Film Reviews by TB

When the Alien franchise started in 1979, no-one could have predicted the stratospheric impact & love for these films. What started as effectively a small budget horror in space, jumping on the momentum of Star Wars's huge success, is still a franchise revered decades later. This success is also partly down to not only Alien but Aliens being absolutely perfect, flawless masterpieces in their own ways. However, the Alien franchise has also had more than it's fair share of sometimes catastrophic misfires & duds; (for many people the AVP films started awfully & nosedived.)

When Ridley Scott was given the keys back to the franchise again, he produced Prometheus (average,) and Alien: Covenant (rubbish overall, despite a great opening.) Neither was what the fans wanted, and for ordinary film watchers, there wasn't much for them either. Despite stating that he would keep cranking out sequels until he dropped dead, Scott has now handed over the reins to Fede Alvarez, himself a huge Alien fan, to inject some new ideas into the mix.

Despite my rating, I had a lot of fun watching this film, although never once was I scared or really that on-edge. There is in no way anything like the Space Jockey scene (complete with horrific music,) or the Alien suddenly jumping out of the shadows & really making you jump (like with Andrews in Alien3.) The action is brilliantly handled, and I am so grateful that Alvarez insisted on puppets & full practical effects. Not only do I never fully buy into CGI aliens in these types of films, but they simply don't move or act like they should, which then breaks the illusion.

The main reason for the 3 stars is actually due to the opening 20 minutes. In pretty much every other Alien film, it starts relatively slowly, introducing characters & ensuring that the plot is given time to breathe (even if the story itself is rubbish.) In no way does this happen in Romulus. After a brief opening recovering debris from space, we are then thrown into a frenetic & badly rushed series of scenes, where some backstory & exposition is thrown onto the screen, before we are bundled into a spaceship & shot into space.

Character development is actually quite minimal & sadly the script reduces 1 of the players to effectively a single trait: being an absolutely horrible & abrasive arsehole. Alongside this, at least 2 of the characters were fairly pointless, in the sense that they were only there for later set-ups/payoffs. But one thing I am grateful for was the fact that there wasn't the ridiculously large number of people like in Prometheus or Covenant. The main frustration I have is that, after the brilliant crew in Alien & then the slightly larger number in Aliens, these characters were not really interesting people for us to really buy into.

One of the other big issues I had with this film (no spoilers, don't worry!) was the bringing back of a major character, which I felt was even more tasteless considering the actor is deceased. The CGI recreation of them was passable but not particularly well done, but it was still a weird & slightly exploitative feeling.

However, when this film is good, it's really good. The action is brilliant, the alien puppetry being world class. There are also some extremely nasty & psychosexual moments, which were a welcome return to the old Alien creepiness. A scene set in zero gravity is also highly entertaining as well as brilliantly staged. For some, the ending is a bit too much but this is an action film, so I can buy into that. Plus we have the obligatory set-up for the next film which, judging by the reviews & clamouring of people to see the previous entries, means this is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

This is a solid, entertaining & enjoyable new adventure in the Alien universe, the best since Alien3. Now that Fede Alvarez has found his feet, hopefully he can be allowed the chance to continue his story.

When social media/YouTube started to become part of most people's lives, very quickly a number of iconic life/world events captured on film became a part of the tapestry, always popping up. You had the obvious ones such as Freddie Mercury at Live Aid, but also the Moon Landings & Dr Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" to name but 3. However, particularly in the UK, there was another one which I saw posted many times.

On an 80's light entertainment programme called That's Life, Nicholas Winton was introduced as one of the principle architects of a superhuman effort to evacuate as many children as possible from WWII-era Czechoslovakia before the Nazi regime swept across the border as they looked to conquer Europe & then the world. Winton, along with other dedicated men & women on the ground in Czechoslovakia, raised money & found foster homes for 669 children. This film looks at the incredible effort & drive to rescue this massive number of predominantly Jewish children from certain death.

Set in both 1988 & the late 30's, we follow Nicholas Winton as he takes a sabbatical from being a stockbroker to go to Czechoslovakia just after the signing of the Munich agreement. This treaty has forced thousands of families to flee, as Germany annexes part of the country, initially as an appeasement to try to control Hitler's march across Europe, but of course to no avail. Winton discovers to his horror vast slums filled with children who have often lost their parents, all gathered desperately trying to stay alive whilst the threat of not only the Nazi's but also a deadly winter threaten to strike at any moment.

The resulting story & herculean effort by not only Winton but also Doreen Warriner, Trevor Chadwick & Nicholas Stopford to name but a few, is absolutely inspirational as well as heart breaking & highly emotional. I was every few minutes having to check my emotions, such was the visceral impact on what I was watching. Like Denial, another superb WWII-themed film, it is extremely competently directed & filled with amazing performances. Both Hopkins & Flynn are absolutely brilliant, but I also really rated the work of the actors portraying the team on the ground in Czechoslovakia.

