Reviews

The films follows Rose, a single mother and her two sons, Jean and Ernest, who have recently moved to France. The first third of the film focuses on Rose, the middle third skips forward 5(?) years and focuses on Jean, the elder boy, and the final year focuses on Ernest, the younger boy, first 3(?) years in the future and then a further 15(?) to see how things all turned out. But, whilst quite a lot happens to the family over the 20 years, the vast majority of it happens off screen which doesn't make for the most fascinating of viewing. It tends to focus more on the humdrum and mundane - cooking, cleaning and TERRIBLE dancing are all featured way more than is strictly necessary.

To be fair, it does have a powerful final scene which did engage me, but not nearly as much as the film-makers would have wanted me to because they'd really burned up a lot of my goodwill by this point. Under normal circumstances I would have given up way before the end and the fact that it was subtitled, so I could watch it at double speed, was very much appreciated. It also, to its credit, does not feature an abortion.

I can't fault the acting though - Annabelle Lengronne as Rose does a great job (it's not her fault that her character is so annoying) and the various incarnations of Jean and Ernest are also well done, particularly Kenzo Sambin and Ahmed Sylla as the oldest versions of those characters.

The general film style is interesting with the camera and the actors acting very naturally - it's like you're looking around a room and people walk into and disappear from view somewhat randomly. I'm not sure it fully worked for me, but I guess it's what the director Léonor Serraille was looking for and I can't fault her for trying something slightly different. There are also plenty of the obligatory shots of the Paris rooftops.

The film has a lot to recommend it but, unfortunately, plot was not one of those things and, for me, that lets it down badly. Yes, there's an argument that it's an understated and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle I don't understand and/or can't relate to and I'm prepared to accept that, but that didn't stop me being thoroughly bored by the whole thing. And if after that massive recommendation you fancy catching up with it, it's available to watch in a surprising number of places.

The film follows Bill (Jojo Bapteise Whiting) in his early 20s and Matho (LaDainian Crazy Thunder) in his early teens as they try to hustle their way to success/maturity/whatever their latest goal is. And so, like hustling often involves, various different strands are followed throughout the film - some of which progress the "story" along more than others. A sense of foreboding builds at the end, partly because the score starts sounding more like Jaws and partly because a review has told me that the boys lives are somehow interlinked so I was expecting a coming together to give the whole thing some meaning. And they do meet, but I don't think anyone could particularly describe it as revelatory - however, the film does give us some moments of tenderness and emotion that are really well conveyed, particularly around Matho, who could REALLY do with a bit more adult guidance from those around him.

The film is full of very natural performances - most of the actors in the film are first time actors and they all give a good account of themselves. Jojo and LaDainian do a lot of work throughout the film and they've both very expressive and easy to hang out with, although most of their behaviour would probably be described as sketchy at best.

It's an overly quirky film style at times - the buffalos and turkeys randomly appearing do get a little unsettling, but I'm sure they mean something to someone. It's generally nicely filmed - nice use of the scenery and light and shade (although possibly a little too much shade at times). I think it manages to stay the right side of "documenting a lifestyle away from the mainstream" without straying into the "overly worthy/patronising" but I'm really not the best placed person to comment on such matters. I also think that for two white women (Riley and Gina Gammell) to create this, no matter how many Native Americans they consulted with, they are opening themselves up to comments along the "poverty tourism" lines (particularly since Riley cannot be lacking a dollar or two) - critical comment has generally been positive though.

And there's no doubt that poverty is very much on display - these people do not lead glamorous lives and the struggle to exist day-to-day feels very real. Grindingly so, which I'm sure it is, but I do feel the film could have benefited from a little more light to contrast the shade. There's also not enough plot for the length of the film and some of the stories involved go on waaaay longer than they need to - however, I never felt like giving up on it (although it did take me several attempts to get through it).

One other quibble that may be entirely down to me - I found a lot of the dialogue tricky to understand. I think it was a combination of the accents, the language and the sound levels (there's often a large amount of "background" noise, which must be a deliberate choice but not one I appreciated) but at times I really had to pay attention to get some idea what was going on.

Overall, I think there's plenty of promise and some great filmmaking on display here from Riley and Gina - for me it has not, however, resulted in a great film but it's certainly interesting and beautiful in places. If you fancy checking it out, then it's available to rent in all the usual places (and a bargain £1.99 on Apple+) - it's worth a look, but won't be for everyone.

I recognise the name, but that's about it and I do like a good documentary, so I'm looking forward to this - although I'm expecting to be thoroughly confused by it all.

Well, what we have here is a pretty straightforward telling of a pretty unstraightforward life. Nam June was born in South Korea to a wealthy family and he trained as a classical pianist and found himself in Berlin to continue his studies. At which point, he fell in with an experimental art collective and his life took a bit of a left turn from that point onwards, with him ending up in New York doing a very bizarre selection of things, often with very little money to support himself.

The film is full of very earnest arty types who seem very close to parody these days, but I imagine were pretty shocking in Berlin in the late 50s and New York in the 60s. We have John Cage playing a manual typewriter accompanied by Karlheinz Stockhausen with some weird electronic keyboard, Charlotte Moorman submerging herself in an oil drum full of water before playing the cello whilst sitting on Nam June, Charlotte again getting arrested for playing the cello naked - I could go on and on.

Like all these things it's easy to scoff and say "anyone could do that" but I find the thought processes involved interesting, even if I find the outcome ridiculous - although that certainly (for me) wasn't always the case here. There are some interesting "before their time" concepts about personalised TV channels with a global reach and the "electronic superhighway" - his video art also felt way ahead of its time, but I can't claim enough knowledge on the subject to speak confidently on the matter! There's also a fascinating short section showing the influence that Global Groove, his 1973 video work had on various pop videos - they were very influenced indeed. He seemed like a nice guy and he certainly had some fascinating ideas (and some mad ones) and it was quite interesting to learn more about both him and them.

What it didn't make for though, was a great film. It's a perfectly passable film, but it's nearly all archive footage run through some video editing software to play it simultaneously, move it all around the screen or obscure it in an arty fashion. It also had weird sound mixing whereby voices are set to a much lower volume than the accompanying noises - luckily I had access to subtitles, otherwise I think I'd have really struggled to find a bearable volume for it.

As I said, most of the film is archive footage but Steven Yeun does pop up as the narrator - his fourth appearance in some capacity here (and I've got another one on the go at the minute). They also manage to catch up with quite a few of his contemporaries, all of whom have nothing but nice words to say about the man so it doesn't exact make for much controversy!

All in all, I enjoyed this but don't really see what warrants it for inclusion in the list of the best films of 2023 - it was a perfectly serviceable film about an interesting character who it's probably fair to say isn't massively going to chime with the mainstream. If you have any interest in the art scene and aren't massively au fait with Nam June then I think it's worth a watch and it's available to rent in all the usual locations - but otherwise you're probably perfectly fine without this in your lives.

Another French language film - someone at The Guardian REALLY likes them. And I for one can't wait to learn all about a poverty-stricken Moroccan family...

We follow Fatima-Zahra (Aicha Tebbae) and her teenage son Selim (Abdellah El Hajjouji) as they try to fashion a living under somewhat dubious and straitened circumstances, which are not overly explained at the beginning. And then they are and you immediately have a lot more sympathy for them (although it really only poses more questions than it answers). And basically they then go to Tangiers and stuff happens to them, most of which means that you quickly lose any sympathy you might have had for them. And a lot of it makes absolutely no sense at all - and so it continues, until the film ends (in a way that I didn't overly understand).

Considering I took the title to mean something along the lines of "beggars can't be choosers", both of the main characters spend an awful lot of time looking gift horses in the mouth or being incredibly judgemental about each other - Fatima-Zahra in particular is an absolute nightmare. Whenever things seem like they might be looking up for either of them, they either self-sabotage or ruin things for the other one - I can't say I'm overly up on the social or political situation, but it all feels a bit unnecessary and overly dramatic to me.

