Film Reviews by TB

Back in 2002, most people who knew of Michael Moore had heard of him because of Roger & Me, a tiny documentary which went on to huge success & became a sleeper hit. After a few other documentaries, Moore then turned his satirical eye on one of the biggest hot-button issues in the US: guns. It would in many ways have been impossible for him not to, as a polemicist and someone who always tackled difficult subjects. And whilst it had been 3 years since the Columbine High School massacre, which this film uses as its main subject & returns to at various points, its impact was still being felt whilst nothing was being seriously done to prevent these types of tragedies happening again.

But rather than do a documentary which was deliberately provocative to antagonise people, Moore comes at it from a very different direction: he tries to make it as humorous as he can, within the limits of the subject matter, to try to reach the members of the audience who are usually not receptive to anyone not totally agreeing with their opinion. One of the first things Moore talked about & was at pains to put across was that when he was younger, he liked & also shot guns. He was also a member of the NRA whilst making the film. So, he had a knowledge of that side of the debate, rather than someone who wasn’t American coming in like a bulldozer.

The film looks at various elements of how guns have influenced the US, but also how this was getting so out of control and each year more & more people were being either seriously maimed or killed. Again, I am writing this review in 2023 and as of the 30th June, there have been 340 mass shooting, defined as 4 or more people being killed. That is a jaw-dropping statistic for halfway through the year. But for a massive part of the US, they will not in any way admit that having the volume of guns in America in any way contributes to this.

There are some fantastic interviews, including with Marilyn Manson, who was wrongly blamed for being a primary influence on the shooters & who says more in 2 minutes about the disaffected people in the world today than any politician has said in most of their careers. There is also a brief but good interview with Matt Stone of South Park fame, who grew up in Littleton & went to Columbine High School.

But there are some valid criticisms of how Moore edits & shoots his films which has to be mentioned as well. And nowhere is this more prevalent than his interview with Charlton Heston towards the end, having at various points showed how Heston behaved within his role as a representative of the NRA. Heston was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease & the whole interview was so uncomfortable and, in many ways, exploitative. It was clear the confusion that Heston had & in the end his walking out of the interview actually did more damage to Moore than to him.

But this is powerful and essential filmmaking, which takes a difficult subject & forces us as the audience to confront it. It’s just a shame that all these years later, things are in no way how Moore and many other hoped they would be.

This is a film which I actually hated on a cellular level. It just for me kept diving lower & lower down the toilet of revoltingness, using the horrific context of the many civil wars in Africa to get visceral shock value. It is also a film which seems to want to show the serious side of these conflicts, but then its narration & story just end up using those same horrors for cheap and exploitative shock value.

DiCaprio plays a Rhodesian diamond smuggler called Danny Archer who, after hearing about a fisherman who discovers a massive pink diamond, then links up with the fisherman who he met in prison to try and get to the valuable stone. The fisherman, Soloman Vandy, is desperate to locate his family who have been kidnapped by the warlords.

Within the film are a huge number of highly emotive and distressing scenes, including extreme violence carried out against the population of the country the film is set in. But these scenes are all done in extremely gratuitous ways, in order to both shock and repulse. And front and centre of this are the scenes of the young son of the fisherman being trained as a child soldier. But the film’s treatment of this horrible and distressing situation is to REPEATEDLY cut to children shooting either other children or adults. This shock tactic is really disgusting and uses a horrific time in history as simply a way to invoke shock. There is no narrative purpose behind it.

But the moment for me when this film just went so far over the line that nothing could redeem it was a scene where the fisherman finds his family in a prison camp and can only communicate and hold them through a wire fence. And whilst this scene played out, with the film straining every sinew to scream at you “Look at how much these people are suffering!” the journalist character then pulls out her camera and starts snapping away, which to me translated as complete opportunism to capture horrific trauma and stick it on the front of a magazine/media product. And I just switched this off and felt revolted that I had in any way contributed to the rampant exploitation I had just seen.

