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

Assault On Precinct 13: Hold The Line

Assault On Precinct 13 is a neo-noir, action, thriller film directed by John Carpenter. The plot sees a group of local drug warlords swear a blood oath against the Los Angeles Police Department as well against the citizens of LA. This culminates in an intense shootout at the titular Precinct 13, between the police and the gang.

This film is John Carpenters take on 70’s era exploitation movies. It has a very urban, very lived in world, which is added to by the way it is filmed with it having a rough around the edges look to it. As such a lot of the scenes, especially the violent ones, feel eerily realistic; the scene when members of the gang are driving down the street looking for people to kill will send chills down your spine as it is all too real.

My one complaint about this film is that the initial 20 minutes are quite hard to follow. I don’t know if it is because a lot of things happen in a short space of time, or because of the way it is structured, but I found myself at the half hour mark not really having a clue what was going on. However, the rest of the film reminded that.

I think this film has a lot of iconic moments and characters that are destined to leave an impact on you after you have watched. The final showdown between the gang and the police at the end of the film is really well done and very tense, however I think the best scene in the film is the initial storming of the police station; Carpenter at his tension inducing best.

Overall a classic for a reason, though it might have a few storytelling issues especially when looked at through a modern lens; despite this it holds up.

Pros.

A great feel to it and sense of atmosphere.

The tension.

The final showdown.

Cons.

It is quite slow.

It is hard to tell what is going on in the beginning.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Red Dragon: Replacing Clarice Again

Red Dragon is a crime thriller film directed by Brett Ratner; serving as a prequel of sorts to the Hannibal films. Obviously, Ratner is a very troubling person for a lot of reasons, but I will try to look past that for the purposes of this review. The plot this time around focuses on the man who caught Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), Will Graham (Edward Norton). Once again, an FBI agent needs Hannibal’s help to catch the latest twisted serial killer; they really need to start paying him to consult.

I would rank the Hannibal films I have seen so far in this order, descending in quality, Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon. I don’t by any means think this is a bad film, far from it in fact, I just think it can’t hope to compete with the others. The relationship between Norton’s and Hopkins’ characters is interesting, but it is no will they Clarice and Hannibal; though I did enjoy that little tease at the end.

My thoughts on the film’s villain The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes), are the complete counter to what they were when I reviewed Hannibal. I think unlike in that film, where Gary Oldman’s character was pushed to the side in favour of Hannibal, this time it is the other way around. For a Hannibal Lecture film we get surprisingly not a lot of him, Fiennes is definitely the main focus. Hopkins gives his all when he is onscreen, which is commendable as always.

The balancing act between Hannibal and whatever serial killer him and his FBI associate are trying to catch is always the crucial thing with these films and it goes both ways, neither good, with the only film in the series to get the balance right being The Silence Of The Lambs, but that is a hard film to follow.

Overall, it is still good, just not as good than the film that proceeded it.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Hannibal: A Maddening Romance

Hannibal is a crime thriller film directed Ridley Scott. The plot follows Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), as he lives as a freeman in exile, keeping close tabs on special agent Clarise Starling (Julianne Moore), who has fallen on hard times and become disgraced. As forces rise to bring the two back together again, Lecture’s thirst for blood leads him to come back out of retirement.

Firstly, if you expect me to believe Hollywood that Jodie Foster aged into Julianne Moore then you expect too much. If they had created a new character it would work better, but clearly, they wanted to carry on the Lecture/Starling relationship from the first film; and Foster wasn’t game. That I can understand, as the relationship between the two is the key piece of these films.

Moore for the most part is terrific, I prefer Foster’s performance, but Moore is giving it her all here. She has great chemistry with Anthony Hopkins and has almost a sexual tension with him whenever the two of them are on screen together; adding another twisted angle to their dynamic.

On the casting front, I feel Gary Oldman was wasted as Lecture’s only surviving victim Mason Verger. He brings a presence, but he does very little and has very little screen time. I understand why from a plot perspective his character is needed, but in every other aspect he feels unnecessary, as he fades into the background with Moore and Hopkins taking centre stage. The same can be said of Ray Liotta.

Overall, this is still a mostly good film, it has a few issues that are more noticeable when compared to the near excellent first film, however few films could live up to that. A slightly disappointing sequel, that suffers for the lack of Foster.

Pros.

Anthony Hopkins is still great.

The Clarice/ Lecture relationship is fantastic.

This feels like an ending.

It feels like a natural sequel.

Cons.

Oldman and Liotta are wasted and feel unnecessary.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Kill List: A King To Be

Kill list is a British crime horror film directed by Ben Wheatly. The plot follows two ex-soldier hitmen Jay (Neil Maskell), and Gal (Michael Smiley), who’s job soon takes a turn for the strange as they become entangled with a cult, though they don’t realise it at first.

