Film Reviews by TB

When the 1st series of True Detective was released, it genuinely was a game-changer. Whilst it not only had a sensational & brilliant script, amazing direction & flawless performances, it also heralded the start of TV series's (for decades looked down upon as inferior to films,) attracting A-list talent on both sides of the camera. But whilst it's impact on TV as a whole is undisputed, the same can't be said for the series going forward.

Series 2 was atrocious, trying to take some of the themes from the 1st series & wrapping this in a boring & convoluted story. The critical backlash was also significant, following the uniform adoration of the previous series. Series 3 did pull the wheel back a bit, in no small part thanks to Ali & Dorff's performances. But it still was mediocre. Then for 5 years, the anthology lay dormant, until a complete refresh was announced, the 1st without creator Nic Pizzolatto's involvement.

On paper it looked so perfect... Jodie Foster, flawless in almost everything, returning to a police/officer role after The Silence of the Lambs; the enormous budgets/clout of HBO, the various elements of the True Detective world which could be used and finally a staggering cast including John Hawks & Christopher Eccleston. But despite some brilliant individual moments, this is on a par with series 2 for enjoyment.

The occult & supernatural theme, which was a key element in series 1, but one which sat beautifully within the narrative, here is front & center. And whilst this gets very trite VERY quickly, what it also becomes is an extremely lazy way for the writers to attempt to ratchet up tension. So, characters will have visions/hallucinations which perfectly finish at the right time or create a new plot device.

Also, in line with a lot of media content produced, a very large number of the hot-button issues in society today are included in the storyline, such as global warming, indigenous rights, LGBTQ themes ect. I want to be explicitly clear here that I am not going to go down the lazy rabbit hole of just saying "woke" as the be-all-and-end-all to dismiss this, because stories are a crucial way to inform people of these issues.

My problem & another reason why this series is rubbish is because all of those issues & more are simply shoehorned in/thrown into the narrative as if to say "Look at all these things which we have put into this show." It is like a great big gloopy soup of multiple hot button problems thrown onto the screen with very little nuance.

Over 6 episodes, we are taken through the story, with some good elements & tension. But Foster's character in particular spends a lot of time simply being a bitch, with hints of previous trauma to do a lot of heavy lifting for this. Eccleston is wasted, Hawkes doesn't fare much better & Reis ill-served by the script which often simply relegates her to clichéd partner stuff.

But where I really started to hate it was in the lazy callbacks to previous series, mainly the 1st, as a way to try & bridge the narratives. For example, a random character is introduced as being related to another with no mention of it again, solidifying the impression of it being a lazy throwback. This happens several times, again simply mentioning lines in passing.

The final straw was the uttering of an iconic line as an attempt at some kind of pay-off, as which point I just wanted the series to be over so I could actually go & watch a decent series, not just reheated crap which felt so self-congratulatory it was vomit inducing. The final episode, including something which happens to a character which they simply could not come back from, was the final nail in the coffin.

Sadly, I am now done with the True Detective format. What was once the potentially genre-altering brilliance of series 1 has now become just another trite TV show which sullied it's once remarkable name.

Avoid

For a very large number of people, whilst they might not even know the title of this film, they will have seen the poster. The iconic image of Béatrice Dalle, in a white profile on a blue night sky with stars, was everywhere in the late 80's/early 90's, on bedroom walls & in the back of film & TV scenes. It has also become a cult film, mainly among the young men who flocked to see it because of its frank & fearless sexuality.

Watching it, having seen almost none of the other French films around that time, what struck me most was the profound influence it has had on many of the films that followed it, as well as clearly having had a considerable impact of those writers/directors. Both The Dreamers and Blue is the Warmest Colour owe a lot to it, whether in the depiction of relationships/intimacy on screen or simply setting up a scene & allowing us as the audience to observe/get lost in the world these characters live in.

And that last sentence embodies what I loved most about this film: to be in that world & share time with these two dynamic & real people. This film would have totally & utterly failed had the 2 actors not been fully committed to it, whether in the fearlessness of the nudity/sex scenes, or simply the playing off of each other as they progress from living in a shack on the beach through to a big French house in a beautiful little village.

Where the film for me doesn't work is in the depiction of the struggles of Betty with her mental health. She will go from happy & joyful one minute to having full meltdowns & destroying everything in sight the next, but this never really is shown to affect Zorg in the way you might think. The 1st meltdown in the film, where she literally destroys the house/belongings of a man she has known a week, prompts almost indifference in him. Then when she does it again shortly afterwards, he simply watches her, despite the fact it is established very early on that he is living almost hand-to-mouth.

