Film Reviews by TB

Heavily trailed/advertised in the media, mainly due to the presence of David Tennant, this was something I was interested to watch, especially after seeing his performance as Dennis Neilson. But despite some incredible visuals of the beautiful Scottish countryside, everything else is a complete mess.

The tone of this drama is totally misjudged, the narrative all over the place. Characters behave in no logical way at all, whether it is the adults or the children. Everyone appears to be in the wrong programme & the direction/writing is atrocious. After his incredible & nuanced performance as Neilson, here Tennant attempts to play another deeply conflicted man. Except this time all the tics & moody actions just don't fit, it's like watching a checklist of those traits acted out.

Similarly, the other characters are badly written. Jess & her other half are meant to be a couple, but there is almost no love between them, just different trite set-ups leading to arguments. The mother of Tennant's character is badly written as well. There are also at least two plotlines which go nowhere & the characters concerned vanish without explanation.

The main kudos and reason for 2 stars is there is also a welcome focussing on abuse normally are not featured in TV dramas, particularly coercive control & mental bullying. The character of Kate is, whilst also not well written, a representation of what so many women have to deal with in terms of horrific home lives with despicable partners.

But this is a small positive in what is effectively a tonally all over the place & unfocussed drama.

Adam, played by Andrew Scott, is a lonely & delicate writer in his 40's, who has just moved into a new block of flats in central London. So new in fact, that almost nobody else lives there. The block is a metaphor for Adam's life: both in the center of things as well as feeling totally alone & an outsider. One night, he meets an enigmatic & drunk man called Harry (Mescal) who is one of the only other residents of the building. At the same time he also starts to confront the pain that has been inside him, eating him up & destroying him. This takes the form of going back to his childhood home & talking to his parents, who are strangely younger than he is & stuck in time.

The film is devastating in its portrayal of the pain & hurt as a result of the stigma of being gay in a time when the only things associated with that were AIDS hysteria & being condemned to live a lonely & difficult life. This is coupled with Adam's horrific early losses in his life. What the story does at its most brilliant is to have the conversations which we all wish we had had with our parents (I don't mean specifically about sexuality, I am talking about the massive number of issues that young people growing up face.)

The only thing for me that stops this film getting 5 stars is that the chemistry between Mescal & Scott never fully clicked for me. When you see Jamie Bell & Claire Foy together, they are perfection. But I never felt that with the two leads. They are both good on their own, but together I just wanted that little bit more.

Still, this is a devastating, beautiful & unbearably sad story about confronting the demons of our past.

I haven't seen many "body horror" films, the main one being Crash, which I found compulsively horrible but gripping to watch. Cronenberg's new film, again in the realms of body horror, has some genuinely shocking scenes as well as the sort of far out & provocative ideas which he is known for.

But despite an excellent cast who are fully committed to their roles, by the halfway point the film has started to lose focus & momentum. The world which has been very carefully created then just stalls, with the narrative pretty much collapsing in on itself.

Whilst for many people, they will see ideas & scenes they have never or very rarely have seen, the novelty then starts to wear off. Which is a shame, because with the budget & actors he had, there was much more than I felt Cronenberg could have done.

Worth a watch, but definitely not his best work.

In December 2020, Emerald Fennell wrote & directed Promising Young Woman. It is important to contextualise this film's impact was as much to do with the world's state of mind, being released in the thick of the Covid pandemic, as it was the quality of the film itself. I mention #MeToo deliberately, as there was significant traction pre-pandemic, which then exploded during it, with multiple examples of violence towards women being exacerbated due to lockdowns. My point here is that Promising Young Woman captured that, which was a big reason for it's success. And I gave it 4 stars in my review, despite some reservations I had.

But what Ms Fennell has done to follow this is to make one of the most clichéd, lazy & antagonistic films you could possibly imagine. For me, it was unwatchable, so much so that I switched it off after 30 minutes. Saltburn looks at the class system, also adding LGBTQIA into the mix. But the way that this film has been written is just atrocious.

