Film Reviews by TB

A film of incredible nuance, delicate but devastatingly powerful performances & a magnificent script.

Casey Affleck stars as Lee Chandler, a man completely broken by grief, who lives the most low-profile existence imaginable: aside from his job as a building complex handyman (where he often gets into arguments with the more difficult residents,) he spends his days alone and/or drinking to numb his trauma. He then gets a call out of the blue, informing him that his beloved brother Joe has died & has left Lee to raise Joe's son Patrick. Lee then has to return to Manchester by the Sea, where he is a pariah & outcast, to try & raise Patrick.

I won't say too much more about the story, as the less you know, the more you get out of it. All I will say is that when it comes to performances & script, this is up there with the best I've ever seen. Casey Affleck is phenomenal & richly deserved his Oscar, as is Michelle Williams. The standout sequence, when the two of them meet for the first time in years, is completely heartbreaking & flawlessly performed. Lucas Hedges is also deeply moving, as a young man trying to process his grief & a new father figure.

But don't be put off by the melancholic sounding tone: there is plenty of humour to be found here, with many laugh out loud moments. The locations (this film was partially shot in the titular town) are stunning.

This film will do many things to you: make you laugh, cry & be profoundly moved. It is also one of the best films of 2016

Whilst it has one of the most provocative & image-baiting titles you could possibly create, especially in 1974, this is actually fairly light on gore, instead going all in for mental terror & shock. Creating the set-up that has since been copied a million times (group of carefree & fairly clueless young adults on a road trip, being taken off course & then terrorised by a demonic creature,) it then proceeds to slowly kill off the group one by one in ever more horrific ways.

It is also an unashamedly low-budget film in every sense, almost revelling in this whilst also full of highly inventive camera work & staging.

However, for me, in the middle part, I just couldn't take it seriously and spent a good section of it laughing out loud. The first time we see Leatherface, it is meant to be this horrific reveal & searing onto our brains this unrestrained evil... He jumps out of the shadows, kills one of the group, drags him into a room then slams the door with a roar like Harry Enfield's character Kevin. And from there I just couldn't stop laughing.

The scenes of him then pursuing one of the women in a protracted chase sequence, consisting of an out-of-shape actor holding a blatantly fake prop with a smoke machine attached to it & finished with some massively over-the-top sound effects alongside the obligatory grunting, is one of the funniest things I've ever seen in a film. I just couldn't take it in any way seriously.

But the end scenes, particularly the dinner scene, are extremely unpleasant & nasty, bringing us firmly back into horror territory. The ending is also well done as well, really keeping us on the edge of our seats.

As much as this wasn't for me a scary horror film, I did really enjoy it in parts and it absolutely is memorable. And for the squeamish readers of this, despite the relentlessly nasty tone & atmosphere, there is amusingly very little actual violence.

Baz Luhrmann is truly cinematic marmite. His style, which is never boring & extremely distinctive, has as many admirers as it does detractors. My own view of him is equally as mixed: Moulin Rouge is a flat-out masterpiece, pretty much perfect & completely brilliant in terms of its execution & look, as well as it's musical numbers/wild experimentation of musical styles; William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet is another great film, although I did feel that it was a little overlong & frequently meandering; then finally The Great Gatsby which was actually fairly unwatchable & I gave up on, despite the pedigree casting.

But when I heard he was directing an Elvis biopic, I was actually quite excited, as this sounded like the perfect project for Luhrmann to put his stamp on: one of the most influential, larger than life entertainers the world has ever seen, who's influence not only affected music but even subjects as controversial as politics & race. Also, the massive back catalogue of Presley's music would be rich pickings for Luhrmann. But this is another big misfire in so many ways.

However, it cannot be overstated just how incredible Austin Butler is as Presley. This is a chameleonic, Daniel Day-Lewis level performance, with not one element ever feeling forced or even acted. Especially towards the end, when footage of the real Presley is spliced in with Butler's performance, you realise the masterclass in acting that you are witnessing. If Butler continues on this trajectory, we are in the presence of the next De Niro or Ledger.