Do not watch this film.

After his small but stunning performance in The Imitation Game as the young Alan Turing, I had seen this as one of the new Cinema Paradise releases with him starring in it, so thought I'd give it a whirl.

It is certainly a very different and idiosyncratic film, with Lawther as a bitchy spoilt narcissist called Billy who is also extremely effeminate and the target of bullies, who then inspire him to try to become the homecoming queen.

But it didn't really work. Billy as a character was just too grating & difficult to like or root for, irrelevant of the abuse that was directed at him. The story itself also has too many ridiculous scenarios, such as a random guy who doesn't in any way fancy Billy but is happy to be ordered around and almost used like a personal slave. There are some small funny moments and a couple of good jokes, hence the 2 star rating.

But as much as Lawther is a talented actor, this was a rubbish script and overall not worthy of the talents who it stars

After a long hiatus, Mad Max is back, with Max recast as Tom Hardy. But this film is easily the best of the series, plus is absolutely incredible in terms of its scope and ambition. Written off by many due to its unbelievable behind the scenes problems (cancelled shooting, location changes and also considerable issues between Hardy and Theron,) this film grabs you from the off and all you can do is cling on & enjoy the ride.

Whilst there are many things that I could mention, the main one for me apart from how it looked (absolutely incredible, particularly the night-time shots,) was the fact that every stunt you see and every crash was really done. The level of action direction & stunt work is flawless.

This is an incredible masterpiece and why movies were created. My only regret was that I never got to see it in the cinema or in IMAX, which would have been the icing on the cake. Hopefully it will get re-released at some stage so I can experience this.

This series is incredible. It is a monumental achievement, filled with atmosphere, dread, shocking images and unforgettable moments. Its performances are also amazing, particularly Harris, Watson, and my favourite, Skarsgård. But what this series is to me more than anything, as hinted at by the title, is what happens when everybody lies, repeatedly, to everyone else. This is the damage and fallout that occurs, where millions are displaced and many other killed or maimed.

Jared Harris stars as Valery Legasov, a jaded & clever chemist, who is conscripted into helping with the cleanup operation after the Chernobyl nuclear plant explodes. He is introduced to Skarsgård’s Boris Shcherbina, the Soviet face of the clean-up, who whilst at first suspects him, then forms a strong and close bond as he realises what he has got himself into. Completing this line up is Emily Watson as Ulana Khomyuk, a composite character based on the many scientists who were involved. As they battle to control and contain the horror that they find, they also see how the events happened to get them to this point.

This series is so brilliantly done, mainly because it doesn’t in any way patronise the viewer. We are treated as being able to, with clear explanations, understand what we see on the screen, as well as sharing in the horror of the characters. As Legasov, Harries is excellent, portraying a man who has up to then completely sold himself out and parroted whatever line the Soviets wanted him to say, giving the Communists the air of respectability, where often the total opposite was true. Watson similarly is excellent, with her courage fighting against not only the extreme scepticism of the ruling party but also the sexism.

But head and shoulders above all of them is the magnificent Skarsgård. Boris Shcherbina is the living embodiment of loyalty and Government representation. There is no doubt that he has not only never gone in any way against the regime, but also has been a willing part of enforcing it, doubtless sending many dissenters either to their deaths or to the labour camps, never to be seen again. And yet when the truth and horror finally breaks through, you watch someone just totally break as he sees what he has been sent into, which is effectively a death sentence.

Everything else is wonderful, from the locations and cinematography through to the music. And the direction from Johan Renck is masterful. This series looks so good and feels so authentic that in many ways you could put it on in front of someone who didn’t know it was a TV show and they’d be convinced it was shot in the 80’s.

Finally, and most presciently, I am writing this one year after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It is staggering to see the parallels between then and now, mainly with many thousands of innocent people paying with their lives. Still, even with all the events throughout history, we as a human race have still barely learned anything...