As the story progresses & their relationship goes through it's ups and downs, this is the one thing which constantly derails the film narrative. I found myself eye-rolling at these points, because it turned the film from a fearless & frank love story into a high-budget version of EastEnders or Coronation Street. However, I do give the film massive credit for showing how devastating mental illness is at that period in time, when for most people whenever they thought of psychiatric illness, their mind instantly went to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Betty is an extremely relatable & vivacious woman, far more than a one-dimensional love interest.

If you have 3 hours to spare and want to go on this journey, there will be plenty to love. But you may finish it & wish the writing/story was a bit more tighter.

Brett Easton-Ellis first exploded into the literary world with Less Than Zero in 1985. A story of completely no-holds-barred & uncensored depravity, it quickly became a cult novel as well as a best seller. It also firmly established Easton-Ellis's vicious & satirical view of the world, along with the characters he created. Other novels followed, including American Psycho, looking at this brutal vision of his from different angles.

Obviously, when it came to adapting the novels for films, there were mixed results. The greatest of these, as well as my own personal favourite (it went straight into my top 10 films of all time, where it has stayed & will never be beaten,) was American Psycho. Featuring a masterful, incredible performance by Christian Bale, it was also highly successful as well as becoming a cult behemoth.

However, the real star of the film is Mary Harron, who took the novel, it's themes & story, then used those to craft her original script (along with Guinevere Turner,) into the masterpiece I love. If you had tried to literally film the novel with all the various characters & their idiosyncrasies, it would have been a very different & fairly repellent film.

And that is the problem with The Rules of Attraction.

In the 40 minutes I watched it, I was shown a conveyor belt of the stereotypical Easton-Ellis characters, each given their own montage & look into their back-stories. They are all loathsome, spoilt rich kids who are indifferent about the world around them, with no charm or anything even remotely likeable. The film itself is almost an exercise in tolerating the worst society can produce being paraded in front of you & challenging you to in any way relate to or want to follow their journeys.

Gone is the charm or humour in watching these creatures live their lives (although there were a couple of bitingly funny lines,) instead being thrown into a cesspool of revolting acts (within the opening 10 minutes, a woman is raped & her rapist sick over her, whilst another man voyeuristically films this; whilst this is happening, the woman provides a dull, disinterested narration of this.)

After 40 minutes, I just found myself thinking that I really had no interest in wasting any more of my time watching this garbage. When done right, antiheroes can be some of the best protagonists in films (such as American Psycho...) But when this is not done well, you just find yourself having to spend time with people who in real life you would cross the road not to be in the same street as them.

This film is genius. It is so extreme, so shocking & in parts so horrific, you wonder what kind of a mind could imagine it. But it is also a scorchingly funny & biting satire on not only the demands of women to look a certain way & never grow old, but also the very human trait of never being satisfied with what we have/always wanting more.

Elisabeth Sparkle is a former A-list Hollywood celebrity, who in her prime was the Queen of Tinseltown. In her later years, she fronts an 80's style exercise programme, dressed in leotards that leaves little to the imagination. Then, on her 50th birthday, she is fired simply for being too old, by the monstrous & revolting TV executive Harvey. After being in a car accident & ending up in hospital, she is given the details of a revolutionary new drug which allows you to create a younger version of yourself, which you can embody for 7 days before having to switch back. However, her clone has other ideas, leading to catastrophic consequences...

I loved this film, for so many reasons. A theme throughout many of my reviews is that so many major films now tell basically the same story with slightly different situations/tweaks. It is dull, boring dreck made by a hideously demented machine (Hollywood) which churns out duds by the bucket load. So for a film like this to be made, which also is a scathing criticism of that industry, is a rare thing. But it is also so much more than this.

Whilst I can praise Qualley & Quaid, this film is Demi Moore's masterpiece. Her performance is one of striking vulnerability (multiple nude scenes as well as makeup/prostheses which make her look absolutely horrendous,) alongside a knowing wink that she is totally in on the joke. Sparkle could literally be a metaphor for her career (highly successful in her early life before several duds derailed it.)

But one fundamental point I did take from the film & which I felt was repeatedly but subtly referenced is that there was never any need for Sparkle to go down this horrendous rabbit hole/change her appearance. As a 50 year old (bear in mind that Moore filmed this when she was nearly 60,) she is in phenomenal shape. It is the industry she is in, alongside a pressure on all women to keep their youthful looks.

