brockfal's reviews

This version of the Frankenstein story has to be one of Guillermo del Toro's best. It's a pretty much perfect fit for his style of filmmaking, mixing gothic drama with fantasy myth and poignancy. So here he is, tackling the well known tale of Frankenstein, injecting an epic sweep and magnificence, whilst keeping its original heart and its message intact.

The film is split into two parts, and I thought the first half, 'Frankenstein's tale' worked brilliantly and powerfully, with Oscar Isaac as Frankenstein and Christoph Waltz particularly good, but the second part 'the creature's tale' was less effective, though Jacob Elordi does do excellently as the creature. Overall this is an excellent film, though it's hard to set aside memories of James Whale 1930's version, Hammer in the late 1950s, or indeed the Mel Brooks comic take, and those influences are indeed felt. Del Toro also introduced a sort of supernatural angle which some will not like, but overall, I thought this very successful, and it compares well to the many earlier versions.

If you're a long term fan of Led Zep like me you will love this documentary about how the four band members got together and started up. Yes, it's an 'origin story', but there are no struggles touring in small venues to small audiences using a small van here - these four immense talents were big from the start. It's fascinating hearing Page, Plant, Jones, and the voice of the long gone Bonham talk about how it was early on, that is up to the second album, but it's really it's the old archive footage that amazes. Some of LZ's earliest performances were luckily captured in film and really are something else, with several outstanding clips. There are no great revelations or spicy amusing stories, and though it's clear that a lot has been left out, even a little bit padded out, if you're a fan or into Rock history, watch.

It's a lyrical and elegiac journey as we follow the life of a man (Joel Edgerton) from the late 19th century onwards working in remote regions building the US railroads and on logging teams, falling in love, experiencing the up and downs of life, and as he tries to make sense of it all. This film is marvellous in so many ways and has a great poetical sense of landscape and time. It's beautiful, absorbing, and although it's very much about one man's thoughts dreams and experiences, it's also perhaps a profoundly universal and moving tale about life itself.

Low key, and clearly heavily influenced by Terence Malick, Train Dreams is visually stunning, subtle in approach, and is terrifically written, with outstanding direction by Clint Bentley. I thought everything about this film was top notch, including many fine performances and memorable scenes, and although frequent narration is used, it manages to enhance rather than distract. One small criticism is the dialogue was sometimes garbled, and so subtitles proved useful.

The drama and turmoil of the post war Nuremberg trials are a vast subject to cover successfully in a 2.5hr film, but by focussing on the story of the psychiatrist (Rami Malek) who is sent in to assess the remnants of the nazi high command, especially Hermann Goering (Russell Crowe), the film has a good stab, though it's still very much a broad-brush approach. It's an absorbing and gripping film. Superbly well written and acted, and I thought Russell Crowe gives here what may be his best performance, with Rami Malek and rising talent Leo Woodall also excellent. There's a lot to cover, a lot more than the trial itself, which takes a surprisingly small part of the film, but overall I though this was a fine film on an still relevant and thought provoking subject. A serious film on an important subject.

This is a 'what if' movie, in this case, what if a random nuclear weapon aimed at the USA was suddenly launched? What would happen in the thirty minutes after such a launch is told in three independent strands by Katherine Bigelow. The film has dramatic impact and commitment, its complex, intense, often very gripping, and importantly, it feels very relevant, compellingly up to date, however negative that might be.

All in all I got a lot out of this, but it is a white knuckle ride which perhaps lacks character development, and for me it was definitely beneficial using subtitles due to the multiple technical settings and types of dialogue used.

This beautiful nuanced film is one of those that transports you to a different time and place, in this case a small alpine village in WW2 Italy, where life is simple, unchanged, and yet the war is not far away. Lives are changed when an army deserter comes to live in the village.

The acting here is natural and unforced, the pace slow, also unforced, so if you are looking for excitement or action, you will not find it. Instead, the seasons pass and we are observers. It's all wonderfully done, and memorable.

Woody Allen's love letter to New York was a revelation back in 1979, with the stunning photography of Gordon Willis, the music of Gershwin, and of course Diane Keaton, Meryl Streep and the wit of Woody Allen.

As a young man living in a rather drab exciting but struggling England I was awed by the sophistication, wit, openness, and emotional honesty of it all, and I fell in love with both Keaton and Gershwin. Now, the films vision and its genius and wit is tempered by a strange and sad sense of loss. It's now like looking at different world, a grimier rougher but perhaps easier to define place. So much has changed, but 'Manhattan' remains.

I get a bit frustrated with modern thrillers. Any subtlety, tension and character development seems so often to be overwhelmed by a need for endless shooting, noisy car crashes, and the like. Although the same is true here at times, director Paul Thomas Anderson also skilfully takes us on a darkly comic journey into the heart of modern America, where conflict, factionalism, jealousy, and brutality exist beside strongly held beliefs, whether right or wrong, so it feels very contemporary, even a sort of social commentary, and with engaging insightful humour.

After an awkward first 20 minutes of scene setting, the film comes alive. As is the way with this director, It's often quirky, but there is superbly controlled black humour, and quality comic performances from both Leonardo de Caprio Sean Penn and a host of others. The film rolls along well, and though it does occasionally fall into predictable action movie territory, it's tremendously well written and directed, and maybe Anderson might just have instinctively identified the current mood. A modern classic...time will tell.

This film is impressive in so many ways, so it's a pity that over all I didn't find it that satisfying. Perhaps I'm not the right demographic to fully appreciate it? I'm older and not from the US, and although the themes of were understood, it lost its appeal for me gradually, but with pleasures on the way. It's got an exuberance and humour, is technically musically and visually striking, and manages to touch on historical American race and cultural divides at times very skilfully, For me It largely lost its way when it descended into more violent clunky supernatural themes, which altogether seemed cliched, however, perhaps I was missing the message?

The first thing we see in this film are the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. It's 1998, and New York is still recovering from recession, crime is rife, and it feels dangerous. Austin Butler is our hero, an ordinary guy, a washed up baseball player with a chequered past, working in a bar, girlfriend, a cheap apartment in a rough area with odd neighbours, any inner city dweller would identify with the scenario. Suddenly though his life is upended, and he doesn't know why.

This one of those films where the 'small guy' is thrust into a maelstrom of trouble, violence and mystery, so it's not necessarily original, but it is good, in fact it's often very good. The film is a bit too violent at times, but it's also visually impressive, witty, and the narrative never flags. Butler is a brilliant lead, the rest of the cast are just right, with a cat virtually stealing the film. Let's say though that increasingly what started with a strong emotional core descends into more predictable violent frantic action movie territory, but it's all so well done that I found it highly satisfying. Darren Aranofsky is a great director, and he shows here that he can skilfully go a bit mainstream...though perhaps a better title might have helped. .

The director of The Greatest Showman takes on a biopic of Robbie Williams, erstwhile 'bad boy of pop' and lately a great showman in his own right. It's flashy, often spectacular, witty, but in many ways it's also a very conventional story of rags to riches, fame, failure, disaster, redemption, triumph, except of course for the odd, even crazy idea, of portraying Robbie Williams a CGI monkey!

The odd thing is, the portrayal works. Without it though , and the clever visually stunning CGI heavy musical and concert numbers, I think the film might have been fairly pedestrian and unremarkable. The CGI monkey figure, once you get used to it, actually does look and act like Williams, who of course also does the voice and the singing, and there are some other great casting choices too, the film is well worth a look. In the end I really enjoyed and was even moved by this skilful, unusual, rather gloriously mad entertainment.

Another crime drama about a warring gang and family, it's gritty, realistic, superbly well acted, and mostly very gripping. It's also just a little bit derivative, self consciously 'laddish' and supposedly 'street aware'. It's another drama featuring deeply unpleasant people doing deeply unpleasant things, so do we need it, and should the BBC do it? On the other hand, I kept watching....

The dialogue is pure authentic Liverpudlian and so are the characterisations, so I have to admit (as a southerner) I needed subtitles, without which I wouldn't have had a clue about what was going on! With those, I certainly appreciated this yarn, which is full of cliffhanger surprises (and plot holes...), with emotional angles you don't always find in such dramas, and even some attempts to examine moral dilemmas, though that's a stretch, given the circumstances. Ultimately, for this type of drama it is is well worth a watch.

War in all of its stark reality is shown in this intensely honest thorough and profoundly affecting drama, set during recent wartime , the early 00's and Iraq, based on the actual and recorded experiences of US servicemen.

If you are expecting bland heroics, do not look here. The experience of warfare is shown as often boring, where nothing happens except tension and anxiety building. It's a situation where tiny decision's matter hugely and survival is the only objective. Suddenly all hell can let loose.

The film is immersive and profoundly affecting, and it doesn't hold its punches either. Brilliantly put together, the focus is from the soldiers point of view, opponents are not portrayed directly, a mechanism that draws you in and which exactly achieves its aim, to show the terrible consequences and personal costs of war. Bravery, terror, confusion, and essentially reality, it's a film that deserves to be seen.

If you like horror to be derivative and industrially produced then this is a prime example, so lacking in subtlety that it's neutralises itself by mostly ignoring storyline and characterisation. The film is all about special effects and noise, and quite gory nasty effects at that, while the actors often look bewildered and almost unnecessary. Storyline wise, Director John Carpenter follows the basics of the 1951 original but doesn't give us the tension or suspense of the earlier film, just increasingly frantic shock and awe moments, and lots of often extremely unpleasant blood drenched horror. I still gave this 5/10 because I think it's a good example of its type.

Political thrillers based on real events can , if executed well, make stunning cinema, particularly if heartfelt. Director Walter Salles has pedigree here, having given us the great 'Motorcycle Diaries' and further back, 'Central Station' , so I was very hopeful for this film.

The true story of one significant family living in Brazil during the generals dictatorial regime in the 1970s/80s, and the profound effects of that regime on their lives is well told, though with more emphasis on the emotional than the political side of the story. This reduces our understanding of the bigger political story, especially the 'home movie' sections of the film which I felt difficult to get into, but it still is a fine film with an incredible central performance by Fernanda Torres as Eunice Paiva, a heroic figure in Brazil for many. Her story I think could have been given more political depth and made more gripping, but this is a fine achievement all round.

This is a (sort of) true story about a guy called Dave, owner of a car dealership in Burnley, a once prosperous northern mill town chiefly known today for its football team, who decides to set up a bank to help local communities and businesses. His travails in doing so were many, not the least dealing with the banking establishment and negative London based attitudes. As you might guess, it's one a story of small guy up against big business and authority, and is well done for all that, though it is somewhat cliched too.

Elements of 'Local Hero' the Ealing comedies and Bridget Jones rom-com's are all in play, at times crowding out the true story, but Rory Kinnear is perfectly cast in the lead, and it is all easily enjoyable witty and entertaining, though not exactly memorable. I was persuaded to look into what really happened, and I'm glad to say Dave is still out there doing good.

This sombre insightful drama takes us back to an earlier Ireland, a long way from the young vibrant and open society of today, an Ireland (well, to be accurate, Irish republic) where the Catholic Church dominated life culture and even politics, as it had done since the 1920s. Ordinary folk were either brainwashed into submission or intimidated into repressed poverty stricken acceptance of the status quo. It really does seem that it largely was like that.

We've seen other films, in particular The Magdalene Laundry, about the practice of sending young women who became pregnant 'out of wedlock' to convents where their babies were taken away at birth, and the women 'enslaved' into the Laundry, ostracised by all. Cruel and vindictive, this went on until 1998!

Cillian Murphy plays an ordinary family man with five daughters in country Ireland who runs a coal supply firm, its 1985. He sees without really understanding all that's wrong around him and how young women are treated. When delivering to a convent he chances upon its cruelties and he recalls his own difficult early life, and tries to take action in what is a severely compliant almost closed society.

It's sombre, low key, and it took me time to understand, but this slow burn approach pays off as I gradually understood how through the central character we experience his world and realise just how wrong so much of it all seems. It's heart rending stuff, truthful, and dark, particularly the malevolent portrayal of the nuns, with a great turn by Emily Watson. The film will not cheer you up, but it's an important historical reflection on a world thankfully has now disappeared.

A version of the classic novel that's more cloak and dagger than lively swashbuckler, this looks wonderful throughout, and from the start has a dramatic sweep which slots in well with the best of historical dramas, all making for an enjoyable escapist saga over its 3 hour running time. I did feel though that it could have done with a bit more action and a bit less dialogue heavy intrigue, which might have made it a bit more gripping, and although the film does look magnificent, a bit more grime and historical grit. It looked a bit over designed and slightly heavy on the CGI, but setting aside that, and some of the more unlikely aspects of the plot (and there were a few) this was still a fine movie, and well worth an afternoon.

Everything about 'The Brutalist' seems to be big. It's filmed in Vistavision, a big screen format hardly seen since the 1960s; there's a 3.5 hour running time, with an intermission (another blast from the past); some big performances, with Adrian Brody impressive as a struggling postwar immigrant in the US; and Guy Pierce as his big business mentor, channeling Orson Welles in his Citizen Kane period. What it seems to lack is a clear 'big idea' to match its scale and self importance. Like last years epic, 'Oppenheimer', I felt it was unfocused, rambling, and in the end a disappointment.

Yes. It looks fantastic and is directed with a sort of self conscious panache by Brady Corbet, but it's also humourless, portentous, and after a first rather good hour or so it gradually loses its way, the sum of its parts seeming insubstantial against its obvious ambitions of, literally, epic proportions. In particular, the use of explicit sex added nothing - rather clumsily used to drive an increasingly disconnected storyline. Maybe there are better more incisive ways to study the American dream and the immigrant experience? The somewhat meandering narrative culminated in a flash forwards, desperate it seems to sum everything up, but I was left with a distinct sense of a void ....and quite a few loose ends. An impressive failure.

