Film Reviews by TB

Released just before he was announced as James Bond, this was Daniel Craig's most high profile role. As the unnamed protagonist, he is an extremely successful & clever drug dealer who is wanting to cash out and leave the business behind him. He is also in many ways an anti-gangster, in terms of his deliberate avoidance of guns and flashing his cash, preferring instead to keep a very low profile.

One day at what is effectively a farewell lunch, his boss Jimmy Price gives him a task: find the wayward daughter of a friend of his. Despite no detection history, the protagonist agrees to search for her. This then kicks off a series events, involving double-crosses, extreme violence and psychotic gangsters. I did find Jamie Foreman's The Duke character extremely funny and a great satire of what the average person thinks a drug dealer looks like & how those idiots think they should behave.

The whole film is very well shot, acted and also has a great soundtrack. Matthew Vaughan, here making his directing debut, shows incredible confidence & mastery of his art.

The cast are uniformly great, especially Michael Gambon, who almost chews the scenery around him. And Craig is at the centre, owning the narrative. There is even a cheeky Bond-ish reference for your enjoyment.

Highly recommended

After their work together on Heat, Michael Mann and Al Pacino reunite for this explosive story about the first whistleblower from actually within the tobacco industry, Jeffrey Wingard, who then went to a journalist to tell his story, only for the news organisation to try to block it being reported on fully. In the end it took legal cases and huge pressure before they relented and reported the full facts.

The performances are great, especially from Pacino and Crowe. Crowe in particular was very effective at communicating his horror at how long he'd been effectively keeping this secret quiet and his mortification at his silence causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Seeing the torture mentally was also extremely moving, especially as his youngest daughter was extremely sick and the job he had helped pay for the advanced medical care she needed.

There are some good courtroom scenes as well. Sadly, Pacino isn't able to do a meltdown in any of them, but another character gamely takes this up.

The positive result of all this was the tobacco companies eventually admitted liability and paid out a multi billion record settlement.

A final funny bit of trivia is that Russell Crowe was preparing for Gladiator, which he started shooting a few weeks after he finished The Insider. So rather than being the actual look of Wingard (large, portly, not physically fit, someone who spent all his days either sitting or standing in a lab,) Crowe is absolutely stacked and built like a brick sh*thouse. The camerawork also does wonders in not showing this, but there is a slip-up at one stage during a late night scene and when I saw it, just burst out laughing. An unintended moment of amusement.

Christopher Nolan has developed a reputation for extremely clever & challenging blockbusters, which you really have to think about to enjoy. For me, Inception is probably the best of these, but also it has its problems.

The main one being that the whole film, despite having at its centre a man who is desperately trying to get home to his children children, is unbelievably cold and in many ways dour. The lack of warmth actually really affects the story and film experience for me. One of the reasons I adored The Adjustment Bureau so much was because it was similar in its story to Inception, but so warm & accessible. Inception seems to have the opinion that we are going to pelt you with coldness for 2 and half hours and at the end there is a moment of happiness.

But there are many great things about this film. The cast is excellent and front & centre of that is Tom Hardy. He really gives his character of Eames a humour and campiness mixed with a leathality that makes him a joy. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is also great as well. DiCaprio I thought was good, but whenever Hardy was around he was outshined. Whilst Leo does try his best and you do get a sense of his character's journey, I felt, like with Gangs of New York, that he was miscast.

One actress who was definitely miscast was Marion Cotillard. She was absolutely the fly in the ointment for me. Her role should have been given to Kate Winslet who, whilst it would have been wonderful to see the pair of them together again, would have done so much more with the material.

The other massive plus point with this film is the special effects, most of which were practical. The cinematography is also stunning (I have seen this in both IMAX and 4K,) and Nolan is a master of his craft.

So whilst there are many great things, overall I left feeling very cold. But still a worthy watch.

The future is bleak and horrific, according to Kurt Wimmer. You won’t be free, you’ll be chained to a cycle of taking medication to make the world inhabitable and be controlled in every way through the state. 

Christian Bale and Sean Bean police this state, making sure everyone is staying in line. Until one day, Bale catches Bean breaking the rules, causing him to question everything that he had held dear. Bale then has to start to fight back in order to keep his life and his sanity.

The film is dated and in places cheesy, but also great fun. And for a film of this budget (very small compared to others,) the action is great. Bale shows an early masterfulness of being able to perform this flawlessly, which no doubt helped him get the role of Batman. There is also a welcome amount of British actors cast alongside American ones. Emily Watson, Sean Bean, Sean Pertwee star with Bale. Taye Diggs is also great as Bale’s apprentice and then chief antagonist, chewing up the scenery for all its worth. 