After the masterpiece of Tomboy, Celine Sciamma stays within a town, but this one is much more vibrant and full of youthful attitude & energy. The plot follows the life of a group of young black French women, primarily Marieme, as they grow up in a rough and dangerous part of Paris.

The film looks at the lack of opportunities for them and how they must adapt to be able to survive. There is an excellent soundtrack and as much as France has been repeatedly filmed in different ways, this does genuinely add a new and fun-filled view to the capital city. Whilst there was no doubt to Sciamma's incredible ability within film, this film reinforces her stunning talent.

However, this film then takes a totally stupid and random course of action for the last third: Marieme, from out of nowhere, makes a decision (no spoilers here,) which any sane and thoughtful person would never do in a million years. This decision is absolutely disastrous and the film totally loses its way because of it. And when that happens, I just lost all interest in it and, although I made it to the end, felt that it was ruined.

As much as there is lots to love and I would say to watch this film, sadly I cannot recommend it, despite the excellent beginning and middle.

Yorgos Lanthimos is a director who never can be pigeonholed. Since his breakout film Dogtooth, which was also nominated for the Best Foreign Film Oscar, his work has varied enormously. This is though the first film of his I have actively wanted to see, following the massive praise & also the predominantly English cast.

The thing I like most about this film is the fact that it is in many ways designed to look like a period piece, with haughty serious characters, big palaces, horse-drawn carriages & fantastic costumes with spectacular wigs and frills. But the way it is shot and acted then totally throws you. For example, this film absolutely revels in being as weird, strange and random as possible. The cream of British acting are placed in scenes where ducks are racing or rabbits being treated as children whilst still being serious & delivering lines about the war effort. In terms of cinematography, there are fish-eye lenses and cameras placed in places you would never have thought to position them.

But where this film really flies is in the performances. As much as there was massive praise and buzz for Olivia Colman, I have to be honest and say my “Favourite” by a country mile was Rachel Weisz. She dominated the screen whenever she was on and I loved how she was able to play so many different types of emotions, again in a film which was absolutely crackers. Colman is very good and when you find out about the history of Queen Anne, it makes you shudder, especially the loss of all 17 of her children. Emma Stone rounds off things nicely and is suitably devious in her role as the young upstart who sees a way to get inside the Queen’s circle and become her favourite.

Much has been made about the fact that this is a very female-centric/feminist film, but I never saw it as a film which had that type of message. For me, it was more about the structure of governance and royalty with a Queen rather than a King, plus all the different minutiae of struggles between the subordinates below her. I mean, when in The Thick of It Hugh Abbot is replaced by Nicola Murray, she was still the minister in charge of her department and had all the same things go wrong. It certainly didn’t influence or affect my enjoyment of the film the fact that it was a female-led story and I did love the fun that the cast clearly had with this film.

Overall, despite some elements that could have been changed (this film is at least 15 minutes too long, and at 1 hour 50 was really starting to overstay it’s welcome,) the main thing for me, which I have consistently said in my reviews, is that it is a film which does things differently & is unashamed in this. And for this reason more than any, I did love it. It’ll certainly make me watch Lanthimos’s other work.

Unlike a lot of people who watch this film, I knew quite a bit of the history/backstory behind Mary Poppins and in particular how much of a nightmare PL Travers was both as a person and during the making of the film. The general consensus was that she was extremely rude to and difficult to everyone she encountered, plus after the film was made and she expressed her displeasure with it, she refused to allow any further adaptations during her lifetime.

Whilst this film does a very good job of fleshing this out and Emma Thompson in particular is wonderfully acidic and sharp tongued, plus Tom Hanks is extremely easy viewing as Walt Disney, the simple truth sadly is that this film just didn't do anything for me. It looks lovely, everyone tries their best and there are a couple of amusing moments. But there was just no point to the film. It was simply the case that I sat watching an extremely rude woman, surrounded by people who absolutely prostrated themselves to her and were treated with absolute scorn, coupled with scenes of her early life which attempted to show why she was how she was, along with the characters who influenced her novel. The early life scenes were no doubt trying to elicit sympathy for her and make her a more nuanced person, but after close to an hour of this, I just didn't want to continue and switch it off.

