Made In Dagenham: Fight For What’s Right!

Made In Dagenham is a British biopic drama film directed by Nigel Cole. It tells the real-life story of the 1968 strike at the Ford Dagenham Car Plant and the fight for equal pay.

I think this film is riveting, I can’t say how close it keeps to reality, but I would assume quite close as the real people were involved. Watching it I learnt about events that I had no idea about, I feel like this part of British history doesn’t get much attention when it comes to films, so I am glad this got made. I think this film raises a lot of key questions about our society and the petty arbitrary divisions within it; with the takeaway being if you want change you need to fight for it.

I think from a characterization position the only character that is done well is Rita (Sally Hawkins), not only do we root for her to win, we get to see through her eyes just how unfair and plain wrong the world was, and to some extent still is. However, the other characters aren’t so rounded and that would be my major criticism of the film. Rosamund Pike’s character Lisa only really exists to give Rita a pep talk when things seem their darkest, outside of that she is not developed at all; she might not a played a vital role in the real events so that might be why she has so little development, but then why include her at all? The same can be said for a number of other characters as well.

Overall, I think the lack of character development doesn’t hold this film back as the main character feels rounded and it is through her eyes that we see this world. I think this is a must watch as it highlights parts of history we might be unaware of and exposes issues that we need to face. I think Hawkins is at her best here and I really recommend you check this one out!

Pros.

Highlight maybe forgotten history.

Hawkins.

Gripping to watch.

You care about the struggle.

Cons.

A lot of the characters other than Rita exist souly to push the story along.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Look Of Love: Coogan Takes On The King Of Soho Sleaze

The Look Of Love is a British biopic about the life of pornography/ real estate mogul Paul Raymond (Steve Coogan), directed by Michael Winterbottom. The film charts his life, the highs and the lows, the trials and tribulations. It is a cautionary tale.

This film is a testament to having it all, but also being fundamentally empty. Raymond might be rich, but he isn’t happy, he is never happy. I think this film plays out almost like a tragedy because it shows us how this incredibly wealthy man is just trying to make himself feel something and he just can’t. I think this biopic could easily have just been showy and it is to an extent, I will get back to that, but more so it dives deep it analyse the mind of this man, that is what it sets out to do.

When I say this film is showy it is a critique. This film can be gratuitous at points, I understand the nature of Raymond’s work, but the nudity is constant and not really done in a tasteful way. It almost feels a bit creepy and voyeuristic at points, almost as though it is fantasy fulfilment. I understand that it was probably done to show how the character has everything, however, I thought it could have been done better.

Coogan is on top form here. He is trying to play the character in far more of a dramatic way than he normally does, there are a few comedic moments, but Coogan mostly plays the character straight and it works. Crucially the centrepiece of this film is Raymond’s relationship with his daughter (played by Imogen Poots), and I am glad to say that is strong. Both nails the drama and craft characters we end up caring about; even though they’re terrible people.

Overall, this is more thoughtful drama than comedy it is helped by great performances from Coogan and Poots but let down by over the top nudity.

Pros

Steve Coogan.

Nails the drama.

It makes you care about the characters.

The relationship between father and daughter.

Cons.

The nudity is too much.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Capone: Bronson, The Krays and now Al Capone.

Capone is a biographic crime drama film directed by Josh Trank. The plot details the final years of notorious gangster Al Capone (Tom Hardy), as he battle with multiple health issues and slowly loses himself. There is also a subplot about trying to find some money Capone hid when he was a younger man; which still remains hidden to this day.

This is a testament to Tom Hardy as an actor, he manages to do a lot with very little. Some of Hardy’s lines are just gurgles or incoherent babbling and with a lesser actor it would just be dumb and strange, but Hardy manages to sell it. I think this is going to be a divisive performance from Hardy some people will like it and others won’t; it is very much like his Mad Max performance.

If you go into this thinking it is going to be a gangster crime film then you’re going to be disappointed. This is far more of a drama film. It shows us the decline of this once feared gangster to a point where he is a stranger even to himself, in a lot of ways this film is very sad, it makes you care about Capone despite all of his evil deed and it makes you sad to see him like this.

I think for sure this film can act as redemption for Josh Trank, one day I will write about my thoughts surrounding the treatment of Josh Trank during the Fantastic Four years, but for now I will just say that this film much like Chronicle proves him as a strong director with a keen eye. Both Trank and Hardy are on top form.

Overall, I think this might not be what everyone is expecting, but it is still a fantastic film that you will find hard to take your eyes off. A must watch.

Pros.

Josh Trank.

Making you care about Capone.

Tom Hardy.

The mystery around the money.

The flashbacks and the dreamlike feel.

Cons.

There are some unpleasant sights and I am not talking about the blood.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Bronson: Fighting All Day Long

Bronson is a crime biopic film directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. The film recreates the real-life of Britain’s most notorious prisoner Charles Bronson (played here by Tom Hardy), showing his early life, his stint as a bear knuckle boxer and of course all the time he has spent in prison over the years.

This is a Refn film to its core, anyone who has ever seen one of his other films such as Drive, or The Neon Demon will know what I mean. There are many tense scenes in this film shot in striking red lighting to the backdrop of a techno soundtrack. If that sounds familiar it should do, these are the things that make a film a Nicolas Winding Refn film.

Refn, I find to be an acquired taste, you either love this work, or you don’t. Personally, I think he is one of the best directors working today and I think this film proves why. Rather than just have another bog-standard gangster biopic, this film pushes the envelope, it pushes it so far it falls off the metaphorical table and truly revels in its insanity.

Tom Hardy is giving it his unhinged all in the lead role, we both care for him, but also see that he is an incredibly dangerous, unstable person. He straddles the line of audience perception and acceptance masterfully well and has enough manic energy to keep you glued to the screen until the end of the 90 minutes. Hardy manages to capture such a wide variety of emotions with his performance, it truly highlights how he is one of the best actors currently working.

Overall, never before have I seen a crime biopic that is dipping in as much crazy, off the wall, wacky personality as this. Truly a sight to see. It easily places amongst the best of Refn’s work and would be a good start point to new fans of his directorial style.

Pros.

Tom Hardy is magnificent.

The manic unpredictable energy.

The score.

Nicolas Winding Refn’s distinct sense of style.

Hardy’s monologues.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Wolf Creek: The Australian Michael Myers

Wolf Creek is an Australian horror thriller film directed by Greg Mclean. The plot follows a group of tourists that become targeted by a demented xenophobic serial killer who hunts them down with the intent to kill them. This film was based on a series of real-life backpacker murders that happened in Australia a few years before the film was released.

In horror circles, this film has a reputation, it is held up as being a great slasher film and one of the best Australian horror films. However when I put it on I was incredibly disappointed with it. I thought it was boring and that it couldn’t hold a candle to other Australian horror gems like The Babadook and Boar.

I thought the only redeemable thing about this film is John Jarrett. Jarrett is an Australian national treasure and his involvement with this is the thing that got me excited for it. He plays the evil killer Mick Taylor and he gives the best performance he can, he is manic and off the wall and his character is the only really memorable part of this film.

My issues start with the fact that this film is boring, there is only about 10 minutes of it that are actually interesting and watchable. This film suffers from some of the worst pacing issues I have seen in a long time, the first act is a chore to get through and makes you want to turn it off and it doesn’t pick up until the last 10 minutes; even they aren’t worth the wait.

The characters are bland and forgettable and the based on true story bent to it has been done to death and this film is not doing anything new or interesting with it.

Overall, this film is a bore and one that is a test of strength to finish

Pros.

John Jarrett.

Cons.

It is boring.

It does nothing new with the format.

The characters are paper thin.

It takes a lot to finish it.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Military Wives: Missing The Note

Military Wives is a based on real life comedy drama film directed by Peter Cattaneo. The film attempts to tell the story of the Military Wives Choir, showing the trials and tribulations the group went through as well as the individual women’s struggles.

Damn, I went into this thinking it would be a quirky comedy and crucially an easy-going good time, and oh my I was wrong. This film is depressing, I don’t know if I just didn’t get the humour of it, but I didn’t think there was a single funny moment in the whole film. However, there was enough sad/depressing moments that I almost had to turn it off and put something else on.

I do believe there is a kernel of a good film somewhere here, however it gets lost through poor execution and weak writing. This film tries to do the whole Fisherman’s Friends thing, by that I mean tell the real-life story of an unlikely band’s rise to fame and play on your emotions. However, where the mushiness in that film felt genuine because you cared about the characters and it is well done, here it just feels too much and comes off as ineffective.

I don’t feel like any of the performances in this film were particularly great, or worth talking about. The only one of note perhaps is Kristen Scott Thomas as Kate, Thomas made the most out of a weak script and is the only actor who is even remotely convincing.

Overall, I think the issue with this film is that it tried to play on the audiences’ emotions, but it failed in the worst way and the only thing it made you feel was depressed. This is also a failure of execution and writing as it is also incredibly obvious and predicatable.

Pros.

Kristen Scott Thomas.

Cons.

It is boring.

It does make you feel anything.

You will leave it feeling depressed.

The performances are weak as hell.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Narcos Mexico (Season 2): Once Upon A Time In Mexico.

Narcos Mexico (Season 2) is a crime TV series which focuses on the war on drugs. More specifically how it all started, the rise of the Mexican Cartels and the fall of of Miguel Gallardo (Diego Luna), the fallout from the kidnapping of Kiki Camarena and the US response to capture those involved.

Well done! That is what I would say if I could talk to the creative team behind this season, not only have they laid to rest all my fears about this show from the first season, but they managed to create a genuinely tense throughout excellent to watch crime show. Each episode the stakes get raised higher and higher as the DEA and the Cartel, go to further extreme lengths to get what they want. My one complaint with this side of things is that I would have liked to see them to a little further with things sink further into extremes, though I suppose they are hamstrung by real life history.

The performances are top notch here as well, I had issues with Michael Pena’s performance last season, I think his character is incredibly dull and as a result you don’t really care when he dies. However, season 2 remedies this by giving us Walt (Scoot McNairy), a morally complex character who is far more engaging and interesting than last season’s protagonist ever was.

The best thing this season does in my opinion is set up the war to come. One of my issues with season one is that it felt drawn out, season 2 however, feel just long enough: it shows us Gallardo’s last year on top and then teases us with the coming war between Tijuana and Sinaloa cartels. Anyone who keeps up to date on the war on drugs/ or watches Netflix’s El Chapo series will know of the madness to come and the ending monologue of this season ties it all together nicely, “the animals are out of their cage now”.

Overall, a huge step-up in my opinion, a thrill ride through which is helped greatly by a new and better lead and the promise of something big to come. This should definitely be your next Netflix binge.

Pros.

Scoot McNairy.

Diego Luna.

Perfect pacing.

Thrilling throughout.

The tease of wars to come.

Cons.

None.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Fisherman’s Friends: What Shall We Do With A Drunken Sailor

Fisherman’s Friends is a biographical comedy drama film directed by Chris Foggin. The film is based on the true story of Port Issacs’s Fisherman’s Friends a group of Cornish fishermen who signed a £1 million-pound deal with Universal Records and had their first album be a top 10 hit.

This film is from the creative team behind the romantic comedy hit Finding Your Feet, so that should give you a good idea as to what sort of film this is going to be: a feel-good romantic comedy, with an added musical competent. The music of this film is easily one of the best things about it, there is such an interesting and unique quality to sea shanties that I hadn’t realised until now, but I really dug it when I heard it.

James Purefoy plays one of the main fishermen, the unofficial leader, and the father of Danny’s (Daniel Mays) love interest Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton). Purefoy is as always, a joy to see on screen, he effortlessly gives the best performance in this film and for an adding bonus he can sing as well. Purefoy really is one of Britain’s best and most underrated performers and to me he is a national treasure right alongside people like Idris Elba, Judy Dench, Keira Knightly and Daniel Craig.

The main issue with this film is that it ends midway through, by that I mean the main story, the bands rise to fame and fortune ends at the hour and 15 minute mark, I thought this was the end of the film; imagine my surprise when it kept on going for another 45 minutes. Everything after this point is filler, that’s the truth, it revolves around a pub being sold, said pub is the heart of the town so everyone is very upset; why they chose to keep this very random plot thread in the final cut is anyone’s guess, but it certainly doesn’t add anything. To me the film ends when the band become famous, I just don’t care about the pub drama.

Overall, this is a light-hearted, wholesome sort of film, the sort of film that would pep you up after a bad day, it isn’t the best film you will ever see nor is it the worst. It is a shame they add all that extra baggage about the pub into the narrative and it could have been better structured, but it is still fun.

3/5

Pros.

The Music.

The Romance.

James Purefoy the only thing that pulls this film out of mediocrity.

Cons.

It ends midway though.

Terrible pacing.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Bohemian Rhapsody: The Man Behind The Band

Bohemian Rhapsody is a musical biopic drama film. The plot revolves around the life of Queen front-man Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), his rise to fame, his years with Queen and then his death. This film pulls no punches where that latter period is concerned, I have heard people criticise it, but I think it deals with his aids diagnosis and death in a dignified way.

Before I get into the review, yes, I know this film was directed by a prolific abuser, but it can still be enjoyed as a film in spite of that fact.

My first impression of Malek’s Freddy was that I didn’t like him, I didn’t like what Malek was doing with him, I thought it was cheesy and over the top. However, over the course of the film, especially towards the end, I had a drastic change of heart and Malek really won me round with his performance: he particularly excels in the film’s emotional moments.

What’s more this film reminded me how much I like Queen and their music, each one of their most famous songs were used and in a way that made them feel relevant, rather than in other musical biopics when they feel forced in for the sake of it. I particularly thought ‘We Are The Champions’ was done beautifully in the context of the film.

My one issue with the film is that it has too many characters. This film is supposed to be a Freddy Mercury biopic and for the most part he does get centre stage, but at the same time there are a lot of needless sub-plots and side characters that I found to be distracting. In that same vein I found the moments of the film where the focus shifted to the other members of Queen to be dull, this is after all a story about Freddy Mercury, this to me felt like the surviving members of Queen forcing themselves in, as they were heavily involved in making this film.

Overall, I think this is a great musical biopic, it did everything you would want a biopic about Freddy Mercury to do, it gave you a look at his life and at him as a person. The songs I thought were used to good effect and my only critique is that it could have been more organised and focused.

Pros.

Malek.

The Songs.

A good look at the man behind the band.

Didn’t stray away from darker areas.

Cons.

Too many characters that stole focus.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Narcos Mexico Season 1: A New Era Of Narcos

Narcos Mexico Season 1 is a crime drama series and spin-off to the Netflix series Narcos. The new series as the name would suggest shifts the focus of the program from the cocaine fields of Columbia to the weed fields of Mexico, though some familiar faces do make a return. The series chronicles the rise of the Guadalajara Cartel and Felix Gallardo’s (Diego Luna), kidnapping of American DEA Agent Kiki Camarena (Michael Pena).

To briefly describe this series, it is more of the same, if you liked Narcos and enjoyed seeing the DEA slowly busting drug dealers over a period of years than you will enjoy this. As usually there are some cheer worthy monuments (in this season it is the burning of the weed fields), some sad moments (Kiki’s death), and a hell of a lot of frustration as the corrupt system gets in the way of these agents doing their job.

As someone who loved all of that in previous seasons, I fully enjoyed Narcos Mexico Season 1, I found it to be both captivating and thrilling and it proves the creative team behind the show still has it.

Michael Pena plays against type here, he has done some dramatic work before (End Of Watch, Fury), but he is mainly known for his more comedic work. He played Kiki as a man on a mission, much like characters of past seasons his whole life revolved around bringing the drug lord to justice. My one issue is that the character could be annoying at times and do reckless and dangerous things without thinking about his family, who had moved down to Mexico with him.

I thought Luna’s Gallardo was a villain on the same level of Pablo Escobar (Wagner Moura), this is exactly what the series needed and was the issue the final series of Narcos was disappointing: because the villains were lacking. My one issue on this side of things was that I would have preferred to see Gallardo’s rise and fall within one series as opposed to two, it just feels more dragged out. A lot of episodes have plot points that go nowhere and feel put into pad out the 50+ minute runtime.

Overall, Narcos Mexico Season 1 is good, the characters are working and that is what made the first two series of Narcos feel so special, I still have a few issues with it, such as I feel like it didn’t need to be spread over two seasons and that I found Kiki’s character annoying at times. Ps. Don’t even get me started on Raffa or more adeptly the worst character ever written.

Pros.

Back to basics in a good way.

Interesting new villain.

It feels fresh again.

Cons.

It is too dragged out.

Some of the characters are annoying.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke