stu-bell Reviews

Killing Eve (2018–2022)

Jaw-droppingly awful.

[2/10 · 3 May 2019]

I'm genuinely puzzled by the raft of ten star reviews and critical pant-wetting on here; perhaps some judgments were made after just one episode. Killing Eve does admittedly boast an interesting premise and started well enough, but rapidly went from being implausible, to painfully goofy and unfunny, to - most criminally of all - just plain boring. Bearing only a nodding acquaintance with anything approaching credibility, it labours to a conclusion so uninformative and inconsequential that it would be frustrating if I still cared by that point. I'm not even sure why I so stubbornly kept going with it in the hope it would pick up. The central mystery - the mysterious Spectre-esque cabal behind it all was nothing more than a desperate set up for the next series, which I won't be watching.

Sometimes it's quite possible to stick with a series even when none of the characters are particularly likeable, but this program is populated wall to wall by stupid people doing stupid things (how many of them let pass clear cut chances to do away with the villain?) and a general lack of appeal. Sandra Oh's Eve is simply a hysterical moron, and no real attempt is made to explain her obsession with the assassin Oksana / Villanelle, let alone how she could end up as a ranking Intelligence Officer. As for the antagonist, she has easily overtaken Sheldon Cooper as flat out the most irritating character in television. Jodie Comer's portrayal is over the top and juvenile, and whether it's down to poor direction or her questionable skills as an actor is anyone's guess, but that role, I felt, should be played as ice-cold, super smart, beautiful and elegant, not carefree (exclaiming "Oops" or "Oh dear" when she kills someone), whimsical, and like a spoilt, petulant teenager. Her Amrericanised 'Russian' accent was terrible, and why, given that she uses a perfectly fine English accent in some scenes, does she even speak that way? Annoying and grating. It's just a loathsome, evil, detestable character, not a cheeky, charming, if murderous scamp. Horrid.

I can almost understand why the commissioners bought into the hype, but PWB what were you thinking? This is a spectacular misfire of epic proportions. Avoid this dud at all costs.

To the Wonder (2012)

Meaningless and tedious

[2/10 · 18 March 2019]

There are reasons why folk liked Terence Malick back when he used to make films only once every five to ten years. This is one of those reasons.

Beautiful slow motion tv advertisement style shots of tree branches swaying in the wind... snippets of vacuous pseudo-profound dialogue, whispered over the soundtrack by actors who can't seem to look at or interact with each other... the bafflingly pointless inclusion of a priest with a crisis of faith... impenetrable characters (if one can call them characters rather than cyhers)... the barest skeletal semblance of a "plot"... All make for a ponderous, pretentious, cold and utterly unengaging film, which drags painfully. A truly terrible watch, it is to be avoided in all circumstances but for when suffering from the most extreme case of insomnia. Beyond awful.

** (and one of these is for Olga Kurylenko).

These comments are brought to you by Vapide, the new fragrance by Mason Bore-Dome.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Good and bad, thrilling and frustrating.

[7/10 · 29 July 2015]

Mild spoilers ahoy. Can one really spoil a 19 year old film though?

I very much enjoyed this film when seeing it on its initial release in 1996, at the fabulous Empire, Leicester Square, London. Whilst never a die-hard fan of the TV series, I had been entertained and absorbed by it, and I liked that they attempted to introduce many elements of that series into the big-screen incarnation whilst broadening it out with big action sequences (notably the Channel Tunnel finale) to cater for the 90s Blockbuster audience. And this is why the film both thrills and annoys me.

The throwbacks are all nice (the masks, the intricate con-job set- ups etc), but ultimately undone by the decision to make an action- leaning set-piece laden film. They were largely jettisoned as the franchise progressed, which is fine, but I felt short-changed here. This may be petty, but having Jim Phelps (for those that don't know, the protagonist and hero of the series from its second series onward) turn out to be the villain was just plainly unforgivable. Imagine if the "Star Trek" reboot had cast James T Kirk as the antagonist. That left a real sour taste in the mouth.

I'm surprised that the screenplay was handed in by writers as esteemed as David Koepp and Robert Towne, because much of the early dialogue, notably in the session where the team are briefed, seems forced and unrealistic - Hollywood quippy rather than natural. It's not helped that Tom Cruise's performance oscillates wildly between stern, serious, and meaning business, and toothy grin, over keen to quip and be liked. Maybe it was intended for the character, but it's at odds with how I felt it should be played, and different from the later portrayals of operative Hunt. I like Cruise in the latter films but he's too "Jerry Maguire" here for me. I did love his "disc disappearing" trick in Liverpool St though, and the rest of the cast were all solid. I'm glad Ving Rhames (as Luther) has become a mainstay of the franchise, Henry Czerny fits the mould of every disgruntled MI team boss throughout the series to a tee, Emmanuelle Beart is HOT, Reno is... well, he's Jean Reno, only with more attitude. Kristin Scott Thomas adds a welcome touch of class, and the Lithuanian lady playing Hannah is also one not to KooBoaCN. And of course there's the sublime Vanessa Redgrave... very watchable all round.