Silly, fun and light entertainment.  

Joanna Scanlan has been a mainstay of predominantly comedy over the last 20-plus years.

Here, she finally gets a lead role worthy of her talents, with a meaty part dealing with extremely challenging and difficult subjects. And the sensitivity of how this is handled is absolutely to the film’s credit. The clashing in many ways of the different cultures is wonderfully and compassionately shown, all wrapped up in the unbearable grief of losing a loved one. Scanlan stars as Mary. She lives with her husband in what she feels is domestic bliss.

The opening of the film also perfectly builds to what is happening, the seeds of change set against the crashing waves. As Mary’s life is thrown into turmoil, she begins to suspect that her husband was unfaithful, before finding out about a whole other family which lives on the other side of the channel. I don’t want to say too much more, but the way the film moves at both a slow and also lightening pace, whilst still keeping you gripped, is masterful.

And at the centre of it all is Scanlan. She is amazing and richly deserved her BAFTA win. Please can she be given more of these roles in the future, so we can continue to witness this incredible actress break our hearts. 

I so clearly remember Sin City coming out. I was still at school doing media studies and this came out as a groundbreaking & totally revolutionary way of filmmaking. Not only did I love the look of the film, but also the total look and mise-en-scene of it.

Robert Rodriguez, with guest director Quentin Tarantino, created something amazing. Not one part isn't great or iconic. The performances of everyone, particularly Bruce Willis and Clive Owen, are great.

Now please can we have a 4K remaster?!?

I rented this film only because I had seen it topped the list on Empire of the 100 greatest film comedies of all time.

I started to watch it and very quickly realised this wasn't a film I was going to find funny. The humour totally missed for me. But, as with stand up comedians, I never think that they aren't funny. It's just not my sense of humour.

Gave up after about 40 minutes.

Unfortunately, this is one of Ridley Scott's less good films. All the right components are here, but this is a very long film with some interjections of spectacular action to move the plot along, stunning cinematography as always from Dariusz Wolski and competent direction. This is a film which strains for epic but unfortunately never gets above mediocre.

Something that I once heard Mark Kermode say about Ridley Scott is "Scott seems to be only as good as the script he's working from." This is one of those films. As much as there is potential there for a great film, like with Noah, it just didn't grab me.

Finally, apparently there was some blowback from people who were religious and disagreed with the way the story was told. I am an atheist, so don't care about the religious themes in this film. If a film is good, it's good. And sadly this one wasn't that great.

Daniel Day-Lewis is one of my two favourite actors. He is quite simply one of the greatest actors of all time. He is a chameleon, a total spark of genius. There is a reason why he is the only actor to hold 3 Best Actor Oscars. And whilst this film has some significant script & other issues, this for me is his greatest performance, despite My Left Foot being his best film. It was in many senses a miracle he was even in it. After semi-retiring from acting after The Boxer, Day-Lewis went off grid. It was only Scorsese's persistence & the character of Bill that made him come back.

I find it hard to describe just how phenomenal & electric Bill is. Even though I have seen this film multiple times, his performance has not lost one iota of the violence, fear & electricity I felt the first time I saw it. Bill is a coiled spring of anger & hate, ready to explode at any point. But it is just as moving when he is calm, such as the conversation whilst draped in the American flag.

But this towering performance also has an unintended consequence: he makes almost everyone else look like a cardboard cutout in comparison. And this is where the film has its problems. The main one is that the other two leads (DiCaprio & Diaz,) are totally miscast. Despite the excellent work that he has done with Marty since, here DiCaprio is totally out of his depth. The accent is terrible, he never convinces & I suspect that in many ways he has been cast due to his star power/to get the film funded. Diaz doesn't really fare any better, although I felt she was the stronger of the two. She did fairly well convey the trauma of her early life & how in a sick way Bill had saved her, despite her going from one sort of oppression to another.

There are some notable great performances, the main one being Jim Broadbent as the corrupt mayor. He gets some great lines & his face-offs with Bill are great. Stephen Graham & Gary Lewis also have memorable scenes as well.

But the other issue with this film is it's length & script. This film had an extremely tortured road to production, with multiple rewrites & arguments behind the scenes. The film was a longtime passion project for Scorsese & it is easy to see why he wanted to make it, especially it's setting in Little Italy & rival gangs fighting for control of the streets.

So why, despite all this criticism, do I give it 4 stars? Well, the main reason I have described above & let me make it clear, without Day-Lewis, this film would totally fail. I cannot even imagine De Niro, who was originally cast, being able to do as good a job. But also, this film is in every way an epic. And this feel is what carries the film through, despite it's issues. You are swept up in it, showing how the modern New York was created.

So absolutely a film to watch and love. But I bet you all the money in the world that once it finishes, the only thing on your mind will be Day-Lewis and this, his greatest ever performance.

In many ways, Jason Bourne saved James Bond. Conceived very deliberately by both Robert Ludlum & the filmmakers as the anti-Bond, this series was designed to show espionage in a very real light. There were precious few gadgets to get you out of trouble, no supercars & if you were caught, you were disowned. Released the same year as the atrocious Die Another Day, this really turned the spy film genre on its head, forcing the 007 producers as well as other filmmakers to up their game.

But despite this monumental achievement, this film is for me only fairly average in many ways. The script is a bit too spare in many ways, as much as we are in the same position as Bourne, trying to work out what is happening. I also really disliked how it looked: limp, miserable, dank and colourless. Even the outside scenes are dreary. Again, I appreciate the point the filmmakers are trying to show: the grim & dark world of espionage. But they have gone far too far the other way.

The chemistry between Damon & Franka Potente (Marie) is also fairly terrible as well. When they first meet, they are both in a sense lost. As they brave danger together, you expect & see them get closer together. But I never was convinced about this element of the film, in this film. In Supremacy, their screen time & interactions are far more believable, which again I put at the feet of Paul Greengrass. Marie, despite Potente's best efforts, is mainly very annoying & grating. And as the film progresses, as much as she has some good moments, for me it is never what it could have been.

But there are some big positives to this film, starting with Damon. Apart from some small supporting parts in action films, most people knew him from dramas such as Talented Mr Ripley & Good Will Hunting. But he absolutely owns & is believable as Jason Bourne. It is clear he worked extensively with the stunts & never looks anything less than the spy Ludlum so clearly envisaged. The only outstanding performance comes from Chris Cooper as Conklin, Bourne's handler. Cooper is always exceptional in whatever he is in, and he dominates the screen here, every inch the burnt-out, cynical & devious spy. You feel his horror as the programme he was the author of spins completely out of his control. Brian Cox is also great as Conklin's boss, channeling his considerable power into the two handers between them.

I do feel that most of the blame for this film's failings, as I said earlier, are down to the director, rather than the cast. I fully appreciate and Damon has gone on the record to say that without Doug Liman, this film and the franchise would not exist. But there are as many shortcomings as there are great moments. And it is strange, as some of his other films, particularly Edge of Tomorrow & American Made, are fantastic films. You sort of wonder how the same man made those two films when you compare it to this one.

There are definitely some good moments, but for me, this is and always will be the weakest of the franchise. Watch this and then immediately put on/rent Bourne Supremacy. That is a masterpiece.

How much you adore the Beatles will obviously influence how much you love this film. I don't particularly care for them, although there are of course some incredible songs they have done that I love. But because I'm not a mad fan, I look at this film principally for its filmmaking, with the music an added bonus.

The story itself is in many ways a fairly by-the-numbers and standard one, albeit with the supernatural mixed in. Jack is a struggling songwriter who, due to a fantastical event, is the only person who can remember all the Beatles songs. He starts to perform them and claim them as his, but the feelings of fraudulent credit & imposter syndrome start to weigh heavily on him.

The performances are good and Himish Patel is perfectly fine. But for me, the story never gripped me that much. I could see where it was going and there wasn't enough to keep me enthralled. Plus, as this is a Danny Boyle film, you expect greatness.

But this is also a feel-good film, which is absolutely what is needed today. My criticism of this movie is just that I really wanted more.

After Lock Stock and Snatch, everybody knows what they want out of a Guy Ritchie film: proper "Lan-dann" cockney gangsters, shoot-ups and violence all wrapped up in his unique brand of humour. Whilst this was done to perfection in the above-mentioned films, there have also been some terrible misses, mainly Revolver, which just sucked and was so bad, I couldn't even finish it. The wheel was pulled back significantly with RocknRolla, but even so, for many people, they are still waiting for a film as good as the first two.

Sadly for me, The Gentleman wasn't it. And it actually was slightly poorer than RocknRolla, despite the amazing cast. Matthew McConaughey stars as a big time drug dealer who is wanting to sell up & vanish with the cash. This intention spreads like wildfire across the London drug scene and his various competitors are drawn into an epic battle to try & secure it.

The film does have it's good points, especially the performances. Whilst McConaughey is perfectly fine, Hugh Grant steals every scene he is in. He is the chancer trying to get his claws into what he thinks should all rights be his, spinning his yarn mainly to Charlie Hunnam's cynical gangland enforcer.

There are some other good flourishes as well, especially the soundtrack which is great. But it never adds up to anything more than a fairly reasonable offering. I know some people who absolutely loved it, but for me it was a 3-star film to watch, enjoy parts of it, then send it back and get my next disk.

Whatever you could say about Fifty Shades of Gray, it was never dull. Despite a lot of terrible narrative choices, I enjoyed various parts of it. It had a strange humour to it & Dakota Johnson was actually the best part of it. And yet again in this film, she is also the best part. However, this film has lost pretty much all of the charm of the first film and not replaced it with anything.

According to multiple reports, this seems to be entirely the fault of E.L James. When she sold the rights, she also retained extensive & almost total creative control of the franchise, which I cannot blame her for in many ways. There have been so many thousands of films which have been adapted from books & totally bombed/destroyed so much of the source material, that you can understand why you would want to retain as much control as possible. But, the problem comes when you then go too far in the other direction. And this appears to have been what she has done.

In almost dictator style, after many heated arguments on the set of the 1st film, James fired most of the creative team & brought in her own scriptwriter who she could control, who also coincidentally happens to be her husband. The director has also been replaced and as much as James Foley has his own impressive filmography, you do get the impression that he is just a director for hire, who has agreed a massive payday in return for lending his credibility to this project. But the results of all this messing about are devastating for what was already a mediocre story.

The biggest issue with this series, as many others have pointed out, is that if you want to watch sleazy & transgressive sex, you can just stick on some porn. And Fifty Shades, despite all the build-up, is just not a sexy film. When the key selling point (the sex) is shot so badly & gives you absolutely no reaction or feeling, you know there are problems. And front & center of that, as with the first film, is the ATROCIOUS chemistry between the two leads.

There is literally nothing there. Jamie Dornan may act his heart out in terms of puppy-dog eyes & lowering his voice to a growl when trying to raise tension, but it's like watching a terrible school play. Dakota Johnson, who absolutely is the best thing about the series, doesn't fare much better. The two of them actively seem uncomfortable in each others presence, which is never a good thing, especially when the whole story is about how crazy you are for each other.

The bondage itself is also not at all transgressive, and more than that, is actually quite boring, almost laughable. Especially after the events at the end of the first film, you would expect the game to be upped, but it really isn't.

Ironically for me, my favourite bit of this film has nothing to do with the story or actions of the characters: about halfway through on the extended cut, there is a spectacular & stunningly shot scene with a yacht as it sails through the waters around an exotic location (I can't remember where.) This scene (around 4 minutes,) is absolutely stunningly shot. Beautiful camera angles, music, literally like the film takes a pitstop to give you a break from all the turgid rubbish. And that was for me the best bit.

When a sailing sequence with no debauchery is the best thing in a film about S&M sex, you know you're in problems. But there is also a strange fun to be had with it, which is in no way erotic. You may even laugh once or twice...

Paul Verhoeven making a film about lesbian nuns should be an instant winner. Not only is he fearless, but the film would be so much more than it's lurid premise, which was what I was most looking forward to. And after the phenomenal Elle, this was shaping up to be something incredible.

However, this film is really boring. There are lots of speeches about sin and miracle working. But it never is as scandalous as it likes to think it is. And when the much-hinted at and built upto sex scene arrives, it is fairly boring. Another example of this sort of film hype really not delivering.

Verhoeven may have been trying to make that point in a postmodern type of way, but it didn't work for me and fell flat. There are some plus points, the main one being that it's use of lighting, colour palette and cinematography is stunning: this really is a beautiful film to look at, hence the 2 stars. And Charlotte Rampling is suitably frosty & domineering as the head nun.

But these are small plus points in a film which in all honesty should have been so, so much more.

Simply wonderful.

The action film that other action films wish they were.

Bruce Willis's finest performance, as the street-smart, wise-cracking cop who ends up in the middle of a high-stakes robbery lead by a never-better Alan Rickman. He becomes the only hope for the hostages, slowly taking out the terrorists until the final showdown.

The stunts are amazing, the action flawless & the story wonderful.

And yes, Die Hard is a Christmas movie.