Film Reviews by TB

I really liked this film. One of the reasons why, as random as it sounds, is because in many ways it shouldn't work, or to put it slightly differently, shouldn't have worked.

Hugh Grant, after playing in many ways the same character with varying success, really pushes himself in a different direction, as well as this being his first producing gig. But as much as the role of an action star may not be a natural fit, Grant actually does good work here. He is never less than believable and the moral core that guides him is solid and not put-on.

Gene Hackman was also a real coup of a casting. Although he doesn't have much screen time, he is suitably menacing and also believable as the doctor who started out wanting to do good and who desperation and ego turned him into this demonic man with a God complex. But the film is more nuanced than that. Every single staff member is there because of a family member who has a disability. So the drive to succeed is one that everyone there is genuinely straining every sinew to make happen.

And whilst the debate of whether what is done is torture or legitimate medical research isn't of the level that Freud would be involved in, it does make you think.

There are also some enormous problems with this film, the main one being the ending. But that didn't bother me. I am always honest in these reviews and despite the issues it may have, I really enjoyed it. I really became engrossed by what was happening and the almost two hours flew past.

This film is much more than simple popcorn entertainment and I absolutely recommend it.

When hearing about the buzz of this film, specifically the tag-line “#A Me-Too rape revenge thriller,” I was immediately interested. As someone who thought that Elle and specifically Isabelle Huppert’s performance was incredible, I was interested in a different and much more Americanised take on this. I also saw the casting, including people like Bo Burnham and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who normally would never be in this sort of film, which made me even more curious.

The result is in many ways quite mixed. I feel that there was, given that I gave it 4 stars, a huge amount of good stuff. But, also in many ways it was a film which I could never put my finger on exactly what it was trying to be and even misjudged the tone a couple of times. Now I appreciate this might just be me, but obviously how I experience the film is the only thing that I can comment on.

Carey Mulligan is amazing. I haven’t seen her in much, but she was outstanding in Shame and is also excellent here. The injustice, pain and loss she feels burns out of the screen. And every man that she traps who is trying to take advantage of her in the set-up she creates (feigning drunkenness & vulnerability,) seems in some way to slowly be helping her fight back and heal some of her trauma as a result of the loss of her best friend to suicide.

It is certainly an extremely powerful & direct way to show just how many men there are who do take advantage in this way. And I have no doubt that there are multiple men who do this. What the film does do, which is repeatedly pointed out, is show how the so-called “Nice guys” are always the ones who take advantage of her. This again is a very powerful showing of something which I have no doubt happens repeatedly.

But there are for me some real issues which the film sets up and then can’t seem to deal with particularly well. For example, Cassie’s parents are really badly written. As much as they seem to care about her, they are so awkward and say such cliched things that they do in some ways derail the film. It is almost like the film needed to have some awkward characters in order to show why there was a certain trait to Cassie, but for me this fell totally flat.

Another big misfire was in the way one of the revenge attacks was resolved with regards to a lawyer. I won’t go into too much detail about it in case you haven’t seen the film, but for me this lawyer is everything that Cassie so clearly detests and, in many ways, has been fighting against with her actions. And the resolution of it just doesn’t fit at all with the pattern of how the film should be. I appreciate that in many ways it could be seen as a rug-pull moment, but it just doesn’t work, least of all because of a change of the personal circumstances of who is involved.

And finally, there is an extreme scene of threat towards an underage schoolgirl who is related to one of the key players which pushed credulity way past what I thought even Cassie would be prepared to do. That in particular was a moment for me when I felt that the film was going too far simply to make a point about the extremity of what happened to Cassie’s friend, by the threatening of totally innocent and underage children simply to further the film’s main point.

But aside from these quibbles, there is much to love. The supporting characters are great, there is a fantastic & spiky soundtrack and finally, a welcoming lightness of touch which does enhance the impact of the heavier scenes. And the ending is again one which does not neatly tie everything together, as much as the film might try and portray. This is something I really respect and is one of the main messages of the film: there are no winners, even when you may subvert your entire life towards trying to right that wrong.

