Just A Little Bit Random

LFF 2020: Farewell Amor – Review

Release Date – N/A, Cert – N/A, Run-time – 1 hour 41 minutes, Director – Ekwa Msangi

After seventeen years apart an Angolan immigrant (Ntare Guma Mbaho Mwine) is reunited in New York with his wife (Zainab Jah) and daughter (Jayme Lawson) having to not just rebuild relationships but build them from the start

When it comes to awards seasons I hope that Farewell Amor is remembered after it’s hopeful release, specifically for it’s leading performance from Ntare Guma Mbaho Mwine. Bringing to life a character which he performs with sadness, loss, regret and so much more all hidden behind his eyes. He plays Walter, an Angolan immigrant living in New York who, after seventeen years apart, is reunited with his wife, Esther (Zainab Jah) and daughter Sylvia (Jayme Lawson), both brought to life by equally great performances. Walter finds himself having to do more than just rebuild relationships, but in the case of his daughter he has to start a bond from the very start, after having been absent for almost her entire life.

While for Esther the first response is to run to Walter at the airport and greet him with a tight embrace, she’s happy to finally see her husband again and live a life of joy in the land of the free, for Sylvia the case is quite different. She’s already been given no choice about moving away from all her friends to another country where she has to start anew, her mother doesn’t allow her to fulfil her passion of dancing and she has to now live with a total stranger, apparently her father, in a tightly packed apartment – with only one proper bedroom. Her greeting, a silently half-hearted, slightly awkward and uncertain handshake, after having been left to the side as if she isn’t there.

All of this just scratches the surface of the various passions, desires and secrets of each character. Walter has felt so distant over the previous 17 years that he has had to end an affair just as his wife is arriving back to him, something which he hopes will remain a secret. You can fell the emotion of the loose bonds and connections between the three. Walter tries to be a good father, engaging with his daughter, however he knows almost nothing about her and so struggles to talk to her – while his wife seems to be rather strict with her. There’s a feeling during such scenes where the family are attempting to bond, or rather pretending that everything is alright, that you fell the tense nature of the situations. You know that they know this is the case, but sit through the lack of conversation and struggles, as they do.

The way that writer-director Ekwa Msangi tells the story adds to the depth of each character. Allowing one perspective to be shown, then another and another. All while adding extra pieces of detail in each time, progressing the narrative at the end of each one; never looking at the same events. You understand each figure, their personal views and struggles while also focusing on the mindsets of others. When focusing on one character the film still allows you to remember the thoughts and feelings of others and what they are going through, while still ensuring that you know who the central focus is at any specific point. And it all works and comes together telling an emotionally engaging story with brilliantly performed figures who you can’t help but empathise for and with. It’s hard to believe, with everything that this film does, that this is Msangi’s feature debut!

Questions are raised as to where each person feels they belong. Where is home? Who are they, and who do they want to be with? During one key conversation Walter utters the words “After the war the home that I knew was gone”. This is a story about lives shaken up. Tragedies and the bonds they create and destroy. But, most prominently and importantly, a story about people trying to connect with each other, at times something which seems to be an impossible task. This is a film told with emotion, care and honesty. Something that feels genuine and real. Brought to life by caring direction from Ekwa Msangi and the passionately detailed and thoughtful performances that bring the characters in her screenplay to life. And what truly brings it together and proves the effect that the film has had is the warmth and emotion emitted from the final shots after a carefully sculpted final stages.

Mwine, Jah and Lawson are all stunning in the leading roles in Ekwa Msangi’s feature debut. Filled with care, passion and empathy this is a brilliantly told story of separation and connection that you can’t help but be caught up in the emotion of.

The Witches – Review

Cert – PG, Run-time – 1 hour 45 minutes, Director – Robert Zemeckis

A young boy (Jahzir Bruno) and his grandmother (Octavia Spencer) escape to a hotel after finding out there are witches who turn children into mice in the area, only to discover that a gathering of witches is taking place there, with the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) in attendance

Throughout the 105 minute run-time of Robert Zemeckis’ take on Roald Dahl’s The Witches I had no clue what Anne Hathaway was doing, but she was clearly having a great time doing it. Her seemingly German accent, occasionally slipping into something that sounds like Russian, as the Grand High Witch almost matches the state of the film itself. It isn’t good but it’s certainly enjoyable.