The plot is not difficult to follow, despite common perception. It's just, frankly, a little silly. The idea that all this confidential information about non-confirmed agents would be stored in one place (even in the most secure room in the world, but with lousy server security) just doesn't ring true. And, incidentally, if it's the most secure room in the world, have they not thought about putting in a simple CCTV camera as well? But that's by the by. DePalma is an infamous admirer of Hitchcock, so I'm not surprised he's happy to hoist such a heinous MacGuffin on which to hang his outlandish, stylized, and highly engrossing set-pieces without too much concern for credibility. But those set pieces are impressive. The Prague setup, the raid at Max's, Langley (despite being so goofy), the train (London Terminus on the TGV - bless!), are all expertly staged and enticing scenes. There's just that niggling sense of "this could have been more" haunting the picture.

M:I 2 I'll give a pass to, M:I 3 I think hit the mark completely and utterly, and is still my favourite of the bunch. GP is fun too, and I look forward to RN next week. This first one, I keep thinking about though, because it's not bad, by any stretch of the imagination, it's just not as good as it could have been. This review will self destruct in...

A Field in England (2013)

Deep, dark, disturbing, unexpected and haunting little gem.

[9/10 · 18 August 2013]

I just watched this film, and like many other commenters, I'm not quite sure exactly how I feel about it just yet; however, I wanted to write a review to reflect my initial reaction. Hopefully that will change as I write.

I can certainly understand the content and volume of negative reviews on this site for this film, because, frankly, this is a very "difficult" movie. The plot (for what there is of it) is minimal and abstract, and it required effort at times to keep up with the dialogue so as to understand which character was doing what. However, if one is open to it, this is a fascinating, absorbing, engaging, brilliant, enigmatic and unsettling gemstone of a movie. From the director of the even more disturbing "Kill List", we should expect no less; I have yet to catch Ben Wheatley's "Sightseers" but will be doing so forthwith.

Set against the backdrop of the English Civil War in the mid 17th Century, the plot sees Reece Shearsmith (whom you may know from "The League of Gentlemen") on fine form as befuddled emissary Whitehead, sent to track down and arrest Michael Smiley's utterly bonkers O'Neil, perceived perpetrator of crimes against Whitehead's alchemist master. Smiley's creation is equally idiosyncratic, and seems genuinely unpredictable without ever resorting to scenery chewing hamming. O'Neil declares that there is treasure buried in the field, and what ensues is best (cheaply) described as a battle of wills between O'Neil, the Royalist Whitehead, and the naive Roundhead soldiers also fleeing the battle, albeit set against the suitably hallucinogenic experience of an unfortunate trip on some dodgy mushroom stew consumed by the starving protagonists as they escape from a battlefield early on in the film, in search of the comfort of the nearest Ale House. All the "action" as it were, takes place unsurprisingly in A Field In England, but most of it takes place in the mind. Unease and violence abound.

I like a film which comes out of nowhere and engages you with the unexpected, although I fully understand that many prefer a movie where the boundaries are more clearly defined and the narrative flows smoothly from A to B to C. "A Field in England" is a trip; it's a surreal, dreamlike immersion which is to be experienced rather than necessarily to be enjoyed. Laurie Rose's widescreen black and white cinematography is beautiful, which is no mean feat given that it's all set in one location so little opportunity for variety is afforded. Wheatley's direction is tight and measured; he injects just the right balance of surrealism and credibility, and elicits great performances from his cast, not just his main leading pair but also from the actors playing the three beleaguered Parliamentarian soldiers. Crucially, it's hard to predict exactly where it's all going, for which reason I loved it.

I get that this isn't for everyone, but I thought it was superb, haunting and captivating. As an interesting aside, it was released in the UK on the same day across multiple formats - cinema, DVD, blu-ray, download, and shown on TV on the Film 4 channel. I think this might be a viable model for film distribution in future. I for one am increasingly frustrated when, on my limited visits to an increasingly expensive cinema auditorium, I find that watching the film is disrupted by some kid's 8 visits to the bathroom and interminable attempts to get every last bit of ice out of that giant bucket of Coke. If I can see a brand new film on my HD LCD, I'll happily forgo the "communal experience". This is a film that demands ones attention, after all. So, not for all by any means, but I rated it.