But the sheer power of his performance is a completely double edged sword: Butler is so good, so perfect & so flawless, the rest of the film and especially it's shortcomings are just completely exposed. And where to begin with them.

For a start, this film is far, far too long; an obscenely bloated & never-ending slogfest. At one point I paused it to use the facilities, thinking that it was relatively near to the end: it still had over 50 minutes left & I was half-tempted to turn it off. Also, as a film it is really poorly written. Our "guide" through this movie is Colonel Tom Parker, Presley's manager & the source of significant controversy, due to multiple allegations of his exploiting & mismanaging Presley/his vast fortune. The film for the lion's share of it almost seems to be a way to try to rehabilitate his reputation, although it must be noted that later on this pretense is dropped.

But Parker is shown as such an extreme caricature that you never enjoy his company & he starts to affect the viewing. I can see why Hanks was cast, to try & make him in some way likeable, but not even he can turn this ship around.

And finally, for me, as much as lots of ground is covered in terms of events in Presley's life, not much sticks. If you asked me now to name the most impactful moment of Elvis's life from this film, I'd struggle to pick one that really resonated, despite many of them that were thrown on screen.

Some people will absolutely love this film, whether for the large amount of musical experimentation, or the huge budget being used to incredible affect in realising the world that Elvis existed in (and to be clear, the film visually is stunning, which is a given for a Luhrmann picture.) But I just didn't connect with it really at all, which is a shame given my love for Moulin Rouge.

See it for Butler but not much else.

One of Christopher Nolan's favourite films is 2001: A Space Odyssey. He is also on record as talking about how impactful the moon landings/NASA space missions were to him as a young man. His tribute to this is an often jaw-dropping & incredibly filmed visual feast with amazing performances, which then totally loses its way in the last 20 minutes.

The film is set in a world where the planet is dying. Harvests are failing, the human race is genuinely under threat & there is the constant threat of chaos/the breakdown of order. Cooper is a spit-and-sawdust Texan who was an astronaut for many years until he left following a near-fatal space mission that went wrong. He now works as a farmer, along with most of the population around him, desperately trying to exist whilst the atmosphere/ecosystem collapses due to blight. He is then recruited to lead a mission to search for other habitable planets in different solar systems.

The music, acting & general story are all excellent & powerful. Matthew McConaughey, in his first film released after winning his Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club, is a fantastic protagonist: we really root for & become extremely emotionally involved with Cooper's story arc, as well as his love for his children. The IMAX/70MM film segments are stunning, especially in the 4K UHD Blu-ray version. Hans Zimmer's score is also flawless, particularly his use of the organ.

However, the ending of this film is so stupid, so idiotic & far-fetched, that it threatens to derail the whole experience. And to be clear, I fully appreciate that the film has been scientifically researched & the series of events COULD happen. But that doesn't mean that it is likely to, or that this potential in any way makes the events any more realistic. It is just stupid.

But so much good stuff comes before it that I still love it overall & simply turn the film off before it veers into crazy territory. I would advise you to watch it all the way through once, then copy what I do. Far more enjoyment will come from it for you.

When Normal People was first shown, it was reported as being a cultural zeitgeist. Showered with awards & praise for the different elements (realistic depictions of teenage mental health, sex & the struggles young people face when they go out into the world,) it was something I was aware of, but had no real interest in seeing at that time. But when it popped up on my recommendations, as well as the fact that, in particular, Paul Mescal has now become a hugely revered actor, I rented it. But much like The Responder, another massively revered TV drama, it was quite middle of the road for me.

There are many excellent moments, such as the performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones & Mescal have excellent chemistry, as well as an easy working relationship, in terms of how clearly they trust each other. The other characters, particularly Connor's Mother, are also well written & provide an important balance to the emotion and drama. The locations are also stunning, particularly the beach scenes, showing how beautiful a place Northern Ireland is.

There are also some extremely powerful moments, particularly in the representation of mental illness. One episode, which I won't detail too much/spoil, shows a significant mental health breakdown with honesty, compassion, care & incredible acting. The decision to clearly show the enormous positives that happen by seeking out professional support is vital & hugely welcome for a mainstream series. In this respect, Normal People is to be rightly lauded & hugely praised.