Within the context of two pretty unlikeable main characters, the acting is fine if unremarkable - I'd say Abdellah does the better job of the two given he's quite a tempestuous character and it would be easy to go over the top and he doesn't. I'd also call out Moustapha Mokafih who plays a sympathetic character caught up with them, but no-one is dreadful and IMDB (there's no Wikipedia entry for the film, which is rare) suggests that it's the first film for most of the actors. It's not a first film for Fyzal Boulifa the film's writer and director though - I'd say the camerawork is unflashy and competent and there are more locations used in the film than I was expecting.

But - it's basically a couple of unlikeable characters in unbelievable or incomprehensible (yes, I'm willing to accept this could well be my fault!) scenarios so I'm not sure any amount of acting or direction could rescue it for me. It's not a dreadful film but I've no idea why anyone would want to watch it or why The Guardian were so fulsome in their praise for it. But if you really want to, it's available to stream on BFIPlayer or to rent in all the usual locations - just don't say I didn't warn you.

Julie (Julie Ledru) lives with her mum with whom she has a tempestuous relationship, but what she dreams about is bikes. So she joins a biker gang and does the sort of thing that biker gangs do. Which as far as I can tell is ride bikes, steal bikes, fix bikes, talk about bikes and various other bike-related activities. But, are they really ready to accept a WOMAN in their gang? Go on, guess...

About halfway through the film, Julie does get to meet Ophelie (Antonia Buresi), another woman who's not entirely part of the gang. The introduction of a relationship with different drivers does benefit the film, even if it's not exactly a particularly well constructed relationship occurring between two characters that you struggle to sympathise with or relate to.

And then there's the ending - where do I start with that? In theory, it's based around a good idea with a big heist that involves all the team which is either going to draw them all together or expose fatal faultlines. But it's only really introduced ten minutes before the end so it's all very rushed and it all ends in a VERY bizarre way - I've absolutely no idea what Lola Quivoron, the writer and director was thinking. Although, to be fair, there is a nice coda - but it's so not worth sitting through the entire film to experience it.

As you can possibly tell, I was not massively impressed by the film's story - it has a few conflicting good ideas in there but it doesn't feel to me like it really knows what it wants to concentrate on at any point in time, so it all ends up being a bit of a mess with a bizarre ending. A lot of the action (unsuprisiingly) takes place on bikes and it all looks to be technically well done - some of the tricks are undoubtedly impressive, but I've no idea whether the filming is easy or tricky to do so I don't want to go overboard on any praise here. I'd also say that you're not going to watch the film for the tricks either - three minutes on YouTube will probably serve you just as well.

The acting is fine - it's all pretty rough and ready but I wasn't really expecting Daniel Day-Lewis levels of "art" here. Julie Ledru carries the film well enough, but I'm not sure she'll be moving on much greater things - Antonia Buresi suffers somewhat from having to be quite unpleasant when we first meet her and it seems like unpleasant isn't her strong suit, but as the relationship thaws her acting improves. I'm also going to mention Cody Schroeder as Kylian, Ophelie's six(?) year old son because he acts the pants off most of the other actors involved - but to be fair to them, very few of the supporting characters are anything more than very sketchily drawn out.

This isn't a terrible film, but it's also not great - it's also disappointing that doesn't feel like it would have taken an awful lot of effort to make it considerably better. There's also absolutely no way it was one of the 50 best films of 2023 and I've no idea what The Guardian was thinking of in picking it. If you still want to watch it after that glowing review then it's available to stream on BFIPlayer or to rent on Apple TV but the only reason to do so is that I'd then have someone to discuss the ending with...

As far as I know this is our first Galician language film - unsurprisingly, I know absolutely nothing about it. I have concerns it's going to be a bit tense for my liking, but let's see...

The film doesn't rush in to giving you any clue as to what's going to happen - we meet Olga (Marina Foïs) and Antoine (Denis Ménochet) who are a French couple living in Spain and they seem to mostly get on with their lives, but there are initial signs that they doesn't get on with some of the natives. Particularly their neighbours Xan (Luis Zahera) and Loren (Diego Anido), and things just get worse as the film progresses - and that's all I'm going to tell you about the story!

It's all very well written and surprisingly tense throughout - much more so than I was expecting (I had to take quite a few breaks from it) and you get a real sense of injustice in places. However, it's nicely balanced because although one side is obviously wronged, all parties could be more considerate and they're given their moment to explain their point of view and their motivation. It also has an ending that really keeps you guessing - ten minutes from the end, I had no idea how it was going to be wrapped up (but it does it well).

There are also a surprising number of scenes where the actors are really given the opportunity to open up their acting throttle and let loose - which I wasn't really expecting. It's very well acted by all the people I've previously mentioned, with Denis in particular giving a really good performance - it's actually the second time we've seen him on here because he's also in Only The Animals (which is a film I very much recommentd) - he's also in Inglorious Basterds, apparently. I'm also going to mention Marie Colomb who plays Marie, Olga and Antoine's daughter - she's not in it loads, but she's in a couple of very strong scenes with Marina.

It's also well shot - the rural setting is beautiful and really used to full effect, but there are also some very well framed indoor shots. My only real quibble would be that I didn't need it to be 2:15 long - losing 20-30 minutes would have made absolutely no difference to the plot. However, it would have made things even tenser, so maybe I should be pleased it gave me some opportunities to relax.

For the first film on the list (which must have had a reasonably small budget) this is an amazingly accomplished offering - I don't imagine too many people will have sought out a Galician language offering, but everyone's missing out on a great film. If you fancy it, it's available to stream on BFIPlayer and, you might be surprised to hear, available to rent in most of the usual places, so I hope people stumble across it (provided they're able to deal with tension slightly better than I am).

Despite having seen it twice, I am struggling with exactly how to describe it - especially because the second time I watched it I wrote up some notes, but now I can't find them. Ostensibly, we're following Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh) as she has a bit of breakdown around numerous issues surrounding her family (mostly her husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan) and her daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu)), business and finance.

Oh, and the potential destruction of all existing parallel universes by a bagel that's topped with everything.

And, boy do these parallel universes display a wildly imaginative range of, well, everything everywhere all at once. The flights of fancy that are entered here go waaay beyond anything that would occur to most people - there is some seriously mad stuff going on. But, to the film's great credit, it's very grounded in human emotions which makes it surprisingly relatable and it also manages to wrap things up surprisingly well. Obviously, this isn't to say that there aren't times that you have absolutely no idea what's going on!

Considering the huge range of actions and emotions on display, the film is really well acted with Michelle, Ke and Stephanie (who recently popped up in an episode of Poker Face) all excelling in their roles. Jamie Lee Curtis is also a revelation as Deirdre Beaubeirdre, an amusingly grumpy tax inspector (in some of the universes, anyway). I'm also going to mention Tallie Medal as Becky, who brings a pleasing level of normalcy to the film and Jenny Slate as Debbie The Dog Mom because we'll be meeting her in 2023 in a slightly higher profile role as the writer of Marcel The Shell With Shoes On.

It's interesting to note that after I complained that Avatar extended sequences unnecessarily, this film features one sequence that only features a couple of rocks "viewing" the scenery - and you'd say it goes on FAR too long, but it actually goes through that to become somewhat intriguing. There's also an absolutely amazing 30 second scene which features more scenes that you get in some films.

For such a load of confusing nonsense, it did very well critically, winning seven Oscars including Best Picture, Director, Actress, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress (for Jamie, although Stephanie was also nominated) as well as loads at other ceremonies - IGN reports it's the "most awarded film ever" (and I've no idea how you measure that!). Here's a fine movie quiz question for you - no film has ever won all four acting Oscars but this was the third film to win three out of them, What were the other two? (I wouldn't have got either of them!)

