Film Reviews by TB

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.

As much as he'd hate this to be the main thing I took away from this film, this will be another of the movies where the main talking point was Christian Bale's extraordinary transformation from stacked muscle-bound movie star to fat, potbellied slob. For the second time in his career (American Hustle being the first,) Bale has gained an enormous amount of weight to play Dick Cheney, the most influential Vice President in history. And by a country mile, Bale is the best thing about this film. I have to confess that I know very little about US politics, so a lot of the subtler things passed me by. My friend who I was watching this with got much more out of it than me.

From a purely performance level, everyone does good work. Steve Carrell is a particular highlight as Donald Rumsfeld and Amy Adams does a good job of playing Cheney's wife. There are some funny moments, such as the sheer number of heart attacks Cheney has over the course of the film. But for me this only ever was a 3 star film. I never was that gripped by the plot and as much as it was shocking how Cheney worked his way into literally every corner of US politics and power, the film never did an amazing job of actually making me care that much.

The main theme overall seemed to be "A plague on all Republicans," which might play well to the crowd/half of the US who are left-leaning, but is unimpressive to someone like me who is a centrist who likes elements from both sides & has an open mind, and finally goes down like a bucket of cold sick to the right-leaning part of the crowd. Yes, there absolutely was and is endemic corruption on the Republican side, but the Democrats aren't exactly whistle-clean, are they? And I say that as someone who would be far more likely to vote Democrat if I was a US resident...

After the Dark Knight, the consensus among probably a significantly large majority of film watchers/comic book fans was that nobody was ever going to top Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. Some people may forget just how, in 2008, earth-shatteringly incredible his take on The Clown Prince of Crime was, not to mention the fact that this was wrapped up in the tragedy of him passing away before the film came out. Jared Leto then gave his take on the role, but was wrapped up in a rubbish film, so it never made much on an impact, despite potentially great flourishes.

There had been rumblings for a while that Todd Philips had wanted to make a Joker centric/standalone film, but also one that emphatically WASN'T a comic book film in the traditional sense. Also, absolutely crucially, he wanted this to be an extremely dark and violent film, without the stupid limitations of making it 12A/PG-13 rated so that it could be marketed to children & stuff as many people as possible into the auditorium to make as much money as possible. In many ways, it was a massive risk, but it's success has been staggering, becoming the highest grossing R-rated film of all time (over a billion dollars.)

For me, as much as I have given this 4 stars, it was a real toss up between that and 3 stars. The reason why I in the end gave it 4 was because of the profound effect that the film had on me. The main thing it does so incredibly well is really shove in your face and make you confront how people with mental illnesses were treated back then and are still, to a certain extent, treated today. The film is set in the early 80's in Gotham City, but in many ways could easily have been lifted wholesale from Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver. It is clear as the film goes on, just how much of a debt Joker has to this film, as well as The King of Comedy (which I haven't seen but know the bare bones of the story.)

As mentioned above, the main drawer is Joaquin Phoenix. This is a soul-shattering, tectonic-plate moving performance. Arthur Fleck, who will become the Joker, is clearly an unbelievably trouble man, who suddenly snaps after repeated violence & trauma pushes him over the edge. Starting off by killing people who threaten & assault him, he then moves on to his co-workers and finally celebrities, as he spirals into dispair & destruction. The other performance that really impacted me was Zazie Beatz as Arthur's friendly neighbour, who seems to be one of the only calming flickers of light in his otherwise hideous life.

Other positives include the incredible locations and look of the film. You can almost smell the rotting rubbish & backed-up sewers of Gotham, as well as the beautiful way the film is photographed. Hildur Guðnadóttir's soundtrack is also incredible & richly deserved her Oscar win as well.

But for me, this film does have it's problems. One of the criticisms hurled at it by people who hate it is that it is almost propaganda for alt-right/incels & likely to incite violence. Whilst I have never believed that films/games/music make people violent (it is a far more nuanced situation, with people who are prone to violence anyways who these things affect most,) I can see why the criticism has been made.

This film is unrelentingly nihilistic, with a really dark & violent undertone the whole way through. As much as Fleck is a loser & this is hammered home to us repeatedly & mercilessly, as the film progresses and his violence gets more extreme, he becomes more successful & famous. And that is something which for many people, including me, have a great deal of trouble with. Accompanied alongside that, whilst Fleck is in mental health care, this is shown as totally useless, which certainly gives a very dangerous message & shouldn't dissuade people from seeking professional help.

So whilst there is absolutely a good film here, I was certainly troubled by some of the themes in it.

Tim Vine's latest DVD is a funny hour of silly, zany comedy. Like with his other DVD's, how much you will like this film is how much overall you will get out of it.

If you find funny, sometimes deliberately rubbish and corny one-liners is your type of comedy, you'll have a blast. If this really isn't your thing, move on, there is nothing for you here.

I liked this show, although it has to be said that, despite the 4 stars, an hour-long gig does really stretch the limits of his act.

This is one of those films which really shouldn't work, but somehow does.

Arnie plays a doctor who, along with his work partner Danny DeVito, has created a drug to reduce miscarriage risk. After being denied the chance to conduct human experiments, the two then cook up the idea of getting Arnie pregnant & trying out the drug on him.

Everyone in the film is incredibly game and keeps a relatively straight face during this farce. It does stretch credulity at times, but never loses its fun side. There are also some quite profound questions about fatherhood & the difficulties of pregnancy.

But I will end by saying that like with many other films, in our current world, there is absolutely no way this film would ever get made today. The outrage machine which is the extremely vocal group of hyper sensitive individuals in the world today would have a collective meltdown if a film in which a man who gets pregnant and is mocked & made fun of for entertainment was released.

A really mixed and jumbled up film for me. Whilst the film's style, music and action is all great, the script is not particularly strong and quite a few of the throwbacks don't land that well.

Henry Cavill & Armie Hammer do have great chemistry, but the stand-out is Hugh Grant as Alexander Waverly, the sarcastic and sardonic head of British intelligence. Hamming it up to the nth degree relishing every line, Grant is an absolute joy.

There are also some good action scenes as well. Unfortunately, as much as there may have been an audience for this film 30 or maybe even at a push 20 years ago, today it just looks out of place & not relevant.