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

The Full Monty: Bearing It All

The Full Monty is a comedy film directed by Peter Cattaneo. The plot follows a group of unemployed men in Sheffield who turning to striping to make money. This film isn’t afraid to touch on some very real, very dark themes, such as the rights of a father, body image and sexuality, but it handles them all in a thoughtful and mature way.

This is one of those late 90’s early 2000’s films that were social realist with a twist of fantasy in there. It tries to show the world in a realistic way, not in a Hollywood happy ending sort of way, there is a touch of happiness at the end, but the fate of the guys if left relatively ambiguous. It is in the same sort of vein as Trainspotting.

Robert Carlyle does a great job as Gaz, he plays him as a man who has made a few mistakes, his life hasn’t turned out the way he wanted it to, but he always tries to do right by his son. I liked this angle for the character and thought that the relationship between father and son worked well and was affecting, especially when it looked as though Gaz wasn’t going to be able to see his son anymore.

Another thing that I thought worked really well was Mark Addy’s Dave. Dave has body confidence issue that deeply affect him, we the audience don’t realise this right away, however throughout the film we see how his issues are controlling and ruining his life and his marriage and it breaks your heart. Like I said before this film doesn’t pull any punches it hits you in the face with these unpleasant truths about life and they make you think. I think Dave and the way he is represented on screen is so important for cinema as a whole, as it shows people who are suffering from similar issues that they are not alone.

Overall, I think this film doesn’t really work as a comedy film it didn’t make me laugh once, but it works incredibly well as a drama film. It has a strong message about loving yourself and how there is always hope for tomorrow as well as highlighting a lot of the struggles people have to go through on a day to day basis. Dave’s struggle with body confidence has stayed with me since I saw the film a few days ago and I think that proves just how powerful it is. Half a really important social commentary, half an unfunny comedy film.

I’m mixed.

Pros.

Robert Carlyle.

Mark Addy’s character works on so many levels and the struggle he has to go through is one that so many people can relate to, as such it is deeply impactful.

The social commentary and darker themes.

Cons.

It is not at all funny.

It does drag on a bit at times.

3.5/5

Reviewed By Luke

The Wicker Man: Not A Bee In Sight

The Wicker Man is a British horror film directed by Robin Hardy. The film centres on Sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward), who travels to the remote Summerisle to try and find a missing girl, and once he arrives, he finds that the locals have abandoned Christianity and have embraced a pagan religion that involves human sacrifice.

This film is the stuff of filmmaking legend not just in the horror genre, but in British cinema in general. It is one of the best UK horror exports. The reason why it is so revered is because it plays on the fear of ‘others’: people who aren’t like us, and in this case in positions them as a direct threat to Christianity. There is a shocking and unpredictable nature to this film which is accompanied by a creep building sense of fear and permeates the whole film.

To me this film reminded me somewhat of Children of the Corn as they both had an underlying sense of something isn’t right here and has the antagonists worship some other evil deity, that is proven to be real to some extent. The Wicker Man also plays on the idea of being single minded, the protagonist is so convinced that his Christian way is right that he is blind to everything going on around him; a mistake that proves to be fatal.

The late great Christopher Lee appears in this film and he is phenomenal. Not only is he terrifying but he has that cult leader quality; the ability to convince others to do what he says through sheer magnetism. Lee proves his worth as a horror master a veteran of the genre, his Lord Summerisle should give you goose bumps.

There are some explicit scenes here and there that serve a purpose narratively but do feel a little over the top. The thing about these scenes is that they seem to come out of nowhere, they serve the purpose of showing how the pagan society clashes with the protagonist’s Christian views and can be viewed as quite shocking, especially when the film came out.

Overall this film is a masterpiece of horror filmmaking, it has been copied into modern horror (here’s looking at you Midsommar) because there is a timeless quality to this story that will never go out of fashion. A Must Watch!

Pros.

A Fantastic Culture Clash.

A Compelling Mystery.

Christopher Lee.

A Very Unique Identity.

Great Atmosphere And Horror.

Cons.

None

5/5

Reviewed By Luke

East Is East: Life Is What You Make It

‘East Is East’ is a British comedy-drama directed by Damien O’Donnell. The plot revolves around a mixed ethnicity family with a Pakistani Father, George (Om Puri), and an English Mother Ella (Linda Bassett). The film explores ideas around identity and heritage, as George thinks his kids have become too English and have lost their culture, while his kids despise him for his strict, antiquated ways. The film is based on the play of the same name written by Ayub Khan-Dim, who also writes this film.

Over the years, I have seen this film many times, and the more you watch it the more layers you see are visible in it. Because on the surface it is mainly a comedy film with a few dramatic scenes thrown in, but if you look a bit deeper you see it is about a generation of kids that want to make their own identity, want to go down their own path; they don’t want to be told by their dad how to be, they just want to be themselves.

The kids all give great performances that have range, there is Tariq (Jimi Mistry), who is rebellious and wants to be in charge of his own destiny and then there is Maneer (Emil Marwa), who is everything his father would want him to be obedient. This film likes complexity, it likes to show how all the characters want freedom, they want to be able to shape their own destiny, but they are all going about it in their own way. The situation is affecting them all differently

Furthermore, this film has some really uncomfortable scenes, namely when George beats Maneer and then his wife. These scenes sharply contrast the comedy that we have so far been laughing along with and show a whole other side to the dynamic of the film that is deeply unpleasant to see. These scenes do have something to say and are not just put in for shock value, the abusive behavior feels natural for George’s characters, who as we already know is the sort of person who would completely disown one of his kids.

Overall, this is a staple of British Cinema for me and I think it has a lot to say about life and identity and it does it all well, with a healthy dose of laughter and a few scenes to hammer home the more serious points; both of these elements are in perfect harmony with each other. If you have already seen this then it is a must watch.

Pros.

Representation.

Characters You Care About.

Not Afraid To Get Real.

Charming And Funny.

Great Performances From Everyone.

Cons.

None

5/5

Reviewed By Luke

Eden Lake: Broken, Boring and Blatant

‘Eden Lake’ is a British horror film written and directed by James Watkins. The plot sees a couple going on holiday to a quarry, in some unnamed part of England, whilst there they are stalked by a group of young people, who want to torture and eventually kill them.

I find this film offensively bad. My main issue with it, and if you don’t like politics sorry skip to the next paragraph, is that it demonises the working class in Britain. ‘Eden Lake’ was one of those films that explored the idea of ‘Broken Britain’ much like it’s contemporary ‘Harry Brown’. The issue with these sorts of films is that it often portrays the narrative often from a very middle-class viewpoint, this film especially. We are supposed to be scared of the dangerous ‘chav’ kids, rather than think of the sort of life they have had that has led them to this point. This whole narrative to me feels cheap and exploitative. Furthermore, it perpetuates this false idea that if people of means leave a big city or their home, they will be immediately forced into danger.

Not only that, but the writing feels like a collection of horror clichés with the protagonists Steve (Michael Fassbender), and Jenny (Kelly Reilly), being written to be the dumbest possible characters. You know when you watch a horror film and you are saying to yourself, “Switch The Lights on” or “Don’t Go Up There”, but they do it anyway, as they seem programmed to do the dumbest possible people and they do things that nobody would do in that situation: well that’s how the characters are here. I like horror films like ‘You’re Next’ where the characters are actually written with some intelligence, rather than deliberately doing stupid things that put them in danger and then just sitting around to face the consequences. Yes, I know a lot of the time characters are written like this to advance the plot or to set certain scenes up, but once again it feels very lazy.

Overall for a cheap low budget British horror film, it could have been a lot worse, but even still it doesn’t excuse the weak class baiting sort of writing and the paper-thin characters. I am glad that Fassbender and Reilly went on to bigger and better things and this film can be thrown in the bin of history and left to be forgotten.

Pros.

It’s Not The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen.

Cons.

It Feels Cheap.

It’s Manipulatively Written.

It Doesn’t Belong In Modern Times & It Has A Bad Message.

The Characters Aren’t Even Paper Thin, They’re Somehow Lesser Than That.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Favourite: Gaining The Queen’s Favor

‘The Favourite’ is a period black comedy film directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. It revolves around two cousins Sarah (Rachel Weisz), and Abigail (Emma Stone), who are both vying to be the court favourite of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman), there is no extreme these cousins/ rivals will not go to in their quest to oust the other.

This is a pitch-black comedy film and it knows it, if you have that sort of comedy sensibilities then you will think that this film is hilarious. Both Weisz and Stone are hilarious proving that they both have great comedy chops. The film takes how bleak and depressing life was in this period and makes a joke out of it at every turn. Everything in this film is played up to an almost manic degree, an example of this would be the two rival factions that run the government that both want the Queen’s attention. One of these factions is lead by Harley (Nicholas Hoult), who is a delightfully over the top hammy sub-antagonist.

There are some moments in this film where the comedy ends and there are some moments that really tug on the heartstrings, an example of this would be when Queen Anne tells Abigail about all the children she has lost. This shows how ‘The Favourite’ can shoot on both fronts and do well, both in comedy as well as in drama. A lot of this drama is done to perfection by Colman, but more on here later.

