Film Reviews by TB

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

When it was announced that there was to be a film adaption of the wildly successful Hitman video games, there was the well-deserved skepticism & cynicism. By 2007, there had been multiple previous attempts at bringing/adapting often stratospherically successful video games to the big screen, although the motivation was almost always to see how much more money could be squeezed out of the faithful fans rather than making something great. And because this was the motivation (alongside no doubt the arrogance of Hollywood producers & the studio chiefs, basically thinking “This film stars this beloved game character/is set in that narrative world, so shove out some schlocky script that was written by someone in a few days who has in all likelihood never even played the game they are adapting, then watch the money roll in,”) the results were almost always unwatchable & often did huge damage to the game’s reputation as well. Uwe Boll was the worst offender, churning out dud after painful dud, films which were pretty much unwatchable.

However, when the 1st Hitman came out, things were different. Hiring Timothy Olyphant as 47 was a stroke of absolute genius, having already firmly established his credentials & reputation for intensity/presence in Deadwood, plus the casting of Dougray Scott as the antagonist meant there was serious talent on the screen, not just bit-part actors who said yes to get screen time. And finally, there was no watering down of the violence/sanitising the film to achieve a 12A rating. The result was a film which, even in 2024, I still think is the best video game movie adaptation ever. Whilst it was silly, far-fetched & often implausible, it was also fun. 

So when the inevitable sequel was green lit (which it always would be after the 1st film grossed over 5 times its budget,) there was some interest to see what would happen next. But this film not only destroys all the good work the 1st movie started, it almost seems like it is in competition with Boll’s output to be the worst possible adaptation imaginable.

I almost don’t know where to begin. Rupert Friend is totally, utterly & completely miscast as Agent 47. He looks like someone going to a fancy dress party who bought the costume, shaved his head & was told by his friends “Errrr, sure you look like him…” In no way is he intimidating, threatening, imposing or ominous. And the longer I watched, the more out of place he was. The script is atrocious as well. I appreciate that the 1st film wouldn’t win any screenwriting Oscars, but it was enjoyable & also had a plot that you could understand. I genuinely could not tell you what happened in the 30 or so minutes that I could tolerate watching this, or how it formed anything that could be called a storyline. There are some action scenes which didn’t work, either because it was just too stupid to even be halfway possible, or because I didn’t in any way buy Friend’s performance. 

After about half an hour, and almost at the same time, me & my friend who I was watching it with both looked at each other & said “This is rubbish, let’s watch something else.” And I felt like sending the studio a bill for the time I had wasted & would never get back. But, like the many previous video game adaptations, this film was only ever designed to be a money spinner, with the added boost that it was the sequel to a beloved & well-regarded (by the fans, not critics,) 1st film, which is why it had far more goodwill than these movies usually have. 

And finally, as if to really hammer home & prove the point that these films are designed to be nothing more than ringing cash tills, after the panning of this film, it was tentatively announced that there was to be a film universe with multiple other video game characters. Because in Hollywood, when an adaptation with one character fails, the obvious answer is to make another film stuffed with as many as possible, to appeal to/piss off even more fans…

After a career full of visceral & trailblazing films (Kes, Cathy Come Home & I, Daniel Blake being particular highlights as well as ushering in profound social change,) Ken Loach ends his career with a film about isolation, poverty & a community coming together. But whilst it starts strongly & has some exceptional performances, unfortunately it also runs head first into many of the clichés which Loach films can fall into, much to it's detriment.

Set in County Durham, a once thriving, wealthy & industrious part of Britain (due to the local colliery mine,) it is now a dilapidated former shell of itself, a metaphor for the state of the houses, shops & general employment in much of the North. Into this tinderbox, a large group of Syrian refugees is housed, in properties which have been sold for a pittance, thereby catastrophically devaluing the local population's homes. Much anger is directed not only at the Syrians, but at the 2 local residents (TJ & Laura,) who are helping them settle. The film then follows the families & locals as they integrate & interact.

There are many positives to this film, mainly the cast. As per usual with Loach films, the vast majority of the cast are not professional actors, but local people/new performers. This approach, when done well (as Loach has done time & time again,) produces incredible results. You feel like you are watching real people, because you are, not just actors who have read the script & spent a bit of time with a dialect coach to lock down the accent.

Loach has also found an incredible performer in Ebla Mari as Yara, the English speaking & most confident member of the Syrian refugees. She is the beating heart of the film & her delicate but powerful interactions with both TJ as well as the racist & aggressive residents is incredible. There is also the completely authentic feel of the local community, as well as the camaraderie that these close Northern towns have in abundance.

But this film also has many faults which genuinely frustrated me. One of the biggest is the simplistic way that some of the locals are written & developed as the film goes on. To start with, those who are hostile to the new arrivals are actually given some nuance & not just written as illiterate & "bone-headed knuckle dragging racists." But this approach only lasts so long, Loach & the scriptwriter Paul Laverty then making the people's reactions both more extreme & less plausible, almost as if they are concerned that to humanise those who are deeply troubled by the arrivals is to completely validate their beliefs.

So you have this group start to be written as being more & more extreme, both in their statements & actions, which doesn't ring true. And some of the legitimate concerns which they have, both in terms of security as well as the pressure on local services which will affect EVERYBODY, not just them, are either twisted or not dealt with at all.

Alongside this, there is a deliberate staging of the North/Northerns as being a miserable & intolerant people (playing up to the old cliché "It's grim up T'North.") I am a frequent visitor there, have lived with & had repeated interactions with many people from all over the North; this reputation is totally & completely wrong/false. Northerns are the most kindest, genuine & decent people you could meet. They are not in any significant way like the negative characters you see. And the perpetuation of this stereotype is one I resent.

The film does have a very moving & powerful ending, which does tie together many of the strands. But as the credits rolled, I did feel that this was a missed opportunity by Loach to actually make a film which not only asked some of the tough questions, but gave honest answers, not just the ones he most wanted to project.

A powerful, but flawed final film from one of Britain's greatest directors.

From a little boy, I always remembered the various products that Apple released. They were always in the background of TV shows & films, when the impression that wanted to be given was one of cutting edge, new & exciting. The bright iMac was iconic. Then when I was in my late teens, the iPod exploded onto the world, connecting me to vast swathes of music & eventually videos. But alongside all this revelatory design, there was another side which was in some ways just as high profile: for example, it was a point of pride in certain parts of the Apple sphere that the early iOS operating systems were not compatible with the dominant & widely used Microsoft system, deliberately sitting outside it to prove a point. There was a joke about this: “If you bought a car by Apple, it would only be able to drive on 3% of roads.”

There was also an arrogance which accompanied this, of total disdain towards anyone who wasn’t also a total Apple devotee/sycophant, alongside a complete refusal to acknowledge any faults with the Apple software or products. As someone who used mainly Microsoft systems, I would happily list the faults alongside the good parts. Try getting an Apple loyalist to do the same with their products. You’ll have better luck trying to kick water uphill. 

Now the reason I have written all of the above is for one simple reason: watching this film is like swimming in a pool of this atmosphere, arrogance & narcissism for 2 hours. You are given a front row seat to a “Greatest Hits” montage of Jobs’s most revolting & at times wilfully cruel behaviour to his colleagues, ex-partners & even his potential child. Despite some of the brilliant supporting performances, Jobs & his narcissism dominate this movie.

The film looks at 3 key moments in Steve Jobs’s life, of different Mac devices and the impact they had on him, as well as the ramifications of his actions on others. It also covers his forcing out of Apple by the company board, following lacklustre sales, then his triumphant return to lead the company. 

The best parts of the film are undoubtedly the performances. Top of the list for me is Kate Winslet as Joanna Hoffman. She really is the beating heart of the film, at times the only person able to moderate & attempt to control Jobs’s monstrous ego. So when she says she will leave, you know she means it. She is fierce, kind & loyal (to a point,) and in particular the accent was something which, when you look at her & the real Hoffman, are indistinguishable. Seth Rogan takes a break from goofy stoner films to play Woz, the original inventor & chief driving force behind the Mac. The likability he brings to this is invaluable. 

However, that is pretty much where the good points end. There are hundreds of stories of Jobs treating people awfully, often those who had spent sizeable chunks of their lives & energy almost prostrating themselves to his vision, only to be fired by him as casually as throwing a used crisp packet away. And this is shown in full force here. From putting out a news story to wilfully discredit & shame his ex-partner in a paternity battle, to refusing to acknowledge the team who built the product that he is able to stand on stage & take all the credit for, the revoltingness runs rampant. 

And here lies the problem with this film: there have been multiple biopics over the years about difficult geniuses. It is in many ways a staple of storytelling, the tortured brilliant mind which is guided by many different people over the years to enable them to truly fly. But if the person that you are watching is just revolting, then you end up not only hating them more, but also wondering why you are wasting your own life whilst they are given the Hollywood treatment. 

I don’t doubt for a second that Steve Jobs was brilliant. But he stood on the achievements of multiple other people & was at the end of the day almost another huckster, except with stratospheric success. 

When Mock the Week started, very quickly one of the panelists stood out from the others due to his comedic brilliance & timing. Frankie Boyle was a revelation on that show, genuinely funny, especially seeing as at the time the show started, a lot of the other panel shows played it fairly safe (you could make an argument for Have I Got News For You & it's history of libel scrapes, but that was never over offensive material.) Boyle was on for the first 7 series, before leaving "to concentrate on other projects." He subsequently criticised the production of the show, claiming that he was restricted in saying what he wanted to.

After leaving the show, he subsequently was made an offer he couldn't refuse by Channel 4: a sketch show where he could say & do whatever he wanted. And I, along with a large number of people, were excited to see what he would do with this opportunity, given his brilliant residency on Mock the Week. But what Boyle produced was not only tedious, unfunny & desperately trying to offend by being disgusting, but also boring.

The show is comprised of Boyle doing stand-up in front of a live studio audience, intercut with various sketches. The stand-up routines were mainly recycled gags from Mock the Week & his Live at the Apollo sets, with the odd new line thrown in. The sketches poke fun at everything from retro TV shows like Knight Rider through to random things like what aliens would do if they invaded Earth (the answer is both unfunny & disgusting.)