There were a couple of things which I did wish were different, such as more details of the multiple train trips, which sadly were regulated to brief interludes & voiceovers. Another genuinely wasted opportunity was only having one scene between Hopkins & the magnificent Jonathan Pryce, who have worked together before, notably on The Two Popes. The brief scene they have together is a masterclass of 2 greats sharing the screen & playing off each other.

But these are small niggles, when the overall impact is so great. There have been comments from people tangentially connected to/related to the rescued children who have criticised not only the film but also the original That's Life programme, accusing it of sensationalising the rescue for an emotional TV moment. Whilst I can see why they might be upset, for me the worst tragedy was Winton not being recognised for the phenomenal & heroic work he was a part of.

The film is never not respectful of the situation, as well as being at pains to repeatedly show that Winton did not want celebrity or to court fame, actively shunning it. And I am so glad that he was recognised in his lifetime for his actions, as well as the hundreds who he rescued being able to say thank you to their saviour.

A brilliant & shatteringly emotional film. Have a hanky handy, you'll need it.

Amy Winehouse was a complete one-off: a searing talent which to me (as much as I am an atheist,) was practically God given. But she was also a woman whose significant personal troubles (relationships, addiction,) meant she was often both traduced & reduced to tabloid fodder, held up as an example of completely out of control self-destructive behaviour. Her death at the age of 27 was both shocking & unsurprising, her name joining the pantheon of geniuses whose talent was only matched by their seeming determination to destroy themselves.

A few years later, the family/record company commissioned Asif Kapadia to make a documentary of her life, which was an absolutely incredible & profoundly moving look at her rise from a precociously talented young girl to the all-conquering global superstar, then finally as the extremely unwell woman who was powerless against her demons.

But the documentary generated significant outrage from Winehouse's family, especially her father Mitch, understandably so seeing as he comes out of it extremely poorly. So we now have Back to Black, fully endorsed by the family, to tell Amy's story from her perspective, as well as looking at the origins of many of the songs from that album.

One thing which is important to dispel from the off is that this is film is in no way simply a vehicle to rehabilitate the Winehouse family's reputation after the documentary. I myself was concerned that this would be the case, but the filmmakers were extremely clear that the family had no creative control over the process.

I really, really enjoyed this film. And interestingly, I actually think that the documentary does it a favour: if you've seen it, a lot of the questions you may have had will have some kind of answer, but that also allows the film to put meat on the bones of the story. We see Amy at various points in her life, in a film which feels completely authentic. Her grandmother, Amy's biggest influence, is given plenty of time to show why she was so special to the singer growing up. Camden Town, where Amy lives & frequently made reference to, is also another major character in the film, including shooting in many of the places Amy actually spent time in, including the pubs she gigged in as a young talent.

But my biggest praise is towards not only Marisa Abela's mesmeric performance, but also how Amy is portrayed. In no way is this sanitised or muted for fear of alienating the viewer (unlike with Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody.) Winehouse is shown as an extremely strong-minded & obstinate artist, as well as a highly volatile & sometimes violent woman. And what the movie does perfectly is show that not only was it highly likely that she had significant mental illness, but that she was in many ways trapped in a spiral of her unpredictable behaviour.

In many scenes, whilst there are these outbursts, there is also significant attention given to the aftermath, whether it is waking up on the floor after a violent seizure caused in part by drowning herself in alcohol, or breaking down & agreeing to go to rehab. And that is totally to the film's credit.

The only fault I can pick with this film is that we are never fully shown just why Amy became so besotted by Blake Fielder-Civil. As much as there are multiple scenes of the 2 of them falling in love, he was never anything more than a drug-taking lowlife who seemed to ride on the coattails of her success. And when a big part of the film is about her love for him, it does affect the film's quality.

But throughout all of it, Abela is incredible. She does all her own singing, as well as playing Winehouse with reverence & perfection. In a time of many biopics (Elvis, Freddie, Elton, Marley,) this performance really does stand out. And like the best biopics, at the end I just felt sad. I so wish that Amy had been able to get the help she needed, but her star was just too bright...

Nicolas Cage has had a complete turnaround in recent years. After his early performances in critically acclaimed films such as Birdy, he then reached the peak of his success with his Oscar win for Leaving Las Vegas. This then led to multiple offers for action films including The Rock & the magnificent Con Air. However, starting in the mid-2000's, Cage then became infamous for basically starring in anything & everything, seemingly turning up just for the cheque. And he was involved in some terrible, painfully bad dreck, even though he released some absolutely incredible films, including my own favourite The Bad Lieutenant, during this time.

But the pendulum has now mercifully swung back the other way & we have been treated to some absolute gems, including Pig & Mandy. And taking its place comfortably alongside them is Dream Scenario. It is a film which is in many ways unbelievably slow & gentle, but it also is biting sharp in its satire & scorn of how the world now treats people who through no fault/want of their own becomes "famous."

Paul Matthews is an extremely easygoing, gregarious & slightly goofy tenured evolutionary biology professor. He has a fairly stereotypical family life & everything is painfully, painfully ordinary. Then, Paul randomly starts appearing in people's dreams, from all over the world. Whilst this starts with his own daughter, soon he is popping up all around the globe, there as a presence which at first is anodyne but then violent & vengeful. From there, his life starts to go in a downward spiral as he struggles to cope with this infamy.

The reason why this suddenly happens to Paul is never explained, which is absolutely to the script's credit. We are simply put into this world & everything feels remarkably natural. It is also interesting how we as the viewer really identify with Paul's predicament, putting ourselves in his shoes. Whilst at first his presence is almost humourous in its mundanity, soon he becomes a violent, demonic presence, traumatising everyone who has these visions.

But the film is much more interested in looking at the effects to Paul's life, over & above the dreams he is in. And here is where the film is for me genius: we now live in a world where there is unquestionably a "cancel culture," although the severity of this differs depending on who you talk to (for some it doesn't go far enough, for others it is an totally out of control monster.) But this story looks at someone who isn't famous & more than that, truly has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. Paul has no control over his appearances in these dreams, but is eventually vilified, along with his whole family.

And this gentle examination is what makes the film really hit home for me. The idea of someone making a film about cancel culture & turning it into this bulldozer of a message, often wouldn't work. Whereas this just shows you what happens & people's hysterical reaction to this panic, which makes it's message all the more powerful.

But the star of this all is Cage. His study & portrayal of Paul is unbelievably nuanced & razor sharp. Paul is exactly what you would imagine an easy-going dad would be. As he slowly starts to lose his mind, you start to feel truly sorry for him. Also for Cage purists, there are the requisite freak-outs, but these are earned & not simply thrown in to get a cheap laugh.

And you are left really looking closely at the society which we exist in today. If this were to happen, I think that the film's events would be understated in many ways. The mobs that would form, demanding justice against a man who has in no way been a part of what has happened to him, really makes you think. As much as this is a satire, it is also a devastating look at how we as humans currently treat each other. And the results aren't pretty...

Luca Guadagnino has had an incredible career. Whilst Call Me By Your Name will always be his masterpiece, he has dipped his toe into multiple other genres & story subjects. But even with this track record, when I first heard about Challengers, I was a little perplexed. The only other tennis-themed film I've watched is Wimbledon, which looks at a player who is in his last year as an older professional and, shock horror, wins Wimbledon as a total outsider. And for me Guadagnino would have no interest in this. But, as with other films he has done, particularly Bones & All, the initial subject matter (tennis,) is only used as a setting/sport for the characters to be tangentially involved in. Challengers is far more interested in what happens behind the scenes, despite there also being some great on-court action.

Patrick Zweig (O'Connor) & Art Donaldson (Faist) are tennis players as well as close friends. But they are also very different people: Zweig is a maverick, coasting on some talent as well as his good looks & extremely effective charm/chat-up abilities. Donaldson is much more the professional, fixated on every element of his game & training routine. One day, both men go to watch Tashi Duncan (Zendaya) play. From both a sporting ability perspective as well as physical attractiveness, both men are instantly smitten. The film follows them over more than a decade, both with their careers as well as their pursuit of Tashi.

The first thing to say is that, in terms of the actors & their tennis abilities, all of them look absolutely perfect in their roles. And this is vital considering how the tennis matches are also used as a metaphor for their internal emotions as well. And this use of the game alongside the relentless ambition & pursuit of both titles & Tashi really works.

The chemistry between the 3 leads is also great. Whereas in a film with more than 2 protagonists, often one is pushed aside or is almost like a 5th wheel, the script gives all of them generous amounts of time to build their characters, as well as decent meaty scenes playing off each other. The sexual tension element is also extremely effective, Zendaya flawlessly making you not only fancy her but fully understanding why the 2 men are willing to do almost anything to get with her.

However, the one element which didn't work well for me, and was genuinely shoehorned into the narrative by Guadagnino when he came aboard, was the attraction of Patrick & Art to each other. There are some little moments leading upto the famous hotel room scene which are playful in nature & insinuate something that may be below the surface. Then after said scene, which to me was almost Guadagnino being provocative for the sake of it, this attraction is never really mentioned again. And it jars the narrative for me, simply because it seems so out of place.

But everything else is spot on. The music, electronic beats alongside strings, really work in ratcheting up the tension & momentum. The sound is also very good, and as always with Guadagnino's films, the cinematography great.

If you are looking for a film which really pushes your buttons, you will find it here. And whilst there are some issues for me, I also really enjoyed & was gripped by it.

In June 2014, veteran soldier Bernard Jordan became an unlikely celebrity. After "breaking out" in the very loosest sense from his nursing home, he managed to get all the way to France for the D-Day celebrations, which he had always said he was going to attend but never organised. Following the massive media coverage in the UK, it was inevitable that there would be some kind of dramatisation of his adventure.

The strange thing was that two stories, 1 a direct adaptation of the trip & the other with fictional characters influenced by Jordan, were released within weeks of each other. And whilst I absolutely loved The Great Escaper, starring Michael Caine and Glenda Jackson in their final roles, The Last Rifleman to me is pretty much a total write-off, which in no way do I take any pleasure in writing, believe me.

For me, in a nutshell, the biggest issue with this film is this: I grew up watching Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond. I followed him as he ran, jumped, shot & shagged his way through 4 films. He was the embodiment of the alpha-male in every way. And even though it has been 22 years since he last played 007, that is the main memory I have with him.

But what the filmmakers have decided, which is absolutely the worst thing they could have done, is to make Brosnan play Artie as the most frail, unsteady & doddery person imaginable. And when I say that, I mean this is layered on so thickly that very quickly it starts to become annoying & distracting. It's like the polar opposite of when a young actor who gets an action role is pictured repeatedly with either his shirt off or his biceps bulging out, to show he's spent the last year in the gym.

And in addition to this, the script also has multiple characters saying extremely on-the-nose dialogue about how old & frail Artie is, as if to really hammer home that this is Pierce playing an old man, not Bond. The result is that, alongside the standard clichéd scenes of Artie in his nursing home looking after his wife & being on enough medication to keep the local pharmacy in business, I simply felt like I was watching a series of script/world building montages, which isn't something I am interested in sitting through.

I got about 40 minutes in & then just gave up. Sadly, this cannot hold a candle to The Great Escaper, as much as I love Pierce as an actor.

Annette Bening. Jodie Foster. Two of the most magnetic actresses of their generation. Between them, the work they have created has been masterful & at times groundbreaking. And in many ways, there couldn't have been a more perfect story for them to tell together: two fiercely strong & independent women, who have spent the vast majority of their lives supporting each other. But for me, despite this subject matter, along with a brilliantly understated & sympathetic performance from Rhys Ifans, the result is fairly mixed.

Diana Nyad was a champion open water swimmer who in her youth broke multiple records. However, the one challenge she failed to complete was the journey from Cuba to Florida. Despite a valiant attempt, a combination of bad weather & poor planning from the navigator meant she never stood a chance. However, decades later and in her 60's, she decides she is going to try again & finally complete it.

We follow her as she, alongside her best friend & eventual trainer Bonnie, tackle getting sponsorship, securing a decent navigator (Ifans,) & the serious dangers which are waiting for her in the open water. And whilst this is done with care & trying to keep things fresh, to use a swimming metaphor, sadly we as the viewer are drowned in clichés. I fully accept that the sports movie & the journey to victory have been done a million times already in different media, but there have also been many successes where the writing has freshened this storyline up.

Unfortunately, the script is at times very poor, as well as becoming unbelievably soapy in terms of the storyline. But thankfully, Foster & Bening never give anything less than committed & brilliant performances. They absolutely save what could have been another mediocre & clichéd mess. Their chemistry is note-perfect, plus it shocked me to discover that they were not close friends before making this film, again a tribute to their connection.

The biggest issue I have with this film is also a random one, but was for me another reason why this film only gets 3 stars: the CGI is, at times, absolutely atrocious. As in, there will be one shot where the water will look absolutely great & life-like, then in the next look so out of place it takes you out of the narrative. And this isn't helped by the movie repeatedly cutting to actual footage of the swim, then cutting back to the film footage & the garish, unreal water. There are Playstation 3 games from the mid 2000's with better water animation than this film...

The other extremely strange thing with this film is why it is rated 15. Whilst there is discussion of horrific child abuse suffered by Nyad & the other swimmers in her squad, alongside brief glimpses, this is all done extremely carefully & is in no way deserving of a 15 certificate.

A few months ago, I rented The Assistant, directed by Kitty Green & starring Julia Garner, looking at a day in the life of a PA to a big Hollywood mogul & witnessing the horrors going on behind closed doors, amongst the mundanity of office work. Despite the rave reviews, I found it an unbelievably boring & dull film, so much so I switched off after 40 minutes & gave it 2 stars. The only reason I rented this was because it starred Jessica Henwick, who was without a doubt the best thing in The Matrix Resurrections, and is a magnificent & magnetic screen presence.

Overall, I have mixed views about The Royal Hotel. One thing, which thank god is different with this film, is that Green, reuniting with Garner & casting Henwick as her co-star, has significantly cut down on the naval-gazingly long silences which was 90% of The Assistant's runtime (that I could tolerate watching it for.) Whilst we do have moments of reflection & contemplation, the narrative actually is filled with spiky, if sometimes wholly unrealistic characters.

Some of the other good points include really using the barren isolation & inhospitable climate/terrain of the Australian outback to accentuate & show to us as the viewer just how in the middle of nowhere these two women are. In a weird way, I found myself thinking of The Proposition, another film which was set in & used to full effect the barren & horrific climate of Australia, a world away from the sunny & happy adverts most tourists see.

There is also some excellent casting. Whilst Henwick's character Liv is the free-spirited & easy-going of the pair, my own favourite (if that's the right word,) is Daniel Henshall as Dolly. Dolly is an absolute psychotic scumbag, who really brings a menace & tension to the narrative. Out of all of the male characters, he is the one who stands out the most, completely commanding the screen whenever he is on it. The overall tension in the film is also handled extremely well, sometimes verging on horror as well as thriller territory.

But there are also for me many problems. The main one was the unrealistic writing, over time, of the male characters as a whole, alongside the various set-ups the women find themselves in. As in, whilst there were some of the men whose characters are written with some nuance, the script also often reverted to clichés & stereotypes to reinforce the message it was screaming out of the screen.

The worst of these examples was when one of the women asks for a lighter off one of the men & on it is an image of a naked woman. And the film holds this up as meaning that this patron is, for having this lighter, in the same league as the most repugnant & sexist other men, even though the woman seems to know him well/likes him & nowhere else in the story is he featured.

To be clear, I have no doubt that a lot of the behaviour which is shown happens, but I also am reviewing this film from a realism perspective. And the range that these men are portrayed as varies from absolutely disgusting & despicable misogynists to someone who might look at one of the women in a slightly suggestive manner. And they are all lumped in together & treated pretty much the same.

But the ending is the worst part of the whole film. Firstly it is totally unrealistic & "convenient" in it's timing, but secondly & more significantly, it just feels like the writer/director completely ran out of ideas & said "Finish the story now, as quickly & plausibly as possible." Which in this case, whilst quick, is in no way plausible. There is an attempt at redemption for one of the men, as well as a seeming need by the filmmakers to dish out some violent consequences, but it just feels cobbled together & unrealistic.

Whilst there is some good & genuinely gripping moments, overall it is a mess of ideas & manipulation.

This is a really good & enjoyable film, which also lives & dies by it's performances. Make no mistake, without Samuel L. Jackson & Kevin Spacey, this film would almost certainly not succeed. The script is at times ludicrous & dangerously on the verge of slipping into pastiche: we have the fairly familiar plot of a hostage negotiation & the various rug-pulls which come as standard, and which we as the viewer would be disappointed if they weren't there, although they have to be done well otherwise the film becomes tiresome. But the real trick pulled in this story is that the top negotiator is now the one doing the hostage taking, meaning the usual tricks don't work on him.

Jackson is, as he often is, the best thing about this film: a performance with emotions aplenty (he cries & shows genuine emotion, to balance against the iconic shouting,) teamed with a steely resolve & complete belief in his ability to prove his innocence against multiple bogus charges. But Spacey is able to match him with a different set of emotions: not only quick to anger & outbursts, but a deadly calm when everyone else is losing their heads. Spacey's incredible range mean you never know truly where his loyalties lie, which adds plenty to the tension.

Whilst some parts of the script are really poor & could have used some cutting (there are too many characters, who are offered up to you as potential villains/betrayers,) I would be lying if I said I wasn't gripped. And whilst there were some reviewers who bemoaned the lack of a big, all-guns-blazing finale, I firmly believe this would have actually ruined what was a very good set-up. It was a good length, with great performances & left me with a curiosity to see it again to put together all the loose ends which I missed the first time round.

A solid thriller

For the older generation, Kenneth Williams was a hysterical & brilliant performer, as well as an integral part of their entertainment/comedy viewing. Whether in radio plays, on television as a masterful raconteur & polemicist or in the wildly popular Carry On films, he was a true icon. But he was also, as revealed by his posthumously released diaries, an extremely unhappy & deeply troubled individual. This drama looks to peel back the layers so vociferously & fiercely guarded by Williams whilst he was alive, looking at his highly dysfunctional life as well as his genius.

Quite simply, you as the viewer will remember only 1 thing overall when you watch it, as well as when you think back to it at a later date, and that is Michael Sheen. Having made a huge impact & being thrust into the public consciousness as Tony Blair, here Sheen totally metamorphoses into Williams. Every single element, from the different voice & tonal changes through to the walking & way he tilts his head/purses his lips is as if you are watching the real man in front of you. It is a staggering performance, richly deserving of his BAFTA award.

But it is also important to state that this performance is emphatically not the "limp-wrist, screaming queen, stereotypically gay" representation it could so easily have become. The mannerisms are so accurately observed, plus the script-writing so nuanced, that we as the viewer are shown as close to reality as is possible.

And the biggest emotion I felt was sadness. There is no doubt in my mind that Williams was a genius, not only in terms of comic timing, but also as a thinker & debater. However, he was also gay in a time where it was at first illegal, but even after it was "legalised," to be openly gay was in many ways ruinous as well as dangerous. And Williams's self-hatred of who he was compounded & increased this extreme anxiety & revulsion towards himself.

The narrative follows his early life, through to his sudden & at times overwhelming fame, then to his later years where, once the successful & iconic roles had started to dry up, he became a bitter & miserable recluse. And this to me is the most important part of the programme: Williams became a household name, with success beyond pretty much anything he could have dreamt of. But because of his severe mental health difficulties, coupled with his sexuality, he was never far away from the misery & depression which dogged him his whole life.

Whilst this drama will make you laugh, it is equally a tragic look at the difficulties of genius & repression, wrapped up in overwhelming sadness & misery. And a huge part of the praise must be given to Sheen. A sensational & heart-breakingly moving performance.

Like a lot of people, I had heard/watched over the years the story of the Post Office sub-postmasters who were being accused of stealing & then being dragged through the courts & in some cases jailed, pretty much all of whom (obviously there has to be the caveat that there may have been 1 or 2 genuine cases,) were patently innocent. And to my great shame, it was never a story which gripped me in the way it has since it blew up, primarily because there have been so many other news stories which have taken the spotlight. You have to remember that the significant problems with Horizon started in 1999, so this has been going on for nearly 3 decades.

The series takes great care to look at a few of the cases which were the ones in the public eye/are the most well-known, whilst never neglecting to repeatedly draw attention to the many hundreds of others who were also facing this living hell of being accused of stealing/fraud by a gigantic corporation who it is very quickly & clearly established will do absolutely anything to implicate & convict people. Some of these tactics which the series shows are overtly done, such as harassing people by using special Post Office investigation teams who have their own legal powers to prosecute, separate from the standard criminal justice system (a unique right in this country.)

But perhaps even more powerfully for me were the subtle & even more nasty tricks that they (Post Office) would do, the main one being if they lost a case, they would keep appealing the verdict in order to bankrupt the other side, (don't forget that the Post Office had an unlimited legal fund, so could do this indefinitely,) until they either won or the victims simply gave up due to the trauma/stress/running out of money.

This series also deserves huge credit for showing starkly & at times in unflinching detail the total destruction of not only the financial but also the mental health of the hundreds of victims affected. Alan Bates is shown, and I have no doubt this is true having seen multiple interviews with him, as being a bulldozer who simply will not bend or cower in the face of this barrage of threats over many years. But people like him are very, very, very rare. The main group who ran sub-post offices were honest & extremely decent people who, if the computer said they had made a mistake, blamed themselves.

Over 4 episodes, we are taken through many of the significant milestones that happened: from the establishing of the Justice for Sub-Postmasters group with a few members, up to the momentus public enquiry & the total vindication of all of them, it is gripping & harrowing drama. It is a bit frustrating that there are a few events which were missed out which had been shown in the documentaries I had watched, but I also totally accept that with a case this big, condensing it into a taunt & gripping 4 episode 45 minute series means tough creative choices needed to be made. And I would much rather the fleshing out of individual trauma as opposed to more events which may have limited that impact.

Finally, the one thing this series does do is make you as the viewer furious. As is, seething, white-hot fury & rage. You watch as a huge group of the most decent people this country has, who wanted to serve their communities, are treated in the worst way possible, by an evil, duplicitous organisation who KNEW FROM THE START of the launch of the Horizon computer program that there was enormous issues with the system but still continued to roll it out & pursue totally innocent people caught up in it.

This is momentus, powerful & gripping drama, which prompted a sea-change in the UK. It also proves again why powerful drama is second to none at being the catalyst for real change & exposing miscarriages of justice. I wish the Sub-Postmasters the best in their continued fight.

I had never heard of this case/film or David Irving. The reason I rented this was because, after the sad passing of Tom Wilkinson (an actor who I was enormously fond of, as well as a sign that any film he was in would be elevated, even if the movie as a whole wasn't great,) I was reading a collection of tributes from people he had worked with. And one which stood out was from Mick Jackson, the director of Denial. He absolutely raved about not only Wilkinson's performance (and to be clear, he is emphatically the best thing in this film, no question,) but also his ability to really reach you as the viewer. From this testimony, I put Denial on my rental list. And I'm so glad I did.

Deborah Lipstadt is a highly respected American Jewish woman who lectures about the Holocaust, as well as a writer of books. Her latest tome, Denying the Holocaust, which deals with people who question various elements of this barbaric industrial murder machine, references & attacks David Irving. Irving is a historian who was known as a rapid Holocaust denier, alongside other repugnant views, which he openly espoused to anyone willing to listen. At Lipstadt's book launch, Irving gatecrashes the Q&A, challenging Lipstadt to prove her assertions, before launching a libel case in the UK against her & the book's publishers.

I really enjoyed & was gripped by this movie. The direction is taunt, fast-paced & assured. Thankfully, this film is only 105 minutes long, mercifully excluding long periods of exposition & testifying, which would have really bogged down the narrative/pace. But it is also crucial to say that this approach does not in any way skim over or minimise the horror of the subject which this film is examining. After a series of fast-paced, almost breathless scenes introducing Deborah Lipstadt, David Irving & the legal teams, as well as several scenes in the London Chambers as the case is built, the film then slams on the brakes & takes us to Auschwitz...

And this build-up to it makes the impact of being there all the more horrifying. We go from rushing around, with the sights & sounds of vibrant & active cities, to a silence & quiet horror, with death heavy in the air. These scenes are also horrific because as much as the legal team show respect & are careful, they are also there to ask the sort of questions which Irving claims are the proof that these camps were not what they were said to be.

When we do finally get to the trial, Mick Jackson & the writers put in just enough to keep you gripped, with the customary rug-pulls & surprises. And you really do become captivated with seeing this single, solitary man filled with poison, going up against the might of the UK legal establishment & often running rings around them, it must be said.

The performances are great. Weisz gets one of the meatiest roles of her career, fully immersing herself in the strong Yiddish-tinged American accent & mannerisms of Lipstadt, making her a woman absolutely determined not to be silenced or bullied. Timothy Spall also gives a good performance, although it was a little too theatrical in the sense that Irving is played as such a scumbag, as if playing to the gallery. With the bile coming out of his mouth, adding extra layers of poison wasn't needed.

But the stand-out, as I said at the beginning, is Tom Wilkinson. He plays Richard Rampton as not only a slightly socially awkward man, but also a deeply moral & conflicted one, in the sense that he has had to shed all of his emotions in order to become the best barrister in the country. And this loss of humanity clearly troubles him. But this is beautifully & subtly played, which gives it all the more power. I also loved how he never gave Irving the satisfaction of looking at him, being a willing audience to his screed, which only antagonised him more.

This is a great film, brilliantly made & compulsive viewing.

When The Raid was released back in 2011, it was a cinematic hammerblow. Although there had been thousands of action films in the last few years, the genre had become quite stale in many respects, especially in the explosion of straight-to-DVD garbage.

But after The Raid, not only did it reshape the action genre (as well as introducing pencak silat martial arts to the world,) but it spawned a whole movement of films deeply influenced/indebted to it. The most obvious is John Wick, but also Monkey Man, which even includes an Easter Egg reference to it. But it has to be said that these new stories have had very mixed results, and this continues with Kill...

It almost proudly wears it's Raid influence on its sleeve, as the opening shots show the same SWAT style vans pulling up & commandos jumping out, alongside the close-quarter & lethal hand-to-hand combat. We also have an extremely likeable & empathetic protagonist in Amrit, the impossibly chiseled & classically handsome lead who breaks hearts as easily as he breaks necks. Starring opposite him is Tulika, daughter of a wealthy Indian transport chief, forced into an engagement with a man she doesn't love & who only wants to be with Amrit. The two of them agree to meet on an express train & elope, but then a group of terrorists strike & Amrit is forced to fight to save himself & his new bride.

Despite the 3 stars, there are some great positives. The costumes & traditional Indian dress, alongside the cinematography & use of cramped/contained locations for the film are inspired. Full marks need to go to the design & costume teams for their work here. There is also excellent chemistry between Amrit & Tulika, as well as Amrit & his best friend/fellow commando Viresh. The fight choreography is, despite issues that I will speak about in a second, often incredible. The moves & pacing is amazing, with all of the actors totally convincing.

But there are also many issues here.

One of the biggest for me was the, at-times, totally over-the-top & extremely graphic violence, which is something other action films fall into the trap of, in that directors/writers think that other great films which have violence in them are good because of the bloodshed. For me, the opposite is true: The Raid is a great film because of its story & characters, not due to the often brief flashes of brutality. But Kill has a couple of genuinely nasty & misogynistic scenes of violence which were just too much, the filmmakers really revelling in the cruelty.

And on the subject of violence, another element which just stretched credibility so far it became stupid was the amount of punishment that characters took & were still able to keep fighting. One man was stabbed at least 4 times in quick succession, (after enduring many brutal fights,) but this did not affect him in any tangible way. Another was subjected to repeated beatings which would have slain a giant, but only affected him for a few seconds. So the result became like watching Teletubbies bouncing around in a padded cell.

And this is exposed repeatedly by the at times nonsensical & really frustrating pacing of this film. Many times, there will be the start of either an action scene or dialogue, then the film randomly cuts away/the scene is brought to a halt in some contrived way. So in effect, you are watching a film which is stop-start-stop-start. And this was massively frustrating for me. A common theme in my reviews is my acknowledgement at how hard it is to get a film made/off the ground, especially a micro-budget one, so I want them to be good. But when a film needlessly sabotages it's quality with stupid errors, it is really frustrating.

I give full marks & massive respect to Nikhil Nagesh Bhat for getting this production off the ground, but like with Monkey Man, the flaws are almost as big as the positives.

When it comes to ground-breaking/break-out debut performances, there are plenty of candidates: Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver, Meryl Streep in The Deer Hunter, Ewan McGregor in Trainspotting. I mean the list just goes on. And to that list can also be added Martin Compston in Sweet Sixteen. The difference, and what makes him so impactful here, is that he had absolutely no professional training. A potential career as a professional footballer cut short, he auditioned on a whim for Ken Loach & easily got the main role as Liam, a role he was seemingly born to play.

Liam lives with a group of friends on Greenock, a run-down council estate in Scotland. He runs a few scams & is a ducker & diver, just about getting away with it. However, his main driving force in his life is taking his mother Jean out of the hell she exists in, once she leaves prison on charges that were actually committed by Stan, her low-life boyfriend. Liam, along with his unpredictable best friend Pinball, start to deal drugs as a way to buy a new place for them to escape to once Jean is released.

Mentioning Trainspotting earlier, Sweet Sixteen shares many of the same strands of DNA. The most obvious comparison is the poor Scottish setting along with the theme of drugs/addiction. However for me, the main thing the two films share is an incredible electricity & energy. The screen crackles with vibrancy & the sheer drive of Liam's energy as he single-mindedly sprints towards this impossible dream of being able to take Jean out of the life that she will be going back to, namely an endless cycle of intimidation & control at the hands of the repugnant Stan.

As is the same with all Loach films, the majority of the cast are actually locals who add the incredible diversity & authenticity to the screen which you simply could not cast/recreate with professional actors. Even in small parts, they make a profound impact.

For example, Annmarie Fulton as Liam's sister Chantelle is in many ways his true mother, raising him as well as her own son, who she is adamant will not grow up to have the same horrible life they have been forced to exist in.

If there is a misfire here, as well as a massive frustration of mine, it is the writing of Jean's character. Effectively, she only has 2 proper scenes, but even those are quite short in length, and you never are given much of an insight as to why this becomes the driving force of a young man who has no other discipline or goals in his life. This feeling is further compounded by a key character's comments about how his family life really was growing up.

But this film belongs to Martin Compston. This is an incredible, searing debut & his ability to not only make us empathise but also root for Liam is amazing. Rather than just another young tearaway or NED (non educated delinquent,) we see & feel how he does. This is a boy who will take multiple beatings & still keep going at his attackers, such is the spirit inside him. And although the film ends on a potentially tragic note, I still feel the power of redemption that could happen.

And huge praise must also be given to Loach, as well as Paul Laverty for directing/writing this film. Loach has rarely been better than here, fully utilising the locations as well as the locals to make this film a searing snapshot into poverty & desperation, with a hope coursing through.

Wonderful viewing

Before Four Lions, Christopher Morris was known either as an absolute genius & incredible satirist by his fanatical fan base, or an almost Mengele-level evil & sick comedian by a large portion of the media in the UK after the paedophilia episode of Brass Eye (which still to this day is one of the most brilliant & devastating take-downs of the media hysteria ever created.) Whatever he did, there was always a level of controversy which followed him, which most of the time was an extremely lazy trope by his critics to try & diminish his work.

But for many people, he wasn't that well-known outside of that sphere. However that all changed with Four Lions, which was not only a genius, hysterically funny farce, but also extremely financially successful for a low-budget comedy film about suicide bombers. After this success, many people were eagerly awaiting what Morris would tackle next. But whilst this film is certainly provocative, it is also a genuine mess of ideas & set-ups, which is a huge shame considering the real-world events which inspired it.

The FBI have a problem: they need to find new threats which they can then "foil" & claim the credit for. One of their ambitious young agents (Glack) sees online a radical preacher called Moses, who preaches an apocalyptical & violent overthrow of the whites by blacks. Even though, if she actually looked into Moses, she would find out that he was a poor, mentally ill man whose minute congregation was mostly his own family, she decides that this is a threat equal to the 9/11 terror attack. She then begins to, through proxies, fund Moses's totally idiotic & almost impossible delusions, whilst trying to convince her superiors of the imminent danger.

The biggest issue with the film is the script, over & above everything else. To me, it just seemed like it was shot when it wasn't even half ready. In all of Morris's work, there is a deliberately esoteric, highly unusual & often deeply weird theme running through it. As it's worst, you get Nathan Barley (which to me was genuinely unwatchable in every sense, such was it's strangeness.) But at its best you get the irreverent brilliance of Brass Eye, where Morris will set up celebrities or members of the public to comment/react to the most far-fetched but totally seriously staged nonsense.

But in order for the strangeness to be funny, it needs to have some flow either through the narration or actually a grounding which can be satirised. But in this film, that is almost nowhere to be seen. So what you have is a group of actors who go through the motions of acting out the ludicrous ideas that spring from Morris's brain, but almost nothing really gels together, which means you end up watching a very strange sequence of events that makes you think "Errrr OK... What are they doing & why is this funny?"

I also have no doubt that, as with all Morris's work, it was meticulously researched & based on extensive following of these cases as they were brought to trial. And when I watched the interviews with Morris talking about his inspiration for the film, it is absolutely fascinating to just listen to the incredible accounts he has heard/seen, especially around the Liberty City Seven. But none of that translates into what is shown on screen.

And the other thing which The Day Shall Come ends up being, which you would never associate with a Morris work, is boring. There is only so long you can watch a film full of strange, unfunny & extremely idiosyncratic dialogue/events which doesn't land before your brain starts wandering & you wish that there was some of the Four Lions magic to jump-start things.

I did manage to get all the way to the end, but there were several times I could have switched it off. And when it finished, I just felt "Meh" about all of it. Which is something you should never feel at the end of a Morris piece of work