Approach music biopics with caution, and there have been so many in recent years. Some are formulaic, some are bland, some are surreal and bizarre, and some like this one are really good. Luckily, James Mangold here gives us a marvellous film about the early career of Bob Dylan, from arrival in NYC in 1960 to the landmark moment in the mid 60s when he famously (or for some, infamously) went electric. This allows the film to be about his music, his influences and progression, in effect not falling into the trap of so many biopics, showing rise, fall, redemption etc.

It's also not really a character study, and so perhaps we don't get too much into the mind of the man and personal and relationship traits are skimmed over, but there is a sense of a flawed but uniquely talented man, and his music poetry and a marvellous sense of time and period are the order of the day. It's all carried out tremendously, and often movingly.

Timithee Chalomet is simply brilliant as Dylan, inhabiting the role so well and I was impressed by the rest of the cast too. There's a sense of moment a brilliant use of the music, and although there are inevitable inaccuracies, all in all this film was a marvellous experience. If you aren't of the right generation (as I am) it might not have quite such an impact, but it might persuade you to delve into Dylan's music, or like me, rediscover so much. A great film, one of the years best.

There was a time in the 60s & 70s when movies about 'bike riders' were popular . There were various trashy attempts to cash in in the craze for (mostly) young men to adopt a leather look and jump onto motorcycles, 'The wild one' and 'Easy rider' are now the two best known, and they drew on the alternative attitudes, adventurous but grimy and sometimes violent subcultures which resulted. This film is an attempt to offer an 'origin story' for some of the more notorious groups in the US, though it doesn't reference them directly.

Based on the photography an audio interviews of Danny Lyon in the late 1960s, the film lacks a really strong plot, perhaps because of its rather fragmented origins, but it is still engaging, and features good performances by Austin Butler and Jodie Comer, plus some other excellent characterisations. The film is distinctly of two parts: the first follows the more innocent beginnings, the second shows a descent into much more unstable dodgy and violent outcomes.

I liked this film, and although it does suffer from a lack of a strong plot, it's well directed and written, though in the end it drew on genre familiars from such films as 'the wild one' to 'goodfellas' perhaps a bit too much: all in all a worthwhile drama, and also historically interesting.

This 'body horror' drama/comedy starts impressively and imaginatively. In modern LA, a self consciously ageing movie star gets fired but by chance discovers a 'substance' that could restore her younger self. Ok, so what a clever idea, one with infinite possibilities for humour and insight. Unfortunately, after the first 30 minutes or so the film becomes more and more crass and less and less clever. Demi Moore is indeed excellent in the lead role and Dennis Quade gives his all as a particularly obnoxious TV executive, but I got less and less interested as the film went on, giving up completely in the last 20 minutes, when it really does go off the tracks.

The film won the best screenplay at Cannes, and although the concept might be inspired and clever, I couldn't help thinking that so much more could been achieved here.

I've heard this referred to as a 'holocaust comedy', which is pretty extraordinary but not particularly accurate, as it's more about humanity, relationships, and in some ways, how history shapes us all. Take a simple enough idea, two cousins of Jewish descent decide after the death of their grandmother, who survived the Holocaust, to visit Poland and the historic sites of the tragedy, so they join a tour.

Eisenberg in his second film directing has created something special, a bittersweet, comic but poignant drama about humanity, centrally about two very different cousins, brilliantly played by Eisenberg as the boring one, but especially Culkin as the irrepressible annoying wild conscience of the film. The rest of the cast are great too by the way- it's brilliantly cast, and also features inspired use of Chopin. In the end, if a film that is shadowed by such tragic history can ever be so, its humanity and depth create something life affirming.

This is an extraordinary film that bears sticking with. Initially it comes over as a clever take on transgender drama, almost something Pedro Almadovar might have come up with, including musical interludes, but it transforms into a wider drama about identity, personal journeys, and the deep scars left on Mexican society by violent drug cartels. It's clever, imaginative, often quite gripping, and impressively fresh in its approach, though you might also call it a little barmy too, and I can quite understand that to some its storyline and treatment might offend. The music, whilst it fits into the plot, I found mostly not that striking , but there are some tremendous performances, and overall, a sense you are seeing something very contemporary , passionate, and ultimately very compelling.

I'm confused. Why did writer/director Steve McQueen decide to create a largely fictional storyline rather than take advantage of the huge number of true stories that exist from the London blitz? His approach might have worked, but sadly, the story created is corny cliched and unconvincing. The film reminded me of those Children's Film foundation films from the 1960s, but with a dash of workaday morale boosting British efforts from WW2, Gracie Fields and all that. It's jolly cockneys all round, though from a spirited cast, cut with a dash of almost Dickensian grime and danger, however, despite high production values, some visually outstanding moments, and good historical detail, it was diminished by a corny approach and the stolid contrivances of the plot, plus it must be mentioned some rather preachy and patronising scenes which looked as if they should be in a different movie. For me, it was a disappointing effort from a usually outstanding film maker.