Film Reviews by TB

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.

A film which attempts to send up & satirise the fluffy, soapy films of Rock Hudson & Doris Day, which were known as "no-sex" comedies. Despite the efforts of the cast & also the production values, it hits as much as it misses sadly.

Barbara Novak is a novelist who comes to 1962 New York to sell her book Down with Love, which promotes female emancipation & women not needing men/rejecting relationships. She then hears about Catcher Block, a high-profile writer & known lothario. The two then begin a cat-and-mouse game to try & outwit/one-up each other, whilst trying not to fall in love.

The film very clearly has a particular style & is actively made to send-up & satirise a certain genre of films as well as a certain period in time. But, for me, as much as I loved the look of the film as well as the excellent chemistry & playing-off between McGregor & Zellweger, the rest of it was very hit-and-miss.

As someone who hasn't seen any of the movies this film is satirising, a lot of the jokes didn't land/scenarios didn't make sense (which is also given as the reason why the film financially bombed & only had average reviews.) As a film on its own, there was enough to make watching it relatively OK, but the honest answer was that this film wasn't made for someone like me.

If you are someone who has seen a lot of these films or is of a certain age, there will be massive amounts to enjoy. But as much as it is an unusual watch, it was wasted on me.

After Spotlight, the incredible film about the exposing of the horrific & dispicible crimes of thousands of Catholic priests all over the world, pretty much every investigative film involving the evolution of a story which launches a seismic change across the globe is compared to that film, so profound it's influence still is. Into this genre comes She Said, looking at the work of 2 New York Times journalists exposing the disgusting behaviour of Harvey Weinstein, as well as unpicking the enormously well-funded & highly intimidating machine of client journalists/lawyers he surrounded himself with.

The film takes place inside both the corridors of the actual New York Times building, as well as all over the world, as the journalists chase down leads & convince terrified & emotionally broken women to recount their experiences, as well as speaking to the men who enabled Weinstein and his behaviour, turning a blind eye & being paid handsomely for this convenient "loss of sight."

One element which is both highly distressing & hugely impactful is the playing of the actual recording of Weinstein intimidating & attempting to again sexually assault an actress who he had groped previously and was wearing a police wire.

As Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor, Carey Mulligan & Zoe Kazan are great. Both highly skilled actresses with incredible presence, they embody the role of their characters. The film also welcomingly shows their lives outside of the investigation, including a profoundly moving look at the effects of postpartum depression suffered by Twohey.

However, this film has one incredible scene between Kazan & Samantha Morton, who plays a real-life woman called Zelda Perkins, who confronted Weinstein after he raped her colleague. As someone who saw the interview at the time with Perkins (type in Zelda Perkins newsnight interview into YouTube,) Morton's performance is so accurate, you would think you were watching the actual woman. I'm talking a Daniel Day-Lewis level of performance. It is masterful.

You are left in awe at the level of journalism & tenacity it took to bring Weinstein's crimes to light, and this film ably & compassionately tells this story.

A difficult but excellent watch.

This film, judging by the enormously divisive response to it, can be taken one of two ways: it is either a provocative & scarily effective horror film about the totally out-of-control youth who have no moral limits & taking heavy inspiration from Lord of the Flies; or a disgusting representation of the working classes, looking like the closest thing possible to a Daily Mail reader's view of the state of Britain in 2008, as well as talking inspiration from real-life criminal cases. For me, it was a combination of both, although my 4 stars is because, as I say in the title, looking at it in 2023 it has many horrible precedents with the level of criminal activity committed by minors.

Jenny & Steve are a deeply in love couple who are holidaying in a picturesque English village, camping in the woods. However, from the moment they arrive, there is tension in the air. The local youths are out of control & violent, and the adults/parents extremely defensive & almost excusing their children's behaviour. The group eventually turn their attention on and start hunting the couple, led by Brett. Jenny & Steve then find themselves fighting to survive, surrounded by the hostilities of not only the youths but nature as well.

The film itself really is nasty, filled with graphic, unflinching & horrible violence, paired with a cruelty which is in many ways worse than the savagery. And as much as it is mainly violence committed by the youths towards the adults, the dividing lines between the children is also stark: some of them absolutely revel in it, whilst others clearly are scared & simply are part of the group to prevent the onslaught being directed towards them. It is also a fact that, despite the enormous amounts of violence in our films today, it will always be shocking when youths are shown committing it.

