Reviews

As a big fan of McDormand, I watched the film with great interest but was left hugely disappointed.

While the overall sentiment of the film is entirely honourable and the backdrops are breathtaking, the film plays out more as a documentary with a ponderous, plodding storyline revealing little more than the message that it is possible to see the beauty of this world if you just go out and look for it. This notion alone could easily form the basis of a classic movie but it doesn't transpire.

The film does pose some interesting social and moral questions, especially the country's treatment of the elderly but over time the storytelling becomes tedious and predictable.

When compared to McDormand classics such as Fargo and 3 Billboards, this is a relatively lame affair which again calls in to question the motives of the Oscars voting panel.

It's an interesting concept, and McDormand is always instantly watchable but the end result is as dreary as the town of Empire.

During this awful pandemic, one of the few upsides has been the ability to catch up on movies I might have otherwise overlooked.

I decided to give The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society a try, and when explaining the virtues of this film you may assume early doors that I think its a bit of a dud - I can assure you it isn't.

The film follows a somewhat linear format. Girl gets marriage proposal, girl meets another gentleman she has been corresponding with by letter, girl falls in love with said gentleman, girl gets her man. A plot line that has been delivered countless times before. I guessed the climax of this film very early on - but it didn't matter.

The journey the film takes you on, from a glamorous post war London to a pig farm on the Isle of Guernsey is enchanting. The character development is rich, the story is complex, intelligent and at certain times, moving. While the lead actors all put in an excellent shift, it is the supporting cast which elevate the film. Katherine Parkinson as the eccentric, gin boot legging singleton is superb as is Tom Courtney who offers a number of comic moments. Penelope Wilton is also brilliant as a mother stricken by grief and guilt.

There is no CGI in this film, no explosions or showers of bullets. There are no A list actors either. This is good old fashioned story telling at it's best. It makes you sad, it makes you smile and it warms your heart.

It would get a 10 but sadly it wasnt filmed in Guernsey (it was actually filmed in Devon). If it had been, I have no doubt if would have proved to be even more enchanting.

Bravo.

There is the age-old adage that fact is always more interesting than fiction. While a certain amount of creative licence is often necessary for plot development, a good old fashioned true story is one that leaves a lasting memory for years to come.

Le Mans '66 is one of these films, and it is superb. Yes, the storyline deviates from the actual events at times, but the essence of the movie is in keeping with this pivotal moment in motor racing history; the glorious battle between a luxury sportscar manufacturer and the mass producer of automobiles for the common man. David vs Goliath, Box Office vs Benefits Office - you choose. Either way, Le Man '66 plays out as a buddy movie between the main characters, Carroll Shelby and a highly volatile Ken Miles and it plays out in a magnificent way.

It's irritating sometimes to read reviews on IMDB, where 'self-made' geeks offer criticism which isn't fair or indeed, particularly smart. For example, I don't care if the Ford GT40 MK II doesn't sound like it has a 7.0 litre engine or the racecraft from the drivers isn't 100% historically accurate. Does it really matter in the scheme of things? The movie is an exhilarating roller coaster ride from start to finish with an exceptionally entertaining and compelling performance by Christian Bale who steps into Ken Miles's shoes with great gusto. Matt Damon plays Carrol Shelby at times for laughs and comes across as a passionate, cheeky salesman with an unwavering sense of self-belief. It's a killer combination.

Like everyone, we all draw different messages and meanings from films, and the conclusion I made was a real surprise to me. I thought the film would be about taking on the big boys and beating them at their own game (which is the actual storyline but not the underlying tone). What transpired was something different - Ford tarnished their achievement by putting their big corporate multi-billion dollar machine ahead of the glory and legend of the sport. By not letting Ken Miles win and instead, instigating a cheap and cheesy publicity stunt to sell a few more units, Ford did more damage to their reputation that day than enhancing it. The words 'no class' spring to mind with the added hammer blow of not only robbing Miles of a much-deserved win but then tragically losing his life in a fatal crash while testing the next generation GT40.

If you can ignore drivers staring at each other while driving at 200mph or the fact that Enzo Ferrari was probably not at the race (at that time of his life he rarely left his office, not even for races), then Le Man '66 is a petrolheads dream of a film. There is enough truth in the story to make it a compelling and riveting spectacle from start to finish.

