The Ritual

Dir: David Bruckner

2017

****

My first impressions of The Ritual were not good at all but it didn’t take long for David Bruckner’s 2017 horror to win me over. I don’t care what sub-genre of horror a horror film is as long as it is original and it achieves its goals. I don’t mind when a horror film treads old ground just as long as it does it better. On paper The Ritual doesn’t look that original but in reality I believe it is very unique, both in what it tries to achieve and what it produces. The film starts with five old university friends (Phil, Dom, Hutch, Luke and Rob) catching up over drinks in a pub. I found the chemistry between the men to be unconvincing, they didn’t seem to belong together and the dialogue between them was forced and unnatural. I was ready to switch off until I remembered how different myself and my old University buddies are. The group begin discussing a holiday together and agree hiking in Sweden would suit them all best. After leaving the pub Luke (Rafe Spall) and Rob (Paul Reid) decide to keep drinking and go into an off licence to buy a bottle of vodka. They are suddenly interrupted when armed robbers emerge from the back of the shop. Luke quickly hides behind a shelf at the end of the aisle, leaving Rob frozen in fear. The thieves antagonise Rob, demanding his wallet, watch, and wedding ring. Rob parts with the first two but refuses to give them his ring. Luke, still hidden, clutches a bottle in his hand and prepares to intervene but can’t bring himself to act. The robbers become impatient and they hack Rob to death with a machete. This is when I became intrigued. Six months after his death, to honour Rob's wish, the four embark on a hiking trip along the Kungsleden, or King's Trail, in northern Sweden. When Dom (Sam Troughton) loses his footing and injures his knee, impairing his ability to walk, Hutch (Robert James-Collier) consults the map and decides that an alternative route through a forest off of the trail will take them half the time. Upon entering the forest, the group encounters strange phenomena, including a gutted elk hanging from the tree branches and strange symbols carved on the trees. As night falls, a torrential rainstorm soaks the men. While looking for shelter, they come upon an abandoned cabin and decide to break in and stay overnight. Inside the cabin, they find necklaces hanging from the walls bearing symbols similar to those carved in the trees. While exploring the attic of the cabin, Phil (Arsher Ali) discovers a wooden statuette of a decapitated human torso with antlers for hands. During the night, the four are plagued by nightmares. Luke’s dream is of that night when Rob was killed. Upon waking the next morning, Luke finds that he has sustained a set of strange puncture wounds on his chest. The group finds Phil in the attic, naked and kneeling in prayer in front of the effigy. The group leaves the cabin to continue their travels deeper into the woods, trying to find a way out. Climbing a ridge to get an idea of their location, Luke sees a large figure in the trees. Dom doubts his report, and in an ensuing argument, Dom reveals that he blames Luke for Rob's death, and calls Luke cowardly for failing to act during the robbery. Later that night, screams awaken Luke from another nightmare. Discovering that Hutch's tent is empty, the other three men rush deeper into the woods, lured by Hutch's screams. By dawn, they realise that they have become lost and can't find their campsite. They decide to continue their search without their tents and supplies. The three come upon Hutch eviscerated and impaled on tree branches, much like the gutted deer they had found earlier. After retrieving his compass and knife, the men give Hutch an impromptu burial with tree branches. Luke leaves Phil and Dom on the lower part of a ridge to climb a hill that provides an overview of the entire forest, and discovers that they are relatively close to the edge of the forest. He also spots smoke rising from distant campfires. He rejoins the other two to find them pointing their torches towards the trees, saying they heard a noise. Suddenly, Phil is dragged away by an unseen creature. Seeking a hiding place, Luke encounters Dom and urges him to run with him. They get to their feet and begin to run, the creature giving chase. They pass Phil's body impaled on the branches of a tree near a path of lit torches that leads to a small village. They seek shelter in the first building they see, and collapse on the cabin floor, only to be knocked unconscious. When they awaken, they find themselves restrained in a basement. An elderly woman enters and inspects the puncture marks on Luke's chest. She pulls down her dress to reveal a similar pattern on her chest. She turns to leave the basement and utters a command in a foreign language, which prompts two men to grab Dom and take him to the upper floor of the cabin. A younger woman enters the basement and explains in English that preparations are being made for sacrifice. Sometime later, Dom is escorted back to the basement, beaten and bloodied, but still alive. He explains to Luke that he will serve as a human sacrifice to the creature, and instructs him to find a way to escape and destroy the village. Dom is taken outside of the cabin and brought to a wooden post, where his hands are tied behind his back. As night falls, a roar is heard from the forest. The captors immediately fall to their knees in worship. Dom has a vision of his wife emerging from the trees and holding his face in her hands. This is, in reality, the creature that has been pursuing the men. The creature removes Dom from the post and impales him on the branches of a nearby tree, leaving him to die. Desperate to escape, Luke frees himself from one of his restraints by breaking his thumb, but is interrupted by the young woman's sudden entrance before he can remove the second. When Luke asks about the creature, she explains that it is called a Jötunn, a god-like figure from Scandinavian mythology that is a bastard child of Loki, and that they provide it sacrifices in return for immortality. She states that Luke will take part in a ritual where he will submit to the creature and join the cult, or be killed. After she leaves, Luke breaks free from his restraints and leaves the basement. He ventures to the upper floor of the cabin, hearing prayers and screaming coming from behind a closed door. Armed with a burning torch, he opens the door and finds a twisted congregation of mummified, but still living, humans, evidently the end result of the immortality granted by their worship of the creature. Following Dom's last wish, he sets the worshippers alight. This act attracts the Jötunn, who emerges from the forest to find the cabin burning. In a rage, the creature kills the young woman, seemingly gouging her eyes out after speaking with her angrily. Luke uses this opportunity to escape from the burning cabin after a couple of cultists almost stop him, and the creature bars his way from the front door. Before running into the woods, Luke aims and takes a shot at the creature as it is holding the young woman's body aloft. The creature pursues him, attempting to cripple his mind by causing hallucinations of his recurring nightmare. The creature eventually catches him, and forces him onto his knees multiple times, offering Luke a chance to submit. Luke uses an axe which he had previously taken from one of the worshippers to strike the creature, briefly incapacitating it. He follows the sunlight, emerging from the forest into an open field. Seemingly unable to leave the forest, the creature roars at him, and he screams back in triumph. Luke turns from the monster and heads in the direction of a paved road with a passing car, a sign of civilization. The film is based on the 2011 novel by Adam Nevill which I haven’t read, so I have no idea whether it is a faithful adaptation or not. I’m not a fan of horror films set in the woods, nor do I fear people who live in remote areas but there was something about this film that made good use of those familiar themes. It was a predictable film in many respects, although I didn’t see the conclusion coming, or at least I hadn’t guessed that the bad guy was a giant mythological creature. For me it was the perfect balance of authentic dread and absurdist fear. If you’re going to have a monster in your movie then you should make it big and ridiculous and you shouldn’t explain too much about it and that’s just what they did. On the flip-side, Luke’s real fear was his own regret and the fact that he couldn’t help his friend. I would argue that armed robbers in a shop was a far more real fear than Scandinavian monsters in the woods. The way Luke’s fears and memories interweaves with the scenes in the woods is phenomenal. In his first dream the woods suddenly make way for the interior of the shop which is somehow floating within the trees. It’s such a great scene. To be honest all you really need in a horror film is to have two or three really great scenes and you’re laughing. You can have any theme you like but you have to have a couple of really memorable scenes to capture the audiences imagination and anything wrong with the film can be excused. It’s not as easy as it sounds but for me The Ritual has around four amazing scenes that really make it a great horror film. Apart from the initial dodgy dialogue and cliché characters I thought it really worked. I’ve seen far too many bad horror films, this isn’t one of them, in fact it is something of a hidden gem.