It does have to be said and I don't miss for a second that Travers was integral to certain elements of Mary Poppins succeeding as it did, the main one being the insistence of Julie Andrews being cast as the lead. That was a piece of genius on her part and is one of those roles which could never have been played by anyone else. It is also stunning that this was Andrew's first performance, despite the fact that she had been starring extensively in the theatre.

But despite this history, for me this film just had an extremely unlikeable protagonist who, despite the best efforts of the writers, director and stars, could not be turned around.

Midnight Express (ME) is a film which in many ways is deeply problematic and also immoral. And despite my insistence on judging a film or a piece of work on the work itself, not the furore surrounding it, it is important to reference the problems in certain cases, such as this one.

ME has, once you know about them, some really big issues and also the truth is at times the complete polar opposite to what is shown. The biggest problem is that the way the Turkish are portrayed: not one single Turk is shown in a good light, in any way shape or form, despite the repeated statements from the real Billy Hayes of the close bonds he formed with and his love for Turks as people. And as much as there was the massive backlash and anger from Turkey itself, the thing which sticks most for me is Hayes. He has repeatedly publicly condemned the film, it's story and how it changed the real events for its own version. He also visited Turkey once the warrant for his arrest was lifted and apologised for the great offence and upset caused.

However, having said all of this, and with the full knowledge of the film's misrepresentations, I did really enjoy it. What I enjoyed most was the spirit of Billy Hayes that the film really brilliantly showed and was acted superbly by Brad Davis. This was a man who was in many ways just a stupid kid, who thought he could make a few quick easy bucks by smuggling hashish out of the country. When he was inevitably caught and made an example of as an American citizen, sentenced to 30 years in prison, he then has to survive mentally as well as physically in this inhospitable environment.

The rest of the cast, particularly John Hurt, are incredible and really give huge gravitas to the film and story. The sets and soundtrack are also amazing.

So despite the real problems, I absolutely can look past these and say without issue that as a piece of work, this is almost essential viewing. In fact, my 4 star score is only not 5 stars because of the chronic misrepresentation that I spoke of earlier. But the fact that it has been so widely reported by multiple sources about the veracity of the film's events does count for a lot. A final warning though: this is at times a highly distressing film, particularly the scenes in the psychiatric hospital.

When Keanu Reeves first broke out into Hollywood, he was mainly known for either Sci-Fi comedy or small independent actions films. Then Point Break came along, followed by Speed, which turned him into an action star. This then became the springboard for The Matrix films, which became absolutely groundbreaking and genre-defying. When I was writing my review for the new Matrix film, I actually cast my mind back and realised again just how seminal and important those films were, despite the sequels diminishing returns.

But now, thanks to Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, who worked extensively with Reeves throughout his career, we now have a new icon to add to the pantheon of Keanu's filmography: John Wick. And this is not just another disposable action hero, written to be shoehorned into a film to fit around the stunts. Wick is a very different, real character. As much as there is the opening scene which sets the tone of what the movie will become, for at least the next 20 minutes, we are treated to something (for an action film set in 2014) totally at odds with and completely different to pretty much every other action hero.

Wick is a broken man, but broken mentally and emotionally. The film takes great care to show how much his heart has been ripped out and how he is drowning in sorrow. And this is also contrasted perfectly against his backstory as a man who literally could slaughter entire buildings-full of people. All that killing destroyed him, but when he left it all behind for his wife, he has a chance to be reborn. But his wife's death ripped him apart and he is just a broken void. When he is given a pet puppy as a final parting gift from his great love, you feel the small ray of hope in his life. However, as with all these films, things then go very wrong.

The resulting action film is incredible. The stunts are phenomenal, the choreography flawless and the action spectacular. And because you care about Wick as a character, you feel every emotion. The supporting cast, especially Willem Dafoe, Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, Alfie Allen and Michael Nyqvist are brilliant too, each playing their role brilliantly.

Also, it has to be said that one of the most incredible parts of this film is how much they manage to achieve with the budget they had, which was in many ways unbelievably moderate by other films of that time. It just goes to show that a great script and brilliant actors can make anything fly.

Watch this and see just how great action can be when done properly. Perfection

Cast your mind back: Die Another Day has come out & despite doing massive business (becoming at that time the highest grossing Bond film ever,) it had also been received by many Bond fans in particular like a bucket of cold sick. After half an hour of fairly great world building, that stupid f***ing invisible car comes out. I so vividly remember sitting in the cinema & feeling from everyone around me the same thought: you can't be serious. Bond is meant to be silly, not stupid. But the film then nose-dived into a bloated, horrible CGI mess that made A View To A Kill look like a masterpiece. As much as Pierce was getting older, I am convinced that part of the reason he was let go from the role was due to the reception to this film and the need to start again. After all, you don't achieve the best box office numbers ever & then think "Everything needs to change," irrelevant of what Barbara Broccoli & Michael G Wilson may say in interviews. I do find it very sad that Brosnan wasn't given the opportunity to do one more film, which he talked about wanting to do, to complete his tenure with a good send-off. But Bond did need a change anyways and I am very glad we didn't get another Die Another Day.

When Daniel Craig was cast, there was a massive backlash to him. He wasn't what most people had in their head as Bond being like and to be fair, when he was first revealed to the press, he was half-way through making another film and REALLY didn't look like Bond. But I never joined in with the bile directed at him, because I had seen him in many other films, respected hugely the risks that he had taken and wanted to see what he could do. And it turns out, there was a huge amount...

His Bond is brand new to the service & had just been promoted. There is a huge arrogance about him, but you also see Bond making mistakes which humanises him. As much as we have always seen Bond never put a foot wrong in many ways, here he really does make mistakes. And that was something which Craig has said he insisted on being in his version of Bond. This pays dividends. As does his relationship with M, which really builds over the course of the films that he does. The other cast are also great. Eva Green is just perfect. I absolutely adored her. She is so much more than just a beautiful woman, she is every bit as smart as Bond, as well as seeing him for exactly what he is. Mads Mikkelson does brilliant work as Le Chiffre as well.

But the other person who needs enormous praise is Martin Campbell, the director. He saved Bond once before with Goldeneye and he has again ridden to the rescue, making this film every bit as good as that film, as well as carving its own way forward in the world. Thank you so much Mr Campbell, we couldn't have made it this far without you.

This film is a masterpiece. I love it. It may be a tad too long, but everything it does, it does brilliantly. A brilliant first film in Craig's take on Bond.

I have never really worked out how I feel about Gaspar Noë. His films have always provoked unbelievably fierce controversy, sometimes for good reason. The only one of his films I had seen in any way before Love was Irréversible, which I didn't manage to make all the way through, switching off at the scene which got most people: the 9 minute single-take anal rape scene. It was just the most horrific, sadistic thing to watch and after 5 minutes, I had had enough. But I won't lie, leading up to that point, I wasn't particularly into the film anyways. What Irréversible was to me, and what I have heard other people also say, is that Noë is a deliberate provocateur. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but the story around those provocations has to be good enough to justify it. Whilst it did raise some interesting questions, it just didn't work as a whole.

But when I heard about Love, I was genuinely interested, mainly because it was trying to do something different, in that it was deliberately using real sex with proper actors to tell a story of love & break-ups. It was also a lot lighter than Noë's previous work. And I thought that the provocative element of Noë would be a very interesting driving force behind the camera. The other thing about this film was when I watched it, it was in a cinema full of Noë fans, so the atmosphere was that much more electric and did enhance my viewing.

