Film Reviews by Strovey

Loving Vincent is indeed ‘loving Vincent’ as we are treated to Van Gogh well-known works coming to life and presenting what is frankly and interesting and intriguing story. Van Gogh wrote regularly to his brother Theo so the conceit of one final letter having to be delivered fits in perfectly with the troubled artist's life and makes sense of what is a sort of amateur sleuth tale.

If you are familiar with the work of Vincent van Gogh, then the story will be a visual treat but to be fair it should be to those who are not as well. The treatment of his work is accurate and respectful and the film presents a balance of the views of van Gogh the way he behaved how others saw him in the same way. It is no ‘paintwash’ of history or a beloved artist whom many think was ‘mad’ and cut his ear off and painted Starry Night – that is it. This film fills in a lot of missing sections of a story many feel they ‘sort of know’ and does it in an entertaining and magnificently made way.

What do you call the film – an animation? Artists we used to paint the scenes in van Gogh’s distinctive style, is it a moving painting. I actually do not know. Either way it works and is very entertaining.

The actors, having to work mainly on green screens, all put in a great job, in particular Douglas Booth the pivot the film who starts off as a layabout who cares not for Vincent but who ends up admiring the clearly ill van Gogh and understanding what his father saw in the man that made him such an admirer and friend. To the actor and maker's credit it seems genuinely of a revelatory journey for the young man.

There is a lot you can say about van Gogh and there is a lot you can say about the film Loving Vincent but much like his art the best advice I can give you is, see it, experience it. You will be glad you did, and I guarantee you will learn something about one this world’s greatest and most misunderstood artists.

Highly recommended.

Some people will find The Wailing terrifying of that I have no doubt. Tonally we start off with gruesome death, although gruesome is mainly in the mind, the actual victims are in shadow, there are blood sprays seen up the walls but for overall grue there really is not as much as you believe there is. Always a good sign when a filmmaker is confident enough of their own storyteller to let the viewer’s imagination do the heavy lifting. But what we start off with is a funny film. I can honestly say the first third of the film is definitely comedic but in a situation way rather than comedy characters. Jong-goo, superbly played by Do-won Kwak, is at best an average cop, bumbling at times, not punctual, the antithesis of the usual protagonists in these types of films that are either heroic or tragic or all parts between. For me this grabbed my attention immediately.

As the film progresses so does the development of Jong-goo whose foolish ideas, bravado and impulsive decisions become less comic and more tragic and serious. There are still flashes of almost slapstick humour as one character is struck by lightning and staggers about, a shaman has more showman and charlatan about him and preens around but the tone is not completely lost. Afterall, if you are honest, life can be like that, one minute you are in a Charlies Chaplin film, the next it is a murder film. A no point are the murders, violent events, passed off with quirky or clever remark.

It is difficult to describe too much more of the film and story without ruining it for a first-time viewer, suffice to say the ending lays it all on the line and seems to be straight forward and easy to comprehend, although if you think back through the previous two or so hours, maybe not so much. This is the trick of director Na Hong-jin I honestly believe he wants you to interpret what you have seen, what you take away from it is personal to you. Is it a metaphor on religion, tradition, or on the difference between different communities or how you view people, how you trust them, the trust in traditional superstition or logic? It can be and I believe is all of these things but is overall a good horror film.

The cinematography is beautiful with the claustrophobic and chaotic village presented as such then beautiful almost prehistoric forests magnificently portrayed in verdant green crowned in soft white mists.

If anything detracts from this magnificent horror film perhaps the running time could have been snipped back a bit. The middle third was baggy, where the film flips over from comedic to horrific, it felt a bit clunky and the friends traipsing around the forest, getting involved in a fight with…. well I will not reveal it…. was not obviously necessary to the plot and if it had been removed entirely would have mad not difference to the story. Some of the acting seemed a bit over the top and hysterical but whether this is quirk of the genre or origin of the film I am not expert enough to know. These are only small quibbles though and all the actors acquitted themselves favourable.

If you want to watch something different, something that might make you think what they heck you have just seen, then as someone who is definitely not a horror-film aficionado I recommend The Wailing highly.

If this film has done anything it has made me want to seek out Na Hong-jin’s back catalogue, small as it is.

First thing with this film you must switch off your brain. Honestly, the minute you start thinking about what you are watching your head will start throbbing and the chances are you will start laughing hysterically and perhaps never stop. I have to say it, and it gives me no pleasure, I do not like being the ‘clever know-it-all critic’, but this film is stupid. I mean insultingly stupid.

On the positive some of the visuals and shots are amazing and some of the CGI and effects are great, if seemingly oh-so-familiar at times, although the de-aging at the beginning of the film initially brought about, ‘what’s wrong with this’ thoughts the minute you see it. Jason Momo is quite funny in a smart-alecky way but also in a very inappropriate way but to be honest this is a problem with a lot of films nowadays where the main characters, often heroes, make off-the-cuff witty remarks after they have just slaughtered or at the least shattered the bones of some un-named, unknown expendable henchman. In my view it is tiring, boring and now getting very dull.