The film however is written & directed in a much cleverer way than your standard Nick Love-style Outlaw film. The characters for a start are much more believable & sympathetic. This is also down massively to the performances by Fassbender & Reilly. This film was made before Fassbender in particular was the cultural phenomenon he has become & he is excellent. But this film belongs to Reilly. She really is amazing & you root for her every step of the way. She perfectly balances vulnerability & strength, never anything less than an iron-willed protagonist.

Unfortunately, there are also some real failures with this film, not least the extremely simplistic way the parents, as well as the working classes overall are portrayed. There is practically nothing positive shown in any way about them, aside from that they are all wilfully bad parents who can never hear anything bad about their offspring.

However, there is also a truth which, whilst it is uncomfortable & some people don't want to see it, is stark: the real-world levels of antisocial behaviour among this age-group. In my own career on the railway, I see this first hand. And the level of this is now totally out of control. So it certainly hits home & has a horrible prescience to it, which no amount of shrill screaming & claims of victimisation from the usual crowd can obfuscate.

Digitally restored & released on Blu-ray for the first time, this is in many ways one of the seminal blaxploitation films, and one which loudly announced the talents of Pam Grier to the world, as well as becoming one of the most successful movies of that genre & time.

Foxy Brown is a tough-as-nails woman who lives in an often violent unnamed US state. Her brother is a lowlife drug dealer who she has to often come to the rescue of. Her life has been on hold, waiting for her soulmate Dalton Ford to escape from his work as a deep-cover narcotics officer & leave hospital after he was almost killed. He is then brutally murdered & Foxy swears revenge against the people who killed him.

Many of the tropes of blaxploitation are here, including a strong central lead, although the casting/writing of a female character broke new ground; gratuitous nudity, over-the-top action/violence & a cracking soundtrack. There are also some fairly well-shot action scenes, including one which shamelessly borrows from Live & Let Die, itself heavily influenced by blaxploitation.

The main draw & best thing about the film is Pam Grier and her performance. She is a towering presence & also really good at the emotional scenes. Whilst the tone of the film is extremely pulpy, she manages to really bring all the elements together.

However, despite Grier & the other elements of the film working well, it also must be said (and hence why I only gave the film 3 stars,) that overall, it is quite disjointed & also often doesn't flow well. It is more a series of vignettes, some of which work, some of which don't. And whilst that may be the charm of blaxploitation as a genre, it was something which for me really stuck out, especially given how good Grier is.

Still absolutely a good watch, as well as a milestone in the genre, but you may be left wanting more...

This is and always will be one of my top 10 films. It's impact on film cannot be overstated. Made on a shoe-string budget, it introduced us to the incredible acting talents of Ewan McGregor & the masterful direction of Danny Boyle. It's success (the most commercially successful British film of 1995, as well as it's impressive theatrical run in the US,) led to Trainspotting a year later.

Alex, Juliette & David are 3 lively & bohemian flatmates who live in central Scotland. They advertise for an additional flatmate, partly to help with the living costs but also the opportunity to be able to ridicule the multiple people who apply for their own amusement. After successfully passing their initiation Hugo, an enigmatic & mysterious writer moves in. A couple of days later, after failing to appear/ignoring their efforts to rouse him, the 3 flatmates break down his door to find him dead from a drug overdose... along with a suitcase full of money. There then follows a cat and mouse game as the three choose to keep the money & dispose of the body, exposing themselves to the police investigation, as well as the attention of some brutal thugs intent on retrieving it...

Everything about this film is flawless: the pacing, music, tension, humour, script & performances. It is one of the best British films of all time. I love it and it gets better with every watch. It also proves emphatically that even with a tiny budget & serious financing issues (at one point the money ran out, causing the production to auction off bits of the set to buy film stock,) you can create incredible drama.

Rent this & see just how incredible British film can be.

P.S: as a little side-note & bit of trivia for fans of Trainspotting: according to Danny Boyle, Keith Allen's characters in both films are the same person...

After an incredibly varied quality of films (read my reviews for the first 3 to get an idea of them,) we finally reach what is almost certainly the end of the road for the Expendables. Irrelevant of whether you are a fan of schlocky action films or someone who normally doesn't go in for that genre & prefers something more serious or high-quality, in the previous 3 films, there was something for almost anyone. But after a 9 year wait with multiple failed starts & casting issues (even Stallone walked away & disowned the franchise for a while, and he was one of the original creators of it,) we now have the 4th film.

And what a way to go out: a film with an atrocious script, wooden acting, new members of the "Expendables" team who are not 80's/90's action stars but random actors who are simply introduced, (at the expense of the original team, only a couple of whom are back for this one,) no chemistry and the worst CGI I have ever seen in a film of this budget ($100 million.) For many people, the look of the film is literally all you can remember. There are large sections which look like they were lifted wholesale out of an early 2000's game, and the colour palette is so garish, cloying & bleached out it actually hurts your eyes to look at.

There is much more I could say, but I can't really be bothered to. I always had a soft spot for the Expendables series, because in its infancy, it actually was doing something that Hollywood seemed to have forgotten how to do: schlocky, silly action & one-liners, with the retro stars you grew up watching as a kid, sharing the screen together & inviting you along to enjoy the massive fun they were all having. And whilst it started to go wrong with number 3, at least that was competently made & had an amazing villain in Mel Gibson's Conrad Stonebanks.

But the worst & most damning thing about this film? There isn't a single second of fun or enjoyment in it. It's just a boring, rubbish & terrible sequel, which puts the final nail in the coffin of a once-good film series. If they actually existed, you'd hire the Expendables to take out the people behind this garbage, once and for all.

I had never seen a Michael Haneke film, although had seen the enormous critical praise his work has attracted, especially the multiple plaudits for Amour & The White Ribbon. The only things I did know about him was that his work is extremely cold & abrasive and that he dives headfirst into provocative & often controversial subjects. After watching Elle, I was wanting to see more of Isabelle Huppert's work & this was one which came highly recommended, as well as winning her the Best Actress award at Cannes.

Erika Kohut is an extremely talented but highly dysfunctional woman. Whilst from the outside she looks like the picture of the perfect musician, revered for her teaching ability as well as her piano playing, the truth is anything but. Erika lives with her highly-strung & fastidiously controlling mother in a small flat which could quite easily double for Hell-on-Earth, even sleeping in the same room on beds next to each other. Erika is also completely warped sexually, both in her own actions as well as in her voyeuristic tendancies. Into this world comes Walter Klemmer, an attractive & talented young man who falls head over heels in love with Erika, but who quickly finds that she corrupts everyone she comes into contact with.

This film is like nothing I've ever watched, especially given when it was released (2001.) It doesn't vaguely insinuate or make reference to the sort of deviances Erika is obsessed with, it puts them right up on screen, punching you in the face & demanding that you process them. Whether it is the mutilation by her own hand or the revelling in the results of previous sexual activity, this is shown uncompromisingly & directly. And what is fascinating with that approach is that it takes all the sensationalism out of it. You watch a scene stripped of all gaudiness & get to the truth, however shocking, of Erika's life & tastes.

But what prevents this from descending into an empty shock fest is firstly the quality of the writing & direction and Huppert's performance. On the production side, the scenes are directed with a cold precision, ruthless in how they are staged. Haneke never gives any warmth to his settings, even in a situation like a piano recital in a gently-lit room with a welcoming audience. Erika's classroom is as sterile as an operating ward & even less welcoming. And her flat, instead of a sanctuary to rest & recuperate, is a maze of rooms with her mother scuttling about like a demonic cockroach and finding ever more hurtful ways to criticise her.

And then we come to Huppert's performance... I thought after watching Elle, I had seen the limits that Huppert could take things to, only to have this obliterated. Through Huppert's fearless & completely unselfconscious acting, we are shown a damaged but still fiercely independent woman, who is living in a world she cannot fit into, despite her very successful career. The fact that in one scene, we can feel sympathy, disgust & fascination with Erika all at the same time is a testament to Huppert's power & skill. Special mention must also go to Benoît Magimel as Walter. Despite his pretty-boy looks, once he gets entangled with Erika, you start to see him erode, whilst he desperately tries to cling on to the remaining decent & morality he has as a person.

This is not an easy film to watch. But it is fascinating, horrific & spellbinding all at once. And with Huppert at its centre, it becomes a rollercoaster ride you cannot get off. And nor do you want to.

I am not a big fan of horror, having only watched a handful of the genre of genuine "horror films" (I don't count films like Alien & Aliens as horror due to having as much of the action genre spliced in with it as the horror element.) Some of them have had a big impact on me (The Shining really messed with my head, Eden Lake was an exercise in slow & gruelling punishment,) but to be honest, mostly I just can't take it seriously. However, body horror is one which I haven't really watched any of, so this was a real eye opener, even if it did start to run out of steam towards the end.

James Foster & his wife Em are holidaying in the exclusive resort of Li Tolqa. The holiday destination is unique as guests are not permitted outside the grounds & the whole place is surrounded with barbed wire with armed guards patrolling. Foster is an unsuccessful writer who is financially supported by his wife, and this among many things is clearly straining their marriage. One day, James starts to talk with Gabi, a vivacious & highly enigmatic actress who is staying with her husband.

On an unauthorised trip outside the resort, James accidentally hits a man whilst driving & then discovers the unusual rule of law on the island: you can pay for a double of yourself to be created to take the sentence of death imposed on anyone who kills a resident of the island. This then starts off a chain of law-breaking & more extreme acts with James & the new group of friends he makes.

Overall I did really like the film, especially the psychosexual element of it. Whether it is the scene where, after a deliberate slow ratcheting up of tension & uncomfortableness, we see James suddenly being surprised by Gabi & her pleasuring him to completion before she walks away without saying a word; through to the trippy & psychedelic orgy, the tension & hyper sexuality is always just below the surface. There is also a highly effective use of different extremely distressing masks which the various members of the party wear whilst carrying out their crime sprees.

However for me, in the final third, the film just becomes too silly to keep up the shocks & horror. The prosthetics, whilst convincingly made, become as ridiculous as the situation James finds himself in, never more so than the final face-off against "the dog." In what was meant to be in many ways the pay-off to the story, especially after watching the previous challenges/dares the party goads each other into doing, it just didn't work & pretty much fell flat.

However, this film has a stunning & towering central performance from Mia Goth. Introduced as a pushy, posh & needy actress, who then turns into a complete psychopath with a banshee-style shriek, Gabi is a walking, talking nightmare. Goth fully embraces every facet of the character, where it is the sweet, almost childlike innocence through to the hypersexualised nymphomaniac who coerces Alexander Skarsgård's loser novelist into taking drugs & engaging in utter debauchery.

Whilst I did wish the film had nailed the ending, I cannot deny I was swept up in the hideous & extremely unsettling world that Cronenberg created. But this film would have been nothing without Goth's towering performance.

This series arrived with enormous critical buzz, as well as some of my friends (including one who is a Scouser,) raving about it. And whilst there are absolutely some great points about it, overall it is a very mixed bag.

Chris Carson (Freeman) is a policeman based in Liverpool. On the surface, his life is perfect: beautiful wife, lovely daughter, great house. But the reality is anything but. The stresses of the job, alongside significant outside pressures, have left him constantly on the verge of having a breakdown. Then one night, he gets mixed up with Casey, a delinquent & extremely unreliable young woman who lives on the streets. Casey has stolen a huge haul of drugs & is being hunted. Chris takes it upon himself to try to help her, but quickly finding himself massively out of his depth. Alongside this, an old colleague with an axe to grind is also on the warpath...

Front & center of this drama, and the best thing about it, is Martin Freeman's performance. Like James McAvoy's transformation into Bruce Robertson for Filth, Freeman has left behind all of the previous characters he made his name playing & completely transformed himself into a burnt-out inner city policeman. Whether it is the accent (absolutely perfect & not in any way the hideous caricature that the Liverpudlian enunciation has been mangled before,) through to the physical characteristics, Freeman is never less than compelling.

The supporting characters are also great. Building on her incredible résumé, Myanna Buring is excellent as the policeman's wife whose soul has been extinguished due to the massive strain of living with & trying to love a man whose job is slowly destroying him, constantly worried that the next phone call will be the one to say he's never coming home again. Adelayo Adedayo is also great as Chris's new partner on the beat, a rookie who wants to do the right thing but quickly finds out that the job is far more than she bargained for.

Unfortunately, script-wise, there are some serious issues, the main one being that the series of events that are shown simply wouldn't happen in the way that they pan out. I absolutely appreciate that in these types of shows there is a level of dramatic licence that happens, but it just starts to stretch credulity to ridiculous lengths. Whether it is one character who repeatedly manages to get away despite multiple interactions with highly dangerous criminals, through to Chris's own behaviour which to any sane onlooker is extremely dubious, quite simply these sequences of events wouldn't happen.