Promising Young Woman takes an extreme, darkly funny and at times deeply upsetting look at this. You may think many things, but you won’t be able to look away.

For people in the UK, Charles Bronson evokes many different reactions. For many, he is simply Britain’s most violent prisoner, responsible for multiple hostage-takings and criminal damage/prison protests. Enormous amounts of media coverage has followed him and the mythology which has built up around him means that this image has kept evolving and reaching new heights of absurdity. A recent documentary (2023) which was produced, leading up to his parole hearing, the first public one in British courts, also was very honest in showing that a lot of these outrageous news stories were made up by Bronson himself. But this film from 2008 also provided in many ways a highly stylised, but very loose with the facts biopic, to add yet another dimension to the Bronson myth.

But there is also no getting away from it, this film does not in any way show Bronson in a good light. Whilst there is humour aplenty from the different situations that are portrayed; some truthful, others expanding on the various stories and apocryphal linked to him, none of them leave you in any doubt that this is an extremely dangerous & unstable man. There is absolutely an argument that could be made about how the system brutalised him and in some way turned him into the monster he now is, but that falls apart quite quickly, especially with Bronson himself both in the film and in real life saying with massive enthusiasm the joy he had in causing absolute carnage and chaos. The man is quite simply a total psycho and I do think it was right that his parole was denied.

Bronson (the film) very clearly follows in the vein of A Clockwork Orange, with extreme violence set to classical music the most obvious comparison. The film also tries to spend a decent amount of time showing Bronson outside prison when he was released for a short period. But the vast majority takes place within the various prisons around the country. I do like that the prisons are shown as at times horrific places, with brutal punishment dished out by the screws. And welcomingly, there is a real focus on the horror of a psychiatric hospital, as well as the extreme creativity/masterful artist Bronson is.

But the standout is and always will be Tom Hardy’s performance. It is a staggering, off-the-wall, fearless and brilliant performance. This film would totally fail without him and his commitment, which included 2 false starts to filming where he bulked up for the role, only for the project to fall through and him having to lose the weight/muscle to do other parts before putting it all back on again. But his voice, built up from thousands of hours of phone calls and meet-ups with the real Bronson; his body which he transformed to be able to convincingly play him and his characterisation are flawless. My star rating is also mainly based on his performance, as the actual film itself is in many ways quite one-note.

Definitely a fantastic watch, but not something which really gets to the heart of Bronson as a man, other than someone who liked to cause carnage and is an extremely talent artist.

Firstly, I need to make one thing clear: this review is for the Assembly Cut ONLY. This in no way relates to the theatrical cut, which is in many ways a complete & utter mess, despite the fact that there are many parts in it which make the Assembly Cut brilliant.

After the masterpieces of Alien/Aliens, anticipation was at fever pitch for where the next film would go. And this was something that absolutely was a driving factor in the herculean problems that this production would face. I don’t want to detail too much more of the events, because this is a review of the film, but I would firstly say that the treatment David Fincher received by 20th Century Fox was absolutely despicable and finally the fact that despite all of this, he was able to still create something which, whilst it has its problems, is an incredible film really is a miracle.

Following on from the events of Aliens, Ripley crash lands onto a prison planet, with herself the only survivor. Whilst she is waiting to be rescued, the prisoners slowly start dying in mysterious circumstances until it is clear that there was also an Alien on board as well. Ripley also finds out that she has been compromised as well, so formulates a plan with the prisoners to take on the alien.

In many ways, I actually really respect the angle that the script writers and studio wanted to go in. Of course, there is a very large part of me that did want James Cameron to continue on his world and I have no doubt that what he could have produced would have been incredible. But as a close friend who introduced me to the Alien world said quite rightly, that isn’t what these films are about. In this world, as much as we are glad and routing for the humans and eventually Ripley to survive, there is also unimaginable terror & slaughter, often of people who are not “evil” in the typical sense of the word.

