The Da Vinci Code: Hide Your Bibles

The Da Vinci Code is a mystery thriller film directed by Ron Howard. The plot follows Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) as he is drawn into a feud between two secrets sects of Christianity that have been around since the times of Christ.

Much like my previous review The Girl In The Spiders Web, this film came out to some fan fare as the book that predates the film is beloved, also much like that film this film struggles to meet those high expectations. I have not read the book but if the film is anything to go on, then it is about 1000 pages too long.

At times this film reminded me somewhat of the Nicolas Cage National Treasure films, though I prefer those. I think this film took itself far too seriously, which is fine as it is not supposed to be a comedy but at the same time some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious.

Speaking off the Paul Bettany evil monk villain is easily the best part of the film. Yes, this character is hard to take seriously and is hilarious at times for all the wrong reasons, but at the same time he also has quite a few good moments including his final shootout and has a great on-screen presence and threat throughout.

Overall, the biggest issue with this film is that it is one for about an hour too long, as such the pacing is terrible and though the film has some high moments the long tedious stretches drag it down.

Pros.

Bettany

The mystery when it finally gets revealed

The world

Cons.

It is too serious

The hilarity within is unintentional

National Treasure did it better

Hanks is very average

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Savage: Hello Darkness My Old Friend

Savage is a crime drama film directed by Sam Kelly. The film follows the story of Damage (Jack Ryan), at three different points in his life as an enforcer for a New Zealand biker gang.

This is not like most of the crime films that you see that regardless of ending, glamorise the life of violence and excess and almost become works of romantic fantasy by the end. No, this is a film about desperate people with nowhere else to turn forced into a cycle of violence as a means of dealing with the abuse they have endured.

As a character study this film is exquisite, we see Damage as so much more than a rough tough biker type and we see why he is the way he is. The film raises a number of interesting philosophical and moral questions as well, which leaves you with plenty to think about once the film is over.

Ryan is terrific in his performance. He plays the character as a deeply troubled man who has turned to violence as a means to fit in and be accepted. The character and the performance are the very definition of the word nuanced, and despite the character doing a lot of deeply unlikeable things Ryan still makes him sympathetic.

Overall, this is a very strong drama film that will break your heart. It is definitely not the typical form of crime film either. Bear in mind that this film is incredibly depressing and should not be watched without having a happy animal video on stand by to cheer you up once the depression sets in after the film.

Pros.

It is powerful

It leaves you with a lot to think about

It deviates from the standard crime drama film

Cons.

It is very bleak

It is often hard to tell what is happening when with the later timelines

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Bridget Jones, The Edge of Reason: The Horrors Of A Thai Prison

Bridget Jones, The Edge Of Reason is a British romantic comedy film directed by Beeban Kidron, serving as a sequel to The Bridget Jones Diaries. The plot this time around see Bridget (Renee Zellweger), in a happy relationship. Though for one reason or another she suspects her boyfriend Mark (Colin Firth), is cheating on her and they break up and then through a series of comedic misunderstanding and lapses in judgment they end up back together again.

This is by far a lesser film than the first. It is still funny and charming, but not nearly as much as the first film. Also the humour here seems far more intent on laughing at Bridget rather than with her, I noticed quite a mean streak to the humour that I found to be quite off putting.

Moreover, the plot of this film is basically just a rehash of the first. It spends almost 99% of its runtime covering old ground and repeating plot points from the first film; it is almost as though there didn’t need to be a sequel. Right from the off you know where the plot is going and can guess the resolution because you have seen it before, in the previous film.

Also the film was made infinitely worse by bringing back Hugh Grant’s character rather than introducing a new character.

Overall, though there is still some fun moments and enjoyment to be had this is a lesser sequel in almost everyway and pales in the light of the first film.

Pros.

A few funny moments

Zellweger is still very charming in the role

It is cheering

Cons.

It brings nothing new to the table

Hugh Grant should not have come back

The humour seems more mean spirited

It is entirely predictable

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Arizona: The Longest Car Ride

Arizona is a dark comedy thriller film directed by Jonathan Watson. The film sees real estate agent Cassie Fowler (Rosemarie DeWitt), and her teenage daughter become caught up in a fight for their lives, after local man Sonny (Danny McBride), has a break and goes on a murderous spree.

This film was a crushing disappointment. I missed it upon first release so when I saw it on Netflix and remembered the trailer I was excited and put it on with high expectations, it did not meet them in anyway; it seems all the best bits where put in the trailer.

So my biggest issue with this film is how damn generic it is, there is nothing new or novel about the concept or its execution you have seen this done before and a lot better too. There are large parts of the film that just feel tedious as you are left begging for something to happen to liven up the scene.