The best way I can describe it is to use an example from the polar opposite of it's class critique. In Little Britain, there is a character called Vicky Pollard. She is written as an extremely aggressive, unpleasant, lazy & feckless chav. She is literally a satirisation of the most extreme elements of the working class, turned up to 11. But she is also a part of a comedy show that has many other stereotypes, in a comedy series which unashamedly wears it's overblown characters on its sleeve. Nobody, unless they were either stupid or totally disingenuous, would claim that Pollard represented all of the working classes.

Now flip that example around, so that it is looking at the "upper classes," make pretty much every single character that you encounter (within the 30 minutes that I could tolerate it) a walking clichéd stereotype of disgusting wealth, and because subtlety is not something which seems to exist for Ms Fennell, make every single actor mug horribly to accentuate these traits as much as possible.

But what I loathe & despise most about this film is the sheer laziness of the writing. At one point, about 20 minutes in, I paused it when one obnoxious character walked up to the protagonist to say something, then predicted exactly what he was going to say. I then pressed play & around 90% of it was dead-on. Every character says exactly what you'd expect them to say, in exactly the way you'd expect them to say it.

And the level of smugness of the writing just vomits out of the screen. This film not only loves this world it has created, it thinks it is cutting edge & genre-defining. And on the point of laziness, don't for a second think that I hate this film because of it's targeting of the upper classes. I would detest this film just as much if it was the working classes in its crosshairs. What I most object to is the fact that it's idea of satire is to look at a particular group, find the stereotypes & then just exacerbate those to an idiotic degree.

You only have to look at American Psycho for a masterful deconstruction of the privileged, even though that film is set in America. One irony about it, which would be too subtle for Saltburn to notice, is how Patrick Bateman at times actively adopts & mocks the other members of this class that he is trying to fit into, but this is part of the satire of the script, brilliantly written by Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner.

Saltburn is literally unwatchable, unbearable & vapid. It is a film which had a large number of critics falling over themselves to praise & revere. I actively hated & despised it, as much for its smugness as its script.

Ironically, I watched this the same day as Pig Killer, another rancid film (and one which I have also reviewed.) And my friend who I saw both with later pointed out that I enjoyed Pig Killer more. That's the level we are talking about.

Avoid

This film defies every metric you could possibly measure it against. It is so badly made, so atrociously scripted & so poorly acted it almost transcends all criticism. The script probably took longer to read than it did to write. It is full of bad editing, sound & production design. But it just keeps on plumbing ever more rancid depths.

For example, there is a moment of jaw-dropping racism by one female character, commenting about another, despite this woman being in a relationship with a mixed-race man... Also, pretty much every woman featured in this film in a prominent way is either a sex worker or treated as nothing more than a sex object.

Other such delights include the casting of an older porn star to play the mother of the protagonist, who at one point has clearly used Sharon Stone's leg crossing from Basic Instinct as horrible inspiration, but forgetting to actually cross her legs; the close-up view of another character removing & cleaning his tracheotomy pipe before inserting it back in with a horrible squelch; and a man raping a woman whilst wearing the chopped-off carcass of a pig's head... There are also more prosthetic penis's in this film than in the entirety of Lars Von Trier's filmography.

And finally, we come to the performances. And it's no stretch to say that the acting here makes The Room look like Citizen Kane. At one point, an actress delivers a dull, turgid monologue, attempting to muster anger but acting more like she's got bad stomach ache. Then, as she storms out, she walks into the rig & the camera visibly shakes. The lead actor, played by Gary Busey's son, appears to have inherited none of the slim pickings of his father's talent, such is his lack of ability. Whether it's attempting to be threatening or trying to turn on the charm, it all seems to be beyond him.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't even fall into "so bad it's good territory," simply because of how horrible it is to watch, both in performance & production. If you want to watch something along those lines, rent The Greasy Strangler. It has laughs, good jokes and just as much liberal featuring of prosthetics...

Having never watched a Noire thriller before, but instead played LA Noire, a computer game which unashamedly takes many of the themes, I was interested to see what this film would hold. Plus, the fact it was directed by Neil Jordan & starred Liam Neeson was also a strong selling point. 

As a film, I always enjoyed what was on screen, but it was never anything more than a fairly gentle paced story with a few curveballs thrown in. The recreation of LA in the 30’s was perfectly done, which is even more staggering when you consider all the outdoor scenes were shot in Spain. A huge number of the clichés which were associated with the Noire crime drama are present & correct, but are never shoehorned in, sitting instead comfortably within the narrative. The film is also a lot less violent than I was expecting. 

But it was only ever average. The story is a shallow as a kids swimming pool & if you are looking for deep meaning or profound scenes, then you’re watching the wrong film. This is a perfectly serviceable, relatively inoffensive hour 40 of watching different talented actors interact with each other, with some good staging & locations. 

Since the release of the novel in 1929, written by a veteran of the First World War, 3 film adaptations have been produced, each winning critical acclaim & awards. This latest version by Edward Berger & funded by Netflix is another good, if a bit all over the place, look at the horror of war. It is also extremely prescient in terms of the timing of it's release, coming not long after Russia invaded Ukraine, condemning yet another generation of mainly young men to slaughter & maiming.

The film follows Paul Bäumer, an idealistic young German man, from his initial recruitment from school through to the end days of the conflict. We see how he turns from an excitable & lively young man to a battle-scarred & deeply affected shell of a human. The friends from school, as well as the men he meets during training, are either killed or have a similar fate to him.

In terms of production, the vast budget that Netflix has provided has paid dividends & I can see why this film won so many awards. In particular the cinematography, from the beautiful skies to the blood-soaked battlefields, are stunningly lensed. Costumes & sets are also amazing, the making-of on the special features fleshing out the extensive recreation of these literal hell on earth places.

But overall the film was actually quite hard to follow. Even with subtitles & plenty of exposition, the story juddered & jolted all over the place. Plus the events were not always clear. I appreciate that there is the confusion of war factored in, but narrative wise, even towards the end I wasn't sure about certain characters.

This is absolutely a shocking & stark war film and I thought to myself that I would need to watch it again. But I also have to be honest & say that for me, it was not the seminal masterpiece that some have hailed it to be.

Still, a very good effort

In 2014, Christopher Nolan gave the world Interstellar, a blockbuster film about space which was also notable among more recent films for its insistence on sticking as close to scientific fact as possible. However, and this has been my issue with all of Nolan's work, there is a coldness to his films, even when dealing with emotional subject matter.

Then Ridley Scott was announced as director to The Martian, based on the hugely popular novel, with Matt Damon as the lead. Somehow, I missed it in the cinema, but heard rave reviews from everyone who had seen it, including my best friend. I finally rented the 4K Blu-ray which had the director's cut on, and within 5 minutes, could see what all the fuss was about.

This film is incredible. Every element of it is perfect, from the performances, to the locations/cinematography & most of all the script. In a film full of complex ideas as well as a clear insistence to be as scientifically accurate & researched as possible, it is a joy to be a part of this story. You as the audience are guided through without being patronised, as well as being enlightened with man's sheer capacity & ingenuity when under the most extreme of circumstances.

Damon has always been great as the everyman protagonist, but here he plays both an ordinary & extraordinary man. Left behind on Mars after the mission goes awry, he then realises that there is a possibility of him being able to escape & make it back to Earth, if he in his words "sciences the s**t out of this." The other actors are also brilliant, from Jessica Chastain through to Donald Glover.

But most of all, what I loved was just how much of a good time this movie is. It is a proper, good old fashioned thriller film, which grabs you, transports you to another world & entertains you throughout it's entire runtime. Partly this is down to the skill of the cast & script, but to me the lion's share of credit must go to Ridley Scott. When he is at his best, like with this film or American Gangster ect, he is just a master at the top of his game.

I loved this film & you will too

In 2012, Prometheus was released, heralding a new chapter/start of the Alien world & franchise. Despite enjoying it in parts, I also appreciated it's flaws. But many of the fanbase were much more vocal about their hatred of it, even after multiple warnings from Scott that this was not another Alien sequel. But, clearly stung by the criticism, Scott then has attempted to move closer again to the Alien world, as well as having a great big Xenomorph on the poster/Blu-ray cover, to get pulses racing. But this is a terrible film in pretty much every way.

However, I want to get the good points out of the way first, as there are a couple. Firstly, and the main reason why this film gets 2 stars, is how it looks. After the mainly inhospitable terrain of LV-223 in Prometheus, Scott & the writers set this story on a lush planet, full of trees, forests & waterfalls. Unlike the mainly grim & dark planets the other films are set on, here we are treated to a stunning visual feast, Scott clearly using every penny of the budget on making this the best looking of the Alien films.

Another good point is the first action scene when things start to go wrong. In what could almost rival the original's chest-burster scene in terms of shock & horror, the medical room incident is genuinely nasty & unsettling. When I first saw this, despite some missteps (more on that in a minute,) I mentally was clapping my hands with glee & thinking "Now we're talking! This is getting good!"

But those are really the only good points in this absolute car crash of a film...

For starters, every single character in this film is so overwhelmingly stupid, you wonder how they manage to get dressed in the morning. For example, they ignore basic protocols (such as removing all their masks/protection 5 minutes after stepping foot on a planet which no-one has ever surveyed, leading to the subsequent events.) The newly-instated captain is later led by another character, who has so many red flags around him it becomes almost a joke, over to a great big egg & doesn't seem particularly concerned about the danger he is in.

There are also, like Prometheus, far too many characters vying for our attention. A common criticism which I also share is that the only 3 I remember are Daniels, because she is the lead, so it's impossible not to know who she is; David, because he was the best thing about Prometheus, and Tallahassee, because he wears a cowboy hat...

Speaking of David, he has been brought back for Covenant, but we also have another clone, because in Hollywood, 2 is better than 1... So we now have Walter who we meet in the beginning & is the "good" clone, and David who is the "bad" one. But whilst there is some fun in a couple of scenes to watch them interacting, overall it's just fairly boring. And it was further decided by the writers that now David needs to have multiple soliloquies, speeches that seem to go on & on, which just made me mentally switch off.

There are other moments which are pointless as well, such as the needless killing-off of a character, which is done off-screen & then casually shown in passing to us as the audience, almost as an afterthought & tying up of a loose end.

By the time the action starts to ramp up, I was bored senseless. I didn't care what was happening on screen, whether it was double-crossing, being chased/escaping, or an Alien on board a flying spaceship, screeching & trying to kill the people on board. And then we get the obligatory set-up to the next film, which was meant to be a grand reveal, but which I could see coming a mile off.

Please can this series now be left alone, so that the memories of the original & best are not continually trashed.

This is the first thing of Taika Waititi's that I've watched and was genuinely curious about the premise. A common theme through a lot of my reviews is that there isn't much originality any more. So when you hear of a film where the setting is Nazi Germany, features an imaginary Adolf Hitler and is about a Hitler youth member who discovers his mother is hiding a Jewish girl in the attic, I was interested.

The opening is quite funny & there are some good jokes. Sam Rockwell is a particular highlight as a demoted German officer, plus I also did think that Roman Griffin Davies was a good lead. However, this film was far too scattershot. It basically seemed to be throwing different jokes & ideas at a wall and seeing what would stick. So we have the attempted satirisation of multiple antisemitic tropes, said from the mouth of a 10 year old, most of which just fall flat.

And the inclusion of Waititi as Hitler, as much as I can see the thinking behind it (a Maori-Jew heritage man playing one of the most racist & infamous anti-Semites) again just doesn't really work. Waititi mugs away, throwing out lines that probably sounded funny when he wrote them down, but here they mostly fall flat.

I watched for an hour and then gave up. I did want to like this film, but I also fully accept that this isn't my type of humour. There are many people who did love this film, and it did win the Oscar for its script. However, unlike some of the other reviews, it also didn't make me angry, it just didn't land for me...

