Film Reviews by TB

When Sean Connery left Bond for good (after being coaxed back once before with a King’s ransom of a payday for Diamonds are Forever,) the producers turned to someone who they had had in mind when Connery first started making noises about walking: Roger Moore. The result was Live & Let Die, which really was groundbreaking for its time: almost completely black cast, with an indebtedness to the Blaxploitation film catalogue. Even today, for many people, that film is Moore’s best, with good reason (although nothing will ever top The Spy Who Loved Me, for me the joint best Bond film with Goldeneye.) But after the success of that film, would Moore & the filmmakers be able to follow it up with an equally impressive & enjoyable story? 

The answer is sort-of…

As a film, Golden Gun is a weird mix of kung-fu action films (aping the success of the genre, especially the work of Bruce Lee,) standard Bond espionage & weird humour. But it is also very competently made (with Guy Hamilton, Goldfinger’s director, it couldn’t not be,) as well as containing stunts which broke boundaries back then & still today are stunning feats of calculation & staging. 

Looks wise, the locations are spot-on, whether it’s Macau, Thailand or Hong Kong. The soundtrack also is great, the low-key piano of Scaramanga’s theme providing a weird & uncomfortable hook. And mentioning the stunts, the main action moment everyone will remember is the incredible barrel roll, done for real with no “trickery” and in one take. There is also a very good boat chase through the rivers surrounding the martial arts school that is just the right length & doesn’t overstay its welcome, unlike the one in Live & Let Die. 

Cast wise, things are also good overall. Moore is still clearly finding his rhythm with his portrayal of James Bond, however this is an observation rather than a criticism. There are a few of the trademark elements of what Moore brought to the role which come through, whether it’s the eyebrow raise or the smooth quips. Christopher Lee is an excellent choice for the role of Francisco Scaramanga, in many ways how Bond might have been if he hadn’t been in the employment of the British Government & professing loyalty to Queen & country. The face offs that the two of them have, whether at a Muay-Thai boxing match or across a dinner table on Scaramanga’s personal island, bristle with tension & are extremely enjoyable.

However, there are also quite a few faults with this film as well. The main running theme, the ‘73 energy crisis, simply isn’t compelling or interesting. Whilst it might have been a very Bondian plot theme to have a device which can solve a serious issue plaguing the world, in reality it is a non-starter. No-one other than the most devout Bond fan would actually remember or be able to tell you anything about the Solex Agitator and that is a major weakness with the storyline as a whole. 

And whilst Moore & Lee bring enjoyment combined with lethality to their roles, with the other members, it is very hit & miss. Nick Nack & Goodnight are average at best, whilst Anders (Scaramanga’s mistress) is given an almost nothing-role, which is terrible considering the ability of Maud Adams. Sheriff Pepper is brought back as well, but the over-the-top humour does start to wear thin after a while. 

Golden Gun certainly isn’t one of Moore’s best films & wasn’t particularly well-received on its release. But there is enough here to satisfy most viewers, as well as a few good quips. And it also in many ways was the film for Moore to hone his performance with, which then was brought to the fore in Spy Who Loved Me. 

When Denzel Washington signed up to the 1st Equilizer film, reuniting with his longtime collaborator Antoine Fuqua, as well as the potential for it to become a series, a lot of people were interested & excited to see what they would create. Washington is an actor whose middle name could quite easily be gravitas, such is his extraordinary ability to command the screen & your attention, alongside an impressive track record of choosing mainly solid & decent scripts, even if the eventual film isn't a home run.

With both the 1st & 2nd films, not only were they brilliantly made, but also you genuinely enjoyed spending time in Robert McCall's company. As I said in my reviews, I loved the fact that the script work & characterisation really made McCall a solid & 3-dimensional protagonist, not just a random ex-military type who is wronged & then this used as a setup for various trite action scenes. The 2nd film finished on a high & also left the ground ready for another adventure.

But despite the same team returning for the 3rd outing, what they have produced is a fairly terrible & oddly emotionless film, in which all the components are there but little of it lands. There have also been some frankly horrible changes as well, which really don't ring true. The biggest one of these, which actually affects the whole tone of the film, is the extreme ratcheting up of the violence. Make no mistake, the previous films had moments of strong & unpleasant violence, but this fitted perfectly with it being a mature & serious story, mercifully unsanitized by a 12A/PG-13 obsessed Hollywood.

