The Killing of a Sacred Deer

Dir: Yorgos Lanthimos

2017

*****

Yorgos Lanthimos is a director who goes from strength to strength with each film he makes but 2017’s The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a side-step into darker territory for the Greek film maker. All of Lanthimos’ film so far have had a subtle level of quirky humor about them and while there is a clinically amusing way about Colin Farrell’s character in the movie, it soon develops into something of a psychological horror, even though it never really feels like it is. The story was written by Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou and based on their original idea, although the story is extremely close to the story of Iphigenia at Aulis by Euripides. Indeed, the story is mentioned in the film and it is where the title of the film comes from. In Greek mythology, Iphigenia appears as the Greek fleet gathers in Aulis to prepare for war against Troy. At Aulis, the leader of the Greeks, Agamemnon, accidentally kills a deer in a grove sacred to the goddess Artemis. She punishes him by interfering with the winds so that his fleet cannot sail to Troy. The seer Calchas reveals that, to appease Artemis, Agamemnon must sacrifice his eldest daughter, Iphigenia. Agamemnon at first refuses but, pressured by the other commanders, eventually agrees. Lanthimos has stated that the story was of influence but it really isn’t a type of adaptation. I’m not so sure but I love the contemporary take on the classic tale. Colin Farrell’s character seems to come straight out of Lanthimos’ previous film ‘Lobster’, which threw me a bit at first. The character develops from a simple man to a keeper of secrets rather beautifully and I can’t help but think that the initial part of the film is something of a red herring. Nicole Kidman has worked with some of the greatest directors of all time, here she adds the great Lanthimos to her resume but as good as she is, I don’t think she brings anything more to the film that countless other actors could have done better with. Barry Keoghan out-acts everyone with his wonderfully sly performance that is enriched by his natural quirks and arrogance. He is an actor with a huge future ahead of him. Young Raffey Cassidy and Sunny Suljic are also superb. The film is full of the idiosyncrasy that we can now expect from Lanthimos but many of the visuals looks if they’ve been taken from Edward Hopper paintings and several scenes are straight out of Stanley Kubrick’s book of film making. Without wanting to dismiss Lanthimos’ originality, I do wonder whether he is the next Stanley Kubrick. The last few minutes of the film are some of the most intense I’ve seen for a long while. There were many times during the film where I felt my skin crawl and any director who can manage that is a true auteur of the manipulative kind. It is one of those rare examples of the finished film being just as good and living up to its stunning screenplay. Even when you recognise the Iphigenia influence it keeps you guessing and then slaps you in the face with the startling conclusion. It’s a bold and unapologetic film that does everything right, even though it breaks so many important rules of film making. It’s the future as far as I’m concerned if cinema is to evolve and flourish.

Call Me by Your Name

Dir: Luca Guadagnino

2017

*****

After ten years of development, Andre Aciman’s 2007 novel finally made it to the big screen. Expectations were quite high, not only because the novel was highly regarded, but also because James Ivory had written the script and Luca Guadagnino had been chosen to direct. The three components were sure to be a recipe for success and thankfully they were – and then some. Producers Peter Spears and Howard Rosenman bought the screen right to the novel after they were lucky enough to see an early galley. James Ivory, a friend of both producer, was brought in as an executive producer and Gabriele Muccino, Ferzan Ozpetek and Sam Taylor-Johnson were sought as writer/directors but none of them could commit to the project. I like Gabriele Muccino, I think his 2008 film Seven Pounds is woefully overlooked but I’m not sure he would have been best choice. Ferzan Ozpetek seems like an all too obvious choice but for all the wrong reasons and I have no idea why Sam Taylor-Johnson was asked. I would hazard a guess that Anthony Minghella recommended her after having just produced her 2008 short film ‘Love You More’. The only film she had made before then was the short film ‘Death Valley’ which was an eight minute film of a man masturbating in the middle of the desert, which featured in the 2006 art/pornography experimental film ‘Destracted’. Luca Guadagnino was the first choice but wasn’t always 100% committed to the project so he was brought in as a location adviser instead – which I think was quite a clear way of keeping him in the project. Eventually he was convinced to co-direct with Ivory but he and Ivory disagreed on many aspects of the adaptation. Ivory gracefully stepped aside for the sake of the film after many deliberations. After years of work, everyone clearly felt that the film was the most important thing and everyone made. The financiers also feared a co-directed production and Guadagnino later suggested that a James Ivory version of the story would have been a rather costly affair. Ivory sold the script rights to Guadagnino’s production company but stayed on as producer and was very much hands on throughout the production. The two film makers would have produced very different versions, Ivory said he wanted to stick closer to the novel and even exaggerate is somewhat. It would have no doubt looked stunning but I think Guadagnino’s take on the story is perfect. It has since become part of his ‘Desire’ trilogy, following I am Love (2009) and A Bigger Splash (2015). He has been quoted as saying that he doesn’t see Call Me By Your Name as a ‘gay’ film and I can’t help but agree with him. The relationship in the story is between two men but the film is about their desire, the younger man’s sexual awakening and about both men’s passion. The story is free of all the clichés you’d expect from a ‘gay’ film and the real love story is allowed to flourish. There is an important aspect of the story that relates to our protagonist’s father and Guadagnino has said he sees the film as a homage to fathers. He has stated that he was influenced by the relationship with his own father but also of his film-making fathers, those that inspired him, such as Jean Renoir, Jacques Rivette, Eric Rohmer and Bernardo Bertolucci. I can see each film makers influence in the finished film, particularly Eric Rohmer’s, which made the experience even more fulfilling for me. I love Eric Rohmer’s work, so it was great to see his style channeled through one of the best directors working today who clearly feels the same about the great director. All of that said though, it really doesn’t matter how great the script is or how beautiful the visuals are, this was always a film about the chemistry between to young lovers – the performances from the two leads were paramount to the story’s success. No film fan would ever wish problems or delays on great filmmakers but I have to say that I’m glad Call Me By Your Name took ten years to make. If the film had been made years earlier it wouldn’t have starred Timothee Chalamet or Armie Hammer. Shia LaBeouf was considered in the early years of development and as much as I think he’s an overlooked and misunderstood actor, he would have been wrong for the part. Chalamet and hammer are perfect in their roles to the point that I really can’t think of anyone else who could have played their parts as good as they did. Chalamet in particular gives a stand-out performance that I’m sure will boast his career no end. James Ivory was said to have perplexed by the insistence of the actors that they wouldn’t bare all in the film – in keeping with the novel – but I think Guadagnino was wise to make the film about the love rather than the sex and in any case, there are plenty of sex scenes and no one can accuse the film from shying away from the homosexual side of the story. If anything, removing the explicit sex scenes and nudity only helps in stating that homosexuality isn’t a sex thing but about love just as much as any heterosexual relationship. It’s possibly one of the greatest ‘gay’ films ever made for not highlight itself as such. You can call it one of the greatest homosexual love films ever made but then you can – and should – simply refer it to it as simply one of the greatest love films ever made. It’s absolutely perfect.

Rude Boy

Dir: Jack Hazan, David Mingay

1980

****

Rude Boy was - and is still - one of the more compelling films of the punk era. It is very much filmed with a punk ethos, very much a DIY production which gives it a sense of authenticity, as well as a documentary/neo-realist feel. It follows Ray – played by non-actor Ray Gange, who leaves his dead-end job working in a Soho sex shop and becomes a roadie for the Clash after talking to members of the band in his local pub. Filmed between 1978-1980, it documents the unrest in society as the Labour party collapses and the Conservatives take power. I always saw Margeret Thatcher as the enemy of the Punk movement – and she was largely – but Rude Boy shows just how detached many punk fans were at the time, many uneducated and easily convinced by the right-wing. Ray is something of an example of the youth of the day, they had little going for them, no jobs, no money, no future. They were angry and mislead. The Clash were at the forefront of the anti-right wing movement, other bands differed and remained subjective – many weren’t political as such, they were also angry with their lots and everyone was to blame. No one was fighting for them. The Clash highlighted injustices, they called out the establishment’s racism and fought for everyone’s civil liberties as best they could. They were convinced by Jack Hazan and David Mingay of the film’s credibility but were underwhelmed and angry of their portrayal once the film was completed. I can see that, a lot of what they believed in was tarnished, although they come across rather well. I still go to gigs today though and watch left-leaning bands alongside right-wingers who don’t listen to the lyrics, they just seem attracted by the loud noises. Ray Gange was also upset at his portrayal, not so much of the character but because his name wasn’t changed everyone assumed he was ignorant, alcoholic and a nasty person. It is a fascinating and frustrating film to watch but an amazing document of a movement and an era. Joe Strummer later said in an interview that "We didn't like what they were doing with the black people, because they were showing them dipping into pockets and then they were shown being done for something and that was their only role in the film ... Who wants to propagate that? That's what the right wing use, 'all blacks are muggers' which is a load of rubbish. After that rough showing I've never seen it since and nor have any of the Clash."He further added that the band had no further contact with directors Dave Mingay and Jack Hazan after the film was shot, and never received any payments from them. It’s amazing that even though the directors wanted to show something for what it really was, they still ended up conforming to the prejudices of the day. It will certainly appeal to those that follow politics as it captures the turmoil of the time brilliantly, its amazing, sad and familiar though that even though their fans were loyal, many of them were still right-wing. You can see the same sort of thing happening today, particularly in the UK. History repeating itself, it’s just a shame there aren’t more bands like The Clash around today.

Getting Straight

Dir: Richard Rush

1970

****

1970’s Getting Straight was the first of two collaborations of director Richard Rush and screenwriter Robert Kaufman. Like their second film (Freebie and the Bean), Getting Straight is very much of its time and is a pioneering beacon in the world of cinema, even though most people haven’t seen or unaware of its existence. The novel on which is was based on was only three years old at the time of release, so the story was relevant to the climate in which it was set. 1970 was a time after many a protest and riot had had great effect – there were plenty more to come, but the youth suddenly felt they had a voice and the establishment suddenly found themselves without full control. What better example of the social and political climate of the time then that of a university. Elliott Gould, who had just found success and had made a name for himself in both M*A*S*H and Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, was the perfect choice to play non-conformist graduate student and veteran Harry Bailey. A former student activist, Harry goes back to university to complete an educations course to become a teacher. He tries best to avoid the increasing student unrest but finds it difficult given his girlfriend and friends are leaders in the constant protests. His fellow students look up to him and the establishment want and encourage him but his fellow students also begin to doubt the man they look up to, while the establishment also begun to suspect he will let their side down. Bailey wears his feelings – and political opinion on his sleeve but it becomes increasingly unclear whether he can be part of both worlds. It’s a role Elliott Gould was made for, with a script that suited him perfectly. It’s a very good depiction of student politics of the time that paints a very balanced picture of life how it was. It’s now considered something of a period piece, a window to the past as it were. What I really admired about it was how fair it really was. Bailey has his faults – many faults in fact – but he acted as the perfect protagonist of the day. Protest is often best delivered by those with nothing to lose but then that is how the establishment gains obedience. The students muddy the water and end up rioting for certain things that aren’t that important but the establishment also overlook how unjust they are, purely because they follow the ways things have always been done, simply for the sake of it and because they’ve detached themselves from society. Both camps are balanced perfectly, with Robert F. Lyons playing Harry’s friend Nick – a drug taking chameleon whose mission statement changes every five minutes – a brilliant representation of the hippie movement of the time and Candice Bergen playing Harry’s girlfriend Jan – a nice but simple girl who wants justice but also wants a white picket fenced house in the middle of suburbia and collector of opinion and interesting people Jake – played by Harrison Ford in his debut - on one side, and Jeff Corey as friendly but right-wing Dr. Edward Willhunt, compassionate but clueless Dr. Kasper (Cecil Kellaway in his last ever role) and arrogant establishment lap-dog Lysander, played by Leonard Stone (who was soon to be remembered as Violet’s father, Mr. Beauregarde) on the other. Harry fights impetuousness behavior one one side and futile objectiveness on the other, it’s very amusing but also quite serious. The climax is striking and a little absurd, which I think it probably the best conclusion it could have given the content and characters. It’s a peculiar film, very much of its time, not too dated though, overall a forgotten classic.

I Am Your Father

Dir: Marcos Cabotá, Toni Bestard

2015

***

Like everyone else in the world, Star Wars is an important film to me. There have been some pretty great independent documentaries made about aspects of the original Trilogy made in recent years, all made by true fans with an unequivocal passion for the franchise. My favorite thus far has been John Spira’s Elstree 1976 which looks at a small group of actors who played minor roles in the film but their characters have now reached legendary status. Their stories featured a whole array of moral and legal issues, with many of them having dolls and toys made in their image without their permission. Many didn’t learn until years later just how big they and their characters actually were. It was fascinating, and for someone like myself who likes to go to conventions and chat to these people behind the masks, it was a lovely and down to earth insight into a world that seemed a million miles away (even though I live a few miles from Elstree and just down the road from much of the cast). David Prowse, Darth Vader himself, features in Elstree 1976 and he talks about his role in the film. I knew his story before, I have met him and have spoken with him a couple of times at conventions, but Spira’s documentary got more out of him than I’d seen before. In Toni Bestard’s documentary, Prowse is the main subject. Bestard talks about Star Wars as if it was a tiny little production that only he and a handful of his friends saw when they were kids. He explains how he learned more and more about Star Wars as he grew and was shocked when he learned that when we saw Darth Vader’s face in Return of the Jedi, it wasn’t the face of the man who had been stomping around in the big heavy costume for the last three films. He saw it as an injustice, like everyone else did when they found out. I have to say though, I got over it by 1987. Prowse has done very well out conventions and appearances and is still clearly happy to talk about his time on the films. There is certainly an injustice, but on the flip-side he was wearing a mask, so he couldn’t really claim he was typecast. The voice thing is also understandable, you can’t really take a villain seriously when it has a thick west-country accent, Vader was an intergalactic warlord, not a sheep-sheering farmer. However, Bestard does interview some pretty interesting people. His most informative interviewee is Gary Kurtz, producer of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Sci-fi hearsay is laid to rest as Kurtz explains things from his end, while Bestard also speaks with the news reporter that was misquoted as saying that Prowse had leaked the plot of The Empire Strikes Back, specifically the bit about Vader being Luke Skywalker's father. Essentially, the reason why Prowse had been shunned by George Lucas and the Star War people was based on untruth. It may be a bit late now but it is good that the truth is finally out there, although I would guess that there are only a few of us hard-core nerds who actually give a damn. To then somehow make things even more right (righter?), Bestard gives Prowse the opportunity to film the last Vader scene from The Last Jedi, this time with his real head. It’s a nice little idea but I’m afraid the big problem is Bestard. Prowse agrees but it is clear that he doesn’t really know what Bestard is going on about. After a lot of Bestard talking about himself, Prowse re-films the scene, on an incredibly similar set to the original, with a talented director at the helm, so that the scene looks as if it really could have been from the original film. Prowse then has to fly to Spain for the one off screening, where Bestard has invited his family and friends. Bewildered, he makes a nice little speech, thanks Bestard for his enthusiasm, and lets the evening swim over him. Unfortunately for those of us watching the documentary and not at the screening, we aren’t allowed to see the footage due to legal reasons. Bestard is a likable guy but he’s naive bordering on annoying. There was always going to be a legal issue with the footage, so an anti-climax was unavoidable. I felt a bit cheated if I’m being honest. The interviews were good but only because the interviewees were talkative, Bestard himself was dreadful at asking questions. The film is more about Bestard than it is about Prowse of Star Wars at times, which I’m afraid is a real no no as far as documentaries are concerned – unless the film is really about you, which this one wasn’t. It is certainly one for the nerds and super fans, watchable often for just how silly it is but worth it for certain interviews.

The Giant Claw

Dir: Fred F. Sears

1957

*/*****

Jeff Morrow is great in 1957 sci-fi monster film The Giant Claw. He plays the archetypal expert/hero who experiences an ‘event’, is integral to the study of such ‘event’ and is responsible for saving the day and eradicating the cause of said ‘event’. The ‘event’ in this particular scenario involves a ferocious hawk-like creature of giant proportions. Morrow plays a civil aeronautical engineer who, while on a routine radar test flight near the North Pole, spots an unidentified flying object fly overhead ‘the size of a battleship’. He reports it and three jet fighters scramble to pursue and identify the object but only two of the jets return. He is then accused of wasting time and resources and is indirectly blamed for the lost pilot, thanks to his ‘hoax’. Then for about half an hour of the film he tries to defend himself while every other character mocks his ‘the size of a battleship claim’. Unfortunately, all this does is mock the film’s own script, which is excruciatingly bad, but delivered with class. Soon enough more people fall foul of the giant…fowl, and Morrow’s Mitch MacAfee is believed. He isn’t a giant bird expert, knows nothing about antimatter (the only logical explanation) and has no experience of aviation battle but somehow it’s down to him to save the day. He’s believable; as is as mathematician Sally Caldwell, Edgar Barrier as physics and astronomical wiz Dr. Noymann, Morris Ankrum as General Considine and Robert Shayne as General Van Buskirk. The plot is as silly as these big monster films typically were but it was all done relatively well for its time and with what technology was available in 1957. The stuff about the giant bird coming from outta space and being protected from antimatter is all silly fun, indeed, these old b-movies would be worse if they didn’t play around with nonsensical sci-fi nonsense. Everyone is on fine form, it was probably never going to be the best b-movie/sci-fi/monster movie but all those involved were positive. Morrow said years later that neither he, nor anyone else working on the shoot had actually seen the monster until the film’s premiere. They were told it was state of the art stuff that would be created post-production, and if the poster was anything to go by the audience were in for a real spectacle. The truth is producer Sam Katzman had originally asked the great Ray Harryhausen to produce the creature with his legendary stop-motion animation techniques but budget constraints put stop to that idea rather quickly. Without too much debate, he hired a low-budget special effects studio in Mexico who made the flying monster into a poorly crafted marionette on wires. The finished film was a laughing stock and every time the ‘Giant Claw’ appeared on screen the audience would erupt in laughter. Morrow admitted that he was so embarrassed that he slipped out of the premiere and went straight home and started drinking heavily, worried that someone might recognise him. The rest is history. The monster does spoil the good work of the rest of the film but to be honest, the film is now legendary because of the terrible but brilliant special effects. Watching the Giant Claw picking off a group of parachuting passengers one by one is one of the greatest scenes in the history of cinema. It’s awful but awfully good at the same time. I’m not sure any b-movie was as bad/brilliant until Shark Attack 3 came along many decades later. I think it is hilarious that no one, not even the poster designers, were shown the creature before the film was released. It could never happen nowadays, so there is something extremely charming about the whole mess. I honestly don’t think I would have enjoyed it as much had the effects actually been of the industry standard at the time and I don’t think The Giant Claw would have reached the legendary status that it now holds either, I mean, the film double billed with The Night the World Exploded which had better effects and who remembers that?

Geostorm

Dir: Dean Devlin

2017

**

Dean Devlin has a long career as a producer and has worked closely with Roland Emmerich in the past. Looking at his back catalog of films it’s probably no surprise that Geostorm is his chosen directional debut. One might wonder why another extreme weather disaster movie though, why indeed, the answer may lay in the fact that the only Emmerich films Devlin hasn’t worked on are 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow – he clearly feels he was left out and wanted a crack at the action sub-genre himself. Roland Emmerich’s films are big, stupid and something of a guilty pleasure – Geostorm on the other hand is big, stupid, and not quite a guilty pleasure. Actually that’s not quite true, Geostrom isn’t really that big, it’s incredibly stupid and something of a bore. Very little works in Geostorm, even when you ignore the science and logic. Based in the not-so-distant future whereby the world has clubbed together and built a super-space station that protects the Earth from extreme weather conditions, we are led to believe that meat-headed hard man Gerard Butler is the brains behind this unfathomable science. When pushed on the subject he punches people, rather than explain the science to them. We’re supposed to react positively to him somehow because of said punching, which is already a little too 1980s neo-conservative for today’s action movie fan, but the fact that he can’t even science particularity well is a step too far. Back in the day, watching New York getting smashed was an epic thing to witness (horrific but thrilling), in Geostorm it doesn’t even warrant popcorn. I don’t think this is necessarily all to do with the acts of terrorism the world has suffered in the last couple of decades, but sadly we have become numb to such images. The disaster genre comes and goes, I would argue that they were possibly more entertaining when the world isn’t suffering such disasters but know what we know now and also knowing many people in power are ignoring it, the whole extreme weather/disaster thing is something we should be talking about, rather than watching as entertainment. Geostorm isn’t meant to be taken seriously of course, but one can’t help it in this day and age. All that aside, the film takes place on a weather hit earth, with fire, freezing and volcanoes, as well as in space, with lots of explosions and cool space stuff – it has no excuse for being as dull as it is. It really should be a guilty pleasure. The reasons why it isn’t are quite simple. Firstly, the characters are crap. Secondly, the actors playing the characters are crap. Thirdly, the script given to said actors playing the characters is crap. It also lacks that one distinct action sequence that all good disaster films have. The story itself makes the 1970s James Bond scripts look believable. The reason why the bad guys want to destroy half the plant by bad weather? Because it is easier to be in charge of fewer people. Seriously, who on earth green-lights this nonsense. After a poor test screening the producers ordered extensive re-shoots, so I hate to think what it looked like before. I would hazard a guess that this will be Devlin’s first and last film as director, although knowing Warner Brothers these days, I dare say they’ll be several sequels, maybe even a ‘universe’ of films.

The Lego Ninjago Movie
Dir: Charlie Bean, Bob Logan, Paul Fisher
2017
**
Just like a million other kids, I grew up with Lego, love Lego and like what Lego have done in recent years – to a point. I’m at an age now where there are loads of kids within my family and among my friends but Lego, as much as it is asked for, is not a gift I buy them for birthdays. Have you been to a Lego shop recently? You’d have to remortgage to buy some of the larger sets. That aside, I love the Lego Star-Wars computer games and The Lego Movie was great fun as it captured the nature of how kids play with the classic toy. Lego for me was about a mix of different genres and creativity. No other toys of mine interacted, He-Man and Action Force were kept separate from one another, but in my Lego play Astronauts and Pirates would interact. I didn’t go in for sets, I just used to mix up all the bricks and make up my own stuff, Lego is an expanding company I know, so sets are the way forward but I’m afraid with Lego Ninjago they’ve completely lost me. I don’t get it, not surprising really as it isn’t marketed at me but I do think the Lego magic is lost on this odd little venture. The oriental clichés are so strong it is almost offensive. Just how many mysterious little Japanese shops are there really in America? Did Jackie Chan know what the film was about? What is it with Lego and their obsession with the bad father and needy son dynamic? Lego should be about originality and about creativity and at the very least any Lego film from now on should be as good as the previous Lego films and should try and keep up with the distinct level of humour now synonymous with the franchise. In this Lego scenario, there are several school kids who twilight as ninjas, all who have their own colour and giant animal robot suit. It’s Power Rangers with bricks basically. The film starts as a cross between Gremlins and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and becomes a weird sort of Mega-Mind Power Rangers mash up. The humour wasn’t strong and the jokes were all recycled. I liked the bit with the cat but again, this was a rehashed idea from the Lego Movie. Without wanting to sound like an old and miserable man, it gave me a headache. I’ve seen kids transfixed by the TV show but when you ask them to repeat what had happened in the episode they can’t tell you. Colour and movement, that’s all it is. I think I might have had a stroke if I had watched it in 3D. The voice actors were nothing special either. Dave Franco has openly admitted that during the process of interacting with co-star Justin Theroux (who played his father) he found himself uncontrollably crying while recording some of his lines. Franco stated "I found myself getting caught up in the moment and basically crying harder than I have in any live-action movie I’ve ever been in". What? Seriously? For the UK release of the film, Good Morning America hosts Robin Roberts and Michael Strahan are replaced with Good Morning Britain hosts Kate Garraway and Ben Shephard. As breaking news unfolds, Shephard and Garraway try their best to convey concern and dismay but end up sounding forced and over the top - like how kids sound when they are made to read Shakespeare in the middle of class. If there is ever breaking news in Great Britain, Shephard and Garraway are the last people asked to report on it. Familiarity breeds contempt, I didn’t hate the film, it’s just not for me but I would have hoped for more from Lego, although this is only their first big misstep in my opinion. I won’t give up on them just yet.

Paddington 2

Dir: Paul King

2017

****

It’s not often that a sequel betters the original, especially when said sequel is a children’s film. That is however the case for Paddington 2, making it as much of a relief than the first film. The idea of an animated bear mixed with live animation filled me with absolute dread at first but thankfully both films were in the hands of Paul King and Simon Farnaby. Michael Bond’s classic character and stories are something not to be messed with, they are simplistic and poetic and have a unique charm about them that has made them loved across the globe. The original short stories have been updated but with strong influences that work rather well with Bond’s characters. From the very beginning I sensed a Chaplinesque feel about the sequel and then indeed, Modern Times and Chaplin himself were directly referenced. As a huge fan of Chaplin and the older slap-sticks, I like the fact that kids can be influenced by the comedy classics once more – and hopefully they will then seek them out. I also liked the Gerald Hoffnung ‘The Bricklayer’s Lament’ reference and the Mr. Bean tribute. I always find it frustrating that more sequels don’t take the advantage that a second film often gives. In the first film you have to introduce the protagonist, introduce him to the other characters and then enter into a moral lesson about belonging, acceptance, family etc etc. In the second film you can get on with an interesting story, as everything else is established and that is exactly what King and Farnaby have done. There are influences from all over and there is a slight reliability on familiarity but they win over with plenty of charm. I thought it was a shame regarding the first film that, yet again, a British film felt compelled to have an a-list Hollywood actor in it in order to appeal to a wider audience. They clearly realised they didn’t have to this time (not that there was anything wrong with Nicole Kidman’s performance) and the film boasts a wide collection of British actors from the big and small screens. Ben Whishaw returns as the voice of Paddington, Imelda Stanton and Michael Gambon return as the voices of Aunt Lucy and Uncle Pastuzo, both Jim Broadbent and Peter Capaldi reprise their roles from the first film and Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters return as the Brown family. Among the newer additions are Brendan Gleeson, Noah Taylor, Tom Conti, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Ben Miller, Jessica Hynes and there are some great cameos from Joanna Lumley, Meera Syal and Richard Ayoade. The best new addition to the film though is the scene-stealing Hugh Grant who is absolutely fantastic. It just might be his best performance yet. His villain isn’t quite as two dimensional as most seen in kids/family films and he brings an altogether finer element to the formula. The big musical number in the prison is one of my favorite scenes of 2017 without much competition. The humour of the film is golden and is what makes it work so well. I found myself giggling constantly throughout the film, which I’ve always thought harder to achieve but more effective than simply producing two or three belly laughs. The overall production is glorious and perfectly balanced. Often kid’s films can look gourdy and over the top but there is visual richness to Paddington 2 that works wonderfully, especially in painting that dream-like look of London that everyone, apart from us that actually live there, have learned to expect. The pop up book that features heavily was also in part a tribute to the 1970s/80s animated series of Paddington that I grew up with, which was a lovely touch. It’s a very pleasant and enjoyable sequel, with plenty of charm and laughs for all ages. Most importantly though, it is authentic to the late Michael Bond’s little bear.

The Dark Tower
Dir: Nikolaj Arcel
2017
**
Stephen King’s Dark Tower series began back in 1982 with the release of The Gunslinger. Since then there have been seven further novels – eight if you include The Little Sisters of Eluria. It’s the Stephen King series that the hard core Stephen King fans can nerd out over, as it incorporates many characters from his other works. Suffice to say, fans have been anticipating a big screen adaption for some time, although I don’t think anyone thought it would be easy. I do wonder whether a television series would have been a better option but if I saw a hard core follower then I would want a faithful adaption of each and every novel to be released in order – it’s not as if there aren’t enough fans of both The Dark Tower and of King’s work in general. The stories have a lot going for them, each one is totally different to the next and they incorporate a wide range of genres. Granted it wouldn’t be an easy series to adapt but at the same time the possibilities were endless. J. J. Abrams and his Lost co-writers Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof were attached in 2007, around the time people were still watching Lost and hadn’t ‘lost’ interest. They worked on it for two years before agreeing that after a lengthy series the last thing they wanted to do was enter into a project that would have taken decades to complete. Linedelof rather maturely stated that as the biggest Dark Tower fan on the planet he was probably the last person who should adapt it. Ron Howard was then approached when it was decided that instead of either an adaption of each novel or a trilogy, they would instead produce a TV series with motion picture intervals. I have no idea how or if that would have worked but after five year Howard left the project when Sony wouldn’t green-light his ideas. Then Nikolaj Arcel joined the project. No disrespect to Arcel, his direction is good and he can be creative on low-budgets as seen in 2007’s Island of Lost Souls, but he isn’t quite in the same league as Abrams or Howard. Respect due, the film is visually strong, it’s really the story that lets it down of which Arcel is also responsible for. The novels have a wealth of ideas, even if you were to combine several books into one film you’d have plenty to work with, so why Arcel and the other screenwriters decided to set the story after the last novel is puzzling to say the least. The story is uneventful, a bit dull to be honest, with very little that stands out. I watched it last night and I’m already beginning to forget it. Idris Elba is cool but he is given absolutely nothing to work with. Matthew ‘Alrighty’ McConaughey was also great in his part and established the character fairly early on, but also suffers from a terrible script – in short, the performances are fine but the character development is dire. The best thing about the Dark Tower series is that it is a real mix of genres and ideas but none of that can really be seen in the film. It is about as formulaic as you can get from a fantasy/sci-fi film and I think it would have been more sensible to have played to a more grown up audience, indeed, the people who read and love the books. I’m not sure why that is such a strange concept for movie studios to understand. The dark Tower novels are all best sellers, they have a global collective of fans – give them what they want and others will follow. Making a film based on an established series that has been going on now for nearly forty years purely for people who know nothing of it, is utterly ridiculous and, in all honesty, deserves to fail. I did wonder how they would tie-in all the other Stephen King characters from his connected universe, more were planned but copyright issues proved to be problematic. Ridiculous really but that’s how the world works. There were a few Stephen King references; the Rita Hayworth poster from The Shawshank Redemption and the Plymouth Fury (Christine) in our protagonist’s bedroom, and for course the fact that said protagonist is said to have ‘The Shine’ – as in The Shining. There is a scene where a St Bernard Dog walks past and a pair of twins can be seen early on in the film, these could be references to Cujo and girls from the Shining but that could be looking into it a little too much. A picture of the Overlook Hotel can clearly be seen though, so The Shining is definitely covered. Salem’s Lot is referenced by a background sign that reads ‘Barlow and Straker’s’ – two characters from the novel – but you’d be lucky to spot this first time. The other two ‘Easter eggs’ that are really forced are the smiley face from Mr. Mercedes and a porthole that is numbered 1408. My favorite was probably the copy of Misery’s Child that can be seen in our protagonists room. It’s neat because it doesn’t reference the film directly, it is a work of fiction that is seen in King’s other work of fiction. However, the biggest reference is the discovery of the ruins of an old fairground with a big rusty sign clearly spelling out ‘Pennywise’. It is incredibly forced and the camera lingers on it for more than is needed. It is probably the film’s highlight. It is ridiculous that an ‘Easter egg’ would be the best thing in a film, but for all the references in The Dark Tower, it’s still not quite what the fans wanted. The story could be overlooked as it feels more like a puzzle than a film. By the end I was hoping that the Goblin Truck from ‘Trucks’/Maximum Overdrive would show up and run someone over before The Langoliers would come and eat everything. Unfortunately the conclusion was far less interesting and memorable than that but hopefully my idea will be considered when the eventual re-adaptation happens in around twenty years time.

Who Took Johnny

Dir: David Beilinson, Michael Galinsky, Suki Hawley

2014

****

I knew nothing about Johnny Gosch before watching 2014’s Who Took Johnny as his story was never big news in the UK. However, the dangers of child molestation and predatory paedophiles did become a topic that was more widely discussed. I remember as a child that these men were simply known as ‘Dirty old men’ and were largely ignored and any crime swept under the carpet. I knew that in America they print pictures of missing people on milk cartons, I just didn't know it was because of Johnny Gosch. Many historic cases involving well known celebrities and politicians made the news just before this documentary was made so perhaps it was quite timely. While the film concentrates on the Johnny Gosch case in particular, it only really scratches the surface as far as the Franklin cover up goes. It is incredibly disturbing to learn now just how easy it was for rich and powerful men to kidnap young boys from suburbia and sell them as sex slaves. The police did very little, bringing in to question whether they were under orders from someone high up in their department or even higher than that. It is clear that some very powerful men were being it and still to this day they have essentially got away with it – it’s clearly still happening today. A whole way of life changed, kids could no longer go outside and play by themselves and fear became an every day part of life that corporations have taken advantage of. Gosch’s mother has tirelessly campaigned for changes in the law and searched for her son for many years and now helps others who are going through the same situations. Her actions have had a huge impact, Johnny is remembered and is thought of as the first child to be taken like this but the truth is that his mother was the first to bring an ongoing problem to the consciousness of the public. The film gets even more horrific when victim and forced predator Paul Bonacci confesses to snatching Johnny and unravels the true horror of the paedophile syndicate. I think there is more to the story not covered in the documentary but all of the important factors are covered. It really needs a separate film about Lawrence E King Jr and what is known as The Franklin Cover up. I was sickened and shocked by some of the content, even questioning whether they should have shown certain images but after giving it a lot of thought, I think it is right of the film makers to show a glimpse of the true horror so that society does not revert to turning this subject into a taboo no-go issue. The story is suspenseful, full of twists and unaccepted revelations, the film makers tell the tale systematically and in order, never once playing on the sensationalism – they didn’t need to but many a documentary has milked similar subjects, so I’m glad they kept it true and respectful. It’s a tough watch but an important subject to be aware of, not just if you’re a parent. The fact that these people are so powerful that they can cover such a thing up is beyond frightening and is truly sickening. We can beat this sort of thing with knowledge of the subject and defiance, I applaud the film makers for delivering a tasteful and balanced documentary – it just needs a follow up.

One of Us

Dir: Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady

2017

***

Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s infamous fly on the wall documentary Jesus Camp was a terrifying look at how religion has become twisted, manipulated and the opposite of what it thinks it is. It focused in one particular subject – a Christian summer camp for kids. In their 2017 documentary ‘One of Us’ the spectrum is much wider, but unfortunately a little less focused. I really do the it when people accuse such documentaries as being ‘unbalanced’ in their views because religion, unless being discussed in a wider sense, is either going to be told from the side of a believer or non-believer. A documentary that seeks out to find the truth of whether God really exists would be long, arduous and wouldn’t have a conclusion, certainly not one that would please everyone. One of Us chronicles the lives of three ex-Hasidic Jews who all live in Brooklyn. The film is of course one-sided, the Hasidic community and synagogue aren’t exactly going to take part in a film of this nature. I believe everything the three subjects say, the tales of violence, sexual abuse and mental starvation all ring true. One lives in fear, a young women ostracized by her community and family with children to think of. Another has more confidence but is still clearly haunted by his experiences and the last is young and struggles with his new found freedom, eventually turning to drugs and anything else that can numb the pain. The young women has children, that is her main focus but the two men feel lost, now that they have fled everything they have ever known. They know they don’t agree with where they were but they don’t know enough about outside life in order to function like an average member of society. Once more Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady focus on how religion can close the mind and how people struggle when their questions are not answered. The way abuse is accepted and then covered up is also distressing. I don’t think religious people should be offended, as the wrongs here are human, we’re a bad race, religion is one of the many ways we try and justify our bad nature. I think the three subjects were exceptionally brave for coming out against their communities, especially as they had many friends and family still within them. Other members would come up to them in the street and were defensibly hostile, which won’t do their community any good. The interesting aspect for me was learning of the support organisations (Footsteps) for people who leave the community. The interviews were hard to listen to but also fascinating. I’m sure much of their experiences would also shock the Hasidic community, so I hope they see the film also and enter into dialogue. I’m an atheist but I say live and let live, believe in whatever you have to – you can’t prove God exists and I can’t prove he doesn’t but I do believe in people (as horrible as they can be) and open communication and mutual respect. If you hide your faults behind God and are okay with that then your religion means nothing. It doesn’t have the same impact of Jesus Camp but it is compelling and it outs an important truth.

Raiders!: The Story of the Greatest Fan Film Ever Made
Dir: Jeremy Coon, Tim Skousen
2015
****
Raiders!: The Story of the Greatest Fan Film Ever Made is the stuff of nerd legend. In 1982, a twelve year old Eric Zala became utterly obsessed after watching Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark in his local cinema. After seeing a fellow school mate Chris Strompolos reading an Indiana Jones comic one lunch break, he approached him and started talking about the film. After discussing their shared enthusiasm for the film, they both decided to borrow their parents video camera and make a shot for shot copy of the now classic movie. It took them seven years and the entirety of their teens. They approached the school geek Jayson Lamb about special effects and the three of them set to work. They begged, borrowed and stole everything they needed for their film, as well as recruit nearly every kid in their neighbourhood. They jumped out of moving cars and set each other on fire and their parents had absolutely no idea what they were up to. They spent every summer holiday of their teens working on the movie, the obsession never once taking second place to anything else in their lives. It is, rather ironically, just like something you’d expect from a feel-good Steven Spielberg movie. The boys – now in their early 50s – reflect that it was their parents busy lifestyles and subsequent divorces that pushed them into the project, to take their minds off their real lives. By 1989 the boys had grown up. They were going to collage, chasing girls and doing all the other things 19 year olds do. The project was essentially finished and they had also had enough. They screened it at a local cinema for their friends and were interviewed on local television but after 1989 they lost contact and thought nothing more of the film. A couple of decades later Eli Roth, who had obtained a rare copy of the film at film school, gave his copy to Harry Knowles of Ain’t It Cool News’ fame, hoping that he would show it at 2002’s Butt-Numb-a-Thon film festival. Knowles loved it and decided to show it just before the premiere of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. The film was meant to fill a gap in the schedule but it overran and was cut short to show the big feature. Suddenly the crowd starting booing, they had paid to see The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers first but now they wanted to see Raiders!. A cult phenomenon began. Word got out and Roth tracked down the boys and got the band together again for a packed out screening in 2003. Since then, the boys – some of whom had gone through tough times – had rekindled friendships and made several appearances talking about the film. They even got to meet Steven Spielberg who invited them to his home to tell him how much he loved their film. However, the boys never did finish the film. The finished article was almost perfect frame for frame, especially as most was filmed from memory as the VHS of the film wasn’t released until a good couple of years since they saw it in the cinema. The stunts they performed were amazing given what little they had to work with but even so they achieved so much – apart from the infamous fight scene next to the flying wing aircraft that sees the gruesome demise of a henchman after a lengthy fist fight with Indy. The plane then blows up. The missing scene started to bother the boys, Zala in particular, so they hatched a plan that would never been possible in 1982 or 1989. They crowd-funded the project that would see them build the model of a plane, hire a top director and explode their prop, thus completing the film. People paid but there was one problem. These guys aren’t really film makers. However, their story, told while they set to complete the final scene, is golden. What happened to the boys after the film is almost as amazing than the film itself. The new scene doesn’t disappoint either, when an unexpected event gives the documentary a climactic finale. It is as if the Goonies were real and this is the documentary of their story. It’s the best of a 1980s Spielberg movie and a feel-good documentary rolled into one. It will appeal to so many, whether you’re an Indy fan, documentary nut or interested in film making – this is the film for you.

Goodbye Christopher Robin
Dir: Simon Curtis
2017
****
I adore the 1970s Disney adaptations of Winnie the Pooh but it is fair to say that Disney have taken the story of Christopher Robin and his friends to an unrecognisable state compared to their original conception. However, the commercialisation of A. A. Milne’s stories began well before Disney bought the rights and in some respect, influenced Disney in the way they commandeer children's entertainment. The truth behind the real Christopher Robin is less well known and beautifully brought to life in Simon Curtis’ wonderful 2017 drama. Written by Frank Cottrell-Boyce and Simon Vaughan, Goodbye Christopher Robin explores the origins of Winnie the Pooh and reveals the real boy of the stories. The tale is not a happy one. It is refreshing to watch a drama based on truth that sticks to the truth. The story was meticulously fact-checked and nothing is sensationalised or exaggerated. Christopher Robin had a distant relationship with his father and a troubled relationship with his mother. A. A. Milne suffered years of Shell-shock after returning from the Battle of the Somme and found it hard to write the successful work he was known for before war broke out in Europe. He was struggling to write an anti-war piece when he was unexpectedly left alone with his son for a few days after his wife was away enjoying the high-life in London and the nanny was called home to attend her sick mother. Milne and his son went on long walks and he entertained his Son’s imagination and after playing with his son’s toys the seed of the Winnie the Pooh tales was planted. Milne was suddenly popular again and his son was thrust into the limelight as the real Christopher Robin. The truth boarders on child abuse, not only was the brief connection with his father shattered, he soon found himself the target of bullies and the press, leading to a very unhappy childhood – a million miles away from the Christopher Robin in the books. His childhood was over before it could be saved but perhaps the biggest regret came for Milne when Robin enlisted into the Army to serve in WW2, making Milne’s worst nightmares a reality. It is a brutally honest depiction of the relationships behind the fantasy and I think when the truth of any story such as this is adapted truthfully it should be celebrated and remembered. The direction is perfect, it depicts a life the family had and the backdrop behind the animations beautifully. I’ve liked everything Domhnall Gleeson has been in but I think this is his best performance so far, Oscar worthy but totally overlooked. I think Margot Robbie did well to accept her role too, her’s is not a likable character and I’m sure she was probably advised against it at this stage in her career but she was perfect. Kelly Macdonald was lovely as Robin’s nanny, his surrogate mother who also appeared in the original stories. It may take off the sugar coating of the original children’s stories for some but personally I think it is always important to know the truth and to see that there is always more to it than meets the eye. The worst thing you can do is go through life believing that everything is warm and fluffy.

Annihilation

Dir: Alex Garland

2018

****

Annihilation is a lot of things. First and foremost it is a great piece of sci-fi, but it has also kicked off a debate – two debates in fact -  that have been simmering for some time. It was always intended that Annihilation – an adaption of the first book of Jeff VanderMeer’s Southern Reach Trilogy – be released in cinemas. However, Paramount struck up a deal with Netflix and the film ended up having its premiere on the small screen. It all started after a test screening was received poorly at Paramount. David Ellison, a financier at the studio, stated that he thought the film was ‘too intellectual’ and ‘too complicated’ and demanded changes to be made so it would appeal to a wider audience. The big thing he wanted to change was the ending. However, director Alex Garland and producer Scott Rudin both refused and fought Ellison all the way. Thanks to a shift in Paramount’s leadership and the ongoing clashes between Rudin and Ellison, the studio decided to release it quickly and made a deal with Netflix. Garland expressed his disappointment by saying: "We made the film for cinema. I've got no problem with the small screen at all. The best genre piece I've seen in a long time was The Handmaid’s Tale, so I think there's incredible potential within that context, but if you're doing that – you make it for that medium and you think of it in those terms. Look... it is what it is. The film is getting a theatrical release in the States, which I'm really pleased about. One of the big pluses of Netflix is that it goes out to a lot of people and you don't have that strange opening weekend thing where you're wondering if anyone is going to turn up and then if they don't, it vanishes from cinema screens in two weeks. So it's got pluses and minuses, but from my point of view and the collective of the people who made it – it was made to be seen on a big screen.” I really feel for Garland because he has been wronged. I have issues with the streaming of new films – I love the cinema experience and I don’t want to see any more beautiful picture houses shut down and turned into Bingo Halls. However, like Garland says, it is a great way for more people to see a film. This is a debate that will continue for some time but if there is one thing that Annihilation will prove, it is that studios get it very wrong and it isn’t just ‘not quite good enough for the big screen’ films that make it to television. Annihilation deserved a big screen outing. It has some glorious cinematic scenes and amazing sound that justify a 90 x 30 foot screen, 2.35:1 aspect ratio and a 118dB sound system. Paramount panicked and sold it at discount – more fool them. The thing is, Paramount panicked for one reason and one reason only – they think you and I are stupid. Good sci-fi is supposed to be challenging, I get that big film studios are a business and need to make money but at the end of the day, financial experts should not make creative decisions. It’s why so many big chain restaurants are closing down everywhere, head office are writing menus instead of the chiefs. Annihilation is ambiguous at times but it is the audience’s interpretation that make it what it is. It is the sort of film that will split audiences down the middle, indeed, the sort of film people would have to see for themselves after hearing all the hype. Paramount probably did themselves out of more money then they realise, but seriously, it makes me want to avoid their films from now on, now I know they think so little of me and my intellect (or lack of). If audiences have dumbed down, it is only the fault of the big studios themselves, and actually, if that is the case then I’d rather the creatives stream the good films to my home, if it means they save money and don’t have to bother with the big studios then all the better. The ones really missing out are the cinemas – all of which will close unless they branch out into the home cinema market and pop corn delivery. I like the comfort of my own home but I will be heartbroken if the cinemas go. The thing is, I only really go to the cinema to watch big-screen-worthy pictures. Annihilation is the most worthy big-screen picture I’ve seen for a long time. It is criminal that it was only shown on the small screen for most people. As I watched, I felt genuinely gutted that the amazing stuff I was seeing was clearly smaller than was intended. The begins mysteriously and reveals itself like a slowly peeled onion. The first part of the film felt familiar, I wasn’t immediately drawn into it but it slowly grew on me. I did like the subtle rationale of sending an all-female team into the shimmer, it is one for the girls but without being forced. The turning point for me was the discovery of what has got to be the most colourful horror scenes ever conceived. I wasn’t convinced by monster number one but I won’t forget monster number two in a hurry. The wonderful thing about this peculiar horror though is that it isn’t really a horror. The audience paints the horror into the story, the events are basically reflections of nature, which can be both beautiful and horrific. The climax of the film is something quite profound, again, I’m gutted I didn’t see this on the big screen. The story and imagery may seem familiar and might have elements in common with other films (Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker springing to mind) but the climax is totally original, quite spectacular and also rather profound. It’s Natalie Portman’s best film since Jackie and her chemistry with Oscar Isaac is both electric and disjointed enough to keep the audience alert and intrigued. It was great to see Tessa Thompson again and in a totally different role since she was last seen stealing scenes in Thor: Ragnarok but the real success in the casting was Jennifer Jason Leigh as Dr. Ventress. Garland’s direction is perfect, if you like his other work then you won’t be disappointed. I think the cinematography could and should have been as strong in the early segment of the film as it was at the end and I do wish the score had been as strong as the sound effects but other than that I thought Annihilation was bordering on 2001: A Space Odyssey epicness. I wish it was longer, that they’d taken more time over it and that the introduction was a little punchier. Other than that, it’s one of the best sci-fi films I’ve seen in ages, original, compelling and it has left me wanting more.