The result is that I did enjoy Love a lot more than I thought I would do. The first scene is a very amusing two-fingers up to anyone who was watching who was easily shocked. Over the course of 5 minutes, Karl Glusman's character Murphy is pleasured to completion by Electra in an unbroken single take. This sets the tone and also provoked a lot of laughter. Then after that, the film properly started and began to recount Murphy's life leading up to the frantic phone call from Electra's mother, who's daughter and Murphy's ex had been missing. We see the standard falling in love, then Murphy and Electra deciding that what they both wanted was a threesome with the beautiful woman who had moved in next door. This then starts the catalyst for everything to fall apart.

As much as I gave it 3 stars, that in no way was because of the acting and performances. Karl Glusman is a very enigmatic & good lead, managing to hold the film together well. Aomi Muyock & Klara Kristin as Electra and Omi give brave & vulnerable performances too. For me the biggest problem with this film is quite simply that nothing much happens. Murphy claims to be a filmmaker and incessantly talks about creating movies, but never actually does anything apart from wax lyrical about his greatness. The film itself also doesn't seem to know what it wants to do. The build-up to the threesome (because a lot of the people who rent this know something about the film, it isn't a natural choice for most people looking to rent a movie to watch on a Friday night,) is done effectively, but then once it's over, the film is effectively rudderless.

But there is much to be enjoyed here and there is some genuine boundary pushing, just don't expect a masterpiece or much of a plot. Just enjoy being around the characters and the world that Gaspar Noë creates.

This film makes me so angry. I hate it because firstly it ended up being Pierce’s last film, which is a stain to have on your CV, considering the brilliance of his previous adventures. From Goldeneye (a masterpiece,) then Tomorrow Never Dies (very good,) through to The World is Not Enough (excellent despite some negative reviews,) up to Die Another Day (DAD) things were in very good shape.

I had seen in the media how the film was taking shape. Whether it was the cars, the locations or the cast, things looked amazing. I had seen Toby Stephens in Cambridge Spies (excellent BBC drama,) so when he was cast, that was a big boost, then in the middle of the production, Halle Berry also won her Oscar, which raised the stakes even further and genuinely made me excited for what was to come. Finally, this was also the 1st Bond film I’d seen in the cinema, so as I sat in my seat, I was pumped.

It starts great. The opening chase is brilliant and then the direction the story goes in is both unexpected and shocking. We see Bond literally as we had never seen him before: tortured, scared & broken, but still refusing to give up. Brosnan was in many ways also allowed to really flex his dramatic muscles and shown how good an actor he was. It was also a point at which North Korea had been in the news for their provocations, so was absolutely a current event. Once he is freed, then he is determined to track down who set him up & stop the nuclear war.

Everything was going well, things were set up brilliantly and then Bond goes to pick up his gadgets...

And given a car that can go completely invisible...

I sat, along with probably most of the audience, thinking “You aren’t seriously going to do this? You can’t be prepared to believe that people will accept something so stupid which in 2002 was impossible & even 21 years later is probably nigh-on (to the level that is shown in DAD.) And in that moment, for me this movie was a complete & utter write-off. Nothing it could do after that point would have saved it. Bond has always been ludicrous, never stupid, and that is the vital point which this movie totally miscalculated.

Things then just get more stupid. We have ice palaces & planes that fly through the power of the Sun’s rays just two examples in this absolutely wreck of a film. And whilst this was all happening, the thing I felt most was sad. I love James Bond, it is a part of my childhood & it’s films have had a profound influence on me. I never want a Bond film to be rubbish & I hate that this was considered in any way acceptable. Even today, DAD is still one of the most hated films when Bond fans are polled.