But this has been taken totally overboard here. In the opening scene, the camera roams through a house which McCall has turned into a bloodbath, slaughtering the mercenaries inside. And the camera fetishistically zooms in & pans around the graphic injuries that have been caused, really revelling in the nastiness. This tone continues throughout the film, as well as the level of cruelty that McCall displays, which is way over the top, culminating in him poisoning someone & then following them as they stagger away, taunting them. This bears no resemblance in any way to the previous incarnations of the character, who in many ways used violence sparingly & briefly most of the time.

Plot wise, this is also very thin. McCall ends up in a beautiful & tranquil part of Italy, full of gentle & salt of the earth people. Into this, the film thrusts a selection of cardboard cut-out, clichéd bad guys; people who can only really be differentiated by the tattoos & hairstyles they have. And leading them is a "big boss," who again is just an extremely horrible & violent monster who lives in a massive house & barks orders at underlings. McCall gets mixed up apparently by fluke with this Mafia group's drug operation, leading to them launching a crusade against him. This comes to an abrupt & sudden conclusion, which made me wonder if I'd missed a chunk of the film out.

But for me the worst thing about this film is also what was one of the most hyped-up parts of it: after first appearing together over 20 years ago in the magnificent Man on Fire, Washington is reunited with Dakota Fanning. But the magic of their 1st collaboration is nowhere to be seen. In what has been called a glorified cameo, she has about 20 minutes of screen time, almost no opportunity to develop her character & roughly half her lines are things which McCall has said to her, in effect rendering her a parrot. And that is such a massive waste: the combination of those two actors before literally broke my heart, such was the strength of their chemistry, but here it is almost an after-thought.

As much as I wanted to love this film, it's poor choices & script just make it a schlocky, run-of-the-mill revenge thriller, which is everything the previous films weren't.

Gangster No 1 is such a mixed bag. Many people at the time would have heard of it in the media due to the unbelievably graphic & horrifically violent scene where a character is literally butchered by another one, from the attacked character's point of view. It was also a film which debuted at the same time that a flood of British gangster films were released, with huge success & acclaim (Guy Ritchie's output the most high profile of these,) so was compared at times unfavourably to them. It also had a very troubled production, with both of the writers & director walking off it due to disputes with the producers. And unfortunately at its worst, Gangster No 1 clearly shows the issues bringing it to screen. But it also has many incredible parts to it as well.

Front & center of this are the dual performances of Paul Bettany & Malcolm McDowell as "Gangster." Both of them are incredible, especially Bettany. McDowell has made a career from playing extremely disturbed & psychotic men, so this role was a natural fit for him. But this was Bettany's 1st leading role, and no doubt a daunting task to play the younger version of McDowell's character. But he absolutely nails it: Bettany literally becomes a psychopath in front of you, his piercing blue eyes boring into your brain and the constant threat of violence from his perfectly manicured hands, as comfortable holding a machete as a cigarette.

The production values are also superb. The clothing in this film, as well as the locations & sets, really do look like you have been transported back to the 1960's. Alongside that, the soundtrack is also full of punchy numbers, brilliantly marrying up with the mise-en-scene.

But in other ways, this film really is poor, to the extent that it starts to affect the good parts of it. Speaking of mise-en-scene, whilst the locations & costumes absolutely are spot on, the way the film is shot is at times atrocious. The colour palette makes it look like some of the film stock was out of date when it was used, particularly the outside scenes, which have this dreary washed-out & at times lifeless look.

The script feels chopped up & often scattershot, with pacing a real issue in some scenes as well. As much as this is a gangster film about a specific period of time in London, there is at points so much "Cockney geezer" performance & non-stop profanity that it verges on the wrong side of pastiche.

The much talked-about POV murder scene, which is so viscerally nasty & sociopathically cruel that it is almost unwatchable, is again something which I feel conflicted about: yes, it absolutely shows the depth of psychopathy that Gangster has, combined with a desperate want to be accepted by the man (Mays,) who dominates Gangster's every thought. But it also feels like it was put in more for shock value than anything else, a view which is reinforced the longer the scene goes on (and believe me, this sequence is not short.)

Having said all that, I cannot deny I enjoyed it. The performances absolutely make it (including an early Eddie Marsan role, playing a man so terrified of Bettany you feel it in your bones,) and there is a real delight in watching McDowell chew up the scenery for all he's worth. But with a bigger budget, Jonathan Glazer (the original director,) in the chair & no production issues, what this film could have been God only knows...

