Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing Missouri

Three Billboards is a drama crime film by Martin McDonagh, (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths). This film is a very dark film from the offset, with it having many sad and even to an extent deeply upsetting moments in the film, (even ones bringing a tear to my eye). However, it also has a sense of determination that is shown through the characters, which is almost inspirational, as well as a few comedic moments. This sense of determination is shown through Frances McDormand’s character of Mildred, as she continues to search for her daughter’s killer months after the case has gone cold, never giving up hope of finding him. Much like McDonagh’s other works the character of Mildred is wonderfully 3 dimensional, as she is portrayed as strong and tough, sometimes even too much so, but the motivation for why she is like that is so believable and understandable that you don’t question it for a minute. What’s more, she is also shown to have a vulnerable side, which she displays during a few exceptional emotional scenes. McDonagh’s other recurring collaborators are also back, with both Rockwell, Harrelson and Cornish (all from Seven Psychopaths). Whilst her character is only very minor Abbie Cornish’s Anne shows one of the most accurate portrayals of grief I’ve seen in a long time, as well as being a memorable character. Furthermore, her character is the best embodiment of what this films keys themes are, with said themes being grief and trauma and the way on after that. Rockwell’s character of Jason is easy to hate within the first hour and of the film, however where the genius of McDonagh’s writing comes in is that he isn’t left as a 2-dimensional villain, by the end of the film we see him as a man who is deeply flawed but is trying to better himself. Finally, Woody Harrelson’s character of Chief Willoughby, is the emotional core of the film at least for me personally, as he is easy to root for, and you do feel bad for him in the early stages of the film you really do, but that is where this film is at its best, in the moral quandaries. Such moral quandaries are things like, how far is too far? With who to blame for tragedy is another strong one. This film very intelligently communicates its themes and message to the audience, without the need to rub it in, as many other films do, or making it blatantly obvious. The score for this film is also very impressive with it being able to capture this idea of small-town America near perfectly. The character of Penelope, played by Samara Weaving, is easily my favourite character of the film. Penelope is the 19-year-old girlfriend of Mildred’s abusive ex-husband. the reason her character works so well is that she is a comic relief character, as she is inserted into a few very tense scenes where she manages to not refuse the tension with her comedy but elevate it to another level. Her character along with near everyone else, are testaments to McDonagh’s writing ability. That brings me to my only criticism with the film, and that is Peter Dinklage’s character of James, unlike everyone else who’s character serves a purpose, James felt like a plot device in one specific scene, in addition, his inclusion felt not needed and oddly out of place at times.
Overall this is a well written, well-executed triumph and everyone should see it, for the great character and great moral questions.
4/5
Reviewed by Luke.

Den of Thieves

To sum this movie up, this is a heist film like the Oceans film series but without the charm. This movie like other heist films has twists and turns and in this particular case, they come in 2 varieties. The first is blindingly obvious such as when the characters are robbing a bank, and then they escape into the sewers; which was obviously what they were going to do from the beginning of the scene. The second type is the twists that are wildly confusing, and are thrown in in an attempt to try and make this film seem cleverer than it is, the end twist is an example of this, said twist undoes quite a lot of character decisions and makes you think, well why would such a character have done that then. So it’s quite easy to say that my main issue with this film is the script and the plot, with the only real way to enjoy this movie is to switch your brain off and not think about it too much. The acting, for the most part, is quite one-note and generic, with me not remembering even what the characters were called after seeing it, and the whole film just not being memorable. Unlike, in the much superior film, Ingrid goes west, O’Shea Jackson Jr brings no charm to the role, with his protagonist character never really being likable. 50 Cents character of Levi Enson is barely in the movie at all, and though there is one scene that tries to develop his character this scene feels oddly out of place, because up until this point in the film he’s barely been given a second thought. Then there is Gerard Butler’s character of Big Nick, which though being the antagonist of the movie even going so far as to say “we are the bad guys” in one lacking line of dialogue, is arguably the most likable character in the film. Butler’s character even has some funny lines in the film, and is even made vulnerable to the audience in a scene, where one is left to question are you trying to make the antagonist of your film likable? It would have been a similar issue if Andy Garcia’s character had been made likable in the before mentioned Oceans series. Despite this, we also see him as a terrible husband and as a manipulator, arguably he is the most fleshed out character in the movie and is the only memorable thing when the credits roll. Some of the cinematography in this film is pretty beautifully shot, with one scene in particular of Butler’s character Nick standing on a beach on the morning of the heist, and the visuals are quite stunning.The last thing I wanted to mention was Pablo Schreiber’s character of Merrimen, his character is poorly written his character’s motivations are at times puzzling and other times just head scratching. The final twist as I mentioned before completely underwrites his character and makes you think really as if I suppose to believe that. However much like Rosa Salazar, I think that Pablo Schreiber is a rising star, with him being able to elevate the stilted dialogue he is given.