As her clone Sue, Qualley does exceptional work. Whilst she very quickly is successful, being cast as the replacement for Sparkle, then having all the associated perks that come with this, her eyes are always dead, knowing she has gotten into a Faustian bargain which will soon go catastrophically wrong. As her desperation to continue being Sue becomes all-consuming & parasitic, it is a gripping but horrifying thing to behold.

And rounding it all off, Dennis Quaid has the kind of role actors would kill for. Playing Harvey (an unbelievably unsubtle reference to a disgraced & convicted former producer,) you can see Quaid is walking on Cloud 9. Harvey is a walking sleazeball, all the worst traits of a TV executive turned up to 11. Whether engaging in a disgustingly misogynistic phone call about Sparkle whilst she is in the toilet next to him, through to a restaurant meal with her where he eats like a combination of a pig & a cement mixer, he is human vermin.

But I cannot overstate just how funny this film is. There were several laugh out loud moments for me, some involving the pervy nextdoor neighbour, or the horror of Sparkle when she wakes to see what has happened as a result of not following the rules of the drug.

Be warned though, you need a strong stomach for a lot of this film, especially the ending. But again, this is also a stroke of genius. After a crazy & off-the-wall 2 hours, the payoff is perfect, a crackers end to a bonkers film.

This is filmmaking at it's very best: daring, provocative, no holds barred, with actors who give their everything to their characters. Incredible & brilliant

Arriving with much fanfare, as well as plaudits aplenty, this Yorgos Lanthimos at his most esoteric & unpredictable. Set in a steampunk-era Victorian London, an experimental surgeon (Defoe,) find the body of a pregnant woman who has committed suicide. He then takes the brain of her baby & implants it into her mother's head, before reanimating her & making her his latest creation à la Frankenstein's monster. However, "Bella" has other ideas as well as a determination to see the outside world for herself, along with her new lover (Ruffalo) in tow.

As much as there was much beautiful imagery, along with a fearlessness & daring by Stone as the lead, after a strong first 3rd, the film then starts to wallow in its own weirdness. The story then becomes something of a preachy parable, with some highly unrealistic scenarios (working in a brothel is shown to overall be an exhilarating & totally safe experience, with no violent punters or threats from the Madame,) before attempting some sort of kumbaya ending, which to me didn't work.

But there was plenty to keep me interested & I absolutely think Stone deserved her multiple award wins, especially considering the amount of films released now which tell basically the same story.

In film & TV, there is often an actor who has that one role which defines them, irrelevant of whatever other highly celebrated parts they go on to play. Occasionally, someone will have more than one, such as Daniel Day-Lewis or Robert De Niro, but these are often the exceptions to the rule (to be clear, I'm talking about roles which people will immediately think of when this actor is mentioned, not always their best performances.) For Ray Liotta, that film is Goodfellas, which for any actor to have on their resumé is a wonderful calling card. It was also technically the 1st film I saw him in (I say technically, because I played Vice City way before I watched Goodfellas.) In that film, he was perfect: brilliantly cast & truly no-one else could have played Henry Hill with the mixture of innocence, threat & violence that he brought to it, all wrapped up in that distinctive New Jersey accent.

But I will argue to this day that although Goodfellas is amazing, his magnum opus is a performance in a tiny, micro-budget thriller which he also produced & spent years getting off the ground after multiple failed attempts, which adds to the reverence I have for Liotta.

Nick Tellis (Patric) is a destroyed, mentally obliterated & horrifically emotionally scarred cop. Years of deep undercover work, where he lived around & took drugs with criminals/addicts, culminated in a shocking & heinous act of violence which totally broke him. 18 months later, Tellis is summoned by his superiors, who want him to investigate the murder of another undercover cop, Michael Calvess. Although initially resistant to this, Tellis agrees on the condition he is promoted to a desk job & that he is assisted by Detective Henry Oak (Liotta,) a highly unstable cop who nevertheless has an extremely high conviction rate. The two men then investigate Calvess's murder, as well as learning to work together.

Whilst Jason Patric is amazing, the only thing most people will remember from this film is Liotta. Every single element of his performance, in a genre which even when this was released (2002) was already bloated with the sheer volume of cop films, is sensational. Known for being slim-built, here he has bulked up to become this unstoppable force, a hulking bear of a man with a boiling rage. When you combine this with his sheer charisma & presence, the results are mind-blowing. He has only 1 goal: bring to justice the killer/killers of his close friend. He will stop at nothing until these vermin are caught. But the genius of the writing (from the magnificent script by Joe Carnahan,) in no way makes him a one-dimensional angry cop. Through quiet, contemplative moments, we see a man who has experienced his own horrendous pain & loss, channelling that into fighting crime. Liotta has never been better.