After the explosion that was the #MeToo movement, rightly shining a light on & exposing the disgusting & despicable behaviour of many high powered men within various industries, there was a large number of different media projects examining this. Some, like She Said, were excellent & brilliantly made. But films like this, despite being well-reviewed critically, missed the mark or just didn't work that well.

The Assistant looks at a day in the life of a young woman called Jane, who works for a high powered media mogul in New York City. We watch as she completes many menial & dull tasks, as well as dealing with much more unpleasant business, such as cleaning an "unknown" substance off the big sofa in her boss's office & disposing of used sharps into a hazardous waste bag, a roll of which she keeps in her desk, such is the frequency of needing to do it.

It is clear that not only is the mysterious mogul based on Harvey Weinstein, despite the filmmakers being at pains not to have anything explicitly linking him to the story, no doubt due to the threat of legal action; but that the script has been based on the experience & testimony of many women who have worked in extremely unpleasant office environments.

But the way this story is told, in effect showing these insinuations subtly alongside the boring & monotonous office tasks, hamstrings it. This film is incredibly hard work to watch, because it is boring. You watch an extremely erudite & intelligent young woman working in an unpleasant environment (which to a certain extent most offices are in some way; I have certainly had my fair share of working with repugnant people, both men & women,) alongside absolutely more serious & horrific things only hinted at/done behind closed doors.

I lasted about 40 minutes before switching it off. I have no doubt that there is an extremely powerful & horrible core to this film, showing the abuse in work environments, but for me, as well as other reviewers here, this film is simply too dull & monotonous to engage in.

But for me, and I cannot recommend it highly enough, rent She Said. Zoe Kazan & Carey Mulligan are absolutely outstanding, in a brilliant & horrific film.

Michael Mann is an iconic filmmaker. Since he first started producing films, graduating from TV, you know exactly what you are going to get: stunningly photographed scenes, meticulously researched scripts & truly believable characters who are intensely driven, relentless individuals set on a collision course with each other. The absolute nadir of this, as well as one of the best films ever made & which is still consistently mentioned as having one of the greatest scenes in movie history, is Heat.

Unfortunately, amongst the incredible filmography, including The Last of the Mohicans & Collateral, he has also produced some real duds. Public Enemies was absolutely atrocious: the nonsensical & idiotic choice to film it in the highest quality, crystal clear HD, making it look like it was shot in the present day, even though everything else was perfectly designed to look like the early 30's, was almost as stupid as the sound quality, by far the worst I have ever heard on any Hollywood movie. Miami Vice was another film which, given it was based on Mann's own TV series, was also terrible: a script/story so stodgy & all over the place, it was almost impossible to follow.

The reason I mention those two films is because, for many people, Blackhat would also belong with them. When it was released, it was dismissed by many people as another misfire, mainly due to the fact that it's storyline was basically hackers trying to outwit different country’s secret services, as well as each other. Chris Hemsworth was also seen as a strange choice, given that most people's idea of cyber criminals are obese, pale-skinned losers who live in their mother's basements. But this is a really good, interesting & beautiful looking film, even if it does lose it's way towards the end.

Everything I mentioned at the start about what you expect from Mann's films is here, but this also is a lot lighter in tone in many ways. As much as there is a lot of detail to take in, you never get lost in the narrative. There is also extremely well-written characters, brilliantly acted. Viola Davis, who takes any material she is given & elevates it as well as the film, is solidly dependable; as is Ritchie Coster who is genuinely scary as the psychopathic & dead-eyed mercenary.

For me however, the stand-out is Tang Wei. After her incredible debut in Lust, Caution & subsequent idiotic banning of her from the Asian entertainment industry, she returns with a beautifully realised & magnetically played part, so much more than the damsel in distress, eye-candy role which she could do easily have been cast as. Chen is a highly capable, driven & fiercely intelligent woman, who also is allowed to show intense vulnerability for both the losses she experiences, as well as the fear she has for the people who are trying to kill her. Crucially, she is also not sidelined by the narrative as the film progresses.

Unfortunately, the film does lose its focus towards the end. After a perfect & magnetic build-up, the film does lose steam & momentum, almost like Mann & writer Morgan Davis Foehl simply could not agree on how the story should finish & then cobbled together this ending. Mann himself said as much in later interviews (“The script wasn’t ready.”) But despite this, I cannot deny I had a blast. I really was gripped, excited & hooked by the story. And as much as there was issues with the narrative, I still highly recommend this. 