The characters throughout are extremely pantomime-like and I get no feeling of a real living person with beliefs, feelings and a past, which is criminal with the great actors on display and the fact it is a comic-book world which lives and dies on ‘origin stories’. Black Manta with his entire crew of baddies is so Sir Jasper Naughty-Bonce it was bordering on parody and his motivation seems to be from the Steven Segal school of direction ‘he’s evil’ that is it. Snarling, frowning and looking angry does not make a villain in the modern world of filmmaking, it did in the 1920s, but one hundred years have passed since then.

The dialogue was poor and even more exposition-heavy than Birds of Prey because what they did with Margot Robbie’s voice-over monologue in that film was achieved with some heavy lifting exposition-wise, none too subtle and hilarious in its clunkiness. You know, the way nobody in real life talks at all.

There did not seem to be much chemistry between Heard and Momo and a lot of their interaction together seemed stilted and we were treated to yet another ‘wrong-time to have a snog’ scene. If I am going to get on my high-horse I have to say what is the matter with these filmmakers, death-defying battles, fighting, killing hordes of people, being close to dying, all are not times when anyone would thing about having a really good tonguing-snog. I could not even get women to do that when it was a romantic situation.

The plot twists in the story, which was very railroad track straight in the progress it was making, was written on a billboard that could be seen after the opening 15 minutes had passed. The logic of the world that was created had all the rules broken from time to time and did not make sense, I mean obviously people living and breathing underwater riding giant non-existent seahorses so making sense moved out of the house a few months before but, nevertheless. Here are two I spotted; I am sure others have spotted more. Aquaman was worried about falling off a roof in his ‘destroy a village in Sicily’ fight but also can jump out of a plane at altitude into the Sahara Desert with no harm done. If he and Mera can swim like torpedoes fired from a nuclear sub and breath and talk underwater, in fact they prefer that life, we did they ever use a crappy fishing boat to get anywhere? Particularly as Aquaman can use the creatures of the sea to do his bidding. It is stupid.

Forget this is a comic-book film, DC or otherwise, forget it is supposed to dovetail in with other movies I have not seen and probably never will now, take it as a science-fiction-fantasy movie, that due to some of the more serious content, is mainly targeted at older children and adults.

Then it is still an extremely poor film.

Birds of Prey starts off with Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn updating us on her progress and state in the world. In other words a huge exposition dump. So far so dull. For me the character of Harley Quinn is annoying and pointless even before this film and the only point for her in the previous films was teeny-tiny shorts and lingering shots of bottoms and legs plus she was a sort of water-downed evil.

In this film written by Christina Hodson and directed Cathy Yan we at least get away from the leering sexuality of the previous portrayal but if you are looking for an interesting feminist point of view from the story and characters, you are not going to get it. The male characters are all repugnant from the get-go which did not bother me but just seemed a bit sledge-hammery if I am honest. What we ended up with was female super-villains-heroes or whatever they are doing exactly what their male counterparts did in the other films. You could replace every main character with a male character, and you would not notice it. So, from my point of view utterly redundant. I wanted the film to say something different, open my old, jaded eyes. It did not.

Probably the most disappointing aspect for me though was the acting in the film was spotty at least. Mary Elizabeth Winstead just looked like she was acting and was thoroughly unconvincing and Rosie Perez probably turned in her worst showing since I can remember. At one time it is said she was every bad cop-movie cliché which I am guessing was supposed to be ‘on’ and ‘meta’, but she was and it was wearisome.

The Huntresses’ real boyfriend, Ewan McGregor, turns up as the main villain Roman Sionis who apparently is called the Black Mask although he only dons it for ten minutes and I am none the wiser why he does. McGregor makes a good show of being over-the-top insane and so camp he should be a holiday park in Wales but if it were not for his thorough bleak and blank unpleasantness, he would to all intents and purposes be a yaa-boo pantomime baddy.

Therein lies the rub. I think, I do not know because the Comic Book World is not mine, DC is supposed to be darker than Marvel. This film was, but there is a big clash of styles in all this. Bright jokey situations, smart-Alec and sharp-witted quipping protagonists, and bloody murder, slaughter, torture and bystander slaughter. Unless you have got something fundamentally wrong with you these do not really mix. They really do not. It is jarring.

There was something nasty in the dark corners of this film, something unpleasant, mean-spirited, it liked being there and it was never far from the surface. I did not enjoy the spectacle just because of this.

The sets seem Gotham City-like, grubby New Yorkesque, and Harley Quinn is bad-ass and uncaring enough to litter, the CGI is quite poor for a modern film, particularly the hyena, and worse still I am sorry to say the exciting fight scenes look choreographed and seem clunking and slow much like a large portion of the dialogue which is full of really heavy and awkward exposition at times.

