Film Reviews by Timmy B

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 

After the total lunacy & bonkers imaginative world in Mad Max: Fury Road that sprung from the beautiful & demented mind of George Miller, people were clamouring for the next installment. But the biggest surprise was the incredible newly created character Imperator Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron. Dominating the film, Furiosa was a magnificent character, with shades of Ellen Ripley, Clarice Starling & Sarah Connor, alongside the nuances that Theron added to the mix. So when it was announced that there was to be a prequel, focussing on Furiosa, a lot of people were delighted.

However, this delight turned to anger in some of the fandom when it was announced that Theron would not be returning to the role she made iconic, instead recasting a younger actress. How could, these fans raged, anyone else come close to Charlize's monumental ability & gravitas. Well, Anya Taylor-Joy (along with Alyla Browne as the child Furiosa) answered the call & showed just how incredible they both are in laying the groundwork & developing the character.

Both of them are magnificent. One thing I really liked was that, unlike some films showing the early years of a character, we spend over 40 minutes with Alyla Browne, not a few rushed scenes simply setting the narrative up. In some ways I cannot decide whether I like her or Taylor-Joy more, such is Browne's skill & ability. When Taylor-Joy does take over, the film really kicks into high gear. There is also good work from Tom Burke, as Praetorian Jack, who goes against his orders to help Furiosa to get her revenge. And rounding the craziness off, Chris Hemsworth is Dementus, who kidnaps the young Furiousa & then makes it his mission to rule over the barren & desolate Australian wasteland. Hemsworth really has a ball, chewing scenery for all he's worth, alongside a brutalness which you would expect from a despotic ruler.

But as much as I have talked about the characters, the production values are what made this film for me. Watching it in IMAX with an 11,000 watt sound system, it is BONE SHAKINGLY impactful. Whether it is the scream of the turbocharged engines, or the explosions of the Thundersticks, the sound in this film is unlike anything I have heard for years (only Dunkirk's Spitfire roars come close.) The cinematography & colour palette also sear your eyes, by turns showing you an idyllic, isolated world & a place so inhospitable you would fear spending more than 10 minutes in it.

Alongside all of this, you have the multiple & amazingly staged chases, utilising r-tic lorries, cars & motorbikes to name a few. And every few minutes I kept reminding myself that, although there was obviously post-production CGI in terms of removing wires & polishing the finished footage, everything in front of you was done for real, with the best stunt performers working in films & no digital trickery. In an industry bloated with CGI, it is so rare to have an insistence on everything being done practically. And that is worth it's weight in gold.

And front & center, marshalling this craziness, is George Miller. Despite being nearly 80, he has the energy & mind of a 12 year old, such is the adrenaline that shoots out of the screen at you. Furiosa is a powerhouse of a film, transporting you to a desperate world where the only thing standing between you & death is luck & courage. It is an incredible achievement & I hope that the film's lackluster 1st week box office takings don't mean this is the last we see of the Mad Max world.

Strap in, take a deep breath & enjoy the ride

After decades as actors, with many stunning & iconic performances between them, Michael Caine and Glenda Jackson both end in a beautifully realised & quietly powerful film based on the true story of Bernard Jordan. Jordan, a Royal Navy veteran of WWII, "escaped" from his care home to attend the Commemorations in France, after the special organised trips of veterans he wanted to go on had been fully booked. The film looks at not only his trip, but also the support & love of his wife Rene, as well as the PTSD he continued to suffer, haunting him.

As a gentle & extremely sensitively made film, this is easy watching, whilst dealing with profoundly distressing & deeply scarring trauma, a real achievement in storytelling. None of the different scenes felt "set up," and a few times, the outcomes genuinely surprised me. For many people, the scene which will stay with them is the encounter that Jordan has with some German veterans, including one who will have been shooting at him on the D-Day landings. The way this scene is handled & written is absolutely flawless, in no way becoming the "Let's all hug each other & sing Kumbaya" scenario which in the wrong or disingenuous hands it could so, so easily have become.

