philpriestley Reviews

Unfrosted (2024)

Unfunny. An absolute coffin.

[2/10 · 7 May 2024]

You might find yourself half an hour into this film wondering why you are watching it. It's not funny. The story line isn't entertaining or interesting.

After that subsides you might try to entertain yourself by considering how much they must have paid the cast. It's a large, expensive, recognisable cast. You can see that the money went into the casting budget and not into script writing.

You can tell where the jokes are, and where it's supposed to be funny, but it really isn't. I'm actually surprised some of these actors and comedians signed on.

I think this is what happens when a streaming service needs content. Big names, a vague story, thrown together. This might be remembered as the worst thing any of these guys ever made.

Beckham (2023)

Lacks objectivity and has been produced with an agenda

[3/10 · 6 January 2024]

I think this is a three star production because it's interesting to re-watch some of the games and the events. It's also interesting to watch something and see how Beckham would like you to accept his story. This is Beckham's argument. Whether it is his honest story is another thing - but as a cultivated presentation, it's definitely the one that he is happy to present and it's it's the retrospective that he'd like fans to adopt. Of course it's flattering, it's painting him as a hero and ultimately it tries to airbrush the mistakes that he made and his limitations as a player and a person.

We know that Beckham has never been a 'thinker' inside of football - he's not going to become a coach or tactician. I wonder if - left to his own devices - he wanted to be a footballer at all. His Dad obviously wanted him to be a footballer, but there is a sadness about that - his Dad living vicariously through him.

What I am convinced about is that Beckham wanted to be rich and he wanted to be famous. He enjoyed that. He played the media game and he was hugely rewarded by it - but also got himself burned. He fed the monster to keep them interested. He knew what he was doing. When the media circus wheeled around on him for his mistakes, he didn't like it and he became the victim.

Truth be told - he wants to use this vehicle to try to persuade people that he was single minded about his football. Repeatedly the evidence - even within the documentary - suggests otherwise. He got his head turned by fame, by his personal life, by the money. The documentary accuses Glen Hoddle of being unfair to him - but when Hoddle said that Beckham wasn't in the right head space at the 1998 world cup, he was vindicated. When he relied on him, Beckham let him, the rest of the team and the country down. While Beckham is understandably upset by the backlash - and explains how savage and unacceptable the backlash was - he doesn't really address the mistake that he made in the Argentina game. They try to play it off like that didn't cost England the match and probably the world cup - but it absolutely did and everyone who saw that game knows that it did.

Beckham - for all that was good and bad about him - was a player at the top of the game in the period that he played. First rate with a dead ball, with crosses, free-kicks, corners - but he wasn't a World Player of the Year. He was outstanding - but his brand image, based on his looks - was on another level compared to any other player. He was wild in the tackle, he didn't have a great temperament, he was unfocused - his focus and commitment doesn't compare to his contemporaries Paul Scholes or Gary Neville for example. In terms of his core fundamentals, he wasn't the quickest and he didn't really have the finesse to go past good full-backs. There were times when he faded in and out of games - there were times when he had incredible games. This documentary will try to persuade you that Beckham was maybe the best player that England has produced - a once in a generation footballer. He really wasn't in the tier that is occupied by someone like Lionel Messi or Christiano Ronaldo.

You have to watch this and retain your objectivity. An awful lot of the media attention that he moans about, he brought on himself. If he'd kept his head down at United, hadn't been courting sponsorship deals constantly, hadn't been trying to make the front pages and the fashion pages and the society pages - he wouldn't have caught half the criticism that he did. 1998 world cup he flew out to see his wife because she was on tour and he hadn't seen her in 8 weeks. He thought it was fine to leave the training camp. That wouldn't be ok for anyone else - he doesn't reflect on that and say "Yeah, I was obviously distracted".

Relationship with his wife is very interesting - he comes across, to me, as petty and passive aggressive. He clearly did love her and was absolutely infatuated with her at first - but he is always making barbed comments about how much he does, how little she does. He contradicts her, he undermines her on camera - he's genuinely not nice to her. I found myself feeling sorry for her and it was really awkward. You can imagine them being the squabbling couple at the dinner party.

Relationship with his Dad is equally interesting. Dad is not disguising the fact that, because he didn't get to be a professional footballer, he lived it through his son. Beckham's Dad was nothing less than abusive. Dad seems to have no remorse for his mistakes - and the apple doesn't really fall far from the tree. David Beckham isn't remorseful about his either.

Overall it's a well put together, glossy puff piece designed to celebrate David Beckham. Read between the lines though and don't mistake it for the gospel truth. Beckham's star is fading and he didn't achieve enough in the game to be remembered for that long after his career ends. I think he does regret that.

Tupac Shakur: Thug Angel (2002)

Too sentimental

[4/10 · 18 August 2023]

It's really hard to find an objective, unemotional examination of Tupac Shakur and his life. It really is. This documentary is another one of those very emotional takes - and you know it from the opening scenes, the overdub narration. It's really dripping in pathos. I find that hard because it needs to be scraped off to get to the truth.

The really difficult thing about Tupac is the 'black Jesus' tag. Since his death he has been repackaged and reimagined as this latter day Martin Luther King or Malcolm X character - and it seems to fit that he died young and was shot.