Yes, I haven't really described the film very well but it's pretty much a film that defies description. It's also, in my opinion, utterly brilliant - the level of imagination, action and emotion on display throughout the film is way higher than most others, and it never suffers from any noticeable dip. I have no idea why The Guardian left it off their list - they did like it, giving it four stars, but just not as much as other classics such as, well, at least half the films on their list that I've completely forgotten about. If you've not seen it, then you should and you'll certainly be able to find it somewhere.

And the other two films which won three acting Oscars are A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) and Network (1976) - and I've never seen Network (shame on me!).

I know a lot of people loved, loved, loved Avatar, but I was very much not one of them. There was no doubt it looked impressive, but I found it an overly long version of a story that I just didn't care for - so it's safe to say I'm not exactly looking forward to this.

Dear God, there's 3:12 of the thing. ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO MINUTES! Who needs that?!? If I had just one guess, I suspect I'd go for "not me".

Well, I did it! ALL the way through and boy was it a struggled. There's no doubt that a lot of the components of the film are impressive and I promise I'll try to remember to mention some of them. But...

...there's a very fine line between "epic" and "dull" and this film sees that line, speeds over it and leaves it for dust in the rear view mirror. It also desperately wants me to care about the characters - and I just don't. I don't know if it's because they're animated or because they are aliens or because they're not particularly well written - but I really don't care if all of them and their beautiful planet gets entirely destroyed. In fact, I'd destroy it myself if it meant the film finished in half the time.

Actually, I'm not being entirely fair there - if it was half the time, then I might have cared an awful lot more about it all. There is a decent enough (but not great or particularly original) story hiding in there and there were some moments in the last hour where I did feel slightly engaged - but even they were spoiled because...

...there are too many setpieces which are only there to provide a visual spectacle but they add nothing to the plot - they would be impressive (although still too long) if part of a David Attenborough documentary, but all you've got here is the imagination and ability of the animators. There is, however, no doubt that they are very able animators (IMDB lists 63 of them!) - there's some very impressive visuals on display in pretty much every frame of the film. I found the "animated" humans particularly intriguing - they manage to somehow look real and fake at the same time.

My other major talking point is that for a film with such a stellar cast, a lot of the voice acting isn't great - it's all very over the top. The baddies in particular are all very pantomime villain and some of the other characters have very poorly written motivations, so I guess the cast were just working with what they'd been given but, once again, it didn't help me care about things.

Wikipedia tells me this film has grossed over $2 billion worldwide, which is an absolutely mad amount of money. And, joy of joys, that means we're going to get Avatar 3, 4 and 5!! Wikipedia also explains why it didn't appear in The Guardian's list with their critic having described it as having a "scathingly bland plot" - I agree with the sentiment, although I remain unsure about the use of the word "scathingly" there!

You know what (and this might surprise you) I really didn't like this film (although I did enjoy picking that quote as the post title) and I am completely mystified by its popularity. If you want to watch it you can find it in all the usual places, but I struggle to imagine why anyone would want to do that to themselves.

I've heard it's pretty good so I'm looking forward to it.

Throughout the film (which is set in 1719) we follow Naru (played by Amber Midthunder) who is struggling to find her place in a society which isn't exactly accepting of a woman who wants something more than washing, cooking and craftwork. Her mother and brother are more accepting of her than most in a "we love you anyway" kinda way, but obviously what she needs to do is take on a Predator (which, of course, no-one else believes exists). In theory, the fight should last about 20 seconds but, funnily enough, it doesn't quite work out that way - nothing motivates a female lead character like being put in her place by a man - preferably a kindly relative (her brother in this case).

But you know what? It's really good! It's got a simple but effective plot, it looks gorgeous, it's got a load of nicely tense scenes and it comes in at a tight 100 minutes. And, of all these points, its gorgeousness is probably the most unexpected, but it really can't be overstated - it's really very beautiful indeed with a strong natural theme (both flora and fauna). Continuing the artistic theme, it also has surprisingly good music for a film that doesn't really need it - it's always pleasing when a film pays attention to details.

It's also well acted - Amber Midthunder is the beating heart of the film but is ably supported on all fronts. Some of which have more to do than others - Dakota Beavers is all action as her brother whereas Michelle Thrush does a lot more washing and weaving as her mother. But Amber deserves all the plaudits she got - I didn't recognise her, so was somewhat surprised to see she'd been in Legion, Banshee and Reservation Dogs, all of which I enjoyed.

I don't really have a lot more to say about this - yes, it's patently ridiculous but it's really well done ridiculous and it's also a lot more stylish and much less one-note than you'd expect. It gives the fans what they want, but there's plenty there for others and it's a snappy 100 minutes - The Guardian should pick more films like this on their list. At time of writing, it's available to watch on Disney+ and it's a strong recommendation from me.

This is another one that's on my list to watch, but quite when I'd have got round to finding the required three hours isn't clear. I know it was somewhat divisive with the audience - my eldest went to watch it at the cinema and was quite bored, but I'm hoping I'll quite enjoy it.

Hmmm, I quite enjoyed it in places, but the first thing to say that it is too long - quite how anyone didn't think to edit it down is beyond me. However, it looks very fine throughout and it looks very Gotham - a lot of the shots have been very carefully and artfully composed. It feels like a video game in a lot of places - a very well done video game with some very nice action shots. And it's well acted and the plot manages to be different enough from previous Batman films to keep you a least slightly intrigued as to how it's going to end. However, can you guess there's a "but" (or two) coming?!?

Well...

The film just has no heart, it takes itself far too seriously, it has no characters I felt the need to root for (yes, Batman is in peril at times, but you know perfectly well he's not really!), everyone speaks in ridiculously low growls all the time for no obvious reason and some elements of the plot are absolutely ridiculous. Which is QUITE the list of complaints now, isn't it?

All of which are only made worse by the lengthy running time - but I'd also have to say that, surprisingly, at no point did I feel like giving up on it because I wanted to see how it ended. However, it then served up a ridiculously low-key ending - I was totally left thinking "was that it?!?". So the whole thing for me was a victory for style over content - and I'm quite surprised how close it comes to getting away with it. I think this is because if looks so good that I feel if I didn't have to think about it to write it up I'd have come away thinking "yeah, that was alright" - which is a slightly odd turn of events!

It is undoubtedly well acted - Robert Pattinson is good as The Batman (although possibly a little too brooding) - he spends remarkably little time being Bruce Wayne and he also wears an awful lot of eye-liner at times. He also looks quite like Adam West with his mask on, which I wasn't expecting. Paul Dano as The Riddler is a very unsettling villain and Colin Farrell is also excellent as the The Penguin - and almost completely unrecognisable, which does make you wonder why they cast him. The film, for me, suffered from too many characters - I struggled to understand who everyone was and whether I should care about them but you can't deny the quality of actors involved - Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, Andy Serkis, John Turturro and Peter Sarsgaard all have pretty chunky roles. There are also some well known actors I totally wasn't expecting to see - Rupert Penry-Jones (Spooks), Con O'Neill (Happy Valley, Chernobyl, Our Flag Means Death), Sandra Dickinson and Barry Keoghan all pop up unexpectedly.

An easy, but not unreasonable, comparison to make here is Joker (which drops the definite article which this film picks up) - you can't help but feel that someone was told "make it dark - nope, darker than that" and they've certainly taken that advice to heart. Although it's quite interesting because whilst I think Joker is a "better" film, it's very lacking in enjoyment so I much preferred watching this one.

All of which suggests I have slightly conflicting views on this film and I'd struggle to argue with that - it has a lot to recommend it and I'd certainly say it's worth watching (and I'm glad I did so). But it's far too long, doesn't end satisfactorily and is ultimately all a bit soulless, which did leave me feeling a bit deflated. I imagine I'll still watch the next one though...

