England Is Mine

Dir: Mark Gill

2017

****

A film about the childhood of Smiths’ singer Morrissey was never going to be a colourful affair but Mark Gill’s film isn’t quite the melancholic portrait it probably should have been. However, I’m not sure we really need another miserable film about another British pop star. Anton Corbijn’s 2007 biopic of Joy Division front-man Ian Curtis was strong but bleaker than the songs he wrote. Sam Taylor-Johnson’s Nowhere Boy, the story of a young John Lennon just before he met Paul McCartney, may have been factual but it still felt a lot like it was tailored to what people thought it should look like, rather than what it really did look like. England Is Mine – taken from a line in The Smiths’ song ‘Still ill’ (“England is mine, and it owes me a living”) – does at first feel like it was fllowing a similar path to every other British biopic set in England, whether it be in the 1970s or the thirty years before or after. It starts with a captivating visual though of waves entering a dock, with the young Morrissey looking down into it, either transfixed or contemplating a plunge, possibly even both. It’s hard to say whether this is the real Morrissey or not, Jack Lowden is pretty good in his performance but he doesn’t look anything like the singer and I wonder how much of the story you could say the same for. I like The Smiths and I like Morrissey’s solo stuff, I think every fifteen year old has identified with a Smiths lyric and I’m suspicious of anyone who says they never liked them, especially when they were young. There is some truth to what the late great Sean Hughes said about Morrissey (“Everyone grows out of their Morrissey phase…except Morrissey”) but there will always be a part of me (and you, admit it) that will always find staggering beauty in the lyric “If a double-decker bus crashes into us, to die by your side is such a heavenly way to die, and if a 10-ton truck kills the both of us, to die by your side, the pleasure, the privilege is mine”. If you also like the lyric (and don’t pretend you don’t) then there is a lot to England is Mine that you will enjoy. There is a lot to learn about the man himself also, as many of the events covered are well documented as being true and as far as I can tell, the film is ‘unauthorised’ in that none of the Smiths’ songs are featured and Morrissey himself had no part in it. I’m not sure I was ever that interested in how the Smiths formed or what made Morrissey such a miserabilist in the first place but the film kind of suggested otherwise, as by the end of it I was quite glad. I didn’t know of Morrissey’s ‘The Cult’ connection and I never knew just how he and Johnny Marr met. Perhaps the best thing about the film however is just how it depicts depression, anxiety and just how crippling it can be. By the end of the film I thought that if Morrissey can get up and do something amazing, then anyone can. The typical biopic formula fades and the end of the film is a rewarding but beautifully grueling slog. It’s a far more visual film than one would expect from a musical history lesson too, with the work of Stanley Kubrick of all people springing to mind. I love that so much of the film concentrates on the aspects of famous lives that are often overlooked. Morrissey comes from a normal background, the lyric; “I was looking for a job, and then I found a job, and heaven knows , I'm miserable now. In my life, why do I give valuable time to people who don’t care if I live or die?” could only have come from someone who lived a real life and that is shown properly in the film, his life working in an office taking up more than just thirty seconds of run time. I had no expectations for the film, which might have helped, but I really enjoyed it. It’s visually impressive and hangs on to those difficult aspects of the story that most films chose to ignore, which I found commendable.

Bill

Dir: Richard Bracewell

2015

****

I’m a bit old for the television show Horrible Histories but I had always been curious about the show as it would often win comedy awards in adult categories. I do know Simon Farnaby however, so I watched Bill – the Horrible Histories movie - because of him, knowing the sort of thing to expect. I enjoyed it a lot. There were a few kids TV shows like it when I was young that I can think of but none quite as funny or grown up. I remember as a child being talked down to by television, even though very little went above me, and I know I’m not alone in feeling this. I’d watch all the popular TV shows but I would also watch Monty Python and the Goodies and old re-runs of silly 70s comedies. I’m guessing Laurence Rickard and Ben Willbond had a similar experience growing up and the result is Horrible Histories, Yonderland and now Bill. The Bill of the title is of course William Shakespeare. Shakespeare is an integral part of growing up in the UK as you have to read and study at least two of his works before you sit your final exams and many a film adaptation or TV version exists. You have to watch them all, it’s a sort of unwritten law. If you’re lucky you get to read Macbeth at school, if you’re unlucky – like me – you get Twelfth Night or one of the other ‘comedies’ that see a girl dressed as a boy and a fool get his comeuppance. I personally think there is a lot to the theory that the work of Shakespeare as we know it is actually the works of two different writers but that is another matter. The truth is, school kills Shakespeare for most British kids, as it is over analysed, dissected and rammed down our throats at a young age. Many only appreciate Shakespeare when they go back and read it as adults, generally down to a realisation that they’ve reached a certain age and are embarrassed to admit they’ve read very few of the classic novels that they read should have read by now. Bill makes Shakespeare fun for kids, which is great for a bit of after school relief, but I’m not sure it will help them pass any exams. That’s fine though, kids need a bit of silly, and Bill is certainly that. However, it doesn’t rest on the same jokes you’d expect to find in kids shows/films. I think it was Akira Kurosawa who said that there are only seven stories and that every story, film, or whatever can be traced back to one of them. In the case of kids themes, I think there are only two, maybe three. Growing up in the late 70s and early 80s, most British made kids television saw different programs with different characters and TV personalities go through the same plot-lines, tell the same jokes and rip off the same slap-stick skits from the Three Stooges. The kids these days don’t know how lucky they are to have programs like Horrible Histories or films like Bill. That said, it is all just a sugar-free version of Monty Python. I like it and enjoyed it but I’m not sure how less Pythonesque it could be. To be honest though, that didn’t bother me at all, fair play to them, their jokes were their own and they came thick and fast. They’re all brilliant writers and brilliant performers. As they put it themselves, Bill is "a hundred different brands of idiocy, really... We staunchly defends the idiocy." And I for one really support that when it comes to kids TV/film. As for the historical element, I think the team said it well when they pointed out that "We're playing with history, just as Shakespeare did, for the entertainment of the audience." It’s great fun, the sort of thing I want my kids to watch and the sort of thing I’d enjoy watching with them.