Look - Tupac was one of the most bipolar, manic, split personality dudes out there. At different times he wore crip blue and blood red. It wasn't a symbolic thing that was supposed to bring people together - he just went from one crew to the other and he was allowed to do that because he was Tupac and he was rich. There are countless stories about how he could be the nicest guy, he could impart wisdom, how he respected women and ask people to strive to be better... all true no doubt. There are lyrics that disrespect women, are abusive, stories of his behaviour that is impossible to condone, actions that he took that were beyond foolish and lacking in wisdom.

In death he has been painted as a martyr and a sacrifice. He has been claimed as a point of counter culture. He has been seen as a victim of the state (yeah he was too - why was the FBI following him and why did they feed him false information in prison that Biggie was behind him being shot?). As much as he was a firebrand of meaningful political concepts - he was used, he was prone to shallow and immature behaviour, he was deeply flawed, he was at time repulsive and cruel. Comedian Chris Rock makes a point that he wasn't assassinated - he got himself shot. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Malcolm X was assassinated, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. Tupac got himself shot out of his foolish emotional and egotistical behaviour.

How do we ever resolve this? It makes one of the most compelling characters of modern music culture. He is powerful - no doubt whatsoever he is hugely powerful. If you're looking for a documentary that really turns the corner on that conversation and gets that job done - I'm sorry to say that this isn't it folks. Why? Well it allows itself to get dragged into the tractor beam of sentimentality idolisation too much. It's too heavy in that direction and it's a great shame because it really does prevent it from getting under the surface of a fascinating topic and an incredible man.

(And yes - I do love a lot of Tupac's music and I respect him as a lyricist and as a rapper)

What's Love Got to Do with It? (2022)

Genuinely garbage

[2/10 · 15 August 2023]

This is an awful, paint by numbers piece of cliché garbage with no redeeming features. None at all.

The cast is lacklustre. There isn't a good performance to be found. It is stilted and wooden because, fundamentally, the script and dialogue is clunky and awkward. It's unfunny.

The cultural aspect is basically something the writers reached out to in recycling the same rom-com script you've seen again and again. They even name drop 'love actually' in the opening scenes - which is brave considering they ripped off so much of it.

How can we let film makers get away with offering this cynical rubbish? This is shameful.

Air (I) (2023)

Disappointing and actually somewhat misleading.

[3/10 · 17 May 2023]

Ok - this does not feel like a $90 million film. Let's get that out there. Where did the money go?

For content, you could go and watch Netflix 'The Last Dance', and 'One Man and His Shoes' - both of which handle the same topic and seem to do so more robustly. If you care to read up on the topic, perhaps read 'Michael Jordan: The Life' (Roland Lazenby) which is a pretty solid and thorough account too. The more you read and watch, the more the cracks appear in 'Air'.

This presents Nike as the 'little guy' who couldn't afford the big draft names (shades of Moneyball) - they took an inexplicable long shot on the hunt of main character (Sonny) and in doing so they rewrote the history of basketball shoes and the crossover culture that happened in the 1990s, which endures today. In order to make this narrative stick they seek to persuade you that Converse and Adidas were both going to offer more money to Jordan. This is a paradox because in doing so they contradict the narrative that Jordan was a long shot. You have two confusing messages - one that he was this huge gamble, the other that he wasn't and that landing him (no pun intended) Nike pulled off a ridiculous coup that stole him away from the more established competition (edging them out).

Truth be told, the actual exponents of the deal have been interviewed and they have spoken to camera. Adidas were not in the hunt with any serious petition to take Jordan. The company founder had died and the organisation was struggling to refocus. They didn't make a meaningful offer for a shoe endorsement but did offer Jordan free shoes. Converse had Magic Johnson and Larry Bird - but neither were were paid the money that was put in front of Jordan. Suggestions are that he got twice what they were on PLUS a cut of the sales revenue too. Bird and Johnson did not get that (something that Johnson lamented). Charles Barkley has spoken since saying that when he did his deal with Nike, Jordan advised him to ask for less cash up front, and Barkley reduced his cash advance from $3,000,000 to $1,000,000 - in return for lucrative share options in Nike instead (he made a rich return). Converse were complacent about the state of the market - they didn't have any inkling about what Nike were going to do to upset the apple cart.

*spoiler alert*

Jordan did not sign with Nike because of a fancy, inspiring speech in the boardroom or because Jordan's mother looked deep into the eyes of someone and trusted him, or because they found a connection on how they saw the future... Jordan signed with Nike because they offered him a deal that represented an avalanche of cash that even outweighed his contract with the Chicago Bulls. Jordan wanted a car (true) - a red Mercedes - what Nike offered was easily enough for Jordan to buy his own (even based on modest projections and expectations in the deal).

I guess all this would lack the romance or inspiration that a Nike/Jordan tribute piece would seek to convey. It really was like that though. This is the church of Capitalism. Yes - Nike took a big risk (Jordan might not have fulfilled that potential) - but they both got rich when it paid off.

The Converse/Adidas chase is almost irrelevant and is used only to build dramatic tension. In reality, once the deal got the green light to go ahead from Phil Knight the ridiculous nature of the gamble was enough to blow the competition out of the water. The film needs that tension though, so they just made it up.

Another matter is Jordan's mother pulling out the "My son deserves a piece of the gross" at the eleventh hour. What they are trying to do is encapsulate the fact that Jordan's mother was a business savvy lady who could see what her son couldn't at a critical time (he was young) - he was worth more than a red Mercedes and times were changing. She could see why the Nike deal was superior, and she was the person to win over if you wanted to sign Michael Jordan. This being said, the deal on the table included 25% for Michael right out of the gate, and in fact sources in Nike have said that they'd have readjusted the deal to give him less cash and 50% if he had asked (which would have cost them a fortune). There was (again *spoiler alert*) no shock phone call that realigned the whole of the sports shoe industry due to is mother. Again - the film just needed that tension I guess - but it's fake.