And that is why this is never more than a 3 star series for me. When you are watching the screen & every 10 minutes or so find yourself thinking "That wouldn't happen, this wouldn't happen, there's no way things would turn out like that," then it becomes a bit annoying after a while, especially when in-between those moments there is a really gripping story being told.

See it for Freeman, but don't be surprised if by the end, you were left wanting more...

Ridley Scott shows no signs of slowing down. Aged 85, he is producing/directing multiple films, sometimes 2 in a year. There is absolutely no question that he is one of our greatest living directors & one of the best filmmakers of all time. His latest offering is one that absolutely has massive scope & ambition, but sadly is not one which I was able to immerse myself in.

The film looks at the life of Napoleon, charting both his rise up to become King of France, as well as his tumultuous & difficult personal life, through the lens of his marriage to Joséphine. Napoleon's victory on the battlefield means that he is celebrated and revered by the people, carefully positioning himself within the plotting elements of the overthrowers of the French parliament. But as the years go by, his grip on power starts to weaken...

In terms of spectacle and showmanship, no-one can hold a candle to Scott's ability of constructing a film. Whether it's an action epic like Gladiator or a more "talky" film like The Counsellor, his direction is both assured and strong. However, one comment about his work that I heard a few years ago & rings most true was "Scott is only as good as the script he is working from." And in the case of Napoleon, this gets to the heart of the problem: when watching this, I never was a part of the story, I always felt like an observer looking in.

When I compare this film to The Counsellor, it is literally night and day in terms of watching experience. With Counsellor, I felt like I was in the room, right in the thick of the conversation & feeling the threats from all around baring down upon me, the tension crackling like electricity. With Napoleon on the other hand, I just felt like I was on the outside looking in, no more than a casual observer, with the occasional moment where the story gripped me.

The performances are also a mixed bag, none more so than Joaquin Phoenix's. In an on the record interview, Scott described Phoenix coming to him 2 weeks before shooting started in a panic, saying "I don't know what to do." And that is so clearly shown in his performance. Phoenix looks lost, overwhelmed & completely out of his depth. Forget Commodus from Gladiator, this is a totally different kettle of fish. However, I also feel that, because of the poor quality of the script, I don't know any actor who could actually have made the film any better.

The same cannot be said for Vanessa Kirby. She is, by a country mile, the best part of this film. She dominates the screen for every single second she is on it, grabbing our attention & really making us feel her pain. From her opening moments fleeing prison after being released, through to the pain of her inability to conceive a child & heir for her husband, she is magnificent and electric. Her performance is also one which unintentionally draws more attention to how out of his depth Phoenix is in this film.

The supporting characters are also a mixed bag. Ian McNiece makes a humourous impact as Louis XVIII, plus there is a welcome cameo from Miles Jupp as well. But there is also not much in the way of story to really allow anyone else to shine apart from the leads.

But there are some great moments, none more so than the Battle of Austerlitz, a stunningly shot & horribly brutal battle. The battle of Waterloo is also stunningly shot & brilliantly staged.

However, this sadly for me was never more than a 3 star film. Yes it's great to see Phoenix & Scott back working together, plus it is wonderful that Scott was given an enormous budget to work with. But unfortunately this doesn't mean that the end product is great, however much I wanted it to be.

Here's hoping Scott can be given another massive budget soon, alongside a decent script, to show how phenomenal a director he can be.

Saoirse Ronan for me is, without a doubt, one of the best actresses currently working. Whether she is starring in a film which is in all respects excellent, such as Brooklyn, through to more middle of the road fare like Ammonite, she is always the highlight of the story for me. Sadly in this film, which was given huge amounts of critical praise & multiple Oscar nominations, even she cannot rescue it, although this is in no way her fault, but due to the terrible script & characters.

Christine McPherson lives in California & is in her final year of school. She is very much a free spirit, as well as refusing to follow a lot of the expectations of both her parents & the school, such as one day deciding to call herself Lady Bird. Despite good friendships with her peers, she has an extremely fractious relationship with her mother, who is a domineering & extremely difficult woman. The film follows the last year of her time at school as she falls in & out of love, struggles with her mother's abrasiveness and her plans to get into college.

Lady Bird follows the well-trodden path of many coming-of-age films, although this is set much more in the millennial generation/their struggles. The filmmakers have succeeded in realising the time period, whether it is costumes or the sort of things that would have been around at that time eg adverts on TV, different gadgets. There is also a fairly decent soundtrack as well.