McBride for his part is trying, he tries to make Sonny funny and memorable sadly neither of those things pan out. DeWitt on the other hand is one of the most boring protagonists ever put to film, you don’t care about her at all and that really takes a lot of the tension out of the fight or flight scenes.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, the humour is not funny. As I often say humour is subjective and dark comedy is even more so, but for me personally this film did not make me laugh once if anything it made me roll my eyes and cringe more often then not: it is painfully unfunny.

Overall, a disappointment.

Pros.

McBride is trying

Cons.

Luke Wilson’s character and all the time spent with him is entirely needless

The lead is charmless

The jokes aren’t funny

The film is boring bordering on tedious, often

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Bridget Jones’s Baby: 2 Different Baby Daddies

Bridget Jones’s Baby is a romantic comedy film directed by Sharon Maguire. The plot follows on from the events of the previous films and shows an older version of Bridget (Renee Zellweger), who is still unlucky in love and is seemingly repeating the same mistakes as she was in the events of the first film only now older.

I would say of the three Bridget Jones films this is probably second best, behind the original but ahead of the sequel. This film regains more of the originals charm and loses the more mean-spirited humour of the second film, both of which help it immensely.

The one negatively I will say of this film is that it feels needless. The character arcs and progressions are nothing new in the series, it very much does repeat arcs from the previous films to form a narrative here, you can predict what will happen and when because it has already. The will they won’t they stuff between Mark Darcy (Colin Firth), and Bridget makes less and less sense as at the end of each subsequent film they end up together and say how much they love each other, only to have that undone by the start of the next film. It makes the whole thing feel futile.

Patrick Dempsey has a very moments to shine throughout the film as the new love interest for Bridget and one of the suspected fathers of the baby, however he is very much living in the shadow of Hugh Grant and can’t hope to compete.

The other new characters such as Miranda (Sarah Solemani), Bridget’s younger friend and work college fare far better and add to the film. I would dare say Solemani stole most of the scenes she was in and I would watch a spin off dedicated entirely to her character.

Overall, a nice final note that returns to form even if it struggles to explain why it exists.

Pros.

Sarah Solemani

It is charming

It is funny

Renee Zellweger

Cons.

It has no need to exist and does not justify it.

4/5

Pieces Of A Woman: The Pain Parents Bare

Pieces Of A Woman is a drama film directed by Kornel Mundruczo. The plot follow the fallout of a disastrous home birth that resulted in the death of a child. The film examines grief from both the mother’s (Vanessa Kirby) and the father’s (Shia LaBeouf) points of view.

So before I get into this review, I just want to condemn LaBeouf who is an alleged sexual abuser and batterer. His involvement with this film did but me off it, but I managed to separate my feelings and watch it with an unbiased eye.

This is a film that you need to be emotionally ready for. You will need some form of emotional support to get through this film, at least I found that to be the case for me. I think this is a needed film, and I think even though it is an uncomfortable subject, it is something everyone needs to see so that we can better understand the troubles that some mothers have to go through.

The upsetting thing about this film is just how real it feels. This is a bleak film for many reasons and as a viewer you can separate yourself from that bleakness as it is just something happening on the screen; however a lot of people can’t escape it and this is life for a lot of people.

I think Kirby is terrific here and this should be the film that finally nets here both mainstream attention, as a serious actor, and also awards. Her performance is so raw and powerful that I challenge you not to feel anything from it. LaBeouf is also good and has his dramatic moments do shine but this is defiantly Kirby’s film.

The one negative I would say about the film is that it feels too neat. By that I mean the film feels a bit too rehearsed, a bit too much like a stage play. I think that some of the scenes border on overacting and seem to steam from an overly broad approach to the film as a whole. To be blunt, a lot of the scenes feel like actors acting not real life.

Overall, though the acting feels a little overdone at times and a bit removed from reality, this is still a much-needed piece of film that breaks down a taboo that should never have been there in the first place.

Pros.

The emotional impact

Breaking down taboos

Kirby

The ending

Cons.

It feels too rehearsed

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Notting Hill: Unexpected Romance

Notting Hill is a British romantic comedy film directed by Roger Michell. The plot follows the unlikely romance of an English book seller (Hugh Grant), and an American actor (Julia Roberts).

This may be one of the defining films of the romantic comedy genre, may be even of British cinema in general. It is a classic and for a good reason, it is one of the warmest most charming films I have ever seen.

The film feels so sleek and stylish, and every scene feels polished to a tee. The writing is impeccable and that really is a testament to Richard Curtis, the characters feel like real people and as such you instantly form a bond with them and want to see their romance flourish. Both Grant and Roberts give great performances that make the film, they are also supported by a number of talented performances from the wider cast that are almost equally as memorable.

