torrascotia

I had been interested in seeing another Shirley MacLaine movie after watching The Apartment and reading her Hollywood biography. This seems to be one of her better loved movies so seemed like a suitable choice.

I can honestly say this wasn't that an enjoyable watch. I am not mad on musicals anyway, some are bearable, but this had far too many musical numbers for me. I see other reviewers seem to have a thing for the choreographers work, which to me looked at time bizarre, and seemed to rate the movie based on their enjoyment of this aspect of the movie. The problem with this view is it ignores the shortcomings of the actual film.

The main character as played by MacLaine isn't very likable. She comes across as a latter day Bridget Jones, constantly flitting from one romantic disaster to the next. However these disasters are of her own making. She reminds me of these girls who use dating apps, pick unsuitable men and then complain about the outcome. Its neither funny or endearing. Particularly when the data shows these women are all chasing the same guys based on criteria which is completely irrelevant to their character.

Like most rom coms we get the kissing many frogs to find the prince narrative, so eventually she finds someone she wants to keep but the question arises, will he want to keep her?

This is actually the only realistic aspect to the movie, men also have standards. And they haven't changed at all since this was in the theatres.

In terms of the ending, no spoilers, but the responses vary on whether its a positive or negative one.

At best this will be enjoyable for people who want to watch a Fosse movie and do not really care about the quality as long as they get to enjoy the dancing. However I suspect the majority will not enjoy this, simply because people want these kinds of films to resolve in a more acceptable way. This movie does however have a very solid message about women dating and body count. It matters to men, and its them who decide who gets married, whether female empowerment gurus tell you it does or doesn't.

There is plenty of discourse today about how Disney has diverged from its original mission statement and is going broke by going woke. See South Park for more details. However you could easily argue that The Black Hole was another divergence. With the family friendly company going full on horror sci-fi, disaster movie and religious apocalypse. So no exactly child friendly despite the rating.

The Black Hole concerns the crew of The Palomino, an exploratory space ship which comes across a giant black hole and a long lost spaceship positioned near to its gravitational pull. Anyone familiar with any sci-fi movie knows that abandoned looking spaceships are never good news, especially when curiosity gets the better of those who find it.

While this was an obvious box office flop, it has regained its status with an older audience and as it stands The Black Hole is a cult classic. Even it sound effects have been sampled by bands such as The Future Sound Of London. While the visuals are still stunning even to this day.

The obvious reason for the box office failure is that people were expecting a Star Wars kid friendly movie. But instead we are met with plainly evil scientists, zombies, evisceration and visions of hell. The first act of the movie is fairly standard sci-fi, but then morphs into a full on disaster flick. Albeit with some kid friendly scenes which are over shadowed by the ominous tone of the majority of the screen time. The ending is reminiscent of 2001 A Space Odyssey, so that's another nail in the coffin for kid friendly films.

The Black Hole is a very 1970's sci-fi. It has high production values, a great cast, great score, amazing visuals and doesn't treat its audience as kids. It is also opaque, nihilistic and sinister. Its up to you if that is something you are willing to engage with.

This wasn't something I had heard of before but strangely enough ended up finding out about it after doing some digging on the lead's ex wife. Apparently some people rate this highly and I enjoy watching 1970's movies. I will admit to being a bit disappointed with this one however.

The story is quite straightforward, the main character is an assassin who is hired to bump off someone, however a mistake is made and instead of being told to abort the mission, another set of assassins are sent after him.

The main problem with this character study movie is there is no real character to study. Its unlikely he mutters 50 words in the entire movie and he just sort of exists and broods for the camera. We have little idea of who he is and what he is all about so you do not really care about him. Nor any other character for that matter. Its all a bit flat and boring. Even the scenes around the assassins target are boring, people seem to be perpetually drunk or hungover.

It is a well shot film and it does hook you into the end with a few twists but its actually fairly vacuous. Compared to either of The Sweeney movies this is a bore fest. Apparently the lead actors career tanked due to his alcohol problems. Little wonder.

