it almost draws a blank. 

I do however remember a cringe-inducing scene set on an underground train where Churchill meets the people of England sheltering from the bombs, then there is a spectacularly awkward “bonding” moment, including with a token black character who seems to have been shoe-horned in to the film (which is in itself staggeringly offensive,) just to show Churchill was a man of the people. 

Whilst for many, including an American audience, this is very much the idea that they have about what Britain was like during the war, for those of us who have seen many exceptional films about this period, from action films through to TV series including Cambridge Spies or Enigma, there is a lot left wanting. 

See it for Oldman and not much else. 

Sometimes, words just aren't enough. Despite the hundreds of thousands of them in the English language, there are a few things they cannot adequately do justice to in terms of describing how something makes you feel. From the closest of bonds with a friend or family member to an experience/something that touches you profoundly, you can try to talk about it, yet nothing you say fully conveys how you feel.

And that is how I feel about Trainspotting.

Of the multiple reviews I have written/films rated, I have given many 5 stars. And they are all 5 star films. But there are some, including this one at the top, which I would give 10 stars to if that option was available to me. I love this film, adore it, revere it. It is perfection. From the cast, led by Ewan McGregor in what is and always will be his best performance, through to the magnificent script, the masterful direction & iconic music/soundtrack which still today is a best-seller, not one thing isn't flawless.

This is British filmmaking at its best. It has never been bettered. It will never be bettered. To me, if you don't love this film, then you cannot have a pulse.

I had never heard of Lee Israel before Can You Ever Forgive Me? (CYEFM) My sole reason for renting was due to the enormous praise for Melissa McCarthy and Richard E Grant's performances, as well as watching anything Grant is in. I had never really experienced McCarthy's acting before, although I knew the types of films that she made her name on, which normally aren't my preferred type of film. I deliberately have referenced that because CYEFM is emphatically not that type of film. This is a slow, thoughtful & at times really sad character study of loneliness, despondency & loss. It is also brilliant & moving.

The film starts in 1991, introducing us to Lee Israel, a previously commercially & critically successful writer who's latest book has completely & utterly failed. Alongside that, she is in a difficult financial situation & basically penniless, as well as being an extremely difficult & abrasive woman to be around. In desperation, she starts to sell her possessions, including an old letter written to her by Katharine Hepburn, which generates more interest than expected. Seeing a potential way to make easy money, Israel then becomes a forger of letters which she claims are from various celebrities/well-known individuals, aided & abetted by old friend Jack Hock. However, the greed as well as the naivety of the two means that it isn't long before they draw attention to themselves & the authorities.

Strangely, one of the best things about this film for me is how unlikeable the two leads are portrayed as being. Israel in particular is a difficult, prickly & at times deeply unsympathetic woman; Jack Hock an unbelievably narcissistic & arrogant conman who even steals off the woman he is supposedly in allegiance with. The two of them make an amusing & odd couple, but their on-screen chemistry is perfect. In particular, Grant has here a role as meaty as Withnail, who's shadow he has never been able to get out of, which is of course is a wonderful problem to have.

The other element of this film which I also liked, even though at times it came perilously close to overstaying it's welcome, was the pacing & length. We really get the chance to spend time with these two people, finding out their flaws as well as their hopes. It is also made clear that as much as Hock is a chancer, Israel is a genuine talent who made a lot of bad life choices & then decides that the only way to survive is to go down the route of criminality.

But there is absolutely no point in watching this film if what you want is the over the top humour that McCarthy made her name on. However, if you want to see a different type of performance from her and a side I really want her to tap into again, then this excellent film is well worth a go.

After Shame, Steve McQueen then chose as his next project a deeply personal film, looking at the horror of slavery, but from the perspective of a free black man, Solomon Northup, who is kidnapped & sold to the highest bidder, refuses to be cowed and is determined to escape.

It is an extremely difficult watch, rightly so, starting within the first few minutes where, after being kidnapped & speaking to the criminals responsible, he is repeatedly & graphically beaten. Transferred between highly successful farms where, along with hundreds of other slaves, they are treated as worthless even whilst making the farm owners untold riches, Northup determines to escape. He also meets & bonds strongly with Patsy, a young & enigmatic woman whose spirit is slowly being destroyed by the horror she is trapped in. This includes a scene of unbearable brutality towards her which is all but unwatchable.

I don't want to say too much more about this film due to not wanting to reduce the impact of it. But it is a brilliant, shocking and deeply upsetting film, which is vital in portraying the horror & crimes committed against the black population in America & the millions shipped in from all around the world in order to satisfy the insatiable demand.

The performances, cinematography, soundtrack and direction are all fantastic. And despite the horror that this film puts you through, you are gripped throughout. A vital and extremely moving look at one man's incredible & horrific story.

After the incredible Dark Knight trilogy marshalled by Christopher Nolan, then a case of significantly diminishing returns with Batman V Superman & the Justice League, we now have a new Batman & a new angle of the Caped Crusader's adventures in Gotham. But whilst there are some genuinely good elements to the film, it never rises above average for me.

The story starts a couple of years into Batman's campaign against the criminal underworld. Bruce Wayne is a young man, trying to deal with the enormous pain & personal grief he feels by beating the scum & criminals of Gotham to a pulp. There have however been some successes, mainly the busting of Salvatore Maroni's drug empire. But a dangerous new psychopath surfaces, who slaughters the wealthy & elite, then leaves riddles at the crime scenes, taunting Batman & the police. At the same time, there is also a fellow vigilante in the form of Selina Kyle/Catwoman, who is out to avenge her close friend, who has gone missing & worked at the club of Oswald "The Penguin" Cobblepot.

The cast themselves are overall really good. Pattison in particular is emphatically not the disaster that some people were predicting. Although his take was a little strange, looking at times like a moody emo-kid who you'd see sulking in the corner, he does project very effectively the heartache & loss he is grappling with. The stand-out performance by a country mile though is Paul Dano. He is such a creepy, evil & slimy creation, half the time goading Batman & the other half desperately wanting him to like his work/revere him. Colin Farrell as the Penguin is also great, the make-up/prosthesis he has had done to him rendering him totally unrecognisable. Andy Serkis sadly is short-changed by the script, as it Jeffrey Wright, despite both giving their best.

I think for me, the biggest thing is that quite simply I am not a comic book film fan. The main reason I loved the Dark Knight trilogy was completely because of my fan as Nolan as a filmmaker, with the fact it was a comic book story simply a factor of it. But as much as I have mixed feelings, there is some good things to like about it, alongside the drudge.

Freddie Mercury was a complete one-off: a stunning, staggeringly gifted musician & performer, outstanding vocalist & one of the best entertainers the world will ever have. Many of Queen's songs are still as popular today as they were when released, perfectly written & performed. But, particularly during his lifetime, very little was actually known about Mercury, driven primarily by him & his fanatical privacy. Stories/rumours would be published, but never confirmed. So, in other words, the perfect subject for a biopic.

But, this film has many many flaws alongside it's great parts. The main one by a country mile is how safe & sanitised this film is, which is in every way the polar opposite of Mercury the man. There is no doubt that the main reason for this is due to the extensive creative control that the remaining members of Queen had over production, controlling not only pretty much every element of the film, but also the rights to the songs. There would be no way to make a Freddie biopic without the music he created, and by extension of that, by controlling the rights, the band members could shape the film they wanted.

There was an infamous example of this early on in the gestation of this film many years ago, when Sacha Baron Cohen was cast as Mercury & wanted to make a no-holds barred, totally extreme biopic, showing the many outrageous sides of Freddie as well as his sexuality. But for many reasons, one probably being the backlash of many of Queen's fans not liking to see this extreme representation of gay life, Baron Cohen & the band fell out, the film stalling for years.

By the time it finally came to fruition & was shot with Malek in the lead role, the film had changed to what it is now: fairly rote, a bit bland & despite flashes of brilliance, nothing ever more than mediocre. There are some good parts, particularly the fleshing out of Mercury's incredibly close bond & love for Mary Austin, who was first his girlfriend then best friend. But despite some good performances from the cast, Malek is in many ways the only one who comes out of this really well. It is just a bit "meh" and I wanted & expected so much more.

Yes the music is great, hence the 3 stars, but especially when comparing this to Rocketman, released around the same time, there is so much here lacking. Yes, it was warmly received by many, but it could have been so much more.

I love this film. It is a wonderful, moving & action-packed movie, but more than anything, for me it is quintessentially a James Bond film. Bond is show to be fiercely patriotic & loyal, plus also vulnerable. Not since Die Another Day have we seen him beaten up, exhausted & jaded. But as he starts to get back to who he was, the screen just lights up & the joy you feel is the reason why, for so many people, there is no substitute.

Amusingly, one reason why Skyfall also works is because it is the only film of the series which in no way tries to tie itself in to the shadowy organisation which is first introduced in Casino Royale & then attempted to be fleshed out in Quantum of Solace. This is a truly standalone Bond film & is all the better for it.

And it starts as it means to go on: a shadow appears in the distance, then there is the almost deafening blast of the iconic Bond chords. Sat in the IMAX watching this, immediately it grabbed me & the message straight away, loud & clear was "Bond is back." In the space of 10 minutes, we see Bond desperately chase, with a car & motorbike, then on top of a moving train, a mercenary who has stolen highly classified files. The mission goes awry & Bond then vanishes, spending months in an island paradise drinking the bars dry & bedding beautiful women. However, a terrorist attack in London then draws him back to his home country & tracking down the mastermind behind it all.

This film has everything: a fantastic script, beautiful cinematography from Roger Deakins, a perfect score from Thomas Newman & theme song by Adele, incredible stunts & note-perfect performances. I mean, the list just goes on. And it is so welcome & brilliant to be able to sit in your seat & be totally swept up in everything that is going on, especially as the story & themes become much more personal. As much there is the real-world element to this & every Bond film (in Skyfall, it is mainly hacking/destroying high-value or important targets,) it becomes much more about James Bond himself & particularly his relationship with M.

Central to all of this is Daniel Craig. This is, even though Casino Royale is my favourite film overall, his best performance as Bond. Having 2 films under his belt (one spectacularly successful, the other average at best,) here you feel that he is much more comfortable & confident in the role. He really has grown into the skin of Bond & never for a second did I doubt any part of his performance. Judi Dench is also, as you would expect, incredible. Having been M since 1995 with Pierce's 1st film, here she is in many ways given her meatiest role in the 007 series. As you would expect, she delivers everything you could want & more. Alongside her, we get the return of Q, Ben Whishaw perfectly filling the shoes of Desmond Llewellyn after a long hiatus.

And then there is Javier Bardem as Silva. With a shock of blond hair & an extremely eccentric/camp persona, you almost dismiss him at first, even as he tells a fairly repugnant story in his opening monologue. But you underestimate him at your peril. He is totally ruthless, vain & evil, valuing only himself & prepared to destroy everything to get what he wants. He matches Craig toe-to-toe in dramatic tension & stakes.

Then we come to the ending. Again, no other Bond film makes you actually FEEL so strongly & emphatically the raw emotion which is shown on screen. As the final credits rolled, I felt every type of joy imaginable. I loved this film & it still saddens me to this day that despite trying, Bond has never again reached the heights it scaled here. This is James Bond, one of the greatest action heroes ever created, in one of the best films in the series.

Nobody will ever do it better.

Whenever I see David Fincher has released a new film, I always get excited. Whilst there are many reasons for this, the biggest one is because you never know what you are going to get. From his magnificent (and completely unfairly traduced,) 1st film Alien3, through to the massively successful & legendary crowd pleasers Se7en & Fight Club, Fincher is a chameleon, incapable of creating anything bland or stale, irrelevant of whether the viewer likes it or not. For his latest film, he adapts another novel, this time a highly successful & critically adored one from writer Gillian Flynn.

Gone Girl is about the sudden disappearance of Amy Dunne, who achieved a certain level of fame as a child after a series of successful books written about her by her parents, on her 5th wedding anniversary. Her husband Nick is a business owner but also in many ways, despite some small successes, basically a loser who has come to take everything in his life, including his relationship, for granted. After Nick calls the police, he then becomes a suspect, a suspicion that is exacerbated by the media hysteria/circus that descends upon the case. Nick then realises that something is very wrong & has to take matters into his own hands.

As you would expect in a Fincher film, everything is technically perfect. The cinematography, sets, costumes, soundtrack & performances note perfect. The actors are amazing, especially Rosamund Pike. In a film where she has to play so many different emotions, she aces every one. But I also feel that huge praise must go to Carrie Coon as Nick's sister. As the story progresses & it dawns on her the full horror of the situation that she has been dragged into, it is a joy to watch.

The script and story is also great. Even though I have not read the book, this did not in any way affect my viewing of it, plus I did also hear that the structure & ending has also been changed to keep an element of mystery. And the story itself is a dark & at times graphically violent one. This is a film where nothing is held back & that is absolutely to the movie's benefit. This film would not work if it was shot with half measures.

Whilst this is essential viewing, it's also emphatically not a "date" film, unless you both really like messed up films, in which case, everything you could want is catered for here.