Finally, if possible, see this in remastered 4K. It looks absolutely flawless. 

This film was a massive part of my childhood in so many ways. It still today holds up as a brilliant & wonderfully written movie, chock-full of cameos & crazy stunts, alongside the glee that it has of being able to revel in the most childish of toilet humour & gags.

Austin Powers has put behind all of the trauma of losing Vanessa, having saved the world & living in the modern day. However, Dr Evil is still scheming & desperately wants to hold the world to ransom, involving the megalomaniac Goldmember, a Dutch man who inexplicably managed to get his genitals smelted into gold. His new plan is to kidnap Austin's father Nigel and hold him hostage. Austin teams up with Foxy Cleopatra, who is also on the trail of Mr 'Member, to stop Dr Evil, rescue his father and save the world.

As much as there is a plot, this just plays second-fiddle to the various set-ups that Myers has thought out, almost all of which are absolutely brilliant. There is a good joke at least once a minute, varying from the ridiculousness of "Austin" being launched from an ejector seat over the top of a helicopter in flight, shooting it down then landing perfectly on his feet, through to my own favourite, "The Mole." To me, this series of jokes, focussing on something which many have (a large mole on their face,) shows the brilliance of Myers. The number of situations where you as the viewer are willing him on to once again draw attention to & make a joke about it really brings you as the audience into that world.

And when it comes to casting, again things are perfect. Even back in the early 2000's, casting a singer, particularly one from an extremely successful girl band, would have been dismissed as stunt casting. But Beyoncè is really good, knowing at all times she is a part of a completely ludicrous film & totally getting into the spirit of her role as a Pam Grier-esque black detective avenging her partner's death.

But the shining star of this is Michael Caine. Over the years, he & his mannerisms have become legendary and often lovingly impersonated & mocked, something which he will play up to. Myers has taken this & run wild with it. Nigel Powers is exactly what you would expect & want of his performance: a combination of many of his iconic characters from Charlie Croker to Jack Carter, with lashings of the real-world legendary status he has accumulated. The chemistry that he & Myers have bursts out of the screen, with the audience knowing that they were never more than a breath away from laughter.

There are many other elements that I could mention, but this film just has it all in spades. It was a time that sadly has probably gone forever, when there were still films being released in cinemas that were not only gloriously funny but absolutely silly & serious about you as the viewer having fun, without some hidden agenda or message being either overtly or subtly put in your face. And it was embraced by audiences as well, becoming a massive success & leading to repeated clamouring for a sequel, although I have my doubts as to whether that would be as successful today, given how long it's been since this film, alongside the changing of the world as a whole.

But if you have a silly sensibility, alongside a love of ridiculous humour & situations, you won't find much better than this.

After cementing his comedic brilliance & perfect crafting of stories/characters with Austin Powers, as well as voicing Shrek to stratospheric success, Myers then released a new comedy creation: the Guru Pitka. Whilst the Indian guru isn't the most obvious source/inspiration of humour, the genius of comedy is often found in the most unexpected places. As someone who loved Austin Powers & watched the films non-stop as a teenager, I was interested to see what Myers would do. However, I was then put off going to see it after the avalanche of almost uniformly bad reviews. Many years later, I borrowed it & realised that the reviews, even the most excoriating ones, still missed the mark.

This film is just an absolute disaster, failure, shambles & mess all rolled into one. And as I was watching it, I just kept thinking of how badly in so many different ways Myers came out of it. This film looks like the result of what happens when you are the main star/creative force with many previous successes, and now no-one is able to say no to you. This is in many ways as close as it's possible to get to see something which is a total disaster & distillation of rampant egotism. And I'm quite serious about this, this isn't just a manufactured outrage. I genuinely do not know how firstly Myers even got 5 pages into writing the script without taking a step back & going "This is atrocious," through to the producers & director not slamming the brakes on & just saying "Stop!"

The best way to describe this film accurately is just a series of scenes where anything you can imagine which involves toilet humour and/or bodily functions is thrown onto the screen, alongside terrible quips & jokes, hoping something will stick. To be clear, a lot of Myers's humour is around mostly terrible & off-colour jokes, but that within itself was funny because of how it was written & acted. But here, it is barrel-scrapingly painful. Myers mugs away, trying to breathe life into the leaden material, whilst surrounded by costars who you can tell have massively regretted the initial rush to sign on to the film due to Myers's previous track record.

I managed about 20 minutes before turning it off. The bar was set low early on, when we are introduced to Ben Kingsley's character who became blind due to his practice of "self-love," and the camera watching with glee as he pisses into a pot whilst breaking wind... From there, it just nosedived & I very quickly realised that it wasn't going to get better & that any time I spent watching this was a part of my life I would never get back.

The final thing I will say is that I felt quite sad when I did turn it off, because there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mike Myers is a genius. He earned his stripes doing stand-up, writing material combined with sheer hard graft. And with Austin Powers, he had hit that sweet spot which is so difficult in comedy. But watching The Love Guru, I just felt like I was witnessing a master torch his own career & reputation, aided & abetted by a team who either wouldn't or couldn't say no to him.

For many people, the 1st thing that comes to mind when you mention Moonlight is the deeply embarrassing & without precedent screw-up at the Oscars, when the big award for Best Picture was wrongly given to La La Land instead of this, the actual winner. And that is a genuine shame, because this film is so much more than that 90 second screw-up. Aside from its monumental performances, it is also a deeply personal & moving film about growing up, dealing with trauma & realising your sexuality. 

The characters, especially Chiron & Juan, are unbelievably empathetic and fascinating people, dealing with the various traumas in their lives, whether it is growing up gay in a deeply homophobic & violent neighbourhood or trying to escape this living hell without either being killed or jailed. The film is also amazingly shot, with beautiful soft lensing, as well as sensitively staged & at times very upsetting scenes.

An amazing & moving story which deserves to be seen by everyone. 

Narcissists are people who can be great subjects for films & drama, especially if they are brilliant at what they do. A recent great example is Reynolds Woodcock from Phantom Thread, a preening & precocious man-child who whilst at times is exasperating, was none-the-less a great subject for a film about an industry full of perfectionists (fashion.) But, when you are dealing with these types of people, if the character is not carefully written, it just becomes an exercise in suffering through the runtime whilst someone you grow to hate grinds every one of your gears. And this is how I felt after spending 20 minutes in Passage's company.

Thomas is a film director who is finishing up his latest project. He is an arrogant, petulant, insecure & obsessive narcissist, who in the opening shots on the film set is allowed & even encouraged to let his ego run rampant. He is married to Martin, a gentle & caring fellow artist, who clearly has had to put up with untold amounts in their relationship. At the wrap party, after Martin doesn't want to dance with him, Thomas then becomes intimate with Agathe, a beautiful & free-spirited teacher, whom he sleeps with that evening. From there, we follow Thomas as he proceeds to use & manipulate Martin & Agathe, depending on whatever whim or mood he is in.

When watching this, the main feeling I came away with was disgust. The film effectively creates a world where this rampant egotist is tolerated & almost admired, especially in the way it sets up various situations. So for example, early on in the film, Thomas tells Martin gleefully that he has cheated on him with a woman, of course meaning that Martin is not only heartbroken but also mortified. This then results in Thomas feeling "unappreciated," packing his things, storming out & moving in with Agathe. A short time later, he manages to worm his way back into the country house he shares with Martin, before complaining to him that he is upset that Martin isn't happy for him that he cheated on him... And of course, being a disgusting narcissist, when Martin becomes involved with another man, this is intolerable to Thomas, the camera lingering on his face as he sulks & pouts.

As much as some people (as well as a lot of critics,) would argue that the film is shot in a non-judgemental way, effectively allowing us to just see the characters interact, I don't accept this. The script seems enamoured with Thomas, as well as giving him 2 characters who are not only decent people, but also unbelievably tolerant ones who he continually manipulates. All this behaviour sadly starts to make Thomas resemble Brüno, the Sacha Baron-Cohen created gay Austrian fashion reporter, someone who you begin to despise simply because you wonder why you are wasting your time watching him, as well as being mystified as to why the creators are so beguiled by him (at least in Brüno there are some unbelievably funny skits to offset this.)