Aside from 1 extremely funny 20 second skit (Loose Women Iran,) the series is total rubbish. The thing which stood out for me more than anything was Boyle's absolute desperation to offend, in any way possible, but mainly by being disgusting. As I have said in some of my other reviews, my favourite type of comedy is near-the-knuckle humour. I have always found that the deepest & best laughs are when you are playing in people's "danger areas," challenging their beliefs whilst also making them laugh. So whether it is Jim Jefferies, Jimmy Carr or Jerry Sadowitz, I love offensive & provocative humour.

But the flip side of that is when what is being thrown onto the screen is not in any way funny, but instead just bile, then it becomes an exercise in tolerating rancidness. Boyle clearly seems to think that not only is he a genius writer (he isn't,) but that the more revolting he is, the funnier the material will be. So we have jibes at mental illness, disabled people, women ect. And of course the infamous "jokes" attacking Katie Price & her son Harvey (which ironically are cut from the DVD, probably much to Boyle's chagrin.)

None of it is funny, revelatory, clever or even insightful. It is just like sticking your head down a sewer, whilst an entitled past-it comic who got famous from stealing Jerry Sadowitz's act spews bile into the screen/audience.

And it wasn't just with this TV show that the audience & general public turned against him & his descent into a revolting rancid provocateur (the reviews for Tramadol Nights were overwhelmingly negative.) Boyle's subsequent appearance on Comic Relief's live show was cut after the audience booed him for nearly the entire set when he unleashed a similar tirade onto a crowd who weren't enamoured with him, and certainly not going to tolerate sitting there listening to a repugnant rant.

In recent years, Boyle has tried to reinvent himself as a compassionate individual, including actively criticising people's material/statements which contains things he doesn't like/attacks groups he thinks are off-limits. The level of hypocrisy in doing that, when you watch even one of these episodes, is just off the charts.

Pathetic rubbish

It is the mid 90’s. The UK is unrecognisable compared to today in multiple different ways, but one prominent example was how LGBT people are treated. Whereas today, walk down pretty much any big town & within seconds you will see a Pride flag proudly flying; in the 90’s to even display something vaguely connected to it would result in hostility at best & serious violence at worst. Same-sex couples didn’t dare walk holding hands & section 28 was in full force, actively targeting anyone who wasn’t straight.

But there was also another element to this continuing oppression: the representation of these individuals in the media. Around this time & carrying on for decades afterwards, most gay characters were either portrayed as on the verge of dying/AIDS (Philadelphia) or persecuted (Bent,) to name but 2. The overall impression was that anyone connected to this community meant they were in effect condemned to a life of suffering. And that’s when Jonathan Harvey decided that enough was enough & he was going to write a play which then became this film, filled with vivacious, sparky characters as well as beautiful bright colours & a soundtrack full of folk-rock music, in a location where the sun shines & the summers are hot.

Beautiful Thing is set in Thamesmead, a council estate which from the outside is drab & beige, full of dourness. But the residents are anything but. Jamie Gangel lives with his mother Sandra, a strict & fierce but also compassionate woman, as well as a procession of her boyfriends, who never last long. Jamie is openly confident & happy, but is bullied & secretly miserable. On one side lives Leah, a sparkly & rebellious girl who has been expelled & spends her days listening to Mama Cass. On the other is Ste, who goes to Jamie’s school & lives with his horrible dad & brother. Jamie has a crush on Ste, which starts to be reciprocated when Ste is beaten & takes refuge with Jamie & Sandra. 

I know from conversations with gay people just how important this film was to them. At a time of oppression & everything in the media being about the horror of being gay, this film absolutely refuses to follow that mindset. Every character feels real, alive & someone you could relate to in many different ways, not just in terms of sexuality. We all as youngsters struggled to fit in, grow up & work out our place in the world whilst at school. But if you were gay & struggling with this, Beautiful Thing was a rallying call to show you that your life was worth living & you were not somehow defective. And to those who saw it, that meant everything. 

In terms of performances, the casting of Glenn Berry & Scott Neal was brilliant. Both of them had not only trained together, but starred in TV shows before this, so knew each other well. They have a natural, relaxed chemistry but also an ability to project vulnerability & tenderness which is deeply ingrained within them. Tameka Empsom is also excellent as Leah, her feisty spirit giving the story a zesty edge. Linda Henry takes the difficult & often thankless mother role, turning it into a scream of desperation at how she is going to protect her son first from starving as a baby, through to his coming out. But I want to save the most praise for Ben Daniels. He was an openly gay actor who, whilst he was in this film a drippy hippy, gets to say one of the most powerful lines: “It gets better you know.” I have no doubt what it meant to him to be able to say that. 

But what I like best about this film quite simply is that it is a really good, likeable & enjoyable story. It has a powerful message but it doesn’t beat you over the head with it. We watch 2 boys fall in love & see the different challenges and, yes joys that they have. This film is a touchstone for the LGBT community & showed how with support & compassion, anyone can love anyone & be happy. 

Wonderful viewing