Film Reviews by TB

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.

When I heard about this film, it was spoken about in almost revered terms: a masterpiece as well as a true descent into hell. But watching it, the main thought I had was boredom. It took me a while to actually understand what was going on, getting my head around the huge number of cuts & narrative choices, then when I did start to get on board with it, my attention was frequently wandering. There is absolutely some profound imagery, as well as impactful performances from all the main cast, however this doesn't solve anywhere close to the number of issues this film has.

As it starts to be layered on too thickly, the ultimate example of "more is better" not actually being the case, we are subjected to seeing these characters's descent into hell up close & personal. Except they never are that profound, because I never related to any of them on anything more than a superficial level. As in, it was simply looking at desperate people in bad situations and thinking "Oh, that's horrible!" And combined with that was the feeling that the filmmakers were over my shoulder cackling & saying "Look how much we are torturing these people!"

I don't doubt for many this is a massively impactful film. But it's desperation to shock then becomes it's downfall.

This was one of those films which I first heard about through reading film magazines such as Empire. It was a small British film (which I love & are often better than anything Hollywood can produce,) which had played multiple festivals & received rave reviews from everyone who saw it. It then managed to be highly successful (given its budget,) at the box office, as well as winning multiple awards. When I finally saw it, I understood why, as it absolutely blew me away.

Johnny Saxby lives & works on a Yorkshire farm, owned by his parents. The hours are long & gruelling, with even more pressure put on him due to the fact that his father has suffered several strokes. Johnny is a wild & free spirit, who frequently drinks to excess, can be unreliable & difficult to be around. He is also gay & has many fleeting dalliances, but never anything more. Due to the level of work the farm needs, alongside his father's failing health, a Romanian man called Gheorghe is hired to help. As they start to work together, Johnny begins to fall in love with Gheorghe, although he will have to completely change his ways in order to keep them together.

Everything about this film is perfect, starting with the look of it. Shot on location on a real farm in Yorkshire (the 2 actors, once they signed on to the roles, had a 2 week bootcamp working on farms to gain a view into this unforgiving life,) everything about the film feels authentic, as well as beautifully shot. As a regular visitor to the North, I cannot think of another film which so beautifully captures the nature & weather of this magnificent part of the UK. You can almost feel the atmosphere of the farm, such as the warmth from the animals or the various smells.

The other element to the film which I really liked was the pointed refusal to make Johnny a simple character, in terms of showing his traits. Johnny is at times genuinely unlikable, difficult, abrasive & cold. But he is also someone who works incredibly hard & is also loyal to his family. One of the most devastating & powerful moments in this film comes during a scene helping his father, turning two simple words of gratitude into an emotional hammerblow.

Performance wise, every cast member is flawless. O'Connor, Secareanu, Hart & Jones literally are their characters, the actions they do & the lines on their faces telling a million stories without saying a single word. I also liked the fact that this was a very raw love story in terms of how it shows the love between the 2 men. This is a film full of honesty, whether in the representations of sex or the exhaustion of hard manual labour on a farm.

This film is beautiful, poetic & emotionally devastating. It stays with you long after the credits roll, as any incredible film does. Stunning work from all involved

Coming after Batman V Superman, which was itself a divisive & not particularly popular film, this looks at the evolution of Diana Prince from her roots on Themyscira through to her role as Wonder Woman. Mentioning Batman V Superman, Wonder Woman was absolutely one of the best elements of it, so I was looking forward to seeing what this film would do, especially seeing as it was directed by Patty Jenkins, who made the magnificent Monster, the story of Eileen Wuornos.

There are many good things about the film, starting with the cast. Gal Gadot is perfectly cast, as is Chris Pine as her love interest. The stunts are also good & Themyscira is brilliantly realised.

However, this film is also far too long, monotonous & lumpy in parts. There is also more than one occasion where Diana will scream about "saving the children," then jump into the center of a firefight, chastising those around her for not doing the same, whilst failing to show/making her not realise that she is the only one impervious to bullets...

Overall, a 3 star film which is perfectly passable, but not something I'd watch again.

From the makers of Trainspotting (who if you look closely there is a cheeky Easter Egg/reference to in one scene,) comes this film set at the turn of the millennium, just as computers, gaming & the promise of virtual reality were starting to gain traction.

Justine is a 17 year old virgin, who is frustrated at seeing her friends all either have carefree sex or be in relationships. Her best friend, a geeky guy called Chas, who also has a crush on her, takes her to a computer fair where she goes into a machine which then brings to life her idea of the perfect guy. We then follow Jake (her creation,) as he navigates the new world he has been brought into.