This is another one I'd not have bothered with under normal circumstances, but del Toro is never boring so I'm intrigued as to what he's done with it.

And, well, he's certainly done loads with it - it all gets very existential indeed. Pinocchio is created by Gepetto to replace his son (who was killed in an bombing raid) and throughout the film he runs off to join the circus, makes friends with a monkey, performs for Mussolini, gets enlisted in the army, gets swallowed by a giant fish and repeatedly visits the underworld (which is obviously run by rabbits). All the while, posing questions on the very nature of parenthood, friendship, fascism, sacrifice and death - and it has a VERY charming ending indeed.

It all very well told and it looks fantastic - the animation is really well done with some really subtle touches in it. It is, however, hard to tell who they're making the film for - it must be aimed at the family market but it's not like del Toro's name is really going to help sell it there and I'm also not sure which ages of children would actually like it. The songs are also an odd choice - it feels like they're trying to Disney-fy it, but they're very average and instantly forgettable so they give up on that idea halfway through the film - and in some cases they give up on a song a couple of lines in!

The voice acting through is pretty good - David Bradley and Gregory Mann both deserve special praise for their excellent work as Gepetto and Pinocchio. I'm going to mention Tilda Swinton for her third "appearance" of the year - and yes, she's playing some weird characters but, to be fair, there are a lot of weird characters in this film! I also need to mention that Mussolini is played by Tom Kenny who you probably don't recognise from the name, but he voices Spongebob Squarepants - which is quite a pair of names to have on the CV.

Wikipedia tells me this film won an Oscar, making del Toro the first filmmaker to win Academy Awards for Best Director, Best Picture and Best Animated Feature for different films, for The Shape of Water and Pinocchio, respectively.

I actually quite enjoyed this - it was a clever story in a clever setting and there were some real moments of tension and heart nicely scattered throughout the film. I'm not sure I'd say it's really one of the best films of the year and my life would have been perfectly fine without seeing it, but it was a diverting two hours which I don't feel were wasted. As I said previously though, I'm not really sure who it was aimed at so I'm not sure I really feel I can recommend it - but if you fancy it, it's there on Netflix for you.

In this, we're following Calum (Paul Mescal) and Sophie (Francesca Corio, who is eleven both in the film and real life, so quite where they get nine-year-old is beyond me) as they spend some quality holiday time in Turkey.

It's all done as a nice mixture of "real time" filmed footage and "play back" camcorder footage filmed - does that make sense? It's also interspersed with some very cryptic shots (which do finally make sense, but they take their time). The scenes are generally very short - little snippets where often very little happens, and when something does happen it often doesn't seem to relate to anything we've seen before.

You don't feel like you're really seeing anything that might even be close to being called a plot, but you're enjoying the time that you're spending with Calum and Sophie and you get a feel for the sort of people they are. Calum seems like a nice lad and has a decent relationship with Sophie, but doesn't seem to be entirely sure what being a grown up or a parent means. And Sophie is at an interesting age - still happy enough to hang out with her dad but curious to explore some independence, some aspects of which are explored in the film.

You do, however, have a growing sense of unease throughout the film - part of it is from various hints that you're dropped (nothing too obvious though), but also the longer it goes on without much really happening, you can't help but suspect it's storing up a whammy of an ending for you. And obviously I'm not going to tell you any more than that...

The acting really is top notch with Paul and Francesca knocking it out of the park, both separately and in their relationship - they're very watchable even when they're not really doing anything. You'd expect it from Paul (the lad's an aged 27 after all) but Francesca shows a maturity and ability beyond her years. There are other people in the film, but rarely long enough to make an impression - it's very much centred on the pair of them.

It's both written and directed by Charlotte Wells and you'd have to say she's pulled a blinder on her debut. It's really cleverly written, creating the story out of hints and snippets and the style has a lovely sundrenched feel to it during the day which contrasts nicely with the more intimate feel of the night-time shots. And there's some lovely landscape shots in there as well - all in all this is a very impressive film, let alone debut from a 35 year old.

Personally, I preferred The Quiet Girl but this has quite a similar style, not least in terms of drawing you in emotionally. This has less of an obvious plot to it which I can see might annoy some people, but it drew me in slowly and kept me there - the writing is good, but the acting is absolutely stellar. At time of writing it's available to stream on MUBI and rent in all the usual locations and it's well worth a watch.

I've heard this is good and I know it's a rare Irish language film, but apart from that I'm coming to to this pretty much blind - I'm expecting it to look fabulous though.

We follow Cait (who is in fact, pretty quiet) who lives with her large family in relative poverty and neglect, ignored because she doesn't make enough noise to compete. Her mother is expecting yet another child, so Cait is packed off to some childless relatives/friends/some random couple anyway. Eibhlín (the wife) is obviously nurturing but seems sad whilst Seán is taciturn and remote - obviously all of them are going to blossom as the film progresses. The only question is whether it's going to end well or going to end badly - I fear badly, but I very much hope well...

The softening of the relationship between Seán and Cait is beautifully done with some really nice touches - a biscuit left without a word, sharing work on the farm, a quiet moonlit chat on the beach. And it's lovely to see her become less quiet as her confidence in being listened to grows. The whole film is a beautiful testament to power of cherishing and listening to a child - a little bit of love and attention goes a long way and this film shows it nicely.

So, does it end well or end badly? Well, obviously that would be telling but it has a lovely ending which manages to be both happy and sad - and I might have got something in my eye as a result of it. There are also some really subtle touches throughout the film which tug at your heartstrings when you realise the significance of them - the internet is amusingly full of people who just sobbed throughout the film. I do have to stress it's not a sad film but I can just see that many elements would resonate with people and bring back strong emotions.

The acting is top notch throughout - very naturalistic and particularly believable if you've ever met any Irish people. Catherine Clinch who plays Cait is excellent as the still centre of the film - she manages to be very expressive even when she's not saying anything. And Carrie Crowley and Andrew Bennett also excel as Eibhlin and Seán - all three of them work really well together and give the film some real emotional heft.

It's all beautifully shot, so credit must be given to Colm Bairéad on his debut. The camera rarely moves, but there's often motion in the shot - it's quite an effective style. I was also reminded of Playground with the camera often adopting Cait's level and the levels of Irish poverty also brought The Wonder to mind, although the timeframe is somewhat different. Colm also get credit for the screenplay - adapted from a 2010 short story by Clare Keegan which is well worth a read if you get the chance (but I'd watch the film first). It's also our first 4:3 aspect ratio film of the year - we had loads of them last year, but they're obviously out of fashion again (but it works well for me here).

One completely random point to finish - I was amused to see Eiblin had the same hoover we had in the 80s.

Re-reading this so far, I've said some very nice things about this film but I still don't think I've really done it credit. This is an absolutely glorious film that I loved and whole-heartedly recommend to everyone - it's well written, well acted, looks gorgeous and really pulls on your heartstrings. It's had quite a low profile (despite being Oscar nominated) but you should really make an effort to track it down - it doesn't help itself by being available to stream on BFIPlayer but it's available to rent in all the usual locations. Seriously, check it out - you won't regret it.

Only #1 left on the list and it's really gonna have to go some to beat this..

I never think I like Pedro Almodóvar films, but when I look through his filmography, I have to report that I've seen exactly none of them - so I'm probably not in the best place to comment really, am I? So let's break that duck, shall we?

Hmmm - it's very earnest. It does indeed follow Penélope Cruz and Milena Smit as they experience motherhood - in a parallel fashion, unsurprisingly. It spends half an hour going nowhere and then, out of left field - BOOM! Well, I wasn't expecting that. And then, from further out - DOUBLE BOOM! Blimey. All of a sudden we've got ourselves a proper story. And that's all I'm going to tell you, except for saying that the film raises quite a few interesting points that I'd like to discuss, but can't because of spoilers. And then it kinda does nothing with them...