Mute

Dir: Duncan Jones

2018

**

I really like Duncan Jones. 2009’s film Moon was amazing, Source Code was very clever, his 2002 film Whistle is one of the best short sci-fi movies ever made in my opinion and I even thought War Craft was good when everyone else slated it. However, I think he’s made a big mistake with 2018’s Mute, a film that he has stated as his dream project. Mute is an idea Jones has had for quite some time, indeed, he approached Sam Rockwell about it well before Moon was even written. It has remained in development hell for over a decade, Jones made Moon especially for Rockwell and then had the idea of making Mute in the distant future, as a sort of sequel, and part two of a sci-fi trilogy that would all happen in the same universe at the same time. Mute is suggested as a ‘spiritual sequel’ to Moon and Rockwell’s character does indeed feature, although not within the film’s main story. This was probably Jones’ first mistake. Moon is a film that really didn’t need a sequel, plus, the futurescape of Moon is totally different to that seen in Mute. Moon was obviously set on the moon but the technology seen is miles away from what is seen in Mute. You could explain it off, but the reality is that they aren’t of a similar sci-fi feel, they don’t work together and Mute cheapens Moon. The truth is that Mute – which is clearly meant as a tribute to the great sci-fi pictures of the past – is a mish-mash of ideas pinched from the pockets of the great sci-fi pictures of the past. It’s Philip K. Dick but without the ideas, it’s Blade Runner but without the style, it’s The Fifth Element but without the fun. It’s just about any great sci-fi film you can think of but without the bit that made them great. The story is incoherent and never really grabs the attention. Alexander Skarsgard’s mute character is mute for no real reason and makes for a dull leading role. The story revolves around him looking for his girlfriend who has gone missing. She hints at a secret just before she vanishes and the rest of the film sees the mute following various nonsensical clues to solve the mystery and discover said secret, with anti-climactic results. The plot is full of red herrings and pointless diversions which only goes towards making the big problem with Mute even more obvious: there is nothing for the audience to care about. Half an hour in and I had absolutely no interest in what happened to the characters or what they did next. There really was no mystery, he would either find his girlfriend or he wouldn’t, either way, I wasn’t interested. The visuals were also nothing special, there was no stand out scene or anything really that the film could be remembered for, other than looking like a cheap Blade Runner knock-off. I liked the food delivery drones, but that was about it as far as my like for this vision of the future goes. I think the lowest point was when the mute visited Dominic Monaghan’s character in his hotel suite. Monaghan (complete with bad German accent) is dressed as a disheveled geisha and has clearly been interrupted from having sex with a couple of sex robots. The film takes place in Germany, so the whole geisha thing is clearly a reference to Ghost in the Shell and Blade Runner, and the sex robots come from a number of sources, A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Heavy Metal Magazine being the first that come to mind. If feels more like a tragic spoof than it does a tribute, Monaghan’s character isn’t the least bit funny or interesting, it’s just a horrible scene. The direction is strange, the composition is stranger, with loads of odd scenes being shot from really far away one minutes and way too close the next. The editing is dreadful also, with reference made at one point to a scene that supposedly just happened, that actually happened two days previously in the story. I would say the continuity was a big problem, but it is the least of the film’s problems and I also didn’t really care by this point. However, there are elements of it that I did like. There are a few little odd scenes that stood out for me, I think their effect are somewhat serendipitous but I liked them. The best thing about Mute though is Paul Rudd. His character is the film’s would-be villain, not totally obvious as a bad guy, but unpredictable and hot tempered, giving the film the only spark of intrigue and suspense which it so desperately needed. Justin Theroux is also very good, although his character is muddled and written badly. Weirdly, Rudd and Theroux’s characters are supposedly based on Trapper John and Hawkeye from M*A*S*H (played by Elliott Gould and Donald Sutherland) but only in that they are both friends and ex-military medical doctors. There is a glimmer of Trapper John and Hawkeye in one scene but it’s almost ruined by the fact that they are the films bad guys. The conclusion is odd, not altogether horrible as it gets a little intriguing – not through good writing but because the story goes off in an unexpected tangent. It’s puzzling that this has come from such a talented director such as Jones. Mute is over a decade in the making, so you really have to wonder how it started and what on earth happened during its development. The cynic in me thinks it premiered on a popular streaming channel – rather than appear in cinemas – for good reason, although I’m glad I didn’t venture outside of my house and slippers in order to watch it.

I, Tonya

Dir: Craig Gillespie

2017

*****

I remember the Tonya Harding story quite well – or so I thought. What I actually remember is how she attacked follow figure skater Nancy Kerrigan with a hammer, breaking her knee. Something that didn’t actually ever happen but the fact that so many remember it that way is addressed directly in the film. Craig Gillespie’s I, Tonya sets the record straight and does it with humour, raw drama and visual panache. I was sure Harding was physically responsible for the attack but that is how it was reported in the media. Gillespie’s film, based on Steven Rogers brilliant script, basically undoes the poor reporting on the subject and explores everyone involved’s point of view, as well as the documented facts. Truth is, Harding was in the spotlight long before the ‘incident’ and even though everyone sees it differently, it is undeniable that she is the big victim in the story of her life. The story is constructed from interviews and reconstructions of real and supposed events. It’s not quite a ‘mockumentry’, more like a reconstruction that occasionally breaks the forth wall. For instance, Harding’s e-husband Jeff Gillooly states that Harding once chased him out of their house with a shotgun and fired at him – we see this in the film – but straight afterwards Margot Robbie’s Harding looks at the camera and declares that “This didn’t actually happen”. The audience is given the story from several different perspectives and is left to reach its own verdict – very much reading between the lines. It’s a fair and balanced account, with most of the script taken directly from interviews, but it is pretty clear who did what, who didn’t do what and what the real situation was. Harding had an incredibly hard and abusive upbringing, thanks to her ice cold mother LaVona Fay Golden. Her mother argues that it was her tough influence that made Harding such a dedicated and talented figure skater in the first place – which there is a lot of truth to – but the detrimental effect it had on Harding is evident throughout the rest of her career. The film is marketed as something of a comedy – and it is funny, not only in its structure but because the truth is so absurd it is impossible to smirk at. Bobby Cannavale plays television producer Martin Maddox whose interview interjects throughout the film, pointing out most of the truly absurd aspects of the story, including what those involved actually did and what he and his fellow media colleagues made up. Then there is Shawn Eckhardt, Jeff’s best mate and proclaimed bodyguard of Tonya’s, who refers to himself as a counter-terrorism expert among many things, even though he is an unemployed fat man living in his parents basement. Played by Paul Walter Hauser in the film, his character is the more obvious comedy aspect of the film, so when you learn he is real and said all the things he says in the film in real life, it’s shockingly funny. You will laugh because its funny but you will also laugh out of shock. However, the film is way more shocking than it is funny – it really isn’t a comedy. Harding was systematically abused by her mother and then her husband, the only difference between her and most victims is that she was tough and got back up again and didn’t cry out. The cycle of abuse is pretty hard going. Margot Robbie gets hit quite a lot during the film, often when you least expect it and when the film is at a high point. I respect this, as it is true of abuse and it acted as an important reminder. Her mother and ex-husband deny most of the abuse but often slip up in interviews – the abuse is clearly as bad as she says it was. It’s heartbreaking that, with all the talent and grace in the world, that Harding was overlooked because of her look, tastes, background and class. She was without a doubt the best figure skater in the world but she was too tough for some, a redneck who couldn’t afford a fur coat. Margot Robbie and Allison Janney’s performances as daughter and mother are outstanding, the film got all the opposite emotions I thought would be effected out of me. It’s a stunning piece of contemporary cinema, perfectly executed with brilliant performances, great editing and a killer soundtrack. Not exactly the sort of thing you would expect from a film about figure skating but then the film isn’t really about that at all, it’s about class, abuse, society and just how dumb we are for believing everything we read in the news.

The Silent Partner
Dir: Daryl Duke
1978
*****
Daryl Duke’s 1978 thriller The Silent Partner is one of the great films of the late 1970s that is still overlooked and largely unseen. It stars Elliott Gould as a bank teller whose intellect is somewhat underused in his mundane day to day role. When he suspects that his bank is about to be robbed, he takes advantage of the situation and attempts to commit the perfect crime. However, he underestimates the armed robber (played by Christopher Plummer) and his life becomes more and more complicated, as he has essentially become ‘The Silent Partner’. Based on the novel ‘Think of a Number’ by Danish author Anders Bodelsen, Duke’s direction is pure Hitchcockian, with a contemporary feel, that almost veers into giallo but not quite. There is so much I love about this film. Elliott Gould films of the 1970s are among my favorites of all time. You have classics like The Long Goodbye and M*A*S*H and you have the overlooked greats like Capricorn One, Who? and The Silent Partner. There are quite a few actors around in 1978 who could have played the part but I don’t think anyone could have played it quite as perfectly as Gould. Christopher Plummer’s villain, a misogynistic and psychopathic thief who likes to dress in disguise, is a chilling and unnerving character, terrifying in his unpredictability but also in the way that he isn’t a super villain as it were, he is defeatable but just frighteningly persistent. Gould’s character has two ‘love interests’ in the film but both have real substance to them, rather than being just beautiful women. Susannah York plays his colleague at the bank who is suspicious and has secrets of her own, while Celine Lomez plays a femme fatale who is also not who she first appears to be. The plot is the perfect balance of complexity and simplicity, brought to life by real story development and brilliant performances. It’s a film that understands that suspense takes time. There are no cheap tricks, the story takes place over several months and the smaller details add to the bigger picture. It’s easy to follow but the audience is never spoon fed, the plot thickens at a trickle down pace, making it a film you can really get your teeth into. It’s directed beautifully, with all that glorious flare that make 1970’s films so great – indeed, the best. If that weren’t enough, it also stars a young John Candy, in one of his first ever screen appearances. I love how the film stars rather innocently, playful even, and then gets unexpectedly dark. Elliott Gould actually held a private screening for Alfred Hitchcock, who thought the film was brilliant. It’s a Brian De Palma film but without the nonsense, a Hitchcock without the suddenness and a Dario Argento but without the fantastical element. It’s all of the above but with heaps of intelligence and and its own individual charm. It couldn’t be made today due to the levels of security and technology in banks, so it sit well in its era and is another great example of why 1970s thrillers are still the best. The soundtrack is also something special, adding its open important level of suspense, and it remains the only film to be scored by composer and Jazz pianist Oscar Peterson. Scriptwriter Curtis Hanson would go on to write the brilliant The Bedroom Window, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle and L.A. Confidential while director Daryl Duke only made four films in his career. Duke’s films are largely unseen and unreleased, with his last film bombing at the box office, which I think is a shame, as I believe he was a rare talent and I would have loved to have seen more. The Silent Partner did very well in Canada but nowhere else, it’s a mystery really, as it’s easily one the most entertaining thrillers of the 1970s and the one of the best Alfred Hitchcock films that Alfred Hitchcock had nothing to do with. Its last DVD release was limited and marketed as a Reservoir Dogs style heist film - which it isn't - suggesting that the studios that own the rights haven't even bothered to watch it and don't even know what a great film they have in their collection. See it - immediately.

The Shape of Water

Dir: Guillermo del Toro

2017

****

It’s funny how Guillermo del Toro has remained a household name all these years when you think about it, as his first few films; Cronos, Mimic and The Devil’s Backbone were overlooked by the mainstream and Blade II and Hellboy were only really embraced by the comic-read nerds. To be fair Hellboy did very well, but the follow up wasn’t as well received as the first. Pan’s Labyrinth got the attention of many as mainstream audiences were opening their minds to world cinema but again, this was followed by Pacific Rim, more Hellboy and Crimson Peak. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan and I’ve loved pretty much everything he’s done, it’s just strange how he has gone from Cronos – one of the greatest vampire/fantasy/horror films ever made, to The Shape of Water, both films are very much of the same ilk, yet one is still overlooked and the other is heralded as one of the greatest films of the year. I wonder how Cronos would do if it were released in now? I’m pretty sure The Shape of Water would remain a cult hit enjoyed by the not so many if it had been made in 1993. While I’m glad films like The Shape of Water are now reaching mainstream audiences, I do feel a little frustrated that it has taken so long. I also feel a little bit sad that film like this that would once have been cult hits and no longer exclusive to those who went to the effort of finding them out. I’m waffling and talking nonsense I’m sure, I just feel a little sad for great films such as Delicatessen, Crimewave and indeed Cronos, that were made around the same time. I digress, The Shape of Water is many things, each one of those things being a success. At its core though is nostalgia. This is a movie made by a brilliant film maker and a prolific lover of all things celluloid. It is beautiful. The set pieces are stunning, the cinematography sublime and the colours pop right out of the screen. I actually thought it was style of content at first but the story does catch up. Even though I didn’t think the editing or overall compositions in the film were that great, I adored the detail. The greens of 1950s cinema come through beautifully, it’s somewhere between The Wizard of Oz and The Red Shoes, hammered home even more so by Richard Jenkins’ character – an advertising painter – having to change a painting depicting a family eating red jelly, to green jelly. The rich red ceilings, the ‘teal’ Cadillac and the ‘Chicago Frieze’ wallpaper from Bradbury & Bradbury, it all looks perfect. The visual style of the era is matched by the exploration of the ideals of era, the hypocrisy of the Cold War, as well as the trends, art and fantasy enjoyed by a post-war society. The idea that Sally Hawkins’ character was an everyday version of Audrey Hepburn was rather lovely. Hepburn typically played everyday women, when she was far from ‘everyday’, but somehow Hawkins is more beautiful as she seems more authentic, more real, so while this is a fantasy film full of nostalgia, it kind of feels like it really is happening, albeit in 1962. Hawkins is Hepburn, Doug Jones is The Creature from the Black Lagoon and Michael Shannon is the government agent in the black suit – all three are perfectly cast and brilliant in their respective performances. The two supporting roles are, however, the really special ones. Octavia Spencer plays Hawkins’ friend, co-worker and interpreter and is thus the voice of our main character. Richard Jenkins is the same, but from a more personal viewpoint. Spencer is obviously black and Jenkins’ character is openly gay – two people who would never have had such high billing or as much dialogue back in the 1950s/1960s. It’s clearly an updated tribute to the era. However, del Toro has always explored that that made him scared as a child, here he looks at a bygone era that echos our current climate that scares him as an adult. The themes cross many lines, you can read a lot into the plot and you’d probably be correct each time, but I guess at its heart is a story of love and acceptance. It’s Beauty and the Beast but set in the early 1960s, with the beast replaced by The Creature from the Black Lagoon. It’s a neat idea, with a great set and brilliant performances. I like it a lot but I don’t think it really deserves the hype it has received. The story itself is borrowed from many different sources, it’s a great tribute but one we’ve seen before and done in a similar style. I can see so many influences in The Shape of Water that I’m honestly not sure what actually belongs to del Toro. To be honest I see too much of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro in the film for comfort, plus the story is almost exactly the same as Paul Zindel’s Let Me Hear You Whisper and has strong connections with Rachel Ingalls’ Mrs. Caliban. Del Toro apparently approached Hawkins with the idea at an Oscar after party in 2015. He has since said he was rather drunk at the time and it wasn’t a plot that would make a person sound any less drunk – indeed, it’s a great idea – it’s just a little unfortunate that other people had it first. I enjoyed the film very much, the set creators and actors should be congratulated, It’s wonderful that del Toro has brought it to screen so wonderfully but it’s not really his, and that is the film’s big flaw. Indeed, I think I would have liked it a little more had someone like Jean-Pierre Jeunet directed it. I’m starting to think that del Toro is a producer, rather than a director, at least since 2008 anyway - everything up until then has been sublime, even Blade II, which should have been rubbish.

Mother!

Dir: Darren Aronofsky

2017

*****

2017’s Mother! is a tricky film to review. On one hand I have to congratulate director Darren Aronofsky for achieving exactly what he sets out to, but when the aim is to antagonize, aggravate and get under the skin of the viewer, it’s a very hard film to celebrate. The first hour or so is painful viewing, the story lifts ever so slightly once you realise what is in fact going on and what it all means, but before then it is pure guesswork with very few clues. For the first hour or so I actually thought it was a David Cronenberg-inspired film about anxiety that also alluded to abandonment, anthropophobia and mental health issues in general. The title also made me wonder whether it was a film about the anxieties directly linked to motherhood, from the twinkle in the eye to the birth itself. It is regarded as a psychological horror but I think that is a misleading description, it’s actually about destruction. Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem play nameless characters who live in a huge house together, she a homemaker and he a poet. Their idyllic life is thrown into chaos when a mysterious doctor (Ed Harris) comes to stay with them. Soon, his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) joins him and they make themselves at home, much to the annoyance of Jennifer Lawrence’s she. It was when their two sons (brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson)   arrived to the house fighting that the penny dropped; they were Cain and Able, their parents were Adam and Eve, making Jennifer Lawrence mother nature and Javier Bardem God. More and more people flock to the house to pay their respects and then to visit the poet, whom they have all become obsessed over. Bardem’s God/poet greets people with open arms – he needs their love in order to live. However, mankind is cruel to mother nature and the last half an hour of the film is a dizzying nightmare of pain and brutality, first directed at the beautiful house she has lovingly built, and then at her physically. The film takes an even darker tone when the mother gives birth (Jesus) and God gives the child to the people, who eventually tear it to pieces. Now, whether or not you believe in God is one thing, we can all agree that at the very least he exists in concept, and Aronofsky’s tale is bang on the money when it alludes to the fact that without love and belief, God is as good as dead. Mother nature on the other hand is real, it’s another word of the environment, Earth really for us humans. We have indeed kicked mother nature in the personals, we pillage the landscape for our own use and have caused more damage in the very short time we have existed on it, than the millions of years before we turned up. We are a cancer to this planet, a tough thing to admit, but undeniable all the same. Aronofsky’s film is a direct allegory of this and is suitably horrible to witness. It really isn’t a subject where you could treat lightly, especially if you want to tell it exactly how it is. The last half hour of the film is devastating and horrific to watch, the 90 minutes beforehand are confusing, irritating and void of pleasure. This is why so many people slated it on its release, but as much as I didn’t enjoy watching it, I have to give credit to Aronofsky for delivering an intelligent and thought-provoking story. It’s the oldest story in the book (literally, it’s basically Genesis) and there is really nothing new about it. Using a house as an allegory for the garden of Eden isn’t that much of a stretch of the imagination either, and yet the film keeps you guessing. It’s a bizarre feeling, when you know you dislike watching something at the same time as knowing that each and every scene is brilliantly realised and executed. It isn’t supposed to be ‘entertaining’ in the classic sense, every part of the film serves a purpose and that purpose is to strike the audience and get as far under their skin as possible. It’s a job well done. Aronofsky has been hugely misunderstood with this film but then all the great directors/film are. He released the following statement as a form of explanation: "It is a mad time to be alive. As the world population nears 8 billion we face issues too serious to fathom: ecosystems collapse as we witness extinction at an unprecedented rate; migrant crises disrupt governments; a seemingly schizophrenic US helps broker a landmark climate treaty and months later withdraws; ancient tribal disputes and beliefs continue to drive war and division; the largest iceberg ever recorded breaks off an Antarctic ice shelf and drifts out to sea. At the same time we face issues too ridiculous to comprehend: in South America, tourists twice kill rare baby dolphins that washed ashore, suffocating them in a frenzy of selfies; politics resembles sporting events; people still starve to death while others can order any meat they desire. As a species our footprint is perilously unsustainable yet we live in a state of denial about the outlook for our planet and our place on it. From this primordial soup of angst and helplessness, I woke up one morning and this movie poured out of me like a fever dream. All of my previous films gestated with me for many years but I wrote the first draft of Mother! in five days. Within a year we were rolling cameras. And now two years later, it is an honor to return to the Lido for the world premiere. I imagine people may ask why the film has such a dark vision. Hubert Selby Jr, the author of Requiem for a Dream, taught me that through staring into the darkest parts of ourselves is where we find the light. "Mother!" begins as a chamber story about a marriage. At the center is a woman who is asked to give and give and give until she can give nothing more. Eventually, the chamber story can't contain the pressure boiling inside. It becomes something else which is hard to explain or describe. I can't fully pinpoint where this film all came from. Some came from the headlines we face every second of every day, some came from the endless buzzing of notifications on our smartphones, some came from living through the blackout of Hurricane Sandy in downtown Manhattan, some came from my heart, some from my gut. Collectively it's a recipe I won't ever be able to reproduce, but I do know this serving is best drunk as a single dose in a shot glass. Knock it back. Salute!" Aronofsky has shown that he is an absolute master of his craft, Mother! is an unpleasant masterpiece, brilliantly accomplished and one that I will enjoy never seeing ever again. It's hated now but mark my words, Mother! will be regarded as an essential classic in years to come.

For the Love of Spock

Dir: Adam Nimoy

2016

****

Adam Nimoy, son of the great Leonard Nimoy, had started working on a documentary with his father about the beloved character Mr. Spock in 2014 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Star. It was to focus on the popularity of the character, what made him so popular and the cultural impact he had back then and what it has led to today. Sadly, Leonard Nimoy passed away in 2015 and the globe’s sci-fi fans lost a true hero. Adam Nimoy was determined to continue the project in tribute of his father and because he knew it is what he would have wanted him to do. However, the film because less about Mr Spock and more about the man behind the pointy ears. Adam Nimoy is very honest in his depiction of his father and this certainly isn’t the rose-tinted ‘can do no wrong’ sort of documentary you’d expect from a film about someone who has just died. Adam reveals that he and his father had a very rocky relationship, which gives the audience a very human side to the story and a level of believability. Unlike most documentaries of this nature, For The Love of Spock is free of Hollywood stories of name-dropping and outrageous parties, Nimoy was a grafter and when he wasn’t working he was with his family. Adam widened the original idea to also include examples of other productions Leonard was involved in, something that would cost a great deal of money but was raised easily through crowdfunding, making it the most successful crowdfunded film at the time. The fact that Adam appeared as himself in an episode of The Big Bang Theory and talked about the interview helped hugely, but it is safe to say that the hard-core Trekkies also dug deep, they probably learned nothing they didn’t already know but donated out of love and respect. The archive footage in the film is phenomenal and will please Star Trek fans in particular but Nimoy’s early work is also quite spectacular. Interviewees include William Shatner, George Takei, Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols from the original series of Star Trek, as well as Chris Pine, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto from the remake film series. Quinto, who played the updated version of Spock, was set to narrate the film but after so much archive footage emerged narration wasn’t really necessary and it was more apt for Adam to say what was needed. Celebrity Star Trek fans Jim Parsons, Jason Alexander, Neil deGrasse Tyson and J.J. Abrams may not be obviously connected to Nimoy but their interviews serve a purpose and are very entertaining. The interesting thing about the interviews with the new Star Trek cast in contrast to the original is how they all speak of Nimoy. The younger cast are quite gushing, clearly in awe but also speaking of someone they respected, met but never really knew. The original cast are clearly heartbroken and there are times when they clearly find it hard speaking to their late friend’s son so soon after his passing. There is a great sadness to the film but also a great honesty. Nothing is sugar-coated, I feel like I have genuinely learned the truth about one of my childhood heroes and I’m not at all disappointed. The tension, love and friction between Adam and his father never gets in the way of the celebration of his life but it certainly grounds the film. In a funny sort of way the fans play a huge part in the overall story and are almost like a third character, which is maybe why its appeal is wider than the usual fan documentary. Mr Spock’s humanism was always in question in the original show, and it is fascinating how Adam’s documentary compares his father’s humanism with his characters’ without white-washing, sugar-coating, insulting or holding back. Tender, raw, respectful and thought-provoking, it’s an unexpectedly refreshing tribute and exactly the sort of thing the great man himself probably would have approved of but would never have been able to make himself.

The Violent Years

Dir: William Morgan

1956

**

I love a 1950s exploitation movie but some are much better than others. Written by the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr (or Ed Wood as he is more affectionately referred to), The Violent Years is one of those films whereby the trailer is so much better than the actual film itself. Full of iconic imagery and one-liners, the film is actually more successful when the visuals are used on snap-shot posters or when the dialogue is sampled in popular music (see Ministry’s 1989 album ‘The Mind is a Terrible Thing To Taste’). It’s one of those films where the poster has adorned many a student dormitory even though the students have never seen it. I do love a bit of Mystery Science Theater 3000 but it isn’t nice to mock older films because they didn’t have the same budget as modern films have but I do believe that movies such as The Violent Years are fair game. As much as I didn’t really like it, it is also fascinating from a historical angle. I’m a huge fan of film history and the 1950s American exploitation films are as interesting as they are puzzling. They depict a rather strange social mood of the time and played on the fears of an older generation. These films were made by young people and they were tongue-in-cheek films for young people, although they knew that the older generation would be outraged and both flock to see it and raise its profile by openly condemning it. Exploitation films such as The Violent Years are regularly discovered by a younger generation, and in some respects they never go out of retrospective fashion. It’s not a great film like I said but it has plenty of classical moments that I couldn’t help raising a smile to. It is ridiculous, badly acted and full of nonsensical moral preaching. The contradictory message of ‘work hard’ seems lost, when the parents of the juvenile delinquents are punished for working hard (because they have to to make ends meet) rather than looking after their kids. The juvenile delinquents are always of a wealthy background in these types of films, which I’ve always found to be a wonderfully delightful way of kicking the target audience and angering the sort of people that would essentially make these film the infamous cult movies that they are. Of course it isn’t just being spoiled that turns the kids to crime, it is also communism, a system of social organisation in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs, that is represented here by the murder of a policeman. It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that so many gun-owning citizens still believe in such nonsense but I digress, it is important not to take such film seriously and remember that this story was written by the same man that wrote Bride of the Monster. Okay, so that is slightly unfair, as he also wrote Glen or Glenda, which is genius and Jail Bait which deserves far more credit than it has been given but The Violent Years is still as about as realistic and representative of actual social unrest as Godzilla is in Japan – ridiculous but a bit of fun.

Brawl in Cell Block 99

Dir: S. Craig Zahler

2017

*****

2017’s Brawl in Cell Block 99 is only S. Craig Zahler second film as director, and yet, I’m already a dedicated fan and think I will be as long as he is making films. Bone Tomahawk was a straight to video western that looked like it starred Kurt Russell purely because he still had that amazing mustache from The Hateful Eight, and because The Hateful Eight had just been released to much hype and success. If you had told me it was made by The Asylum I would have believed you. However, it was recommended to me by a reliable source and it blew my mine. It was the surprise film of 2015, absolutely one of the best of the year and probably the best cannibal western ever made. Bone Tomahawk was a mix of genres with a hint of grindhouse but with a quality script and character development. He understands that all of the popular horror/grindhouse/b-movie/Midnight Movie/cult films (what ever you want to call them) work due to character development. Great effects, low-budget gore and camera trickery goes a long way but the truly great cult films of the underground are the ones that have strong characters. It was true of Bone Tomahawk and it is now true of Brawl in Cell Block 99. It is clear that S. Craig Zahler is a grindhouse fan, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made the genre popular again with their Grindhouse collaboration and many new ‘tribute’ fans were made – very few being worth the effort. The truth is, grindhouse aren’t great, indeed, the only ones watchable are so bad, they’re good. Zahler has changed all that. Bone Tomahawk was a gutsy western with horror overtones and a pinch of grindhouse, Brawl in Cell Block 99 on the other hand is neo-grindhouse with a slice of John Carpenter. It’s glorious. Like all good thrillers, the story keeps you guessing right until the end. At over two hours, the film takes its time and develops the characters and the story properly but the film never feels overlong – far from it in fact. Set in prison, the first half tells the story of the crime, while the second half deals with prison life and our protagonists journey through the system. It is riveting in the first half and then next level exciting in the second, cue the John Carpenter-esque synth music and the rich and moody scenes of devastation. There are strong Assault on Precinct 13 vibes about the film as well as a few exploitation prison films from the 70s but it is very much its own animal. It is pretty brutal. I was expecting violence and maybe a bit of gore but my goodness, this film gave me bad dreams. However, the special effects are proper old-school prosthetic style, right out of classic 70s horror/b-movie/exploitation/grindhouse films. The prosthetics are actually quite obvious, exaggerated even, to magnificent effect. If you’re a fan of old b-movies of this sort you will not be disappointed. It makes many of Quentin Tarantino’s recent offerings look like cartoons in comparison. Don Johnson has reinvented himself as a bit of a b-movie villain of late, so having him as the sadistic prison warden seemed a bit clichéd but actually, it’s the best he’s been for a very long time and if you’re going to watch only one of his recent b-movies, then this is the one. It also has Udo Kier as a sinister villain, which is music to my ears as I adore Kier and no one quite does villain like he does. Jennifer Carpenter is on top form and I believe this is her best film to date but our protagonist left me baffled. It’s such a great script with some brutal scenes and a heavy mood, so why on earth would you hire Vince Vaughn in the main role? Vaughn has been in some good films and is generally likable in each one of them, but he has only really been great in Swingers and that came out twenty-one years before Brawl in Cell Block 99. He clearly worked hard and believed in the script, all of the physical and mental training he did paid off too as this is the second best performance from him of his career after Swingers. Casting Vaughn was a genius move by S. Craig Zahler, one could suggest he was ‘doing a Tarantino’ by casting an actor you wouldn’t associate with such themes but I would argue that Vaughn put in more effort than any of Tarantino’s surprise castings. It’s wonderful to see the next stage of a genre long thought over. Real grindhouse isn’t about the quality of the copy you are watching – no one watched old VHS films because they liked the fuzz, lines and crackles, that was just the way it was with old rare movies. To see the genre resurrected with crisp visuals and beautifully lit compositions is a real treat and the script is awesome – again, far juicier and far less cartoonish than your typical Tarantino. Zahler is the director I’ve been waiting a long time for.

The New World

Dir: Terrence Malick

2005

**

I have a huge problem with Disney’s Pocahontas. Pocahontas, real name Matoaka – later Rebecca Rolfe – was an exploited child. She was said to be have been between 10-12 years old when John Smith claimed her, so every time I see one of my young nieces – or any young girl – wearing a Disney Pocahontas dress or playing with a Pocahontas doll, I shudder with disgust, knowing that a big company is rewriting a nasty piece of history to sell stuff to innocent youth. Pocahontas was snatched as a child to be the sex-slave of an older man who had been at sea for many months. John Rolfe may well have loved her, but she was ripped from her home, exploited and died at a young age. She grew up in paradise and died in Gravesend of all places. She is not a ‘Disney Princess’. So when in 2005, the great but elusive Terrence Malick, who had made four fine films at that point – decades apart, announced that he was going to make a film about the founding of the Jamestown Settlement, it was met with excitement and jubilation. His 1998 epic The Thin Red Line was brilliant, a film well worth waiting twenty years for, and the fact that we only had to wait seven years for his next felt like a dream come true. However, as wonderfully dreamlike it was and how beautiful it looked, The New World represented the film whereby Malick’s legendary status was shattered. It looked like a perfume advert but wasn’t anywhere near as entertaining. One man’s ‘dreamlike’ is another mans ‘whishy-washy’, sure the colours popped right out of the screen but there was no depth to it. It felt like being given some fruit juice that says it is free from colour and additives, only to discover it glows in the dark. And your lips fall off. It’s not very often something can be so beautiful-looking and also so nauseating (although an ex-girlfriend springs to mind – meow). It’s a million times more watchable than Malick’s later films; To The Wonder and Knight of Cups, but I found it hard work all the same. I’m not sure Colin Farrell was best cast as John Smith, although I’m not sure anyone could be accused of really acting in the film. Q’orianka Kilcher is the best thing about the film, her performance of Matoaka is an impressive debut and I respected the fact that she was only 12 when she played the part as she was in real life. I think the only other actors you could accuse of good performances are Christopher Plummer, David Thewlis and Eddie Marsan. Christopher Plummer’s part was cut to ribbons and when he discovered that one of his characters most important speeches had been reduced to background noise he vowed never to work with Malick again. Thewlis’ talents were wasted yet again and Marsan’s brilliant scene was only seconds long. I will say that I respect the rules that Malick imposed on himself and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki; No artificial lights, no crane or dolly shots - just handheld Steadicams, everything to be shot in the subjective view, all shots in deep-focus (foreground and background visible and focused), camera crew encouraged to shoot unexpected things that might happen/catch their eye that instinct tells them they should film and no shot deemed to have visual strength shall not be used. The problem is however, that as Emmanuel Lubezki later admitted. Most of these rules were broken, artificial light was used often and there are plenty of shallow-focus shots. Malick was sent a bottle of champagne from Kodak, after they learned that he was the first director to use over one million feet of their film stock. Great for Kodak, but for me this is a sign of terrible direction. Christian Bale later spoke of Malick’s directing style and said he wanted to test the director and see what he’d do if he just walked out of a shot. Apparently Malik just followed him and there were crew members everywhere running away and jumping into bushes. Malick filmed the movie around an already completed score (rather than the other way round) and almost all of the dialog had to dubbed in post-production because Malick – the director! – could be heard talking in the background. This greatly respected and mysteriously elusive director seemed to be something of a charlatan. I’ve got a lot of time for the experimenters and the eccentrics but The New World is the work of an amateur director and a brilliant cinematographer. Could Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line have been luck? He got in trouble for his timekeeping during Days of Heaven and didn’t work again for twenty years, but everything he’s made since The New World has been samey, ‘dreamlike’ and about as nauseating as it gets. Calvin Kline should sue.

Black Panther

Dir: Ryan Coogler

2018

****

A Black Panther adaptation has been a long time coming and yet again, Marvel have mixed the right ingredients together to produce another fine comic book/superhero film. However, there is something a little different about Black Panther compered to the more recent films in the MCU. The core Avengers have been well established, and even though Doctor Strange,  Ant-Man and Spider-Man were all origin stories, Black Panther is an origin story in a more classical sense. Something we haven’t seen really since Iron Man, the first film of the mega franchise. In this sense, it doesn’t really feel like it is breaking new ground, but I have a lot of respect for Marvel in keeping with the character’s backstory and not skipping over it because of how far the Avengers have progressed. Black Panther has already popped up in Captain America: Civil War, which was the perfect way of introducing the new wave of Avengers, but it is absolutely correct that time be spent telling the tale of Black Panther and the secret country of Wakanda. I’ve been a huge fan of Chadwick Boseman since I saw him portray James Brown in the criminally overlooked Get On Up that came out back in 2014. I was thrilled that he was cast but I had wondered whether Michael B. Jordan would have been a more obvious choice. I honestly thought they would cast Jordan and I said so before he was announced as Killmonger (honest, you can ask my wife). Maybe his roles in Chronicle and Fantastic Four prevented him from playing another ‘hero’ but I thought if Chris Evens could do it, then he probably could too. I’m glad he played the film’s villain, he’s a great hero figure in Creed and the good guy in Fruitvale Station but wow, he really gets his teeth into the bad guy role here and it’s fantastic to see his transformation. The supporting cast is propped up by two old-school legends; Angela Bassett and Forest Whitaker, but it also features some of the best talent of the day. I was thrilled to see Daniel Kaluuya in a big budget superhero film, he fits the character well, even though Andy Serkis’s Klaue seems to have stolen his bionic arm from the comics, and Winston Duke is superb in what is one of his first major roles, as the films big serious warrior and also comic relief. Lupita Nyong’o is strong as Nakia, a Wakandian spy and love interest to T’Challa, Danai Gurira is fantastic as Okoye, commander of the Dora Milaje, a magnificent warrior and a brilliant addition the Avengers and Letitia Wright is great as Shuri, younger sister of T’Challa and a tech genius – probably my favorite character of the film. Those that know the Black Panther comics will know that the three female characters are relatively new but if they stick to what happens in the comics, the MCU could get even more interesting. The three actresses and their characters are brilliant, Black Panther represents the first mainly Black cast of characters in a superhero film (not counting the brilliant but comical Meteor Man) and also a mainly Black cast in a huge blockbuster. It’s a milestone for sure and an important one but I don’t see a cast that is the best of black actors, I simply see one of the best casts of actors working today. It’s also worth pointing out that this is a strong film for women too, with three brilliant female actors in three predominant roles. I say this because I noticed that the cinema audience I sat with was predominantly black. I go to see all of the MCU film on the day they come out, generally at the same time of day, and usually it is a white and altogether nerdy affair. A lot has been made of Black Panther being ‘all black’ but I really wish it wasn’t a thing, it’s a bump we really need to get over and should have done by now, and I look forward to a proper mix of colour/sex on screen and in the audience. Still, it is a big step in the right direction and should be celebrated as such. Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross seemed a little redundant to be honest, he’s not exactly a big player in the MCU yet so he didn’t tie the films together and he really didn’t have very much to add. I loved Serkis’s Ulysses Klaue but felt he was underused. However, the biggest criticism I had with the film was the story. I was happy that it was simple and that it covered the origins of The Black Panther but there weren’t many surprises. It was predictable, not just in itself but also due to what is already known about the next MCU film, Avengers: Infinity War. It must be something of a continuity nightmare for all those involved but for those of us paying attention, the conclusion was clear right from the very beginning and I think the overall film suffers a little bit because of it. I think Ryan Coogler was the perfect choice of director, with only just a few films under his belt he is already someone to get excited about. The MCU films are unique, in that you can’t help but compare them to each other. The previous Marvel film was Thor: Ragnarok and it was brilliant, Black Panther is a totally different film and is, in all honesty, a little less exciting, but brilliant at the same time. People complain of superhero/comic adaption fatigue but seriously, not all cocktails are the same, some are flamboyant and some are just classics; Black Panther feels like a classic and it goes down smooth. I’m not passed out drunk by the MCU just yet though, I’m still dancing on the table.

Colossal

Dir: Nacho Vigalondo

2017

*****

It really bothers me that Colossal went largely overlooked because certain critics who are in, quite frankly, baffling positions of influence, couldn’t get their head’s round the cross over of two vastly different genres. Colossal is an indie-style social drama that crosses over into the monster movie genre. It’s something new, something that should be celebrated. I’m not just giving  the film or its director Nacho Vigalondo credit for originality either, I’m giving Colossal a huge five star rating because it is intelligent, entertaining and one of the best, most refreshing films of the last few years. It’s almost as if people have forgotten that the original Godzilla was a social drama in disguise, Godzilla himself representing Japan’s fear of the Hydrogen bomb following the devastation of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Most giant monsters depicted in classic b-movies are a metaphor for something else, ranging from nuclear holocaust to the Cold War invasion of Communists – whatever the big fear of the day is basically. Colossal is no different, except the fear is personal to just one person. That person is Gloria (played by Anne Hathaway), who, after arriving home drunk in the early hours yet again, is dumped by her financially supportive boyfriend and kicked out of their shared apartment. He is the bad guy until we realise that Gloria is an alcoholic and has all the selfishness that comes with it. She sleeps all day, she uses people and is unreliable. A struggling writer, Gloria has developed a self-centred attitude where she is the center of the universe. She’s friendly and never nasty to anyone, she just lets them down, and in turn, lets her self down. She’s a lot of people I know. It is quite refreshing to see a character depicted in this way; real and uncliche. You feel for her but she isn’t hard done by, she lets herself down and no one else is to blame. She heads back home to her hometown in New England, into her parents old and empty house. She bumps into Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), an old friend of her’s from childhood and he offers her work in his bar. Oscar takes a shine to Gloria, who takes full advantage of his bar’s selection of alcohol. Gloria also has memory loss after a night’s drinking and forgets that she has flirted with Oscar’s friends, which hurts the lovelorn bar owner who thought his feelings could be reciprocated. After one evening of heavy drinking, Gloria wakes to find herself on a park bench and heads home to rest. To everyone’s amazement, that night news reports tell of a giant monster sighting in downtown Seoul. The giant lizard monster appeared and then disappeared into thin air, after knocking down a few buildings and making some strange movements. When the same event happens a few days later, Gloria notices that the movements of the monster are very similar to her own and the penny drops. Whenever she walks through the park at 8.05am, the monster manifests on the other side of the world and mimics her movements. She is the monster. In order to confirm for herself that it isn’t a delusion, she asks Oscar and his buddies (Austin Stowell and Tim Blake Nelson) to come with her to the park and watch live footage from Seoul. It isn’t a delusion, she is the monster. However, Oscar, upset that Gloria had knocked him back and had slept with his friend, shows his true colours and strikes out in the only way he thinks will hurt Gloria – he enters the park himself and a giant robot appears in Seoul. The film then becomes a big monster movie, with giant lizard vs giant robot. It’s fiendishly wry and a brilliant black comedy, especially for the nerds among us. In downtown Seoul it is lizard vs robot but in New England it is Selfishness vs resentment, a perfect representation of real life, told through the medium of monster. How they actually manifest themselves as monsters is explained, not brilliantly, but for me it was the least important aspect of the story and not something the audience needs to get hung up on. It’s happening, it’s amazing, it’s best to leave it there and look at the bigger (and smaller) picture. The conclusion is awesome. I thought the exploration of what makes a real monster was exceptionally clever and I pretty much adored everything about the movie. Anne Hathaway has never been better in my opinion, and amazingly she was in the second trimester of her pregnancy while filming. She sought out the film when looking for something new, citing that she had found herself in ‘a little bit of an artistic no man’s land’. She has since said that it reminded her in some respects of her favourite film; Being John Malkovich, which makes a lot of sense. Most criticism was that it was a one-trick novelty and totally incomprehensible. To hear such things from film critics working for some of the biggest news papers in the world is staggering really, as it is easy to comprehend and should be celebrated for its originality, wit and intelligence. It’s probably also the most charming movie of the year, charm oozing out of every millimetre of film reel/pixel. Tragically misunderstood by an army of critics who I can only imagine want a different career or want to watch the same films over and over again. A future cult hit for sure.