The story is about the hunt for a lost diamond. That is it. The titular group Birds of Prey are in the film for five minutes at the most and there seems to be no real driving reason for them if I am honest.

Overall Birds of Prey is underwhelming and unnecessary. One more comic-book film like this and I think I will be done with this category altogether. At the moment Shazam is holding the fort for all ‘DC films’.

Not good enough.

Bad Times at the El Royale could have been just another Tarantino wannabe but skilfully directed by Drew Goddard it subverts most expectations the longer it goes on. With a solid and small cast, the whole story is strongly underpinned. Certainly, filming from different character’s perspectives and swimming fully in the non-linear pool we are not in virgin territory but with the pace generally staying at frenetic Goddard keeps your eyes glued to the screen and caring what is happening.

Truth be told for this jaded old fart watching several story points were lost on me and surprised me at the reveal, although that damn-attractive Dakota Johnson’s storyline quicky unravelled with half an hour of the running time. As I say I have watched and read a lot of fiction and I am incredibly old.

The vivid colours of the cinematography help distract from what is basically a stage-based story and give the film a comic-book fantasy edge even though we are strictly in a nasty adult world here. Here is where I feel the big difference is between this being a Drew Goddard film and a Tarantino film. I have always got the impression from Tarantino that he somehow really enjoys the dark violence and death in his films, he enjoys the pain, torture and death that the characters are put through. Somewhere in the shadows of his film something is sitting and smiling. With this story, which has the same plot points, murder, torture, inestimable cruelty, Goddard is winking at us. It is all make-believe, fun, if a little gruesome. Children’s games of war in the playground. There is a place for all stories and ways of telling them but at my age I am started to get a little tired of bleak, never-ending nihilism, where the only reward of life is a sad, bloody end.

Having said that we are presented with stories of redemption that do not work out and Chris Hemsworth, sans shirt, is a sexy Sir Jasper Naughty-Bonce. He plays it well and I guess the role makes sense for no shirt, but you cannot help feeling there is some pandering going on here. To say I disliked him throughout this film is praise indeed for his betrayal. The nasty streak in him plays well on screen.

The film, characters and their stories drag you in if you are prepared to be patient and pay attention and with a snip-snapping way of presenting the tale and a long running time it is testament to Goddard that at no time did I get fidgety and the end credits had rolled my wife remarked on the slight pong of my sweat, that's how invested I was.

The twists in the story are good in general and most I will confess I did not see coming. The violence is cartoonish and not gratuitous and without spoiling the tale we are left with some hope.

All the actors are good with Lewis Pullman, Bill Pullman’s son not only being a chip-off-the-old-block in his looks but also in his ability, outstanding and Hemsworth sexy-sliming his way throughout. No film is without flaws and perhaps the running time is a tad too long and at least one character starts off with a backstory but is dropped soon into the running time. You never find out exactly what they were doing there but for one thing. A further reason into the reasons for the El Royale’s existence would have been good. Perhaps this is for another film.

Overall Bad Times at the El Royale is a strong and competent film, well-directed, well-acted, it is violent, thrilling and subverts expectations. The chopping and changing storyline and the violence and unpleasant characters will not be for all but if you like these almost cartoonish-style violent thrillers then give this a go.

Bad Times at the El Royale is good times for the film fan.

This film really is not a biopic of Fred Rogers the iconic Mr Rogers so if you go into this expecting that you will be disappointed. It is, and I have to say another, film about the fractured relationship between children and one or both or their parents or siblings. I get drama, and the general belief that people love to watch conflict, but it is starting to look like everyone in the world hated their parents and did not speak to them anymore. Similar to every ex-service person in a film having been in Special Services and on a conflict zone frontline. So as such if you are an avid film goer you have seen this scenario play out many times in many styles.

This does not necessarily make A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood a bad film. It is not. Tom Hanks brings Fred Rogers back to life with his usual skill and aplomb particularly in his mannerisms, his stillness and calm. I did feel that there was an underlying creepiness to the performance in certain scenes that I never got from films and clips of the real Mr. Rogers. Chris Cooper pops up with his usual hard-ass unpleasant character role although this one has genuinely found redemption in the form of Dorothy before he tries to find his final redemption with his estranged son Lloyd.

Lloyd played by Cardiff-born actor Matthew Rhys is probably the weakest link for me. Not so much the acting but more the situation which seems to get more unlikely as it plays out. These father/son relationships always seem to be the same, a good bit of actorly, showy, conflict and wrapped up nice and neat. As wonderful as Fred Rogers was it is certain he could not just end years of anger and rowing with a few choice words and an impromptu ‘stare-out’. More obvious when the real journalist, Tom Junod, did not actually have a terrible conflict with his father who did not abandon his family, there were no wedding punch-ups. Having said this it is difficult to fit in a long-term friendship that made Junod reassess his whole macho attitude to being a man due to Rogers' influence in just over ninety-minutes. So, no huge criticism then.