Central character - 'Sonny' is an Italian American. His appearance and business style was not linked to Mafia, but leaned into the reputation of Italian American business and almost put Jordan off (according to sources) because Jordan thought he might be linked. This was omitted entirely. I like Matt Damon but his frankly wooden and generic portrayal did not bring me close to his actual character at all. Does anyone watch this and get the impression that the guy putting this deal together was Italian American?

The film is heavily reductive. Sonny Vaccaro was a details guy - he knew basketball - he did not come up with the idea of taking Michael Jordan because he saw his college NCAA championship winning 3 point shot a few extra times.

The Nike 'swoosh' did not cost Phil Knight $30. He did pay a small, nominal amount to the designer - but he also gave stock options that came to be worth millions.

I could go on.

There is enough to seriously undermine the credentials of how this is presented. It's saccharine. It's a kids film. It's a lightweight portrayal that ruffles no feathers and makes people feel good.

If you're not serious about the subject - and you don't mind a foggy, misty eyed retelling because you just want a bang average film to watch in the evening - yeah, ok. You could do worse.

If you actually want to know what happened, well I'm not saying I do know exactly what happened, but I am saying it didn't go down like this. You know this didn't happen.

Further more, there isn't one outstanding performance in the whole film. Not one character is given the space or the material for a decent portrayal, for an actor to shine. There is nothing in the direction of the film that isn't completely vanilla and beige and safe.

People lining up saying it's an 8 or a 9 ranked film have never probably seen a really great film, because their scale is thoroughly broken. I'd be amping this up to tell you it is a solid 6. It's not - it's a TV movie 3.

Transatlantic (2023)

Lightweight entertainment not historical re-enactment

[6/10 · 10 April 2023]

This series is 'based upon' a true story and draws from the interest that generates. It does involve and blend depictions of real people - including great artists and figures from the period who we now know and revere. There is a lot of name dropping in this drama to sprinkle a little extra magic in there.

This being said it's for light entertainment value only. We have lots of sexual intrigue and what I'm reluctant to describe as tension (it never really builds as tension to be honest). There's sex - let's put it that way - but again, nothing graphic, nothing explicit. Likewise, there's a war context - but there's no real fear or tension about the place (even when people are arrested you are never in fear of their lives). There is no depiction of mistreatment even if it is spoken of and some of the language is of the day (opinions shared by Nazis and sympathisers) to make you feel revolted.

This is a drama that takes you to a viewing platform from where you ought to be able to see all these things - but it is just short of showing you anything powerful or shocking. Instead it's foggy and misty, and you're distracted by an indulgence of clothing, houses, scenery, and an inexplicable mood that might explode into a party or a song and dance at any moment. There is the token anxious character here or there - but they the party poopers rather than someone making a genuine and valid point. We see little of PTSD, flashbacks, anxiety attacks, worries or concerns. The artists are resilient in their joy - they are not preoccupied with expressing the darkness of the surrounding circumstances.

Likewise, when the fleeing refugee Jews make it to the south coast of France in their hopes of escape - they don't find each other huddled in masses, cough and starving, exhausted from walking hundreds of miles - instead it looks like a beach holiday. One man runs delighted into the sea and splashes in the water (salt water that nobody could drink). Nobody is concerned about where to find food or how to make the next venture to escape the country (given their backs are to the sea).

Overall this is a problematic depiction and it's lightweight. It's for enjoyment - not to recreate anything sharply. How accurate it is, I find very questionable.

Nevertheless if you suspend that problematic aspect, you can enjoy a lot about the series. There is some decent acting and the lead female actress, Gillian Jacobs, is very charming and charismatic, giving an enjoyable performance overall. I'd like to see her in something that pushed her a bit harder to be honest.

This is a solid 6 - but overall there are better dramas out there and this will never be regarded as a classic because it's too forgettable and it's just not compelling.

The Redeem Team (2022)

Not as good as 'The Last Dance'

[6/10 · 8 October 2022]

I was so looking forward to this because I've watched The Last Dance so many times. I'm not a huge basketball fan admittedly - but the telling of the Bulls story and the whole Michael Jordan biography is absolutely compelling. When the same guys came out with this and were touting LeBron James and Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade - plus the trailers - I mean I was salivating... The risk with these things is that it can be over-hyped quite easily.

With a documentary film like this you have you recognise that there are certain narrative features that you cannot ignore or neglect. This cannot be a story that basically says "We were the greatest basketball team in Olympic history - we took our eye off it, took our foot off the pedal, looked the other way, and someone stole it out from under us unexpectedly. So we focused, paid more attention and won it back. That's the story."

That story doesn't really light you up does it? Sadly - that is the actual story. Man for man the NBA has always produced the heavy guns and no matter what the documentary suggests about one or two countries having a couple of NBA players - nobody was taking hall of fame, NBA MVPs, front to back, to the Olympics. The competition - if the USA team was paying attention - was never that great. So the USA paid attention, they didn't really do anything tactically that special, they motivated their guys and they rolled up with LeBron, with Kobe and with D Wade (and others) and the inevitable happened (spoiler - they won the gold medal).

The efforts to suggest that the final was close or got nervous are pretty thin. The USA led from the beginning and played it out. It wasn't a buzzer game.