This film sits well in the badly made but good to watch because it is category. It seems to have been made by someone who has never been to America before, so we get their vision of what America is like in their mind, and it is quite entertaining.

The story is something to do with drug dealers and helicopter pilots but nobody is watching this for the narrative.

What this isn't however is well made and its not just the dialogue that is laugh out loud terrible. Its also the recording of the dialogue which varies from okay that sounds reasonable in volume to very loud/very quiet, not in synch with the actors lips and even at times voices that obviously do not come from that actor. An old mans voice from a guy in his 20s? Such madness is on show. The other whacky sound issues are the punch noises which only seem to kick in after the first few silent hits land, as if the sound effects guy has been caught out because he is watching something else more interesting. But its the gun noises that take the biscuit. Handguns sound like a Howitzer, shotguns ricochet like bullets from a spaghetti wester and people get shot but they somehow manage to shrug it off. It must be the magical bullet proof blouson leather jackets on show which is where a big chunk of the budget went. Apart from one guy whose leather had a massive hole in the sleeve.

Other stand out scenes are the stripper scenes of which there are about three too many, which all use the same terrible synth music which is funny in itself. I am guessing the director loves strippers, in particular ones who wiggle their backsides at people. While most movies will have one lady do this scene, we actually get to benefit from one girl finishing her act and then another girl comes in and does hers. Unnecessary but you likely won't be complaining. As long as you can avoid noticing the bad sunburn and lack of grooming on the girls. But it's not just female nudity, the male lead seems to have an aversion to shirts and there is no way of knowing the temperature this was filmed in. Because we have guys wearing full on winter coats while others roam around bare chested. There are plenty of action scenes however, many involving the big chin man. He is also involved in a love making scene which borders on partner abuse, with him on the receiving end.

All in all this is a highly entertaining movie for those well versed enough to spot how badly it has been made. If you approach watching this as a standard Hollywood movie you will be disappointed.

The reviews on this seem to be fairly low which are probably unfair if you know what this movie is and what it isn't. Because what it isn't is softcore pornography which judging by the poster would be an easy mistake to make, but then again these people should be looking for their kicks elsewhere.

This is the story about a women who is getting dirty phone calls and then decides to meet the person making them, as she wrongly assumes its her boyfriend. When he doesn't show up she witnesses a murder and has to deal with the fallout, as money has gone missing.

This is definitely a female centric movie, being from the perspective of the main character but also from the male characters. Although they are fairly one dimensional the narrative does well to string you along in terms of guessing as to the motivation of most of the men around the lead. Also there are some erotic elements to the movie however they are likely more pleasing to a female audience. Hence the low scores from disappointed guys. There isn't much to fault this movie, which comes across as a slightly higher budget Red Shoe Diaries episode, with some crime/murder thrown in. Although you do get Steve Buscemi in a typical sleazy type role he is known for. So you cant really slate the quality on show. If anything guys may be puzzled at some of the main characters decision making but this is female written. Add some 1980s saxophone playing for no reason and some night shots of the city and you have this movie. Watchable as long as you don't expect lots of sex scenes aimed at men.

The BBC have just released this on their iPlayer platform and was announced by an article on their news page. Intended or not it gave the impression that was available was the actual once lost film. When in fact it's a documentary about the lost film. That aside this is a highly informative and engaging doc, which sheds light on how an incompetent and naive IRA sought to further their cause with a propaganda film. Hardly surprising when you realise the majority of them were so young they were still in school and blinded by idealistic views promoted by elders pulling the strings. Without giving any spoilers, it transpires that a number of agencies were interested in the IRA and they had the mechanisms to get the facts. Especially when they were so keen to be on film. This documentary signposts the failure of the group to achieve any of their stated goals by the means they employed. One quote sums up the entire thing, "It was a pointless endeavour". Very true once you see the overall picture. As everyone knows it was the change to politics which lead to real change. Like the recent documentary series about the troubles, there are talking heads. Some of the ones here you may never have heard of but your certainly seen the outcomes of the decisions they made. Worth the 90 min running time. No doubt the Americans will turn this into a movie at some point.