However for me the most powerful scene, which really impacted me, was one which was (combined,) only a few minutes of screen time: a young soldier who had been severely injured & lost a leg in a present day conflict. When we first meet him he is enthusiastic & happy, then later on he is intoxicated & almost violent, then finally he goes to say goodbye to Jordan & is contrite, as well as saying how much he admires him. Halfway through saying this, Jordan forcefully stops him & then says "Get some help, because you're a mess." Something so simple, but handled so well. Huge credit & praise must go to Victor Oshin for creating so strong a character in the space of a couple of minutes.

Whilst Michael Caine will have been the main draw for many, this is empathically Glenda Jackson's film. Passing away 9 months after filming wrapped, you feel in some small way that she knew that this was going to be her last performance. And she puts everything into this role. Rene is a strong, vulnerable & emotional person, dedicated to her husband whilst also being the driving force behind him having the courage to go & fulfill the thing he has wanted to do for decades. Their love for each other shone out through the screen, especially in the final lovely moments.

And the best thing about this film is that, especially in the world we have today, it's message is one of forgiveness & reconciliation. Every single person, irrelevant of which "side" they were on, is a human. And the overwhelming number of these people sent to fight in WWII were practically kids. The damage & trauma is incalculable, made worse by the fact that the war to end all wars didn't in any way achieve that.

The Great Escaper is a plea to stop the conflict & horrific slaughter, anchored by 2 performances from two of our greatest actors in their final curtain calls. Magnificent drama.

Films like Mortdecai fascinate me in many ways, but mainly for this reason: the effort & luck that is needed to produce pretty much any film is huge. Contrary to popular opinion, unless you are making a film which is a part of a huge franchise (so in effect almost guaranteed to make back at least production costs,) getting the green light is incredibly difficult. Even having star power both in front & behind the camera is no guarantee that it will get financed. Depp interestingly experienced this before, notably with The Rum Diary, which was an extremely interesting if uneven film, which spent decades in development hell.

So given all these challenges, you would expect that the films that are eventually made would be of the highest quality, given all the work & effort to convince studios/producers to sink millions into them... But Mortdecai shows within its first few minutes just how wrong this can be.

Charlie Mortdecai is a Ne'er-do-well: an alleged art dealer, conman & swindler. He is a highly eccentric English gent who lives in a big mansion with his stunning wife Johanna. However, Charlie's previous scams are starting to catch up with him & he is then forced into tracking down a stolen painting, assisting a detective who lusts after Johanna. And running through the film is the obsession & repeated drawing attention to the fact that Mortdecai has grown a moustache which he is smitten with but everyone else thinks is fairly horrible.

This film is just terrible. As in, not funny, painfully laboured & just atrocious. In a weird way, it made me think of the Love Guru. In both films, actors who have before done incredible work, either comedically or dramatically, are reduced to mugging horribly, whilst every shred of credibility their character may have had within the first few minutes is just decimated, along with the actor's own reputation. But there genuinely isn't a single laugh in it.

Depp has made a career from playing oddballs, with varying degrees of success. But where it worked like a dream with Jack Sparrow, here you are introduced to Mortdecai & after about 2 minutes find yourself thinking "Is the next hour & a half just going to be watching an extremely annoying & unfunny impression of what Americans think a stereotypical English toff is?" And very quickly you are proved right.

My main draw for seeing it was Ewan McGregor, who I will watch in anything. But he, along with the other actors, just stand around & look a little embarrassed, spouting dialogue which not even Daniel Day-Lewis could make sound authentic. The only thing I did find interesting is that we are treated in some small way to how McGregor may have played James Bond had he landed that role (something I will forever be sad about, as he would have been incredible as 007.)

But most perplexingly is the film's absolutely obsession with repeating the same joke/line about Mortdecai's moustache. Literally, the entire script seems to have been constructed around this one setup, which to begin with is in no way funny. And in the amount of time I could tolerate watching it (around 40 minutes,) it was endlessly referenced, getting more annoying.

A total waste of time, talent & money

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.