In the meanwhile you are hoping that behind the scenes you're going to find something new out, see something happen in training that you didn't know about, catch a brilliant anecdote... something? Nah. It doesn't come through. The stories are pretty tame.

The documentary really tries to make this look like much more of an achievement than it really was - and in fact one commentator (American, naturally) even tried to suggest that this was 'the greatest team in the history of Olympic sport' (for what they achieved and what they over came). Nah. Don't get carried away.

So it's interesting - probably wouldn't watch it more than once - will definitely interest an NBA fan specifically - but overall it's really not the story that they're trying to turn it into. Watch it - by all means - it is watchable and the production values are great - but don't expect a feature length version of 'The Last Dance'.

The Last Full Measure (2019)

Poor film - sentimental, sickly sweet, poor script

[4/10 · 18 October 2020]

OK first of all criticism of the film is not criticism of the person awarded the medal of honour. Please don't misapprehend me on that.

At the basis of this film is a really poor script with genuinely weak dialogue. Awful, awful writing.

The money in the film has been spent in a lopsided way on cast - but the best actors in the world can't resurrect a dreadful script. They need something to work with.

The characters are two dimensional clichés - without exception. The engagement is wooden, clunky, and sometimes cringeworthy. There are constant attempts to pull at heart strings to get away with it - and there is no relief from the sentimentalism anywhere. A good film should ebb and flow, build and relieve pressure and pathos. The pace of this film is slow throughout, the sentimental content is always on full blast, to the last detail. Of course the main character's wife is pregnant. Of course Samuel L Jackson's character is introduced fishing at the creek with his grandchildren. "Does it still hurt grandpa?" "Only on the inside" It is an absolutely relentless assault to the point where it goes way over the top. It's unforgiveable.

The musical score is absolutely B grade movement at all times. The effects are generally TV movie quality.

I am sure that the gentleman who was eventually awarded the medal of honour was quite exceptional - but this film really isn't and its not worthy of his contribution. If anything it's exploitative.

The people grading it nine out of ten, ten out of ten, are happy to be fed with a sugar heavy product. This is like syrup. Someone compared this to Hacksaw Ridge and Private Ryan - and this is nowhere, absolutely nowhere near that mark.

Other critics have noted poor detail in uniform, historical accuracy, and overall military consistency. I'm not surprised. This doesn't come across as a film where anyone did their homework or cared about the delivery of meaningful dramatisation. It's pumped full of trite devices you seen before - you don't for one minute think that you've been given any insight into actual real people. This comprehensively undermines a very poor movie and it left me personally feeling that Hollywood used the opportunity to sell movie tickets and try and win some awards. Its a hideous and cynical experience. There's no integrity here. I cannot recommend it.

Venom (2018)

Very poor

[4/10 · 31 August 2019]

This is well beneath the talent of Tom Hardy, but he must have been well paid to do it.

The script is terrible, the story is clunky and nonsensical, it lurches from here to there and offers little or no development along the way.

Venom as a character begins as a threatening coercive parasite - but ends up as a comedy live in character, the change happens like the throw of a light switch somewhere in the middle.

Female lead is as forgettable as her two dimensional character.

The villain is just short of rubbing his hands together and laughing sadistically.

The whole thing hangs together like it was written by a ten year old before a Hollywood committee worked it over.

Very poor.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018)

As soon as she spoke with a Scottish accent...

[1/10 · 5 June 2019]

You know this film is going to be awful as soon as Mary speaks with her 'Bonnie wee lassie' Scottish accent. Fairy story made for the bin.

Office Christmas Party: Throwing an Office Christmas Party (2017 Video)

Insert Christmas pun here (below average)

[4/10 · 26 January 2019]

This is a formulaic comedy propped up be a reasonable ensemble cast.

Unfortunately the scrip is so-so at its best - with poor dialogue and an over reliance on physical humour, shock and the odd gross out moment.

There is a general feeling of this all being delivered within pretty polite boundaries and it never really cuts loose.

It is the type of thing that might get branded as a 'screwball' comedy or a 'madcap caper' - which is usually film industry code for 'not funny' and 'tries hard'.

The out-takes shown at the end speak volumes. There is no real chemistry between cast members - and as they fake laugh at each other's fumbled lines and poor adlibs you just get overwhelmed with a sense of how joyless a pay day this must have been.

It's never so bad that you'll actually switch it off. You might smile even, but you probably won't laugh. Which isn't a good quality in what is supposed to be out and out comedy.

This comes out of the school of The Hangover, Bridesmaids and that type of thing - it shares the same type of comedy blue print - but both of those films were well executed and genuinely funny. This is what happen when you get a hit movie - you get the roll along stuff that falls short too.

Performances are generally lacklustre all round. It's another big screen coffin for Jennifer Aniston to be honest. She never really has made it on the big screen - but goodness knows they keep asking her to try.

Look, I'd give it a miss, but if you do end up watching it, it won't be the worst thing you ever saw.

*shrug*

Dumplin' (2018)

Dreadful garbage film

[2/10 · 19 December 2018]

This is a genuinely bad film. Instantly forgettable, slow, white noise.

This is also another coffin for Jennifer Aniston's dreadful film career. I hope she got paid about 25 cents for this cardboard two dimensional jog out.

The lead is also the lead from Patty Cakes. Same idea - another film about a fat girl.

It's not endearing. It's not engaging. There is no emotional depth or resonance. This movie is joyless and it fails. Don't say that you weren't warned.