Apparently there is some story around this as being a lost movie but here it is. Sort of reminds me of all those UFO documentaries which have the tagline about having secret information "they" don't want you to know about. Despite the show being on national TV. But I suppose some movies need a hook to garner interest.

This is a basic, but still rather twisted story about two ex-cons who take a liking to a pretty and obviously well off wife of a businessman. They plan to get as close to her as possible in order that the sexually inexperienced of the two cons can have sex with her. What follows is a story about sexual tension and the stupidity of trusting strangers when the husband is away on business. Its an effective enough film even if there is too much "1950's angst/grimace face acting while holding onto the wall for support" at certain parts. Its well enough shot and acted but will obviously be of limited interest to a younger audience. I looked up the female star and she is yet another actress who had not only a short career but lifespan. Shame as she was very watchable in this role.

It was the cast which includes Ironside and Vanity in what is advertised as a post apocalyptic actioner. And despite how boring it was I stuck it out.

On paper this should have been a low budget but fun action movie, there are numerous 90's post apocalypse movies which are a blast. But the mood of the whole film is too sombre to be fun. Too much is made of the eco disaster aspect and not enough violence and excitement.

Its just far too serious for what the film makers could actually deliver in terms of action and entertainment. Because the action in Mad Max was outstanding which fitted well with the serious tone. In this the opposite is the case. And that isnt the actors fault because many of these actors has proven themselves elsewhere.

For an action movie there is very little, there is maybe 2 road chases and a couple of explosions. As far as the characters go I was actually rooting for a few of them to be killed they were so annoying. Some major players die off camera which is pointless, especially when they matter to the story.

Its not surprising this isn't remembered fondly from the 90's, this is one of those movies that draws you in from the VHS cover and cast. But you end up resenting the cash you paid for the rental.

Even after being around hip hop culture since the 80's this is a movie I had never heard anything about until now. And I thought I had caught most hood movies from that era.

This is another supposed fish out of water comedy, with the main guy having been taken in by a black family after loosing his white parents along the way. So this isn't exactly a white guy who thinks he's black movie like The Jerk, more a white guy who adopts some black mannerisms to fit in.

What you will get out of this comedy will be related to what you know about hip hop. Cameos from rappers such as Yoyo, Exhibit, E40 and even George Clinton will only matter if you know these people. The humour is probably more crude than the majority of hood movies and there is the usual attempts at sending up black movie tropes. Again which will only work if you know the references. I am not sure Tarantino will be particularly happy with this film as it rips off the gimp dungeon scene from Pulp Fiction pretty blatantly. There is also a weird scene with the main character as an Irish child is seen wearing a kilt, which is Scottish not Irish traditional wear. But the strangest part of all is the main star. If you check the cast list he isnt even mentioned. No photograph, nothing. And he wrote it. Is there something I am missing? I originally thought the actor was Adam Baldwin, he looks so similar, but turns out he was a comedian who did stuff with the Wayans and died in his 30's. While I get that this movie was a "black movie" the fact the main actor doesn't seem to be getting the basic respect in terms of billing seems very off. An average to poor quality hood movie which seems to disrespecting its star for whatever reason that isn't made clear.

Another new movie and yet another bunch of reviews by people who really don't seem to have seen much in the way of movies and think everything is fantastic!

To be clear this is an average movie let down by a sketchy final third and some CGI which looks ridiculously out of place in a 1970's themed movie. They really should have went all in with the 70's theme and used practical effects to fit with the asthetic.

The narrative is not as original as some people think. The haunted TV show has been done before and much better. I would refer the reader to seek out the BBC drama Ghostwatch, which caused a genuine sensation when it was aired. Because so many people thought it was real. That show has genuine casualties. Late Night is simply not in the same league. For one too much of this is played for laughs and its simply not that scary. Its obvious from the very beginning where the story will and you are basically waiting for this finale throughout the movie. The acting and the film are good enough to keep you engaged, it just doesn't feel like a satisfying climax considering the lead up. This certainly feels like a Garth Marenghi episode but done more seriously and with fewer gags that land. Sorry to disappoint but this is not the hugely original 10/10 movie some are suggesting. Seriously, for the haunted TV Show trope, seek out Ghostwatch and keep in mind that this was actually broadcast on national TV to an unsuspecting public. And the response is the reason it was never shown again. Late Night feels like a fun but flawed streaming movie. I reckon the IMDB score will drop as more people see it.

Edinburgh mental polis is a much more fitting title for this series than the non-committal Crime. It also gives you the flavour of the show with its heavy Edinbugh scheme accents and over the top crazy that almost every character displays.

While Irvine Welsh was really known for writing fantasy versions of working class life with a hint of realism, this series flips that on its head. This is a realist police procedural with heavy elements of flights on fancy in terms of narrative. Crime centres on an emotionally damaged policeman who copes with work stress with alcohol and drugs. Which seems to be how every police person copes with the job. Simply put this is one of those shows that suggests the police are as bad as the criminals which is where fantasy takes over from reality. The fact that these people can barely function based on their personal habits would end their careers in no time. The writing which is a joint effort has some flashes of Welsh in terms of twists, but its fairly standard Taggart-ish territory, with just about every cliche you can think of for this genre making an appearance at some point in the two series. In addition to the main villains there is a bunch of side stories vying for attention, so much so that you can easily forget that there is an actual central investigation in progress. I think they overdid some of these which don't always make sense and they aren't that funny when they are meant to be. Now being Scottish its always nice to see Edinburgh on display but some of the accents were annoying after a while and subtitles will be needed for some who don't know what "barrie scran like!" means. What we could also have done without was the clumsy pontificating about womens lib or trans rights which may have been interesting in the 90s when he said something about being Scottish but now it feels like he's trying to recapture that same magic. Now it just feels dated. Plus, we all have our own opinions so dump the grand political statements and stick to the crime. This is worth watching if you are Scottish and a fan of Welsh, but this is more on the level of Taggart, its not in the same class as some of the American shows on Prime or Netflix. Making a show for Scotland will always limit its appeal. Good enough to binge but Mental Scottish Polis won't generate the same re-watching as Trainspotting.

Like 99% of Scotland I like Irvine Welsh not just for some of his books but also for some of the films attached to his name. There usually is a certain style of his in his books however the films are something different. That is because he is a book author as opposed to a screenwriter. Trainspotting the film is nothing like the book in terms of structure, so it needed someone else's hand to make it a coherent thing suitable for cinema.

Crime is Irvine's TV series set in Edinburgh which bears some resemblance to his previous Filth. Which gives you a sense of his attitude towards the police. Crime is a police procedural of course and this episode opens with the abduction of a child.

While this is obviously a Scottish production, it seems to be ramming its Scottish-ness down our throats. Not just Scottish but Edinburgh, ay? The main character is yet another on the edge policeman who is plagued not just with addiction issues but also the guilt over a one that got away criminal. While in the main it is an interesting watch, every 5 mins of so we are treated to some ultra clunky feminist rants, either by the sidekick female cop or by the main character, making apologies for being male. It simply doesn't fit with the story and frankly people are fed up listening to this garbage which is being shoved down peoples throats, insisting we all think like them, whether its beer companies, workplaces or other ill judged journalists. If that wasn't enough Irvine has also added an uber masculine knuckle dragger who blurts out sexist comments every second sentence which would have had him fired within a week. Just who is this for Irvine? And why do you think we care or have the authority to talk about this? I will see how far into the series I can get without hearing some misandry shall I?

Isn't it interesting just how much Argyll has been promoted whereas this seems to have buzzed in from nowhere? Both of these movies sit within the spy/action genre however there is night and day when it comes to which is the superior movie.

The Beekeeper is a standard action/revenge flick in which Statham plays his usual action role, except this is more John Wick than giant CGI shark. When a friend commits suicide after been scammed online he sets out to cause some damage. And he does. In spades. While it has a similar premise to the recent Equalizer movies, this one bothers less with the dialogue and seems to fly in as a result. Compared with Argyll which seems to have a teenage girl audience in mind, Beekeeper is strictly aimed at a male demographic that appreciates carnage and takes itself seriously as it does so. Fans of Reacher or Terminal List will enjoy this. The only downside is the obvious sassy black female cop character that feels like its been added to tick a box. Its crazy to think I wasted over two hours on Argyll when I had this waiting on me. The ending was also well executed and the 90 mins simply flew past. Hopefully this gets a sequel.

Anyone expecting something of the same standard as the Kingsman films will be disappointed. It has none of humour, action or style of these films.

Argyll is in fact a chick lit version of a spy movie aimed at teenage girls. Which is a problem because the main audience for this type of film is male. Again Hollywood making films for audiences that don't exist just to make a point. Now the main character in this movie is somewhat noticeably out of shape, which was obviously picked up on. Apparently the actor doesn't care, however the audience obviously does. People pay good money to watch these films and oh yeah every other actor in this showed up and in shape. Including the males. And this aspect is distracting because this is an action movie where being seen to be in shape matters when action is performed to be believable. If actors don't want to be judged on their looks, there is always voice acting.... In terms of the story this is one of those spy with amnesia affairs and my amnesia is kicking in because I have lost count of how many films use this trope and just how many Samuel L Jackson has appeared in so far. Another pointer of a bad movie is just how far up Sam Rockwell is in the cast list. Moon aside, anything he stars is a automatic B movie. This being an action movie there is obviously a lot of it but its tired. The fight scenes are pretty bad and are basically music videos with terrible songs and bad stylistic choices. They nullify any tension and menace of the violence turning them essentially into fluffy dance routines. Another sign this is aimed at young girls. Its no wonder so many people felt duped by this film based on the pedigree of the team. Its because this was intentionally mis-sold to get bums on seats. If they were intending on using this to kick start a franchise, they should check just how many people made reference to walking out of this in the review section.

I had the opportunity to watch this with the director in person at the local arthouse and I passed uo the chance, not seeing anything about the film that made me want to make the journey. Reading The Idler, the director gave an interview about his process which prompted me to give this a go.

While this film was somewhat what I expected, a kind of Ben Wheatleyish jaunt, it is not an engaging or satisfying watch.

The narrative is opaque and at times barely existent. It seems to be about a woman on a remote island there to observe flower growth. The biggest incident in the first third of the film is the woman runs out of tea. The next big incident is that she spots lichen growing on the flowers and then her. At this point she experiences visions of people who have died on the island. And that is as clear as anything gets because the narrative doesn't resolve. There are a few Garth Marhenghi type scenes which don't really make much sense and while I get this is meant to be lo-fi film making some of the zoom and panning shots are pretty shaky. There is a movement towards "analogue" movie and music making which is a backlash against the perfection of digital, but it doesn't automatically make something better. Particularly when the bar is already set so highly in terms of 1970's horror. However the thing about art is it almost doesn't matter what it is people create, someone somewhere will like it. For me this is something that would have made an interesting short with a better narrative, it doesn't sustain as a full length feature. Even if some of the cinematography was stunning. The problem is that if you expect someone to sit through a 90 min movie the viewer expects a payoff and this doesn't have one. Hence the many bad reviews.

I missed this at the cinema so with the release for home viewing this was at the top of my list to see next. Unlike the majority of those who had watched this at the cinema I have been watching this directors films since the days of Dogtooth, which this is in a similar vein. This is without a doubt this directors first mainstream success in terms of box office.

This is a story based on a Scottish book, however this story does not take place in Scotland, instead the bod to Scotland is Willem Defoe's characters' Scottish accent. His character is apparently some sort of Frankenstein doctor who splices animals of differing species for fun and when offered a newly deceased body of a pregnant female, implants the baby brain into the mothers corpse and brings her back to life. Like Dogtooth the themes of the film focus on the nature/nurture debate and what constitutes free will.

The baby brained woman, Bella displays infantile behaviours and is educated by Dafoe's who takes on a paternal role. Bella develops rapidly into displaying sexual feelings and a pang for independence as she is made aware of the world and seeks to explore it. The bulk of the movie is this journey which she embarks upon with a cad who believes he can claim ownership over her due to her stilted development and naivety of the workings of the world.

While the cinematography is fantastic and some of the humour lands, most of it does not. Also the frequent sex scenes become tedious after a while and this is almost a two and a half hour movie. These scenes add little to the story. There is a potentially problematic aspect to the film, as there is of course the suggestion of someone with a child mind, albeit with an adult body, engaging in sex. There is also the issue of Bella being exploited by both males and females for sex through the film. Agency seems to be an issue in this movie. In terms of character, Bella can either be seen as dangerously impulsive and even at times psychopathic or robotic, there is a distinct lack of emotional intelligence on her part. Which is never really explored as even when she comes to what is assume is full development, she still lacks humanity.

This is not a 8,9 or 10 out of ten movie. This suffers from the same problem of Saltburn, in that there are aspects of this which are sensationalistic, which people who don't understand cinema tend to mistake as being the markings of great cinema. If anything a shorter edit would improve this as too much of the movie is repetition which isn't really required for the story. A good film sure but not a great one due to its shortcomings.

I generally avoid musicals, particularly of this era simply because men in general do not rate them that highly. However I did enjoy Grace Kelly in Rear Window so decided to give this a shot. Although I didn't actually know this was a musical and it can be hard to tell as many films of this decade seem to have an overture of a band playing at the start. Which for some reason doesn't always equate to it being a musical.

After the overture we join Louis Armstrong and his band heading towards a mansion where Grace is to be married, however her ex played by Bing lives next door and isn't keen on losing her out of his life completely. Sinatra and partner play journalists tasked with covering the wedding for a magazine. What follows is a love triangle, or rather love square, when all three men make moves on Grace while she hums and haws about who she wants to marry. Its not that great a story and the musical numbers seem a bit stale. Its difficult to say what if any message the movie has but its worth a watch for Grace Kelly. I must admit to feeling perplexed as to the star qualities of Bing and Frank, they just came across as run of the mill actors in this.

I suppose this movie was well known at the time for the Millionaire song, but the scene it appears was hardly memorable. Not a patch on Rear Window but worth you time regardless.

I had very vague memories of seeing this as a kid and seemed to have difficulty remembering much about it or even differentiating it from the other well known spy spoof, Doc Savage. I managed to re-watch this as an adult and can safely say this is the first attempt at what Austin Powers managed to do successfully. Which is to parody Bond. Actually there are scenes in this which seemed to be copied in AP directly, as they don't appear in Bond. This need for Hollywood to parody 007 hints at a jealousy that they didn't, couldn't and still haven't managed to develop a character and franchise that the UK did with James Bond. Their only response was to try to parody it in films like these.

Now the reason I know I has seen this in the past was remembering some of the gizmos in the film, the silent watch alarm having stuck in my mind. While the toys in the main are at least feasible, learning to Dr Doolittle talk to the dolphins not so much. The plot itself is that a bunch of rich ladies try to take over the world using a stand in president (imagine the president was an actor) and of course the main man who loves the ladies has to stop them in their tracks. While laughing in their face at the very idea of women running things. It does have its charm but its certainly dated as a 60's flick.

Its pretty clear that this is yet another buddy cop/odd couple movie, but that this one has definitely been inspired by the Lethal Weapon franchise. With Gene Hackman and Dan Aykroyd starring and Dom DeLuise as the comic relief, you would think you were onto a winner?

So how come nobody remembers this movie? Its probably because its done badly through word of mouth or that its simply not a very memorable script, it has Nazis, Mossad and S&M clubs. All a bit much for what appears to be a PG rated movie. Well it certainly feels like a PG movie aimed at kids but its actually R rated?

The reason I say this is like a kids movie and its like Lethal Weapon is that Gene plays the straight guy cop and Dan, well plays the crazy sidekick (Lethal Weapon?) who has Multiple Personalities Disorder. Which is played for laughs. While MPD is supposed to suggest a person has a bunch of different personalities, in this movie the MP's are actually kid cartoon characters. So you see why this is like a kids movie? Its also one of the reasons its aged badly, not a term I like but its treatment of mental health for laughs does make it an odd watch in 2024. Not that MPD has much evidence it exists, but still. It is entertaining enough but hardly engrossing or different, its a pretty by the numbers movie which may be worth seeking out just for the novelty of this odd pairing of actors in a cop buddy role.

First off the title of this film tells you absolutely nothing about it. This is an obscure little 1960's British Sci-Fi that until today I had never even heard of.

The story concerns what is the 60's version of SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial life being carried out by a group of scientists. They are under pressure from their funder because they have been unable thus far to produce any evidence of alien life. Until that is they receive a radio signal... While some other reviewer suggested this was the British Plan 9, its more accurate to claim its the British This Island Earth in terms of storyline. It also has an unusual Adventure Game element to it.

Worth watching if you can track it down if you enjoy retro Sci-Fi and you need a change from the usual American 1950's suspects we have all seen and have been MST3K'd to death. Another plus of this film is it doesn't have a horrific 1960's jazz soundtrack to ruin the vibe, like so many movies of this era. Just watch out for the spaceships which have an oddly Japanese feel.

This film has been getting a bit more attention due to the obvious issues in Ukraine, however this movie doesn't exactly do much in the way of explaining the background to the conflict.

Olga tells the story of a promising gymnast who is taken on by the Swiss national team, due to her fathers heritage. At the same time events in Ukraine are spiralling out of control with Olgas mother at the heart of events as she is a journalist working to expose corruption in the regime which is being resisted by the people. The focus on the film is Olga trying to remain focused while events at home are threatening to derail her opportunities.

While this is a watchable film and the gymnastic aspect is represented very well, the lead is quite inexpressive, its very hard to read into any emotions. Which is an issue as that is what the film is about. Its hard to tell if this was a gymnast trying her hand at acting or vice versa. This is also not a particularly dialogue heavy film, so without much in terms of emotions on display and little wording, its all a bit vague. Also without more in depth background to the conflict there isn't really much to hang your hat on emotionally. The fact is the only reason this is getting the attention it is, is down to the invasion. Its watchable enough if a little vacuous.

This is one of those 90's films that is currently flying under the radar in terms of UK gangster movies. The ultra generic title isn't helping either in terms of making this stand out in your mind.

Robert Carlisle plays a gangster, again, along with Ray Winston, who are part of a team who commit a robbery where the takings are far less than expected. But that is just the start of their problems as it appears there is a traitor in their midst.

While this is an average movie there are some things that stop it being a good one. The first is this background story that Carlisle was once a socialist, this adds literally nothing to the plot apart from flashbacks, of which there are a few, to some political protest which turns violent. Something that was likely to pique viewers interest was the inclusion of Damon Albarn from Blur which along with the soundtrack is the most 90's thing about this film. In terms of the soundtrack it doesn't add much nor are any of the tracks memorable, despite many of the names being recognisable. I couldn't call this a hidden gem, its simply an average UK gangster film with a good/novelty cast and a decent storyline. Its watchable, but its likely that nobody remembers it from the time as it wasn't good enough to stick in your mind. The ending was somewhat predictable and despite this being a gangster film there are no scenes were we actually see anyone being shot to death, despite the high bullet count. Certainly an unusual angle for this genre. Blur fans may also be disappointed in the short screen time Damon has. Decent enough just not great.

I have watched a few Leigh movies and he certainly has his fans, I am not really one of them. Naked has an obviously titillating poster which is fairly non-representative of the film.

It starts off with a sexual assault and the attacker goes on the run to London to shelter with an ex girlfriend and her hippy flatmate played by the excellent Katrin Cartlidge. What follows is the main protagonist John and his relationship with the two female flatmates and his late night jaunt into central London at night. Of course if you hadn't guessed from the sexual assault John isn't very nice. However the film attempts to paint him as some kind of misunderstood intellectual, however he really comes across as someone who may be autistic, he seems to speak at people and the contents of his speech are mainly jibberish, although in his mind he is some kind of philosopher. What is interesting about this film is that almost every man in the movie is a psychopath who is violent, with the main male characters particularly violent towards women. Its that kind of preachy and clumsy in terms of its political bent. And of course the worst person of all is also rich. So that is a double sin. This can be a difficult film to endure, simply because the dialogue is tedious after a while, if you cant cope with the main character in the first few mins you will likely bail on this by the 20 min mark. This film really doesn't have much to say apart from men and bad and women are abused. All the cod philosophy goes in one ear and out the other. The closing shot was actually funny to me even though it wasn't played for laughs going by the musical score. I am perplexed as to why people found this "devastating". The story in a nutshell is there is a useless man that seems to pull women because he is tall, he is abusive and some of the women are stupid enough to fall for him. More fool them. Anyone who rates this highly obviously identifies with the chief idiot and his rantings. Its not a good look. Another Mike Leigh borefest that thinks very highly of itself when its about as deep as an episode of Eastenders.

In 2024 you can take a chance with a brand new film release with augmented visuals and made by a woke committee, or you can instead choose a safe bet of a film that is still highly rated more than sixty years past its release date.

While on the face of it this may seem like yet another UK police procedural, this one was directed by Val Guest who also directed Jigsaw, The Day The Earth Caught Fire and Quatermass. That tells you all you need to know, or maybe what you should know about his output. This is also a Hammer movie, albeit without the monsters.

The story concerns a criminal on the run who carries out a robbery resulting in the murder of a girl and the detective who is on his tail. Unlike the majority of these films this one takes place in Manchester for a change, probably the only time you will see Donald Pleasance with a Manc accent. The pacing of the film is such that a minute isn't wasted and it entertains throughout. There is a surprising level of violence throughout and the final third is exciting, however the film does not end on a triumphalist note unlike most American police procedurals. The only negative is the depiction of the detectives unhappy family life, with a wife who doesn't want kids when he does and constantly complains about his absence at work. This may give the character some depth but it doesn't add anything to the story of the pursuit. The major plus of this film however is that I caught it for free on Channel 4's streaming service which seems to have a few hidden gems for fans of real cinema. Recommended.

After becoming bored of the stale and derivative offerings produced today, I have gone on a deep dive of Classic movies or at least films from the past when film making was a craft as opposed to "content" which aims to engage or startle audiences with special effects or other novelties.

I had never heard of this despite having watched a number of Ealing films, its certainly not talked about to my knowledge, but sometimes that is a good thing.

Pool Of London is very gritty and engaging crime drama set against the backdrop of the London dockyards. A robbery scheme is put into place by some local thugs and sailor who also moonlights as a petty criminal becomes involved, as does his best friend, a "coloured" man from Jamaica.

The film depicts the London nightlife in the 50's which is centred around boozing and courting in the dancehalls. It all seems very simple compared to what is on offer today.

The strength of the film is there is very little dead space, the film cracks on quite quickly and you engage with the main characters. Which is important as this is a film about friendship and what men will or wont do in order to honour it.

The final third of the film is particularly well executed and carries an emotional punch. While Ealing seems to be known for light hearted comedies, this is certainly one of the best things from the studio, even if it isn't that well known. An easy recommendation.