While Miles is not afforded the same stellar reputation when compared to a Fangio, Senna or Clark, the film successfully raises his profile as a racing legend which is fitting to his and the Le Mans GT40's memory.

Oh yes - in my honest opinion, this is THE best Star Wars film of them all. Even better than The Empire Strikes Back, and that is some claim so at least I should attempt to explain myself (I may struggle!).

I stand by opinion 1000%. Up until Rogue One appeared on our screens, The Empire Strikes Back was the go-to movie. Dark, sinister and moody with spectacular set pieces, the film took the Star Wars universe to a different level, focusing on the desperate fight between good and evil (which in essence is what this franchise is all about). Nothing before or since this film has come even close; in comparison, most of the other movies are either a bit tame or just plain dreadful. So watching Rogue One was not an experience where I had the feeling of much hope (but then Rebellions, as they say, are built on hope!) After 2 hours and 13 minutes, I realised that I had not just watched a great Star Wars film - I had watched the best one of all.

Why? OK, here goes.

The Plotline It's ingenious. How the writers managed to take a line from Mon Mothma in 'A New Hope' and turn it into a 2-hour long film is smart, to say the least. And it works too. The idea of creating a back story focusing on how the plans for the Death Star come into the hands of the Rebel Alliance is a stroke of genius. The story is compelling and introduces an entirely new cast and with one fundamental difference between all Stars Wars films. There is no hope for the main protagonists; there is no happy ending. Here lies true heroism in the face of Imperial annihilation.

The Cast & Characters One of the difficult hurdles that Rogue One needed to get over was creating characters that the audience could believe in, and the producers achieved this in most parts, flawlessly. It helps that, unlike in previous iterations, the cast of this film act exceptionally well. Felicity Jones (as Jyn) does a fantastic job and at times, delivers a barnstorming performance. Cassian's objectives are shrouded in mystery, and he gives a brooding, tortured performance. Baze (Wen Jiang) and Chirrut (Donnie Yen) are bickering buddies and stellar, triumphant heroes. Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) plays the villain of the piece gloriously over the top. However, the laughs and the stand out performance all come from Alan Tudyk as K-2SO. A literal, caustic and sarcastic droid who delivers his lines with a blunted severity that has you laughing out loud. No gimmicks, no ingenious tech. It is the character aspect that makes K-2SO the best droid of all.

Set Pieces It's easy to forget how many fabulous set-pieces there are in this film. The most expansive is the battle on and above Scarif, but there are so many more. The fight scenes and destruction of Jedha, the attack on the crystal mining colony. There is, of course, a lot of CGI going on here but it is delivered at such a pace and in such an exhilarating way that it immerses you in the Star War Universe and gives you the box seat.

Bad Bits? Well, there are some but thankfully very few, and not enough to detract from what is an epic movie. Saw Gerrera is dissapointing which is a surprise considering Forrest Whittakers acting credentials. The film also delivers an astounding piece of CGI and then near the end, an utterly laughable one. I thought Peter Cushing had miraculously come back from the dead or there was a doppelganger in the acting world, for at least for a few seconds. The way the filmmakers did this with CGI was impressive, using a real actor and a voice that sounded very similar. However, Leia's appearance at the end was shockingly bad, totally unconvincing, and one intelligent step too far. It was unnecessary in the scheme of things. Vaders voice didn't work either which is nobody's fault since James Earl Jones is now 89, and his voice has lost that sinister grit. He could have been helped with some better dialogue to be honest. "Be careful not to choke on your aspirations, Director" seemed a bit contrived to me. Not the least bit scary.

Still, Rogue One is an unexpected gem. When compared to all that has gone before, it is better written, better produced, better acted and does one thing that all other Star Wars film failed to do apart from Empire. It makes you care. For me, there are only two Star Wars films worth watching. This one is the most fulfilling although the Battle of Hoth for me is still the standout sequence of any in the entire franchise.

Please take note Disney - originality, competent acting, real drama and not so happy endings make better films rather than the regurgitated nonsense of the Force Awakens, The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker.

Today's children are intelligent enough to take it.

I'm really sad posting this. I so wanted to love this film, I really did. But it didn't quite happen.

There is much to admire about Bladerunner 2049. For starters, the cinematography is breathtaking. There are so many shots in this film that are staggering. As a viewing spectacle it is up there with the very best; it is a consumate work of art at times.

Then there is the soundtrack. Some find it too loud and overbearing. I disagree with that view. The soundtrack pays fitting homage to Vangelis and adopts original and variations on his original themes. It could never match the Vangelis soundtrack but it comes mighty close. Unfortunately in the digital age there is a lack of quirkiness, rawness and bravado which made the analog original so timeless. It's a bit too clean, too well produced in comparison. But to be honest, as a standalone work it is superb. Sea Wall is a particularly good.

However this is where my positive critique sadly ends. This film fails for me on a number of levels. Firstly, it doesn't move you like the original nor does it thought provoke either. When Roy Batty dies in the original film it is truly moving - the villain of the film ultimately values life to such an extent that he dies without taking out revenge on his persuer and nemesis. In this film, there just isn't that same depth or level of connection. When Joe dies at the end he goes out with a tame, almost pathetic whimper.

The other main issue is that the plot takes so long to unravel over nearly 3 hrs. What started as intrigue soon turns into tedium. Gosling does a fine job in the lead role but this film is a good 40 minutes too long.

Rightly of wrongly it's a sequel and therefore will be compared to the original. For all the gorgeous sets, camera shots and atmospherics, Bladerunner 2049 is no match for the groundbreaking original.

Joi is an interesting character and was well acted but Wallace's henchwoman, whilst vicious, never reaches the unpredictable menace and ruthlessness of Roy Batty. Jared Leto as Wallace was intriguing but under used. And the CGI version of Sean Young's Rachel was clever but in my opinion, her addition smacked of desperation in the end. Deckard's introduction was so late and so brief that it became almost insignificant. Yet he is so pivotal to the storyline.

Personally, I think the filmakers did a solid but underwhelming job with what proved to be an impossible task and they should at least be applauded for even attempting it. But to sum up, if the studio have designs on making another Bladerunner film, then I will quote the wise words of the late and rather great Rutger Hauer...

Time to die.

The film is a genuine work of art for sure, but is let down by a seriously tedious, slow plot line and a total lack of emotional depth.

I like my motor racing and was old enough to remember the Lauda / Hunt season of 1976 which captivated the sporting public. I was dubious about the epic battle coming to the silver screen and yet after watching it, concluded that I'd just seen the best motor racing film of all time.

We have been in this territory before. Both Steve McQueen and Jack Lemmon have had a go and in recent years we've seen NASCAR as well. But none have come close in captivating the sense of romance, danger and sheer bravery of the two protagonists in question.

So why does it work so well? For a start, watching Daniel Brühl as Nikki Lauda was like watching the great man himself. A dead ringer who portrays the great man impeccably and who is the very antithesis of Hunt, the flamboyant, heavy drinking womaniser and maverick. Hemsworth looks great - not a dead ringer for Hunt but good enough and his accent is perfect.

Of course, anyone who knows their motor racing knows what happens in the end. But it is the journey that is taken, from Lord Hesketh privateering a young James Hunt in Formula Two where he first comes to race with his Austrian counterpart, to the 1976 F1 Season and the tragedy of that day at the Nurburgring.

It would be easy to focus on the climax of the film with Hunt being the winner, after nearly losing the title with a double puncture. But it is Lauda who is quite rightly the hero. The crash, the horrendous rehabilitation, the shocking press conference, the fear at his return at Monza, and then retirement in the final race. To come back from those injuries in only 6 weeks and to come so close to another World Championship is testament to the bravery of the man who went on to become a racing legend.

The film also pays a great tribute to Hunt, who whilst affectionately known as 'the Shunt', was far more than just the stereotypical playboy. By Lauda's own admission, Hunt was a highly skilled driver who was incredibly quick. He lived his life on the edge both professionally and privately. To lose the great man at the age of 45 from a heart attack was a tragedy in itself, especially as he had been sober for four years.

Whether you like F1 or not is irrelevant. Rush is a brilliant true life story which is expertly crafted by Ron Howard. The race scenes are fantastically reproduced and the sound is epic. You are left under no illusion that these guys put their lives on the line every time they turned up at the track.

Rush has been tipped for the Oscars and quite rightly so. You will not see a better acting performance than from Daniel Brühl and I hope that he receives the coveted golden statue as it will be well deserved.

If you haven't seen the film give it a go. Its a fabulous story, has some truly comic moments at times (the broken down car scene is a belter!) but also drama, heartbreak and triumph. And it is the fastest two hours I've experienced at the movies for many years.

Is this the best WWII mini-series ever produced?

Quite simply...no - it's THE best mini series ever produced. I came to the phenomenon that is known as Band of Brothers quite late, I've watched it countless times and find something new every time I revisit it.

The reason this mini series is so good is due to three primary factors.

Firstly, the series does not have a TV feel about it at all, more like a big budget war movie epic throughout. The production is influenced heavily by Saving Private Ryan and it shows. The production is superb, the acting performances are superb, the pace is superb. And it's better than SPR for the simple reason that you are following the characters of a close knit team and the subject matter is that much more intriguing for it. We watch the characters evolve from training camp right through to D-Day.

Secondly, the film does not glorify war, in fact in great part, it focuses on the futility of it at times. It is a 'warts and all' documentary where we see poor leadership, breaks in chain of command and unnecessary loss of life. But on the flip side we see the power of human spirit and the ability to survive insurmountable odds.

But the final masterstroke is the inclusion of the actual Veterans themselves (seen at the beginning and the end of each episode). And we have to wait until the final instalment before we realise that these Veterans are actually depicted in the films. Their inclusion adds a certain poignancy and realism to the piece.

The 10 part series is knitted around Major Richard Winters (played by the magnificent Damien Lewis) which follows him through training and a series of promotions to actually leading the company. The cast of B of B is impressive throughout - starting with David Schwimmer who against complete type, plays an arrogant, bumbling CO at the training school. Donnie Wahlberg is another stand out performer in the acting stakes as Sgt. Carwood Lipton. Other notable characters include Don Mullarkey, Wild Bill Guarnare, Shifty Powers and Joe Toye.

Whilst the stories are mainly focused around Winters, my favourite stand out character though is the mysterious Ronald Spiers who was the subject of constant rumours which he never acknowledged or denied (the rumours include supposed atrocities committed to German POW's). The moment when he took over command from Lieutenant Dyke at the town of Foy and ran through the German occupied lines to link up with the mortar team (and then ran back again)was the stand out moment of the series for me. What makes this more amazing is that it actually happened (Spiers had a glittering Army career and ended up in charge of Spandau Prison).

The production was a joint venture between HBO and the BBC which is probably why a number of British actors appear (most notably Lewis). And yet this does not detract from the piece at all (Lewis's American accent is impeccable).

Since Band of Brothers, HBO have released 'The Pacific' and to be honest I can't watch it - not because it won't be any good, but because I will measure it against Band of Brothers and Band of Brothers will win hands down every time.

The best mini series every produced - a triumphant and compelling work which pays a wonderful tribute to the brave men of Easy Company.

The best 'mistaken identity' movie of them all, Hitchcock's masterpiece North By Northwest is a roller coaster ride from start to finish.

Hitchcock originally wanted James Stewart to play Roger Thornhill and I'm convinced that with Hitchcock's direction we would have got much the same result.

But Cary Grant is absolutely superb as the office exec who gets mistaken for George Caplan (who doesn't actually exist), and subsequently gets embroiled in a cold war plot where he has to fight to survive without having a clue what is happening around him.

Grant plays his role with aplomb offering a mixture of anxiety, humour, sarcasm and disbelief. James Mason (Vandamme) is the man who wants Caplan dead and with his main henchman (an ice cold Martin Landau), they think they've achieved this by loading Thornhill up with Bourbon before getting him behind the wheel of a speeding car on a cliff top road.

If only it were that easy. But Thornhill is a resilient man and after being framed for murder, looks to clear his name by discovering the truth

Now Miss Kendall appears in the film, (Vandamme's mistress played by the excellent Eva Marie Saint) who leads you to believe that she has it in for Mr Thornhill but all is not what it seems.

The plot twists and turns at relentless pace with a number of wonderful set pieces including crop dusting, Mount Rushmore and a hilarious confrontation in an auction room.

But the crop dusting scene is the stand out moment and is where Hitchcock shows off his directorial genius. He makes great use of the landscape and the power of silence (intertwined with the odd car or bus noise) to leave you in no doubt that Thornhill is on his own. Then, in the distance, the faint, insignificant hum of a crop dusting plane emerges without giving the audience any realisation that this is actually the weapon Vandamme has chosen to rid him of his supposed adversary for good.

Further twists include a fake shooting and the film culminates in the battle for survival on Mount Rushmore - epic stuff.

North By Northwest is escapism at its very best and Grant plays the role in part for laughs which adds to the the movie's charm. His sarcastic sparring with Vandamme and Leonard, and his unashamed flirting with Eve all conspire to make a top notch thriller which you will want to watch again and again.

It may not have the shocks as Psycho, the terror of the Birds, the taught tension and hopelessness of Rear Window. But as a thriller and piece of entertainment, this is one of Hitchcock's triumphs and gets a worthy 10 stars from me.

On paper, the plot line for this film is an absolute nightmare – controversial and even sick if handled by the wrong director. And yet Luc Besson conjures up an intricate, touching and taught thriller which ranks as a landmark piece of cinema.

Leon is essentially a love story between a French hit-man (referred to as a 'cleaner') and a 12 year old girl whose family are brutally murdered by a monstrous DEA official come drug dealer (Gary Oldman).

Leon (Jean Reno) is a meticulous assassin carrying out $5000 hits for the Italian underworld. He never actually gets paid as his boss Tony looks after his money for him (safer than a bank) though the reality is that he is being fleeced. He is socially and emotionally like a child – his simple life consists of drinking milk, watching Gene Kelly films, caring for a plant and sleeping upright in a chair with a gun by his side. He can't read and lives a solitary existence.

His life changes when one day, a 12 year girl called Matilda (Natalie Portman) returns to the apartment building with some cartons of milk for him. As she walks past her own apartment to knock on Leon's door she sees that her family have been brutally murdered. In tears, she pleads with Leon to open the door, starting a relationship which ultimately ends in tragedy.

Leon reluctantly takes Matilda under his wing and teaches her the skills of the expert hit-man because it's all he knows and over time they form an unbreakable bond.

The film works for two simple reasons – Portman's pre-adolescent character means that she is too young to truly understand the implications of what she saying i.e. about love and sex. In Leon's case, he is in some ways even more of a child and therefore incapable of taking any sinister advantage of the situation. The result is a touching love story without any hint of perversity - their love is genuine but there is no hint of it crossing the lines of common decency. The controversial scene where Matilda asks to sleep with him was cut in the American screening and yet it is clear that Matilda doesn't really understand what she is saying nor does Leon have any intention of entertaining the prospect. The way in which they say goodbye to each other in what turns out to be the very last time is very much in the father daughter mould.

Besson came up with Leon's character from a bit part Reno played in a previous film, La Femme Nikita , and the way Reno portrays Leon quite rightly turned him into an international movie star. His understated performance in direct contrast to the brashness of Matilda, is perfectly judged and the empathy you feel for his character is almost immediate.

Gary Oldman's role is brutal, terrifying and wonderfully sinister. A glorious, over the top, drug fuelled nutcase with a passion for Beethoven.

But it is Portman who steals the film and quite rightly so. When Luc Besson casted for the part of Matilda, he wanted someone young – somebody who did not understand the meaning of love. In her screen test, Portman was told the scene – that she is walking towards Leon's apartment when she discovers that her family including her 4 year old brother have been brutally murdered. She started to cry immediately – Besson had found her Matilda.

It is amazing that Natalie Portman appeared in the awful Star Wars Prequels after a giving such a wonderful performance in Leon. There are very few child actors who could have delivered an acting master class like this – the only comparison I can think of is Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver. Even more remarkable, Portman had received little in actor training or experience before this film. During the making of the movie, the first time she had to be tearful, the crew used methanol to help her appear to be crying. She only used this once, as she was able to generate the emotion and tears by herself - quite a feat for an 11 year old girl.

Fortunately, Natalie had very good parents who had certain control over the way she was used in the film. You never see Matilda draw on a cigarette and she gives up smoking later in the film. A planned shower scene where Matilda prances around naked was thankfully scrapped.

Leon is a film of many complexities and one of the best thrillers I have seen personally. Whether you see it in the normal or Directors Cut version (the long version as Reno calls it), it's a must have. We must also hope that Besson writes a script for a new film, Matilda, so we can all see what happens to her character in the future. Portman has already stated she would do this at the drop of a hat, relishing the chance to work with Besson again – here's hoping.

It is a magnificent piece of cinema.