Film Reviews by TB

Point Break is in many ways one of the ultimate 90's cult films. Its poster, with the iconic headshots of Reeves & Swayze against a wave breaking, is recognisable all over the world. It's sheer balls-out machismo & testosterone screams out of every frame on the screen. And for many people, the melding together of 2 high octane pursuits (surfing & bank robbing,) fit perfectly together. Throw into the mix the script which was partly written by the genius James Cameron (then Bigelow's husband,) and you should have a certified classic.

However, despite all the amazing action & surfing scenes, for me Point Break actually wasn't that good a film in terms of it's story. And it shocked me when I watched it, as this is the same woman who directed the incredible Zero Dark Thirty & Hurt Locker. The story is not only far-fetched, but doesn't really work at all. There are the standard clichéd scenes of learning to surf, the protagonist finding his feet (literally) within the surfing community & falling in love with the hot girl who has previously dated the main antagonist (an exceptional Lori Petty.) There are also discussions in the moonlight on the beach about philosophy & beliefs.

But there were precious few times when the film actually gelled & flowed. The narrative felt chopped up, stopping & starting, often just as the story was starting to get going again. And as much as there was some great chemistry, with some more polishing, the script could have been so much better.

When it comes to performances, my favourite was Lori Petty as Tyler. Not only does she play an extremely strong & fiercely intelligent woman who easily goes toe-to-toe with the macho men surrounding her, but you genuinely buy into the love she has for Reeve's Johnny Utah. Reeves himself also does good work, totally believable in the actions scenes (amusingly this film was probably one of the reasons he got the part of Neo,) as well as a vulnerability when he finds himself entangled within the group. And Swayze completes this triumvirate as the off-the-chain Bodhi, a man for whom no crazy adrenaline rush activity is enough, whether it's catching waves or robbing banks.

But despite my criticism, I give full credit to & revere the stunt work on this film. From the frenetic foot chase through to the parachute jumps (Swayze refusing to use stunt-doubles for the vast majority of his action,) this is world-class. I do also appreciate that for many people, the failings of the story/script are in many ways irrelevant, because you are there for the ride. But for me, it always has to be anchored by a strong story to make you care about what is on screen.

A good film, but with the pedigree in front & behind the camera, it should have been so much better.

Ralph Fiennes & Tilda Swinton are 2 absolute icons in their own right. Starring in some of the most impactful, challenging & provocative films ever made, their work is often unique & gripping. So when they signed on to star together in A Bigger Splash, I was immediately on board. Add in to the mix Matthias Schoenaerts (incredible in Bullhead, ironically the role which landed him this part) & Dakota Johnson (so much more than her role in the Fifty Shades films,) plus the fact this was made by Luca Guadagnino, you have pretty much the perfect set-up.

Marianne Lane is a legendary & iconic rockstar, who has had throat surgery & lost all ability to either sing or really speak. She was also rapidly approaching burn-out, so has gone totally off-radar & staying on a remote Italian island with her partner Paul. Their days of sunbathing naked, swimming pool sex & peaceful walks in the Italian countryside are then blown apart by the arrival of Harry Hawkes, Marianne's eccentric ex & producer, bringing along his newly-found daughter. Tensions then start to rise in this sun-drenched paradise.

Despite the mainly overwhelmingly negative reviews here, I had an absolute blast with this film. To be fair though, I can understand the annoyance of people towards Harry Hawkes (Fiennes.) For many viewers he will simply be too brash, annoying, over-the-top, irritating & every other metaphor like that you can think of. And often, these characters will also really annoy me too. But I not only totally bought into the world Harry exists in (record production surrounded by drink, drugs & every type of debauchery imaginable, which would affect almost anyone,) but also the brilliance & electricity of Ralph Fiennes and his performance. I would venture that nobody else could have played this role.

But that doesn't for a second mean that Tilda Swinton is sidelined. The woman is an absolute genius & titan of cinema, her talent unmatched. Here, she completely turns the standard burnt-out rockstar cliché on its head, mainly by insisting (and getting the script changed,) to make Marianne near-mute following throat surgery. This means Swinton acts almost primarily through her presence & motions, telling us everything with almost no dialogue.

Johnson & Schoenaerts also have great, meaty roles, he as the recovering alcoholic & painful introvert, she as the sexually vivacious young woman who wants to experience everything imaginable, irrelevant of the consequences.

Guadagnino creates an amazing & electric atmosphere, crackling with jealousy & sexual tension. In many ways, the first 10 minutes are a carbon copy of Sexy Beast (the perfect idyllic couple being blown apart by an unstoppable force,) although this is done much more slowly & deliberately here. We as the audience know that this mixing of characters, all of whom are extremely potent individuals, will be catastrophic & have far-reaching consequences. But the writing & actors keep you gripped.

The other elements of the film are brilliant as well. Every Guadagnino film looks & sounds amazing, with the beautiful island of Pantelleria becoming almost another character. The soundtrack, full of Rolling Stones tracks & opera, is also perfection.

As much as the brashness has clearly put some viewers off, I loved my time spent in this world & these amazing, idiosyncratic characters.