In terms of production, again the film-makers do wonders with almost no budget. We are thrown into a harsh & bitterly cold Detroit, full of criminals & violence, in a totally authentic look at policing the poorest & most desperate parts of America, totally forgotten by the government. The chases, including the blistering & frantic opening scene, are as good as any top-tier action film. The script/story is perfectly paced, constantly pulling the rug out from under us, whilst always keeping us gripped. And as the final scene finishes, the sadness & horror is almost overwhelming.

This is perfection, a gut-punch of a film which proves that budget is in many ways irrelevant when it comes to quality, which I would also argue made it as good as it is, considering it HAD to be got right. Over 90 minutes, you are taken on a journey of horror, hope & trauma. And at the centre of this is Ray Liotta, in not only his greatest performance, but one of the best I have ever seen. Thank you for your incredible work over the years. RIP

I adore Batman Begins. It is an incredible, highly detailed & perfectly scripted masterpiece, looking at the origins of the Caped Crusader & Bruce Wayne's evolution from a lost & emotionally ripped apart orphan to the avenging protector & saviour of Gotham. It is still, even after the monumental hype of the Dark Knight, the best of them in my view. The reason for this is because not one thing isn't perfect.

We are given a magnificent opening, then the film settles & gently takes it time, via flashbacks, to show you the journey of Bruce Wayne. As much as some of the weapons are pure fantasy, the effort to shoot as many of the stunts as possible without CGI, as well as making a real-life, fully working Tumbler, pays dividends.

The cast is also perfection. Front & center of this is Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. One amusing fact about the lead up to shooting this film, which is referenced in the special features, is that the film he shot before Batman Begins was The Machinist, in which he lost a horrific & shocking amount of weight in order to play the protagonist. He then had put all this weight back on & more to play Wayne. The transformation he achieves is nothing short of staggering. But his characterisation is so much more than a muscle-bound body.

Bruce is an incredibly vulnerable man who wants to make a difference to the horror & violence around him & in the city he loves. But he also has a vast wealth which means he can actually put these plans into action. From training to be able to fight multiple men at once through to flying through the air in a custom-made suit, he never anything less than believable.

But that doesn't mean for a second that other characters are sidelined. As Alfred, Michael Caine is quite simply the living embodiment of what you would want your carer/father figure to be. Caring, fierce, stern & loving, Alfred is magnificent. Other roles also click perfectly: Liam Neeson brings genuine menace & villainy, Katie Holmes great as Bruce's unfulfilled & determined love interest, Tom Wilkinson as the moss boss from hell.

And marshalling all of this craziness is Christopher Nolan, along with his incredible DP Wally Pfister & brother Jonah on scriptwriting duties. There is simply no better comic book trilogy than this. And I have no doubt the reverence towards it will continue for all time.

A flawless first chapter

Whilst watching this film, the main thought that kept coming into my head was how different it's impact would have been if it had been released before the COVID pandemic. Whilst there was in no way the scenes of violence which are depicted in the film, the sight of empty towns, massive queues for food & hospitals which are overwhelmed strike far more poignantly having been through a world pandemic.

But whilst there is strong imagery, brilliant use of minimal effects to convey the scenes of horror & carnage (the opening 15 minutes is absolutely genius in how it ratchets up the tension,) the film then becomes an exercise in often mundane padding, interspersed with some brilliant moments. Benedict Cumberbatch in particular has an incredible 10 minute part, giving not only a potted history of his character's previous life & despair, but also a terrible yet subtle warning of what awaits the women who he offers food & shelter to.

Whilst Jodie Comer is brilliant, as she always is, her performance is often let down by a script which doesn't seem to know what it wants to show. We have some extremely powerful & beautifully shot moments, such as Comer bathing in the sea & it being a striking metaphor for her cleansing herself of the past horrors before she looks towards the future for herself & her new baby, or when she is cooking on a mountain side & a magnificent bird of prey lands next to her, one of many biblical influences.

However, I still felt this was a missed opportunity. Unlike Children of Men, which really delved into the desperation of the population of the UK when society starts to crumble, this film simply is a passive observer without much to say for itself.

Released in 1973, this is rightly considered a classic by many people, loved by generations of children. It was clear from the outset why Disney was always going to do a film about the legend of the Robin Hood, as there is such a rich history & multiple angles this story could be told from.

But to me, the absolute genius is and will always be the cast of voice actors who bring this story to life, whose vocal performances are simply perfect. And leading front & center is Peter Ustinov as Prince John.

Using simply his voice, coupled with the wonderful drawings, Ustinov creates by turns a hysterically funny, petulant, narcissistic & highly dangerous man-child. Acquiring power after stealing the crown from his brother King Richard, John is everything a weak & spinless leader will always be: obsessed with power & adulation from the people, but knowing deep down that everyone is laughing at him.

The crowning glory of this, satirising not only childish tantrums but also showing how close that line is to real-world behaviour from political leaders is when Robin Hood, in front of the crowd, shouts out "You took that crown from King Richard! Long live King Richard!" with the people cheering & joining in, to which John jumps up and down screaming "I AM KING!!"

The rest of the cast are also great, from Brian Bedford as Robin Hood, Andy Devine as Friar Tuck & Pat Buttram as the Sheriff of Nottingham. All are excellent. And finally, the story is not afraid to really go to dark places for a children's cartoon in the early 70's, particularly in the end scenes as Robin is mercilessly hunted by John's goons. There is a genuine level of sadism at play here, although the ending is the fairytale romantic one that all of these films must have.

A total classic. And I bet the only thing you'll have in your head afterwards is Ustinov's high-pitched squeal of rage after Robin Hood has fooled him again.

Many years ago, I watched Foxcatcher. I had no interest in professional wrestling & knew nothing about the story, instead being drawn to it due to the incredible cast & rave reviews. At its core it was a film about the toxicity of how elite sports can destroy people, whether it is the actual athletes themselves, or the wannabe outcast who has all the wealth but none of the ability, so becomes a destructive parasite.

It was a similar situation with The Iron Claw. Apart from many good reviews, I have always had time for Zac Efron (especially after his staggering & phenomenal performance as Ted Bundy,) plus I was interested in seeing another story of wrestling & it's impact upon a family (like with Foxcatcher, I knew nothing of the Von Erichs.) But whilst there is some really good work here, I never felt truly involved with the story.

Fritz Von Erich was a legend & highly decorated wrestler, although never become world champion, despite repeated attempts to get a title fight. He & his wife have 4 boys who Fritz is determined will one day be not only as successful as him, but each becomes a world champion, effectively living out his dreams through them. The film examines the consequences of this, alongside the "family curse," which repeatedly strikes in horrible & shocking ways.

The main headlines this film attracted were due to Efron's staggering bodily transformation. And I say that very deliberately. Efron was always known for being stacked & choosing roles which showed off his physicality (he even demonstrates this in Dirty Grandpa of all films.) But here, he has pushed himself not only to new heights but also horrific ones: his body super-sized & almost deformed looking, the muscles stretching his skin to breaking point. It is a horrible & deeply unpleasant look, one which absolutely attracted praise for Efron's commitment to the role. And this body becomes the metaphor of the film: Kevin shoulders so much of the pain & dysfunction of the family, alongside repeated dismissiveness & belittling from his father.

The other brothers are well played, Jeremy Allen White taking time out of The Bear's kitchen to become Kerry, the good looking & fiery brother, Harris Dickinson as David, the brash & provocative showman and finally Stanley Simons as Mike, the youngest brother who loves music & is in many ways forced into his father's tunnel vision of the Von Erich's legacy as wrestling legends.

But despite this tragic & at times heartbreaking true story, alongside it's solid performances, it was also in many ways impenetrable for me. I always felt like I was on the outside looking in, never a part of it. Whereas Foxcatcher or even The Wrestler created this incredible & rich environment full of wonderful characters & people you grew to love, I never felt that with The Iron Claw. It was quite a cold film, as formal as the many business transactions & backroom deals we are shown.

There were several profoundly moving scenes & the wrestling montages are shot amazingly well. But for me, the heart & warmth, even in a small way, would have made this a much more gripping film.

When the Alien franchise started in 1979, no-one could have predicted the stratospheric impact & love for these films. What started as effectively a small budget horror in space, jumping on the momentum of Star Wars's huge success, is still a franchise revered decades later. This success is also partly down to not only Alien but Aliens being absolutely perfect, flawless masterpieces in their own ways. However, the Alien franchise has also had more than it's fair share of sometimes catastrophic misfires & duds; (for many people the AVP films started awfully & nosedived.)

When Ridley Scott was given the keys back to the franchise again, he produced Prometheus (average,) and Alien: Covenant (rubbish overall, despite a great opening.) Neither was what the fans wanted, and for ordinary film watchers, there wasn't much for them either. Despite stating that he would keep cranking out sequels until he dropped dead, Scott has now handed over the reins to Fede Alvarez, himself a huge Alien fan, to inject some new ideas into the mix.

Despite my rating, I had a lot of fun watching this film, although never once was I scared or really that on-edge. There is in no way anything like the Space Jockey scene (complete with horrific music,) or the Alien suddenly jumping out of the shadows & really making you jump (like with Andrews in Alien3.) The action is brilliantly handled, and I am so grateful that Alvarez insisted on puppets & full practical effects. Not only do I never fully buy into CGI aliens in these types of films, but they simply don't move or act like they should, which then breaks the illusion.

The main reason for the 3 stars is actually due to the opening 20 minutes. In pretty much every other Alien film, it starts relatively slowly, introducing characters & ensuring that the plot is given time to breathe (even if the story itself is rubbish.) In no way does this happen in Romulus. After a brief opening recovering debris from space, we are then thrown into a frenetic & badly rushed series of scenes, where some backstory & exposition is thrown onto the screen, before we are bundled into a spaceship & shot into space.

Character development is actually quite minimal & sadly the script reduces 1 of the players to effectively a single trait: being an absolutely horrible & abrasive arsehole. Alongside this, at least 2 of the characters were fairly pointless, in the sense that they were only there for later set-ups/payoffs. But one thing I am grateful for was the fact that there wasn't the ridiculously large number of people like in Prometheus or Covenant. The main frustration I have is that, after the brilliant crew in Alien & then the slightly larger number in Aliens, these characters were not really interesting people for us to really buy into.

One of the other big issues I had with this film (no spoilers, don't worry!) was the bringing back of a major character, which I felt was even more tasteless considering the actor is deceased. The CGI recreation of them was passable but not particularly well done, but it was still a weird & slightly exploitative feeling.

However, when this film is good, it's really good. The action is brilliant, the alien puppetry being world class. There are also some extremely nasty & psychosexual moments, which were a welcome return to the old Alien creepiness. A scene set in zero gravity is also highly entertaining as well as brilliantly staged. For some, the ending is a bit too much but this is an action film, so I can buy into that. Plus we have the obligatory set-up for the next film which, judging by the reviews & clamouring of people to see the previous entries, means this is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

This is a solid, entertaining & enjoyable new adventure in the Alien universe, the best since Alien3. Now that Fede Alvarez has found his feet, hopefully he can be allowed the chance to continue his story.

When social media/YouTube started to become part of most people's lives, very quickly a number of iconic life/world events captured on film became a part of the tapestry, always popping up. You had the obvious ones such as Freddie Mercury at Live Aid, but also the Moon Landings & Dr Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" to name but 3. However, particularly in the UK, there was another one which I saw posted many times.

On an 80's light entertainment programme called That's Life, Nicholas Winton was introduced as one of the principle architects of a superhuman effort to evacuate as many children as possible from WWII-era Czechoslovakia before the Nazi regime swept across the border as they looked to conquer Europe & then the world. Winton, along with other dedicated men & women on the ground in Czechoslovakia, raised money & found foster homes for 669 children. This film looks at the incredible effort & drive to rescue this massive number of predominantly Jewish children from certain death.

Set in both 1988 & the late 30's, we follow Nicholas Winton as he takes a sabbatical from being a stockbroker to go to Czechoslovakia just after the signing of the Munich agreement. This treaty has forced thousands of families to flee, as Germany annexes part of the country, initially as an appeasement to try to control Hitler's march across Europe, but of course to no avail. Winton discovers to his horror vast slums filled with children who have often lost their parents, all gathered desperately trying to stay alive whilst the threat of not only the Nazi's but also a deadly winter threaten to strike at any moment.

The resulting story & herculean effort by not only Winton but also Doreen Warriner, Trevor Chadwick & Nicholas Stopford to name but a few, is absolutely inspirational as well as heart breaking & highly emotional. I was every few minutes having to check my emotions, such was the visceral impact on what I was watching. Like Denial, another superb WWII-themed film, it is extremely competently directed & filled with amazing performances. Both Hopkins & Flynn are absolutely brilliant, but I also really rated the work of the actors portraying the team on the ground in Czechoslovakia.

There were a couple of things which I did wish were different, such as more details of the multiple train trips, which sadly were regulated to brief interludes & voiceovers. Another genuinely wasted opportunity was only having one scene between Hopkins & the magnificent Jonathan Pryce, who have worked together before, notably on The Two Popes. The brief scene they have together is a masterclass of 2 greats sharing the screen & playing off each other.