Tucked

Dir: Jamie Patterson

2019

**

Jamie Patterson’s low budget indie is faultless in its charm and sensibility, it just doesn’t quite hit the mark. I think the real issue, at least in my opinion, was that certain opportunities were missed. The film stars Derren Nesbitt as Jackie, an elderly heterosexual man who works as a drag queen in a late-night club. The film’s opening is great, with Jackie entertaining her crowd by telling smutty jokes that are generally at his own expense. We soon learn that Jackie isn’t in good health and after a fall at home his doctor informs him that he has terminal cancer, with perhaps only weeks to live. When the doctor asks if he has any friends of family he’d like to contact he confesses that he has none, he is alone. Without really knowing what to do, Jackie carries on as normal so he continues to work nights at the club because its what he enjoys. That night a new girl arrives called Faith (played by Jordan Stephens of Rizzle Kicks fame). She is young and sassy and within minutes there is a mutual respect between the pair. That night, during a cigarette break behind the club, a group of three lads shout abuse at the pair and a fight ensues, leaving the friends bloody but the victors. Jackie then discovers that Faith is living in her car and insists she come home with him and stay as long as she likes. Faith soon discovers Jackie’s secret illness and decides to help him with his bucket list. The list includes many different things, such as visiting a strip club (where Jackie merely talks to the girl there, rather than anything else) and taking drugs. It also transcribes that he has an estranged daughter who he’d love to reconnect with but does not think is possible. Faith contacts Jackie’s daughter behind his back and organises a secret meeting where they reconcile. She tells him that she is getting married in a couple of months and that she wants him to walk her down the isle. In the final scene set a year later, we learn that Jackie managed to live long enough to walk his daughter down the isle before passing away and Faith has taken his spot in the club and gives a speech about how much he loves and misses him. It’s a bit of an anti-climax if I’m being honest. I really liked the idea behind the story but it wasn’t executed very well. I really wanted to love it and get behind a British independent film but I just couldn’t help but be frustrated for the film Tucked could have been. I liked Derren Nesbitt performance, he’s a great actor but he was let down by a shoddy script. I’ve got a lot of respect for Jordan Stephens for taking on the role, and while I don’t think he did a bad job, he went a little too Jay Davidson for my liking. Davidson’s performance in The Crying Game is iconic, by all means be influenced by it but for goodness sake don’t try and imitate it. Again, he is let down by the script, as are the entire cast. I didn’t find the story too cliché, predictable perhaps but not so much that it ruined it. What I most objected to was the way the drag element of the film and the two main characters had to fight through a straight world. It was a bit ridiculous really. Why make a film about drag queens and not embrace that world? Sexuality didn’t really have to come into it either, all that was important was for the characters to be themselves and to flourish. There were so many missed opportunities, great set-ups for what could have been brilliant scenes. The scene where Jackie and faith buy drugs from Steve Orman’s drug dealer character was crying out for comedy. Orman is a very funny actors, and an elderly drag queen buying cocaine for the first time should have been funny but instead Orman was written as an aggressive character. This wasn’t a Cuban drug deal taking place in Miami, this was a very ordinary transaction. Drug deals don’t all go down like Scarface, some dealers are actually quite friendly and chilled out (I’m told) which makes sense as they are a business, albeit an illegal one. The strip club scene could have also been funny, they instead went for tender, which is fine, but it could have been a lot more heartwarming than it was. It all comes back to script. The reunion between Jackie and his daughter is especially bad and the film suddenly went into poor soap opera mode. Like I said before, the ending felt half-arsed and lazy, like they ran out of ideas/time/money. I think what would have been better (and Jamie Patterson could claim this but I wouldn’t believe him) would have been if Faith was actually the embodiment of Faith, not a real person but only visible to Jackie – without Jackie knowing this. That would have been the sort of magic the film needed. Some could argue that it would have made the film even more cliché, which could be true, but in all honesty I think it would have given it the sparkle that was so lacking. Actual drag queens was also lacking, which is something of an oversight in a film about drag queens. Like I said, I really wanted to love the film but in the end it becomes its own worst critic. Such a shame but still worth watching for its charm, which it does have a level of.

The Darkest Universe

Dir: Will Sharpe, Tom Kingsley

2016

**

I was a big fan of 2011’s Black Pond and I loved the sitcom Flowers. Both were made by Cambridge Footlights friends Will Sharpe and Tom Kingsley, a pair of talented writers with a very unique take on eerie drama with an equally unique sense of humour. 2016’s The Darkest Universe, made over three years between 2013 and 2015, certainly has their signature all over it but I found it quite hard to get into. It’s a slow burner for sure but I’m not sure it ever really heats up to its full potential. The story is told in a non-linear fashion, not something that ever bothers me but not something I think they do particularly well here. Zac (Will Sharpe) is a lonely, highly strung city trader on the edge of a psychological breakdown. He has lost everything - his job, his girlfriend Eva (Sophia Di Martino who also stars in Flowers) and, most devastatingly, his weird and wayward younger sister Alice (Tiani Ghosh), the only family he had left. Alice is now a missing person, having disappeared on a narrow boat trip along with her kindred drifter and boyfriend Toby (Joe Thomas). Zac becomes increasingly frustrated with the futile attempts of the police to find them and, eventually, decides to take matters into his own inexpert hands by starting a terribly executed video blog and scouring the dark canals of the UK in a desperate, perhaps even deluded search for clues. Struggling for information and fast losing hope, Zac reflects on his past and the difficult relationship he had with Alice. Wracked with guilt and regret, his sanity starts to unravel as he fights with memories of her in the weeks leading up to her disappearance. As he remembers her sweetly burgeoning relationship with the mysterious Toby, however, he begins to wonder if there may in fact be a grander, wilder, much stranger explanation for their disappearance. It’s something of an anti-climax, although I did enjoy the ambiguity. There are some tender moments within the film and some of the later scenes where Zac is reflecting on forgotten memories are almost profound but nothing quite fits together. It was filmed over three years and it really looks like it. Dare I say it, but it feels like a project that was either stuck or left on the back burner for a while that was resurrected, not so much out of passion, but so as not to have wasted time and money on it. If everything about the film is how it was intended, then I’m afraid Will Sharpe and Tom Kingsley need to step outside of their own echo chamber. One could argue that it just wasn’t to my tastes, and it would be a correct argument, but as nice as much of the film looks, there are so many filler scenes that if you took them all away this would be a short film and maybe something it should have been from the very beginning. It’s uncomfortably self-indulgent. I don’t know about Black Pond but Flowers certainly has a fan following, but I’m not sure Will Sharpe and Tom Kingsley have enough of a following for The Darkest Universe to ‘be’ for anyone other than themselves. I don’t really understand any of the filming techniques used, why they needed so many redundant characters or quite what their editing plan was. The film has a beginning and an ending but the all important middle is completely missing. I’m not sure there was a script a such and I found the ad-libbed performances awfully trite. None of the quirks worked and if I’m being honest it all looked rather amateurish, to the point where you have to wonder whether the BAFTAs Will Sharpe and Tom Kingsley were awarded were a spot of luck. I’m starting to wonder who they were up against that year. The biggest problem I had with the film was that I just didn’t care. I didn’t care about the disappeared couple, I didn’t care whether they were found or for any of the people they left behind. This Greek tragedy is just a tragedy. A rather uninteresting and tiresome tragedy, although not really a tragedy because in order for something to be considered a tragedy, someone has to first care about it. Maybe I’m being particularly harsh but I do feel that this was a project that lost its way and lacked a certain level of passion. It could and should have been an excellent short film but as it stands it’s an overlong and rather dull and pointless feature. Will Sharpe and Tom Kingsley have proven they are capable of much more.

The Sisters Brothers

Dir: Jacques Audiard

2019

****

2019’s The Sisters Brothers is proof that you can’t base a film’s quality on how much money it makes. Based on the award-winning novel by Patrick deWitt and directed by one of France’s best directors Jacques Audiard, the film features a brilliant story, a fantastic script and some awesome performances by John C. Reilly (who also produced), Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed – four of my favourite actors working today. It also features the great Rutger Hauer in the last film before his death. Set in the American West in 1851, brothers Eli and Charlie Sisters (Reilly and Phoenix) are gunfighters hired by a wealthy businessman, known as the Commodore (Hauer). He tasks them to kill a man named Hermann Warm (Ahmed). Meanwhile John Morris (Gyllenhaal), a private detective, has been engaged by the Commodore to track Warm down and hand him over to the Sisters brothers. Morris finds Warm traveling by wagon train to California with the Gold Rush and befriends him. They travel to Jacksonville where, unbeknownst to Warm, Morris has arranged his rendezvous with the Sisters brothers. Warm finds Morris’ handcuffs, realizes his true intentions, and threatens him at gunpoint, but Morris overpowers him. Warm reveals that he is en route to find gold using a chemical formula of his own invention; the Sisters brothers have been sent to retrieve the formula, most likely by torturing Warm before killing him. Refusing to allow an innocent man’s murder, Morris frees Warm and the two leave Jacksonville. On the road toward San Francisco, Warm reveals that his ultimate plan is to create a utopian society, free from greed and other social ills in Dallas, Texas. Meanwhile, the brothers' pursuit is plagued by misfortune. A grizzly bear attacks their camp and mauls a horse, Eli almost dies from a venomous spider bite, and Charlie is repeatedly drunk and too hung over to ride. When they discover Morris' betrayal in Jacksonville, they follow the pair to Mayfield. At Ms. Mayfield's hotel and brothel, she denies having seen Warm and Morris, but offers the brothers a warm welcome. A sympathetic prostitute warns Eli of an impending attack, and he attempts to leave with a drunken Charlie, but they are cornered by gunslingers hired by Mayfield. The brothers kill the gunslingers and interrogate Mayfield as to Warm's and Morris’ whereabouts, before murdering and robbing her. In San Francisco, Charlie and Eli argue about continuing their hunt. Eli wishes to retire but Charlie angrily rejects this idea. The next day, Charlie reveals that he has found a claim staked in Morris’ name a few days' ride away. Eli agrees to complete the hunt as their final job. On the way to the claim site, the brothers are ambushed and captured by Warm and Morris, who are then attacked by Mayfield's men sent before her death to claim the formula for herself. The four men team up to kill Mayfield's men, after which Charlie and Eli agree to help Warm and Morris find gold in exchange for half the takings. Warm and Morris decide to prospect together and create a phalanstère in Dallas. Working to dam the river, the new partners develop a camaraderie. Eli reveals to Warm that Charlie killed their abusive, alcoholic father when they were young, and that Charlie's short temper and violent tendencies put him in danger, so Eli reluctantly took up their present employment to protect him. The dam is completed, and Warm explains that when his chemical formula is added to water, it causes gold ore to glow briefly, but is extremely caustic. The men pour the formula into the river and begin gathering the gold. When the glow begins to fade, Charlie panics and tries to add more formula, but spills the undiluted substance onto his hand and into the river. Eli rushes out of the river to restrain Charlie, while the undiluted formula badly injures Warm and Morris. The next day, Warm succumbs to his injuries while Morris shoots himself to end his suffering. Eli takes Charlie to the nearest town, where a doctor amputates his arm. Hired guns sent by the Commodore arrive and demand their surrender. Eli shoots them, and he and Charlie decide they must kill the Commodore. They arrive in Oregon City to find that the Commodore has died of natural causes. The brothers return home to their mother; though initially suspicious, she welcomes them in and they rest. John C. Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix make such an unlikely pair that they are actually quite convincing as real brothers, that is, brothers that are nothing alike. I also liked the partnership of Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed who joined forces once more following Nightcrawler. It’s a film with two great duos, which makes me wonder why more films don’t adopt the same idea. I would never describe the film as a comedy but there is an underlying humour in the film that is very self-aware of the genre as well as the era. I wouldn’t call it a neo-western either, as it is very much a classical western but without all of the 1950s clichés. I’m a huge fan of director Jacques Audiard following his masterpieces including The Beat That My Heart Skipped, Rust and Bone and A Prophet but I never would have thought of him for this story. He direction is perfect, and in classic western style the film is entirely filmed outside of the US, in Spain, France and Romania. It’s a strong and well rounded contemporary western with all the right levels of drama and humour My only criticism is that Rutger Hauer didn’t have a bigger part, indeed, he didn’t even speak. Apart from that it was one of my favourite films of the year.

Mid90s

Dir: Jonah Hill

2018

****

It’s typical, you wait years and years for a film about skateboarding and then two come along at once. That said, Skate Kitchen and Mid90s are two very different films. I liked Skate Kitchen a lot and I had more anticipation for it but only because I was unaware of Mid90s until shortly before I watched it. Had I known about it it sooner I’m sure I would have been far more excited. I didn’t grow up in Los Angeles but I did grow up in the skateboarding scene in the late 80s/early 90s in London. I used to skate at the undercroft on Southbank, underneath The Royal festival Hall. Great days. I wasn’t any good but at least I tried and I only stopped when it attracted so many posers who weren't skating, and when skating became a little too commercialised. We used to skate because it was cheap and we had no money, then suddenly skateboards became stupidly expensive and all the clothes and accessories around it became fashionable. How cool am I? Anyway, I loved skating, skate culture and I loved the 90s. So it seems does Jonah Hill. I can’t say I learned everything about life through skating, I learned a few tricks here and there but I do think I learned a lot about socialising. To that degree it helped mould me, but the skate community there and then was very friendly, absolutely no animosity, everyone was a friend, everyone was welcome just as long as you were there to skate (or graffiti). I didn’t keep in contact with any of those friends (no mobile phones or internet those days) but it doesn’t make me sad, they are lost in the happy memories in time. I hope they’re all doing good and that some of them are still skating in their old age. In all honesty I can’t relate to much in Mid90s but it still makes me feel nostalgic about the era. It also makes me nostalgic for late 90s/early 00s films, such as Kids and the works of Larry Clark and Harmony Korine. Mid90s is basically Ken Park for kids who aren’t aware of Ken Park with a little bit of 1995’s Kids thrown in. The same could be said for Skate Kitchen, although that is set in the present day. Mid90s is set in1996, and our protagonist is 13-year-old Stevie (Sunny Suljic) who lives in LA with his abusive older brother Ian and single mother Dabney. One day Stevie bikes past Motor Avenue Skateshop, admires the boastful camaraderie of the skateboarders outside, and returns the following day. Back home, he trades with his brother for a skateboard, brings it to the shop and befriends young skater Ruben, who introduces him to the rest of the group: Ray, "Fuckshit", and "Fourth Grade". Although an inexperienced skater, Stevie is drawn to the group and aspires to imitate their daredevil behavior and anti-social attitudes. The group nicknames him "Sunburn" during a conversation. Ruben begins to resent Stevie, because he feels he is being replaced as the youngest kid in the group. While attempting a skateboard leap across an open section between two rooftops, Stevie falls and suffers a head injury. His mother becomes concerned about his turn towards recklessness and his new friends, but Stevie has already made up his mind that he is sticking with the group who have a new respect for his attitude. While the group are out eating at a burger restaurant Ian walks past and has a tense standoff with Fuckshit as Stevie watches in awkward silence. Ian appears intimidated by the group and leaves before a fight can break out. Slowly Stevie starts to stand up to his brother but he still takes a beating. Stevie begins smoking, drinking, and experimenting with marijuana. At a party, he has his first sexual experience with a much older girl. After Stevie comes home intoxicated, he and Ian get into a violent fight. Ian has an emotional breakdown when Stevie says that he has no friends and, following the conflict, a fed-up and suicidal Stevie attempts to asphyxiate himself with a cord from a Super Nintendo controller. How 90s is that. The next day, Dabney, alarmed by this turn of events, forbids Stevie from hanging out with the boys. Stevie lashes out and refuses to obey. Having alienated his mother and brother, Stevie sits alone behind the skate shop. Ray consoles Stevie, telling him that even though he thinks his life is bad, the other boys have it worse: Fourth Grade is poor to the point of not being able to afford socks, Ruben's mom is a drug addict, Fuckshit's reckless partying is worsening, and Ray lost his younger brother, who was hit by a car. Ray then takes Stevie out to skate at night and they fall asleep in a park. The shop hosts a party in back of the store. Ray hopes to make a career in skating, and chats up two professionals as potential sponsors. Fuckshit, who is drunk and high, tries to sabotage Ray's chances by embarrassing him in front of the pros. Stevie, who has been drinking heavily, is provoked into a brawl with Ruben. Discouraged by the undisciplined behavior of his friends, Ray tells everyone to go home. However, Fuckshit insists on driving the group to another party. Ray agrees, and the group heads off, with Stevie in the front passenger seat. No one seems happy except Fuckshit, whose judgment has been impaired by drugs and alcohol. Talking animatedly and driving inattentively, Fuckshit crashes and flips the car on its side. Stevie is knocked unconscious and is rushed to the hospital. Stevie later awakens in a hospital bed, and sees Ian in a chair alongside him. Ian gives Stevie a container of orange juice to comfort his little brother. Dabney enters the hospital and sees Stevie's friends, asleep in the waiting room. Moved by the fact they are there for Stevie, Dabney encourages them to visit Stevie's room. They appear willing to reconcile with each other after the previous night's events. Fourth Grade, who has been filming their adventures throughout the film, says he has something to show them. He plugs his camera into a TV to play them an edited video of their daily activities. Fourth Grade has titled the film "Mid90s." What Jonah Hill really achieves here is that unmistakable sense of nostalgia. It’s not an easy thing to pull off but he does it perfectly. This is a strong directional debut. The blink and you’ll miss it Harmony Korine cameo is a lovely little tribute, a passing of the baton if you will and I loved Del the Funky Homosapien’s short but sweet performance. I found Fuckshit (in England he would be called Fuckwit) quite annoying and the way the kids speak in general but it is authentic to the era/area/scene I guess. There are moments where I think they forgot the film was set in 1996 from a visual perspective but these are minor niggles because it totally felt like being back in the day and watching an indie from back then. There are so many things at play here and all of them are handled with such subtle mastery. The relationship between Stevie and Ian is very well handled with the suggestion that Stevie idolises, or at least wants to idolise his brother but can’t, and so looks elsewhere. It’s a 90 minute film, so a lot is crammed into it when most of what happens would happen over time but it still works. Hill has clearly realised his vision and has executed it superbly. The sleepy hit of 2018.

No Home Video

Dir: Chantal Akerman

2015

****

From the outset, it is clear that Chantal Akerman’s documentary No Home Movie is a personal journey for the director but now, after her death, it is clear that it was her everything. The film consists of conversations between the film-maker and her ailing mother Natalia, filmed over several months. Half of the conversations take place in Natalia’s apartment in Brussels and the other half are via Skype when Akerman is working at home in the States. It was filmed entirely on small handheld cameras and on Akerman’s mobile phone and during the editing Akerman whittled down around 40 hours' worth of footage to just 115 minutes. Akerman’s mother Natalia (or Nelly as she was fondy known as) had survived years at Auschwitz, where her own parents had died. From a young age, Akerman and her mother were exceptionally close, and she encouraged her daughter to pursue a career rather than marry young. With her mother’s influence Akerman entered the Institut National Supérieur des Arts du Spectacle et des Techniques de Diffusion film school at age 18. She dropped out during her first term to make the short film Saute ma ville, funding the film's costs by trading diamond shares on the Antwerp stock exchange. Akerman’s close relationship with her mother was captured in many of her films, some more obvious than others. In 1976’s News From Home, Akerman's mother's letters describing mundane family activities serve as a soundtrack throughout the film, a personal and effective technique that I don’t believe had been attempted before or since and in Family In Brussels, Akerman narrates the story, interchanging her own voice with her mother's. Akerman acknowledged that her mother was at the center of her work and admitted to feeling directionless after her death. The maternal imagery can be found throughout all of Akerman's films, as an homage and an attempt to reconstitute the image and voice of the mother, indeed, the parts of the film that don’t feature her mother are a directionless succession of traveling shots of her walking through a desert. The film premiered on the 7th October 2015, the day after Akerman took her own life. She once said that, at the age of 15, after viewing Jean-Luc Godard's Pierrot le fou, that she decided there and then to become a filmmaker. Her first feature film, Hotel Monterey (1972), and subsequent short films, La Chambre 1 and La Chambre 2, revealed the influence of structural filmmaking through both films' usage of long takes. These protracted shots served to oscillate images between abstraction and figuration. A style she would use and develop throughout her career. In 1973 she returned to Belgium and, in 1974, she received critical recognition for her feature Je, Tu, Il, Elle (I, You, He, She). Feminist and queer film scholar B. Ruby Rich noted that Je Tu Il Elle can be seen as a "cinematic Rosetta Stone of female sexuality". Akerman's most significant film, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, was released in 1975. Often considered one of the greatest examples of feminist filmmaking, the film makes a hypnotic, real-time study of a middle-aged widow's stifling routine of domestic chores and prostitution. Upon the film's release, The New York Times called Jeanne Dielman the "first masterpiece of the feminine in the history of the cinema". Akerman has acknowledged that her cinematic approach can be explained, in part, through the writings of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, both wrote about the concept of minor literature as being characterised by ideas that minor literature is the literature that a minority makes in a major language, that the language is effected by a strong co-efficient of deterritorialisation. That every individual matter is immediately plugged into political because minor literature exists in a narrow space and everything has a collective value and what the solitary writer says already has collective value. Deleuze and Guattari claimed that these characteristics describe the revolutionary conditions within the canon of literature and Akerman has referenced Deleuze and Guattari on how, in minor literature, the characters assume an immediate, non-hierarchical relation between small individual matters and economic, commercial, juridical, and political ones. While she had an interest in multiple deterritorialisations, she also considered the feminist demand for the exercise of identity, where a borderline status may be an undesirable position. In all her films, Akerman used the setting of a kitchen to explore the intersection between femininity and domesticity, and most of the conversations with her mother take place in her mother’s kitchen. The kitchens in Akerman's work provide intimate spaces for connection and conversation and serve the function of a backdrop to the dramas of daily life. The kitchens, alongside other domestic spaces, act as self-confining prisons under patriarchal conditions. In Akerman's work, the kitchen acts as a domestic theatre. The scenes that feature her Skyping her mother are somehow disconnected and disjointed and mimic her mother’s ailing ability to converse with her daughter and highlight the frustrations of distance between the two of them. Although Akerman is often grouped within feminist and queer thinking, the filmmaker has articulated her distance from an essentialist feminism. Akerman resists labels relating to her identity like "female", "Jewish" and "lesbian", choosing instead to immerse herself in the identity of being a daughter. No Home Movie is far more than it seems, even to the eyes of a seasoned fan of Akerman’s films. The clue is in the title but where it feels at times that the film wanders into daydream, every second is intentional. We don’t know that Akerman killed herself at the end of the film and nor do we know whether it would be her intention. It does change how the film is watched now, it was always clear that her mother’s influence was a huge part of her and her work but it is only now that we know that she couldn’t live without her. It’s an incredibly sad ending but I guess it is an honest one. It is hard to see the happy side of things but they do exist within the the conversations. An incredibly moving swan song.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix

Dir: Simon Kinberg

2019

**

An unremarkable ending to a series that was two films too long. I liked First Class but the re-boot series really found its feet in Days of Future Past. Unfortunately the two films since have been a huge departure from quality, I thought Apocalypse was bad but Dark Phoenix was an exercise in mediocrity and had a distinct lack of creativity. I was weary of First Class at first as I didn’t think the franchise needed a reboot so soon but, like most people, I liked it. Days of Future Past however was ingenious, it didn’t need to incorporate the cast of the previous series because of the impact of the first film but it did because the story was so clever. It brought all doubts of the reboot to an end. I have to admit I had to pause a few times to work out timelines, who was who and where was where but it was worth it because it was clever and fun. The problem was however that they just couldn’t top it,  Apocalypse fell short and incorporated poor ideas. It was far too simple, superhero story lines had moved on from that sort of thing long ago. Lessons have not been learned though, and Dark Phoenix is just a rehash of The Last Stand. The Last Stand was the weakest of the original trilogy, the worst story to reboot, even though the comic series was pretty good. Dark Phoenix makes The Last Stand look like a masterpiece. The integrity of each character has been lost. I do find it hard to keep up with the X-Men movies, especially when they are rather uninteresting but each character has been established and in Dark Phoenix each character looks like a shell of their former selves. I say characters, but what it actually looks like is a group of actors who have lost their enthusiasm for the series and each performance feels lethargic. It is clear this is the end of the road for the series but instead of going out with a bang they’ve decided to simply comply with contractual compliance, get it done, stick it out there and move on. There is no fanfare whatsoever but then I’m not sure anybody cares. When Jennifer Lawrence’s raven/ Mystique is (predictably) killed early on in the movie, I didn’t weep for her character, it didn’t move me. In fact I was happy, I thought to myself great, finally Jennifer Lawrence, you are free of all your franchises, go off and make wonderful independent films and don’t go signing any more multi-film contracts. The studio couldn’t even be bothered to give the film to a director who had directed a film before. The Dark Phoenix comic series is strong and The Last Stand was a poor adaptation of it but my goodness, 2019’s Dark Phoenix is mind-numbingly boring. Even the non-comic reading viewers could see what was going to happen, perhaps and obvious thing to say, but one would have hoped for a few surprises along the way, a twist here and a revelation there, but there was nothing. Nothing of interest and nothing of substance, just a bit of fighting here and there. Many of the fan-favourite X-men were missing and the film’s villain was probably the least villainous in the history of cinema. Jessica Chastain, a phenomenal actor, in a white wig. Everyone likes an easy day in the office but seriously, what was that? The excuse that the events of The Last Stand never happened because of the change in the timeline is a tired excuse also – look what happened to Star Trek and the Wrath of Khan 2 (AKA Into Darkness). If every sci-fi franchise rooted itself and made a different version of something it had already made the’d be nothing for a nerd like me to believe in anymore. It killed Star Trek for me and Star Wars is going the same way, thanks to its overuse of nostalgia (basically copying everything from the old movies). That said, it has never been as blatant as it is here, even more so than Into Darkness. This is obviously even more ridiculous given that The Last Stand is so much better. The Last Stand had real emotion attached to it while Dark Phoenix simply relies on the viewer feeling the same way towards the newer characters than the way they did with the same characters played by the original cast. I’m sorry but I still don’t see Tye Sheridan as Cyclops or Sophie Turner as Jean Grey, this is only their second film as those characters and they haven’t been given enough development for me to be emotionally invested in them whatsoever. The new X-men also sucked, especially Ariki, whose mutant power is to flick people with his stinky dreadlocks. The bad-guy aliens were a poor man’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers understudy group, not scary and not even threatening. I liked the train heist scene but only because I like train heists but apart from that there was nothing here for me. There was no sense of suspense, no thrill, no emotion and absolutely zero energy. I couldn’t have cared less about the characters or what happened to them. Worse still, it looked as though all the original cast members of First Class felt the same way. Now that X-Men have been bought by Disney they need to look long and hard at what they’re going to do with them, either way I feel it needs to be drastically different and that they should give it a few years before trying. Then they should call Grant Morrison.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot

Dir: Michael Cimino

1974

****

Michael Cimino had a funny career. I think he should be considered one of the greatest writer/directors of all time thanks to The Deer Hunter alone, but he made some other good films. The stupid thing is that he is also often remembered for Heaven’s Gate, a film some have called ‘The worst film of all time’ which of course it isn’t. It lost money, but it is a great film. I find that most of the real worst films of all time are some of the highest earning films of all time, but I digress. Quite how you go from a film like Thunderbolt and Lightfoot to The Deer Hunter in just four years is anyone’s guess but everyone has to start somewhere and in my opinion Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is a pretty good directional debut. He’d written a couple of great scripts before this, so I’m not sure why he’d be given someone else’s work but Stan Kamen of the William Morris Agency came up with the initial idea for Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, and gave it to Cimino to write on speculation with Clint Eastwood in mind. Eastwood was available after turning down the lead role in Charley Varrick. Due to the great financial success of Dennis Hopper's Easy Rider, road pictures were a popular genre in Hollywood. Eastwood himself wanted to do a road movie so when agent Leonard Hirshan brought the script to Eastwood from fellow agent Kamen he liked it so much that he originally intended to direct it himself. However, on meeting Cimino, he decided to give him the directing job instead, giving Cimino his big break and feature-film directorial debut. Cimino later said that if it was not for Eastwood, he never would have had a career in film. It is essentially Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid but set in the 1970s and with cars (I know Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was made in the 1960s, just five years previous but you know what I mean). There is an instant grittiness to the film, our protagonists are anti-heroes throughout and if they look good at any point its only because there is someone worse in the car next to them. The fact that they remain that way makes them likable, the fact that there is still honour among thieves makes them more so. The movie starts with a young ne'er-do-well called Lightfoot (Jeff Bridges) stealing a car from a showroom. While Lightfoot speeds down the dusty road, elsewhere an assassin attempts to shoot a preacher while he’s delivering a sermon at his pulpit. The preacher manages to escape on foot and runs towards the road. Lightfoot, who happens to be driving by, inadvertently rescues the preacher by running over his pursuer and giving him a lift. Cue a rather pointless stunt whereby the preacher hangs onto the car as Lightfoot does doughnuts in the dust. The stunt was performed by Eastwood because he wanted to do it. Lightfoot eventually learns that the "minister" is really a notorious bank robber known as "The Thunderbolt" (Eastwood) for his use of an Oerlikon 20 mm cannon to break into a safe. Hiding out in the guise of a clergyman following the robbery of a Montana bank, Thunderbolt is the only member of his old gang who knows where the loot is hidden. After escaping another attempt on his life by two other men, Thunderbolt tells Lightfoot that the ones trying to kill him are members of his gang who mistakenly thought Thunderbolt had double-crossed them. Instead of parting ways, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot journey to Montana to retrieve the money hidden in an old one-room schoolhouse. However, when they get there they discover  that the schoolhouse has been replaced by a brand-new school standing in its place. While wondering what to do next, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot are abducted by the men who were pursuing them - the vicious Red Leary (George Kennedy) and the gentle Eddie Goody (Geoffrey Lewis) - and driven to a remote location where Thunderbolt and Red fight each other, after which Thunderbolt explains how he never betrayed the gang. While the original gang member bicker, Lightfoot proposes another heist, robbing the same company as before as they wouldn’t expect it. In the city where the bank is located, the men find jobs to raise money for needed equipment while they plan the heist. The robbery begins as Thunderbolt and Red gain access to the building. Lightfoot, dressed as a woman, distracts the Western Union office's security guard, deactivates the ensuing alarm, and is picked up by Goody. Using an anti-tank cannon to breach the vault's wall, as they did in the first heist, the gang escapes with the loot. They flee in the car, with Red and Goody in the trunk, to a nearby drive-in movie in progress. Upon seeing a shirt tail protruding from the car's trunk lid (which is a strong indication one or more people are hiding in the trunk to avoid paying), the suspicious theater manager goes to investigate. Red becomes increasingly agitated and Thunderbolt leaves the drive-in, encountering police at the exit. Thunderbolt then drives erratically to escape from the police, attracting attention to themselves. A chase ensues. Goody is shot and Red throws him out of the trunk onto a dirt road, where he dies. Red then forces Thunderbolt and Lightfoot to stop the car. He pistol-whips them both, knocking them unconscious, and kicks Lightfoot violently in the head. Red takes off with the loot in the getaway car but is again pursued by police, who shoot Red several times, causing him to lose control of the car and crash through the window of a department store, where he is attacked and killed by the store's vicious watchdog. Escaping on foot, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot hitch a ride the next morning and are dropped off near Warsaw, Montana, where they stumble upon the one-room schoolhouse which is now a historical monument on the side of a highway, moved there from its original location in Warsaw after the first heist. As the two men retrieve the stolen money, Lightfoot's behavior becomes erratic as a result of the kick to the head. Thunderbolt buys a new Cadillac convertible with cash, something Lightfoot said he had always wanted to do, and picks up his waiting partner, who is gradually losing control of the left side of his body. As they drive away celebrating their success with cigars, Lightfoot, in obvious distress, tells Thunderbolt in a slurred voice how proud he is of their 'accomplishments', and slumps over dead. Thunderbolt snaps his cigar in half (as it is no longer a celebration), and with his dead partner beside him, he drives off down the highway into the distance. It’s a much lighter film than many road movies of the era but it also has an edge to it the others didn’t have. It is a neo-western in many respects, rather than a full road movie. It has been noted by several sources that Clint Eastwood perceived himself to be upstaged by Jeff Bridges, which of course he was. Bridges received a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Again Eastwood made it clear to some that he believed his performance was also Oscar worthy. Ultimately Eastwood was disappointed with the film's initial disappointing nine million dollar receipts, and blamed United Artists for inadequately promoting the film. Despite his relationship with the studio on the spaghetti Westerns and a two-picture deal from the studio, he never made another film for them again. I’m not a huge Clint Eastwood fan, I don’t care for melodrama and any heist film where a character has to dress in drag has clearly run out of ideas… but I have always loved Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. I loved Jeff Bridges’ performance, how Eastwood allowed it and also the great turns from George Kennedy and Geoffrey Lewis – the film’s unsung heroes. Michael Cimino was a master film maker and his masterpieces are on another level, and while Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is no Deerhunter, it’s a solid gold 70s classic in its own right.