Whilst there are some inspired visual flourishes, along with some retro music that brings back memories of my childhood spent listening to the Pepsi chart with Dr Fox, this is actually a quite rudderless & meandering film. Any profound questions that are raised about expectations & navigating your way in the world as a young woman are only cursorily approached before being dismissed with statements about how much was spent on perfume being the reason why one character hasn't been successful with men.

There are also, and this is much more my humour, some unintentional funny moments which are not treated as such in the film; the main one being when the house of the parents of one of the characters gets half destroyed & there is basically no reaction from either of them...

When unintentional humour gets more of a laugh than most of the jokes, you know you're in trouble. An interesting look back at how things were 25 years ago, but nothing more than

After the incredible The Kingdom & Lone Survivor, Peter Berg & his go-to actor Mark Wahlberg once again went back to a real-world deeply traumatic incident; in this case, the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But this is far from a standard, schlocky & by-the-numbers docu-drama, transcending the genre & proving once again how incredible a talent Berg is.

The film follows Mike Williams, a real-life chief technician who worked on the Deepwater Horizon rig. As the film opens, there is massive pressure from the higher up management to start the drilling of the well, due to multiple delays. This extends to sending home early the safety team who should have tested key parts of the cement foundations of the well. After multiple disagreements with the management, the drilling starts but there is then a catastrophic failure & explosion, leading to one of the worst oil spills/natural disasters in history, as well as a desperate battle for the surviving crew on the rig.

For me, the main reason this film is a flat-out 5 star masterpiece is down to the preparation & research done on this film, which is then perfectly translated for us as the viewer. The filmmakers have here created a story with Paul Greengrass-levels of detail, guiding us flawlessly through the various processes & preparation of oil drilling, as well as making the people we meet feel genuinely real. There is nothing "forced" about anything you see on screen, like so many of these dramas have a habit of doing (effectively the writers/director going "Let's spend 3 minutes with some of the workers who will be in hell in a short while, to try & make the audience have a flicker of care for them.")

But if that last paragraph about detail puts you off, please don't let it. It is never boring, plus if you know anything about the barebones of the story (which you should do if you read the blurb before renting it,) then you actively want to know all this detail as the tension gradually gets ratcheted up. And an oil rig turns out to be an incredible place to place this level of tension. Every odd noise you hear, from a machine misfiring or the clunk of the drilling, makes you flinch & be on edge.

It also has to be said, in terms of production, just how well this film is shot & directed. After the success of Lone Survivor, Berg had a massive budget to play with, and every single penny is up there on screen: sets, stunts, colour palette, location, literally everything is like being on a functioning rig.

And finally, the performances are top-level as well. Wahlberg has really eased into his collaboration with Berg & his Mike Williams is a salt-of-the-earth decent & brave man, who finds himself thrown into the most horrific & traumatic situation imaginable, not forgotting that all the time he & his colleagues are also on top of a potential fireball. Kurt Russell is also outstanding, his character Mr Jimmy the other moral core at the heart of this film.

This is a towering triumph, combining all the essential elements of filmmaking, but perfectly translated to the screen. As a final note, if you are interested to find out more, especially about the battle to bring this film to screen, there are some excellent articles recounting this backstage drama.

When Toni Erdmann came out, it was pretty much the top film of every major reviewer that year. Then, pretty much consistently since, it is near the top of any list compiled of the greatest films ever made. I heard about the buzz but was never that interested, because of the description of the film. Finally, I added it to my list more out of curiosity than any actual interest.

I managed to get through about 2 thirds of of. There were a couple of funny visual jokes, hence the 2 stars, but as a film overall, it just didn't work; but more than that, it seems to revel in just being a movie that features cold abrasive characters who never really click.

I can't really get angry with it, like some of the other reviewers have, because I never was emotionally attached or even particularly interested in it. My mind just started to wander and then after dipping in & out, I switched it off.

For a clearly very large section of the media & film watching population, this film is many things to them. For me, it was pretty much a total waste of time. Unless you like lots of long shots of hotel rooms & concierges, plus the same sort of practical jokes endlessly repeated, there are much better comedies out there.

One of my all-time favourite films is Saving Private Ryan. Growing up, it was one of the primary things that fuelled my interest in WWII history, as well as having action scenes that had been shot in a way I'd never seen before. Still to this day, for many people, it is a seminal & incredible war film, which has almost never been equalled.

So when it was announced that Christopher Nolan was going to be making a WWII film, focussing on the Dunkirk evacuation, I was absolutely pumped for it. I adore Nolan's use of IMAX cameras, as well as his ability to craft incredible actions scenes around strong characters and plot. So everything was in place for another stunning film to add to the list of great war films.