So why the 3 stars, given all I've just said?

Quite simply, there are many elements which just didn't "work" in the sense of the narrative & content. The sex scenes for example, which a huge amount was written about, especially the use of an "intimacy coordinator," were both well-shot but also quite unrealistic, which you factor in how the entire series is supposed to be about depicting as real a relationship as possible between two young people. In Normal People's world, its mostly extremely vanilla with the same couple of acts, but then to really "push out the boat," we get a vague attempt to show more risqué intimacy, which again doesn't work within the context.

With characters, there are also some fairly unrealistic people as well. One guy in particular, considering the nuance & brilliant writing of the main leads, is just depicted as an out-and-out arsehole with no redeemable story arc, mainly to me because the opinions he has the writers didn't like, but had to embellish more so that he could be depicted as some reprehensible figure. Marianne's family also don't get much depth either, particularly the older brother, who again is just a ball of rage & bile.

There was absolutely some monumentally moving scenes, which were deeply affecting, but for me overall the series was just too bitty & uneven. I would still recommend it, but it never reached the grand heights it set itself.

After the incredible Starred Up, plus some memorable other performances in dramas (Dive & Harry Brown in particular,) I was always looking out for anything Jack O'Connell was in. And when I saw the premise of & look of this film, I immediately was interested in seeing it. A relatively recent conflict, a strong cast and from the trailer/synopsis, a chase film, made me think this would be a home run. But even though it was many years ago that I watched this film, I still have the same overriding feeling about it: a waste of incredible potential.

All the right ingredients are there, but it just doesn't have the impact that it should have. And the main problem was that I never related to or felt particularly moved by the protagonist Gary Hook. The film allows us the stereotypical early scenes of trying to establish a backstory of sorts, but this is almost blink & you'll miss it. If this is a character I'm going to be spending 90 minutes with, I want to relate to them and be so engrossed with their story that I am on the edge of my seat. But Hook is in many respects never more than just an average grunt who is put into an exceptional situation.

And what makes this more frustrating is that firstly O'Connell does the absolute best he can with the weak material he is given, but also when the script is good, he shines. But I never felt enough to care about his plight that much. I WANTED to care about it, and a couple of times I felt like the film was getting into gear, but it then just fell flat.

There are however some good moments. The initial chase sequence is expertly shot & Sean Harris as the undercover commander is excellent as always. The colour palette is also great, as are the locations.

But I wanted so much more. I feel that another viewing may change my opinion, plus I was watching it with a friend who really enjoyed it. However, it was never anything more than average for me.

I loved this film. Loved it, adored it, revered it. And the reason why is very simple: it is a film which shows the horrors of racism in 1960’s Deep South, but not by bashing its viewer over the head with many stark & horrific images. To be clear, and to scotch any bad faith criticism, I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that there should be no films made showing the horrors of racism. There have been countless stories told which show this, in amongst them some incredible ones like Selma, American History X & Detroit. My point is that the reason why Green Book was so impactful for me, in a different way, was because we have 2 characters who actually feel like real people, who we can relate to.

And because there is a lightness of touch and humour, this makes the scenes of racism much more horrific & impactful. The 2 star Cinema Paradiso review to me has been written in completely bad faith, it’s author already deciding how this film is to him, viewing it through his own ideological lens and not actually being prepared to enjoy the world that has been created, mainly due to the fact that this film doesn’t repeatedly keep screaming “RACISM IS BAD!” every 2 minutes. 

For me, the performances are what makes this film so amazing. As Tony Lip, Viggo is perfection: a larger than life, full-blooded Italian wild-heart, who absolutely has his own bigotries and trauma. But he is a real go-getter as a person, lighting up every room with his personality as well as his incredible warmth. And matching him toe-to-toe is Ali as Don Shirley. He is a man deeply traumatised & scarred by the racism, oppression & threats that have followed him from the moment he was born. He is also a man of stratospheric talent, whose gift of music is totally opposite to his insular, confrontational behaviour, borne out of the life he has had to lead in every respect. 

Whilst there are the standard road-trip tropes, these beautifully compliment the story, the two of them really starting to bond. And the ending is also one which, whilst heartwarming, is in no way a cop-out. The impact the two men have on each other's lives really is profound. Direction-wise, this is light touch & allows the actors to act, with lovely cinematography as well.

Finally, there is one other falsehood which received plenty of media coverage & in light of the Cinema Paradiso review, I want to ensure is corrected: members of Don Shirley’s family were extremely vocal in their criticism of the fact that they were not consulted/allowed their input to the film’s story. The reason for this, which wasn’t reported in anything like the same volume, is that Don Shirley himself, who told his life story to the scriptwriter as well as Tony Lip’s son, was estranged from all of his family. He further specifically told the writers not to talk to anyone about him. Whilst there was some regret from Ali about not speaking to the remaining Shirley family, this wasn’t a deliberate act. 

After the Bourne Supremacy I, like many other people, had an anticipation/expectation reaching into the stratosphere of what Ultimatum would do & if it would be able to both maintain the current incredible story quality as well as improving on it & subsequently the Jason Bourne universe. And when I first watched it in the cinema, I came away massively disappointed. It wasn’t the film I was expecting, but also there was another big reason for my dislike: I had read an interview leading upto the film’s release with the director Paul Greengrass, where he absolutely laid into & excoriated the Bond film series.

This sat badly with me for 2 reasons: firstly, there is no doubt that the existence of the 007 franchise, whatever its shortcomings, laid the groundwork for espionage films such as Bourne to be successful & actively interesting to the public; secondly, I am a huge Bond fan, again accepting that there have been a few times over the years where, yes, the films lost their way. So this didn’t sit well with me.

But then, after watching the film, another reason emerged which eclipsed the previous 2 & also was unbelievable rank hypocrisy: Ultimatum lifted wholesale various sequences from previous Bond films, the most glaring one being the Tangier action sequence, which is practically identical to The Living Daylights. And the action sequences themselves are also quite badly shot. The shaky cam & editing, (whilst not a patch on Green Zone, still the worst Greengrass film by some wide margin,) is still terrible & showed the rot was starting to set in. 

Another of Ultimatum’s big issues is the story itself. There are some completely unbelievable & also ludicrously stupid events shown, such as at one point Bourne casually strolling into & having no difficulty gaining access to a deep-cover CIA building. I also hated the final car chase through NYC, which was frantically cut & edited due to the fact that the vehicles were not travelling fast (whilst this was due to location restrictions imposed by the government forbidding cars driving fast, its doesn’t matter how much you manipulate the film, a car going 30MPH cannot be made to look faster.)

So why 4 stars? Quite simply, because on rewatching this many years later, it is a much better film. All the issues above remain & if I’d been reviewing this after I first saw it, the most I’d have given it would be 3 stars, but that would be pushing it. But this film also has many great parts, not least the opening which picks up beautifully from the end of Supremacy, and the end which references the 1st film’s most poignant moment. Despite the plagiarism, the Tangier sequence also has some incredible stunt work, as does the fight sequence against agent Desh.

The cast are also amazing, my favourite being Pamela Landy, Joan Allen really raising the standard of everyone around her. David Strathairn was also great as Noah Vosen, as well as Scott Glenn as Ezra Kramer. And leading all of this is Matt Damon as Bourne. Despite this film’s issues, he is a brilliant protagonist & a fully believable action star. There is no doubt to me that Bourne would not be able to be played by anyone else. 

So whilst this is a convoluted mess, it is also a good film & one I do recommend, although obviously with caveats. 

I rented this purely because it was directed by Gavin O'Connor who, after Pride & Glory and Warrior, basically gets a free pass for life. Whilst he has also directed some rather poor films (Jane Got A Gun being one, although that film's production troubles are legendary & O'Connor was parachuted in at the last moment, so I doubt even the greatest director in the world could have turned that around,) I remained hopeful that because of the cast, this film could be good.

But this film is quite simply boring. Dull, long, meandering & uninteresting. I couldn't relate to it in any way, didn't care about it and switched it off after 40 minutes.