Penélope Cruz and Milena Smit are both great in this - their relationship in the film changes over time and they sell their different roles and motivations well. Israel Elejaide is also good as Arturo, the token man/anthropologist - every film needs a token anthropologist, right?

The overall aesthetic is a bit odd - it's quite melodramatic and soapy and really not helped by the bizarre music which has a very cheesy 60s sitcom style. However, with themes including motherhood, guilt, fascism and redemption, it's fair to say this film couldn't be more Spanish if it tried. Another thing you can quite safely say about this film is that it passes the Bechdel test - it has hardly anything other than conversations between women in it and they're never discussing men. It also doesn't really end in the way that I was expecting - for such a melodramatic film it has quite a low-key ending.

So - did I like it? I didn't not like it, but it also didn't overly engage me. It started very slowly (I probably would have given up on it under normal circumstances), introduced a couple of interesting plot devices and then resolved them in a surprisingly understated fashion so I was definitely left thinking "Huh - was that it?". But the performances are good and it taught me a bit about the Spanish Civil War, so it's not all bad - I've no idea whether that will be enough to interest you. If it is, then it's available to rent in all the usual places - I can't say my opinion of Pedro has massively improved, but at least I have the one film to base that opinion on now.

Paul Thomas Anderson is an interesting one. His acclaimed masterpiece (There Will Be Blood) is accepted as such by pretty much everyone - except for me. It looked very fine, but seriously - what was the point to it all? I also couldn't get into The Master, but apart from that I've pretty much enjoyed all of his films I've seen - Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love and Phantom Thread are all interesting and look fantastic. I've heard this is good - I suspect I'd have got around to watching it at some point, but probably not as quickly as this if I'm being honest.

And what a peculiar film this is! Gary Valentine (played by Cooper Hoffman) is a child actor who appears to be coming to the end of his career (at the tender age of fifteen) when he bumps into Alana Kane (played by Alana Haim) and he's quite smitten with her, so has to decide how to impress her. So, quite obviously, he enters the waterbed business - isn't that what everyone does to impress a girl? And, somewhat surprisingly, japes and romance result - but it's fair to say the course of true love does not run smooth. In fact, I'd suggest it runs completely bizarre, often taking very random detours for no obvious reason. It also weirdly uses characters from real life for no obvious reason - and basically that's all I'm going to tell you.

The acting style is a bit odd because it somehow manages to be natural and over the top at the same time - it's quite Tarantinoesque in that regard and several bits of this reminded me of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood (the retro nature, acting content and use of real-life figures somewhat obviously invited the comparison). Almost Famous was another film that came to mind and you get the impression this wanted to be just as charming, but unfortunately comes nowhere close. The retro nature is very well here done - you really feel like you're in the 70s. It's also a very summery film - there's a lot of skimpy outfits and camera flare going on.

I don't blame the actors for the acting style in the slightest - I'm sure they were merely doing what they were told. Cooper and Alana make a pleasant enough pair - not exactly drowning in chemistry but I don't get the impression it was supposed to be that kind of relationship. They both do a pretty good job for major roles in their first films though and they're certainly watchable. Cooper is the son of Phiip Seymour Hoffman and you can really see the resemblance when you're told that and Alana is one of HAIM (a popular music combo, in case you're not aware). Also, somewhat bizarrely, Alana the character's family is played by Alana the actor's family - I don't think her dad should be expecting the phone to be ringing off the hook with offers.

No-one else really gets a chunky role to sink their teeth into, but a LOT of familiar faces pop up throughout the film. It was nice to see Sean Penn - he doesn't do so much these days and whilst he's certainly an interesting character in real life, he's a fine actor (although he's a bit of dick here). Bradley Cooper also pops up in a random role, playing a somewhat controversial real-life figure who was an executive producer on the latest version of A Star Is Born, directed by on Bradley Cooper.

I do have a couple of random quibbles. Firstly, I found the ten year age gap a bit disconcerting because Cooper and Alana look physically to be a very similar age and, in terms of maturity, Gary is the one that has his life sorted out. Although, unusually for film, the actors actually have a ten year age gap in real life (but obviously they're five years older than they're supposed to be). Secondly, there's far too much running in this film for no obvious reason - maybe it's a metaphor for youth being in a hurry, but it's just annoying.

All in all, this film is an odd one - it's not terrible and it does have some plot, but there's an awful lot of nothingness or randomness in there and 133 minutes is far, far too long. I think my main complaint is that I just didn't see the point to it - it was all perfectly pleasant but at no point did I care about any of it. At time of writing it's available to rent in all the usual locations, but I'm not entirely sure why you'd bother.

No, I've never heard of this but not only is it our second Iranian film on the list, it's the second film made by a member of the Panahi family - the last one was very peculiar indeed, so I'm hoping for something a little more straightforward this time (it would struggle to be less straightforward!).

On the face of it, we've got something pretty simple - a family taking a road trip. Dad is grumpy with a broken leg, Mum seems a bit more sensible and trying to keep everyone in line, the eldest son is very quiet and the youngest son is QUITE the handful - precocious beyond belief and he won't shut up, but he's also pretty funny.

As time goes on, it becomes clear why they're on the road trip and emotions run high with everyone reacting in their own way to the situation, with the family unit still being the overriding factor. All in all, the film is a thoughtful meditation on family relationships - particularly what you'd do for your children, no matter what the cost to you. You'll always love them, even if they drive you mad or are acting quite unloveably - and you'll always want to give them advice, no matter how much they don't want it! And in that vein, the film meanders its way to a bittersweet but very satisfactory conclusion - it manages to pack a whole lot more plot in there than you initially envisage, with it being slowly released as the film progresses.

It's all well acted - Hassan Madjooni and Pantea Panahiha (the parents) in particular do a great job but Amin Simiar (the elder son) and Rayan Sarlak (the younger) join them in acting as a believable family unit. There are other people in the film, but it's fair to say they don't have the chance to shine - except for the cyclist in a road race that they accidentally knock over who takes his moment in the spotlight well.

The film is well written on several levels - it has believable characters, who you like and root for, even if they're not behaving at their best. They are also in a believable relationship - there's a lot here that will chime with anyone. But on top of that stable core, it also introduces some lovely song/dance routines and flights of fancy at times.

It has an utterly charming scene wherein the dad (wearing a very snazzy gold sleeping bag suit!) and youngest son talk utter nonsense about how much Batman's car is worth (and it feels exactly like the sort of thing a real family would talk about anywhere in the world). And as they talk, stars appear in the grass they're lying on and then it's slowly replaced by the night sky - it's just so lovely. It also manages to have a remarkably poignant scene where one of the family is tied to a tree and screaming his head off - which is quite the achievement.

It's also well filmed - a lot of it takes place in the car but it all feels well thought out. It's also got very cool scenery - there's all sorts in Iran it appears and it looks to be a beautiful country, but I suspect I won't be paying it a visit any time soon. And since it was both written and directed by Panah Panahi, he thoroughly deserves a name-check (and I enjoyed this a lot more than I enjoyed his father's film).

I wouldn't say this is a "great" film, but it's thoroughly enjoyable and relatable, whilst also having plenty of content to make you think a bit deeper about things and maybe appreciate your life a bit more. I also imagine that making any film in Iran is not a trivial undertaking (it really isn't), particularly one with some political content, so credit is due to the team involving in getting this out there. Some aspects of this film are very specific to Iran, but it feels easily transferable so I wouldn't be surprised to see an English language remake at some point - although in several places I was very much reminded of Little Miss Sunshine, so there's possibly an argument this is a Farsi-language politicised version of that!

Provided you don't mind subtitles, I think this is well worth watching - at the time of writing, it's available to rent in all the usual places (it's much more widely available than I was expecting) so maybe check it out.