After winning the Best European Film award at the Cannes film festival, 5 star reviews in film publications like Empire and finally starring Léa Seydoux, who I think is a sensational actress, I put this on my rental list. I had high hopes, especially after reading the synopsis, however despite a lot of excellent things about this film, it also has one massive problem...

Seydoux stars as Sandra, the daughter of a well-regarded & beloved former philosophy teacher. Her father has a degenerative disease similar to Alzheimer's, and as the film starts, the help that Sandra is initially providing to him is not enough for his needs. She, along with the other members of her family, as well as her father's friends, move him into the care sector, having to deal with all the emotions that brings. At the same time, she reconnects with Clément, a close friend of her deceased husband. This then turns into an affair which Sandra hopes becomes something more.

Despite my criticism of one element of it, there is much to love here. Seydoux is exceptional, proving once again why she is such an incredible actress. The emotional journey we go through with Sandra is at times heartbreaking. The extremely carefully handled & sensitive scenes of her helping her father as his disease worsens are profoundly moving, especially as I have a parent with Alzheimer's & have experienced many of the situations shown. This also extends to the quiet moments after Sandra has left her father and is in quiet or emotional contemplation.

The production of the film is also excellent, with a soft pallet, bright colours & good locations. The director is low-key & unfussy, with scenes allowing the actors to act & the story to unfold at a gentle pace.

However, this film has a major failing which actually detracted from the viewing for me. We are told that there is a burning love & desire between Sandra & Clément: the trauma for her losing her husband & leaving her to raise their daughter alone; the upset for him that his marriage is failing, along with the unrequited love he clearly had & has for Sandra. And the film builds on this very effectively for the first 30 minutes or so.

But then, we never (aside from a 10 second interlude much later on in the film,) actually see any of the passion that they have shown to us as the audience. There is the start of some type of intimacy, then it immediately cuts to afterwards, when a few words are said and then the next scene starts. And when you compare that to the care & love shown by Sandra towards her father (which the narrative beautifully does, in rich detail,) the film then becomes quite one sided. Having spent the first section getting to know Sandra & seeing her life, to have one of the most important elements which the film is saying to us profoundly affects her not shown leaves the narrative quite rudderless.

What makes this even more prevalent for me is that Seydoux is an actress who, with Blue is the Warmest Colour, has shown how powerfully she can act in those types of scenes. It is almost like the writer/director had an idea of what they wanted to do, but then decided to tone that down, in effect hamstringing one of the central story themes.

I did enjoy the film, plus it is easy, if slightly sad viewing. But I just feel that it could have been so much more if the romance element of it was properly explored.

On the eve of the 2016 election & just before Trump's presidency, Michael Moore made this documentary as an answer to many of the issues that plague America, by looking outwards to other countries that have had similar social issues/tragedies, and seen how they dealt with them.

So we fly off to Norway to see how criminals and prisoners are dealt with, including an incredible interview with the father of one of the teenagers murdered on Utøya by a Neo-Nazi; how drug addiction is managed in Portugal, being treated as a health issue instead of a crime; workers rights in Germany as well as the teaching of history, and other countries including France & Slovenia/their policies.

The film has many good points, but unfortunately this documentary falls into a similar trap to other ones in this genre: too many ideas which are poorly executed. And what makes this stand out even more is how good Moore's previous works have been, particularly Bowling for Columbine & Sicko. With some better editing & more discipline, this could have been great, not just good.

Having said that, if you are a fan of Moore's, as I am, there is much to enjoy & this is a solid 3 star effort worth a watch.

After the middling but also well-shot Out of the Furnace, Christian Bale again teamed up with Scott Cooper, this time for a Western drama dealing with loyalty, duty & family. But unlike their previous collaboration, this is an incredible film.

Bale stars as Joseph Blocker, a Captain with the US Army. Set in 1892 Blocker, who is an emotionally burnt-out soldier who has seen more than his fair share of slaughter, is ordered under threat of court martial & stripping of his pension to escort a dying Cheyenne warrior & his family back to his homeland. The warrior Yellow Hawk is a sworn enemy of Blocker's, hence the blackmail by his superiors to escort the dying Chief. Along the way, these two men begin to learn a grudging respect for each other, as well as realising the only way they will make it through is by working together.