If your idea of a good film is watching a precocious brat, you will find much to enjoy. However, if you actually want to watch a story with a difficult protagonist who you enjoy spending time with, rent Phantom Thread or Gone Girl

Hugely recommended by a close friend, this is everything you could want from a film which satirises all of the most recognisable & funny clichés from not only the Blaxploitation genre, but other well-known movies of the 70's & 80's. But also, most importantly and why this film works, it also has a strong & humourous script behind it; it doesn't just take a series of stereotypes which people know, then coast along milking them for quick sniggers. There are consistent, genuinely funny moments.

Black Dynamite is a tough, no-nonsense ex-CIA agent & soldier. His brother is killed & framed as a drug dealer, forcing Dynamite to avenge his brother's death, as well as cleaning up the streets of drugs that are flooding into the neighborhood. He also joins forces with other members of the Black Power movement to "stick it to the Man."

For the vast majority of this movie, there is a genuine belly laugh every 30 seconds or so. From the (deliberately terrible) production values, including one scene where Dynamite stands up & hits his head on the boom mike, which stays in shot & he keeps looking up at whilst trying to deliver lines; through to the self-referential clichés which every film of that period had (one character lands on a dangerous island, then goes off on an impassioned spiel about how he's going to retire & be with his family, before the inevitable happens, followed by Dynamite's straight-faced punchline,) this delivers laugh after laugh after laugh.

But for me, the main thing I love about this film is just how clearly everyone making it reveres the genre which they are lovingly poking fun at: there is real heart & soul behind this movie. I could tell, after 5 minutes, just how much this genre & the multiple films made within it, meant to every single one of the actors, as well as the production team. So in a strange way, as much as it has as many laughs as a great comedy show, it also gives you a warm & sweet feeling inside.

A really good night in & an amazing tribute to the Blaxploitation genre.

A film I made the effort to go and see at the cinema and wished I hadn't bothered. Bill Skarsgård plays Boy, who when he was younger, witnessed his entire family be slaughtered at the hands of the Van Der Koys, a blood-thirsty & fascist family who every year target people from the population who have committed crimes against them or the state, then kill them. Boy is rescued by a shaman, who then spends many years teaching him the martial arts skills needed to kill the family and get his revenge.

This film grates in pretty much every way you can imagine. For example, every character, mainly the inner-voice of Boy, sounds exactly like all those films which came out when Tarantino first exploded onto the scene in the 90's: stilted, nonsensical & extremely annoying staccato dialogue, which frequently goes off on random, weird tangents. Tarantino was the only one who was really able to pull this off, but even he started to lose his touch later on in his career.

The characters themselves are also written terribly. Sharlto Copley plays the annoying husband of one of the family, who will read a speech from a piece of paper, then break away from it halfway through to have a meltdown at the other family member who wrote it. Halfway through a fight scene, we are introduced to Basho, who very quickly establishes himself as the irritating sidekick whose primary role is to either shout exposition or just shout & be generally annoying.

There is only one thing this film seems obsessed with and that is finding as many different angles/ways to show off Skarsgård's gym-toned body as possible. Whether in the training montage or at random points in the story, Skarsgård will suddenly be posed picture-perfectly, with biceps bulging out or his 6-pack filling the screen. Guys, I saw very clearly within the first 10 minutes that Skarsgård obviously moved into the gym for a year and did nothing but work out in preparation for this role. But it doesn't interest me in the slightest, just make a good movie.

The film just drags on, throwing onto the screen various fight scenes which, whilst they have some good choreography, is totally lost in the terrible editing & filming. Like Monkey Man before it, although much much worse, the director seems to think that frenetic camera movements where you can't actually see what's happening half the time is the best way to shoot a fight scene.

I lasted about an hour before walking out. The quality of action films & their production at the moment is terrible, and to compensate by filling the screen with obnoxious characters just makes things worse. A real letdown.

Featuring an all-star cast, this is the sort of film that only someone like Ridley Scott could pull off. Based on the catastrophic loss of 2 Black Hawk helicopters during what was meant to be a fairly by-the-numbers military operation, this is a (very liberal with the truth) film about how a well-trained & highly equipped US military division was overwhelmed & pinned down by a largely unskilled but furious & heavily armed militia.

Production wise, this film is in many ways as close as it is possible to portray being in a warzone: the claustrophobia, coupled with an incredible sound design & cinematography, throws you right into the center of the action. And speaking of action, the mid-air/scenes of helicopters & aircraft is flawless.