I've heard this is good, but there would have been absolutely no chance of me watching it under normal circumstances - I'm expecting it to be somewhat outside of my cultural norms.

Well, yes it is but it is, in places at least, a load of fun. It is also, in other places, overblown, silly, impressive, you-name-it - basically, any adjective you can think of will probably be covered at some point during the 182 minute running time. But what it is throughout is utterly, utterly bonkers.

The general plot, as The Guardian states, follows a pair of real-life revolutionaries - Komaram Bheem (played by N. T. Rama Rao Jr) and Rama Raju (played by Ram Charan). What The Guardian or the film neglects to mention is that, in real life, the two of them never met so this is all completely invented. And if they had met, you can be quite certain that it wouldn't have gone anything like it does here - the whole thing features so many twists, turns and coincidences as to be quite ridiculous. And that's even before we get to the singing and dancing!

The main baddies in this are very much the British and they are all amusingly pantomime (except for Jenny, who is pure of heart and helps them in their hour of need). There are also times when both of the "heroes" indulge in some extremely unheroic behaviour - at times they are actively working against each other (but obviously things get resolved before the end and they come together to beat those awful Brits).

The film may be utterly ridiculous, but it certainly doesn't lack ambition. It has some very impressive imagery and stunts, a HUGE cast of extras (the introductory scene apparently featured 10,000 people) and some very impressive sets indeed - it's always a feast for the eyes. And although the plot is ridiculous, it is engaging - you know perfectly well how it's going to end but you're interested to see how it gets there (whilst often not believing what you're seeing).

Assuming that everyone in this film was told to go completely over the top, the acting is very much as the director wanted it. NTR Jr and Ram Charan are both engaging (and apparently very big things in the world of Indian cinema). Alia Bhatt does an excellent job of looking pretty and staring into the middle distance as Sita and Ray Stevenson and Alison Doody (a Bond girl from A View To A KIll) are excellent value as the main evil Brits.

Wikipedia tells me this is mainly a Telagu language film (the Brits speak an amusing mix of English and Telagu) and it's my first of the kind (it's my second Indian film, but the first was in Hindi). It's also the first Indian-produced film to win an Oscar - Best Original Song for "Naatu Naatu" (apparently that sequence was shot in Ukraine). Unsurprisingly, the film did quite well in India - it's the third highest grossing Indian film of all time.

Once I immersed myself in the spirit of the film, I actually quite enjoyed it - my only quibble would be the running time because it just doesn't need to be over three hours (but I believe this isn't an uncommon occurrence with Indian films). You don't get a chance to get bored though - the scenes change so frequently and so radically that there's just no time for any of that nonsense. All in all, it was an enjoyable cultural experience, but not one I'm looking to repeat anytime soon - at time of writing, it's available to stream on Netflix or to rent at all the usual locations.

I've heard this is good and I've yet to see anything that hasn't been improved by the presence of Florence Pugh, so I'm quite looking forward to it - although I doubt I'd have got round to watching it under any other circumstances.

It starts very interestingly for a film set in rural Ireland in the 1800s - we're panning round a very modern space, which it soon becomes clear is a sound stage because the inside of an old Irish cottage comes into view which makes for a stark contrast. And I suspect the message we're supposed to take from this is that nothing is what it initially seems - but let's see shall we.

We then start on the story with a nurse, Elizabeth Wright (Florence Pugh) who has been called over to Ireland to watch an 11 year old, Anna O'Connell (Kíla Lord Cassidy) who allegedly hasn't eaten in four months, with a view to establishing the truth of the situation. Obviously, Elizabeth doesn't believe any miracle is occurring but Anna seems guileless and there's no obvious cheating going on. The other person on the watch is a nun who obviously has different motivations and beliefs and additionally there are factions in the village who like the interest that Anna brings and others who would like the whole thing to go away. And, of course, as time goes on it becomes clear that Elizabeth doesn't have the straightforward backstory that would make her job much easier for her - and no, I'm not going to give you any clues as to what was going on.

The film makes some interesting points on being confronted by things you don't or can't believe in and how you might react. It's also intriguing as to how it's going to end - it does a good job of ensuring that enough progress is made to keep you engaged and guessing. And when things become clearer as what's going on, there's some very effective psychological horror elements introduced which had me quite spellbound (and appalled) - and raised some interesting points on being confronted by things you understand but can't accept. But, to its credit and my surprise, the film finds a way to resolve the story in a very pleasing manner - I really liked the way things panned out.

Florence is, as expected, excellent in this - she gets to do some full-on acting, displaying proper emotions and everything. And Kila more than holds her own against her - it's not her acting debut but I suspect it's a bit of step up from what she's previously done. Tom Burke does a good enough job when making his third appearance on the list this year - a fine effort by the lad, although you'd struggle to say he was massively central to any of them. I also thought Niamh Algar did a good job as Anna's mum - I knew I recognised her from somewhere but had to use Wikipedia to remind myself she was in Censor. There's also a fine selection of older male actors on the committee organising the watch who are Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, Dermot Crowley, Brian O'Byrne and David Wilmot - all of whom you recognise their faces without necessarily recognising their names.

It is, without a doubt, a film set in rural Ireland - they do a good job in making it realistic enough to convince me it was accurate (lots of religious iconography and poverty, some digging for peat, etc). There's obviously plenty of gorgeous scenery to work with and both the internal and external shots are all very well set-up and lit - the film has a very studied artistic feel to it (I was reminded of Portrait Of A Woman On Fire, although the subject matter is very different). All in all, there's a lot to admire here so I'm going to give the director Sebastián Lelio a name check - I'm sure that's going to make his day!

I really liked this - it felt like a proper grown-up film which has been made with full consideration to both the aesthetic and plot, with it looking beautiful and coming to a very satisfying conclusion despite the high-concept central idea. And it's also well acted and poses some interesting questions - exactly what a film should be imho. It's a strong recommendation from me for a film you may well have missed so go and check it out - at time of writing it's available to stream on both Netflix and Sky and to rent in all the usual locations.

Well, after part I, I'm obviously desperate to watch this - I'd say the only way is up, but I'm not sure I really believe that. Let's just hope it isn't any worse, eh?

Interestingly it starts at pretty much exactly the point that the last film ends which I wasn't expecting - and I think I'm safe telling you that was the death of Anthony, Julie's (Honor Swinton Byrne) dodgy geezer lover. And it pretty much continues in the same vein as the first film, but she is less brooding and more of her own person in this film. It all then gets extremely meta as she continues her work at film school and decides to make a film about her relationship - which means that this is a film about making a film about the relationship which the last film was about.

Overall, it's a very similar style of film to the previous one, but I did prefer this one (I'm not saying I loved it though!). In some ways it's a less interesting film because of the absence of Anthony who, despite his faults, was an interesting character but he did somewhat overwhelm the emotional drama of the last film. His absence enables this one to be a bit more nuanced and Julie gets to do more what she wants to do - although it's not all that clear that she really knows what that is a lot of the time (and there's a good thirty minutes in the middle where she patently doesn't have a clue). Overall, she does generally make more progress though so I found it more engaging and definitely less of a struggle than the last film - but everyone is still so earnest!

Once again, the film feels a lot like therapy for Joanna - although at least in this one she has the chance to show that she has made it out the other side. As with the last one, she's very much not afraid to show her faults - it's awkward at times but you can't fault her honesty. And, intriguingly, it's the second film in a row that I watched that ended with us cutting away from the scene to show us the sound stage (and it actually made more sense here than it did in the other one).

Honor delivers a similar performance to last time, but she does have more to work with this time. We actually get to see more of her student friends this time as well (because she actually spends some time at college) - Jaygann Ayeh, Ariane Labed, Harris Dickinson and Joe Alwyn are all watchable. Richard Ayaode is back with some terrible hair as a character with the same name as in the last film, but I'm really not sure if he's the same person (and also don't really care). And we get to see Tilda for the third film in a row - she actually seems pretty normal in this (and you'd really hope she'd be able to act at being Honor's mum). But she's only in two films from this year so she's going to be beaten by Tom Burke who appears in this (very briefly) to give him his second appearance on the list and we'll be seeing him again VERY soon.