But the total waste of everything extends to all elements of this film. I mean, it looks horrific in parts, with terrible CGI giving it an eye-hurting, garish look. The sound is also terrible. And the waste of actors almost criminal. This film featured many of the actors who today are among the best in their field: Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Rosamund Pike, Judy Dench & of course Pierce. Any good work they do is just lost in the total ruin of what was vomited onto screen.

And finally, as referenced earlier, this ended up being Pierce’s last film, probably in part due to the backlash against this movie, despite it becoming the highest grossing film until Skyfall. Ironically, in many ways, we had to have DAD in order to get the rebooted Casino Royale. But I do wish that he had been allowed one more film, to right the wrongs of this film and go out on a high. Sadly, apart from Timothy Dalton, every Bond has finished on a rubbish film. Let's hope whoever is the new Bond can buck this trend...

Based on the novel by David Ignatius, this film follows DiCaprio’s Roger Ferris, a burnt-out but still highly motivated CIA officer who is based on the ground in various parts of the Middle East, trying to keep the situation on the ground from boiling over. Ferris is a deeply moral man, but also knows that he has become someone who has to sometimes do highly questionable things in order to achieve his goals. But he is also highly ambitious, which has served his career well. However, the biggest thorn in his side is his boss Ed Hoffman, played by Crowe. 

Crowe seems to have gone back to the mould of his previous highly successful performance as Jeffrey Wingard in The Insider, in that he has piled on the pounds in order to pull off the look of the office-bound spy who spends his days either at his desk or eating massive meals in restaurants whilst controlling the various schemes he is in charge of. Hoffman is someone who appreciates the talent and ability of Ferris, but also is perfectly happy to completely undermine his agent & do what he wants to do, at the expense of everyone around him. Part of Crowe’s skill in this role is that as much as Hoffman is an absolute detestable character, Crowe does imbue a certain sense of inevitability within him: when you get into the world of espionage, there are no good guys and anyone who tries to make you believe that there are is lying to you. Both Ferris & Hoffman know that things could turn against them on a dime, the only difference being that for Ferris, it could quite easily result in him being killed/sacrificed. 

But it is not only the 2 headliners who are great. Mark Strong is also excellent and in many ways steals the film as Hani, the director of Jordanian intelligence. From their opening scenes together, he and Ferris see a kindred spirit within each other and form an at first unease partnership. This then becomes a really gripping part of the story, especially as events around them seek to undermine them. Golshifteh Farahani is also great and does wonders with the role of Aisha, the nurse who looks after Ferris and then starts to become closer to him. Finally, even though at that time he was not well-known, Oscar Issac has a memorable if short role as Bassam, Ferris’s right hand man. 

Ridley Scott brilliantly directs this film and especially the chase sequences with the helicopters are spectacular. The look of the film, as well as the sound and script, are also perfect. The only thing that stops this getting 5 stars is that it does go on a bit too long, plus the ending leaves something to be desired as well. But still an amazing and worthwhile watch, with some good humour as well.

A classic very early 90’s film, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as John Kimble, a tough cop who is placed undercover in order to track down the wife and child of a drug dealer who he has to catch. 

As much as this is not a kids film (it has a 15 rating,) it is also very funny and silly. But there is also a genuine charm to seeing this tough policeman who can handle criminals all day long being totally out of his depth when confronted with a classroom of screaming unruly children. Arnold also shows his ability in transitioning to comedy film and there is a real joy in watching him slowly be won over. For almost everyone at that time, he was quite simply the Terminator, so this was a very clever career move for him. 

There is, within the comedy, some unbelievably funny moments. My absolute favourite was a scene where, no word of a lie, Kimble chases after a bad guy and pulls a Magnum out of a foot holster. The fact that this is done totally “straight” with no irony just makes it funnier. There are also some of Arnie’s most famous sayings in this film, including “It’s not a tumour!”

As much as there are certain elements which don’t really work, that doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. This film a riot, gloriously silly and a classic within Arnie’s filmography. It also has a lovely, heartwarming undertone, which perfectly compliments the film overall.