Darkest Hour (2017)

A decent but lightweight film

[4/10 · 10 November 2018]

There is a terrible truth about Winston Churchill. He wasn't a cuddly cigar chomping Grandad to the masses - he was an old school blue blooded Empire man with fiercely racist views, little empathy for the working classes, and a readiness to use chemical weapons.

Winston invested a good deal of time and money exploring Anthrax and toyed with the idea of dumping it in Germany.

Instead we are painfully served a version of Churchill exploring the subway and crying in front of a child.

Make no mistake - Churchill was the monster we needed right then - but he was a monster. Unsurprisingly this is not conveyed on any level in this beige political expediency.

Performance from Gary Oldman is superb as the man the post modern Britain has claimed Churchill to be. Everyone else is meh.

If you can separate the fact from fiction this not unforgiveable and quite watchable. There is nothing here that will upset children either.

Patti Cake$ (2017)

The Amy Schumer version of 8 Mile

[3/10 · 19 September 2018]

Basically this writer and director doesn't mind debuting with a rehash of every rap movie cliche.

So this is 8 Mile with a female lead and a touch more romance.

There is very little to credit it with. There is nothing new or innovative. Bad rap is unsatisfying because it is riddled with tropes, its dull, has no imagination. Great rap is clever, emotive, fresh, insightful, deep, honest, reflective and often funny. This is a bad rap movie. Pass it on.

The Holiday (2006)

Love Actually re-write goes wrong

[2/10 · 25 July 2018]

Ensemble cast is brought together to basically work a shameless rejig of Love Actually. It doesn't step out of the formula of any romcom you've seen before.

Generally - start from this point - it's a genre that is crap unless the dialogue is really sharp. You're dealing with twee sentimentality so something has to make it tolerable. This film lacks any intelligence, it has no edge, there is nothing appealing at all. It is a romcom toilet that indulges every trope. Sadly what is left simply won't flush. There is nothing endearing at all.

Perhaps the most irritating part is the transatlantic marketing. It has clearly been written to appeal to the US audiences and the UK audience too. It is hideously false, shallow and clichéd in this regard. I wonder if the American audiences feel as shafted as the UK audience?

Every person on this project got paid too much and should be ashamed they participated. Even the studio tea lady. Hideous. Destroy it with fire.

Crazy Heart (2009)

Garbage

[3/10 · 6 March 2018]

This film is genuinely poor. Characterisation ranges from cliched to nonexistent. Genuinely.

Leading character is the architypal broken down drunk who chain smokes and generally wastes his talents.

Romantic lead is inexplicably drawn to said broken down drunk. No back history or logic offered there.

Lead has long standing rivalry with another younger more commercially successful performer.

Yawn. Too bored to continue.

It has no depth. No weight of interest. It operates within a genre without doing anything new or expanding that genre. It's not even derivative because nothing within this film is new. At all. Derivative at least suggests something is new.

Jeff Bridges delivers a wildly over hyped performance that shouldn't ever win an Oscar. It is wrong that it won an Oscar.

This film is up over seven stars. Want to see something similar but undoubtedly better? Walk the Line.

All Eyez on Me (2017)

Very timid retelling of a life and death

[3/10 · 22 February 2018]

Ok - so this is a retelling of a life and it sits in the context of reshaping Tupac in a black Messiah. This is the ''ghetto gospel" type Tupac - the black leader, the civil rights activist, part Robin Hood, part Malcolm X. I'd compare it to John Lennon in many regards - a man who sang ''give peace a chance' but funded terrorism, 'all you need is love' but beat and abused his wives, 'imagine no possessions' from his mansion and his rolls Royce. We don't really remember people - we have them repackaged and resold to us. Keep in mind the album's the TuPac estate has released since he was murdered - this man was a devastatingly charismatic product - but he still is, full of allure, and ultimately (even now) cash.

This film offers little outside of repackaging Tupac as a hero and a victim. General all around 'good guy'. This film fails to highlight just how spiteful his rivalry was with Biggie. This film manages to look at Suge Knight without having any of the evil attributed to Tupac (who is portrayed as a captive of some sort). Likewise the film fails to address Biggie. Dr Dre is blink and you miss him. It would seem that this film is so scared to address Diddy that it replaced him with an entirely fictional creation. And so dies the integrity of the project.

If you want to find stuff out - check out Nick Broomfield's documentary - which is brave, really brave, and properly authentic. Whether you agree with the hypothesis offered by Broomfield or not, at least he offers you an argument. This movie is a half work of fiction and it is too scared of getting sued to speak out. What could be more ironic than a biopic on Tupac too scared to speak out?!

In truth the only thing going for this film is the fact that it secured a legitimate sound track. Unlike that garbage Jimi Hendrix fiasco where they had none of his actual music (believe it or not). This being said, the sound track is the sanitised and politically correct version of Tupac - not the eviscerating, take it or leave it, angry Tupac that exploded the rap scene.

Look - end of story - I may not know Tupac (I doubt that I do) but I know this isn't Tupac. This is Tupac for dummies. This is 'come and get your Tupac t-shirt' Tupac. I'm not a mug. Someone needs do redo this. Get some research. Go and write something explosive that explores the drugs, alcohol, ugliness, the FBI surveillance, the blazing trail that ended in sheer bloody las Vegas murder. In neon. But to hell with this. And for God's sake point the finger at someone. He wasn't shot by the tooth fairy.