So why the 2 stars & not 1? Because I give this film one massive piece of credit & respect: the main character is autistic & the director/production went to enormous lengths to not only accurately show the trauma/impact of serious autism, but also to not in any way use it as a easy shorthand/exploit it as a convenient story angle to leverage sympathy or false compassion.

That is so rare in films made then that, despite not being interested in the script or story, I give it that massive piece of credit.

It's still rubbish though...

The opening action sequence/set piece of Flight is breathtaking. As in, a momental, staggering & technically flawless piece of filmmaking. Over the course of 30 minutes, we watch the perfect build-up to what then becomes the most realistic, real-time plane crash in cinematic history (there may be other sequences before this film, but nothing which I believe would be on the same level.)

However, after this monumental opening, the rest of the film, dealing with the court case/investigation, just cannot keep up & hold our interest. The sub-plot involving Kelly Reilly, who is an incredible actress, may have been written with the best intentions, but just feels shoe-horned in to try & give Washington's burnt-out & world-weary pilot a moral core. Plus, the inclusion of John Goodman as a Big Lebowski-type character for comic relief again jars, despite some very good lines.

Watch it for the opening, but your interest will probably start to wane as the film progresses.

Underdog sports films are one of the most prevalent & popular genres in movies. And there are of course many different spins on this theme. Champions, a remake of a Spanish film, uses the Special Olympics & disability as a way to take a fresh look at the genre. Sadly, despite some excellent actors & clearly huge amounts of heart from the filmmakers, this is never more than a surface-level look at the particular scenario & the attitudes towards disabled people in general.

The absolute best thing about this film is the complete lack of any sentimentality or patronising towards people with disabilities. So instead of cardboard cutout characters, with lashing of Hollywood patronising, instead we are shown very real & complex people who also have a wicked sense of humour.

The different characters are shown as individuals who also hold down jobs & are incredibly skilled at what they are able to do, once again directly posing the question/challenge to those who feel that these individuals cannot do anything apart from forever be dependent & isolated; the actual question should be "Why are more opportunities not being created which, with some amending & accomodation for their needs, ensures they become fulfilled as well as highly loyal employees?"

But despite all of the good elements of the film, for me it was never more than 3 stars, quite simply because it is never more than surface level in terms of story. Unlike The Peanut Butter Falcon, which had a sensational & beautiful story behind it, full of depth, this film focuses on Harrelson's redemption. Whilst that is absolutely fine to show that, as well as Harrelson being great in the role, I wanted the film equally to find something to do with the many brilliant actors apart from only relatively small bit roles.

There is of course much to enjoy here & I absolutely recommend watching this film. I just wanted it to be so much more than it ends up being.

After the huge success of The Hurt Locker & Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow again looked to real-life events for inspiration for her next film. This is about the Algiers Motel incident which occured during race riots in Detroit, looking at the police's response to & subsequent fallout from it.

I am not going to give a comprehensive breakdown of the story, as the less you know, the more you get out of it. The cast themselves are excellent, in particular Will Poulter as the commander of the officers who has poison and evil running through every fibre of his being. Boyega is also great as the black outsider desperately trying to de-escalte the horrific & tinderbox situation, which threatens to explode at any moment.

Be warned: this is an extremely unpleasant & difficult watch, but a gripping film.

The pairing of Marion Cotillard & Brad Pitt should be in many ways a match made in heaven. And with Robert Zemeckis on directing duties, there was much to be excited about. However, this at times boring & underdeveloped film was only ever moderately entertaining, despite some inspirational flourishes.

Pitt and Cotillard star as Max Vatan (a Canadian spy,) and Marianne Beauséjour (a French resistance officer.) They are placed together as cover for an operation but quickly fall in love & then plan to live together. However, suspicion starts to fall on Marianne & Max must prove his new love's innocence in the face of suspicion & the threat of both of them being executed.

As much as this film clearly has been made with a lot of love & care, it is only sporadically successful, mainly in its technical aspects. As a couple, Pitt & Cotillard's chemistry is mostly dreadful. I have never been a fan of Cotillard's & again here she seems to have been brought in for her sultry French beauty & not much else. This is a role which should have been given to someone like Audrey Tatou, who could have done wonders with it.