However, despite my 4 star rating, in many ways I didn't enjoy this film, primarily because of the story/plot. That might sound like a moronic thing to say, but I'll explain why. We are given 3 different timelines, with 3 different protagonists, in the very loosest sense of the word. We then follow these characters as their stories interweave in the evacuation, with a soldier on the land, a captain on a ship/the sea & finally a pilot with a miniscule squadron as part of the RAF.

But none of these characters are anything more than ciphers. We never find out much about them, and the direct byproduct of that is that you start not to care or become invested in their plights. Now, at this point, there will be some who love the film who will come back saying "They are meant to be people who you barely know, so it feels as real as possible." But that to me is a cop-out. What I wanted was SOMETHING, ANYTHING to relate to & root for in these characters. And I know that Nolan can write incredible dialogue.

But this is one of those films where the spectacle is so stunning, the action so incredible & the production so monumental that I could largely overlook these issues, hence my 4 stars. I saw this at the BFI IMAX in 70mm film & it was like nothing I have ever experienced. Within the first 2 minutes, the sound just crushes you, whilst the imagery is seared onto your memory. The bombs hitting the boats, the scream of the Spitfire engines, the explosion of a plane crashing into the sea, all of it was almost undescribable in terms of impact.

Alongside this, Hans Zimmer's score is a work of art: screaming strings one minute, beautiful brass & warmth the next.

But I do need to finish by saying that only Nolan could make a film where I didn't like it that much, but at the same time it blew me away. Dunkirk is in many ways a miss-fire, but I defy you not to be stunned by it.

Doug Liman has, for me, been a mixed bag. The first films of his that I saw were not particularly enjoyable, as well as having a dour & grey colour palette, even when the locations were sunny. The Bourne Identity, whilst it absolutely was vital in getting the ball rolling & setting the series on its way to become an often brilliant espionage franchise, was often a grey & not particularly enjoyable affair. Then Mr & Mrs Smith was again a film which never really clicked for me that much. Pitt & Jolie never really had amazing chemistry & the traction/tabloid headlines the film got was for me as much about the romance the two stars had, resulting in the collapse of Pitt’s marriage, as any merit that the film had. 

But then Edge of Tomorrow came along, and it was a total & welcome change. Joining forces with Tom Cruise turned out to be a stroke of genius, their styles perfectly compensating each other. Edge of Tomorrow was light, fun, serious & silly all at the same time, whilst also showing another side of Cruise which hadn’t really been shown before: cowardly & being killed multiple times, not the usual Cruise schtick of unflappability with a permanent bright smile. After the success of that film, Cruise & Liman joined forces again, this time for one of those “Based on a true story, which is so crazy & far-fetched you wouldn’t believe it could happen.” And yet again they strike gold, this time in a very different way.

Barry Seal is a commercial airline pilot who becomes bored with his monotonous life & is then offered the chance by a shady CIA officer to run missions for the intelligence agency, for a healthy payday. Whilst on one of these missions, a drugs cartel makes him an offer he can’t refuse, transporting their drugs whilst he is flying under the cover of running CIA missions, for warehouse-size amounts of cash. However, whilst everything threatens to collapse in on itself, Seal manages to stay one step ahead of the game… 

The best thing about this film is just how damn funny & enjoyable it is. As in, it is so silly, so stupid & so crazy that you most of the time have a great big smile plastered across your face. For me, it recalled the best of the Roger Moore Bond films, where he literally is saying to you as the audience “I’m having a whale of a time. Come and enjoy it with me!” Cruise is a fascinating & great actor to be with in these scenes, really bringing you along. 

But I also want to draw attention to the stunts, in particular the flying scenes. For most people who watch a lot of films, particularly Cruise’s films, they are aware of his insistence to do his own stunts. In this film, he does ALL his own flying. And the zenith of this is a scene where he put the plane he is flying on autopilot & then gets out of his seat & starts to make the drug drops. In that scene, as the camera flies alongside him, there is no digital trickery or another pilot who has been CG’d out. That actually was done exactly as you see it. And that is the theme throughout this whole film, using practical stunts & effects. 

The script is full of zesty & well-written dialogue, as well as really making us care about the characters, even as they become ever more immoral. The ending is also perfectly landed, not squandering the goodwill that it has built up over the 2 hours we spend with these characters.

A really enjoyable & gripping romp.