To conclude this film is beautifully shot in parts, funny (unintentionally) in parts, with good performances from Schreiber and Butler. Whilst also being bland, generic, badly written and just baffling throughout, with one of the most pointless twists I’ve seen in a long time.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke.

Journey’s End

Spoilers ahead

Journey’s End, is a harrowing film about a company of British soldiers that are stationed on the front line in France for 6 days during World War 1. This film is adapted from a play of the same name by R.C Sherriff, so the idea for this film has been around for a while. With the feature film itself being first announced at the British commemoration of WW1 back in 2014. Whilst the idea itself of soldiers on the front line waiting for an attack is fairly generic this film manages to capture all the emotions and the hopelessness the situation itself would bring. The film even in scenes where nothing much is happening, where there might just be a few lines of dialogue, has this overwhelming sense of dread and foreboding; as just like the soldiers themselves you are awaiting the German advance. What the director Saul Dibb achieves so effortlessly is this idea of contrast, this contrast is shown in many different forms throughout the film, eagerness vs hopelessness, naivety vs realism, the heroics and bravery vs the complete senseless loss of life. Through these contrasts the film explores a lot of themes in an intelligent way, not glorifying or overtly patriotic; but honest. The performances here are all standout with Sam Claflin’s Captain Stanhope, being a particular standout. Claflin’s character is haunted by the events he’s lead his company through and is quite noticeably an alcoholic. Stanhope as a character is completely 3 dimensional, as we see him fly through many different emotions such as paranoia, a real strong care for his men shown in quite a few compassionate scenes, as well as a very real sense of fear and doubt. Claflin handles all of these different emotions with complete ease, and never once did I view him as anything other than Captain Stanhope. Paul Bettany’s performance as Lieutenant Osborne is perhaps the heart of the film with him being the one who keeps everyone together and is a friend to both Claflin’s Stanhope and Butterfields Raleigh. Through Bettany’s performance, we see more of Stanhope flaws but we also see the trauma he’s been through to get them. My main criticism of the film, is the raid scene where Bettany’s character dies, during the scene which is one of the emotional peaks of the movie the cinematography is quite jerky and moves around very quickly, (perhaps this was a stylistic choice on the part of the director), which I personally found took me out of the moment and I didn’t quite understand what was going on. On the whole, the cinematography and both the diegetic and non-diegetic music manage to paint quite an outstanding picture of what life in the trenches was like. Butterfield’s performance as Captain Raleigh is rather one note, personally, I believe he was only used as a contrasting figure to the character to Stanhope so that Raleigh could represent what Stanhope has left behind and will never be again. I believe that this film is a great insight into WW1 and one that doesn’t stray away from the dark pointless nature of war, it covers all the issues surrounding war such as loss and trauma with a well-rounded perspective. The film is at its core a drama film, as there isn’t much action in it when compared to something like 12 Strong, the character interactions and the interpersonal drama is amazing and obviously a result of a well-honed script based off fantastic source material. Overall I think this is a must-see film, as it so accurately shows all facets of war, as well as focusing on the men behind it really taking its time to develop the characters. Whilst the film is let down by the cinematography in one sequence it doesn’t detract from the overall experience, and Claflin and Bettany are such commanding presences that you will never really notice the underused Butterfield.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke.

12 Strong

At its core 12 Strong is a standard war film with ideas of grandeur. It needs to be remembered when we talk about 12 Strong that it is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, the same man who produced Black Hawk Down, so there is a degree of pedigree to this film. Furthermore, this film is beautifully shot; with some stunning vista and establishing shots that really paint a picture. Also, there is a number of interesting decisions by the director Nicolai Fuglsig, such as his use of shadow in certain shots from the base camp scenes that add an artistic flair to proceedings. The character work is strong, but only in one character, Abdul Rashid Dostum; the leader of the Alliance, Played by Navid Negahban. Negahban brings a heart to this film, being the only truly memorable character after the credits roll, his bond with Hemsworth’s Mitch Nelson is very believable and remains good throughout. Michael Pena’s character of Sam Diller is completely one note, and until writing this review I couldn’t even remember his name. Diller is mainly a comic relief character, only the problem with that is that most of his jokes aren’t very funny, just being bad. Secondly, Michael Shannon’s character of Carl Spencer is given more to do and does have some genuinely touching emotional beats, but somehow manages to feel wasted, especially when you compare his performance to that of Hemsworth. Following on from that Chris Hemsworth in this is bland, that’s putting it mildly, really anyone could play his role as he brings so little to it. Hemsworth’s shortcomings are really apparent when compared to Shannon’s performance which managed to be memorable if only brief, and one is left to ask why they didn’t give Shannon the lead role. The biggest issue with this film is the plot, for a start, they have a subplot which revolves around the 12 man team splitting in half, one half goes off to fight, the other stay at the base camp. The issue comes from all the scenes that cut away from the 6 out fighting and goes back to the base camp, these scenes drag on and feel wholly uninteresting when compared to the other scenes away from the base camp. Thankfully this subplot is wrapped up halfway through the runtime, and everyone is reunited. What’s more is there are leaps in logic akin to that of a Michael Bay movie, (the movie also manages to match his level of explosions), which really bring you out of the film. An example is early on in the film, it is revealed that Hemsworth’s Mitch hasn’t killed anyone and that he doesn’t have “Killer Eyes”. However later in the film, he can just kill people indiscriminately, with only one short scene explaining the shift and the toll that change brings to him psychologically. The film in many ways tried to have similar elements to Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker, even to the point that one of the soldiers in 12 Strong befriends a young boy, just like Jeremy Renner’s character in the Hurt Locker. Furthermore, the film seemed to think that it had something to say, a commentary on war or something of the sort, in a similar vein to Zero Dark Thirty, but it really just comes off as standard and generic fair when compared. To end on a positive the sound design is solid throughout, with the non-diegetic sound during some of the action scenes making it very tense, this does help to elevate the action.

Overall, I learned something from this movie that I didn’t already know it was an interesting perspective. Shannon and Negahban give wonderful performances, and it is stunning to look at in some scenes, however, that aside there is little to elevate it beyond standard genre fare, and the whole thing is rather generic.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke.

Maze Runner the Death Cure

Spoilers ahead.

The question I had going into this was, can this film cure the death of the Young Adult film genre. Everybody knows that the YA genre, has not had a good past few years with the end of The Hunger Games, and Divergent, the Mortal Instruments and The 5th wave crashing and burning; it looked like the genre was at an end or at least slowing down. However, one high profile YA series remained and that was Maze Runner. First off I think the delay in release date was a genuinely good thing for this film, as it allowed it to stand a good distance apart from the other YA films of years past, and command more attention. This film is a bit of a mixed bag because a lot of its strengths are also its weakness and vice versa. The first such example of this is the runtime, 142 minutes seems extortionately long for this kind of movie, and yes it does bring with it quite a few pacing issues; with some parts feeling needlessly long and other not flushed out enough. However, with this long running time, it avoids what has pretty much become a trope of the genre and that is splitting the last film into 2, I would say that the film benefits overall from this long running time, and it allows it to tie up all the loose ends and go out on a high note. Furthermore, the performances here are also a mixture of highs and lows. On one hand there are tremendous actors such as, Aiden Gillen and Walton Goggins, who play Janson and Lawrence respectively; however, both characters are barely used with Goggins in particular only being in the movie for a few short scenes. Gillen’s Janson does manage to be a memorable villain, being both aggressive and slimy at the same time, and whilst his character was previously built up in the series unlike Goggins, he still is given very little to do. Where the performances shine through are in the younger actors, specifically in Dylan O’Brien (Thomas), Thomas Brodie- Sangster (Newt) and Rosa Salazar (Brenda). The friendship between O’Brien’s Thomas and Brodie- Sangster’s Newt, is the emotional core of the movie, with Thomas trying to find a cure for Newt whilst also searching for their friend, both actors give amazing performances making this friendship both believable and relatable in all the best ways. The untimely death of Newt towards the end of the third act hit me with much more emotional impact than the death of Theresa, (Kaya Scodelario), whose character is the one of the weakest and most boring of the whole movie. This is a shock as the relationship between Thomas and Theresa has been built up for 3 movies, and the end of that build up felt rather anti-climatic and just poorly done. In addition, there is the usual YA problem of the plot being laughably dumb, and this movie does suffer from that, I don’t think someone who hasn’t seen at least one of the previous two movies would be able to jump into this and understand what is going on; which is a large issue. Finally, I just wanted to briefly mention, Rosa Salazar’s performance as Brenda, I found her to be a wholly enjoyable character, and very easy to root for; being able to pull off both comedy and drama with ease. Her performance in this makes me a lot more confident, for Alita Battle Angel that she is staring in later this year. Her scenes were my favourite part of this movie.