Also, alongside that, the level of violence shown is both gruesome & shocking. A scene in which 2 soldiers are overwhelmed whilst trying to protect another comrade is genuinely nasty & almost unwatchable, such is the brutality shown.

However, it would be remiss of me to also not reference the significant criticism levelled at the film for it's representation of Somalis: not one of them or any of the Africans represented after the opening credits is portrayed as anything other than violence-obsessed, inhumane murderers. And even when I first watched it many years ago, I still vividly remember that unease.

But the best thing & the reason this film gets 4 stars is, despite all the action, it is the most anti-war war film you could possibly imagine. In Black Hawk Down, war is hell. It is a place where the slaughter is everywhere, lives are snuffed out in an instant & no-one is safe, irrelevant if you are in a bulletproof Humvee or crouching behind a wall. This is conflict at its most stark, devastatingly shown in unflinching detail on screen.

The World Is Not Enough (TWINE) is for me one of the best Bond films of recent years, and definitely one of the most underappreciated. And I can in one way see why: it isn't a standard Bond film. Whilst people will always clamour for change, the cliché is always that they don't want too much to change. When you look at Casino Royale, that was a masterstroke in reinvention whilst still keeping a lot of the mainstays that people love (me included.) But TWINE has a very different tone, which for some people will grate.

After Tomorrow Never Dies, which was chock-full of all the excesses you could imagine (the BMW 750iL having more defences & missiles than a Navy frigate the best example of that,) there was a want for Bond to become a bit more realistic & a deconstruction of the man himself (long before Craig started his tenure by focussing predominantly on this very thing.) And this is noticeable also in the narrative choices as well as the way Bond is written.

TWINE really strains every sinew to show Bond as a vulnerable & at times desperate man, whether it is the serious injury he causes himself in the opening scene (the fact that Bond can fall multiple stories onto the Millennium Dome & only have an injured shoulder is hysterical when you think about it,) or the torture scene where you really feel that James's number is up.

I cannot deny that, despite my 4 star rating, the narrative of TWINE is a bit lumpy. Whereas GoldenEye & even to some extent Tomorrow Never Dies had a very smooth narrative, TWINE does jump about a lot. We dash all over Central Asia & don't spend too long in any part of it. The sequence of events that leads to the end showdown also sometimes doesn't ring true. Michael Apted's direction could certainly have used some tweaking.

But everything I've said above pales into nothingness when you actually watch this film wanting to enjoy it, not just looking for the flaws.

The best thing about this film is far & away it's determination to ground Bond and also bring back the detective element to the series. The double-crosses are shocking, the risks believable & the sex passionate. Brosnan is allowed to really bring a vulnerability to his performance (which would continue in Die Another Day, for all it's other herculean failings,) being ably matched by not only Sophie Marceau but Judi Dench as well. Robert Carlyle is also brilliant as Renard, mercifully not turning him into a Russian Begbie, which simply wouldn't work, even if for a moment it would have been entertaining. Huge criticism was levelled at Denise Richards's performance as a nuclear scientist which, whilst I don't envy her having to spew out large amounts of dialogue, does add the needed campiness to what could have been a dreary role.

We are also treated to incredible action scenes as well. The much hyped boat chase along the Thames is a perfect blend of stunt work, imagination & old-school Bond outrageousness; a frantic chase in the depths of a Kazakhstani nuclear bunker brilliantly handled; the caviar factory shoot-out tightly edited & with good humour. And the ending on the submarine the ultimate cliffhanger which really delivers.

This is really enjoyable, outrageous & fun, alongside a vulnerability which showed a new direction only hinted at previously. TWINE is a great Bond film & rightly takes it's place as the 2nd best Bond of Brosnan's tenure.

The Ealing comedies are held in reverence by critics & viewers alike. In particular, The Ladykillers, starring A-list actors including Alec Guinness & Peter Sellers, is not only loved but also frequently appears on the Best Films Ever Made lists. I have not seen the film, but knew the premise of it. So when the Coen Brothers announced they were doing a remake with Tom Hanks as the lead, people were excited. I myself watched it purely because of the trailer, which was brilliantly edited & portrayed it as a screwball comedy with a towering central performance by Irma P. Hall.

But this film is genuinely terrible, as in, really bad in pretty much every way you can imagine. It's boring, monotonous, meandering, mostly badly acted (thank god for Hall, the only one who comes out with a shred of credibility, but even she can't save it from 1 star ignominy,) and just totally misjudges the tone.