Loving Vincent (2017)

Visually compelling - but otherwise imperfect

[6/10 · 13 October 2017]

This is a must-see film for any Van Gogh fanatic or indeed, anyone who is passionate about art. It is innovative and visually striking, and the loving time and attention that has been devoted to the art is clear and obvious throughout.

The story itself is not to be repeated here and many people know or believe that they know the Van Gogh story (thanks to his numerous letters he is one of the great artists that we can claim to have a deeper insight into).

Where the film struggles is the plot. First of all it's a retelling of a story that many people know. It's clear that the premise was wanting to use the art in a particular way - but actually the story line, the plot, is the secondary consideration.

I question how historically accurate the presentation of this story actually is. I would really like to know how they could reference the tensions that exist between different characters and the presentation of different figures. Are they real or imagined for narrative purpose?

I get the feeling that the writers wanted to express the dichotomy of Van Gogh - the gentle, perceptive, altruistic man, and also the fiery, troubled, confrontational, argumentative soul. So do they project these perceptions upon their characters - or are these positions anchored in truth?

The movement of the film is actually quite slow. I would say that someone who didn't have a specific love of Van Gogh might consider it to be slow and uneventful.

Of course the outcome is inevitable and tragic - so the air of melancholy hangs over the whole presentation. It would have been more of an achievement to actually present the joy that must have been present (at least at times) in the soul of this great genius. This doesn't come across because the film is saturated in sorrow.

The dialogue is basic and doesn't ever challenge the actors - but the presentation is fine, and at times very good (Chris O'Dowd is my outstanding actor in this film).

Bottom line is that this film is saved by the unique presentation - had it been a 'straight forward' film acted in a standard format, it wouldn't have got made, it would be too bland. It would be somewhere between documentary and biography and a little bit dry at that (not for cinema anyway).

As it happens, I'm a huge admirer of Van Gogh and I have taken enough interest in him to watch several documentaries and to read a number of accounts of his life. For me this was well worth the wait - and if you're in the same boat you will enjoy it too. If you're not that interested in Van Gogh as an individual you might not get the same kick out of it. It is definitely for a very particular audience.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Good family entertainment - ignore the internet snobs and faux-intellectuals

[7/10 · 18 July 2016]

I read reviews of this movie before I took my two sons (5 and 9) to see it at the cinema this weekend.

The reviews that I read promised it would be diabolical rubbish - with suggestions of rife gender politics, race discrimination and flat jokes that don't work. Some people have taken the time to say that this new film offends the laws of continuity and generally the sensibilities of anyone who loves the franchise. I'm glad to say that I didn't listen to such snobbery.

This is not an intellectual film and it's not an intellectual franchise. Nobody goes to Ghostbusters III expecting a didactic on gender politics. Nobody is going stand up in parliament and point to Ghostbusters III as the foundation of a sensible gender dialogue. Anyone who genuinely feels offended by this movie needs to take a long hard look at their sense of humour.

Ghostbusters III is a 'reboot' movie - I think they could've easily made this a sequel/spin off - but they chose to go to 'reboot' - perhaps not my preference, but it's OK.

Let me tell you my acid test for this movie - my five year old loved it. He watched it on the edge of his seat from start to finish. He cheered when Stay Puffed and Slimer appeared. He spotted some - but not all - of the cameo appearances and got excited by that too. He enjoyed the special effects and laughed at some of the jokes. At no point did he get scared, and he left the movie theatre singing the Ghostbuster song.

Tell me that is a movie that is worthy of two stars? My nine year old also enjoyed it, but not as much - but he laughed and he smiled and didn't get bored.

For me, I particularly liked the cameos on offer - they were great. Ray, Spengler, Jannine and so on all took a turn to wink at the camera and give us a nod.

The special effects are great too. It goes to the next level.

OK - the funnies aren't going to make you require stitches - but let's be honest the original Ghostbusters wasn't ever a balls out comedy either, and managed to get by on a few regular chuckles. This is the same really.

It's the dry observational stuff that you expect from Melissa McCarthy - it's a shame that there wasn't a bit more opportunity for her to just riff around a bit, because she is very good at that - but the script held together and it never got too much like a pantomime (which is tough when you're doing a comedy ghost movie).

It's nice that the film was dedicated to Harold Ramis too - the only significant character (outside of Rick Moranis) who wasn't there to say hello in some way.

Some pencil sharpener somewhere will tell you that the voltage wasn't correct on the proton screen or something - this s**t is not real folks! It's a fond recreation of a family franchise, and it works. I chuckled, my kids loved it, you've got to work really hard to get offended. This is a seven out of ten all day long - six at worst.

Dad's Army (2016)

A very poor film indeed - half hearted at best

[3/10 · 12 February 2016]

OK - went to see this in the cinema today. I know that some people going to this films are hardcore 'Dad's Army' fans, and they will watch it from that perspective. I was fond of the TV - which I thought was entertaining and enjoyable, and it did make me laugh. I'm not a person who celebrated at the thought of this film though, but thought it was worth a chance.

The vehicle - if they paid attention to it - was worthwhile. There are some great interpersonal relationships and characteristics that go beyond the simple catch phrases. The blue print is sound. Sadly it is the script that really fails to deliver.

The dialogue is flat and lacks wit. There is the odd sausage joke here and there, but the innuendo is clumsy (instead of charming or entertaining).

What you're watching is not a cinematic reproduction of the Dad's Army series - it's a group of actors impersonating the actors who first brought us the TV comedy. By and large - as individuals - they do a decent job, but as a collective, it never hangs together properly.

