Film Reviews by TB

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. 

For the second time recently, I have watched a film with a protagonist called Marie which, without Rosamund Pike, would have totally failed. As with Radioactive (based on the true story of Marie Curie,) A Private War looks at the life of Marie Colvin, the incredible and fearless journalist who went to the worst war zones and hell holes you could imagine to insure that the atrocities being committed were reported on and subject to the full scrutiny of the world. Colvin went to pretty much every conflict zone imaginable, resulting in the loss of her eye during the Sri Lankan civil war when she was deliberately targeted. It was this dogged determination to report that sadly cost her her life in 2012 whilst covering the siege of Homs in Syria. 

Pike is absolutely sensational. She is able to show in heartbreaking detail how, despite having been in more war zones than most soldiers and suffering PTSD on a scale probably unheard of, she could not stop herself and her commitment to the truth and speaking up for the most vulnerable and attacked in the world. Her PTSD was so bad she was hospitalised and also developed addictions to drink and drugs. But her spirit remains unbroken, even in the final days of her life. Once the film finishes, you do feel both amazed and also broken at what she saw and went through. 

Unfortunately, this powerhouse performance overshadows everything else, despite the best efforts of the cast, although it was a pleasure to be around them. Jamie Dornan, showing that when he isn’t in the 50 Shades universe he can be a very good actor, plays Paul Conroy, the Irish photographer who worked extensively with Colvin and was with her when she was killed, incredibly managing to survive the military bombardment of where they were sheltering. Tom Hollander is also good as Marie’s editor, who is shown to be completely torn between worry for his best reporter and also the commercial obligation he has, as well as the fact that she is his best journalist. 

Sadly, the script simply cannot properly do justice to the people or events that it is depicting. We are shown many snapshots of Colvin’s life, but none of it fits together well. It is like a series of points in time that are stitched together by certain events, but at the same time, none of it flows particularly well. This would have probably been better as a TV series, allowing much more time to flesh out the events and also allow more opportunity for us to really get to understand Colvin and what made her who she was. I did finish watching the film with a real sense of wasted potential, despite my enjoyment of it and Pike’s performance. 

Somewhere in here there is a great movie, but poor narrative choices unfortunately make this much less than it could have been. But absolutely see it for Pike.  

In the late 80’s/early 90’s, AIDS/HIV was everywhere, permeating into our conscious. I am too young to remember anything about the reporting and the atmosphere, but I have seen plenty of films and documentaries that show in horrific detail how it not only affected the people who caught it, but also the people on the fringes, such as drug users and anyone associated with someone HIV positive. Also, as it was predominantly a virus which ravaged the LGBTQI community, it became known as the gay plague/gay cancer. This also had the effect of increasing the homophobia and abuse suffered by that community, which hadn’t exactly had an easy journey before that.

Ron Nyswaner, the writer and also gay activist, had looked in horror at the fact that almost no films were made about HIV/AIDS that showed how badly the gay community was affected. For most people, especially in the US, the airtime was given to extreme religious preachers to spread horrific and dangerous lies about the sufferers. So Nyswaner was determined to shine light on his community. Due to an extremely lucky turn of events, he was able to secure the hottest director in Hollywood (Jonathan Demme, who had just achieved a clean sweep of the Oscars for The Silence of the Lambs,) and Tom Hanks, who was one of the most well-known and beloved actors. Finally, he was able to bring on Bruce Springsteen to sing the theme song, which ended up winning an Oscar. 

The film, which was inspired by true events, is about Andrew Beckett, who was a hotshot lawyer newly promoted within a prestigious law firm. He is also suffering from AIDS, but due to the discrimination & fear he would lose his job, has kept this secret. When one of the directors finds out, he is fired under the pretence of being unfit for the job, despite the fact that he had just won a major case which was the reason for his promotion in the first place. Beckett then teams up with a celebrated TV lawyer, Joe Miller, to fight his case for wrongful dismissal & discrimination. As well as homophobia, racism & misogyny are also added into the mix as well, all interconnected and examined. 

I do need to be honest and say that, as much as I have given this film 4 stars, it does have significant failings, the main one being how unbelievably soapy it was, especially in some of how it was shot & the way the scenes played out. It also has, as much as it was a turning point & touchstone for how the gay community was represented in Hollywood, attracted some significant criticism. As much as it is made clear that Andrew & Miguel, his partner, are a gay couple, there is almost no reference or intimacy in any way shown. Apart from the fact that they are slightly closer than best friends, nothing else is featured. The other issue that made certain people from the community angry was the representation of the symptoms of AIDS. I remember vividly having a conversation with an older gay man many years ago and when I mentioned this film, he said angrily “Until the end scenes, it made AIDS look no worse than suffering from a bad stomach bug.”

But, the performances of this film are absolutely devastating. Hanks is incredible as Beckett, his burning injustice screaming out as he fights to stay alive long enough to be able to testify in court. Washington matches him toe to toe, as the man who whilst he has his own homophobia, also sees a kindred spirit and later a friend who he wants to help. Mary Steenburgen also makes a huge impact as the lawyer determined to destroy Beckett’s case but who slowly gets ripped apart by the horror of what she is a part of. 

I cannot for a second deny that this film had a massive impact on me. But I also feel it is such a missed opportunity, especially with the pedigree of talent involved. As much as it did move the dial at the time and started the change needed in the world, I can’t deny that I wanted it to be more. But still an excellent film

After various roles in various organisations and saving the world in various ways, Gerard Butler has chosen a submarine commander as his next port of call (sorry, bad pun but I couldn't resist it.)

Whilst it is fairly clichéd, it does have some good points. Michael Nyqvist, in what was sadly one of his final film roles, brings suitable gravitas & steel to his role as a Russian submarine commander who, after a betrayal from the Russian government, helps Butler's commander. The other actor who really makes an impression and probably was the best performance is Toby Stephens as the tough as nails Bill Beaman. You really believe that he is an elite level Navy Seal, thanks to some brilliantly directed action. There was one amusing addition to this film as well, albeit in a completely unintentional way: this was the first film that Gary Oldman starred in after winning his richly deserved Oscar. And literally it is a performance that is so phoned in, you wonder if he even bothered to look at the script and simply did a few days of filming just to cash in the cheque.

As I have alluded to in my other reviews of Butler's work, there is a running theme: you'll get effectively the same performance, with different scenarios and different levels of shouting. But it also has to be said that what he does, he does very well. He is a pleasure to be in the company of and as much as I wish he did more films like Coriolanus (by a country mile his best performance, even eclipsing Ralph Fiennes,) I enjoyed this film.

This, like many of his films, is a great watch on a Friday night when you want to switch your brain off and have some fun. Don't take it too seriously and you'll have a riot.

When Brassed Off was released, it was a small British film with a roll call of either well-established actors (Pete Postlewaite) or up-and-comers (Ewan McGregor.) It also was about a very painful time in British history, namely the mass closure of the colliery pits all over the UK by the Thatcher government, decimating many hundreds of towns as well as destroying the pride of the people who worked in and lived around them. When the pits were working in their prime, everybody pretty much either worked down or was associated with the colliery industry. Despite a valiant & passionate fight, pretty much every one was closed down. But it wasn't just the pits that closed; whole communities were destroyed and descended into poverty, crime & hopelessness.

Brassed Off is set in the final days of the fight to keep the (fictional) Grimley pit open. The workers have been on strike and as a consequence, almost everyone is penniless and struggling to survive. The one element of pride for many in the town is the Grimley colliery band. When a national competition is launched to find the best band the group, led by the formidable Danny, decides to enter to try & win and restore some pride to their town.

For me, the absolute stand-out is the music, which is provided by the real life Grimethorpe Colliery Band. The various selection that is played is absolutely perfect and really makes the film & scenes come alive.

The performances are also great, particularly Postlewaite and McGregor, although there is also excellent work from Stephen Tompkinson & Tara Fitzgerald. The film also has a very strong and dry humour which runs through it, whether it's the messing around & tomfoolery of the band members, through to the reactions of the older members when the very attractive and talented Gloria returns to the town and joins the band. This humour does give the film a very much needed lightness of touch considering the heavy subject matter.

As mentioned at the beginning, the film quite rightly shines a light on the trauma, difficulties and anguish which so many in the towns faced as they were thrown into unemployment with no income and no hope. But here is where, for me, the film falters: it cannot make up its mind what it wants to be. Does it want to be a social justice film/kitchen sink drama in the style of Ken Loach? Does it want to be a romantic comedy, hence the large amounts of humour running through it as well as the focus of the rekindling of the love affair between McGregor and Fitzgerald's characters? Does it want to be a competition-style film, where everything is building up to the final showdown? Or does it want to be a political film about the fight between the government of the day and the unions/workers? Frustratingly, it tries to do all 4 of them, at the same time, to varying degrees of success.

The biggest issue for me was that the film spread itself far too thinly, losing some of the momentum which it builds up well in the beginning. Then, as it progresses and everything is fighting for screen time, it does lose traction. But this is more a complaint to the fact that I really wanted it to be able to deal with all of the vital subjects it was showing in a better way. However, as you can see from my star rating, it still made a powerful impact & was extremely enjoyable.

Finally and most welcomingly, as much as it is a small British film, it did massive business at the box office, becoming a runaway success and something of a cult movie.

Definitely a great film, despite some frustrations I have with it. And if you have a music streaming service, look up the soundtrack by the Grimethorpe Colliery Band once you've watched it, as it is stunning.

Tár is a fascinating film. As much as it's subject matter might put people off, it is in many ways an extremely accessible & riveting piece of work, as long as you have the patience to completely buy into its world. This is emphatically not a fast-moving film: the tension is cranked up extremely slowly and there are many scenes of conversations and following the timbre of how the atmosphere subtly changes as the story progresses. But it is in many ways a masterpiece.

This film is amazing. At its heart is Cate Blanchett, who in a career of many stunning performances, has probably delivered her finest ever. Lydia Tár is the first female chief conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic orchestra. She is revered across the globe and in the classical music world. When the film starts, she is about to launch a new book, class and also perform Mahler's Fifth Symphony. She is, in effect, at the top of her game, so there is in many ways only one way to go: down...

I am not going to say too much about the plot, because the less you know, the more you get out of it. But I loved it. I had in many respects a vague idea of what sort of a film this was going to be and, whilst it was those things, it was also much more. The demand of performing music at an elite level is shown as taking a toll not only in the expected ways but also the smaller ones, such as developing a hypersensitivity to small noises.

There was also an interesting examination of cancel culture in many ways, except this time it is flipped and the focus is on a highly successful woman rather than a man. Whilst I found certain elements of that funny, more than anything for me the central point of the film is one I agree with: people are messy and complicated. Whether you don't like or want to perform Bach because of how you view his history, down to whether internal office politics that spill out into the mainstream mean that a talented person has their work destroyed, I feel that the art should be separated from the artist. But also not to destroy those individuals who have in no way committed the sorts of crimes which someone like Harvey Weinstein has been convicted of.

Overall, despite the film's length, I loved it. I did think there were times where it was on the verge of outstaying it's welcome and the ending is slightly more protracted than it needed to be. But this is nitpicking in many ways. Over the course of 2 & a half hours, you watch the total evolution and destruction of a musical genius, someone whose abilities leave everyone around her in total awe, but who also is a human with her own very prominent flaws.

But this film, and Blanchett's stunning & masterful work elevate this to the highest levels of quality.

The first I heard about this film was when Empire magazine gave it 5 stars and absolutely raved about it back in 2010. It then won the best foreign language Oscar, with everyone saying how incredible it was. I hadn’t seen many foreign language films back then, so watched it on the recommendation and was blown away. 

This film is amazing, incredible, stunning and beautiful. But it is also a technical marvel, particularly for its unbroken shot at the football stadium which then turns into an incredible chase. There is also amazing cinematography in terms of its look and feel. And finally, it is an achingly sad film, musing on loss, regret and the shifting political landscape that the story takes place in. 

The Secret in Their Eyes (TSITE) starts in 1974 Argentina and follows the case of a horrific rape and murder of a beautiful woman in her flat. The case is led by Benjamin Espósito, a world-weary detective who has been jaded by a career exposed to the worst of humanity. This case profoundly affects him and then stays with him as he attempts to solve it through the years. 

Ricardo Darin, the lead actor, is masterful. He is perfectly cast and I loved spending time with him, seeing the case unfold from his perspective. The other cast are also amazing. But alongside this, the story & narrative is masterful. You will find yourself getting sucked in to the horror of it all. 

And, as I referenced above, the unbroken 5 minute shot is absolutely incredible. From the air, to a crane shot to then handheld, I cannot praise enough the talent it took to realise it. 

This is a beautiful film. Rent it and be blown away. 

Whilst for me, Heath Ledger’s best performance will always be Brokeback Mountain, for most it is the Joker in The Dark Knight. This film, coming after the incredible Batman Begins, takes everything that that film started and ran with it, expanding and masterfully filling it with incredible characters & brilliant story. 

After defeating The League of Shadows, Batman is fighting the criminals who are plaguing Gotham. The mob bosses are then paid a visit by someone who claims they can help: The Joker. He promises to kill the Batman but also insists that half of all the mob money comes to him. This then becomes the catalyst for chaos and terror to be unleashed. 

This film is perfect. Whilst it is a little long in parts and the third act is almost stretching credibility, it still remains a monumental achievement and one of the best comic book films of all time. The stunts, acting and cinematography masterful. A reminder of how good film can be.

By a country mile the worst of Nick Love & Danny Dyer's collaborations together and that's really a low bar to beat.

Sean Bean stars as Bryant, a soldier returning from Iraq back to the UK, into a country he barely recognises. But whilst there is massive potential with this idea, especially at a time when the fallout from Iraq was still so raw, instead we descend into a sick and depraved story of grisly and graphic violence, with at times unbelievable comparisons.

For example, when Bryant gathers his group of vigilantes together, the most charitable thing to say is that they have had very different life experiences. One of the characters, a barrister, has had his pregnant wife murdered by a drug baron in one of the most nasty pieces of screen violence imaginable. Another character, played by Mr Dyer, has felt compelled to join the group because he was involved in a road rage incident. And in the film's eyes, these two characters have comparable trauma which causes them to take the law into their own hands...

The rest of the film just descends into farce. Characters are introduced, given an annoying or brief backstory then bumped off. Sean Harris, so remarkable in films like '71 and Harry Brown, is pretty much given the brief "Be the most disgusting, unlikeable, irredeemable person imaginable" and we are expected to take on face value that Bryant would not only put him in the group but also want him within 100 miles of him.

And of course we get the shootout at the end, full of clichés and ending exactly as you'd expect.

BUT, there is one saving grace of this film in the most unlikely place: the commentary with Dyer and Love is like something out of the Derek and Clive school of comedy, with both of them trying to "Out-geezer" each other.

However, as funny as that is, it doesn't detract from just how horrible this film is. And we aren't even in so bad it's good territory. It's just a nasty, nasty violent mess.

I realise the title is a staggering claim. This is the actor who started in High School Musical and then made his name doing mainly schlocky but sometimes funny stoner comedies. But I absolutely stand by it: in this film, Zac Efron gives an incredible, monumental and flawless performance as Ted Bundy.

I have seen many documentaries on serial killers, and obviously one of the people who looms largest is Bundy. His total and utter depravity, along with the despicableness of his crimes, was rivalled only by his absolute cunning & deviousness, including escaping from prison. Ironically, just before I rented this, I watched a Netflix documentary series which used the extensive recordings/media clips made by/featuring Bundy whilst he was on trial. So I had spent a great deal of time watching the real Bundy before I watched the dramatised one. And this is why I compare Efron's performance with Daniel Day-Lewis's level of work.

It is a stunning, transformative performance, literally chameleonic and scary. Every single element, down to the little head movements and pauses. When you compare side by side, you struggle to spot the difference.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film is in many ways a standard biopic. There are some inspired casting choices, John Malkovich being a particularly good one, as the judge presiding over the trial. I also, for a time when there is such a focus of violence & gore, really respect the fact that there is almost no showing of the violence that Bundy committed, just the aftermath.

So whilst this film had the amazing central performance, it is so good the rest of the film just cannot match it.

Tom Cruise has made a career out of playing loveable rogues, scallywags & action men. And whilst the films have had different scripts, in many ways Tom Cruise has, in films like Mission Impossible or even American Made, just played Tom Cruise. The cheeky charm, the pristine smile and the casual and endearing everyman. But in this film, that comes to a crashing & juddering halt.

After the genius of the first two of the modern Mummy films (I haven't seen the third one and never plan to, following the near universal criticism and slating of it,) this film basically tries to turn that universe into firstly a Tom Cruise vehicle & also jump-start the Dark Universe, Universal's version of the DC/Marvel world.

And more than anything, this film absolutely STINKS of nothing more than a wilful cash grab. This is the product/result of a bunch of movie executives sat round a table with a calculator, basically saying "What can we do, having seen how much success & money Marvel is making, to cash in on that gravy train and set up our own money-printing operation? Let's get Tom Cruise & Russell Crowe on board, pay a couple of writers to thrash out a script in which we can stuff as much world-building & sequel baiting as possible, then give it a massive marketing budget, shove it into cinemas and watch the money roll in. And finally, in order to really whet people's appetites, release a photo of a bunch of A-list actors who we've cast in the 10 films to follow this one, as we have no doubt this will be a runaway success."

The result is exactly what you'd expect...

There is a lot of watching Cruise running around, loud stunts, characters being introduced who you don't care about and exposition being said by one character to another in order to advance what could not even charitably be called a plot.

I didn't care one bit about what was going on in this movie, and I'll wager a fair amount you won't either. This is a totally pointless, rubbish film which staggeringly, cost close to $200 million to bring to screen. That is an obscene amount to spend. Whenever I talk about budgets, I do so very deliberately, because it just makes me so angry about how many incredible filmmakers in the world have to absolutely struggle to get even a 100th of that to make incredible & brilliant films.

The only amusing thing out of this whole sorry saga was that after this film absolutely and totally failed critically (and unbelievably, commercially, considering it made over $400 million & had a massive advertising campaign,) Universal was forced into a very public retreat and within weeks of this film being released, cancelled the entire Dark Universe and has never mentioned it again.

And to me, if you make a film this blatantly money-grabbing and lacking in quality, you should get everything you deserve.