Take Tom Hanks, the loveable Everyman who has rescued many a movie from mediocreness. In this, he plays a conman/leader of a gang who is planning to commit a heist. His character has two personas: sneaky/scheming or doddery old man when he is confronted by Hall's landlady. Neither is believable and you just sit there watching Hanks ham his heart out on trying to breathe a flicker of life into the leaden material, getting more bored by the minute.

Marlon Wayans fares even worse. His character, a completely foul-mouthed janitor & the "inside man" of the operation, is just written as a dialogue-spraying wannabe gangster whose sole purpose is to rant & swear repeatedly. And yes, whilst it is extremely funny when Hall's character hears him swearing & slaps him repeatedly (yes, those were real slaps done over multiple takes,) that is probably a minute combined of the film & the only thing that is memorable in what is just an unbelievably tedious watch.

You have the other stock characters (the extremely thick henchman, the explosives expert who in this case has IBS which conveniently strikes at just the wrong time ect,) who are so badly written & so unconvincingly played that you find yourself wondering why no-one from the cast or production just stopped everything and said aloud "What the hell are we doing? This is rubbish!"

Finally as an amusing side note, in the UK there was a minor news story about how a large group of OAP's who were huge fans of the original film went to a cinema to watch this version. Apparently, they all stormed out en masse part-way through due to the repeated swearing. However, nowhere was the quality of the film mentioned. As much as repeated profanity is boring & tedious, I would be much more annoyed at having to sit through a film which was barrel-scrapingly bad & I had paid to watch...

When I first heard about The Room, it was spoken about in almost revered terms: this was a film which was either an incredibly seriously-made drama with unintentional hilarity due to it's appalling acting & directing by it's ego-manic star; or it was a work of genius, fooling people into believing it was profound when it actually was anything but, whilst it's creator cackled in the only way he knows how.

For me however, it is actually something else, although with a lot of the 1st view in the mix: Wiseau did set out to make a serious drama which was unintentionally hilarious, but he was also completely genuine in his want & at times desperation to be seen as/deliver an incredibly profound performance. The other caveat with this is that (when you know the full behind-the-scenes story as told by Greg Sestero,) Wiseau had at his disposal for a big chunk of the production a highly professional & competent crew who he treated atrociously & then proceeded to burn through 2 more of when the 1st team quit en masse. His treatment of the actors was also equally as bad, but most of them couldn't afford to quit. In the grand scheme of things, it was only Wiseau's vast wealth that meant this movie even got out of pre-production.

But when it comes to the actual film, how much fun you have with this is almost entirely down to the individual viewer. I've given it 3 stars because as much as I had some serious laughs & fully embrace it's idiosyncrasies, it also at times is very hard work to watch, plus the endless repetition of certain lines didn't get funnier as the film went on. For example the constant "Oh, hai!" was funny the first couple of times, but then it just was like: OK is there anything else you can say to start a sentence with? And the multiple protracted sex scenes again just feel like padding which wasn't funny & become quite monotonous.

However, when this movie is great, nothing beats it. Whether it is the numerous subplots which go nowhere, the unbelievably bad line delivery by Wiseau, the terrible film sets/CGI or the end freak-out by Wiseau that sees him trash a room with the same effectiveness as a frail 100-year old man, it is hysterical. And the vanity of all of it just makes it even funnier. Wiseau fills his screen with actors who go from an attempt at emotion to standing in the background looking like they just wandered onto the screen by accident & decide to stay in order to not draw attention to themselves, giving Wiseau center-stage to humiliate himself.

This film is also full of more quotable lines than Withnail & I and Snatch put together. My favourite, delivered by Lisa's mother about a devastating health diagnosis, is brilliant precisely because of how the actress was directed to say this line. And the response from her daughter was just the icing on the cake. But the most well-known/the one most people will have seen in some context, is the "I did not hit her" line. It is both terrible & brilliant at the same time.

The best way to watch this film is with a group of mates, on a Friday night, preferably with lots of alcohol & enjoy the hell out of it. Despite my star rating, I will quite happily watch this film & have seen many deconstructions of it as well (YouTube The Room nostalgia critic for the best IMO.) But with some trimming to the run-time/removing a couple of the idiotic sub-plots (there are SO many that the fun won't be impacted,) this could have been actually a lot snappier in the grand scheme of things.

But in its own way, it's still a riot