There wasn't a laugh in this film. I was in a theatre with a few other people (not a crowded house by any means) - but the atmosphere was flat and nobody laughed out loud. You could cut the silence.

You could see where it was supposed to be funny - and that's actually quite painful - some slap stick sequences here and there. Goodness me it was hard work. Fundementally I think the writing was just too poor for the cast and they had nothing to work with.

I've since learned that they put some outtakes on the end (in the credits) - that possibly was funny - but the theatre cleared out as soon as the credits rolled. Nobody wanted to hang around.

The real shame is - if people not familiar with the series see this film first they just won't appreciate the context of the familiar characters at all. They'll probably never watch the original - they may even avoid it. That's a disservice to the original, and an inherent danger of any remake.

I think if they respected the comic boundaries, and the style of the original was more sincerely produced - you had all the tools to make a properly funny and enjoyable movie. Instead the film culminates in a scene that wanders far away from series (gun fighting?).

No. Don't waste your time or money on this. It's instantly forgettable and you'll never get your time or money back.

A Royal Night Out (2015)

Incredibly flimsy Royal propaganda

[3/10 · 6 January 2016]

I'm a UK republican (not to be confused with a US republican of course) and I don't believe in the institution of Royalty. I acknowledge that this might discolour my appreciation of the film.

If you have a fondness for the institution of 'our' Royal family you might enjoy this film more than I did.

It's a completely fictional story about something that never happened at a peak point of flag waving nationalism. You can probably track the decline of British image of empire and royalty and traditionalism from there ironically.

Of course the (now) Queen never went out with Princess Margaret in the fashion that has been portrayed and I'm sure that the truth would offer no form of cinematic fascination at all. So instead they play the 'what if' game of allowing the two princesses to slip their chaperons and made off into the London night.

The whole thing is a bit pantomime though to be fair.

It is difficult to explain the different contrasting portrayals of the (in this) idiot Margaret and the sensible and instinctively capable Elizabeth. Other than for comic purposes of course. Margaret is also (for dramatic purposes) the more 'plain' of the two in appearance - which suits the narrative of 'the chosen one' being Elizabeth.

In truth I'd punt on Margaret being the sharper and more worldly of the two - she seemed that way in her life - and to be frank she was always the more beautiful too.

The Royal family are also portrayed in the comic realm of being quite 'normal' except of course for the fact that dad can call the army in to look after his girls when they go out. The footmen etc the 'we don't carry money' gag (used more than once) - all used without a sense of shame.

The whole of London society is portrayed as high or low born with either 'cock-er-ney' good charm but either inside a pub or a brothel, or snobbish officership inside the Ritz etc. It's quite two dimensional. Of course everyone is united in their love of the King and his family and there is a picture of them propped on every mantel piece - no matter who owns the mantel.

This is misty-eyed revisionism for a purpose. It can't possibly be true - no more than it is now. Hardened Soho gangster and pimp puts a protective wing around the young Margaret - neither with sexual motives nor anything more cynical in mind than getting his prostitutes into a secret party at the Chelsea barracks.

To be fair the film does allow the main male 'low born' character to reflect on the bitterness that more than just himself in isolation must have felt (and still do) about the concept of Royalty. Regardless you do get the impression that, in the end, he saw the error of his ways and learned to love the Royal family too (because after all, aren't they smashing?).

It's predictable. It's soft. It's modestly entertaining (or at least will pass the time). It's also instantly forgettable without any outstanding performances or messages.

The Interview (II) (2014)

Dreadful Seth Rogan vehicle.

[2/10 · 9 October 2015]

I didn't laugh at any time. That's probably the strongest criticism you can apply to any comedy.

Seth Rogan is the worst one character actor in movie history. He basically plays a post modern image of 'Seth Rogan' in every film, and it seems to be getting gradually more absurd.

If you have seen any of Rogan's previous films you have nothing to see here. He's just more desperate than ever, so it's actually tinged with a sense of embarrassment for him.

How does he continued to make money? I mean, basically he is on a different part of the product life cycle to Adam Sandler, but his trajectory is absolutely identical. Complete one trick pony.

I guess he must realise that he has nothing left in the locker now. As a director, as an actor, as a writer - he has had more than a fair go. He either has to transcend that dead beat comedy character and come up with something different and fresh, or it's over - just a matter of time.

I long ago vowed never to watch an Adam Sandler vehicle. I've made exactly the same promise to myself with Seth Rogan now.

Straight Outta Compton (2015)

Intense and compelling

[8/10 · 29 August 2015]

This is a great film. The detail and the effort that been put in here is superb and it's wonderful to see.

Each of the actors is well chosen, credible and presents their chosen character in convincing manner.

The actors that play Dre and Ice-Cube are particularly compelling, but it seems wrong to overlook the portrayal of Easy-E.

This is explosive stuff straight out of the blocks and it never feels slow. It's a long film too, but it keeps you right there. I went to see it in the cinema with my wife and she'd just worked a night shift - she didn't fall asleep and she thought she probably would. That is a pretty good test for a movie.

The menacing figure of Shug Knight comes right off the screen too. The drama is both incredible but so real.

Laced within this film are real messages too - freedom of speech messages, racial discrimination messages, police brutality messages - which are really important because they were and are part of our times.

The big message is though - these five guys came from nowhere, a place where there is less than nothing to share - but with their own gifts, their creativity, their musicality - they left their mark on the world. It just shows that, it's always there waiting to happen, something new and unexpected, out of nowhere. The political elite can't ever stop that, it can't be smothered.