My one issue with this film is that the ending isn’t very strong. The ending is quite introspective and almost trippy in a way which doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the film, but this didn’t really affect my overall enjoyment of the film.

Finally, I just want to say about the phenomenal job that Olivia Colman does, this is after all the film that won her an Oscar. Colman plays Anne as a broken soul, a person that has lost a lot and just wants to be loved, she has almost has a childlike innocence to her performance that makes it so tragic.

Overall, this film is a masterclass in dark comedy and if you like things like ‘The Death Of Stalin’ or ‘The Thick Of It’ you will find something to like here, the film is let down by it’s ending, but is fantastic in every other respect.

Pros.

Genuinely Funny.

Also Has Great Emotional Stakes.

Weisz And Stone Are Both Fantastic.

So Is Colman.

Cons.

The Ending Is Disappointing.

3.5/5

Reviewed By Luke

The Woman In Black, Angel of Death: The Fight For A Random Orphan

‘The Woman In Black: Angel of Death’ is a supernatural horror film and is a sequel to 2012 ‘Woman In Black’ film. The plot this time around follows Eve Parkin (Phoebe Fox), a school teacher who accompanies some of her pupils out of the city during the London Blitz, the house they arrive at is, of course, Eel Marsh House; home to the infamous Woman In Black.

If you read my review of the first film, you know that I love the ‘Woman In Black’ it is a classic British ghost story and one of the best horror films in modern years. However, at no point did I or, anyone else think that it needed a sequel.

Angel of Death falls to the same pitfalls as ‘Sinister 2’, by that I mean they lose the mystique of their predecessor by over-exposing their villains. The reason why this film worked was that the titular woman herself was very rarely shown, a lot of the time her presences would be implied, but crucially she wasn’t shown. As a result, she remains quite a mysterious figure, and that is frightening, the issue will overly showing a villain like this is that by doing it, they become less scary.

That is something that is very true of this film: it just isn’t as scary. It tries to recapture the same creepy atmosphere as the same film and, the same sense of tension, but it can’t. Because we didn’t need this film all of the scares and, everything the Woman In Black does has been done before and better.

I never realised until I watched this film how much we needed Daniel Radcliffe, though he didn’t do anything fantastic, he is heads and shoulders better than the protagonist this time around. Eve is simply a blank slate, she is boring and generic, she has a subplot about how she had her kid taken away from her which draws a parallel with the titular Woman herself, but this is never explored enough to be impactful.

The fight over Edward (Oaklee Pendergast), a young orphan boy, between Eve and, The Woman In Black has no power at all as you don’t care about the protagonist. Whatmore, the end twist being that The Woman In Black is still around and coming for Edward is lazy, and feels like a blatant attempt to set up a sequel, very much like how ‘Sinister 2’ ended.

Overall this is a cash grab sequel if there ever was one, there is nothing new here, it is a far cry from the first film in all the worst ways and proves Daniel Radcliffe’s ability as a leading man.

Cons.
It Pales In Comparison.
The Protagonist is Bland.
It Does Nothing New With The Woman In Black.
It Demystifies The Woman In Black.
You Just Don’t Care.

Pros.
It’s Watchable.
It Has A Few Good Moments.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Woman In Black: A Good Ghost Story Is Never Beat

‘Woman In Black’ is a 2012 supernatural horror film: the plot focuses on a young Lawyer called Arthur (Daniel Radcliffe), who goes to Eel March House to settle some business. While he is there, he is terrorised by the menacing Woman In Black. The woman herself is a vengeful spirit, as she took her own life after her son died in an accident; she vowed to “never forget and never forgive” and now she forces local children to take their own lives so that their parents can feel the same pain she felt. Arthur tries to lay her spirit to rest and stop the child suicides.

I remember when this film came out, it was talked about as though it was the scariest thing ever, and as a young teen when I first saw this, I would agree with this consensus. Even now, when I am far older, and I’ve delved further into the murky waters of the horror genre, I would still say this is one of the scariest films I have ever seen.

This is the quintessential British ghost story, there is something so unsettling about this film it is there in the harsh oppressive world of the moors and in the fact that in the shadows is a Woman who will never stop, never be at peace, until you know her pain. The horror works so well in this film because of the fact that the actual Woman In Black herself is very sparingly used, the mere mention of her, or threat of her presence is enough to creep you out.

I can’t think of anything more chilling that the opening scene of this film, wherein 3 young girls all walk out of a window together as The Woman In Black stands by ominously watching; still to this day, that scene will give me goosebumps. The more we learn about The Woman, the more we understand her motivations and see that she is a force of nature rather than something that can be reasoned with.

Daniel Radcliffe does a good job here, in one of his first post Potter projects, he proves here as he does in later films in his filmography that he has a wonderful range and is, in fact, quite a talented actor. We see his character as a beacon of hope fighting back against the seemingly unbeatable forces of darkness and despair.

Overall, this film is a triumph, it is a masterpiece a testament to British horror and to Hammer Horror as well. It is a must-see for all horror fans and anyone else looking for a fright.

Pros.
The Atmosphere.
The Sparing Use Of The Monster.
Daniel Radcliffe.
British Horror.
The Chilling Nature.

Cons.
It Can Be A Bit Slow.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Chicken Run: Who Is Really Escaping Who

‘Chicken Run’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, focusing on the efforts of a group of Chickens to escape the farm they live on before they get turned into pies. ‘Chicken Run’ is Aardman Animation’s first film as such, it set the benchmark for the studio.

Though many love this film, I think it is a weak start for the studio. I think though the film is serviceable and, not offputtingly bad, it pales in comparison to Aardman’s later works.

Stop-motion animation for me is hit or miss, sometimes in the case of things like ‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ it can work well and enhance the film overall, whereas in films like ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ it can be vile and off-putting. This film I would say is more like the latter than the former the stop-motion animation, for the most part, is good, much like the studios later work with Wallace and Gromit, but there is something off about the human characters; specifically their faces.

The two main human characters are Mr Tweedy (Tony Haygarth), and Mrs Tweedy (Miranda Richardson), they’re both serving the antagonist role; while they’re meant to be threatening, they’re not meant to be creepy. However, there is something about the stop-motion animation with these characters that gives them an unsettling look; there is something about their cold dead eyes and manic facial design that is deeply off-putting and, I can only assume that this was unintentional; as this is not a horror film.

However, the stop-motion animation of the chickens is fine, so at least that is a small mercy. My issue with the chickens is that I don’t find them likeable, they never connected with me, the humour that characters like Fowler (Benjamin Whitrow), provide does nothing for me at all, it doesn’t land.

A lot of the chicken characters are annoying stereotypes this is best shown in Babs, (Jane Horrocks), who is there to provide comedic relief but the whole joke is that she is dumb. Overall I found this to be a very charmless film. What’s more, the fact that they include Mel Gibson as an American Rooster called Rocky feels forced in as though having a big Hollywood name on the poster would sell more tickets. It feels like more of a Dreamworks decision rather than an Aardman Animation one.

Overall this film will do fine entertaining small children but, anything beyond that is a harder sell. The main issue with this film is that it lacks any kind of charm at all. At least Aardman Animations film’s after this improved.

Pros.
It Is Watchable.

Cons.
It Is Strangely Creepy.
The Humour Doesn’t Work.
The Characters Are Unlikable.
Mel Gibson Feels Out Of Place.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington 2: Paddington Goes To Prison

‘Paddington 2’ is a live-action animated film and sequel to the 2014 Paddington film. The plot this time around sees Paddington (Ben Whishaw), be implicated in a crime, after a pop-up book of London, that Paddington was going to buy for this aunt’s birthday goes missing. This results in everyone’s favourite Peruvian bear going to prison and the Brown family having to try and prove his innocence.

‘Paddington 2’ is a very strange film to me, in many ways it is because I didn’t see the plot of this film coming. Not only was I not expecting to see Paddington as a jailbird this time around, but I also wasn’t expecting the shift in tone. Make no mistake this is still a happy family film, but there is definitely more of a sense of melancholy this time around; a sadness in the air. The reason why this moodier tone works is because of the first film; it made us care about Paddington as a character, perhaps more deeply than we first realised, as such when we see him lose the court trial and, go to prison it can’t help but break your heart.

The Villain of the film Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), fixes my only issue with the first film, that being the villain was weak, Buchanan is a central part of the narrative throughout. Not only that but, he is much more threatening than Kidman’s villain from the first film, as he represents a real sense of danger to Paddington and his well being. Grant’s performance ranges from comedic and sympathetic, too loathsome and hateable, his Buchanan is an antagonist that you love to hate.

However, my issue with this film which I believe makes it worse than the first film, is that other than Paddington and Buchanan the rest of the cast are barely used. Whereas last time around each character had a moment to shine, without taking focus away from our hero, now these moments are few and far between; this is a shame as the series had amassed some real talent. What makes this issue more pronounced is the fact that while in prison in the film adds even more characters to its ensemble, which stretches the moments each character gets to shine even thinner.

Overall this is still a very good film and, the end of the film is very heartwarming and feel good. However, this is definitely the darker of the two films and also sadly the inferior. Still worth a watch.

Pros.
Paddington.
The Occasional Bits Of Humor.
Grant’s Villain.

Cons.
Over Crowded.
Wasted The Brown Family.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke