Film Reviews by TB

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

In my life so far, I've seen some terrible films. Amusingly enough, major Hollywood stars make up a large number of them: Robert De Niro (Dirty Grandpa,) Helen Mirren (Shadowboxer,) Brad Pitt (Killing Them Softly,) Mark Wahlberg (Mile 22) and Leonardo De Caprio (Blood Diamond.) Some of them had terrible stories, disgusting content or revelled in exploiting trauma for shock value. All of them I hate. However, the one thing that unites all of them is that they are competently made, even if the finished product is abysmal.

But occasionally you see a film which is not only atrocious & vile, but has such poor production values you are staggered the director wanted anyone else to see it. But Liam Galvin either doesn't care or genuinely believes he has created something great.

As I said, I managed less than 5 minutes. A terrible song starts playing as the film begins. We then watch a load of gangsters attacking & killing people in various unpleasant ways, with no emotion or even effort other than the classic frown & shouted dialogue. This is intercut with a woman enthusiastically having actual sex with another gangster in a dingy warehouse (the woman is blatantly a porn star; the man either a fellow porn actor or an extra who is both an exhibitionist & lucked out with this role...) Then, as the film reaches the climax (in every sense of the word) of the opening, this woman then pulls out a massive knife & literally butchers this guy, in graphic close-ups, whilst the camera fetishizers this.

With that, I picked up the remote, turned it off and then felt like I needed to have a shower, to get rid of the horror I'd just endured. This isn't a film, it's just an exercise in disgusting images being vomited out on a screen. I'm just staggered that anyone put up a single dime to get it made.

Coming from the minds of Jonathan Nolan & Lisa Joy, this is a big-budget series based on the Westworld film. The story depicts a theme park populated with androids. Disgustingly wealthy guests can visit the park & do whatever they want to the life-like beings who live there, with no consequences. So irrelevant of whether you want to have a massive orgy or bloody killing spree, there are no limits. However, the androids begin to break out of their moulds, retain memories, and seek to turn the tables on both the guests and their masters.

Given the firepower & budget that being a Nolan brother brings, everything you would expect is here & the best of the best. For starters, the roll call of actors is incredible: Anthony Hopkins, Thandie Newton, Evan Rachel Wood & Jeffrey Wright are just some of the talent who signed on. The locations & sets are also amazing, alongside the CGI. Every penny of the no doubt massive budget is up on screen and it is a visual feast.

But, the biggest issue for me and others who have reviewed this is that it is at times such heavy going narrative-wise. What this series is crying out for is a lightness of touch. The scripts try to cram so many things into each episode, with varying degrees of success. Which is a genuine shame, because there is so much potential here, almost fighting at times to get out from the weighty dialogue and themes.

Definitely worth a watch, plus the 2nd series allegedly does start to build a lot more on the foundations of this series.

Coming out of nowhere like a hammerblow, this was a film which, like Saving Private Ryan before it, puts us as the viewer in the very center of the action. Shot with handheld cameras to heighten not only the tension, but also the horror & violence of the nightmare that unfolded on Sunday 30th January 1972, this film shows both sides of the conflict, as well as controversially putting large amounts of the blame onto the British armed forces (I say controversially because the Saville enquiry, which looked at the Bloody Sunday massacre, was not made public until many years after this film was released.)

James Nesbitt is a powerhouse, playing Cooper, an SDLP member and organiser of the march which would become infamous for it's bloodshed. Tim Piggot-Smith also brings huge gravitas as the Major General whose orders end in catastrophe.

But the most credit has to go to Paul Greengrass & his flawless direction. This is a story and project which would have been so easy to get wrong, especially considering the extremely provocative allegations & accusations made towards British forces. But this film is incredible & gripping for every minute I watched it.

Powerful watching & incredible storytelling

Dev Patel: action star. Whilst I have always been impressed with the projects that he has chosen, I never thought for a second he could comfortably slot into the pantheon of action stars. But this film, for all it's flaws, has a revelatory & stunning performance at its center. Patel, who also writes & directs this (his first film) is never anything less than convincing. It is a stratospheric & jaw-dropping performance. It is just a shame that the rest of the film cannot keep up and at times is scattershot & unfocussed.

Kid (his real name is never given,) is a nobody, a cipher. He spends his nights being beaten to a pulp & exploited by a slimy, smarmy fight promotor (Sharlto Copley, who couldn't be more greasy if he fell into a vat of cooking oil.) By day, Kid ducks & dives, making money through street scams. However, his driving mission in life is to avenge his mother, who was brutally murdered in front of him by the monstrous chief of police Singh, on the orders of Baba Shakti. Kid manages to get work in a hotel which the two men frequent & begins to plan his revenge.

There are some very powerful moments in this film, which absolutely drive the narrative forward, none more so than the murder of Kid's mother. In a genuinely distressing & disgusting scene, she saves him only to be brutally sexually assaulted & killed. There is also a strong focus on the legends/stories of India, which are fleshed out & add layers to the narrative.

Finally, for most people who are action fans, they came here for 1 thing: the brutal hand-to-hand combat shown in the trailer. And make no mistake, on that this film delivers. Especially in the final showdowns, Patel is incredible, fully mastering the extremely complicated & intrinsic choreography flawlessly. These scenes would give John Wick a run for his money (amusingly, not only does this film clearly owe a debt to the Wick series, it is also referenced early on.)

But unfortunately, this film also has a huge number of issues. The camera work is at times appalling. There are a couple of chase scenes where Patel feels that the best way to shoot this is for the cameraman to literally sprint with it in their hands, shaking & spinning it all over the place, so you not only get motion-sickness, but more importantly cannot see what is going on. And when this is done during a fight scene, it literally becomes unwatchable. I sat there thinking "This would be an incredible action scene if I could actually see it!"

Narrative-wise, there are also similar problems. Like with many action films, there will be some cutting back & forth, showing how the influence of a loved one powers the protagonist through the hurdles in their way. But these flashbacks are usually sparing, in order to not distract from the narrative. But here, it is literally back & forth, again and again and again, repeatedly derailing the momentum.

So when you have all this to contend with, what was marketed as a stripped-down action film is anything but. And although, as I said earlier, when the showdown arrives, it absolutely delivers, I almost felt like there was far too much periphery stuff I'd had to sit through to get to it.

Make no mistake, if you look purely at the combat & action scenes, this is incredible filmmaking and Patel could quite easily give up acting, seamlessly moving behind the camera to become a highly sought-after director. But leaving the cinema, I also felt that he desperately needed a good editor & scriptwriter to focus his many incredible ideas and hone them into what could be a stunning film.

But maximum respect for choosing this hugely ambitious project as your 1st film Dev. I cannot wait to see what you do next.

After seeing many reviews praising this story, plus also wanting to support British film, I put this on my rental list. I had last seen Harris Dickinson in The King's Man and been impressed by him, plus also the fact that Michael Fassbender produced this was another reason to watch it. But despite this pedigree of talent, the results are mixed.

Georgie is an extremely confident & driven 12 year old girl who has been struck with tragedy: her beloved & vivacious mother has passed away and George is now living on her own (due to successfully deceiving social services that her uncle is looking after her,) whilst also trying to process the devastating loss. Her only friend is another boy called Ali, spending most of her time with him but refusing his offer to talk about how she is feeling. Into this situation comes Jason, Georgie's estranged father, who turns up out of the blue & attempts to become the father that he ran away from becoming when Georgie was a baby.

There are very strong references & themes to Fish Tank, the magnificent & powerful film directed by Andrea Arnold (also amusingly starring Fassbender before he became the megastar he is now,) so much so that you could in one way call this the generational update to it, albeit a much more innocent & tame version. However, unlike Fish Tank, I found Scrapper only sporadically interesting.

