Film Reviews by AM

I was left feeling disappointed at the end, although thats maybe harsh.

It looks great, is beautifully shot. There are nods to some great films in the way it looks, in particular, to me, Blue Velvet.

It's well played - the acting of most is good.

There is a threaded who-dunnit plot which mostly works.

So what goes wrong? Two things. The Blue Velvet similarity, once seen, I couldn't unsee. And if a film seems like it paying homage, is an understated version of a classic, it probably is going to fall short of the original. The other thing is the who-dunnit. Sadly I guessed early on that one or two hints were significant, and from there joined the dots well ahead of the film.

this film split our household. I loved it, my wife hated it and the 3 star rating is an average of four stars and one star. We agreed the concept, (a witch-hunt (set in Salem, but not THAT Salem) in the aftermath of people's internet activity becoming public knowledge) was interesting so the average is rounded up.

On one hand, it is a delightfully OTT black comedy reveling in the gore as society spirals out of control. On the other, it is a film which starts off with annoying central characters which gets worse as the film shifts through the gears of it's plot changes.

OTT or stupid? I think that's the dividing line, and which side of the argument you are on I cannot tell.

Where to start?

Imagine a world where The Dude did not grow up to be a ten-pin bowling obsessed hippie in the Big Lebowski, but instead sired 6 children who were home educated in in bohemian ideals using almost military work ethic, living off grid virtually cut-off from normal society. This is the starting point for Captain Fantastic with Viggo Mortensen in the lead role. Forced to leave their home after a tragedy, the film works best when it is just Viggo and the children. Together the family amplify the ideals so often shown in films (the hugely intelligent, charismatic hippy with all the answers) and the contradictory amount of work and near brainwashing used to achieve it, Where it works least when they meet other characters. These are almost invariably cartoon cut-out stereotypes, reacting in incredibly predictable ways. More depth to these encounters would have added so much more.

This is a four star film. I enjoyed it. It entertained me. It is, in part, really well acted. It wants to be better than it is, it tries incredibly hard to say more than it can; ultimately it just doesn't quite deliver. But better this film than a hollywood rom-com any night of the week.

Koreeda's films are so often about the dynamics of family, friendship vs family, nurture vs nature and so it is here.

The set-up, about what appears to be a family at the very bottom of the social scale who take in an neglected child (it's not kidnapping if they don't issue a ransom) is only the beginning. Gradually the dichotomy pf their moral choices is revealed, and questions are raised. Unlike JR, I felt the final section of the film necessary to pull threads together, particularly as it is based on a true story. Not his best film for me (that is I Wish), but easily good enough.

This film is one that's been floating around the edges for me since it came out. It was well received on release, and I heard good things, but missed it. And in the intervening 8 years, I kept hearing good things, and it's floated up and down the wish list for a while. Finally I put it on, principally because it was short running time and that suited me.

I was left cold.

I realised quickly how little I knew about the film s I put the dvd in, noticing the slip described it as a thriller. I vaguely thought it was a comedy, about 4 girls in New York. Of that, the closest I got right was that some of the film takes place in New York state. There is only one girl, played by Elizabeth Olsen, who uses three names in the course of the film, inside and outside a mysterious cult.

Elizabeth Olsen is holds the film together, playing some we slowly realise is suffering from PTSD. I don't immerse myself in the Marvel universe, and so I've only seen her in one other film, being equally excellent in Wind River. But the film never quite clicks. The how and why of the cult, its existence and Martha's arrival is left completely blank, and this leaves a void at teh heart of the film.

This is fine. It's enjoyable, and nice, and well-played. I can imagine siting down with the family on Christmas evening and watching it.

It didn't feel necessary though. It may shed a bit of light in the upbringing of the creator of Mary Poppins, or it may imagine scenes that do her, and her parents an injustice. I can't tell, and I don't really care. I don't need to know and I don't think anyone really does. As a general rule, I always think that if you are going to re-tell a story based on real events, then it either needs to be a story worth telling or seek to show new perspectives worth thinking about . Dunkirk is a film which falls into the former category, The Post falls into the latter. I don't see why Saving Mr Banks needs to exist.

This is as good an exposition of the emotions and relationships within a family as I've seen, in particular the mother-daughter relationship which is perfectly played. It probably has more resonance with parents, and particularly parents of teenage girls, but what's wrong with that? It builds slowly but carries a real emotional punch at the end. One of the best films of the year and deserving of all the plaudits.

This does not make for cheery viewing, though there were several moments in the first half of the film when I snorted with laughter.

The premise, of a family's quiet harmony being disturbed when an outsider arrives, is not new, but this slowly drip feeds a dark back story to develop a brooding menace. By the halfway point of the film it is clear there can be no happy ending. It's a well made, well acted piece, but definitely not a first date movie!

I switched this off very early on - ten minutes. It was unwatchably bad, but that ten minutes put me in mind of 9/12 weeks, re-filmed with a middle-aged man in the Kim Basinger role and a series of men in the Mickey Rourke role. If you like gay porn, this may the film for you, but if you don't, then avoid at all costs.

Someone I know has a film rating method where he starts with 10/10 and knocks off 1 point for each fault. If a film sets out to be an action movie, and it delivers that flawlessly, it's a 10/10 action movie, etc.

Baby Driver is a heist movie with a smile on it's face. It delivers that pretty much perfectly. Kevin Spacey phones in a Kevin Spacey performance so I dock a point on my friends rating. My own rating method means I can't give a heist movie full points as I'm highly unlikely to watch it again. But I'd recommend this film without a seconds thought.

'Lets go to the cinema', says I

'Let's see Paddington 2', says child 2.

'We've seen it', says child 1, ' let's see something new'.

And that is how I came to see this film. I should have listened to child 2, & over-ridden child 1.

This is a film without any redeeming characteristics, expect possibly that it came to an end. It makes jokes out of children learning to use assault rifles to shoot small animals. If there is a hackneyed line, it delivers it. Will Ferrel has never been so bad.

Towards the end of the film, there is a dig at formulaic Christmas movies, where it describes the plot of a supposed risibly bad Christmas action movie called Missile Tow. I would rather have watched that.

The parallels are obvious. Both films tell the story of someone with cerebral palsy, over a number of years, both with a basis in fact. But life Feels Good is far more that just a Polish retread of My Left Foot.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers here. Suffice to say that while My Left Foot dealt with the story of someone dealing with cerebral palsy, Life Feels Good deals with someone whose cerebral palsy leads to a further misdiagnosis. The resulting story is brilliantly acted, sensitively acted, with pathos, emotion and humour. It's an excellent film which deserves a far larger audience.

ps - only in the credits did I realise this was based on one singular true story, until then I assumed it was drawn from a collaboration of events. This is partly because I now expect film biopics to start by telling you this is what they are. That it is all true only enhances an wonderful film

I can quote whole screeds of this film. It is, simply, the greatest comedy of all time, and I have watched it countless times in the last 25 years.

Of course, there is controversy around it. A friend from university initially refused to watch it, understanding it to be a satire on the life of Christ. Eventually persuaded to 'try it', after I assured him that the film makes it very plain that Brian is NOT Christ, he ended up on the floor in tears of laughter.

Amelie came out at the same time my wife and I started dating. It was the first film we saw at the cinema, bought the video etc. On rewatching, over a decade later it holds up well. It perhaps has the timeless quality, and isn't reliant on what were current issues (other than the Lady Di references). The kooky humour is still great, it looks great - basically, it's great.

Like many people (I suspect) I associate Studio Ghibli with Miyazaki. I was hooked in by films like Spirited Away (genius), Princess Mononoke, Valley of the Wind, films which are beautifully made, telling original stories unlike any we see in western cinema - semi-fantastical, child-like yet with an underlying menace. When Marnie was There is a Studio Ghibli film, but directed by Yonebayashi. Like his previous film Arriety (based on the Borrowers), it is based on a short story from Western culture, and for me that means it loses half of the charm. It looks great, but the story seems familiar, and never fully threatening. Arriety had great fun playing with the ideas that every Borrowers film has, and the threat of being discovered put a tension in the film that I enjoyed and my children loved. When Marnie Was There lacks that. It's nice. I enjoyed it, but feel no need to see it again.