We follow a protagonist simply credited as Hero Boy (Jahzir Bruno), living with his grandma (Octavia Spencer), who has recently had his eyes opened to the existence of witches. After a discussion between the two – Spencer’s character having witnessed the effects of witchcraft as a child – they escape to an expensive hotel to avoid any risk of Bruno’s character being turned into a mouse, witches take delight in turning children into mice and then stamping on them. However, what the pair are unaware of is the fact that a collective of witches have congregated at the very same hotel, under the guise of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

While appearing to the rest of the world as normal people, although with long scars on either side of their mouths, with brightly coloured hats, dresses and accessories, fitting in with the aesthetic of the hotel, the witches are far different creatures when by themselves. Their mouths open almost across the width of their faces to reveal sharp jaws, they have a singular claw for their feet, three for their hands, and their neat hairstyles are all just wigs. And a fair deal of the witches appearance as witches does seem to be somewhat CGI heavy, as are a number of details of the film. In recent years Robert Zemeckis seems to have regularly used CGI to help tell his stories and bring them to life, such as in Welcome To Marwen and The Walk, not to mention his motion-capture animation work throughout the early 2000’s. And yet you feel as if some of the effects could be more convincing and effective if they were practical, the CGI almost seems to be wasted – Angelica Huston was, for many kids, terrifying thanks to her prosthetics in the 1993 adaptation of the story, whereas this film may provide younger viewers with some creepy moments but potentially not much else. The use of CGI throughout seems to just remove something from the film, especially during some of the longer scenes of the film.

There are a number of lengthy sequences over the course of the piece. The meeting of the witches themselves almost seems to go on for 20 minutes. While it seems to want to take its time to gradually reveal its elements for the suspense and development of the characters. However, the effect is one that simply makes the scene seem slow itself. Almost bringing in a feeling of repetition as the gathering of magical beings discuss, and to some extent act out, their plans. Bearing this in mind, and with what the scene tries to pack in it still seems to take a while to actually get to it. The spectacle that some of the ideas and shots seem to want to capture isn’t quite there and therefore the scene feels longer and more drawn out. You just find yourself wondering that if the witches really wanted to squash the mice that they’ve just created, surely they wouldn’t wear heels, or would find something bigger to do the job with – this is unless they’re trying to challenge themselves?

And yet, despite such scenes and some weird dialogue choices in the screenplay – this might be the 1960’s but would a young British boy, Bruno (Codie-Lei Eastick) really exclaim “crikey!” ever few minutes, or describe themselves as “portly” – the film somehow has some mild entertainment value. There are some chuckles to be found, although perhaps not always for the right reasons. Stanley Tucci (thank God for him!) seems to be having a nice time gently making his way through the role of thick Southern States accented hotel manager Mr Stringer, his screams at one point as the hotel is revealed to have a mouse problem do provide some amusement. And a specific sequence towards the end of the film also provides some chuckles, most likely intentional. There is so much in The Witches that makes up for a rather lacklustre and not best feature. And yet some of the individual elements do admittedly provide some amusement, although maybe not always for the right reasons. This new, even if it does feel like it was made a number of years ago, take on The Witches isn’t dreadful, but it certainly isn’t great either.

Anne Hathaway’s accent throughout this CGI filled take on Roald Dahl’s The Witches matches the film rather well. It’s not good and you don’t always know what’s going on, but it certainly provides some amusement, and she seems to be having a great time in the role.

Rebecca – Review

Cert – 12, Run-time – 2 hours 1 minute, Director – Ben Wheatley

After meeting on the French Riviera a young woman (Lily James) falls in love with a wealthy man (Armie Hammer) who is still plagued by the memory of his late first wife

Daphne du Maurier’s novel Rebecca is regarded as a true classic gothic thriller. Many have brought it to the screen, perhaps most notably Alfred Hitchcock, whose take on the film won 1941 Oscar for Best Picture. Now sees a new take on the story of a young woman (Lily James) who falls in love with a wealthy man, Maxim de Winter (Armie Hammer), after meeting on the French Riviera, gradually learning of the dark past of her new husband and the tragedy of his late wife, Rebecca. When Netflix announced that Ben Wheatley would be bringing his take on du Maurier’s classic novel to their service, and cinemas, the choice seemed highly fitting – especially with Wheatley’s past of working with dark and gothic themes, particularly in his early films. Yet, this new take on Rebecca almost seems to be without an overly gothic tone.