Oh Ridley Scott... When you're average, your work is indistinguishable from many other directors today, all fighting for people's attention (obviously I'm not including cinematography, sets ect; I'm talking the overall watching experience.) But when you're brilliant, there is almost no-one who can touch you, so high do you shoot into the stratosphere. For every Napoleon or Last Duel which is average, there is The Counsellor, Alien, American Gangster or Martian to provide a masterclass in sheer pleasure. And for this film, despite the controversy around it's production, this deservedly takes its place within the pantheon of Scott's finest.

The controversy I speak of was the original casting of Kevin Spacey as John Paul Getty III. After multiple accusations of sexual assault by Spacey (all since overturned, it is important to state,) Spacey was fired from the film & in a feat of organisational brilliance, Scott reshot every one of the scenes originally starring Spacey with Christopher Plummer, who was brought in at the last moment. The fact alone that Scott was able to pull that off, considering all the bureaucracy & working around people's schedules, is so difficult to do it's an achievement in itself.

But the reason I reference all of the above is quite simple: before anyone had seen a frame of it, the film was already tarred with the dreaded "production issues" brush, potentially meaning that for most people, it wouldn't be a good film/it would simply be another film known for a tortured path to release. But this film is absolutely bloody brilliant, in every way, shape & form.

All the money in the world (ATMITW) looks at the kidnapping of the grandson of Getty, who was at that time one of the wealthiest men in the entire world. Getty was also one of the most stubborn & shrewd businessmen and refused in any way to meet the demands of the kidnappers. Part of the reason, which as much as it's horrible to say, doesn't mean it isn't true, is that if he paid that ransom, it would give a green light to anyone to kidnap another member of his family. His mother Gail then has to effectively negotiate with the kidnappers, in a tense cat-and-mouse game, with the help of Wahlberg's Fletcher Chase, to free her son.

The film is unbearably tense, with a script that literally keeps you on the edge of your seat. The sets, cinematography, costumers, locations; literally everything is perfect. This film is also notable for the against-type casting of actors. Wahlberg, for example, never touches a gun or breaks out into violence, constantly being a steely presence, whilst everything around him threatens to collapse at any moment. But the real shock is Plummer. Known mainly for his family-friendly & gentle characters, here he is a cold-hearted, unsympathetic & ruthless man who may show some concerns about the taking of his grandson, but treats it almost like another business transaction.

The film, the whole way through, never drops the ball once. And when it finishes, I just sat back & said "Wow..." Both myself & my best friend loved it & it really is incredible, a stunning achievement in every way.

Ridley, when you make films like this, no-one can touch you...

Another incredible restoration, this time expertly done by the BFI for 4K Blu-ray.

The Proposition is set in Australia & tells the story of a ruthless gang, The Burns gang, and whose estranged members Charlie & Mikey are captured by burnt-out and emotionally extinguished Captain Stanley. Stanley is desperate to catch the psychotic leader Arthur Burns, who among many heinous acts oversaw the rape, murder & mutilation of a family, including the pregnant wife. As Arthur is feared & untouchable in many ways, Stanley offers Charlie a deal: he & his brother Mikey (who is extremely developmentally challenged/childlike) will be pardoned if Charlie kills & brings back Arthur to Stanley. However, this deal causes outrage amongst the Outback community that Stanley serves and sets in motion a series of brutal and bloody events...

When I first watched this film in 2006, I was much younger & didn't relate to it that much, despite being gripped at times. Now, 18 years later, it's impact is like a sledgehammer. Front & center is the look of the film: shot on location in the Outback, every sunset bathes your eyes in stunning colour, before being followed by heat that is so horrific & oppressive, you almost start to sweat. The cinematography here is masterful & on its own another character in the story.

Much attention & praise has also been given to the huge care & authenticity of the depiction of Australian/indigenous Aboriginals. The other cast are also superb, not one performance not ringing true. Winstone in particular, much in the same way as in Sexy Beast, totally subverts the archetypical caricature of how he is mostly seen. Morris Stanley looks like a man who is on the verge of either a total breakdown or heatstroke: an ex-serviceman whose humanity was destroyed on the battlefield & then whose soul was roasted to a crisp Down Under. Guy Pearce is also incredible as the man who knows he is a monster & tries everything to repay some of the debt he has built up over years of criminality & violence.

And finally, the story itself is great. And one of the main reasons for this is quite simple: there is not an ounce of fat on this film. It is a fantastically directed, tight & perfectly paced film. And welcomingly, it doesn't mess up the ending or give any easy answers. The world those characters exist in is a violent, dangerous & brutal one, where innocence is lost & life is grindingly difficult.