Alien 3 is in that sense both bold but also unbelievably brave in its creative choices. What other franchise would in the first 5 minutes kill off two of the most beloved characters from the previous film? And then subject its leading lady to being brutally injured, forced to shave her head and then surround her with the worst of humanity? This really makes you uncomfortable but also forces you to follow her whilst dealing with all this, as well as the horrific trauma she has.

Production wise, as much there are certain plot holes you could drive a bus through, it is also brilliant. Elliot Goldenthal’s soundtrack is a work of genius & the fact that it was recorded during the LA riots really impacted on the oppressive tone. The sets & lighting amazing, plus the use of religion as firstly a salvation then finally a metaphor for what the prisoners feel is their 2nd coming extremely well-used as well.

But the performances are also exceptional. My own favourite was Charles Dance as Clemens. I really enjoyed his story arc, as well as his way of being able to be a guide & comfort for Ripley. There is also a huge pleasure in watching him face off repeatedly against Brian Glover, the level of hatred between them palpable. Charles S. Dutton is also fantastic, plus is able to bring personal pain from his own brutal experiences inside. Finally, Sigourney Weaver is absolutely amazing, but not just for her performance. There are many reports of her in her role as producer defending Fincher against an onslaught of bile, including being sacked twice by Fox. It is in many ways down to her that the film succeeds in the way it does.

I love this film, not because of but in spite of its issues. Fincher did an incredible job & my only wish is that he actually had been allowed to complete his vision. One look at his slate following Alien3 shows what a masterpiece this could have been. But we are very lucky we have this instead.

This is and always will be in my top films. It is a work of perfection. A wonderful script, flawlessly researched, shot beautifully, acted to perfection. Not for one second are you bored or anything other than totally engrossed in it.

For some, it is always about the face-off between Pacino and De Niro in the restaurant. For others, the bank heist shoot-out, which is still influencing media decades later.

For me, it is all of these things are more. It is a work of brilliance and I love it.

Finally, I deliberately referenced and did the review for the 4K Blu-Ray for one reason: Heat has had a chequered history in terms of its re-masterings over the years. When the original DVD was released, the transfer was absolutely terrible, particularly the colours which were washed out & almost lifeless. Then when the Blu-Ray was released, this was supposed to have been remastered, but again looked in many ways dire, especially when you were watching scenes which you knew would have looked stunning if properly realised. But, thankfully the 4K Blu-Ray just looks absolutely stunning, with a remaster overseen by Michael Mann himself.

After many years and failed attempts, there is finally a version of the film that properly does justice to the incredible story first shown in 1995. Rent the 4K Blu-Ray and see it on the biggest and best TV you can. Cinematic nirvana

When Ryan Gosling and Nicolas Winding Refn first worked together, they made a masterpiece in the film Drive. And it was a massive critical and commercial hit, attracting in no small part the legions of Gosling’s fans. One can therefore only imagine the horror and shock when those fans in particular sat in the cinema, all excited and expecting to effectively see Drive 2.

One view which was written in another review which I will reference here is that Drive was in many ways an anomaly in terms of Nicolas Winding Refn’s filmography. Whereas in Drive, Winding Refn was directing a Ryan Gosling film, in Only God Forgives (OGF) Gosling is starring in a Nicolas Winding Refn film, which is a totally different beast. This is a world of extreme violence, continuing threat, harsh contrasting colours, anti-heroes and almost no happy endings. So, it is no wonder there have been the extreme polarising reactions that greeted this film, not least the official Cinema Paradiso review. This film is much more in the vein of Bronson, another Winding Refn film which is about the physicality & violence of humans, albeit mostly from within the confines of a prison cell.

But I absolutely loved it.

