Film Reviews by NP

At first I was reticent about watching ‘Saint Maud’. A horror film concerning a terminally ill woman seemed too depressing (and too reality-based) a premise for my liking. Jennifer Ehle plays Amanda Köhl, and it is true she enlists the help of her ‘little saviour’ Maud (Morfydd Clark) to look after her through her final weeks and days – but that’s only part of the story.

The inclusion of Maud’s strict religious beliefs also sounded alarm bells for me. All too often, religious types are presented as fanatics, perverts and/or murderers, and that is a plot point I find not only predictable but lazy in its exploiting of an ‘easy target’. Amanda mocks the idea of religious belief, but there’s no laziness here. None of the characters are black and white; with the aid of clever writing and exemplary playing, you believe in them entirely - but none of them are predictable or easy to like. Things are more complex than that.

Despite my misgivings – misgivings that reinforce the belief that it’s best to go into any film blind – I absolutely loved ‘Saint Maud’. In this astonishing debut feature Rose Glass has created a world within a world – a world of abject loneliness and exclusion, of the fragility of human beings and the casual unkindness of others. Not that Maud is easy to sympathise with – initially she is pious and judgemental, but then, we are all flawed. Amanda wants to live her last days as a reflection of her exotic past, whereas by all accounts she was, as the departing nurse at the beginning of the film points out, ‘a bit of a c***.’

Most of the location filming took place in Scarborough, I was delighted realise (it’s a favourite place of mine) although – apart from the giveaway ‘Coney Island’ gambling emporium – many of the background details are blurred out, giving the impression that this is just another seaside town.

This won’t appeal to everyone. CGI lovers and jump-scare addicts may not find enough to hold their attention, but this is about saturation levels of mood, atmosphere and a very definite weirdness. I look forward to seeing more of Rose Glass’s productions. My score is 9 out of 10.

The most striking thing about this film is Joaquin Phoenix in the title role. His awkward, flamboyant, chuckling performance is truly something special. Laughing, when there is sadness and anger in the eyes, dancing and gyrating in a series of triumphant gestures or furiously spitting out vitriol about how he has been treated – Phoenix is wonderful, and every accolade he has received and every award he will win is justly deserved. His is a truly tragic character, but we are never allowed to truly sympathise with him – which is fine balance.

In fact, the acting cannot be faulted here at all. Robert De Niro has the relatively brief role of TV host Murray Franklin, the teeth-bleached entertainer who actually gives the name ‘Joker’ to outcast Arthur Fleck, and like everyone around him, is very good.

My only issue is with the story, or parts of it. Inevitably spoilers will occur – but he’s given a gun, and uses it to shoot three (arguably deserving) people. Dressed as a clown, he inadvertently reveals the gun at a one-man show at a children’s’ hospice. This is in the middle of a series of political protests made by people dressed as clowns that is sweeping across Gotham; and yet despite the fact that he is fired because of this, the only police intervention is from a couple of out-of-shape law enforcers causing a (very entertaining) siege on a train, and nothing else. From then, Arthur is invited to appear on a Franklin’s TV show in a live broadcast, despite having been ridiculed in an earlier edition, with no pre-show security check or other means to show identification. I know Gotham is, by its nature, a comic-strip world, despite director Todd Philips’ laudable attempts to give this a run down, urban reality, but when Fleck begins ranting and acting erratically, it’s no great surprise when he begins shooting people. I mean, what did they expect?

I enjoyed ‘Joker’ greatly, more that I thought I would, but these cases of Fleck’s demented behaviour going continually unchecked bugged me a little. Even in the middle of a clown-demic, would these things really be allowed to happen?

That aside, I recommend to ‘Joker’ to any of the few people who have not seen it. It’s one heck of a rollercoaster. My score is 7 out of 10.

It’s probably true to say that watching this Indonesian film will leave you exhausted. The story of a raid on a notorious drug gang’s safe house is exhilarating, non-stop and relentless.

The story itself is straightforward, but then it needn’t be anything else. You have one set of characters that form the ruthless SWAT team, and another set of characters that make up an even more ruthless gang. That’s all you need.

The choreography is extraordinary. The actors went through a special training regime in order to study various combat protocols and weapons use. The result is a little too heavy to be labelled as fun, and too grisly to appeal to everyone; but it is an edge-of-your seat ride that rarely lets up for a moment, and I thoroughly recommend it. 8 out of 10.

“What else would you expect from this family?” mom asks dad, having embraced the fact that her husband and children are dreadful. “This is more than just stupid sh*t,” she later tells her daughter.

The parents make nervous small-talk as they wait to see whether their new temporary trailer accommodation meets with their teens’ approval. Not to worry, they’re busy looking at their phones, not speaking, barely tolerating anything. Daughter Kinsey has her Ramones t-shirt on, so clearly she’s not to be provoked. Despite the initial difficulty to warm to the characters, who are only roused from their blandness by arguments, they become more sympathetic as their situation grows more deadly. Why not make them likeable in the first place – then we can care even more about them when things get nasty?

I might be unusual in that I am not familiar with the earlier two ‘Strangers’ films. I think this stands up pretty well on its own, although I’m guessing no explanation is ever given as to who these beings are? Is ‘why not?’ really justification for all the implausibly elaborate ways of torture and killing committed by the creatures when asked ‘Why are you doing this to us?’ Where did they come from? We get no answers here, and are left to wonder why these three antagonists go to such trouble to make life miserable for the family.

Another title for this could have been ‘Death by Music from the Eighties’, because many acts of violence are accompanied by a popular song from that era. Kim Wilde, in particular.

I found this to be a decent, if unremarkable, slasher film. It was also curiously gore free, but as it seems to have done well at the box office, the choice to appeal to the widest of demographics appears to have paid off.

Everyone puts in sterling performances here, from the young and pretty parents, to the older-than-their years teens. My score is 6 out of 10.

Of the comments I have read about this, many of the more critical ones have been scathing about the two little girls. I have seen a great many juvenile performers far worse than this, and whilst they probably are too prominent, they are nowhere near as whiney or obnoxious as a lot of children in these kind of productions – and their reactions to everything going on around them were very well played. Poor little sods.

More troublesome to me is the elaborate and highly improbably lengths to which the antagonist goes to ruin the lives of the young mother and her two daughters. Of course, his capers are heightened for dramatic effect, but he goes to an awful lot of trouble just to polish off these newcomers – and slowly too. 6 out of 10.

Another home invasion film probably influenced by ‘The Strangers', and very good it is too. To begin with, the viewer is continually wrong-footed until we’re finally made aware of what is going on. Even then, events conspire to surprise us.

There’s also a reason for the antagonists to be here, which makes them more real and believable, rather than nameless mask-wearers who elaborately taunt and torture people for kicks.

The heroes are a motley bunch. The men spend a lot of time squabbling, and the mother is defined mainly by botox; the daughter meanwhile is wetter than a wet thing. Understandably so, you might argue, given the circumstances.

Good, unexpected ending too, although some will be frustrated by it. My score is 8 out of 10.

This is a quietly unsettling film, directed very much in the style of a TV movie. It really ramps up the tension at the halfway mark, following a séance to determine the cause of the haunting that is rattling John Russell, played by an excellent George C Scott.

A question that remains with me after watching this is - if the spirit is so powerful, why does it need Russell’s help? Equally unclear is the actual ending of the film, involving Sen. Joseph Carmichael (played by another wonderful veteran Melvyn Douglas) in his final scene (no major spoilers here!).

For a film to be open to suggestion is not a problem for me, especially when the whole experience is as good as this. Minimal horror effects go to prove that if done right (and director Peter Medak certainly knows how to do that), a palpably uneasy atmosphere is enough. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is a strangely structured film that takes in period horror and flirts with found footage. Slightly over-long, but very well acted, and a central doll that is genuinely quite scary on occasions.

I like that ‘Curse of the Witch’s Doll’ aims to try something different, both with the horror elements and the story itself. This is a rare occurrence where a bigger budget might have benefited that ambition – as it is, some of the very talky scenes outstay their welcome a little.

It’s surprising how little the doll actually features, but when it does, and considering it is only a prop, it is surprisingly effective. A definite case of less is more. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is an independent film about a caper organised by notorious east end gangsters the Kray twins. Despite something of a drubbing from the critics, I enjoyed this. The cinematography is nice and gloomy, the weather relentlessly wintry. The acting ranges from good to very good (former EastEnder Rita Simons is excellent as Lisa Prescott). Sadly, the weakest link by some way is Nathanjohn Carter as Ronnie Kray who wouldn’t cut it as a supporting character, and as one of the main players, lets the side down rather.

What a cast too. Chris Ellison, Linda Lusardi, Nicholas Ball and the late Leslie Grantham in his final role.

The story is a good, low-key, character driven slow-burner. The director and writer is prolific Richard John Taylor (who was also behind the similar gangster tale, 2020’s ‘Vengeance’), who is a name to look out for. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is an atmospheric, claustrophobic chiller. Shay Mitchell is very good as damaged Megan, and Kirby Johnson is very effective as the eerie title character. With possession/exorcism stories, you often know what you’re going to get, so I liked the fact this story actually began with the exorcism and then explored the fall-out. The ex-boyfriend Andrew (Grey Damon – what a great name) s a bit wooden, and Security assistant Dave has got frizzy ginger hair, so he’s a bit of a twit.

In the 80s there was a dance move called body-popping. For a while, it was everywhere – then it became a feature of horror movie creatures – and it is very much in evidence here too.

This reinvigorated my passion for horror after watching a lot of substandard genre films. My score is 8 out of 10.

A beautifully directed production does its best to mask an uneven story involving an eccentric writer who moves himself and his daughter into a remote Scottish castle.

The characters are weird bunch. Bee Travis (Grace Courtney) is a petulant, bored, continually unimpressed, rude teen who does nothing whatsoever to endear herself to anyone. Her father, writer Jack, on whom the story focuses on too much, is impressively played by William Holstead; he drifts from endearing eccentricity to enraged madness, but becomes, dare I say, way too camp to be frightening.

Rather more appealing and believable are Callum and Jenny (James Rottger and Helen Mackay), who initially appear to also be in their teens, but are in fact a professional couple. When these two become embroiled in the creepiness, it is easier to care about them.

However, there is little pace and things meander rather than heading to any kind of climax. Bee becomes forgotten in the final third until the end, where a physical manifestation of evil finally materialises in its brief CGI glory.

This is interesting more than anything else; for Fionn Watts and Toby Watts, who write, produce and direct, ‘Playhouse’ appears to be a labour of love, and a commendable one at that, but somehow it misses its mark a little. My score is 6 out of 10.

Two competent lead performances sadly cannot lift this from being a very dull watch. The one location is a cabin in the middle of nowhere, where two sisters meet up and try to outdo each other in the madness stakes. This involves endless conversations, often heated and, because they are both female, this involves a lot of arguing about who would make the best mother.

This distinct lack of verve and imagination leaves the two actresses very little to work with, other than drifting round in a kind of loop, achieving and discovering little about what scant plot there is.

The ending, if you get to it, is more interesting than the rest of the film, although even that is stretched out too long. My score is 4 out of 10.

This begins well, and certainly features some excellent performances, but at some point during the first half it becomes apparent that not a lot is likely to happen; the storyline is pretty thin. A few too many ‘jump scares’ attempt to liven things up, but it isn’t until later that things begin to get more interesting.

A claustrophobic, effective horror that is never terrifying, but quietly unsettling. My score is 6 out of 10.

This doesn’t start in a promising fashion. A pre-credits sequence that is so mild, it fails to deliver much tension or atmosphere (our villainess looks much better later on in the film). As things progress, we become acquainted with a shrunken head, and the game that comes with it. You wouldn’t, would you? Play the game, I mean.

So when the main characters play this game, you know things aren’t going to end well. You also know that this bunch aren’t the smartest gang you’ll ever meet - but you get into it. For an independent film, the budget is very well utilised, the sound and direction (by Eddie Lengyel, who also wrote) are polished. The acting is uneven (some of lack of expression is restricted by the surgically enhanced appearance of some performers) – a good example being a séance that shifts effortlessly from moments that are effective to others that are pretty poorly performed. You win some, you lose some. There is, however, a compelling and troubling inevitability regarding the characters’ fates. Lilith herself looks progressively effective, although her kills are fairly mild. There’s also a nice twist at the end. My score is 7 out of 10.

Very slow, perhaps too slow to begin with, this is nevertheless an immersive experience. This is due to a combination of things – the acting, the incredible scenery and the eerie sound design.

There is, however, virtually no story. This is an uneventful film with a lacklustre ending, heightened by very good acting and terrific direction and cinematography. Filmed in Ireland, it is bound to look great – and it does – but the overall feeling I had at the end was … what? My score is 5 out of 10.