The focus of the film is rightly Vogel and Rogers to this extent the women do get side-lined somewhat, which is strange as the director is Marielle Heller a little bit more of the two women in these men’s lives to give a different perspective might have added a bit more interest but this is just my idea and certainly as the film is edited and shown it is not detrimental.

The recreation of the cities and towns as Mr. Rogers Neighborhood of Make-Believe as we transition between different scenes is a great artistic and clever device. Is Heller telling us that although this is set in the real world it is still all make-believe. Or have I booked myself a place in Pseud’s Corner? Nevertheless, I liked the idea.

All of the acting is exemplary and Heller has a top-notch cast to hand and her directing is good, trimming the fat of what could be a sappy and saccharine and getting to the nub of the story she wants to tell. The film is good and entertaining.

If you would like to see something that tells you more about Fred Rogers, the way he thought, his philosophy and outlook then A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood salutes this and even hints at the illness that ended his life, but it is not about this. I would recommend the 2018 documentary Won’t You Been My Neighbor by Morgan Neville, which is entirely about the man, his influence, the people he interacted with and is much more moving.

Armando Iannucci and Simon Blackwell were always going to have a task at hand without worrying about what a few dyed-in-the-wool racists think about having a black actor playing a white actor’s mum and that task is the same as anyone who tries to commit well-loved Dickens novel to the cinema. It the fact that the length of a film cannot fit all the nuance and intricacies of most, if not all, of Dickens novels.

So we end up with quick cuts, exclusions and skimming from the original text, so as it ever was.

Iannucci is well known for his scalpel sharp wit and take on both modern and historical politics showing it up for all of its redundancy, pomp and ridiculousness but clearly the modern world and our glorious leaders have made his take on this redundant. So why not to Dickens who stories were equally scapel sharp, astute comments on Victorian Britain?

This take on David Copperfield flows with an eccentric oddball humour from the off and we are swept along with some speed through the title character’s trials and tribulations. Unfortunately this is at the expense of supporting characters so we only get thumbnail sketches of them and it depends on the skill of the actor whether you connect with the person on the screen. Due to some excellent casting and some great locations in general the film gets away with it.

Dev Patel is uniformly excellent in anything he puts his hand to and his kind-hearted and honest David Copperfield is no exception and luckily he is ably supported by Peter Capaldi as an unlikely Mr. Micawber, as optimistic as ever, and a myriad of experienced and talented actors from Hugh Laurie, in a role that seems to have been waiting for Hugh Laurie over the years, Tilda Swinton carrying on her quest to seemingly play only strange and eccentric people, and the aforementioned Rosalind Eleazar as Agnes who captured all attention as soon as he appeared on the screen for me. Ben Whishaw must be mentioned in dispatches as everyone’s favourtie slimey, hang-wringing Uriah Heep, black hat firmly in place but oddly just enough sympathy at the closing stages of the film.

The problem is not in the direction, writing, cinematography, sets or acting but rather the material and after enjoying and watching The Personal History of David Copperfield you feel as if some large part of it was left on the editing floor, it wasn’t it was simply this was story telling pared down to fit in with cinema running times and modern audiences.

As such the film did a good job and all those involved such proud and pleased with their efforts, Unfortunately though, and I say this with a heavy-heart being an admirer of Armando Innaunci, this film proved to me that David Copperfield would be best served with a high value production TV series with enough episodes to do the story justice.

Still fun enough for a Sunday afternoon viewing with all the family.

For a Swedish film without a Hollywood budget, particularly science-fiction, you must admire the special effects and future-look presented. Presumably a luxury craft transporting people to a new life would look spic and span with clean lines more like some giant shopping mall geared to luxury for people who were heading into an unknown and Martian life. The technology of Mima is slightly mysterious throughout and presumably it some type of organic-based machine that can interact with the human brain but that is left to the viewer and this really is not a problem story-wise.

The acting, as far as I can tell, is good throughout and no hint of the histrionics were are usually treated to in this type of film, especially when ‘disaster’ strikes the control room is quiet calm and trying to figure out what to do. Taking notes Ron ‘shouty arm-waving’ Howard? It was refreshing to see there was tough situation being faced in the ship’s control room without shouting, screaming and foot stamping. Like real life. Clearly the dialogue is in Swedish and I, being the dumb-arsed British person I am can hardly speak English, so I have no idea if the actors were delivering corny lines and overacting but their body language and general demeanour would say not, so I’m going with that view.