However, overall I could not stand this film. Lady Bird herself is far too abrasive a woman, even if this is wrapped up in teenage precociousness. Beanie Feldstien probably comes out the best of everyone, her wide-eyed innocent curiosity genuinely endearing. But all of the good work by everyone else is totally undone by Marion, Lady Bird's mother. Marion is for me a genuinely horrible, belittling, narcissistic & extremely manipulative woman. Constantly comparing her situation, but even worse, her children & their achievements/traits, to everyone around her, she is for me genuinely repugnant. I have in my life encountered individuals (both mothers and fathers, this is in no way simply confined to one sex,) who have behaved as Marion does and the profound damage they have caused, which is often lifelong, is catastrophic. In particular, their narcissism of criticising & denigrating, then the moment they are challenged, flipping it completely around and saying "Why is everyone attacking me?"

But for me, the worst thing this movie does, which also compounds the dislike I and others have for it, is to then try and flip it round at the end and to say effectively "Oh your mother does love you, she just has done all these horrible things for most of your life and, after this moment has passed, she'll go back to being that way again." It was something I totally rejected & feel is in many ways a cop-out, especially when you consider the other family problems which Marion also has a direct impact on as well.

So despite all the praise, this is not a film I can recommend, despite the good work of the actors involved.

A mainstay of British comedy in the 90's, which also was an enormous hit all over the world.

Hyacinth Bucket (which she insists is pronounced "Bouquet") is an extremely eccentric, snobbish & social climbing woman who lives with her long-suffering and hen-pecked husband Richard. Hyacinth is obsessed with social class, or to be more accurate, to be seen to be a higher class than she actually is in real life. Having come from a large Northern family with 3 sisters born into relative poverty, she then effectively becomes middle-class through her marriage & property ownership. However, she aspires to move in more privileged circles & to be seen as enormously influential, wealthy & upper-class.

The series's chart her various exploits in her trying & often spectacularly failing to impress either someone she wishes to emulate or to show people her supposed superiority.

For me, the absolute best thing about this series is the writing, as well as the showing of the different classes & satirising the stereotypes around them. For example, consistently the nicest & most genuine characters in the show are the people who Hyacinth turns her nose up at. The working classes, which she is emphatically a part of in some way through her early life & upbringing, are almost all genuine, decent & solidly dependable people. And the people who are the type Hyacinth will do almost anything to impress are either indifferent/horrified by her or absolutely repugnant individuals who treat her and everyone else with disdain.

Another great & powerful theme which this series shows repeatedly is that money doesn't make you happy/large amounts of wealth doesn't mean you have a great life. The happiest & most content relationship in the series is Daisy & Onslow, who live in a council house & are on the dole. At the other end of the spectrum is Violet and Bruce, who are fabulously wealthy, live in a massive mansion & are constantly at each other's throats.

As Hyacinth, Patricia Routledge is absolutely note-perfect. I also enormously admired her willingness to do almost all of the stunts & physical comedy herself. Her portrayal of snobbery is also massively informed by Routledge's enormous disdain & disgust for people like her character. Although Hyacinth obviously is the central protagonist, the supporting cast/characters are all excellently written. My own favourite is Onslow, played by Geoffrey Hughes, a man who in his own words is "proudly work-shy & bone idle." The comic timing of Hughes is so perfect that just his look of disdain & confusion when he wakes up in the morning & props himself up in bed is hysterical. His wife Rose, played by Judy Cornwell, is a perfect match for the double act between them.

Finally, what I also loved about this whole series & which is clear from the first episode is just how much the cast enjoyed working together. Whether in the actual show itself or the outtakes, the chemistry, bond & fun they all had working together leaps out of the screen. You are happy to spend many hours in their company, as well as cringing at Hyacinth's latest desperate attempt to convince a neighbour or counsellor that she is posh enough to be invited to the Captain's table on the QE2.

The only reason this didn't get 5 stars and also why Patricia Routledge left the show & moved on to other projects was that, especially in the last series, there was a notable decline in the quality of the writing. A lot of the situations that were created did start to feel recycled & samey, which is a huge shame given the excellent episodes before.

But this should absolutely not put you off. This is fantastic, hysterical British comedy with some of our best comedy performances, as well as a brilliant biting satire of the class system.