I didn't love this, but I definitely preferred it to part I - but unfortunately I don't think there's any point in watching this unless you've previously endured that. So if you've watched the first one and found it bearable, then I think you should probably give this a go to complete the journey (it's available to stream on MUBI or to rent in all the usual places) - otherwise you're absolutely fine skipping them both.

I've no idea what to expect from it - I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to roll my eyes at the superficial artiness of it all, but let's see shall we?

Hmmm - "superficial artiness" is a bit harsh because it's basically a true story, but it doesn't feel very relatable ("extraordinary and excoriating" is pretty accurate). Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne) is at film school when she starts up a relationship with Anthony, a charming older man (Tom Burke) who turns out to be a bit of a wrong 'un - it takes us about five seconds to realise this, but it obviously took Julie/Joanna considerably longer to cotton on because of her sheltered/privileged upbringing. And basically that's all that happens as we dip into various aspects of Julie's personal, family and school life as the relationship progresses. And well, it's generally all rather dull.

I think it's "true to life"ness is part of my problem with it. The detail is well observed, but it's just not of interest. And in the interesting bits, Julie is just so naive and manipulated that I felt very uncomfortable watching it - if only half the details are an accurate portrayal of Joanna Hogg's life then it's certainly a brave choice to put them on screen and I hope she found the process therapeutic. I, on the other hand, did not and spent a lot of the time feeling either uncomfortable or bored.

I do think it's well acted, but not really in a style I appreciate. It's the first major role for Honor Swinton Byrne (Tilda Swinton's daughter) and she looks comfortable in front of the camera, even though she's often called upon to look uncomfortable. Tom Burke is also good - Anthony's an interesting character because you just don't know whether you can believe anything he says. There's also a very young looking Richard Ayoade in it - seeming somewhat more natural than he normally does (but the bit he's in is extremely boring!). And the good news is that Tilda actually does some normal acting in this - unlike another of her films I've very recently endured. It also features Tosin Cole (Ryan from Doctor Who) but I totally didn't recognise him!

I know there's a phrase for this style of film but I don't know what it is - I'm pretty certain it's not going to be "blurry, 'look at me being true to life' nonsense" though. And yes, I'm being harsh but I really struggled to keep interest in this or to like any of the people in it and it all feels very "art school". I can see the argument that it's a "good" film though - in addition to being well acted it feels very artfully designed (whilst at the same time being true to life) and Joanna Hogg obviously has a good eye for a shot.

All in all, this really hasn't put me in the mood for the film I've got to watch next - it was a massive struggle to complete which has taken me about ten sittings over six months. I do hope it worked as therapy for Joanna, because it certainly didn't work as a film for me - it feels like one for the art critics and no-one else. But if you're still determined to watch it after that ringing endorsement, it's available to stream on Netflix or to rent in all the usual other locations.

Well, it's got Tilda Swinton in it - it's going to be weird isn't it? Maybe watchable, maybe not - but probably not dull.

Oh, how wrong I was! To start with, it's very quiet - we're 8 minutes in before we get any dialogue. And from that point on, things just get weirder. Tilda plays Jessica, a Scottish woman who for no obvious reason lives in Colombia and one day she's woken up by a weird "womph" sound which it transpires no-one else can hear. Which puzzles her and so she tries to find out what's going on - and hilarity results!

Well, no it doesn't. Just oddness. And often very dull oddness. For example, we spend 15+ minutes with Jessica and some dude at a mixing desk playing different versions of the "womph" sound, whilst they switch between English and Spanish for no obvious reason. At another point Jessica asks a man to show her how he goes to sleep - so he does. And we spend the next five minutes watching her sit beside him in silence as he sleeps. Wtf?!?

And I'm going to stick to my no spoilers rule, but you're really not going to believe what causes the "womph" noise. Part of me is surprised they actually resolved the "mystery" - it feels like just the sort of film that would take great delight in not telling you, but the resolution is most strange indeed.

Tilda is in peak-Tilda form here - lots of stillness in awkward poses and gazing into the distance. If you like that then there's plenty of that here for you to "enjoy". There aren't really any other actors that make a huge impact on the film but I am going to mention Elkin Diaz as the elder Hernan Bedoya (the fish scaler) and Juan Pablo Urrego as the younger Hernan Bedoya (the sound engineer) if only to mention that they are in no way related and there's absolutely no reason to give them the same name.

It's quite a beautiful film which makes you think there's a load in it to think about - but unfortunately when you think about it, you realise that none of it makes any sense at all. It's very much a fan of holding the shot for longer than anyone would feel is necessary - I found myself thinking "get a move on" very frequently. It's also a very auditory-focused film - impressively so, but very oddly because sometimes the sounds we're hearing are nothing to do with the scene that's playing out in front of us. And it really didn't help that I picked the wrong subtitles to start with but the film is so weird that it took me quite some time to realise.

A lot of this film looked very good - I reckon if you played it at about quadruple speed it would be a lot more bearable. I don't think I can say I hated it because it was often very beautiful to look at, but boy was it a struggle to get through. I mean a massive, massive struggle - both because of its slowness and its utter, utter bizarreness. Part of me wants to recommend it just so you can experience what I did - you'd hate me but you'd also go "ah yes - I see what you mean". If you want to watch it then it's available to stream on BFIPlayer and to rent in the all the usual places. But seriously, I wouldn't...

I've seen both American Splendor and Crumb and found them well done but decidedly odd - I'm not sure a film that recalls them both is going to be all that enjoyable, but let's see shall we.

Hmmm. The film basically follows Robert (Daniel Zolghadri) a keen graphic artist who drops out of school following the death of his art-teacher mentor and attempts to find his way in the world, maybe with a view to working in comics - but without really having a plan as to how to do so. He doesn't half meet some strange characters in the process though. And most of them are not exactly likeable oddballs and in that way do they feel characters out of American Splendor or Crumb. It also has a very strange film style with a lot of big heads in close-up which I also guess is aimed at being reminiscent of comics, but it just feels odd.

I'd have to say that as well as Robert not really having a plan for his future, whilst watching this film I wasn't convinced the director did either - it meanders from bizarre episode to bizarre episode including a naked man standing on a desk, throwing a rubber horse at a pharmacist, someone getting stabbed in the head with a pen and a car driving through a garage door (and don't worry, these don't spoil anything for you). And after all this it ends in a bizarre, understated manner where it looks like Robert is just considering all that's happened to him - I suspect the impression we're supposed to get is that this is all fuel for the artistic fire, but I'd have to say I'm not 100% certain.

As far as I can tell Daniel does a good job as Robert - the whole performance is a bit ramshackle but you can't help but think that's the general idea. Matthew Maher also gets a namecheck in his role as Wallace who is, it's fair to say, an utter headcase - you get the impression the rest of the cast do what they're told to, but it's all very odd. I'm also going to call out Ron Rifkin in a very tiny role - I knew I knew him from somewhere but had to check Wikipedia to remind myself he was Arvin Sloane in Alias (which I really enjoyed) for 103 episodes and he also did 95 episodes of Brothers And Sisters.

The director Owen Kline (Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates's son) spent six years writing, directing and editing the film - and Daniel certainly ages a few years throughout the film. The character Robert first appeared in a comic he wrote and I guess he just decided to somewhat extend matters. It very much feels like a labour of love whilst he ploughs his own furrow and for that I have to admire him. In keeping with the story and acting, the film style is very odd too - the picture quality makes it look very like it was found footage from the late 60s or early 70s.