But these are small niggles, when the overall impact is so great. There have been comments from people tangentially connected to/related to the rescued children who have criticised not only the film but also the original That's Life programme, accusing it of sensationalising the rescue for an emotional TV moment. Whilst I can see why they might be upset, for me the worst tragedy was Winton not being recognised for the phenomenal & heroic work he was a part of.

The film is never not respectful of the situation, as well as being at pains to repeatedly show that Winton did not want celebrity or to court fame, actively shunning it. And I am so glad that he was recognised in his lifetime for his actions, as well as the hundreds who he rescued being able to say thank you to their saviour.

A brilliant & shatteringly emotional film. Have a hanky handy, you'll need it.

Amy Winehouse was a complete one-off: a searing talent which to me (as much as I am an atheist,) was practically God given. But she was also a woman whose significant personal troubles (relationships, addiction,) meant she was often both traduced & reduced to tabloid fodder, held up as an example of completely out of control self-destructive behaviour. Her death at the age of 27 was both shocking & unsurprising, her name joining the pantheon of geniuses whose talent was only matched by their seeming determination to destroy themselves.

A few years later, the family/record company commissioned Asif Kapadia to make a documentary of her life, which was an absolutely incredible & profoundly moving look at her rise from a precociously talented young girl to the all-conquering global superstar, then finally as the extremely unwell woman who was powerless against her demons.

But the documentary generated significant outrage from Winehouse's family, especially her father Mitch, understandably so seeing as he comes out of it extremely poorly. So we now have Back to Black, fully endorsed by the family, to tell Amy's story from her perspective, as well as looking at the origins of many of the songs from that album.

One thing which is important to dispel from the off is that this is film is in no way simply a vehicle to rehabilitate the Winehouse family's reputation after the documentary. I myself was concerned that this would be the case, but the filmmakers were extremely clear that the family had no creative control over the process.

I really, really enjoyed this film. And interestingly, I actually think that the documentary does it a favour: if you've seen it, a lot of the questions you may have had will have some kind of answer, but that also allows the film to put meat on the bones of the story. We see Amy at various points in her life, in a film which feels completely authentic. Her grandmother, Amy's biggest influence, is given plenty of time to show why she was so special to the singer growing up. Camden Town, where Amy lives & frequently made reference to, is also another major character in the film, including shooting in many of the places Amy actually spent time in, including the pubs she gigged in as a young talent.

But my biggest praise is towards not only Marisa Abela's mesmeric performance, but also how Amy is portrayed. In no way is this sanitised or muted for fear of alienating the viewer (unlike with Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody.) Winehouse is shown as an extremely strong-minded & obstinate artist, as well as a highly volatile & sometimes violent woman. And what the movie does perfectly is show that not only was it highly likely that she had significant mental illness, but that she was in many ways trapped in a spiral of her unpredictable behaviour.

In many scenes, whilst there are these outbursts, there is also significant attention given to the aftermath, whether it is waking up on the floor after a violent seizure caused in part by drowning herself in alcohol, or breaking down & agreeing to go to rehab. And that is totally to the film's credit.

The only fault I can pick with this film is that we are never fully shown just why Amy became so besotted by Blake Fielder-Civil. As much as there are multiple scenes of the 2 of them falling in love, he was never anything more than a drug-taking lowlife who seemed to ride on the coattails of her success. And when a big part of the film is about her love for him, it does affect the film's quality.

But throughout all of it, Abela is incredible. She does all her own singing, as well as playing Winehouse with reverence & perfection. In a time of many biopics (Elvis, Freddie, Elton, Marley,) this performance really does stand out. And like the best biopics, at the end I just felt sad. I so wish that Amy had been able to get the help she needed, but her star was just too bright...

Nicolas Cage has had a complete turnaround in recent years. After his early performances in critically acclaimed films such as Birdy, he then reached the peak of his success with his Oscar win for Leaving Las Vegas. This then led to multiple offers for action films including The Rock & the magnificent Con Air. However, starting in the mid-2000's, Cage then became infamous for basically starring in anything & everything, seemingly turning up just for the cheque. And he was involved in some terrible, painfully bad dreck, even though he released some absolutely incredible films, including my own favourite The Bad Lieutenant, during this time.

But the pendulum has now mercifully swung back the other way & we have been treated to some absolute gems, including Pig & Mandy. And taking its place comfortably alongside them is Dream Scenario. It is a film which is in many ways unbelievably slow & gentle, but it also is biting sharp in its satire & scorn of how the world now treats people who through no fault/want of their own becomes "famous."