Much like a good Pixar film this film knows just how to work your emotions to bring you through all the highs and lows of a new relationship and bring you out the otherside cheering and feeling good: that would be the best way to describe this film, feel good.

Overall, a sweet happy romantic comedy that reminds us that the world does still have a few good things in it.

Pros.

The charm

The style

The supporting cast

Roberts

Grant

Cons.

None

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Nina Of The Woods: The Most Boring Film Of 2020?

Nina Of The Woods is a thriller film directed by Charlie Griak. The plot follows the titular Nina (Megan Hensley), as she is brought into provide local flair during the shooting of a big foot documentary. Naturally as you would assume from this sort of film things quickly go wrong and become all too real.

So, I have no issue with mediative slow-burn horror films I love The Witch and The Wind, and I even have a soft spot in my heart for It Comes At Night, however I found this film pushed it too far. By that I mean to do slow burn horror right, you need to have an atmosphere that feels bleak and oppressive even if nothing actually scary is happening on screen. The issue here is that this film does not have an oppressive atmosphere of any kind, instead it is the slow brooding introspection of an art film this does not mix well with the type of film this is. Moreover, nothing happens for the first hour and I do mean nothing. Comparatively in Egger’s Witch the baby has gone missing and the family is under supernatural attack in the same amount of time. My point is that this film is just too slow to a point of becoming tedious.

The acting is fine, no one is good let alone memorable. The look of the film seems quite cheap which needn’t be the case as the Blair Witch Project, which this film so desperately wants to be, did a very similar thing with an equally small budget without looking cheap.

Overall, the filmmakers attempt to challenge the genre has deeply back fired and resulted in a film that is borderline unwatchable.

Pros

The film was not offensively bad

Cons.

It feels too long despite being short

It is a drag to watch

The approach taken by the filmmakers seems at odds with the genre

It is a bad attempt to replicate The Blair Witch

It is not as smart, or as deep, or as game changing as it thinks it is

0.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Bridget Jones Diary: How Non-Londoners View London

The Bridget Jones Diary is a romantic comedy film directed by Sharon Maguire. The plot sees 30 something single woman Bridget (Renee Zellweger), have to navigate the worlds of career and romantic success. It is based on the book of the same name written by Helen Fielding.

This is one of the quintessentially British rom coms, up there with Christmas classic Love Actually and Notting Hill (review coming soon). Funnily enough all 3 of these films share Richard Curtis as a writer, clearly he is the modern-day master of the British romantic comedy.

There is something effortlessly charming about this film, so much so that I would even recommend it to people who don’t like romantic comedies. It feels deeply personable and relatable, we have all been were Bridget is before in some form or another and we can all relate.

Zellweger is perfectly cast as Bridget and has great on-screen chemistry with her fellow leads Hugh Grant and Colin Firth. As far as interpretations of Austin’s Pride and Prejudice go this is probably by favourite, and I have seen quite a few at this point.

This film is also incredibly funny and has a number of lines that instantly become iconic, at least in my circles. I often found myself laughing at a joke or a punchy bit of dialogue.

Overall, one of the few romantic comedies that does not suffer from troublesome undertones, fun and very enjoyable even for people who don’t like the genre normally.

Pros.

Zellweger

Grant and Firth

It is funny

It is genuine and relatable

Cons.

Sometimes a bit too faithful of an adaption

4.5/5

Widows Point: The Type Of Film You Can Make At Home

Widows Point is a supernatural, mystery film directed by Gregory Lamberson. The plot sees an author (Craig Sheffer), become locked overnight in a haunted lighthouse as a promotional stunt for his new book. However, the longer he trapped inside the more he realises something isn’t right and soon he becomes the prey of supernatural forces.

This is a bizarre film. I am not simply referring to the end that literally comes out of nowhere, but rather the film as a whole. Midway through the film there were that many flashbacks and timelines going on I quickly became lost, there is something to be said for keeping you central narrative simplistic.
Moreover, the film as a whole looked very cheap. I don’t know quite what it was about it, yes it would have had a smaller budget but other films with small budgets don’t look like this, in many ways it looked incredibly amateurish; like the sort of thing you might see presented as a student film.

The acting is similarly as bad, and not for a single moment throughout are you convinced off what is supposedly happening on screen, acting or otherwise.

Overall, a very poor film that needed to be drastically reformed to be anything close to good.

Pros.

The wacky randomness of the monster just showing up at the end

Cons.

It makes no sense

The narrative is far too complicated and also doesn’t work

The acting is god awful

It looks cheap

1/5

Reviewed by Luke