Apparently, the film is based entirely on well-known Swedish poem written in 1956 at a time when some people believed we would not even get to the moon let alone protracted space travel or ‘emigration’ to a new world. So it comes as some surprise that a film based on this premise made in 2018 still features conceits in that work. Would the people in charge be fully aware of space debris and plan around that before risking thousands of people’s lives? Would what appeared to be an Allen bolt cause that much damage? Jet passenger planes have three back-ups for every system but a massive passenger carrying space craft does not? How would they survive on algae and where does the water come from? All these questions and others will be answered by someone with more time on their hands and who is more worried about it than me. To fair to Aniara you can do this with every futuristic type story and corners are often cut for expedience and other eminently sensible and budgetary reasons.

What Aniara tries to be about is the human condition and much deeper themes than adventures in space. Take civilised people away from their world, put them in another world that is limited and self-contained. Take away their hope and what happens? Lord of the Flies meets Alien – or something. The entire story is anchored on Jonsson's Mimaroben and it is to her credit that this anchor is strong and firm and keeps you watching. The supporting cast are all strong and believable with no real heroes or villains although Arvin Kananian as the captain Chefone is a near as you get to this but even his character is placed in a very difficult situation and he never goes full on Sir Jasper Naughtybonce.

It would spoil the story to tell you how it progresses but it is no surprise to say that overall the feeling is bleak and downbeat and holds no great faith in human’s nature over the course of the situation. Being Swedish if you are offended by full frontal nudity, male and female, lesbian sex, orgies, and the odd willy bonging about in your face this is not the science fiction for you.

Existential, challenging, depressing, mesmerising and infuriating Aniara is certainly not your ordinary science-fiction story, in a way you could say it is very Swedish and whilst I can see why some people would find it dull and lacking in an peril or action, why does it have to be I may ask, it strikes me as a film that if you watch it to the conclusion you will not forget it in a hurry.

Right who is up for starting an orgy club? No one? Okay off to Sweden I go.

The secret of Upgrade is not that it is an upgrade on a fairly standard ‘A.I. is not too happy’ science-fiction story but it is an upgrade on the attitude and application of the story by the screenwriter, actors, director and just about everyone else involved.

Filmed on the budget usually allocated to the stars onsite ‘never-to-be-used’ gym of most blockbusters the makers somehow managed to wring every ounce out of the value of the money. The ‘not too distant in the future’ visuals and science is impressive and is the glue that holds what is in all honesty a fairly hokey story together. Logan Marshall-Green is a fine Tom Hardy-a-like and funnily enough by not being Tom Hardy he does not have to play up to it so the performance is subdued and good. His former Power Ranger wife, Melanie Vallejo, is the motivational force so is not used to the full extent but the relationship, what you see of it, is affecting and most importantly believable.

So far so good. The story itself is not as original as much as it wants to be but as I have said when handled competently this does pale into insignificance. The twist ending is perhaps not as twisty as they like but is still a good moment to close the story and give the Blade Runner, Mad Max, Death Wish and a dozen other films in the mix a nice tidy finish.

Upgrade is hokum but fine grade hokum wrapped in fun, gore and poignancy, the acting is good throughout although it would be nice to see the standard ‘Tech Genius’ being more of a normal person because the character used in Upgrade is well-worn. The special effects and future-world gimmicks are devised and executed very well and add to the overall feel of the story’s world. As the story progresses this gives more heft to the technology that drives us along. All good.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a tight budget forces makers and production companies to be creative and the results often puts blockbusters to shame, and of course not being able to explode buildings and have hordes of CGI baddies being mown down means more character-driven scenes and more character development.

Like I said – all good.

The set-up is interesting and different enough to grab the average viewers attention. A Danish immigrant to the US awaits the rival of his wife from Denmark, having been in the harsh West for 7 years on his own. So far so good. Then have your hero being played by the enigmatic magnetic presence of Mads Mikkelsen and double that up with his brother, Mikael Persbrandt, both survivors the Second Schleswig War and you have an interesting and new twist on your traditional Oat Opera.

What we get for our money is the senseless slaughter of innocents so that the protagonist has a just motivation for his slaughter. Very, very, film western. We are then treated to very bad man in charge who seemingly enjoys murdering people willy-nilly for mainly money reasons and we are away. From this point on if you have watched more than two Westerns you know what is coming and how the film ends and so it does. This is the film’s biggest failing.

You have beautiful cinematography using South African vistas to reproduce the desolate and harsh west to impressive effect with atmospheric and haunting skies and lighting tying into the action on screen. Add to this, the aforementioned accomplished Danish actors and the ever consistent Johnathan Pryce, Jeffery Dean Morgan, the underrated and underused Eric Cantona and the wonderfully expressive, luckily for her, Eva Green, heroically eye-brow acting, which she is nails easily, but I feel she done dirty in this role. Give someone as sublime and such a screen personality as her something to say for goodness sake.