I don't know where to start with this film, as every part of it is incredible. Bale, who has again transformed himself from a rake-thin steelworker (in Furnace,) to a thick-set & emotionally battle-scarred veteran, is flawless. Within the first 5 minutes of being with him, you know the pain he is in; the humanity he has lost & the desperation he has to leave that world behind, only to be forced into escorting & protecting a complete pariah who he would happily kill in an instant. Wes Studi is also exceptional, summoning his considerable gravitas & range to play a man who knows he is dying & has to trust a man who he knows wants him dead. And topping this all off, Rosamund Pike again gives a multilayered performance as the traumatised widow who sees in Blocker the one flicker of salvation she can hope for in the unforgiving world she exists in.

The cinematography is stunning. Cooper's films always look gorgeous & this is no exception, the frontiers & wild lensed perfectly. The soundtrack is also beautiful. Much like The Proposition, another gruelling & inspiring Western, this journey challenges your preconceptions, allowing you to come to your own judgements, whilst never losing focus of the characters on screen.

Welcomingly, the ending is also everything you could want from this film, leaving you emotionally moved, but also not posing any easy answers. There are none of those in this environment & the film never for a second short-changes you.

A masterpiece

After a fantastic career as an actor, with 3 of his performances consistently in my top 10 films of all time, Ewan McGregor now steps behind the camera for his directorial debut, as well as playing the lead role. But whilst I give massive kudos to him for choosing such a big & in many ways deeply layered story to tell as his first directing effort, unfortunately it just doesn't all come together particularly well.

McGregor plays The Swede, a former high school soccer player who has the fairytale, picture perfect life: married his high school sweetheart who also happens to be a model, runs a successful family business & has a daughter who is happy & fulfilled. However, this starts to rapidly fall apart after his daughter becomes entangled & indoctrinated by extreme political forces.

Production-wise, everything is on point: it is shot very well, the sound is good, locations perfect. Performances are also solid, Jennifer Connelly & Uzo Aduba the standouts. But the film just tries to do far too much, setting up multiple strands which it then tries to give equal attention to but then coming across as turgid & unfocussed.

Some of the characters are also not well-served by the screenplay, such as Dakota Fanning. When you see her performance in films like Man on Fire, you know how incredible she can be. Here, she plays an extreme hippie with a view on society which could rival anything the far-right could dream up. But she also speaks in a whisper most of the time, ranting on ever more extreme tangents which just become boring & trite.

Sadly, as much as I enormously admire the boldness of McGregor's ambition, plus also the fact that he stepped into the breach at the 11th hour after the film's original director/team collapsed, this story is too much for him, or for that matter probably most directors to try and make sense of. Interestingly, in an interview subsequent to the release of this film (and reflecting on it's critical & commercial failure,) McGregor expressed an interest in directing a film much more like his experience on Trainspotting: low budget, short shoot, snappy story.

I am sad that he didn't get the chance to do that type of movie as his first directing gig, but I absolutely look forward to & will watch whatever he does next.

Clint Eastwood continues his streak of all-American hero films with this dramatisation of the actions of the US commercial aviation pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger who, after taking off, hit a flock of birds & suffering complete engine failure. Sully & his co-pilot managed to safely land the plane in the Hudson river, resulting in no loss of life & only minor injuries. The film looks at the crash & the resulting investigation.

Unlike Captain Phillips, as much as the real-world crash is handled well, the film then loses its focus somewhat and becomes fairly average. There is a welcome focus on Sully's PTSD after the crash, as well as the nerves about appearing in front of the committee. But in many ways this is superficial, and we never really get under Sully's skin.

There was also significant criticism from many within aviation & the safety part of it of the representation of the board/the handling of the crash. And this is entirely justified: the film makes them look predominantly like absolute arseholes. Even the real Sully was upset by this depiction of them.

For me, this was fairly average fare, but absolutely a film with it's share of issues. However, take it with a pinch of salt & accept that it is a piece of entertainment and you'll have an enjoyable 90 minutes.