Anyway, though the film suffers from some issues, (many of which are commonly found in the genre), and does waste some of its actors, it is still enjoyable. This film feels like a good mix of Mad Max and The Hunger Games and is most certainly a very good final entry in the series.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Commuter

This Liam Neeson lead action film is the latest collaboration between, Neeson and director Jaume Collet- Serra. This is, in fact, the fourth movie that the duo has worked on, with the others being Unknown, Non-Stop and Run All Night, and this film is much of the same fair as the rest. It is nice to see Liam Neeson a man of 60, still being given action hero lead billing, and more importantly still being believable. Neeson is as charismatic as ever in the role of Michael MacCauley, a man recently without a job and put in a dangerous game, on his train ride home from work. Enter Vera Farmiga’s enigmatic Joanna, who gives MacCauley the chance to win big money if he does, “one little thing”. Whilst she isn’t present much Farmiga shines in every scene, easily being the best thing about this movie; being able to present a genuine threat. The opening sequence that cuts together multiple mornings to make it appear all as one, is quite a nice directional choice and gives an impression of the monotonous effect of not trying anything new in a while. This contrasts nicely with the unexpected nature of the later events, which highlights both situations well. However, that is where the praise ends, there are a plethora of issues that plague this film. Firstly is the plot, which is at best wholly unbelievable, at worst ridiculous, with as many plot holes as there are passengers on a busy train. These, however, aren’t critical issues, as these leaps in logic are typical of most action movies, and really should be expected. The movies most dire issues are twofold, firstly is the wasted side characters, whilst a little light is shined on these characters back stories, (really just enough to make them interesting), it never feels enough. These characters feel almost entirely one-note and ultimately bland, you will not remember them when you leave the cinema. Furthermore, to add to this problem the little that is shown of these side characters back stories set up subplots, and these are never satisfactorily resolved, leaving you feeling less than satisfied. The second key issue is that the twists and turns the plot take feel played out and obvious, with everyone in the audience working out who MacCauley is looking for a good half the film before he does. Furthermore, the twists regarding, Patrick Wilson’s character are signposted a mile away, and a bit off topic but why Wilson took this role is a good question because his character is entirely forgettable. Ultimately, this isn’t a bad movie, it’s well shot, well acted by its two leads, but at the same time, it’s entirely forgettable. The film itself is a waste of potential really all round, with it just being kind of a generic action movie, which maybe check it out one day when it’s on Netflix, but for now, unless you’re a hardcore for the action genre give it a miss.

2/5

reviewed by Luke

Pitch Perfect 3

So, for the sake of honesty, I’ve not seen the first 2 movies and this was where I was jumping in, and like I’ve said before musicals aren’t really my thing. That being said, I was incredibly pleasantly surprised by this movie, I went into it with very low expectations, and over the course of the run time, it made me smile and laugh a good few times. Now whilst Trish Sie’s movie isn’t going to win any awards, it does manage to be effortless charming throughout. The plot whilst being unbelievable, is no more so than a Fast and the Furious movie, and I believe that if you can get past that there is a lot to love about this film. None of the characters are particularly grating, which is a surprise because usually in these larger ensemble movies, where characters are more caricatures than anything else that is usually the case. The songs are mostly quite good, with only one or two feeling a little too long. However, even in the case of the bad songs the choreography of the dance sequences are all very well done and quite impressive. Ruby Rose’s character of Calamity, is probably my favorite character of the whole film. Whilst she isn’t given much to do, with the general focus staying with the main characters; she is an entertaining antagonist and has one of the best musical set pieces in the whole film. The plot centers around Beca Mitchell, (Anna Kendrick), and the rest of the Bella’s reuniting to play a show for the US troops. From there it devolves into a strange plot of singing, kidnapping, and c4 in cereal. Whilst many people criticise the film for its unbelievable plot, I liked it because every moment I was entertained and engaged. I even thought that the subplot about Fat Amy, (Rebel Wilson), and her estranged father was quite touching in parts if a little ridiculous. Furthermore, this sweetness carried over into the romance between Chicago, ( Matt Lanter), and Chloe, (Brittany Snow), which I thought was very believable and didn’t slow down the film at all. Most the jokes land quite well, with the exception of a few, but on the whole a very funny film. To compare it to a recent musical the Greatest Showman, I felt that whilst the song was good, they weren’t quite as memorable or whimsical. Really the main issue with this film is that its characters feel a little one-note and generic; with none of them outside of Wilson’s Fat Amy having much of an arc. That being said this film made me want to go back and watch the other two movies, and that is it’s the strongest praise. Whilst not for everyone, there is a lot to love about this movie, it’s sweet, charming and most of all entertaining; and most certainly an excellent not to go out on.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Insidious: The Last Key

This supernatural horror film is the sequel to Insidious 3, and a prequel to Insidious 1 and 2. This instalment works as somewhat of a close loop for the series, bringing everything together. The Last Key, serves to add context to the childhood of series regular Elise, (played by Lin Shaye in the only truly well acted performance in the whole film), and it is in this backstory that the film shines. Without giving too much away these flashbacks serve to highlight Elise’s gifts, as well as her past history with the Further and demons. The new entity for this instalment is Key Face, who is quite an interestingly designed creature, a far cry from the woeful, Man who can’t breath, in part 3 who wasn’t scary in any way. Furthermore, during scenes involving Key Face something quite interesting is done with the films sound design, as the victims are screaming Key Face will insert one of his key shaped fingers into their throat, immediately making their screams silent no matter how long they carry on for. Sadly that’s where the positives end for this film, and it is with a heavy heart I write this, because I really liked and enjoyed the first two Insidious Movies, but I feel like each entry since then has got worse and worse; with this entry being the testament to that decline. First off other than Elise and I guess her father ,(played by Josh Stewart), no one is really given any development, or a noticeable arc. Tucker and Spec’s ,(Angus Sampson and Leigh Whannell), are used wholly for comic relief, and its the humour in this film that is it’s greatest detriment. The humour never and I mean not once lands, the humour ranges from cringe bad to straight up unfunny. The only time people in my screening were laughing was during the jump scares and moments that were suppose to be scary. That’s another failing of this instalment, there just aren’t that many jump scares, which isn’t always a bad thing in terms of horror as tension and atmosphere are just as important, but overall this film isn’t scary in anyway. The only true scares come from the domestic violence in much the same way as Sinister 2, rather than the supernatural threat. Insidious The Last Key, is the truest definition of the bad movies that plague January, with its whole existence feeling like just a way to extend the franchise. What’s more is the introduction of Elise niece,(played by Caitlin Gerard), who has the same gift as her, also she doesn’t have a huge role except being Spec’s love interested, but to make matters worse here introduction is a clear way for them to make Insidious 5 now that Elise’s story has run it’s course. In many ways this film was a waste of resources and peoples time, providing at best one good performance, some interesting design choices and perhaps one solitary jump scare; that actually works. To sum up whilst it isn’t terrible it’s a clear example of a franchise that needs to end.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