However, I do have to argue with The Guardian's description of this being a "deliciously dark coming-of-age comedy" - it is dark, but it certainly ain't delicious. And what it definitely isn't is a comedy - there's lots of "funny" behaviour but I don't actually remember laughing at any of it. Several of the scenarios have potential for humour, but it's all played so, so bizarrely it's almost as though the director was being contrarily obtuse - "go on, laugh at this then".

I do think that if you're a fan of Harvey Pekar or Robert Crumb's style then you're more likely to enjoy this than anyone else - if you're not sure if you're a fan of them then I suspect you can probably take it as read that you won't. I admire the effort that had gone into making this, but I just found the whole thing too bizarre for my (often quite bizarre, but obviously not bizarre enough) tastes. If that massive recommendation doesn't put you off, then it's available to stream on Curzon (you've got that, right?) or to rent on all the other more normal channels.

This was definitely on the list to watch - I love In Bruges and Three Billboards... and I even quite like Seven Psychopaths. And who can argue with a bit of Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson?

Well - The Guardian gets it spot on with "an oddball study of isolation and hurt". It's a surprisingly sad film which manages to be completely bonkers but still quite relatable. Padraic (Colin Farrell) lives on a remote Irish island and doesn't have a lot in his life, so pretty much lives for his trips to the pub with Colm (Brendan Gleeson). Unfortunately, Colm has decided he doesn't want to be friends any more and the film revolves around Padraic and others' (include Colm's) attempts to process this situation. And you know that things are even going to get sorted out or they're going to escalate - and given that it's a Martin McDonagh film, the chances of escalation are quite high...

...but you're totally going to have to watch it to find out what happens, because I'm not going to tell you! It's quite the ride though - long periods of very little happening and then, all of a sudden, boom! Some quite bizarre and shocking things happen though - expect the unexpected!

The film mostly focuses on Colin Farrell's character and he goes on quite the ride in this one with quite the range of emotions on display and he really sells them as you follow him every step of the way. Brendan Gleeson's character is more constant in his position in that it is his actions that drive the story and he sticks to them, but he also sells the fact that his decisions are causing hurt in many people and maybe not bringing him the satisfaction he craves - until towards the end of the play when the dynamic somewhat changes. Both actors are, as you'd expect, on top form throughout.

Also worthy of note is Barry Keoghan as Dominic - he's not quite the village idiot, but he's not far off and Barry really elicits sympathy for him. Also excellent is Kerry Condon as Siobhan, Padraic's sister, who appears to be the only person on the whole island with any sense - she loves her brother, but sometimes love just isn't enough and you really feel for her. And all four of them were nominated for Oscars - so it wasn't just me that appreciated their efforts. Also worthy of note are Rosie and Jenny who are both excellent in their demanding role as Jenny the donkey - they really sell the role to you (and are also extremely cute - but, for some reason, not Oscar nominated).

The whole thing, as you'd expect from both a Martin McDonagh film and a film set in the wilds of Ireland, looks absolutely fantastic - there's some breathtaking scenery involved and the period features are also very well done. It also has a lovely score - although I was surprised it opened with some Bulgarian folk music, which I recognised from La Mystere Des Voix Bulgares because I'm odd that way.

Taken at face value, the story is absolutely bonkers, but you know it's telling you something and I got some of it about the danger of making decisions without considering the impact on others and the risks of rigidly sticking to them no matter what else occurs. I have to admit that I missed the parallels with the Irish civil war, but I think I can be forgiven that given I barely knew it happened.

The critics mostly loved it - one described it as a "finely crafted feel-bad treat" which seems a very apt description to me. There were complaints, particularly from across the Irish sea, that it played to negative Oirish stereotypes and it's hard to argue with them, but you couldn't make a film like this if everyone behaved "normally" (whatever that is). I can see that you could just as easily use negative English or American stereotypes and it would work equally well, but I guess he just went with what he knew (and the civil war gave it some extra relevance - I'm not sure you could translate it to the English or US civil wars quite so well).

I liked this film - it was just really well put together. It looked gorgeous, featured great performances and it's stayed with me long after watching it. It's desperately sad in a lot of ways, so it really makes you think - but it also makes you laugh, both in a sad "how ridiculous are we all?" kinda way, but also in a "that's a funny line!" kinda way. I think it's well worth watching and at time of writing it's available to stream on Disney+ and to rent in all the usual places.

Hmmm - "(redacted)" (for sake of spoilers, but do Google it if you're not going to watch the film) and "blood-soaked parable" aren't phrases designed to draw me towards a film - but even so, I'm quite surprised I've never heard of this. We have met a Luca Guadagnino film before but I'll be amazed if this is anything like that.

Well, that's quite some start to the film - it starts off looking like a very average American high school drama and then things take a very weird turn. The Guardian slightly spoiled things for me with their review but even so I was pretty shocked by what happened because I totally didn't see it coming. And the thing that happens means that Maren (Taylor Russell) has to leave her normal American high school drama and so she ends up drifting around the country and meeting some very strange characters indeed.

Of these, Lee (Timothée Chalamet) is the person she has most interaction with - they travel together and grow closer traversing the land. He's quite an interesting character but he has a very annoying mumbly accent - he's also very thin! Sully (Mark Rylance) is considerably weirder - he's actually not unlike Rooster Byron, Mark's character in Jerusalem (except for one major spoilery difference!). We also get to meet Maren's mum (Chloe Sevigny) and she's probably the weirdest of the lot.

Deciding not to talk about the spoilery thing does make this review trickier, but if you decide to watch it, I think it will make it a "better" experience. A lot of the film is quite absurd in its normality because some quite "unusual" behaviour is presented as absolutely normal and it's quite jarring. It also has a lot of very relatable behaviour, particularly around relationships - mostly between Maren and Lee (it's surprisingly romantic at times), but there are various family interactions that also ring true. I should also warn you that some of the behaviour is extremely violent - it's really not suitable for a younger audience. Most of the time the film is completely calm but when it kicks off, it really kicks off.

It's Taylor and Timothée's film to carry and they do so very well (except for his annoying accent) - it's a well portrayed relationship, mostly quite normal and natural except for that thing I can't talk about. Most of the other parts are incidental in comparison to them - Mark Rylance is pretty much as you'd expect and it's definitely not a role that challenges him but I will call out André Holland as Maren's dad and Anna Cobb as Kayla, Lee's sister, for both making the most of their small roles. It's actually the third time we've met all of Taylor, Timothée, Mark and André in something on these lists - which is a cast with quite some pedigree. However, somewhat surprisingly they're all exceeded by Michael Stuhlbarg who has a very minor part in this but is making his fourth appearance on the list - the man has been in an impressive list of films.

There's a lot of imagination on display here and I think we probably have Camille DeAngelis to thank for that because she wrote the novel on which the film is based. But Luca Guadagnino and David Kajganich (who wrote the screenplay) have done a good job transferring it to the screen. If anyone came to this expecting anything like Call Me By Your Name then they're going to be very, very surprised - it has some nice scenery in it, but that's about it for similarities. I've actually no idea what any of his other films are like but I'd be surprised if they were like this. It's well directed though - nice use of colour and light and shade and some slightly unusual camera angles at times to keep you engaged. And you can't really make a US road trip look bad, can you? Some of the sound work on this film is also impressive in a way you really don't want it to be. It really didn't need to be 140 minutes long though - a taut 90-100 minutes would have been much better for me.

All in all, it's an odd one - there's a lot to like about this film in terms of acting, plot and direction. However, the thing I've not talked is a very big elephant in the room - it's certainly an interesting choice and it puts a very different spin on things, but at times it's just taken a bit too far for my liking. It also makes it hard to actively recommend the film because it will turn a lot of people away but if you ever find yourself in the mood for an arthouse horror-romance film then you could do a lot worse than this - if you watch the first fifteen minutes it will give you a good idea what it's going to be like without being too horrific.