This is a great film that holds the torch for the power of creativity and self belief - the ability to over come it all.

Final mention - easy to overlook - this film is bringing NWA to a whole new generation who don't know about them. After the film was over I was waiting for my wife (bathroom) and I asked this young guy if he remembered any of the events he'd seen on the screen. He shook his head and said 'No, I'm only 16'.

Great film. RIP EASY-E.

Walk the Line (2005)

Good but unfaithful

[7/10 · 6 August 2015]

Let me get this right out there - I am a Johnny Cash fan. So there are two aspects of this movie that are important to me: 1) Is it a faithful biopic about the man? 2) Is it a good entertaining movie? Look - I can live with this film as a great movie that tells a compelling story. The performances by the two leads are absolutely credible and at times they just blow you away.

I really enjoyed this film. It is dark in parts, it does a good job at hinting at the wild man in Johnny Cash without turning him into a villain or anything, and June Carter Cash is portrayed as just a wonderful woman (and I am sure that she was).

However - you do have to understand that there is artistic license here to make this stuff fit for cinema.

The film is relentlessly unfair to Johnny Cash's first wife. Vivian (his first wife) has been described as devoted to her husband, supportive of his music, and faithful throughout their time together. She was with Johnny throughout all the hard times of financial struggle, they had two kids together, and according to most sources they had a loving happy marriage. Had Cash not become the icon and the star that he did, that marriage probably would've held firm. In the film Vivian is portrayed as a woman who is never happy, who nags her husband for more, as possessive, as jealous and materialistic. It also suggests that Vivian criticised Johnny's music, undermined him, and tore down his dream.

In reality Vivian was supportive, hardworking, loyal and celebrated his love of music. I think Johnny Cash would be the first person to say that his own behaviour, his fame, his abuse of drugs, his time on the road, and his infidelity were unfair on Vivian.

Johnny Cash and Vivian Cash were married 12 years before they divorced, although it seems that this film trivialises that and just wants to treat her as a mistake that happened before June Carter arrived.

Let's be perfectly honest here June Carter really struggled with her conscience when it came to loving Johnny Cash. When they got together he was a very bad man - a drug addict, and a man with a wild and unpredictable temper. He got banned from the Grand Ole' Opry for smashing all the footlights. June herself was a married woman (twice previously) and having a religious background wrote 'Ring of Fire' to express how she felt about Cash - she thought she was going to hell.

I'm pretty sure that Johnny Cash would have portrayed either his relationship with Vivian nor his relationship with June in such a lopsided way. Nor do I think that Cash would've portrayed himself as such a victim when it came to the drugs.

Other scenes are made to fit the mood and the mojo of the film. For example when Cash saw Sam Phillips for the first time at Sun Records he didn't get signed and they didn't make a record.

Phillips did warn Cash off gospel music (saying that he couldn't sell it) but Cash certainly didn't play 'Folsom Prison Blues' to him. The track that caught Sam's attention was the far less incendiary (and more duke box friendly) 'Hey Porter'.

When Phillips did hear 'Folsom Prison Blues' he wasn't convinced by it immediately and didn't really look at putting it out until 'Cry Cry Cry' was done.

What the film doesn't really reflect is that Cash didn't just write those dark moody tracks - he wrote chart friendly commercial stuff too, like 'Get Rhythm' and so on.

You get the idea.

Anyway - it's a superb film, even if it isn't a completely sincere telling of the story.

Jimi: All Is by My Side (2013)

You can't do Jimi Hendrix justice without his music

[3/10 · 26 July 2015]

Jimi Hendrix without the soundtrack is just bizarre and it's never going to work, is it? The generic efforts that have been made to simulate the sounds of some of the epic blues rock generation are just too poor to convey the excitement or innovation of the time.

Even if this was the greatest script in the world - with the best dialogue and characterisation - without the music you're never going to get over 5/10.

Sadly this film is short of having the greatest script in the world - or the best characterisation.

It's certain that the film makers have decided to take a darker slant on the great man - perhaps to grab a couple of headlines maybe - but the portrayal is inconsistent with just about every other contemporary source. Plenty have taken strong objection.

Compare, if you will, the truth and the reality between the image of John Lennon. Lennon was a genuinely abusive, misogynistic, violent guy. Just about every biography (and more importantly auto-biography) I have read accounts for Lennon as being caustic and up his own arse. I mean you can relay the number of people who queue up to tell the truth about John Lennon - the man who spoke about peace but contributed funds to a terrorist group. When someone gets round to telling the real story about Lennon there will be no shortage of corroboration.

Jimi Hendrix as a dark, violent, abuser just doesn't ring with any of the other sources out there. It's a deliberate mis-portrayal of a man who was genuinely a casualty of the scene.

So this is - at best - factually economical. It is also full of continuity errors. He is supposedly asked if he is better than 'The Who' (ok) and er, 'Queen'. Queen were never contemporaries of Jimi Hendrix. Even the least informed rock music fan is going to double take on that.

What can I say that is goo about the film? Well the lead portrayal of Hendrix is not bad - I'm talking about the acting, not the character as written. Andre 3000 has worked on his voice and tone quite successfully. He's worthy of a better Hendrix film. It's all that kept be on with it. To retain the criticism he sometimes slips into a snagglepuss type drawl sadly.

'A Film about Jimi Hendrix' is the 'go to' take on the man and the time. It makes this film completely redundant. Watch this for curiosity factor purely.