Film Reviews by Timmy B

I had seen The Armstrong and Miller show advertised on BBC so decided to give it a shot, especially after seeing one of the sketches of the pair as the WW2 pilots.

The selection of skits were OK, some funny, some not. Funnily enough, the best thing about the show was it's theme tune, which perfectly satirised several other comedy series's ones, including Ab Fab.

After Lock Stock, Guy Ritchie was the hottest thing in gangster films/exuberant cinema, his unconventional nonlinear style mixed with humour & amazing soundtracks entering into the cultural zeitgeist of the 90's. And, as with all these behemoths, there were plenty of people who looked at what he had achieved and wanted to jump onto the bandwagon/cash in to the newest & most exciting craze. And one partnership which managed to succeed in this, as well as managing to get one of the hottest casts at the time, was Dominic Anciano & Ray Burdis. Fresh off making a very well-received & successful debut called Final Cut, they were then given the budget to make Love Honour and Obey.

The plot, in the loosest sense of the word, imagines a London full of a group of people who sort-of know each other and a few of them who are involved with dodgy dealings/underworld schemes. Also, confusingly, most of the characters are also called the first names of the actors who portray them. So Johnny Lee-Miller plays Johnny, who is stuck in a dead-end job as a postman but who also is friends with Jude (Jude Law,) whose family are small-time gangsters, headed by Ray (Ray Winstone.) Johnny wants to become a part of the gang, but it all goes wrong.

This film wasn't even on my radar. The only reason I rented it was because I was chatting with a work colleague who was also into his films and he could not stop going on about it. I watched with a mate of mine and for 70% of the running time, it is an absolute riot to watch. It is genuinely funny, with great lines, soundtrack & situations that are equally as good, if not better, than anything Ritchie came up with in the same period. The cast themselves also had a great time shooting it, as you would do if you were paid to spend a few weeks hanging around with your mates being stupid & with a great script.

Unfortunately, and there is no reason for this to happen, the film then does something completely inexplicable which comes dangerously close to ruining it completely: it turns from a silly, happy-go-lucky caper into a really nasty, almost torture-porn film. The humour completely vanishes, and in its place are the same characters you have just spend the last hour having a laugh with, who are then put into a totally different film. And I can't overstate how much of a misfire this is. And this was probably the main reason why the film actually didn't get great reviews.

Funnily enough, for me the best comparison for how you will deal with this is the Christopher Nolan film Interstellar. Both of them are great films which then have terrible endings/final thirds. For some people, these narrative choices/decisions totally ruin the whole experience for them & they then dislike the films for that reason. For me though, both of these movies do so much right in the first two thirds that overall I can give them a free pass.

Whilst it is sad that Love Honour and Obey does lose its way towards the end, not for a second do I regret the journey leading up to that point. Full of laughs & genuinely funny.

Damien Chazelle has been an interesting & dynamic filmmaker. His works have looked at many different situations, although the element of perfectionism coupled with competition/high stakes has been a constant theme. At its best (La La Land,) he is a wonderful & powerful voice with a strong musical sensibility.

When it came to Babylon, the main reason I wanted to see it was, despite my liking for his previous work, actually a totally different reason. This film was advertised & billed as a totally uncensored, no-holds barred look at an extreme period in time. And then the awarding of its 18 rating confirmed this. However, as Babylon proves, Chazelle at his worst is scattershot & also not very good at making a compelling story, especially one 3 hours long, despite pretty much no limits being placed on him by the studios.

Babylon, in its most basic sense, looks at the journeys of multiple characters who are in 1920's Hollywood, showing their dreams, ambitions & failures. You have the up-and-coming starlet with big talent & herculean demons (Robbie,) the established film star who was massively successful but who's star is starting to wane (Pitt,) the young immigrant who is initially taken under Pitt's character's wing before surpassing him in terms of producing/directing (Calva) and an aspiring & talented musician making his way through musical pictures (Adepo.) Alongside this, there are also minor characters who the film attempts to follow and entwine in the story.

Writing that previous paragraph shows in many ways why, sadly, this film is almost a total misfire. In one sense, you have to admire its scope & determination to try to paint a large canvas looking at people of different colours and life experiences in the same situation. It opens with a nearly 30 minute orgy/party scene, full of great choreography & cinematography. But it just cannot keep that momentum going and despite spending a decent amount of time with the principle characters, you find yourself not caring & becoming bored.

It does have some good points & conversations, the most profound and hard hitting for me being, ironically for a film whose entire raison d'etre is total excess, a quiet but devastating conversation between Pitt's character & Elinor St. John, a veteran tabloid hack/gossip journalist about the trajectory that everyone in that time in Hollywood was going to experience in some way or another. There is also a wonderfully creepy cameo by a star from movies past, as the slimy, greasy & dispicible mob boss who one of the main characters gets caught up with.

There are also some profoundly sad & shocking moments, such as one of the characters having to visit a parent in a psychiatric hospital, the film perfectly capturing the juxtaposition of the immense success on the one hand, compared to the total destruction on the other, but also subtly showing just how messed up both of them are in their own different ways. There is also a toe-curlingly disgusting moment of racism towards one of the characters as well.

But those good/powerful points simply cannot outweigh the bad. The characters may have interesting moments, but they are also boring, vapid & fairly insignificant people in their own ways. You do find it hard to have much sympathy for their plights, some of which are totally self-inflicted, often repeatedly so. And this film is also unbelievably bloated in pretty much every way you can imagine.

I did want this film to be better, but this is another case of too much ambition meeting reality and crashing & burning. See it for a decent recreation of 20's Hollywood & not much else.

When Venom appeared in Spider-Man 3, it was almost universally accepted that of the 3 villains featured, he came off the worst. Although to be fair, no-one came out of that film unscathed, which was made worse by how incredible Spider-Man 2 was.

After a concerted effort over many years to bring Venom to the big screen in his own film, we finally got both a decent actor playing him and a hefty budget to match. However, Venom is a very strange movie. When you look at it purely as a film, it isn't that good. The performances & script are so scattershot in terms of their quality (Riz Ahmed literally stands in the shots & says his lines whilst trying to be intimidating, but wouldn't scare a toddler; Michelle Williams, whose ability to break your heart & touch your soul in films like Manchester By The Sea & Brokeback Mountain, is given a role so bland/badly written, you start to wonder if she's only there for the cheque,) that you would reasonably expect the film to fail. There is also terrible CGI/special effects and several uninspired directing/production decisions such as a bland soundtrack.

However, having said all of that, Venom also has a real ace up its sleeve which saves it from 1 star ignominy, at least in my review... it it totally off-the-wall, batsh*t crackers. And it did leave me with a smile on my face. Tom Hardy's physical comedy, for example, is actually really well played. Venom is portrayed in many ways as the relative from hell, except in this case, instead of minor petulant acts like stealing money or property, he eats people & destroys everything in his path. The arguments between Eddie Brock & Venom are also quite funny as well.

The other positive that this film has, which helps it in no uncertain terms, is it's length. Rather than making it a long, drawn-out origin story which tries to set up a million different elements in preparation for the sequels, this film is just a shade over 90 minutes. And it really zipped along for me, managing to be deceptively light-weight in terms of it's tone and silliness.

Also, despite its 15 rating, it was a real struggle to work out why this film had been given this. Despite the potential for it to be graphically violent, for me it was never more than a strong 12A film, despite a couple of moments of threat.

Whilst there was a lot more it could have done well, this is a solid 3 star film which, if you don't take it too seriously, you can have a laugh at. And amusingly enough, despite a change of director, the sequel is almost a carbon copy of this one in terms of its story and how it is shot, although it does have a great villain played by Woody Harrelson.

Based on the true investigations of DCI Colin Sutton, this looks at his handling of the murder of a young woman who was found fatally wounded in the middle of a London park.

The series is very detailed, looking at the different elements of the investigation as well as the horrific trauma suffered by not only the victims who survived, but also the families of the murdered women.

The cast are excellent. Martin Clunes plays Sutton as a deeply moral, committed & genuinely decent man who is horrified by what he is investigating and is determined to track down the perpetrator to get justice for those affected by these horrific crimes. Also, special mention must go to Celyn Jones as Levi Bellfield. His performance is so accurate, it's scary. His portrayal of Bellfield gets under your skin and stays there, haunting you and almost making you retch.

Both this and the 2nd series are excellent and both worth a watch, showing again how well ITV can make dramas.

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.