The first 20 minutes of the film, as the young couple come together and get to know each other within the grounds of a lavish French hotel, where James’ unnamed protagonist (only really going by the new Mrs. de Winter) is acting as the low-paid companion for an elderly and wealthy lady (Ann Dowd) who looks down on and sneers at her employee, are highly romanticised. Everything plays at as an idyllic romance drama. Two unlikely people coming together and then running off to be married, ignoring those who say it won’t work. How could it not work? Well, it seems that everyone else knows why while our central figure is left out of the ring. Mr. de Winter is rumoured to have a dark past, mostly in relation to his first, now deceased, wife. Comparisons between wives old and new are made, although quietly in the eyes of the other figures throughout the film. Doubts begin to emerge about James as she notices the odd stares she receives, eventually being told “He can’t love you because you’re not her”. Much mystery lies around Rebecca. One certainty is that she’s undeniably highly missed by both the de Winter family and the antagonistic housekeeper of Maxim’s Manderley estate, Mrs Danvers (Kristen Scott Thomas).

All the elements of the film work rather well together. The performances are good and the general design helps to emphasise the lavish nature of the lives that the characters lead. And yet there’s one major contrast that gets in the way of the piece being properly investing. While every element is in agreement for the tone that they are aiming for the film itself feels as if it’s aiming for something different. The two tones conflict and mean that the film never feels like it properly settles. Even with slight shifts in tone during the film as a new element is introduced, a new act begins; or characters simply dramatically change their behaviour and attitudes in a split second with no gradual development, the tone the film seems to want doesn’t match that of the elements within it – not to say that this is the fault of Wheatley’s direction, this certainly isn’t the case. It almost seems to be something that happened in the editing room when the film was being pieced together and the pacing confirmed.

There’s a scene during Rebecca where Lily James is at a party. Her character feels out of place and unsure of her surroundings. Thoughts are rushing through her head in a state of confusion and upset. The camera slowly pans downward to gaze up at her as she looks around the room unsure as to where to go. It was at this point that I realised I wasn’t connected with her character, or the film. You’re not in the world that the cast and crew have been trying to create and have simply, for most of the run-time, been watching a screen. A lot of this seems to come down to the tonal conflictions between the film and its various different elements. It seems no major fault of any of the cast and crew, who all put in a good turn. It simply seems to not be quite as gothic or dark as it potentially wants to be and therefore conflicts with itself and leaves the viewer outside of its world in doing so.

Each of the individual elements of Rebecca work well together to try and create a mysterious tone and feel to the thriller. Yet it seems that the film loses itself somewhere, perhaps in the editing room, feeling as if it aims for something else and therefore disallowing the viewer from engaging with, or feeling a part of, it.

LFF 2020: Siberia – Review

Release Date – N/A, Cert – N/A, Run-time – 1 hour 32 minutes, Director – Abel Ferrara

A man (Willem Dafoe) journeys into a cave to confront both his past and his dreams, or nightmares

Willem Dafoe has definitely had a thing for playing characters in remote situations seemingly going mad. After the release of The Lighthouse earlier this year we now find him in Abel Ferrara’s Serbia as a bar-owner in the middle of the Serbian mountains. Serving few patrons and simply living his days calmly, peacefully and with little interactions, those that he does have are rarely in his own language. His behaviour and isolation implies that he’s been running from something, trying to hide from it – the film backing this up with its general concept. And so, over the course of the film we see his journey through a cave, where he goes to confront his past and his dreams.