See - I did make up my mind as I wrote!

Phantom (I) (2013)

I didn't see or here The Phantom coming

[8/10 · 18 August 2013]

"Phantom" is by no means a perfect movie but it is a very well made, effective, and entertaining one. The setup is simple; an about-to-retire Soviet Submarine Commander is sent out on one last mission in his old boat, some "special" operatives join him with their own hidden agenda and a top secret cloaking device... Is their intention to defect, or to launch a first nuclear strike against the US? Our captain suspects the latter.

The film certainly plays on, or fits neatly into, depending on your point of view, the traditional tropes of both Cold War thrillers and Submarine movies. The claustrophobia of the vessels generally makes for an extremely atmospheric tension, and this film is no exception. In a way, it's at a bit of a disadvantage because the rules of the genre mean it will immediately be compared to "Run Silent Run Deep" or "The Hunt for Red October". But this isn't to detract from the achievement here. Unassuming, effective direction aside, the real winner in this film is the cast. Ed Harris is simply a superb actor, he's a banker every time and no less effective in embodying his character here than he was in diverse fare varying from "Pollock" to "The Rock" to "The Abyss". David Duchovny is a surprise as the nasty-piece-of-work KGB operative; I've always liked him as an actor ("Return to Me" is an unexpected favourite) and I fear it will be a tag that haunts him for years to come, but here I didn't think about Fox Mulder (one of the all time iconic characters from one of my favourite TV shows ever) or Hank Moody for a second. And particularly, William Fichtner, the supporting actor at the top of any casting director's list, surely, is great as the man torn between loyalty to his captain, duty to the state, and the opportunity for promotion. I can't believe he hasn't been the lead more often. The other supporting cast members were less familiar but also all played well.

It is to be commended, in my opinion, that this was independently made on a fairly tight budget. It just goes to show a good film can be made without a $150 million budget

See this movie if you like Cold War or Submarine movies, or are just looking for a slightly offbeat thriller. At just over 90 minutes it doesn't outstay is welcome, and I found the climax to be quite moving. I liked.

Secret of the Wings (2012)

Charming fun for young 'uns

[7/10 · 15 October 2012]

It does annoy me when films are judged under a complete misunderstanding of for whom they are intended. I can only imagine that the relatively low rating for this film on this site is due in most part due to viewers seeing this and forgetting it's aimed at 3 to 7 year old girls. I bet most of the voters aren't 3 to 7 year old girls.

I can only endorse the comments of the other posters so far who have all enjoyed it and whose children have enjoyed it. I took my 5 year old today and she loved it. We had only seen the previous Tinkerbells on DVD so I was a tad surprised to see this turn up in the cinema (but not in 3D - glory be!) but I thought it was a decent enough effort which pushed all the right buttons, in the right order, and didn't outstay its welcome. They say that when you notice the backgrounds in a film the plot has lost you, but in this case I don't think that's true; I found the contrasting depictions of the winter/summer fairy lands quite spectacular, adding to the film. Not to mention the animals' furs and feathers...! Good work.

Obviously as an Englishman and childhood fan of Peter Pan I baulk somewhat at the Disney version of Tinkerbell, but as a father of 5 year old Fairy-obsessive, it is what it is. And it does what it sets out to do - quite well, I think.

Mild spoiler: My daughter got upset when the sisters were told they could never see each other again; nevertheless there is no antagonism, peril or violence to put off younger children.

DVD is certainly its natural home, but of its type (and I don't mean anything bad by that) this is pretty good and I think young children would enjoy it very much. Some grown-ups might, too.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Boring and extremely disappointing

[1/10 · 28 October 2010]

I like / love Edgar Wright's other movies ("Shaun..." is easily one of the 10 best British films ever made and is endlessly quotable, and "Fuzz" so perfectly captures the vein of the genre it affectionately spoofs) as well as his TV show "Spaced" (final scene of first series filmed in my local!), so I was looking forward to this a lot; unfortunately I was really really disappointed.

I found the film flaccid (at least 30 mins too long) the characters unengaging and uninteresting, the drama non-existent (was there ever any doubt how it would turn out?) and most frustratingly of all just not funny enough. It was just boring.

Yes, I can see that all the video game stuff is clever, and the Flash Gordon reference was fun, but being clever is not enough to make a film good and I found it pretty annoying before too long.

I am not familiar with the source material but if this is faithful to it I can only conclude that it wasn't worth being turned into a movie. No-one ever made a good movie from lousy source material.