All the Money in the World

This film is a testament to Ridley Scott as a director, with him replacing an actor and reshooting all his scenes only months before release. Whats more these scenes are hard to tell apart from the rest of the feature, blending in well; in contrast to other recent releases such as Justice League. Christopher Plummer portrays the role with equal parts ruthlessness, and a sheer sense of greed that perfectly encapsulates the character of J. Paul Getty. The film itself centers around the kidnapping of Getty’s grandson Paul, (played here by Charlie Plummer), and Getty’s refusal to pay any money in random. At its core, this film is defined by 3 key performances, Christopher Plummer’s Getty, who is tremendous throughout. With the performances of Michelle Williams, (Gail Harris), and Mark Wahlberg, (Fletcher Chase) also being critical. This is where the film fumbles, Michelle Willimas is perfect with her performance of a mother in crisis, trying to get her son back being both believable and the emotional backbone of the film. For anyone who has read any of my other reviews, they will know that so far this year I ‘ve been a big Michelle Willimas fan, with her role in the greatest showman being one of the best and most believable parts of that movie. However, it is the third key role that falls flat and that is Mark Wahlberg’s Chase Fletcher, who feels bland and uninteresting, really his role could be played by anyone. The strange standout social relationship of this film is between Charlie Plummers Paul and Romain Duris as Cinquanta, who are both excellent characters in their own right, but together they’re somewhat of an endearing pair. Duris’s Cinquanta is a sort of father figure to Paul and provides an interesting contrast to the usual stereotype of the despicable criminal. Through the character of Cinquanta, Scott explores the idea of a family with this man who is a criminal, who is one of the men who abducts Paul ultimately caring about him just as much as his mum. Furthermore, Cinquanta, when juxtaposed with Mr. Getty, is shown to be far more caring towards Paul than his own grandfather. This portrays one of the victims of the film as ultimately one of the antagonists. The negatives for this film really come from pacing, the film is paced badly, with the second act feeling dull and ultimately unnecessary, with too much time spent looking at the Chase, Getty relationship which ultimately goes nowhere. There were points in this film where it lost my interest to such a point, I debated the merits of going to the toilet for a prolonged break. Also, there were subplots with characters such as Pauls father which again feel like they go nowhere, with his character going through big changes in the first act without much explanation. The film could have benefited greatly from focusing more on Michelle Willimas’s character, and ditching Wahlberg outright. This is a gripping story sadly it’s just too long and not interesting enough, though I did appreciate the unusual captive captor relationship.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

Darkest Hour

This film chronicles the early period of World War 2, through a time span covering roughly about a month. The period that the movie covers was before the Americans and Russians joined the war effort, a time when the British Empire was at its most vulnerable; and in many ways, this is reflected in the character of Winston Churchill himself. Gary Oldman portrays Churchill, a man synonymous with the British war effort. The director Joe Wright shows us a Churchill who is a far cry from the fearless war-time leader that we have come to know, we see a man who is loathed by his own party and has known many failures. The film acts as both a character study and also a new perspective on the previously trodden WW2 film. There are elements of a cat and mouse struggle throughout the film, with the hierarchy of the Conservative party made up of Lord Halifax, (in an excellent turn by Stephen Dillane), and the previous Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, (Ronald Pickup) trying to force Churchill to enter into peace talks, when the man himself wants to fight to the bitter end. This film is incredibly accurate in its presentation of figure from the time period, such as Ben Mendelsohn’s King George the 4th, before I went to see this film I had been watching Netflix’s the crown which featured both King Geroge the 4th and Winston Churchill, and I had loved the job Jared Harris had done playing the late king but Ben Mendelsohn’s performance here made me completely forget about Harris’s iteration. The film despite it’s PG age rating doesn’t stray away from the horrors of war with a Calais scene showing the sacrifice made and provoking an emotional response from anyone who sees it. It is in creating that emotional significants and capturing ideals and patriotism, that make this film as great as it is. Whether it is through Lilly James’s Elizabeth Layton, who experinces the horrors of war and carries on, or whether it is shown through the British public who have a bitter resolve to never surrender to Hitler no matter what. This film has an air of hopelessness with the British position often looking bleak and that brings with it many sad moments, but it is with that the film also brings with it a sense of optimism, a sense that through the bad we can endure and come out stronger. Also Joe Wright dedicates quite a bit of screen time to exploring Churchill relationship with his wife Clementine, (played here by Kristin Scott Thomas), is shown to be the rock that held Churchill together when he most needed it, this emotional softer element of the film helps to keep it varied, and develops the characters in quite a satisfying way. Overall this film is a well paced, well acted, well directed film and it deserves all the awards recognition it’s getting. This film inspired a strong sense of patriotism in me, what more can I say; except this film would make an excellent double feature with last years Dunkrik.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke