A United Kingdom: One Of Africa’s Greatest Romance’s

A United Kingdom is a British biographical romance drama film directed by Amma Asante. The plot follows the real-life story of Sir Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo), and Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike) Khama, a king to be who defied the world and married a common English women. Their love was met with hate and strife at damn near every turn, but they kept fighting.

I think this film is a triumph, it was sweet, compelling, and also infuriating and a bit sickening at times. Film’s like this highlight how far as a society we have come, but also how much further we have to go.

I found the romance between Oyelowo and Pike to be entirely believable, they had a strong chemistry that carried throughout the film. Both actors gave incredibly good performance with Oyelowo’s maybe taking the cake. The part when he is speaking to his people and trying to convince them why he has brought an English woman to be there Queen and he has tears rolling down his face is nothing short of powerful.

My one complaint of the film would be that it has pacing issues, as is often the case with biographical film, I understand that it has a lot of history to tell as it doesn’t want to leave anything out, but it feels a lot longer than 111 minutes.

Overall, a strong film that you need to watch. The love on display is compelling and proves that if we are ever to overcome hate we must all embrace the love we have for each other.

Pros.

Believable chemistry

David Oyelowo

Rosamund Pike

Powerful and effecting

Cons.

It feels much longer than it actually is

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Jungle: Lost In The Wilderness

Jungle is a biopic survival film directed by Greg McLean. The plot follows young Israeli explorer Yossi Ghinsberg (Daniel Radcliffe), who gets stranded alone in the amazon for three week, the film details his fight to stay alive.

This is a harrowing film especially towards the end when you can see the physical and mental tole the whole ordeal has had on Yossi; it makes you question just how much the human spirit can endure. Adding to that when it is revealed that Karl (Thomas Kretschmann), was not who he said he was and that he had taken other people out to the jungle before, with said people never coming back, it adds a whole chilling other tone to the film.

I think for his part Radcliffe is trying his best, he gives a strong performance especially with the physicality of it but is limited by a weak script. That would be my fundamental problem with this film, the way it is structed and set out from a writing sense. The bit up until Yossi is left behind feels like it goes on for ten years, it is painfully dull and takes up far too much of the film. Likewise the actual survival parts of the film, the interesting bits, feels far too short almost rushed.

Overall, I can only recommend the last half an hour of this film, as that is the only bit that is compelling and interesting. The rest feels torturously slow and drawn out being crippled by poor writing.

Pros.

Radcliffe

The very real feel of the survival parts of the film/ the physical transformation

Cons.

It is incredibly slow

The writing is bad

There is only half an hour of the film that is interesting

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Lucy In The Sky: The Reason Why Noah Hawley’s Star Trek Film Is ‘On Hold’

Lucy In The Sky is a drama film directed by Noah Hawley. The plot follows Lucy Cola (Natalie Portman), an astronaut who has a great deal of trouble returning to normal life on earth.

This film is the definition of the word pretentious; Hawley thinks that by using some cool transitions and fancy cuts that he can disguise the fact that he has a stinker of a film on his hands. I found the smugness or more aptly the self-importance of this film to be incredibly off-putting. I like Hawley’s TV projects, but yeah this bad, put your Star Trek film on indefinite hold kind of bad.

Portman is okay, she is clearly trying a lot with her performance, but her character come off right from the start of the film as loathsome. The film goes out of its way to try and make her sympathetic, but she just not. By the end of the film you want her to go to prison, she deserves it.

The worst crime of this film is how long it feels, yes it is on for just over two hours which is already quite long, but it feels double that. A lot of the section just feel needless drawn out as though they’re trying to kill time.

Overall, this may be the worst film of Natalie Portman’s career

Pros.

The artsy transitions are cool for five minutes

Cons.

It is boring

The lead is incredibly unlikable

It is smug and in your face with it

It has severe pacing issues

0.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Radioactive: Science’s Double Edged Sword

Radioactive is a historical biopic directed by Marjane Satrapi. The plot recounts the life of famed scientist Marie Sklodowska-Curie, or as the world came to know her Madame Curie, (Rosamund Pike). We see her first breakthroughs, the romance with the love of her life (who was also her scientific partner), and her coming to realise the incredibly harmful side effects of her science changing discovery.

Much like the other Rosamund Pike biopic that I covered recently, A Private War, this is not a cheery watch. It is very informative, and you learn a great deal, even if the film is a little ham-fisted with these ‘lessons’, but yeah maybe you will want to watch something a bit happier once you’re done.

What I mean when I am talking about these ham-fisted lessons, is this film throws everything it can at you to show how destructive radium in its many forms can be; it shows you Hiroshima, it shows you Chernobyl it is very in your face with it. It does show to a much lesser degree the positive impact that Curie’s discovery has had on society, but it gets buried under all the negativity. I understand, the point was probably to show that all scientific discoveries can be both good and bad, but it feels uneven.

Rosamund Pike proves her chameleon like nature once again and becomes unrecognisable sinking into the character. Phenomenal stuff. Her fellow cast mate Anya Taylor-Joy however sticks out like a sore thumb as Curie’s daughter. She doesn’t feel like she exists in that time period, it feels like someone acting, which isn’t a good thing.

Overall, a reverting watch if a little upsetting. Pike once again shines bright.

Pros.

Captivating

Pike

Cons.

It is very sad

Taylor-Joy sticks out

The commentary is a little one-sided

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

A Private War: Horrors Need To Be Seen

A Private War is a biography drama film directed by Matthew Heineman. The film recounts the last years of celebrated war correspondent Marie Colvin’s life, as she becomes consumed by the need to be on the front line and show the horrors of war, a need that leads to her death. It is a true story.

Before, we get into this I just want to say that this film is unrepentantly bleak, you will leave this film feeling sad and possibly angry, but that proves why you need to see it. The issues raised herein are very real and are still happening right now, human evil is alive and flourishing.

This is a very powerful film that has a lot to say, it show us how these journalists are risking their lives to show us the truth about wars all around the world. It shows us the horrific human cost of war, which often has thousands of innocent victims.

Rosamund Pike is giving the performance of her career as Marie, she plays the character as a woman possessed, she desperately needs to leave the war correspondent lifestyle behind, but crucially she can’t. Pike is one of the finest character actors currently working and this film hammers that point home.

Overall, not a film that will make you feel happy and not one that everyone will enjoy, but a very impactful film with a many valid points. I recommend it.

Pros.

It is upfront and doesn’t shy away from the truth

Rosamund Pike

It is very affecting; it will haunt you for a while after you watch it.

Shines a light on someone you might not know much about.

Cons.

It is a very hard watch.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

First Man: One Small Step To Get My Money Back

First Man is a biopic historical film directed by Damien Chazelle. The plot shows the life of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling), as he loses his daughter and enters the space program that would eventually lead him to the Moon. Chazelle has said he wanted this film to dive into Armstrong as a person rather than focus entirely on the Moon Landing.

So, I applaud Chazelle for not wanting to focus on the Moon Landing and instead wanting to focus on Armstrong as a person. I thought this film was at its strongest when it was showing these intimate character moments. Gosling mostly caries these scenes well and treats them with the significance they deserve, thought there are a few times when I thought he needed to emote more. His facial acting was hit and miss throughout the film.

My biggest issue with this film is how long it is. This film does not need to be two hour and twenty minutes, it does not justify that length. The film feels overly indulgent, it stretches out scenes that could be over in a few minute and worst of all, a good two thirds of the scenes especially in the second act feel like filler as the big Lunar landing is saved until the end.

Overall, I think the studio gave Chazelle too much leeway because of the success of La La Land as a result he made a bloated film that might have strong moments of well-done character study but is as a whole, boring.

Pros.

Not focusing on the Moon Landing

The drama and the personal moments.

Cons.

Gosling’s facial acting is off point

There is too much bloat

It is in desperate need of a tighter edit.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

Behind The Candelabra: Leaving Liberace

Behind The Candelabra is a biographic drama film directed by Steven Soderbergh. The plot covers the last years of Liberace’s (Michael Douglas) life and his highly troublesome romance with Scott Thorson (Matt Damon).

So, my takeaway from this film was ‘damn wasn’t Liberace a bad guy’.

As far as biopics go this was incredibly well done, it was very engaging, and the train wreck worth of drama made it very hard to look away even for a second. I applaud it forgiving us a look at Liberace the person in a very enclosed time period rather than just giving a brief overview of his career. I also applaud it for showing the good and the bad, something modern biopics have struggled to do, thought I probably does help that the subject is dead and that his friends didn’t have huge involvement with the project.

Douglas and Damon both gave terrific performances and drifted into their characters; they were entirely convincing.

My one issue with this film is that it has a tendency to verge on melodrama. There are multiple scenes in this film that would not be amiss in a reality tv show, and yes, I understand that Liberace was a very larger than life type of figure, but it became a bit much at times.

Overall, this was captivating and held my attention well for the almost two hours’ worth of runtime.

Pros.

Showing the good and the bad

A shorter focus

Great performances and cameos

Hard to look away

Cons.

A bit too much like reality tv at times

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Lost City Of Z: Madness Under The Sun

The Lost City Of Z is a historical biopic directed by James Gray based on the book of the same name by David Grann. The plot follows the life of legendary British explorer Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam), as he searches for what he calls ‘Z’, a lost civilisation located somewhere in the Amazon.

I had high expectations going into this, I have read the book and I enjoyed it. This film very much captures the spirit of the book whilst also changing key parts. An example of such a change is the ending, in the book Grann concludes that Fawcett and his son Jack (Tom Holland in the film), were killed by native tribes. Whereas the film ends on a happier note and suggests that they might still be alive living amongst the natives.

For the most part I enjoyed this film, I think it told the story of Fawcett’s life and disappearance well. I thought Hunnam was a solid leading man, he convincingly pulled off the soldier turned explorer look and never broke my belief. He was however upstaged in the acting department by Robert Pattinson who played Fawcett’s faithful right-hand man Henry Costin. Pattinson clearly lost himself in the role and was borderline unrecognisable, another great performance by the young actor.

My main issue with the film was how long it was, at almost two and a half hours this film feels like a slog. It frequently lost my interest and felt incredibly self-indulgent.

Overall, a solid adaptation that has a very issue.

Pros.

A faithful recreation

The performances

The twist on the ending

Cons.

It is too long

It is badly paced and therefore boring

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Shirley: The Rise Of Elizabeth Moss

Shirley is a biographical drama film directed by Josephine Decker. The plot recounts the life of Shirley Jackson the famous horror writer, showing her struggles and her triumphs as she writes a novel and battles the world.

This film is good for two main reasons: the writing and Elizabeth Moss.

Moss is quietly making a name for herself in the horror/ thriller space, and for good reason to. She is captivating to watch on screen and her face conveys emotion with ease. We believe her characters mental struggles, we believe the genius and it is all because of Moss who shows us a myriad of emotions with ease.

The other strength is the writing that seamlessly merges different plot lines and sub plots to create a very dense layered overall narrative. The character dialogue is tense and snappy, it reminds me of Sorkin in a way. The thrills don’t come from anything scary or from any intense action, but rather from the subtly of the dialogue and the jagged barbs hidden within.

My one complaint of the film is that it is too long. The last act drags, and I would say the film as a whole is about fifteen to twenty minutes too long, as I was losing interest towards the end- this is the films fatal flaw.

Overall, this is a very tense emotional ride with a great performance from Elizabeth Moss.

Pros.

The dialogue

Moss

The mystery and the drama

The trippy sequences

Cons

The third act is poorly paced.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Florence Foster Jenkins: Streep Can’t Sing?

Florence Foster Jenkins is a comedy drama biopic directed by Stephen Frears. The plot follows Jenkins (Meryl Streep), an aging amateur opera singer, as she dreams of success on the stage, the only issue is that she can’t actually sing.

I thought it many ways this was a surprisingly touching film, the final scene of the film between Jenkins and her husband made me feel something. I cared about the characters and I wanted her to achieve her dream and become a serious singer. The performances from Grant and Streep are also excellent as well, both of them are so clearly in love with one another and care so deeply it is very endearing. From a character point of view this film is a triumph.

However, from a pacing perspective it is not. Oh god no. This film is on for just shy of two hours, but it feels a lot longer. For long stretches of time very little happens, and it feels as though the film is being padded out, I firmly believe there is no reason a good half hour of this film couldn’t have been cut. To that point we also have a whole collection of side characters and sub plots that lead nowhere and achieve very little making you question their need for inclusion within the film.

Overall, emotional this film is something it has strong moments that make you feel, but these are few and far between and for the most part you’re left bored and wondering how much longer is left.

Pros.

Streep and Grant.

The emotion.

Cons.

Too long.

Too many characters.

Not enough to keep your interest.

2/5