I think this film is excellent, truly excellent. I think if any film could be the Wicker Man equivalent of our modern times it is this; and that is not just because they share some similar plot threads. The reason why I think so highly of this film is because of how subtle it is, you don’t realise that you’re watching a horror film, most of the film is more crime focused, until the last 10 minutes; but then when the film ends you see how it was really a horror all along.

The performances are superb and so are the characters. Jay and Gal are not written to be likable, right from the off we see Jay through a negative lens, but that is the point. This film achieves something few others do, it takes characters that are fundamentally bad/unlikable and by the end it makes you care about them. In the final sequence of the film you want Gal and Jay to be okay, you really do.

The folk horror aspect is also really well done, as I mentioned before a good comparison would be The Wickerman, but there is also some Hereditary in there too. I think the ending is fascinating and it makes all of the events of the film take on a whole other meaning; a rewatch is a necessity. I loved how all the actions of the two main characters had been mapped out by the group and everything was leading up to that moment.

Overall, I think from a writing and structure point of view this film is a triumph and I think from a horror point of view this is also incredible. I think more people should see this as it seems to be quite unknown to some. One of the best films I have recently.

Pros.

The folk horror.

The crime thriller aspect.

Making you care about awful people.

The ending.

All of the little details.

Cons.

None

5/5

Reviewed By Luke

Alan Partridge, Alpha Papa: Coming Home To Roost

Alan Partridge Alpha Papa is a comedy film directed by Declan Lowney, as a spinoff to the Alan Partridge tv show. This film depicts a takeover of North Norfolk Digital that leaves Alan (Steven Coogan), and the other disk jockeys in danger of being fired, so Alan being Alan he gets someone else fired to save his own skin. However, that turns out to be a mistake when recently fired Pat (Colm Meaney), shows up with a gun and holds everyone hostage; Alan is of course the face of the following siege.

I am a huge Alan Partridge fan, I have recently got back into watching it, the original series is comedy gold and the series that followed after varied from okay to great. However, this film is defiantly not on the great side of that spectrum, there are a few good moments/laughs, but for the most part it feels overly drawn out and a little needless.

Unlike Life On The Road that tied up David Brent’s character in a post Office world, this film does not end the character of Partridge, rather it acts as a springboard between series. The issue with this is that it makes the film feel unnecessary. It is also no where near as heartfelt as Ricky Gervais’s offering.

There are one or two good jokes that made me laugh, but after a while the hostage situation premise runs out of steam and just isn’t funny anymore. I also think if the villain had been someone who was a bigger part of the Partridge universe then it would have meant more, rather than have it be someone we have never met before. That is not to say that Colm Meaney does a bad job, he is fine but nothing more than that.

Overall, as much as I love Alan Partridge I don’t think this needed to be made. It is fine but most certainly not good.

Pros.

Steve Coogan is as great as always.

Some funny bits.

Cons.

The premise runs out of steam.

Not all the jokes land.

It feels unnecessary

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Nerve: I Dare You To Not Watch This Film

Nerve is a social media themed adventure film directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. The plot sees Vee (Emma Roberts), a shy quiet girl, take a more active role in her life by playing a social media craze; said craze sees the player being dared to do things by the watchers for various sums of cash, as you can imagine things quickly get out of control.

This is one of the vapidest, lame, needless films I have ever seen. Right from the beginning you get a sense that this film thinks it is great; not only great, but also deep and that it has something meaningful to say about our social media society. It does not. The ham-fisted messages and taking points that this film regurgitate are the same sort of things that any child could tell you, or that you might see written on the Facebook page of your elderly family member who is deeply out of touch with the ‘youth’.

I am almost certain that this film was written by people who don’t understand how teens interact. The main group of teens the film follows behave nothing like any teen I have ever met and are just a collection of out of touch stereotypes, that are also strangely inconsistent. As I was writing this review, I found out that this garbage fire was based on a book, this film proves that not ever teen novel needs an adaption Hollywood if you’re reading.

Roberts and Dave Franco, that plays her beefy onscreen love interest, are just passable enough to not be called out for accepting the role for a cheap pay day, however in the way of charm and charisma they are devoid of anything resembling either and both are the definition the term blackhole of charisma. These sorts of performances are the reason why the Razzies were invented.

Overall, this film feels incredibly out of touch, the characters range from forgettable to hate inducing, this is an hour and a half of your life you will not get back, so please don’t waste your time.

Pros.

The concept is interesting enough, for about 10 minutes.

Cons.

It is boring.

It is repetitive.

All the performances are terrible, the actors should be ashamed.

It is the most out of touch film I have seen in recent memory.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Cheap Thrills: What Would You Do For A Million?

Cheap Thrills is a crime, dark comedy film directed E.L Katz. The plot sees a rich couple pay two poor hard done by men an ever-increasing amount of money too do things for their amusement. They make the men compete through a series of wagers that become increasingly dark, including mutilation and eating a dead dog.