Much praise has to go to Gosling. His character Julian has 17 words in the entire film. In one sense, this is acting in the purest meaning of the word. There are long silences, scenes are slow and there is a lot of tension communicated with simple stares, looks and actions. Whilst some have said that Gosling simply looked bored throughout the whole film, for me I totally bought into the world created. And unlike a film like The Souvenir, which was also a slow-moving film but terrible, a lot actually happens in OGF. In fact, the slowness of it is the only thing preventing it from getting 5 stars.

One of the best parts about the film acting wise is Kristen Scott Thomas, who plays one of the worst on-screen mothers/mafia bosses you could imagine. Peroxide blonde, with a tongue so vicious it could cut through a steel door, she arrives following the murder of her other son to find his killers and in her words “Raise hell!” In one sense, her impact is all the more profound because of Gosling’s near mute character.

But the film belongs to Vithaya Pansringarm, who plays the police chief, but is also in a very real sense the “God” of the film. His acts of violence against the people who he thinks have done wrong are at times almost unwatchable. But he also is a fascinating character and someone I couldn’t take my eyes off. You are held in suspense watching and wondering what he will do next.

Aside from the performances, everything else is also wonderful. The soundtrack is another great one from Cliff Martinez, the locations (many of which I visited on a trip to Thailand in 2014,) are also great. But the main draw for me here was the colour palette & cinematography. There is almost nothing which looks like a Winding Refn film and the neon colours are superb.

This is a film I absolutely got lost in. I loved it and I hope others will too. Just don’t watch it if you don’t have a strong stomach...

This is one of those films which makes you wonder how it got made and why the cast signed on.

It starts promisingly, with a half way decent opening and some fairly good world building. There is also a fairly well executed laying of the foundations of Ben Kingsley's character. But this roll call of great actors is then forced to go through the motions of one of the most inept and badly written scripts you could imagine.

And speaking of the cast, I have rarely seen a film squander so badly the incredible talent it has on screen. One of the best examples of this is around the halfway point. Stanley Tucci, Ben Kingsley and Henry Cavill are put in a room together. Irrelevant of what you may think of Cavill, he can hold his own in a scene and brings presence. And he is certainly more than capable of being part of a three-hander. Stanley Tucci & Ben Kingsley are absolute power houses and their reputations set in stone. So I was hoping that this pairing would be one thing that could at least be memorable, a chance to capitalise on the opportunity... The scene lasts less than a minute, there are probably 20 cuts and all they get to say is schlocky dialogue. And as quick as the scene is set, it cuts to another scene. What a waste of time and opportunity.

And speaking of cuts, the editing on this film is absolutely atrocious. As in, not something even a 1st year film student would submit. In the entire film, there are probably only 3 or 4 scenes which last more than 2 minutes in length. Most scenes in this 90 minute film last around 30 seconds. The film jumps all over the place, cutting back and fourth, losing you and killing your interest.

In one montage, we are shown 4 separate story arcs, one after another after another after another, cutting back and fourth, all over the place. By this point, you are not only confused but even worse, bored and disinterested.

By the time the final scene arrived, I was amazed at how laughable and stupid this was. And any emotional heft that it hoped to deliver was long dissipated.

The Menu is such a frustrating film. Arriving with a lot of critical buzz, plus many word of mouth recommendations, it was a film I'd wanted to see. Ralph Fiennes is always excellent, plus after The Whale, I'll watch anything Hong Chau is in.

It starts promisingly, introducing us to all the different players, (a washed up actor and his pissed-off assistant, an older wealthy couple who look like they live in luxurious restaurants, 3 slimly Wall Street sellers ect,) who actually are interesting characters and people you want to learn more about. The "protagonists," in the most basic sense, are a couple played by Nicholas Hoult and Anya Taylor-Joy. Hoult's character is a devotee of the Chef's and has scored a nearly impossible reservation at this exclusive restaurant; Taylor-Joy is the last minute date stand-in who couldn't care less if they eat there or at the local greasy spoon.

The tension is masterfully & carefully ratched up: the guests are taken to the restaurant, which is on an island only accessible by boat & with no mobile signal. The MC is a frosty, blunt but unfailing polite lady played by Hong Chau, who never directly answers questions she doesn't want to. The waiting staff & cooks double as security and once the restaurant door closes, there's no getting out. Chef Slowik is then introduced & things really start to get interesting.

But then as the film progresses, something happens which, if Chef Slowik was in charge, he'd find completely unforgivable... The film totally runs out of steam and loses its way.

And what exacerbates this even more is how well the film sets itself up. You become horrifying hooked to watching how the atmosphere very slowly gets oppressive and threatening, plus there is a sick joy in watching it dawn on each of the characters as they realise the situation they've put themselves in. Anyone who has worked in a kitchen (which I have,) will love how well the tension of a high pressure service is carried over to the screen. But then having set this up flawlessly & perfectly, the film doesn't know where to go next. Script decisions are made which totally jar & make no sense, to the extent that the whole thrust & direction of the film gets thrown off course.

By the time we get to the ending, the film has then just dissolved into silliness & almost pastiche. I remember sitting there when the credits rolled, feeling half in awe at how wonderful the first half was, then really annoyed at how it was then squandered.

But I still absolutely recommend watching this. The two standouts are, as mentioned previously Fiennes and Chau. Both absolutely inhabit their roles and when they are on screen, you cannot take your eyes off them. The trauma which Fiennes only vaguely alludes to is also powerful, making you see how much the most successful chefs have to sacrifice of themselves to get to the top. Set design is also superb, as is lighting and sound.

There is much to love here, but for me the sadness is quite simply that, unlike the best dishes in the greatest restaurants, by the time the deserts come, you will feel short-changed and like the main event needed a bit more flavour.

Before I start this review, there is one thing that must be said loudly and clearly: DO NOT WATCH THE THEATRICAL CUT. Watch the extended version. This nearly half an hour extra transforms the film from a fairly standard film to the 5 star masterpiece I love. Characters are far more fleshed out, extra time given to build the world that you will quite happily spend 3 hours of your life in and the final impact of the ending that much more profound.

The story of Frank Lucas and his rise to become the most successful & feared drug king pin in America was always going to be given the Hollywood treatment. But this was in no way a smooth road & there were a couple of false starts, with it looking like the film might never get made. That it became this, after all those issues, is a testament to the skill & brilliance of all involved.

When it comes to casting, there was only ever one person who could have played Lucas. This was the role Denzel was born to play and in one sense I'm quite glad that there was this delay to it being shot. I feel that Washington would have been a little too young before, but the maturity & wisdom he has now fits like a glove. Lucas is many things, but it is the smaller moments where some of the biggest impacts are felt. The purchase of his dream house for his family & the brutal confrontation with his mother, whilst at opposite ends of the spectrum emotion wise, are hammer blows for us to watch.

But crucially, Crowe's Ritchie Roberts is also an unbelievably strong and compelling character. The investigation that he is conducting, as well as the atmosphere that he is operating in (complete rejection from his colleagues, a failing personal life & the repeated threats to him from all quarters,) ensure this is no cardboard cut out. And Crowe is also someone who doesn't always command sympathy, which is a vital characteristic that the film doesn't shy away from. Whilst in no way are the two characters the two sides of the same coin morally, their drive and determination is the driving force of the story.

Also, and again why you need to watch the extended version, is that the supporting characters are well fleshed out. Cuba Gooding Jr is really good, his desperation to be accepted and build his own empire whilst facing up against his brother really providing tension. Common is also great, as is Chiwetel Ejiofor. The only slight negative is Josh Brolin. In a film of so many interesting characters, his slimy cop is disappointingly one note, given his usual power and range.

But the final and biggest praise has to be given to Ridley Scott. Without him, this movie would have been a pale shade of what is it. Scott is one of our greatest living filmmaker's and this ranks up with Alien and Gladiator for me.

Watch it and see the power this incredible cinema can be

A small micro-budget film with a good central performance. James Norton is very watchable and does his best, but also once the credits roll, you won't remember too much about it. The child actor, Daniel Lamont, is also very good.

The roll call of different prospective families for Michael gives a snapshot into the many choices and worries that parents in that situation face. As someone who has never been in that position/is adopted, it's not something I massively relate to but absolutely respect the feelings of someone who is.

I do wish it could have had a bigger impact for me, but it is like many films in this vein: a small film with very good intentions that does some things right and a cast who do their best. Perfectly watchable and not too long

This film is a masterpiece.

It is a perfect follow-on from Alien. Everything fits together seamlessly, whether it's the continuation of the Alien universe, the music, sets or acting.

Sigourney Weaver is magnetic, Michael Biehn magnificent, Lance Henriksen perfect.

One element which to me never is mentioned enough but deserves absolute reverence is the puppetry. In 1986, there was almost no CGI. What the puppeteers and special effects team have achieved is staggering.

And at the centre of all of this is the maestro himself, James Cameron. To me, this is his masterpiece.

The final thing I will say is simply that for the best experience, watch this back to back with Alien. I almost, even though they are different genres (Alien a thriller horror and Aliens an action thriller,) consider them one film.

Alien/Aliens is to me one of the reasons why films exist and why I love them so. Watch this and be blown away

Whenever the Machinist is talked about generally, the main point is always the same: Christian Bale's transformation/weight loss. And I don't want to bypass this: it is a staggering performance and commitment to the role. Living off a cup of coffee and a can of tuna every day for months, he becomes Trevor Reznik in every way.

But this film is so much more than that. It is a very weird, idiosyncratic and creepy film, set in a dystopian world. Reznik is a machinist who slowly starts to lose his mind, the events set in motion by a traumatic event which haunts his every moment.

How much you get out of the film is how much you put into it. I read one of the other reviews saying it was too slow. This is the entire concept of the film, the slow ratcheting up of tension and confusion. I can see why for some it isn't for them, but I loved it.

This film will always hold a special place in my heart. My best friend is severely physically disabled and we watch an enormous number of films together. Interestingly, he often doesn't like watching films about disability, but this is one he agreed to watch. Having him in my life I have, when viewing films involving disability, taken away/had a different reaction to these films than someone who doesn't closely know someone with those challenges. I also have some very strong opinions & disagreements with what for many in the media are unacceptable.

For example, I have absolutely no problems & actually get really annoyed when there is criticism of "able-bodied" actors playing disabled parts. If these idiots (the people criticising) had got their way, we would have had no My Left Foot, Rain Man or Theory of Everything. And these are just some of the films I could mention. Equally, I detest "stunt" casting, where someone is cast because they may have disabilities, but this is done for purely selfish or factious reasons.

And the reason I adore this film is because in no way does it fall into this trap.

Zack Gottsagen, the lead and a man with Down syndrome, is perfect. He is an extremely engaging, very funny and charismatic guy. The charm, mischief & silliness, combined with a real determination to break free from the confines of the system he lives in is pitch perfect. For example I loved that there was, in keeping with the hopeful & sweet theme of the film, no abuse or negative reason why Zak wanted to escape from his home. His dreams are bigger than the mundane activities that are scheduled for him each day. He lives, breathes and loves wrestling & wants to travel to a tournament to compete.

Another massive positive is that at times, Zak is annoying or challenging as a character. As much as this is a film of hope, it is not saccharine fake smarminess when dealing with the lead. Zak at all times feels like a real person and someone you love spending time with.

The other revelation for me was Shia LaBeouf. This is without doubt his best performance, even eclipsing that of Nymphomaniac or Fury. There is no doubt some of the personal pain channeled from his life into Tyler, a rough and ready but lost man who, whilst in the process of destroying his own life, sees how important and meaningful his life can become by supporting Zak. But again this is no schlocky redemption & "able-bodied saviour of a hapless disabled person." This film is so much more than that.

These two lost soles then become best friends and set out travelling to the aforementioned wrestling match. Along the way, they face danger but also experience many heartwarming moments. Dakota Johnson is in many ways the fifth wheel, chasing after and trying to bring Zak back home. Her chemistry with Shia and Zak in particular is also great. Whilst the character could have been slightly stronger written, this is a minor quibble.

This film lifts you up, makes you laugh and also really can make you sad. But it is perfect filmmaking. I loved it and you will too

As much as there has been massive critical plaudits and awards for this show and the performances, it was never really anything more than a disappointment for me. There were lots of characters and plot strands, plus a last-minute rug pull. But it never added up to much for me. I simply didn’t care. Over 7 episodes, various stories unfold, and the sheer volume is something which again means you don’t care about them.

Winslet does her best and there are some interesting musings on grief and coping with it. But there are other people who aren’t so lucky. Guy Pearce is wasted, James McArdle as well.

Strangely, the most random thing about this HBO series which shocked me in one way, considering the high quality of pretty much everything they produce, is how unbelievably "soapy" it was, in terms of the storylines and the events. At times, if it didn't have Winslet in it, it wouldn't have been out of place in the afternoon slot on Channel 5.

Finally, a lot of the critical praise is focused on the level of representation of women, minorities and LGBTQIA+ characters. Whilst it is all well and good, and there have been outstanding drama series which have this level of representation, if the script and story isn’t good, it doesn’t matter who is cast, it still doesn’t make good TV

After The Silence of the Lambs, excitement was at fever pitch for the sequel. And for many people, Hannibal was a real letdown. What they effectively wanted was, more than anything, a continuation of the magnificent world created by Ted Tally (the screenwriter) but even more so Jonathan Demme (the director.) And I have to be honest, I'd have loved that as well.

But, following the publication of the novel and the total change in how the characters evolved/how the story unfolds, Demme, Tally and Jodie Foster all bailed, claiming none of them could tolerate this. So, as much as this is a sequel which features the characters and certain themes from Lambs, in a very true sense, it is much more a continuation than direct follow on.

But I loved it, partly because of these changes. So often, especially with sequels, people complain that there hasn't been enough of a change to make it interesting to keep involved with the story, or as in the case with Hannibal, it has changed TOO much.

And there are sweeping changes. The main one, and the principle reason for the departure of the people above, is the increased level of violence. Lambs was much more about tension and brief glimpses, shocks and letting your mind do the work. Here, there are some truly shocking and, in one case, almost vomit inducing scenes which some may find too much. But for me, this was simply a part of that film's different world, as well as in certain cases a source of humour.

What I also loved was the production values. This was, in 1999, a massively high budget film. And every single penny shows. Italy, particularly the opera scene, is perfection. The cinematography, locations, stunts and music masterful. And the roll call of actors incredible.

Hopkins is, as ever, outstanding. Whilst there was a bit more of the theatrical to his Lector in this film, this also fit with the tone. Plus he can turn on the sinister at the flip of a coin. And starring opposite him, Julianne Moore makes an excellent Clarice. Hopkins personally recommended her for the role and she really makes it her own. Certainly the trauma that Starling goes through in Hannibal is really gut wrenching at times, and this is perfectly acted.

My other favourite was Ray Liotta. His character Paul Krendler is a complete sleazeball, his odiousness dripping out of the screen. Liotta absolutely nails this and for me, he was an absolute highlight.

The reason though the film only gets 4 stars is because some of the scenarios are too far-fetched, even in a movie like this with its tongue firmly lodged in its cheek. It is also too long and the ending, which is different from the novel, just didn't work that well for me, especially considering the build-up is so well done.

But still a great film to watch, especially when you don't go in expecting a SOTL sequel. Take it on its own merits, enjoy it for what it is, and you'll love it.