At this point it would seem fitting to briefly explain some of the events that occur within the cave, a bit more about the plot, unfortunately from here not a great deal makes sense. There are numerous interjections as Dafoe’s character seemingly reimagines scenarios with his family – him playing each figure including his Mum and Dad, and there are points where the film seems to pick up or begin to make sense as these moments go on. However, it’s not long until the seemingly deep-thinking, metaphorical, philosophical, psychological conundrums of the film come back into play and it seems to float around in an unspecified space or realm trying to say something with the viewer unsure as to what that might be.

Dafoe’s Clint enters the cave in the hope of confronting his past and dreams, to make peace with himself and others. In a number of ways the film itself feels like a 92 minute dream, nightmare might potentially be more fitting, sequence. Many occurrences are strange and unusual, and definitely beyond explanation. They feel trippy and weird throughout the entire film. You’re never truly grasped by it, instead such feelings act as a barrier towards you properly engaging with the film, if you’re able to understand most of what’s actually going on amongst the constant jumping back and forth between ideas, sequences and numerous naked bodies.

There are individual ideas lightly scattered at certain intervals over the course of the film that show some potential. Hope that things might pick up and start to properly get going amongst the slow stagger of madness that the film otherwise displays. Simon McBurney, simply credited as Magician, turns up for a few minutes and shows some promise. Not exactly bringing you in to the film, but at least doing something to help it along somehow. And yet the film as a whole never really comes together. It seems almost too much and as if it needs a bit more explanation over just showing you multiple dream sequences to construct a 92 minute fever-dream-cum-nightmare-sequence, not to mention the regular sex scenes/ nudist parties. Siberia seems to be trying to say something, but the way that it goes about it is just too unengaging, scattered and generally all over the place in terms of plot and ideas, makes it unclear as to what that is and overall makes for a rather lengthy and dissatisfying watch.

Possibly one of the weirdest and trippiest dream/ hallucination sequences ever made Siberia never properly clicks, simply disengaging the viewer due to its seemingly busy yet structurally lacking, not to mention confusing, narrative and detail.

LFF 2020: One Man And His Shoes – Review

Release Date – 23rd October 2020, Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 23 minutes, Director – Yemi Bamiro

Documentary about basketball and Michael Jordan’s part in the rise of Nike shoes

Within the first 15 minutes of One Man And His Shoes you feel as if you’re watching an Aaron Sorkin directed documentary. Yemi Bamiro’s latest feature packs in huge amounts of detail, talking to multiple figures with passion for the topics covered in a short space of time; while still making the film accessible and engaging. Throughout we follow the story of the rise of Nike trainers and their use of basketball to advertise themselves, particularly the iconic figure of Michael Jordan – and the brand deals that they had with him. Information is packed in and yet still easy to follow, thanks to the simplistic style of the documentary and the setting and basis of each interview, quickly forming and telling a gradual narrative that’s simple to follow even for those not the most interested in either basketball or shoes, a category which I fall into.

What makes the film so engaging is the level of passion that emits from the people at the centre of it. From basketball fans and historians to former Nike and advertising/ PR heads and workers, and even just shoe collectors, there’s care and knowledge for the subject from everyone involved. The way they speak about the subjects and the topic, how much they love what they’re describing simply brings you in as you want to see the story unfold and know about the connection between, at one point newbie basketball player, Michael Jordan and one of the biggest shoe brands in the world. At one point an interviewee says in relation to a specific pair of shoes, and Jordan, “It’s more than just the shoes. It’s what he did as a basketball player in those shoes that means a lot to me”. You see a personal side to these stories and the impact that the events in the film had on people, adding to your engagement.

The film doesn’t just shower praise onto the Nike, Air Jordan’s and the titular figurehead of the shoes, however. In the final 15-20 minutes the film does begin to lean into tragedies related to the shoes. Bringing in hints of emotion with them and helping to avoid the feeling of a hagiography. However, with what has to be said about such points and how briefly they seem to be discussed, in relation to the rest of the film’s topics; including Spike Lee directed adverts for Air Jordan’s, such ideas do create a sort of tonal shift. While they’re fairly effective and work well in comparison to what has happened before there’s a definite, almost immediate, shift in tone. Thoughts do begin to enter the mind as to why this wasn’t the main point of the film, or at least discussed earlier on, it does feel the most relevant and timely point that the film makes, when the idea of deaths of children and teenagers in relation to the shoes does seem important and not something to breeze over – something which the film might only just avoid.