I am in my mid 30s so possibly older than the target audience, but I'm still astounded this rates so highly and is in the top 250 (at time of writing). It has been widely commented that this will polarize audiences, I'm just slightly sad I didn't find anything to like in it at all.

Him & Her (2010–2013)

Awful and unappealing "sit com"

[1/10 · 12 September 2010]

I had heard and read that this was the best thing BBC3 had ever done, that its naturalistic style was a mature nod to the sorts of things we get from HBO, and that it was something any adult could watch and enjoy. What I saw though was one of the most excruciating, unamusing, dirty and unpleasant half hours of TV I've ever seen. There's not much to say, other than that in the opening episode the main recurring gags revolved around the Spice Girls and Titanic (has this script been on a shelf for 12 years?) and someone taking a dump and then not flushing the toilet. This is mature, contemporary, adult comedy?

The characters, which in my view ultimately make or break any drama or sitcom, are utterly repellent. We are supposed to be charmed by the easy going laziness of the central Him and Her, but in the closing minutes of the first episode they are both shown taking smug satisfaction in the misfortune of others, rendering them entirely unsympathetic, horrible people. The peripheral characters (from whom much of the plot, what there is of it, derives) are stereotypes, neither amusing nor credible.

Plenty of low-brow "Sit", then, but no "Com" to be found here. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about it. There have been innumerable vulgar, unfunny, juvenile "comedies" offered up by BBC3 over the years but if this isn't the nadir, it's pretty close. As it's on BBC3 it will be on about 18 times a week - but try to avoid it if you can.

The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)

Not as bad as I was led to believe

[10/10 · 10 August 2009]

Loved the X-Files show in its heyday and quite surprised myself by not making time to catch this in the cinemas last year. The resounding chorus of negative reaction probably influenced me...

So one year on I've got a copy on DVD and given it a go. First thoughts are that it's far from perfect but not the terrible dirge I was expecting based on most people's comments.

The positives: Anderson and Duchovny back on screen together clearly having a blast, brilliantly lit and shot - very atmospheric, Connolly - great in an atypical role, plot rattles along quick enough for you not to notice how silly it is.

Negatives I think stem less from this film itself but more from where they took the TV show and how they left it. For instance, it makes no sense for the FBI to call on Mulder and Scully in this case on the vague suspicion that Fr Joe is psychic... had they still been in the FBI themselves that would have been different.

Also, Is this even an X-File? The implication in the latter part of the film is that Fr Joe isn't psychic at all, which makes this a standard case about organ stealing... Seems like a bit of a shame but again, it felt that they couldn't go back to the alien story line from the last film and the series, given where they took it in the series.

So it wasn't bad, but it felt like too little too late. I wish they had done things differently on TV after the last film, and not closed off so many options. That said I enjoyed it as a decent spooky atmospheric thriller... I just wish it had come in a different context. It's a shame this didn't do better as a third movie now looks out of the question, and I think there was something more to offer. I guess it will have to stay "out there..."

Ray (I) (2004)

Enjoyable, if lengthy, biopic of a music legend

[9/10 · 15 September 2004]

I knew comparatively little about the life of Ray Charles Robinson before seeing this film. Although not being particularly "into" his music, I could say he was an artist of whom I had never heard a track I disliked. I was invited to a preview screening of "Ray", and was interested to attend.

This was a film charting Charles' early career through to the mid 60s, when he was arguably at the height of his popularity. Along the way he gets married, has affairs (several), encounters prejudice and bigotry, struggles to conquer the poverty of his roots, and slides ever deeper into the grip of heroin addiction. This is all engagingly and dramatically told, with a liberal smattering of humour. The film held my attention throughout. Although by the end I was nagged by a sense that it had been about 20 minutes too long, I couldn't have said exactly where or when it could have been cut. On reflection perhaps the middle section, and in particular a sub-plot about one of Ray's affairs, could have been excised, particularly if it had given way to a little more exposition in the climax, which felt a little rushed.

There are two over-riding reasons to make time to see this film. Firstly, the songs of Ray Charles (provided for the movie, we are told, in both "new and original recordings"). I had never particularly appreciated that the melding of genres (gospel with R&B) was so revolutionary at the time and informative of music since. Second is the towering, monumentally impressive performance by Jamie Foxx as Charles. He completely embodied the man without ever stooping to mere impersonation. I hope his achievement is acknowledged with, at very least, an Oscar nomination; there are no performances in the last year which I can remember which immediately strike me as more worthy of actually taking the award. Foxx is certainly one to watch.

Overall this isn't a perfect film by any means, and could definitely have been tighter. But its pros considerably outweigh its cons, and I would definitely recommend it.

*** 1/2 (of 5)