Paul Matthews is an extremely easygoing, gregarious & slightly goofy tenured evolutionary biology professor. He has a fairly stereotypical family life & everything is painfully, painfully ordinary. Then, Paul randomly starts appearing in people's dreams, from all over the world. Whilst this starts with his own daughter, soon he is popping up all around the globe, there as a presence which at first is anodyne but then violent & vengeful. From there, his life starts to go in a downward spiral as he struggles to cope with this infamy.

The reason why this suddenly happens to Paul is never explained, which is absolutely to the script's credit. We are simply put into this world & everything feels remarkably natural. It is also interesting how we as the viewer really identify with Paul's predicament, putting ourselves in his shoes. Whilst at first his presence is almost humourous in its mundanity, soon he becomes a violent, demonic presence, traumatising everyone who has these visions.

But the film is much more interested in looking at the effects to Paul's life, over & above the dreams he is in. And here is where the film is for me genius: we now live in a world where there is unquestionably a "cancel culture," although the severity of this differs depending on who you talk to (for some it doesn't go far enough, for others it is an totally out of control monster.) But this story looks at someone who isn't famous & more than that, truly has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. Paul has no control over his appearances in these dreams, but is eventually vilified, along with his whole family.

And this gentle examination is what makes the film really hit home for me. The idea of someone making a film about cancel culture & turning it into this bulldozer of a message, often wouldn't work. Whereas this just shows you what happens & people's hysterical reaction to this panic, which makes it's message all the more powerful.

But the star of this all is Cage. His study & portrayal of Paul is unbelievably nuanced & razor sharp. Paul is exactly what you would imagine an easy-going dad would be. As he slowly starts to lose his mind, you start to feel truly sorry for him. Also for Cage purists, there are the requisite freak-outs, but these are earned & not simply thrown in to get a cheap laugh.

And you are left really looking closely at the society which we exist in today. If this were to happen, I think that the film's events would be understated in many ways. The mobs that would form, demanding justice against a man who has in no way been a part of what has happened to him, really makes you think. As much as this is a satire, it is also a devastating look at how we as humans currently treat each other. And the results aren't pretty...

Luca Guadagnino has had an incredible career. Whilst Call Me By Your Name will always be his masterpiece, he has dipped his toe into multiple other genres & story subjects. But even with this track record, when I first heard about Challengers, I was a little perplexed. The only other tennis-themed film I've watched is Wimbledon, which looks at a player who is in his last year as an older professional and, shock horror, wins Wimbledon as a total outsider. And for me Guadagnino would have no interest in this. But, as with other films he has done, particularly Bones & All, the initial subject matter (tennis,) is only used as a setting/sport for the characters to be tangentially involved in. Challengers is far more interested in what happens behind the scenes, despite there also being some great on-court action.

Patrick Zweig (O'Connor) & Art Donaldson (Faist) are tennis players as well as close friends. But they are also very different people: Zweig is a maverick, coasting on some talent as well as his good looks & extremely effective charm/chat-up abilities. Donaldson is much more the professional, fixated on every element of his game & training routine. One day, both men go to watch Tashi Duncan (Zendaya) play. From both a sporting ability perspective as well as physical attractiveness, both men are instantly smitten. The film follows them over more than a decade, both with their careers as well as their pursuit of Tashi.

The first thing to say is that, in terms of the actors & their tennis abilities, all of them look absolutely perfect in their roles. And this is vital considering how the tennis matches are also used as a metaphor for their internal emotions as well. And this use of the game alongside the relentless ambition & pursuit of both titles & Tashi really works.

The chemistry between the 3 leads is also great. Whereas in a film with more than 2 protagonists, often one is pushed aside or is almost like a 5th wheel, the script gives all of them generous amounts of time to build their characters, as well as decent meaty scenes playing off each other. The sexual tension element is also extremely effective, Zendaya flawlessly making you not only fancy her but fully understanding why the 2 men are willing to do almost anything to get with her.

However, the one element which didn't work well for me, and was genuinely shoehorned into the narrative by Guadagnino when he came aboard, was the attraction of Patrick & Art to each other. There are some little moments leading upto the famous hotel room scene which are playful in nature & insinuate something that may be below the surface. Then after said scene, which to me was almost Guadagnino being provocative for the sake of it, this attraction is never really mentioned again. And it jars the narrative for me, simply because it seems so out of place.

But everything else is spot on. The music, electronic beats alongside strings, really work in ratcheting up the tension & momentum. The sound is also very good, and as always with Guadagnino's films, the cinematography great.

If you are looking for a film which really pushes your buttons, you will find it here. And whilst there are some issues for me, I also really enjoyed & was gripped by it.