But, with that aside the core of the film still remains intact. One featuring many people overflowing with passion for the subject matter, unpicking and reliving certain details allowing them to hold a sense of nostalgia and happily tell the camera their thoughts and memories, while still keeping an informing and engaging feature. It’s precisely this that hooks you and draws you in, even if you have no initial interest in the subject matter. For the most part the film is interesting and engaging, told in a way that keeps this feel and interest throughout the short run-time of the film. There may be the tonal shift towards the end to something that could be dwelled on a bit more than it is, but for the most part this is a well-made, engaging documentary that works because the people involved know what they’re talking about and care greatly about the subject matter.

While the final stages of One Man And His Shoes feel a bit rushed and aside from the rest of the film what comes before is an engaging, passionate and thorough look through the relationship between PR, shoes and basketball, even for those with no initial interest in the subject matters.

LFF 2020: Shirley – Review

Release Date: 30th October 2020, Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 47 minutes, Director – Josephine Decker

Bored by the seemingly pedestrian style of the outside world anxiety-filled author Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) begins to find inspiration in a twisted relationship with a young woman (Odessa Young) staying in her home.

Elisabeth Moss has been heavily billed and advertised as the central figure of Josephine Decker’s latest feature, after all Shirley Jackson is the title star. However, the story very much belongs to Odessa Young’s house guest, Rose, staying in the Jackson’s home after being invited by Shirley’s husband, Stanley (Michael Stuhlbarg), Rose’s husband, Fred (Logan Lerman) having become his assistant at the college he lectures at. The film is an exploration of the famous writer’s behaviour through the eyes of someone new to her world. Rose becomes Shirley’s inspiration after far too long struggling to find something to base her new novel on – only having found something in the story of a recently missing girl in the area, but unsure as to what to do with it.

Shirley’s behaviour is undeniably peculiar. She takes delight in testing other people and their behaviour and reactions to the dark and macabre – something which initially disturbs Rose before gradually finding intrigue within the woman whose home she finds herself living in. The two are interested by each others personalities and what makes each other tick, and there’s a level of interest to that. However, on Shirley’s part there’s definitely more under the surface layer, something that’s made clear from the very start. It appears that she and her husband, who plays with the mind of Rose’s husband, causing him to almost be tormented at work and having an effect on Rose herself, take delight in playing with other people’s minds. Not quite creating a horror feel to the piece but still that of a dark drama – perhaps capturing the tone of the titular figure more than a horror would.

Because of the nature of the characters and they way that they interact throughout the piece it’s often difficult to properly connect with them and engage with the scenarios that they find themselves in. This especially being the case when it comes to some of the more intimate, character-altering scenes between Rose and Shirley. As they come to apparently understand each other more, their bond increasing during some of the weirder moments of the film. However, often during such moments you never quite feel a part of the world. Often there’s something about the film that leads you to simply be watching a screen, not feeling properly involved with the unfolding actions on screen. Leading a number of scenes and ideas to not quite have the fully intended effect.

The performances throughout are all good, and as many have noted Moss is again on great form; with Young also demonstrating an equally strong turn. And there are some tonally interesting moments that help to convey the twisted nature of some of the characters, their intentions questionable throughout; their string-pulling ways surrounding playing with the mind also creating elements of intrigue. However, due to the lack of proper investment within the world and little connection with the characters the film does plod along at times with a rather slow pace. The viewer is left to simply watch a screen instead of properly get up close into the personal state of the complex and otherwise intriguing minds of the characters, which have the potential for a truly dark and thrilling feature.

The performances that act out the scenarios the complex characters find themselves in within Shirley are all strong, and the tonal feel is well done too. However, due to the nature of the characters it’s hard to properly connect with them and therefore feel a part of the world, meaning the film does sometimes feel rather slow.

LFF 2020: Relic – Review

Release Date – 30th October 2020, Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 29 minutes, Director – Natalie Erika James

When Edna (Robyn Nevin) suddenly returns after going missing her daughter (Emily Mortimer) and granddaughter (Bella Heathcote) go to her home to discover an unseen presence that seems to be consuming her

Relic sits in the vein of real-scenario, grief-related horrors, such as Hereditary with its look into the horror of losing a child. Although, Relic very much sits on the other side of the age spectrum taking a look at dementia how it consumes and changes people. Edna (Robyn Nevin) goes missing out of the blue leading her daughter, Kay (Emily Mortimer) and granddaughter, Sam (Bella Heathcote to travel to her home to see what’s going on. When she turns up claiming to be fine not long after they arrive there’s definitely something different about her behaviour, as if something is gradually forcing her to act out against her family, potentially leading them to be consumed as well.

The walls of the small home are already cramped, with a number of rooms and corridors filled with various boxes and memories. For Sam they seem to close in on her, trapping her inside an endlessly dark stretch of fear and uncertainty. Meanwhile Kay finds herself worrying about her mother. What’s happening to her? Is this dementia or is something else happening? Their relationship is tested as Edna’s actions begin to almost take against her own daughter, snapping at random points at small exchanges. Throughout her film director and co-writer, with Christian White, Natalie Erika James hints at the confusion and fear that dementia has on people, the impact that it has on the people around those who have it; translating such ideas into a visual horror.

Often the elements of horror come in short bursts within the drama of the film, which seems to be the dominating element. It feels more like a drama with some horror elements, at least in the first half, before shifting into a full horror in the second half. Perhaps because of this, the tone and the narrative that the film sets up, the fear factor doesn’t quite come through. You can understand what the characters are going through and empathise with some of them, however when the tone shifts in the final stages to truly show a visual sense to the genre the tone almost changes as it seems to demonstrate something different to the rest of the film. Going down a more conventional line for the genre during such moments instead of managing to quite continue the tone of the dramatic moments.

These points are quickly jumped back into, meaning that the more genre orientated bursts are quite short and moved on from rather fast meaning that the impact does feel somewhat lessened. However, there’s enough within the drama, within the characters reactions to what they see in the supposed real-world to keep the viewer interested and wanting to see how things turn out. The film might have its stumbles and in terms of horror might, like Hereditary, be quite divisive. However, when it comes to the three central performances there’s enough detail and skill, alongside James’ careful and thoughtful direction and handling of the topic and themes of the piece, to keep you situated with the characters and keeping track of their minds and states over the course of its short run-time. And with a film like this and what it covers that’s quite possibly the exact thing you need to not just keep you engaged but for the horror to connect and work, which for a number of people the film is bound to do.

Relic is likely to prove a divisive film when it comes to the horror angle, taking a bit more of a conventional scare style during the more horror-orientated moments. However, with the performances and direction coming together to create a decent drama there’s a fair deal of be interested and engaged by within the film.

On The Rocks – Review

Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 36 minutes, Director – Sofia Coppola

Suspecting that her husband (Marlon Wayans) is cheating on her, Laura (Rashida Jones) somehow enlists the help of her playboy father (Bill Murray) to find out the truth behind his various business trips

It may seem hard to believe but, Bill Murray’s only Academy Award nomination is for his performance in Sofia Coppola’s Lost In Translation. A magnificent turn that many were sure could have earned him the win, if it wasn’t for Sean Penn in Mystic River. Almost seventeen years later we could finally see him gain a second nod for his first feature collaboration – Netflix’s A Very Murray Christmas aside – with the writer-director in that time.

Although, while Murray shines throughout the film, the focus is definitely not on his character. Instead we follow Rashida Jones’ Laura. A mother of two who begins to suspect that her husband (a highly restrained and subtle Marlon Wayans – far away from the loud, spoof comedy performances that many of us have likely become use to from him over the years) is having an affair. He regularly flies off to other countries on business trips with his co-worker Fiona (Jessica Henwick). As she becomes increasingly worried and suspicious Laura finds herself somehow enlisting the help of her playboy father, Felix (Murray), to help get to the bottom of what’s really happening.

Murray and Jones’ chemistry throughout is fantastic. Beat for beat they match each other, creating a genuine bond that brings the viewer into the charmingly lit world of the film, assisted by Philippe Le Sourd’s warm and effective cinematography; having previously worked on Coppola’s The Beguiled. Two award worthy performances that bring about the many laughs – particularly around the somehow charming forwardness to and about the women Felix encounters – with a finely tuned sprinkling of emotion elsewhere. All bringing about the fact that this is a film about people just being themselves. Humans being humans, connecting and conversing with other humans. Admittedly rather wealthy humans who personally know the concierges of the best hotels in London, but still these characters feel real. Never stepping anywhere near the thought of exaggeration just for the purposes of entertainment.

You find yourself brought in for an enjoyable time. Into a piece of irresistible escapism. It’s hard not to have a large smile spread across your face, not just for a few seconds but for entire scenes and stretches of time. Simply caught up within the central father-daughter relationship that pushes the story further, allowing you to further connect with that also. Everything spring-boarding from Sofia Coppola’s fantastic screenplay; captured through her, as ever, expert direction. From start to finish of the gently flowing 96 minute run-time you invest in the central relationship that helps form the events of the film for an almost perfect story about human behaviour and responses, worries and joys.

Murray and Jones are sensational in the lead roles of Sofia Coppola’s latest hit. Bringing to life a top screenplay and creating an irresistibly inviting world that you can’t help but be caught up in. A pure escapist delight that manages to feel genuine and real.

Pixie – Review

Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 33 minutes, Director – Barnaby Thompson

A young woman (Olivia Cooke) finds herself on the run from the effects of her dangerous relationships, travelling across the country with two near-strangers (Ben Hardy, Daryl McCormack), a bag full of drugs and multiple gang members not far behind

Pixie (Olivia Cooke) is said to be one of the most mysterious people in her town. She mostly keeps to herself in her small, isolated house on the outskirts of town while various rumours circulate about her, particularly among the men about her sex life. And her actual life is almost as complex as the rumours. Her step-dad (Colm Meaney) and step-brother are both key figures in a large gang who happen to rival a gang that are after something that Pixie happens to have in her shared possession. It’s not long until both gangs, partly spawned by the deaths of Pixie’s boyfriend and her ex, are after the titular figure on a road-trip through the country roads of Ireland.

Driving with Pixie, and often taking her lead, are Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack), two friends who have accidentally come across a large bag filled with drugs and, after another set of circumstances, a dead body in the boot of the car. Everything somehow leading back to Pixie; who has hatched the plan of selling the drugs, worth at least one million euros – according to Google – and then get the first flight out of the country, ideally to San Francisco. And while two gangs are on the tail of the group this never exactly feels like a gang story, one about someone stuck between two gangs or even just someone trying to escape from something. There’s more of a communal feel about the piece because of the relationship between the central three figures, and yet one feeling, or style, that sits throughout is that of an early 2000’s British gangster comedy.

On a number of occasions with the short lines that some characters are given the screenplay does sometimes feel as if it’s about two drafts away from being properly complete. There are brief asides that don’t seem to go anywhere and moments that don’t have any major benefit to the plot, and instead seem to be there so that a singular character has something to do while others are doing something to advance the narrative a bit more. While there are one or two mildly amusing moments that create the odd exhale of amusement the laughs don’t really roll in – during one shootout scene in particular the question comes about as to whether the scene is meant to be funny or not, the facial expressions and score – which sometimes you begin to switch your focus towards – imply it might be, but the effect isn’t really there.

All other elements are fine, the performances are relaxed and the actors seem to be having a good time – although Alec Baldwin’s Irish accent when we first meet his character; Father Hector McGrath, is somewhat questionable. Baldwin initially seems as if he’s present for as an odd cameo. However, after another 30-40 minutes he finally reappears for a few more minutes, proving, alongside various reports and articles on the film that reference his name, that this isn’t a cameo and making it feel as if there’s a lot with his character that’s been cut out. It ends up feeling like a very minor character is soon rushed into having a big deal made about them when it comes to the gang of priests and gun-wielding nuns in the drug trad – because nobody suspects a priest, cue joke about paedophilia within the Catholic Church.

When it all comes together everything feels as if it falls a bit flat, and it mostly leads back to the screenplay feeling as if it needs at least one more revision. While the performances are good and there’s potential for a good film, and some decent call-back moments, the film seems to lack something. Not quite having the comedic punch that it potentially could have. Leading it to not quite engage or have the energy and push that it might want to properly capture the feeling that could make it feel like a proper throwback to the 2000’s road-trip caper comedy.

With a few details lacking from the screenplay Pixie ultimately falls short of capturing the potential energy and humour that it could have. It might have some amusing moments but not enough to make it the pacey caper it could be.

The Secret Garden – Review

Cert – PG, Run-time – 1 hour 39 minutes, Director – Marc Munden

A young, orphaned girl (Dixie Egerickx) finds herself living on her uncle’s (Colin Firth) estate in the Yorkshire Moors, which holds a large, fantastical garden

Since its first publication in 1911 The Secret Garden has been regarded as one of the most British children’s tales. Brought once again the the screen by producer David Heyman, behind British classics such as the Harry Potter franchise and both Paddington films – Paddington exec producer Rosie Alison also has a hand in this big-screen iteration of Frances Hodgson Burnett’s classic novel. Both highly British, especially Paddington, with there elements of fantasy. As the film’s protagonist, Mary (Dixie Egerickx) finds herself exploring the grounds of her uncle’s (Colin Firth) estate in the gloomy fog of the Yorkshire Moors, she quickly discovers a fantastical garden beyond that of the regular overgrown patches visible from the house.

Mary finds herself back in Britain after being orphaned in late 1940’s India. Taken to her distant Uncle, Lord Archibald Craven’s expansive home – rarely seen, and often spoken through his strict and direct housekeeper Mrs. Medlock (Julie Walters). The corridors of the home are dark, dusty and lacking decoration. Sounds are dull with the occasional rattling echo. One of those sounds belonging to Mary’s ill bedbound cousin Colin (Edan Hayhurst). Initially there are conflictions between the two, especially regarding their different backgrounds; it isn’t always easy to get on with the rather spoilt Mary, especially when her first instinct is to command maid and houseworker Martha (Isis Davis) before questioning whether she really is her servant – the answer is definitely no.

The state of the manor vastly differs from that of the garden. A brightly lit, sunshine-filled realm with plants that seem to stretch up to the sky and out to far reaches. Scattered with the occasional gently flowing stream and blatantly CGI bird. It’s in this area that almost seems like an entirely different world that the children, including new friend Dickon (Amir Wilson), who acts as the introduction to the garden itself, easily find escape and safety within. It offers a form of healing for them, and protection from the confines of the manor and the rest of Lord Craven’s estate. It’s during such moments where the central figures are simply allowed to be free and play in a relatively worry-free environment, although the pressures and anxieties of the rest of the world gradually creep in. And it’s also in such moments that the film shows itself as one that appears to target the kids more than anyone else.

At 99 minutes the run-time of the film is relatively short. The film breezes through with a fairly simplistic and traditionally told story, something that echoed through screenwriter Jack Thorne’s screenplay for 2019’s The Aeronauts. This doesn’t make the film unwatchable for the adults, there’s enough there to make this a pleasant watch for the fairly short and mostly harmless time that it’s on for. There’s enough there to certainly work for the kids and bring them into the world that the trio of youths find themselves exploring and experiencing the wonders of, and it’ll likely capture their imagination and engagement. However, there are points where you almost feel some elements could be slightly expanded upon, particularly in the final 15 minutes where the pacing begins to speed up and elements appear to rush by so that the film can still get out with a double digit run-time. But, for what it does provide and do within the space of time that it’s on The Secret Garden is a perfectly fine piece of work. It might be more for the kids, but there’s enough within this fantastical realm, and even the one that it separates from, to engage the adults too and make the film worthwhile enough with its rather traditional ways.

Simplistic and traditional help give this edition of The Secret Garden to life, yet they can also sometimes act as its barriers, for adult viewers at least. Nonetheless this is still a rather fine adaptation that’s very likely to work with younger viewers, and should act as a decent watch for everyone else.