The very atmospheric music is produced by Kasper Winding channelling The Last of Us’ Gustavo Santaolalla to such a point I kept expect Joel to pop up and get murdered senselessly but as similar as it seems it works perfectly. Jeffery Dean Morgan proves that his screen persona is pantomime baddy has his character that audience must hate is so bad, so ‘evil’ it borders on comedy parody and as much as I enjoyed the film every time he spoke or did anything on screen it had a tendency to make me laugh or at best hiss and boo. Much more convincing was Eric Cantona as his number two, who with a few lines at best was left to portray character with looks and posture. Less is more and in some ways at the least the Corsican had more shades in there rather than just wearing a big black hat.

The plot is nothing you have not seen before time and time again, starting in Japan and culminating with Sergio Leone we really need a new angle something fresh. When Leone brought the world the ‘Spaghetti Western’ he was trying to move on from the clean-shaven hero/baddy format with unshaven, unkempt, gunmen, blood, death and double crossing. It was not new but it was in your face and sufficiently different enough to stimulate the imagination of the cinema going public. In particular the motivation for the senseless murder and destruction is disappointingly trite and vanilla and also if just thought about for a few seconds collapses under the preposterousness.

Unfortunately The Salvation, whilst worth a viewing just due to the actors on display, is another slightly more modern version of the Spaghetti format. The story is, dare I say, melodramatic and somewhat simplistic, almost childish, none more so than Jeffery Dean Morgan’s set to 11 villain, and this detracts tremendously from the attempt at a western. It is not different enough to get excited about.

Chapter Two comes in at over three hours long. For what the story brings to you, the way it is paced and presented this is way too long. There is a lot of flashback padding a device that a lot of story-tellers like to use nowadays but something I feel is quite often unnecessary. The device of collecting their individual 'items' or totems to defeat Pennywise that has to be completed on their own, seems to be lifted from a video game and makes little sense other than to create horrifying scenes to scare the audience. For a supernatural killing machine Pennywise or 'It' is singularly crap at killing these individual adults who fall for his tricks every single time despite knowing what he is all about, he has no problems with other people though.

Pennywise is in fact a big problem for me. Brought to life with an enthusiastic unpleasantness by Bill Skarsgård like many movie villains he seems particularly inept in crucial moments and then deadly and all-powerful in others. In Chapter Two he is so poor at killing the protagonists who are already terrified of him, he feeds on fear, then he helps Henry Bowers, Stephen Kings stock psycho-bully, from the first film now an adult and in......shock again...a mental hospital, to escape to murder his 'Losers' enemies. Henry turns out to be dab squib, he was in the book if I remember properly and is fairly easily disposed of, I was never sure of his purpose in the story, even more so in the film. Pennywise is so cartoonish that he becomes a slightly more deadly version of Sideshow Bob but also is at poor at getting his tormentors as Sideshow Bob is. It just is not scary.

Andy Muschietti treats us to little glimpses of the films that he has liked in the past and whilst some film-loving viewers will enjoy this I personally felt it was cack-handed. In the original book Pennywise takes the form of films or popular culture figures that the kids would be terrified of, so Michael Landon's 'Teenage Werewolf' and so forth, the film-makers removed this aspect as they felt modern audiences would not get the references. Instead we get other references, not to do with the modus operandi of It that some modern viewers 'won't get'. Odd choice I think.

A running joke throughout the film is James McAvoy's Stephen King avatar, is constantly being told his stories have bad endings and he cannot write them. He's even told by Stephen King himself in another cameo yuk, yuk. The funny thing is It both in book and film form and in this incarnation rather prove the point. The ending, and in particular Pennywise's demise is poor and a letdown. From that point on the reconciliation of the 'Losers' is handled better but so many questions are swept under the carpet. People could not have forgotten which is hinted at is the power of It because It was dead. So there is a lot of destruction, death and mayhem that appears to have never really been explained.

It: Chapter Two is longer and weaker than Chapter One but is entertaining enough to watch but the real problem is the length, scope and themes of the story. This large Stephen King novel with multiple storylines, characters and time periods is really best suited for a multi-part TV series, which of course was created to reasonable effect back in 1990.

The film is okay but it's not all it.

Clever ain't I?

As Jack Black says in the Blu-Ray extras due to the amount of money Jumanji In the Jungle made he knew he was ‘going to get a call’ and that in nutshell is why this sequel exists, making money. This in itself does not make the film bad or poor but purely from a lover of films point of view it is disappointing.

All the same cast return with added Danny DeVito, playing the same role Danny DeVito plays now, frankly it is good and he can do it with his eyes closed and Danny Glover more or less in his comfort zone playing a role he can do with his eyes closed also. The writers had to find a reason for the game to still exist, it was scrapped in the first film, and why anyone would go back into it. Spencer is the character chosen to start it all off again but by a sad sack, again. So far, all good.

The story zips along with the fun and exciting pace of the first film, Rory McCann being the standout as a fine baddie, and everyone has fun doing impressions of their actor colleagues with varying degrees of success, some inhabit the character and seem to be that person in a different avatar whereas others just do a good Mike Yarwood impression, I’m looking at you Awkwafina.