A gripping watch

Lars Von Trier is a man known for provocativeness & controversy. Whilst his films have often been revered for their stories & ingenuity, he is also infamous for multiple things, particularly the content of his films which includes graphic sexuality & brutal violence, to name just 2. This review is of the Director's cut, which is significantly different in tone, but not currently available for rent by Cinema Paradiso, though I hope it will be added soon.

The other thing which sets Nymphomaniac apart from pretty much any other film, especially one to star A-list actors, is the graphic & real sex which is shown. But this is also a great strength of the film to me for one reason, which was well-publicised on release: the real sex is done by porn actors, then the actor's faces CG'd onto them. Whilst this sounds silly, it really works & the CGI is perfectly done. And this totally destroys any controversy of the actors themselves doing it, instead allowing the viewer to completely accept this element of the film, which perfectly compliments the story.

Nymphomaniac is a film which is in many ways a classic Von Trier work, starting with the title. It was announced at Cannes & Charlotte Gainsbourg, who Von Trier referenced & was sat next to him, thought it was a joke. But it is a epic saga, following the life of a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac called Joe. The difference here is that the protagonist is a woman & the film delights at repeatedly challenging the stereotypes & judgements that the viewers have, particularly the notion that only a man can be a sex addict/this isn't something which women do.

The 1st chapter is great in terms of performances & script. Alongside Von Trier's trusted & multiple collaborators Stellan Skarsgård & Charlotte Gainsbourg, we have an incredible debut from Stacy Martin, playing the younger Joe. Martin is sensational & absolutely the best part of this film. She is everything you could want from the leading character & is so good that she completely eclipses Gainsbourg, who to be honest I didn't like that much in terms of performance.

There are also some wonderful cameos, the standout being Uma Thurman as a completely crackers & vengeful scorned wife, Mrs H. The 15 minutes, including an excruciatingly awkward cup of tea with the husband who dumped her 10 minutes before, their children, plus another lover of Joe's, is both wince-inducing & hysterical. Christian Slater also is profound as Joe's beloved father, who was the bedrock of her early life.

Whilst it is long, it is also excellent, although sadly things go downhill in Volume 2.

Concluding the epic film odyssey from Lars Von Trier, following the journey of a female nymphomaniac called Joe, sadly this is a bloated & often not particularly good conclusion, despite some excellent individual moments.

After the brilliance of Vol. 1, we follow Joe into adulthood. She has, right at the end of the previous film, lost the ability to feel any sexual pleasure, which then sends her on a spiral downwards. We also, from about 40 minutes in, transition from Stacy Martin to Charlotte Gainsbourg as Joe. And this for me is this film's biggest issue. In Vol. 1, we jumped back & forward in time, seeing both Gainsbourg & Martin as the different versions of Joe, which worked really well.

However, once Gainsbourg is solely on screen, the film becomes really cold & also brittle. By that, I mean that I genuinely didn't like Gainsbourg's performance when it is not offset by Martin's. Gainsbourg is an actor who never makes you that happy to be in her company, exuding a real narcissism & abrasiveness, combined with a line delivery that makes it sound like she is constantly lecturing you as the viewer, not welcoming you in to the story which in the first part, I really enjoyed.

There is also, whilst I appreciate that this is Von Trier deliberately being provocative & button-pushing, a couple of extremely repulsive & verging on dispicible actions/decisions by the adult Joe which the film shows, then attempts to reason away by critiquing the society we live in. There is no society in the world that would do anything other than condemn the actions of Joe as a parent putting her infant son at risk whilst she went out to get sexually pleasured. And the fact that this attempted justification is delivered by Gainsbourg with a face that looks like a smacked arse & a tone of voice that says "How dare you pass judgement on me!!" is just vomit-inducing. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, those type of actions are the lowest of the low.

As the film draws to its conclusion, we do get some warmth in the shape of Joe's relationship with P, again a fantastic debut from Mia Goth. Willem Defoe also appears, after his starting role in Von Trier's previous film Antichrist, although he gets away far more lightly in this film. Finally, Jamie Bell is also great, as the punishment-obssesed sadist K. In a departure from his normal roles, he plays K as a Northern-accented, quiet psychopath, who looks more like someone who would visit your house & change your boiler rather than a person who straps you to a sofa & beats you until you are hideously disfigured.

The ending is unexpected but also well-handled, plus there is a final, excellent joke which is the best line of the whole 2 films. It's just a shame that after an excellent start, the film becomes too long & weighed down by its own righteousness & self-importance, leaving you ultimately unsatisfied, which is ironic for a film which is ultimately concerned with climaxing...