Unfortunately, Lola Campbell is no Katie Jarvis, despite her best intentions. The film itself is also at times extremely unfocussed. There are some moving & funny bonding scenes between Jason & Georgie, but these are often lost in the other scenes which are almost padding. So overall the film comes over as extremely scattershot & ill-disciplined. Which is a shame, because there is much also to like here.

The colour palette, especially the bright colours the council houses are painted, as well as the snappy soundtrack, is great. There is also the clear potential in the future for the director Charlotte Regan to go onto to great things.

I am glad that the film had good success at the box office, considering it's budget, and look forward to what the production team and cast so next.

If you were to say the premise of The Big Short to someone, they would probably fall asleep in the middle of you speaking about it. And therein lies the most powerful point of this film: most people not only don't know about these types of deals, they actively DON'T want to know, finding it too complicated and leaving it to others to deal with. When you have a situation like that, it is fertile ground for the type of rampant greed & risk-taking that ended up destroying the US housing market & collapsing large parts of the financial industry.

So what Big Short does is to take these extremely complicated financial situations/tricks & explain them via humour and easy to understand descriptions. Alongside this we have celebrity cameos as well, including Margot Robbie & Anthony Bourdain.

The result is an extremely fresh, painfully relevant & very funny look at what happens when people with no morals are given no limits to do whatever they can to make money. And also that it sucks in the average person on the street as well, becoming yet another element of the fuel that powers this house of cards.

But the final hammer blow (there are no spoilers here) is how this film ends. Exactly what you think will happen happens, in terms of consequences for the people who were involved in this disaster. And the film makes clear that this will happen again.

A brilliant and devastating takedown of the casino banking that destroyed the US economy

Conceived in the same period as Reservoir Dogs, plus boasting an executive producer credit from Quentin Tarantino, this attempted to appeal to the same crowd who propelled that film to the stratospheric heights it reached. However, whereas Dogs featured a whip-smart script, excellent music & brilliant characters, Killing Zoe has nothing apart from a real nastiness to offer.

Zed (Stoltz) flies to Paris to help old friend Eric (Anglade) rob a bank during a national holiday. Whilst being taken to his hotel from the airport, Zed is offered the services of a prostitute, which he accepts. Zoë arrives and Zed falls in love with her. The following day at the bank, Zed realises to his horror that Zoë works there. She is then taken hostage after the planned escape falls apart, forcing Zed to go against his gang to save her.

Whilst there is some tension which is generated from the beginning of the robbery, plus the chemistry between Stoltz & Delpy is good, everything else is appalling. The tone of the film, after being relatively interesting in the opening scenes, just descends into unbelievable nastiness & cruelty. One scene involving Eric & some hostages is just wilfully repugnant to try & get a reaction. Then, as the film goes on, it just keeps scraping the bottom of the barrel for more shocks.

Whilst he might be a good scriptwriter, Roger Avary's talent for not only good stories, but any kind of competent direction & storytelling desert him here. This is basically an endurance test in watching bile being thrown at the screen. Although I made it to the end, I never want to see it again.

Reading through the multiple reviews that hate this film, I found myself laughing. Often, I will not like or even loathe films which are given rave reviews by pretty much everybody else, whether they are a professional critic or another movie watcher. Two examples of this are Everything Everywhere All At Once & Baby Driver. With those 2 movies, I sat literally just waiting for them to end & getting more annoyed by the second at their attempts to seem relevant or try to wow the audience, whereas for me I just wanted them to be over so that I could get on with my life.

But I loved this film, in pretty much every way.

It has an excellent soundtrack, zesty & spiky direction, beautiful cinematography/colour palette & an age old story that felt fresh. Emma Stone & Ryan Gosling, who had worked together twice before so have an excellent & easy chemistry, were brilliant as the two lovers both trying to make it in Hollywood, set both in the 40's/50's & the present day.

But I will give the multiple haters of this film this one thing: the many plot holes & stupid situations (penniless musicians & actors being able to live a life which would be impossible without serious money,) would annoy me as well if this film had rubbed me up the wrong way. However, I fully bought into this fantasy world, loved being in it & was sad when it ended, so didn't care about the clear elements which weren't realistic.

A real treat

Having got to know Rory Stewart after becoming a fan of The Rest is Politics podcast with Alastair Campbell, I was interested to see this, particularly when Stewart himself mentioned it during one of the episodes.

The pair of documentaries shows the history of Afghanistan, primarily the obsession that various countries had with attempting to conquer it, with all of them spectacularly failing sooner or later. Stewart is an excellent and welcoming presenter, clearly having a passionate love for the history & people of this country, as well as it being one of the countries he memorably walked across over 2 years in 2000-2002.

However, whilst there is much to like in this programmes, for me they were also at times poorly directed & edited. The narrative jumps all over the place, going from Afghanistan to the UK to other locations, and at times leaving you confused & a little annoyed. Whilst a linear narrative can be seen as a little unoriginal, it is also much more viewer-friendly, especially when detailed situations are being explained to you as the viewer.

A good watch but could have been so much better.

The story of Aileen Wuornos is one which varies depending on who tells it. To some, she is a total & remorseless monster, evil to her very core & those individuals cheered when she was executed. To others, she was almost a hero-figure: a prostitute who turned the tables on the men who exploited her for sex. And for many, including me, she was the product of one of the most horrific, evil & upsetting upbringings/childhoods you could possibly imagine, resulting in her becoming the mentally scarred & exploited woman who killed at first in self-defence, but then took out her anger on the men who used her.

Following on from the critically acclaimed & impactful Nick Broomfield documentary Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer, Patty Jenkins contacted Wuornos & wrote her life story. In another stroke of genius casting, Charlize Theron was chosen to become Wuornos, become literally being the case. What they have created is a film so visceral & powerful, it literally grabs you by the throat & drags you into this world of hell.

Theron is absolutely sensational. Roger Ebert called her performance "one of the greatest performances in the history of the cinema." This is a Daniel Day-Lewis level performance, Theron not only physically transforming herself with prostheses, but also immersing herself in every detail of Wuornos's life. When you look at Theron & Wuornos side by side, you simply cannot tell the difference. That is the level we are at. Few actors ever reach this level, and her performance left me in awe.

But don't for a second think that Christina Ricci is sidelined as Wuornos's lover Selby Wall. Ricci has imbued Wall with a childlike naivety & mischief, which also hides a highly damaged & scared woman. And the tragedy that unfolds in their lives is all the more sad because in some small way, you do feel that constant feeling of "If only..." If only the pair of them could drag themselves out of this situation, get some stability in their lives & find peace, they could be happy. But of course, you also know that that will never happen.

The other massive praise I give this film is in its total "take the gloves off & get honest" approach, none more so than the scene where Aileen is attacked by a John, starting off the devastating spiral of violence. The level of sexual violence is unbearable, so much so that I actually cannot watch it without wincing. No punches are pulled: this is the life & risks that every prostitute has to deal with every time they get into a car with a stranger. This is no Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman callgirl scenario, this is real & graphic.

The script is excellent, as is the direction. Wuornos is never sensationalised & the film also makes clear that as her violence spirals, the killings never provide enjoyment for her, more a brief moment of feeling that she has fought back for one second against a world which has done nothing but abuse & exploit her.

The ending also gives no easy answers: sure, Aileen is arrested & sentenced to multiple death penalties. But as I finished the film, I just felt an overwhelming sadness that a woman who, from a very young age was sexually & physically abused by almost everyone who should have been protecting her, was effectively turned into this "monster" who more than anything was just angry at the hell she was born into.

And it is only by sheer luck that we as the viewer were not thrown into that sort of life...

I remember vividly going to see Kick-Ass at the cinema. Coming 2 years after the monumental Dark Knight & when the traction of superhero films was just picking up, it promised to be a fresh & realistic take on the genre, flipping a lot of the expectations on their head. It had also generated considerable coverage/controversy from across the media landscape over its content, in particular the Hit-Girl character's use of profanity & violence. But for me the driving factor seeing it was that I had absolutely loved Layer Cake & would watch anything Matthew Vaughan was involved in.

So I went into the cinema... then came out at the end wishing I hadn't bothered & wanting my money back.

It starts well and asks some genuinely legitimate questions about the fascination people have with superheroes, as well as people who want to imitate them, either to actually help people or just for notoriety. But despite Taylor (now Taylor-Johnson) being an affable, likeable Everyman, very quickly the film becomes what it always wanted to be: a sleazy & in this case quite revolting movie.

Whilst I will talk about Hit-Girl in a second, I have as much a problem with the overall tone as I do with that character. And by tone, I mean that everything seems to have been designed to make you go yuck & wonder what the hell the people in this world are doing. So you have one of the characters putting his daughter in a bulletproof vest & repeatedly shooting her, then being delighted when she asks for guns & knives as birthday presents (this was horrible at the time & rancid today considering how many school shootings there are, alongside the explosion in young people committing violence, whether it is with firearms in the USA or knives in the UK,) and a really lairy, creepy obsession with sex which instead of coming across like The Inbetweeners is more like a dirty old man.

That would be problematic by itself, but then when you put a 12 year old girl as one of the main characters, who commits the lion's share of graphic violence & repeatedly swears, it's a whole new level of repugnance. And the film just keeps pushing & pushing this, as if every time it takes it too far, it's a groundbreaking achievement. At one point, she references a graphic sexual situation as her calling card, as casually as if she is talking about what she had for dinner that evening. And none of it is funny or groundbreaking, it's just disgusting.

And the film just goes on and on like that. There are some well-shot action scenes, hence the 2 star rating, and Nicolas Cage is clearly having the time of his life unashamedly living out his boyhood fantasies. But, by the end you just look at it with the same contempt you would someone who exposed their 12 year old child to graphic sex & had taught them to slaughter multiple people.

Amusingly, there was a high profile fallout from the sequel, when Jim Carrey refused to have anything to do with promoting the film after seeing it's violent content coupled with multiple school shootings. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it...

After American Psycho, I would watch anything Mary Harron directed/wrote/produced. Her latest effort, Daliland, should be right up her street: extremely idiosyncratic & difficult artistic genius, who was known as much for his highly unconventional personal life as for the masterpieces he came up with. But despite this rich vault of cinematic potential, the main feeling I had whilst watching it was boredom.

For example, I don't remember seeing another film which showed excesses of drugs, parties & debauchery being so dull. A threesome so uninspired, you wonder what the onlooking Dali found so exciting about it. Whilst there has been many films made about the put-upon assistant to the difficult/demanding protagonist, these can often descend into naval-gazing.

There is some good set designs & costumes, plus the production department does an incredible job of turning Liverpool into an authentic & believable stand-in for 70's New York City. I also liked the way it was shot, with a soft focus & colour palette.

As for the performances, Christopher Briney does his best, channelling blue-eyed innocence with a subtle iron-will to immerse himself in the orbit of Dali & his entourage, but he never manages to be anything more than mediocre. Ben Kingsley, a powerhouse actor and capable of sledgehammer-impactful performances (Sexy Beast,) here plays Dali as a narcissistic & incredibly difficult artistic genius filled with various ticks & idiosyncrasies.

And whilst I have no doubt that that was probably what Dali was like, watching it without a good story behind it is just tiresome. If I wanted to watch a spoilt brat being fawned over by various acolytes, I can just put Trump's name into YouTube...