Film Reviews by TB

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. 

After Shallow Grave & Trainspotting, expectation was fever pitch as to what the dream team of Danny Boyle, Andrew Macdonald, John Hodge and their star Ewan McGregor were going to do next. There were literally thousands of possible scenarios they could have turned their hand to. And there is a real sense of frustration for me that A Life Less Ordinary (ALLO) really genuinely tries to do something different and break the mould, but the overall experience is at best mixed. 

The good points are undoubtedly the chemistry with the cast. Ewan and Cameron Diaz, who at that time was not the Cameron Diaz that we now know, gives a very spiky and funny performance as the spoilt rich kid (Celine) of the boss who has just fired McGregor’s janitor. McGregor’ character Robert then decides to kidnap Celine in order to get his job back, but Robert is a total drip and quickly Celine sees that she can manipulate him, as well as having some fun herself. The situation is being managed in a spiritual sense by 2 angels played by Holly Hunter and Delroy Jackson, who have been told by the Angel Gabriel to make Robert and Celine fall in love, otherwise they will be banished. 

Unfortunately, there are some significant problems with this film, mainly the script and narrative choices. The film as a whole is very disjointed and I never really knew what to make of it. Whilst there are also some great individual scenes, including a brilliant karaoke scene in a bar, none of it fits together particularly well, which is quite surprising considering how the previous collaborations were not only great but also extremely tightly edited and paced. 

But credit where credit is due: this was never a boring film and one which actually tries to do something differently. It just a shame that, not from lack of trying, this film never scales the heights it so clearly is aiming for. 

Another of the excellent documentaries that Ewan McGregor has starred in, this one welcomingly features his brother Colin, who has before been in stuff that Ewan has done. The most memorable thing to feature both of them previously was their campaign to save, successfully as it turned out, RAF Lossiemouth, where Colin was based for many years. But in this series, his role is much more prominent. As an RAF pilot, he is able to bring his own experiences to this programme, especially when looking at where the RAF came from and what its future might look like.

There are some incredible interviews, including with 2 female pilots who delivered bombers to squadrons during WW2, bucking the trend at that time of women’s roles in the war effort. There is finally an extremely emotional end to the series which I won’t ruin, but really ended the show on a magnificent and touching note.

A brilliant documentary and highly recommended.

Elton John is a legend in every sense of the word: musician, campaigner, style icon, creative. His influence over the past 50 years cannot in any way be understated. And after the limp and (aside from the incredible lead performance by Rami Malek,) relatively poor Bohemian Rhapsody, we now have a modern day musician biopic that in every sense of the word is no-holds barred.

As much as it is a given that these two films will be compared, there is good reason behind it. Both are about stratospherically talented men, gay, extravagant, eccentric but also with extremely difficult personal lives. The difference, which is admirably put front and center of this film, is that this is in no way a vehicle to simply show the good/commercially/PR friendly side of John. There are times where he is actually extremely unlikeable and his behaviour and well-known tantrums are there for all to see, although it is also shown his extreme addictions to drink and drugs. The main theme that runs through this film more than anything is honesty, as much as there has been extreme pushback from members of John's extended family about the portrayal of particularly his father.

John was born into a working class family and at a young age, shows his incredible flair for and talent with music, especially his ability to be able to listen to a piece of music and then play it back on the piano. He then progresses up to playing as backup in various bands, before being introduced to Bernie Taupin and starting one of the most impactful & successful musical collaborations in music history.

There are many great parts to this film, but the performances are in a league of their own. Taron Edgerton has slowly but surely been building up his résumé, playing everything from a secret agent to an animated gorilla. But crucially he can also sing extremely well. Whilst there were many actors linked with the role of John before he was cast, none of them were able to both act & sing. Edgerton is great in both senses, able to not only show the enormous contrasting parts of John's personality, but also show the pain through song that Elton battled with. There is also no holding back on the sexual side of John's life, unlike in Bohemian Rhapsody, where Freddie's preferences were barely hinted at.

But it isn't only Edgerton who shines. For me, another outstanding performance was Jamie Bell as Taupin. He really embodies the role and shows again why he is such a fine actor. Richard Madden is also good as John Reid, who managed John and was also his lover.

The music and fantasy scenes are, as you'd expect, masterful. Great use of colour and light really combine for a visual treat for the eyes. The back catalogue is utilised to great effect, especially Don't let the Sun go down on me, detailing his short-lived and doomed marriage to Renate Blauel.

This is a great film, with many memorable performances and also is at times extremely sad. John is someone so talented, but it took many years and huge amounts of pain before he was able to be himself and find the peace with his husband David and children.

So, how best to explain The Greasy Strangler (TGS)? Well, there are basically 2 different groups of people: those who have seen/love John Waters's work (excluding Hairspray) and those who have never even allowed their minds to go to the random & weird places that his stories inhabit. When I say I'm excluding Hairspray, what I mean is the Waters films where there is unbelievable amounts of sexual & various bodily functions shown, all wrapped up with the strangest humour you can imagine. The only one of his films in that genre I watched is Pink Flamingos. If you haven't seen it and you like TGS, rent it and you'll see how tame this film is compared to that.

The story, if you can call it that, takes place in a backwater Mid-Western American town. Big Ronnie & his son Big Brayden run a tour around their town, claiming that loads of events that clearly never happened occured in various places, basically telling outrageous lies to scam tourists. Ronnie & Brayden also live together in a house that looks like something out of a horror movie, with Brayden only being allowed to live with his father if he cooks him meals swimming in grease. Terrorising the neighborhood is a mysterious figure called The Greasy Strangler, who is covered from head to toe in grease and murders people. Added in to that, both Ronnie & Brayden have extremely strange genitalia which the film delights in repeatedly showing in various set-ups.

This film absolutely revelles in being outrageous, in every way you can imagine. Whether it's fart jokes, sex jokes or at times comically graphic violence, the movie features all of them with a kind of joyfulness that is quite infectious. For example, there are many toe-curlingly awkward sex scenes, including one where the hapless girlfriend of first Brayden then Ronnie gets covered in grease mid-coitus.

But I absolutely loved it. It is a totally no holds barred movie, with a cast who are absolutely game for anything and everything the film wants to do. Michael St Michaels and Sky Elobar, as Ronnie and Brayden respectively, are an absolute riot. They know exactly the type of film they're in and play it up shamelessly. And as the love interest, Elizabeth De Razzo is probably the best of all of them. Her sweet but also saucy & daring Janet is someone who is able to brilliantly marshall and also send up the romance element of the film. All 3 of them are a joy, especially as it is clear they also, in real life, loved working together, which makes the chemistry even better on screen.

But it is also important to state that, if you don't have the type of humour the film is revelling in, there is absolutely no point in you watching it. This is a film which takes the strange, surreal and at times deeply weird and sexual & runs with it, pushing scenarios as far as they can go. If you have any prudishness in any way, then don't bother. You'll just get annoyed & wonder how the hell this film got made (which to be fair myself and others who do have that sense of humour will find hysterical.)

As the film goes on, it does lose some of its momentum, hence the 4 stars, but I will never ever forget it. I will never look at a vat of grease or think about phone sex in the same way ever again...

The idea of unconditional love being turned on its head in the most extreme way is one which is ripe for movie/horror treatment. After all, irrelevant of what you do or where you go in the world, for most people their parents/guardians offer unconditional love and safety. So to flip that would make for an interesting and, if done right, funny premise. 

The bits of the trailer, especially a psychotic Nicholas Cage trying to smash down a door to get to his kids with a sledgehammer, looked exactly what I’d expect this movie to be: crazy, funny, gory but also silly. Unfortunately, once I started watching this film, the only emotion I felt was boredom. There is such a long set-up that by the time the parents start to turn and all hell breaks loose, I was totally lost and bored. In a strange way, it shares a lot of the issues which the Russell Crowe film Unhinged had: an inordinate amount of time setting up the family, with massive amounts of exposition about characters who I didn’t care about. 

I only lasted about 40 minutes. The longer the film went on, the more I found myself wondering why the hell I was watching it for. After I gave up, it may well have been a great film, but if you get 40 minutes into a film & keep how much longer until something good happens, then something is wrong. A complete misfire sadly, despite the potential.