I laughed at the run time and had fun but overall, the feeling I was getting was ‘I’ve seen this before, and only recently’. The actors, particularly the youngsters who transform into the ‘star-actors’ give the impression of being good friends and lively happy young adults, a weird way to put it but this aspect of the film made me smile.

The effects and cinematography are good, the fun parts are fun and the peril in general is perilous even if you know the outcome before the film even starts. I felt that the makers were trying to shoe-horn too many people in with SeaPlane (Colin Hanks/Nick Jones) returning, one thinks would he really go back into something he’d been in for 20 years, and as mentioned the veteran actors and Awkwafina added to the mix. I am not sure it was needed and I am not convinced it worked. Having said that I did not think a sequel was needed.

Jumanji: The Next Level is a fun romp but all too familiar and not different or interesting enough from the original. It tries to make some vague points about keeping friends, reconciliation and so forth but nothing that you have not seen before albeit worse and better.

From the ending sequence the makers clearly want to make Jumanji: Not Again and it will probably happen. Therein lies the problem with film making for major studios today.

Oh, and Lilith turns up at the end without her hair in a tight bun. I do not watch a lot of US TV, so I have not seen Bebe Neuwirth for a long time and it was nice to see her in a little cameo.

The Next Level, watch it, enjoy it, do not remember it a day later.

First things first, no matter what the makers and actors would like the thing this is a comic book movie, it is set in the DC world of Batman. Clearly Phoenix and director Phillips want this to be a dark, gritty, realistic tale of spiralling mental health and how it affects on man who becomes an iconic criminal from the series.

I get the feeling that Phillips wanted to make Taxi Driver and could only get it made if he strapped it onto Batman. The Batman references are shoehorned in and for me stuck out like a sore thumb. The Arthur’s mother, Thomas Wayne, Arthur Fleck triangle does not really work and makes little sense. Without these connections you would still have an entertaining if flawed story of man’s decent into madness.

Therein lies the rub. Another story where a serious mental health problem instantly means that murder and enjoying murder is the final outcome. It is derivative, boring and overall gives a poor view of mental illness for those that have little experience of it. My sister and her husband were senior mental health nurses and yes there were a few cases of murder that they knew about it but even they were pathetic and hopeless individuals. Yes I know it is a fiction, yes I know it is Joker and an origin story but for goodness sake come up with something new, something different, something thousands of other films have not done.

The actors from all the cast is good, Phoenix, whilst always a bit over-the-top if allowed to be, is showy but sincere and good, the murky dark and unpleasant seedy side of ‘Gotham’ is realised well and looks good, so far, so Mean Streets.

I particularly liked the dynamic between Penge and his mother, a very impressive Frances Conroy, and his work colleagues, but if we are to go down the rabbit hole of psychotic genius where was this part of Arthur’s character in the film and also come to think of it I could not really tell the difference between Arthur on his medication and Arthur not on his medication.

The good points of Joker make the film watchable and enjoyable so do not think this is a hate piece by an old man, but the plot points, the story dynamics certainly drive credibility to a stretching point. Afterall it has been repeatedly stated this is adult film for grown ups in a Batman world.

There is story device, that is made to drive a point home, that once it clicks into play, is so obvious, seen so many times before in so many films, that if you are any type of ‘film fan’ you will call it out the minute it happens. It is not as clever or amazing as some people think.

As with most exciting crime and murderous intrigue films how Arthur gets to interact with important characters, particularly characters who he would get little access to, borders on a small child’s logic, it becomes close to being comically funny.

As with most modern ‘masterpieces’ it is not in any way a masterpiece and if you have seen a lot of films you have seen it all before. Like most films made nowadays it could have done with some sympathetic to the audience editing.

If it seems like I hated the film but this is not true, I enjoyed watching the story unfold and even the graphic violence did not bother me. In the entire running time three moments really took me out of the story and I strongly believe they could have been handled better but that is personal choice.

The only argument you will truly get from me is on two points, the mental illness aspect is tired and hackneyed and this is no masterpiece.

Overall if you are looking for something different from the DC world of Batman this is recommended but if you looking for a dark cinematic masterpiece I hope you find it but I think quite a few might disagree.

Jason Bateman directs and acts in the film with the assurance of someone who has been in the ‘business’ since he was ten. Particularly in the comedy genre he is sure-footed and knows his way around. It helps he can call on Alison Janney and Kathryn Hahn as good ship-hands that obviously made sure any stormy waters were traversed with ease. Then throw in Philip Baker Hall and your main acting roles are safe and sound. The casting of the young genius could have been the weak link but luckily youngster Rohan Chand more than holds his own in what may have proved a problematical character.

All in all the sea Bateman chose to sail was familiar waters and if I had know beforehand he was directing a film, and the subject matter, I would immediately assume it was going to be at least watchable. The humour, as he described himself, was darker and more like his own humour but he said he does not like that style of humour if it comes from a mean place. The frankly horrid and disgusting put-downs only come when Trilby is provoked or attacked first. Except of course for two scenes when he wants to overcome particularly tough child opponents. Initially, without thinking, these scenes are funny but on reflection the meanness is all too obvious. I am overthinking but I could not help but remember the little girl and how Trilby nixed her. A scene suggested by Bateman, that the writer, Andrew Dodge, (in the video extras) thought was hilarious, but was it really that funny?

Comedy is meant to make you laugh and with some film-makers it can also hold a mirror up to us whilst we laugh, provoking different emotions and thoughts. Bad Words attempts to show the consequences of reneging on responsibility and to a lesser extent the futility of seeking a redemptive revenge although perhaps this is overly analytical as Bad Words is played almost entirely for laughs.

It does bother me that Guy Trilby’s quest makes sense in a ridiculous way and he redeems himself in the eyes of the audience with a touching end to the story, this truly can be called a trope. Yet there are still those two reprehensible acts that are enacted on very young children. These are never further addressed and appear to have no consequences for Bateman's character despite them being truly despicable, in one case surely causing serious problems within a family. Okay it is a comedy but why drive the character to these unlikeable actions to show how much he is prepared to go to win a competition against children, then redeem him at the end but have no conclusion for characters he has wronged in a very unnecessary manner? It is possible, Ricky Gervais did it recently, making his own character unlikable, albeit with an understandable reason, but still having a kind heart so that later he attempts to redress the balance. A bit 'heart string tugging' and possibly unlikely but needed for a horrible character that you want the audience to like. Guy Trilby only does this with Rohan Chand’s character and to a lesser extent two others that drive the story one, but that is it, peripheral characters can just cope with it. I think they were hoping the viewer would forget. It does seem a bit mean-spirited which is a shame in what at times is ostensibly a fun film.

Bad Words is a confusing film for me. I laughed at the running time and enjoyed the story and how it ended. Afterwards I thought about it more clearly.

Moral of the story? Do not think about films.

Knives Out is a ‘whodunnit’ in the old style very much Agatha Christie brought up-to-date. Within this we of course immediately encompass all the problems that you get with this genre. Overly complicated frankly ridiculous scenarios that stretch credibility to stretching point.

But, and it is a big but, this is what you are signing up for when you walk through the large doors of Harlan Thrombey’s country homes. A carer who is violently ill when they tell a lie, a private detective keeping the police in check and every single person in the building appearing somewhat guilty or shifty at the least.

The machinations that this takes you through points you to one or two suspects with the one the director wants you to think, on and off, as guilty being perhaps too obvious. Everyone has their motives but throughout the course of the film I could not think of any of them really being a murderer which perhaps is how director Johnson wanted it.

The cast is stellar with the painfully pretty Ana de Armas holding her own against the dominating presence of Daniel Craig, Michael Shannon and Christopher Plummer. Every ‘star’ in the film gets their set pieces and screen time and everyone seems to be acting with relish. Which considering the subject matter is what they should be doing. Jamie Lee Curtis has great fun as the acidic Linda alongside Toni Collette tearing it up as the somewhat flakey Joni, so much that perhaps Katherine Langford, Riki Lindhome and the other female cast members get a litte overshadowed. Ana de Armas gets more screen time, front and centre, and on this showing she deserves it.

Answering some of the criticism thrown at this film it should be campy, it should be fun and in many ways it should be silly. The biggest failing of the whole show would be if it was not entertaining. You have to be fair and say throughout the sneaking around, unlikely series of events, the whole was entertaining.

After checking the cast, spelling and so forth, on IMDB I did happen to glance at the ‘marks’ given to Knives Out and overall it seems to have been an average film for most people which I think is fair. It is breaking no barriers and no moulds but it is a good strong effort in the murder mystery column. What I did notice was a preponderance of 1 out 10 marks which turned out to be from people, and this is genuine, did not like seeing immigrants in a positive role and alt-right and possibly Nazi characters as possibly ‘dicks’.

This digs at the alt-right do not bother me but if they were highlighting some wishy-washy liberal namby-bamby as long as it was in the context of the story likewise I could not care either. It is a film. Fiction. No one will care in a month’s time. It is all disposable. Some people should definitely learn to expand and be easier going in what the perceive around them. Hey-ho.

All of the acting, as you would expect, is up at a high-level with Noah Segan gurning it up and making his gormless trooper as stand out as possible.

It was all good fun.

The story rips along and good pace and keeps you guessing most of the time, I got it wrong as to the perpetrator a few times and only when Chris Evans returned midway through did it bog down slightly with seemingly shoe-horned in car-chase trying to bring in some action to the story. I did not feel it was needed but then again I am not a film director or writer.

The cinematography and overall look and feel of the film, particularly the house setting all worked and fitted into the tale perfectly.

All in all Knives Out is exactly what it is meant to be.