In fact, the overwhelming emotion I got from watching this was blandness. I sat through to the end, mainly to see if the time I had put into watching it was worth it (it wasn't really, despite some unexpected twists,) but there was just about enough to give it 3 stars. Just don't expect to remember anything about it the moment it finishes.

After watching & loving The Brave One, I was interested to see more of Neil Jordan's work. And when researching his filmography, there is one movie which immediately jumps out, due not only to it's success including multiple award nominations/wins, but the continued firestorm of controversy that still surrounds it. After watching it, whilst I can see why some people reacted to it with shock, it is much more than the lurid headlines.

Fergus is an IRA volunteer who is part of a group who kidnaps Jody, a British soldier, to attempt to force the government to release a member of the IRA, saying they will kill him unless their demands are met. Whilst the other members are hostile & violent, Fergus forms a bond with Jody. When it is clear Jody is going to be killed, he makes Fergus promise to go to London, find his wife Dil and tell her how much he (Jody) loved her. After the hostage situation goes awry, Fergus deserts the IRA & moves to England. However, when he meets Dil, he finds himself in an unbelievably complex situation challenging everything he thought he knew about himself.

In terms of acting, Rea is amazing. A highly accomplished theatre actor who had worked extensively before & after this film with Neil Jordan, he is excellent. The conflict & internal torment that Fergus feels is etched all over Rea's face, whether in his loyalty to the IRA, his own beliefs or his falling-in-love with the wife of the man he was partly responsible for the death of.

Forrest Whittaker is also great, having to in 20 minutes make the sort of profound impact that sustains the story for its hour 40 runtime. And rounding this all off is Jaye Davidson as Dil. This is by far the most difficult role to play, as it requires unbelievable levels of nuance & ability. And for the most part, Davidson is outstanding, really making us believe & feel intense pity & compassion for a deeply conflicted person.

However, despite the 4 stars (and make no mistake, I really enjoyed this film & it's willingness to go to places which in the 90's were completely ignored by the film industry,) there are some issues which occasionally can distract from the story. For example, as much as Davidson is great, there are a couple of scenes where the performance suddenly goes from amazing to wooden & leaden, especially the delivery of lines. And this is quite jarring, like it was being read from the script, seeing as most of the time the acting is amazing.

Also, despite there being valid reasons for this (when you watch the special features & know the film's history of trying to get made/funding, it's staggering it managed to even get off the ground,) the film as a whole doesn't look particularly good. The sets, even when factoring in the micro-budget, look terrible & tacky, like the cast-offs from another low-budget film. Dil's flat makes Withnail & Marwood's flat look like the Ritz. The cinematography is also often more distracting than mesmerising; I think the look they were aiming for was a kind of dream-like smokey atmosphere, but this often just looked like the film stock wasn't processed correctly. This film is crying out for a 4K remaster.

But I did enjoy it. It is very well written, not just wanting to provoke & shock; it deals with big, weighty subjects without judgement (sexuality, belonging, indoctrination, freedom) and finally, really has a good ending. Definitely worth a watch.

Films which deal with sexuality & religion, highlighting the tension and animosity, as well as often the need for any such same-sex attraction to be kept secret, have been produced for decades. They follow mainly the same storyline, with a few changes here and there.

You Can Live Forever follows this well-trodden path, but does have some positives that do elevate it above the standard clichéd mess. It is well-shot & the rural locations in the Canadian countryside are used to striking effect; the story itself is tightly written & edited, mercifully not overstaying it's welcome; but most of all, the performances from the two leads.

Like Disobedience (another excellent film looking at two women who fall in love within the confines of an extremely strict religious environment,) the two actors cast have great chemistry. They also clearly enjoyed working together, not only from the chemistry on screen but also the bloopers on the special features. Welcomingly, the film allows them time not only to be shown bonding but also being intimate together, in the sense that rather than showing the start of intimacy then cutting away, the film allows the love they have to be shown & evolve, which then makes it more believable.

An average film still worth a watch if you have a spare 90 minutes & don't want anything particularly challenging.