In 1973, this film exploded Martin Scorsese, Harvey Keitel & Robert De Niro onto the cinematic & public conscious. The story of mob enforcer Charlie (Keitel) who is attempting to support & shield his unpredictable & highly volatile best friend Johnny Boy (De Niro) from the litany of loan sharks after him for huge debts, whilst still fulfilling his Mafioso duties, has become cinematic legend. It is also interesting to see many of the traits this film has which influenced their next collaboration, Taxi Driver.

But whilst there are many great points, such as the performances (especially De Niro's,) and the incredible on-location shoot, there were many times where the story didn't really go anywhere. There is an absolute & undeniable tension, especially as the film reaches it's conclusion, but there was also a lot of padding which developed the setting but not much else.

One thing to add, as for many film fans me not giving this 5 stars/raving about it is tantamount to sacrilege, is that this is unquestionably a film of its time. But I always review these films honestly, so if I watch it again and feel differently, I will absolutely adjust my review. I did enjoy it, it just didn't hit me the way Taxi Driver & Goodfellas did.

In so many ways, 8 Mile shouldn't work. The rags-to-riches/redemption story, using the medium of music or sport in particular, have been done so many times before, in so many different ways. Whilst you have the classics such as Rocky, movies following this arc are ten-a-penny, with many of them clichéd-riddled & trite. Also, as much as this movie is based loosely on Eminem's/Marshall Mathers's life growing up in Detroit, normally casting the actual person as the protagonist, especially when they aren't a trained actor but known for something else, leads to screams of nepotism & results in a terrible movie.

But 8 Mile is, to quote one enthusiastic review "the rap Rocky." It is a sensational, brilliant & deeply hopeful story about friendship, family & the belief in yourself to change your life. And at the center of this is a lead performance which has everything you could possibly want, and more.

Jimmy "Rabbit" is a young Detroit man whose life is in a downward spiral: he comes from a broken home, with a depressed mom who throws herself at any man who shows her attention, often neglecting Jimmy's young sister; he has just broken up with his girlfriend who allegedly is pregnant in order to keep his car; he barely scrapes a living doing menial "blue-collar" work and like so many others, is just trying to find a way out of the grinding poverty he exists in. But Jimmy also has an incredible skill for rap, an integral part of the Detroit community identity. Actively encouraged by his many friends, Jimmy looks to win the weekly rap battles & gain recognition.

One of the best parts of this film for me is how authentic it is. Every single person, from Jimmy to his coworkers, feels real. The millions of films where there are the stock characters who are just in the background & contribute nothing to the narrative are nowhere to be seen. Partly this is due to shooting on location in Michigan, but also the hiring of local people for these roles. It is a sad but true fact that, with the levels of depravity in that US state, you would simply point the camera & shoot what is in front of you, with very little set design needed.

But this realness also seeps into the relationships you see, mainly around Jimmy's wide variety of friends of all races. There is a real community strength on screen, as well as an honest look at friendships which are tested to breaking point but never crumble. And there is the feeling of hope which runs through the entire narrative: these people may be in poverty, but they are not broken. There are no easy answers but there is also the belief in themselves & their town.

And leading all this is Eminem & his incredible debut. All of the brash, Slim Shady arrogance is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we have an incredibly nuanced, completely open & vulnerable performance, with a character we start rooting for from the opening credits. Jimmy is who we would like to think we could be in that situation: loyal, strong, caring & never beaten, no matter what horrors are thrown our way. And it staggers me that, 22 years later, we haven't had another film for him to show his incredible talent for acting (I'm not talking about cameos in things like The Interview.)

I loved this film. It is an authentic, real & heartfelt look at people who graft, struggle & believe in themselves & their friends. From the opening shots to the final showdown, it is brilliant.

After the juggernaut that was Cocaine Bear, a B-movie which was loosely based on a true story, did gangbusters at the box office (considering it's budget & release when cinemas were still struggling after COVID,) it was no surprise that it would inspire many copycats hoping to cash in on this particular gravy train. After all, when you have an expensively produced Hollywood film which is designed to emulated trashy micro-budget thrillers, it is very easy to simply make a cheap trashy film which has some ropey CGI & a roll call of actors looking to book roles in anything that pays a few dollars. And so this "mockbuster," the official term for these types of films, was born.

But, as much as I started this with an open mind, very quickly it falls into that trap that so many of these rip-offs do: it's boring. In the opening scene, we see the origin of the "Meth Gator," a huge amphibian who ends up chasing some drug dealers & ingesting a suitcase full of narcotics, which then transforms it into this unstoppable behemoth. These drugs also make it impervious to bullets & able to leap high into the air to conveniently eat the drone tracking it...

In the 30 minutes I watched it, there was a lot of dull exposition, some halfhearted attempts at tension & some stupid redneck characters who should have had "Dead meat" & "Sacrificial lamb" tattooed on their foreheads. All of this is forgiveable if the film itself is fun & enjoyable, but this just isn't. It's just another film attempting a cash grab, after it's creators & producers saw which was the cinematic wind was blowing.

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.