I think the premise of this film leaves a lot of food for thought, the question it left me with is how far are we willing to go to be rich? The two men in this film are in dire need of cash, Craig (Pat Healy), is one the verge of being evicted, which would result in him and his young family becoming homeless and Vince (Ethan Embry) risks going to prison every day through what he does to make money. Despite this I think the question can apply to us all, if someone offered you a million pounds/dollars whatever, what would you do for it?

I was glad that the bets that the men had to do to earn the money were all tasteful, yes, the dog eating scene was uncomfortable, but at least it was shot well so we didn’t see too much of it. My point is that this film could have been a lot sicker, a lot darker and I am glad it didn’t go in that direction.

The film has a lot of great twists and turns and you can never really tell where it is going to go, just when you think that you have figured out what is going on it takes another path, none of the characters or events are what you think they’re.

Embry is the only member of the cast that leave an impression, his Vince is deeply hateable, and you see over the course of the film that there is nothing he won’t do to get the money, including cheating. He is a great love to hate character.

A question I have for the film, or anyone who has seen it, is what was the point of Sara Paxton’s character? She does nothing, she says nothing, the only reason I can see they wrote her in was to have sex with Craig which if true would be icky and exploitative. Her character literally might have 3 lines in the whole film, a lot of the time she just stairs off into space.

Overall, the questions the film raises are more interesting than the film itself. However the film is worth watching for those questions alone.

Pros.

Ethan Embrey.

It is done tastefully.

It raises some neat questions.

Cons.

Other than Embrey that characters are forgettable.

Sara Paxton’s character.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Dead Hooker In The Trunk: A Canadian Badass

Dead Hooker In A Trunk is a horror film directed by the Soska Sisters. The film revolves around a corpse that ends up in the trunk of Badass’ (Sylvia Soska) car. She can’t be sure whether or not she was involved in the death, so she decides to bury the body with the help of her sister Geek (Jen Soska), a young christen man called Goody Two Shoes (C.J Wallis) and her friend junkie (Rikki Gagne).

The Soska Sisters are probably my favourite horror directors, they have yet to make a bad film, even See No Evil 2 was better for their involvement. I have seen all their films barring their first, which as of the time of writing I have just seen and am now writing about.

The reason why I love this film so much is because of the grindhouse esque, exploitation feel of it, it reminded me in a lot of ways of the early work of Robert Rodriguez, which is high praise indeed. The gore was fantastically over the top and messy, the bit when Geek gets hit in the back of the head and her eye comes out made me both laugh and cheer it was fantastic.

Both of the sisters are fantastic in their roles, they were easily my favourite characters in the film and stood head and shoulder above everyone else, though Goody Two Shoes is also hilarious and has some great lines. I for one think Sylvia Soska makes for a very believable action star and all of her action sequences are really well done.

Moreover, the romantic subplot between Geek and Goody Two Shoes really warmed by heart, I have always been in favour of a good romance in horror films and this one is pitch perfect.

The one issue I had with the film was that the ending was out of synch, the audio and the video didn’t move at the same time and it was jarring and it took me out of it, however, I won’t mark the film down for this as it might not have been the fault of the film it might have been my internet at fault.

Overall, much like the Sisters other work this film is a triumph, simply superb.

Pros.

The gore.

The grindhouse feel.

The Soska Sisters are great.

The action and scope is impressive.

The romantic subplot.

Cons.

None.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Keeping Mum: Maggie Smith As A Cold Blooded Killer

Keeping Mum is a comedy crime film directed by Niall Johnson. The plot sees the Goodfellow family get a new housekeeper Grace (Maggie Smith), who seems to be able to fix all of the family’s problems. However, it is revealed that Grace is harbouring a dark secret, she is a murderer, from there hilarity and heart ensue.

This film has one of the biggest hearts I have ever seen, Maggie Smith is terrific as always, she plays a craziest murderer well, but one that is only killing to help her family. She plays the character like a kindly old lady with a dark streak. The rest of the good fellow family is also perfect, Rowan Atkinson as Vicar Goodfellow is sweet and bumbling and his romance with his wife that is cheating on him, but then comes around to see the light, is really nice and wholesome.

What’s more Gloria Goodfellow (Kristen Scott Thomas), relationship with her mum Grace is also incredibly well done, and the ending that shows that Gloria has carried on her mother murderous legacy is a nice way to end it.

I think this film is also a triumph for British comedy as it is genuinely funny through and through, there are a lot of laughs in this film’s hour and a half runtime. Most of these hilarious lines come from Maggie Smith, who is easily one of the funniest British performers.

The kills aren’t very gory, so if you are going into this film for the horror or the gore side of things then the film probably won’t do much for you. This film is far more of a heartfelt comedy than anything else.

Overall, this might be one of the best, funniest British dark comedies out there, Smith and Atkinson are both doing a great job and the message of the film is surprisingly heartfelt and sweet. More likely to make you laugh than give you chills this is a must see!

Pros.

It is genuinely funny.

It has great heart.

All of the actors are doing great jobs.

Patrick Swayze is in it.

Cons.

The kills aren’t very gory.

3.5/5.

Reviewed by Luke