Joker

Dir: Todd Phillips

2019

*****

For all the criticism and praise that has been thrown at Todd Phillips’ Joker, it really isn’t a particularly original film and is nothing we haven’t seen before. I’m not just referring to the very obvious cinematic influences such as Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy and Network, but also what authors and artists have been doing in the comics for decades. In many respects I should be outraged at the similarities to the great 1970s films that I have mentioned but I’m not, not only because I’m elated by the fact that the story embraces all the creativity of the comics but because said influences have been acknowledged and reworked into something rather profound. I guess you could say it was a simple and easy trick to pull but it doesn’t take away just how impressive it is. Once more it is the people who are three steps behind complaining about it. The violence is nothing out of the ordinary and it has been long established that television, movies and comics do not influence violence, indeed, they’ve been scapegoated for many years by the sort of people this film condemns. People have criticised the film makers depiction of mental health, suggesting that it be in bad taste but frankly it is quite obviously fictional. I don’t understand why creating a fake mental illness is somehow worse than just labeling someone as bad? Not once does Joker suggest that anyone/everyone with a mental illness is a possible murderer, even if it did, why is everyone suddenly shocked and disgusted by it now? For years films have confused legitimate mental health conditions and have portrayed them incorrectly. Films have also included mindless violence for years, 99% of which haven’t battered a single eyelid. The difference between Joker and the all the rest isn’t only because it is attached to a superhero/comic franchise, but because it’s a film of quality. Heroism has been explored several times in comic/superhero films of late, so exploring villainy is logical progression. Batman is nothing without his enemies, a long established fact, so why can’t they have their own origin movie and why can’t their characters be explored? People just don’t like to admit that there is more to people than just good and bad, indeed, good people do bad things and not everyone is born bad. People have related to the Joker in this film because of a very fundamental truth, that when one is bullied, victimized, declared worthless and uncared for for most of their lives they can, and often will, rebel. Throughout the film Joker toys with the idea of suicide, it is only towards the end that he decides not to and to fight back. The idea that Joker is a failed stand up comedian is very clever and first appeared in Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s 1988 graphic novel The Killing Joke. The idea that he isn’t simply evil is also explained and it is a classic within the genre. Only non-comic fans seem to get upset about comics – a whole thirty years late. The idea that Joker also has an obsession with a TV talk show is also very clever and gives the film relevance, even though the film is set in the early 1980s. It is a clear reference to Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy and even has the film’s lead, Robert De Niro as the TV host. In the film Joker is ridiculed by talk show host Murray Franklin for a cheap laugh, a devastating blow to the aspiring comedian and super fan. It was strange then to watch The Graham Norton Show the week after the film’s release where Robert De Niro was a guest. He didn’t look comfortable for the entire show, especially when members of the public are ridiculed at the end of the show. There are so many aspects of Joker that one can relate to in our current social and political climate, it can hide behind the fact that its part of a superhero universe but it never really does. It points out that Bruce Wayne’s dad can’t have been all nice to get as rich as he is and any pain and suffering that young Bruce might endure can be matched by anyone else’s. You have to remember that Batman is also a vigilante, fueled by revenge. Are we asked to sympathise with Joker at any point? Yes, in a way we are, but that sympathy is quite clearly extinguished in the scene whereby Joker decides exactly what path his future lies. The point is we can condemn crime while also acknowledging how and why is happens. It isn’t loony-leftism, bleeding-heart liberalism or the soft approach either, it is rational thought and using one’s brain. You don’t keep treating an ailment, you look for the cause and try to catch and cure it before the illness takes hold. Joker is an example of what can happen when we don’t do this. Joker is a film that asks us to think about this but as always those that can’t grasp this have spoken first and have spoken loudest. The mob that follow Joker are the lost and forgotten, and while Joker isn’t political, the lost and forgotten – and ignorant, are marching all over the world at the moment, waving flags and doing one-armed salutes. I would argue that most people who commit crime are unintelligent, have given up and think of themselves as worthless. These people are uneducated and have been neglected by society. Just labeling someone as evil is too easy. However, you can be both and in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. When you’ve lost everything you have nothing to loose, a phrase that is worth remembering, which I think is brilliantly explored. I’m going to stop there because I don’t think anyone is talking about the film’s good qualities enough. I still can’t quite believe this is a Todd Phillips film so I’ve decided not to be too quick to judge from now on. The story works well on its own and as part of Batman mythology, I liked the non-Batman parts better but the Wayne side of the story was short and sweet and worked well. The film was a visual feast from start to finish with every single scene and every single shot filmed with purpose and finesse. It is intended as a Scorsese tribute and that is exactly what it is, capturing the director’s temperament and visual style quite remarkably. The pace of the film is perfectly staggered which meant that the climax of the film was perfectly executed and didn’t come from out of nowhere. This wasn’t about the decent into madness, this was about a rebirth, a very different kettle of fish. Of course none of this would have meant anything if the casting hadn’t been right. The script was written for Joaquin Phoenix and Todd Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver stool their ground when it came to him being cast. Warner Bros, who deserve credit for going along with it, decided they wanted Leonardo DiCaprio for the Joker as Scorsese was, at that time, meant to be a producer. They want it to be a big Scorsese/DiCaprio/De Niro picture, missing the point of the performance for a marketing angle. Scorsese pulled out because of work commitments but De Niro was cast as a character he himself chased after in The King of Comedy. It’s a lovely full-circle bit of casting. However, the film belongs to Phoenix. The idea is great, it looks great and has been marketed brilliantly but Phoenix brings the Joker alive like no one has before. He was good friends with the late Heath Ledger, so it is nice to see him carry the character Ledger will be best remembered for to its next natural state. The big picture is there in all its glory but there are also some lovely little details that I loved. Batman fans will be happy with all the Gotham references but there were other aspects I liked, like Joker watching Charlie Chaplin on the big screen. It is only when you watch Chaplin running that you release that from Ceaser Romario to Joaquin Phoenix, a huge part of all of the live-action versions of Joker’s physiology is Charlie Chaplin’s silly walk. It feels like an indulgent film in many respects, one that seems people have immersed themselves in. Phoenix’s Joker won’t start riots and no one is going to kill anyone because of this film’s existence but it will become iconic and every teenagers bedroom will now have Phoenix’s Joker on the wall instead/next to Ledgers.

The Spy in Black

Dir: Michael Powell

1939

*****

The Spy in Black (or U-Boat 29 as it was known in the US) isn’t necessarily the first film that comes to mind when you think Powell and Pressburger but this is the first collaboration between Michael and Emeric and I still think it is one of the best First World War films ever made. The realism is excellent and its even more impressive when you realise it was made in 1938 and released just twenty-two days before the Second World War began. With all the knowledge in the world, war films still aren’t as accurate to the same level as this. The story begins in March 1917, as Captain Hardt (Conrad Veidt), a World War I German U-boat commander, is ordered to lead a mission to attack the British Fleet at Scapa Flow, rendezvousing at the Old Man of Hoy. He sneaks ashore on the Orkney Islands to meet his contact, Fräulein Tiel (Valerie Hobson). Tiel has taken over the identity of a new local schoolteacher, Miss Anne Burnett (June Duprez), who German agents had intercepted en route to the island. Hardt finds himself attracted to her, but Tiel shows no interest. The Germans are aided by a disgraced Royal Navy officer, the former Commander Ashington (Sebastian Shaw) who, according to Tiel, has agreed to aid the Germans after losing his command due to drunkenness, and Tiel implies that she has slept with Ashington to obtain his cooperation. The plan is almost disrupted when Burnett's fiancé, Rev. Harris, arrives unexpectedly, but the spies take him captive. Then the local minister, Matthews, and his wife (who had already met Harris) come to the house, but Tiel manages to get them to leave. Now equipped with the crucial information he needs about the British fleet movements, Hardt rendezvous with his submarine to arrange for a fleet of U-Boats to attack. Returning to the house, and confident that all is going to plan, Hardt makes advances to Tiel, but she rebuffs him. She leaves the house, believing she has locked Hardt in his room, but he gets out and secretly follows her, discovering that she has gone out to meet Ashington. Hardt overhears them talking and learns the truth: the British are fully aware of his presence, and have turned his mission into a trap for the U-Boats. Hardt's "contacts" are really British double agents – Ashington is in fact RN Commander Blacklock, and "Fräulein Tiel" is Blacklock's wife, Jill. As Jill prepares to leave the island, Blacklock returns to the house to arrest Hardt, only to find he has eluded them. Disguised in Rev. Harris's clothes, Hardt manages to board the island ferry, which is also carrying Jill, a number of civilian passengers, and eight German POWs. Blacklock reports Hardt's escape to the base commander, who explains that the British had learned of the Germans' plan because the real Anne Burnett luckily survived the German agents' attempt to kill her by throwing her into the sea. At sea, Hardt manages to free the German prisoners and they seize the ferry. The Royal Navy pursue them, but before they can catch up, the ferry is intercepted by Hardt's submarine, and Hardt's first officer (Marius Goring) decides to sink it. As the U-boat surfaces and prepares to fire, Hardt realises it is his own submarine. He frantically attempts to signal them, but too late – the U-boat shells the ferry, which begins to sink. By this time the British ships have arrived, and they drop depth charges, destroying the fleeing U-boat. As Jill, the other passengers and the crew abandon the sinking ferry, Hardt realises all is lost, and chooses to go down with the ship. There’s no melodrama or overacting, no pointless romance or excessive acts of bravery, it’s all espionage and real spy stuff. There is a real sophistication to the story, even if the scenario is a little unlikely. It’s amazing that the first half of the film is seen through the eyes of a German officer and that he is the film’s protagonist. It was perhaps the first and last time it ever happened in a non-German war film. The German officer is not the stereotype he would become either and the film is a lot darker than what would become a genre of propaganda. It feels more honest because this was, perhaps, a more honest look at war, a battle between two side who both feel they are in the right. It’s a British film but the story is balanced, as war films should be where possible. It certainly doesn’t shy away from the dark truths of victory and of the deeds that often need doing to achieve it. If James Bond was made like this it would be more real but he wouldn’t have enjoyed so many films, he would have been cut after three at the most. Powell and Pressburger would go from strength to strength, exploring the realms of fantasy, comedy, romance and bittersweet drama, but I think you can see the origins of their integrity right here in The Spy in Black. It almost feels like this is where a pact was made, an understanding, an agreement that no matter what the film would be about, it would be true to itself and the characters within. It’s an unsung classic and one we cinephiles should be thankful for.

In Darkness

Dir: Agnieszka Holland

2011

*****

Written by David F. Shamoon and directed by Agnieszka Holland, 2011’s In Darkness is based on the true story of Leopold Socha. Socha lived in a poor neighborhood of Lwow and worked for the municipal sanitation department as a sewer maintenance worker. He had a tough childhood and was quite poor, so used his knowledge of the sewer system to help him burgle. In 1943, the German-occupied city Lwów – like many other Polish cities – went through the process of ethnic cleansing and the Jews were deported and the Ghettos were liquidated. Socha witnessed the massacre of many of the townsfolk. He had found a group of Jews who had tunneled into the sewers from their house in the ghetto. Initially the Jews paid Socha to hide them in the sewer, but they eventually ran out of money. Socha, his wife Magdalena, and a co-worker Szczepek Wróblewski continued feeding and sheltering the refugees with their own resources. They aided the group for fourteen months of the Nazi German occupation of Lwow. The Soviets took over Lwów city in July 1944, by which point Socha's band made up ten of the fewer than a thousand surviving Jews in the city. Socha's and Wróblewski's actions and those of their wives led to their recognition as Righteous Among the Nations recipients. In 1946 Socha and his daughter were riding their bicycles when a Soviet military truck came careening toward them. He steered his bicycle in her direction to knock her out of the way, saving her but dying in the process. After his death the Jewish people Socha had sheltered returned to pay their respects. At his funeral it was recorded that someone at the back uttered that it was God’s punishment for helping the Jews. The film doesn’t sugar-coat Socha or the situation. He did what he did for profit at first and he wasn’t an honest man. However, he changed and helped the Jews and risked his and his family’s lives in the process. The film is very matter of fact, the brutality is shown but is never gratuitous, just enough horror is shown. There is no romanticism either, unlike Schindler’s list or The Pianist – both great films but both enter the realms of other worldliness, while In Darkness deals with the harsh truth. You can almost smell the stench of the sewers. The story is historically accurate with maybe a few things left out. The screenplay was written by  was based on Canadian writer David F. Shamoon and based on the novel In the Sewers of Lvov by Robert Marshall which was published in 1990. The last survivor of the group, Krystyna Chiger, published a memoir of her experience, The Girl in the Green Sweater: A Life in Holocaust's Shadow in 2008. It was not a source for the film, as Agnieszka Holland was unaware of the book prior to the film's release and didn’t think any of the survivors were still alive. It is fairly ridiculous that no one thought of checking but by all accounts the story is pretty accurate, with many of Chiger more vivid memories included in the film. I think the most important aspect of the film was that it was easy to follow and it laid out the fundamental lesson we can learn from the story, that is, war brings out the best and the worst in people. It didn’t need to be an art piece, most war films don’t need to be art pieces but that seems to be the way most go these days. First and foremost, war films need to be, fundamentally, anti-war films. Secondly, they need to show things exactly the way they were, and In Darkness does this extremely well. Every holocaust film now seems to be compared to Schindler's List but as much as I liked Spielberg's film, it is a big Hollywood film. I think it is about time that these stories are told honestly, without melodrama, but with the brutality that was the truth during the hellish times that they were. All historical films need to be historically accurate but some need to be more than others, otherwise they should be left alone. In this respects, In Darkness is one of the most important war films made in a very long time. Robert Więckiewicz is perfect in his performance of Leopold Socha and he holds the film together brilliantly, as he makes it easy to be convinced he is that character. I also thought the passing of time was handled rather well. It is a simple story in the scheme of things and I’m sure many studios don’t touch certain important war stories because of the concern of length, so I hope In Darkness can lead the way and prove that simple stories can be told well without the need of embellishment or fiction. A gripping historical account that is handled with respect and care that is also an unmissable lesson to future generations.

Hellboy

Dir: Neil Marshall

2019

**

Following the success of 2008’s Hellboy II: The Golden Army, director Guillermo Del Toro had expressed interest in a sequel, saying, "I think we would all come back to do a third Hellboy, if they can wait for me to get out of Middle-Earth, but we don't know. Ron may want to do it sooner, but I certainly know where we're going with the movie on the third one.” Indeed, the original idea was always to make a trilogy of films. In May 2010, Guillermo del Toro dropped out of directing The Hobbit and it felt like good news to Hellboy fans. Just a mounth later Del Toro speculated that Hellboy III might happen after his next project, but said that the screenplay had yet to be written. And then nothing. It was two years later when, inspired by a recent Make-A-Wish function in which Ron Perlman appeared in full Hellboy makeup for a terminally ill boy, Del Toro stated, "I can say publicly that now we are together in trying to do Hellboy 3". Again, nothing. For the next few years Ron Pearlman would repeat his desire to make a third film while Del Toro would tease but never commit to actually making it. At one point Pearlman gave a passionate interview saying “For me to do Hellboy 3, well it could kill me – in terms of physically demanding, for a guy my age, but it's worth it because anyone who sits and listens to Guillermo's version of how this thing ends is completely seduced. It's so theatrical and compelling and if you liked the first two movies in any way, shape or form, this is the ultimate one-two punch." Then, in 2015, del Toro said that Legendary Pictures might fund Hellboy 3 if Pacific Rim Uprising does well at the box office: “The hard fact is that the movie’s going to need about $120 million and there’s nobody knocking down our doors to give it to us. It's a little beyond Kickstarter.” After del Toro left the director's chair for Pacific Rim Uprising, the deal fell through. We all knew it then but in February 2017, Del Toro announced via Twitter, "Must report that 100% Hellboy 3 will not happen." It felt like a death, albeit an expected one. There were rumors of a spin-off however that kept the hardcore fans hopeful. In 2010, Hellboy screenwriter Peter Briggs was asked by Universal to script a spin-off centering on Prince Nuada from Hellyboy II, and provisionally agreed that Briggs could direct the film in New Zealand. Briggs began work on an outline with co-writer Aaron Mason. Titled Hellboy: Silverlance, the script was a B.P.R.D. story featuring Abe Sapien as the main character with Hellboy in a supporting role. Moving into the new B.P.R.D. headquarters in Colorado, Abe is troubled by his psychic connection with Princess Nuala, and begins researching the elves' history. The film would have shown Nuada's adventures throughout history, including his rivalry with a fairy courtier who orchestrates Nuada's exile in hopes of marrying Nuala and seizing control of the fairy kingdom; Nuada first meeting Mister Wink by saving him from a troupe of soldiers during the Spanish Inquisition; and Nuada in Nazi Germany, engineering a pact to keep various supernatural entities safe during World War II (with Nuada and Kroenen fighting in a friendly match for Project Ragnarok men.) Doug Jones would have played both Abe and the Angel of Death, who strikes a bargain with Nuada. Rupert Evans's Agent Myers would also have returned. The story climaxed at the new B.P.R.D. headquarters, with the return of Rasputin's summoning gauntlet. Universal wanted to proceed with the project, but it emerged that del Toro's Hellboy 3 was still a possibility, so Silverlance was shelved. In 2015, Briggs received another call from Universal, saying that Hellboy 3 had been cancelled and asking him and Mason to return for a reworked Silverlance, with producer Lawrence Gordon involved. The caveat was that Hellboy could not appear, but the writers managed to get the character a cameo appearance at the climax. If successful, the film would have launched a From the Files of the B.P.R.D. spin-off series but in May 2017, Briggs affirmed that, with the announcement of a Hellboy reboot, the Silverlance project was dead. A fucking reboot. You had one of the the world’s greatest directors, who had made two amazing films already, with an actor born to play the lead character ready to suit up once more, and you decide a reboot is the best way forward? It is confusing how studios seem to loose money because they are too scared of loosing money. It’s the same old story. Mignola at least was writing the new film and it was a t first a follow on film but Perlman was unwilling to star without del Toro’s involvement, so when Neil Marshall signed up as director, it was decided that the new film would be a reboot. In May 2017, Mignola announced that the reboot, then titled Hellboy: Rise of the Blood Queen, would be directed by Neil Marshall and star Stranger Thing’s David Harbour as the eponymous character. Mignola also stated that the film would have an R rating. Writer Andrew Cosby had stated that the film will be a "darker, more gruesome version of Hellboy."  Harbour further elaborated on the film's R-rating, stating, "This movie is gory, I mean it's like a horror movie. There's a lot of blood in it. It's brutal." Mignola had stated that he would have minimal involvement with the reboot, acting more as a co-executive producer and without involvement in the pre-production or design, stating, "When the decision was made to do another movie, I got involved, basically saying, 'If you're going to do that story, don't do this, or that, change this, and that.' I helped to steer it.” In August 2017, the film dropped the subtitle Rise of the Blood Queen and was re-titled simply as Hellboy. Unbelievable. That said, I quite like Neil Marshall and while no one else could ever play Hellboy other than Ron Pearlman, the casting of David Harbour felt pretty inspired. I genuinely gave it a chance, mainly due to Harbour, but I found it a let down. It incorporated some of my Hellboy favourites including Darkness Calls, The Wild Hunt, The Storm and the Fury and Hellboy in Mexico but it missed out so many of the good bits. It was like listening to music with my mate in his car. He always has his music on random, which is good, and he likes the same music that I do, which is also good, but he never listens to the full song. He gets bored and skips to the next before each song has ended and that is what this reboot felt like. It looked good visually but there was also something lacking, something del Toro had tapped into early on, that right mix of film and comic book imagery. I actually loved David Harbour’s performance and I really liked Sasha Lane as Alice Monaghan. I also enjoyed Milla Jovovich’s performance as the Blood Queen but I’m afraid Ian McShane’s Trevor Bruttenholm was nowhere near as lovable as John Hurt’s. I respect that they brought back the original blood and gore of the comics, and Neil Marshall was certainly the right director in this regard, but it was far too much to stomach. Hellboy is a lot of things but I don’t think the comic should have ever become a horror film. Since the film’s release and after the negative feedback, Harbour has responded by saying "We did our best, but there's so many voices that go into these things and they're not always going to work out. I did what I could do and I feel proud of what I did, but ultimately I'm not in control of a lot of those things." Harbour also felt the film was unfairly compared to Marvel films, stating: "So everybody goes chocolate is delicious and these guys make the best chocolate. So as you judge the movies, it's like, 'Well it's not as chocolatey as this, this does not taste like chocolate at all.’ And I sort of want a world where there's more flavors than just comparisons to chocolate. So in that way when Hellboy is viewed on the chocolate spectrum, it does very poorly." I completely agree, although I don’t like the chocolate allegory. The fact that is isn’t like the Marvel films is one of its strengths but unlike the first film, it hasn’t been overlooked for what it is. We’re comparing it to the original film, made fifteen years previous, that kicks its backside right out of the stratosphere. It hinted that we’d see Abe in the sequel but I can’t see a sequel happening. Maybe they should have had Abe in the film, although I wonder whether he would have fit. When Abe doesn’t fit in a Hellboy film you’re in trouble.