Flippant Phil

This film is a bit like complicated sauce. All the fine ingredients are included but the darn thing keeps coming apart. It wont blend to become a satisfying whole. Perhaps it would have worked better if it used a stricter chronological sequence of events rather than shifting us backward and forward. It's a portrait of the sickness of addiction, which also makes it a sad film. But I have to say, it's accurate in its constant disappointments - addiction followed by rehab followed by relapse again and again. The trouble is, we are watching a film, and we have certain expectations of moving forward instead of marking time. Yet, that might be the point- to make us feel how supporters of the addict feels. If that's it's intention, I guess it works. There is no identifiable reason why Nic became an addict. His home life is good, his social life is good, he's a good student. The only explanation is the one he gives his father: He tried drugs and he liked it. He was also not afraid to experiment. His addiction isn't just confined to crystal meth, he takes a lot more than that! Nic's life falls apart time and time again. With such dire consequences you might call it preachy, but I think it's fair and accurate. It also accurately conveys the painful truth that an addicts friends and relatives must face: Ultimately, the cure lies with the addict. In a support group for people with drug dependent loved ones, Nic's father learns of the three C's: He didn't cause it, he can't control it and he can't cure it. There are superb performance from all the actors, especially Timothee Chalamet as Nic and Steve Carrel as his loving father who is unswerving in his commitment to help his son. Yet unfortunately, for some reason there is something about the overall drama that left me dissatisfied.

I just wished the rest of the film had been as strong as the last 30 minutes. It's a good drama but I'd be lying if I didn't say that at about half way through I was getting a bit fed up with this sweet but hopeless ensemble of people. This is a contemporary Japanese film about a bunch of folk sharing a disheveled hovel. They happily fill their fridge with shoplifted foods. The children don't go to school and the "Dad" is mostly home but gets occasional part-time work on the building site. "Big Sister"(for want of a better term) works as a stripper. "Mum" gets part time work in a clothing factory. "Grandma" just hangs around the house all day. The little children learn the skill of shoplifting form Dad. Their antics are amusing but the genuine affection they have for each other is what wins you over. From the beginning when they take in a cold and hungry child you get to appreciate their values but you are also given another insight into how this "family" is made up. This revelation is explored in greater detail in the last section of the film in a fascinating series of dialogues to the police and other authorities, leaving us with challenges and questions, not only for this family, we but for what makes up any family, and for where it's values lie.

My first impressions were this: The First Man is not a fun film and, to be honest, it is often quite a boring film. Yet, it is probably (who knows for sure?) a good portrayal of Neil Armstrong. A brilliant engineer and test pilot who was simply chosen to be "the first man". I'd say if you didn't know that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon (and who doesn't?!) you might find the pace of this film trying, and wonder where it's going. Its trajectory comes from our prior knowledge and the fact that the film has to fulfill it's inevitable historic destiny. He's going to be chosen to be the first man to walk on the moon and then he's going to do it successfully - and we know it. No plot twists here, we just get to watch him go through it. It's probably truthful. There are no villains. There is not much competition between the astronauts. He is not aspiring to be "The First Man'. It could have been any of the other worthy candidates in the NASA team and almost was. You get the impression that it was just another exercise for him. "You're it Neil" they said to him ".Okay" he quietly replied. He seemed to treat each mission as a technical task rather than a gung-ho adventure, and this was another one. He can't seem to figure out why his wife Jan isn't as chilled about it as he is. The film shows the home-life of a man who lives on a military camp. He and his family enjoy the community and camaraderie of the camp. Yet his relationship with his wife seems distant. He is obsessed with his work, she seems understanding but she also harbours a suppressed anger about it. Sometimes they seem like a distant couple. Early in their marriage illness took their infant daughter. It is suggested that perhaps they never really worked it through together and thus it remained an event that shaped their marriage as they individually carried the wounds of grief. In the cockpit, we get many closeups. The claustrophobia, intense noise and violent shaking of the test jets and rockets is conveyed effectively as pilots and later astronauts try to read critical dials which are shaking into a blur. You get a lot of that. Such closeups and movement continue into many other scenes, which is why I found it irritating at first. But after much reflection, I find myself impressed. It's from the same director who gave us Whiplash and La La Land and as far as creativity goes it is probably just as good. But certainly not as much fun to sit through, though the Moon Walk scenes are a memorable and beautiful experience. For me it is a film I admired rather than enjoyed.

A Star is Born Remake # 4. If no one had ever got this film right I'd understand why Bradley Cooper wanted to do it, but even though the last remake starring Barbara Streisand was a legendary dud, the first two are pretty good. Anyway for some reason Bradley Cooper decided he'd like to have a go at it - big time! And in fairness he's done a pretty good job.This is a big fat glamorous, lengthy production updated for today. He plays Jackson Maine who is some kind of hard-rocking cowboy style singer who's hair desperately needs washing. He's a sort of hip, unkempt, C+W I think. At least that's the way I'd describe him. As is the role in A Star is Born, he's an alcoholic. He meets a young lass in a bar - Ally (played by Lady Ga Ga) - and spends the night hanging out with her in a "just friends" way. But he learns (as do we) that she sure can sing (well it's Lady Ga Ga so she really can sing). She acts pretty good too. So, as is the story of A Star is Born, Jackson decides he want's the world to know about Ally and starts dragging her on the stage with him. The crowd go wild. Jackson and Ally fall in love and get married. Enter sleazy hard-bitten manager - as is the role in A Star is Born - who drives a wedge between them and takes Ally under his wing - Jackson becomes more and more insignificant and looks for solace at the bottom of a bottle. She becomes bigger and bigger, and so do the billboards of her. As is the ending of A Star is Born, he becomes nothing but a memory and she becomes a star. So, in this version, we end up with one less C+W singer (Yay!) and one more torch singer (Booh!). Overall it's a pretty good remake. Though I still don't know why they did it, but I'm pretty sure everybody involved is happy. It's raking in bucket loads apparently.

One thing I've noticed is that most Rock Bio Pics are pretty good. There is the odd dud but usually they get it right - I'm thinking of Control (Ian Curtis), The Doors (The Doors), Backbeat (early Beatles), Walk The Line (Johnny Cash), Straight Outa Compton (NWA) and most impressive of all, Love and Mercy (Brian Wilson). I think it's mainly because to take on such a venture, those involved usually have a lot of love and respect for the subject matter. So it is with this bio of Freddie Mercury. the flamboyant, audacious lead singer, composer and musician who was the face of the band Queen. Those who are familiar with the outstanding television series "Mr Robot" will know of the extraordinary acting skills of Rami Malek. Freddie Mercury wouldn't be an easy one to imitate but with a few extra teeth, Malek does an excellent job. More so, he has the speaking voice, mannerisms and stage movements down pat. Likewise with the other members of the band who are all very convincing look a likes. Queen wrote songs and released albums which critics utterly condemned for all the wrong reason (rather like this film) but which the public just loved for all the right reasons (again rather like this film). Personally I always thought if some of Queen's songs had been the work of The Beatles they would have been received with the adulation of Sgt Peppers. If longevity and perpetuity are any indicators, some of their songs - particularly Bohemian Rhapsody - should be regarded amongst the greatest rock songs ever written. This excellent bio never has a dull moment as it tracks Freddie Mercury's first encounter with the other band members, through to their meteoric rise, their bravery in staring down their record company, insisting Bohemian Rhapsody be released as a single, their success in America and Mercury's self realisation about his sexuality. Like Queen itself the film is big, grandiose colorful and hugely entertaining. With scenes that stick in your mind as surely as many a Queen song. It's a thoroughly enjoyable, welcome and fitting tribute.

Tell me again that this is the same director who gave us "A Bigger Splash" and "Call Me By Your Name", because I'm struggling to believe it. Talk about taking a wrong turn! This is as bad as they are good. There were about twenty people in the cinema when this film started, there were three of us left when it finished. At one stage I was more amused by the exit door banging than whatever was on the screen. This is a stinker. It's a "remake" of the original 1977 film. Why he wanted to do it is beyond me. You'd think a good film maker like Luca Guadagino would recognise and respect a perfectly fine film and want to respectfully leave it be. Basically the story is the same. Set in the 1970's A dance student goes to Germany to join a prestigious all female dance troop but soon discovers things are a bit weird. However, rather than being frighted by it all she becomes drawn into the madness. The dance troop are actually a bunch of witches. The film waffles on about women not having a voice and other pasted on "philosophical" arguments trying to justify it's existence, but it's completely unpersuasive. With it's heavy handed symbolism, everything comes across as naive, or pretentious. It also makes references to the war (of course) and to terrorist activities that were happening in the seventies. I don't know if the end was supposed to be funny or frightening or a tribute to 70's gore movies, (like the original Suspiria) but it's some kind of ridiculous bacchanal orgy of violence that had me giggling mostly. Luca Guadagino is great at making a different type of film. He should leave this whacko stuff to Aronofsky he does it so much better.

I thought "The Old Man and The Gun" was a self-defeating heist movie, but this is just as bad if not worse. It has a style and a method of storytelling, that works against it's own genre: Untidy, unlikely, unbelievable, slow, contrived with not much action, concluding with loose ends all over the place. Apparently it's based on the 80's TV Series of the same name. I remember it. It was okay on TV in it's time but it's hardly worthy of being resurrected as a film. I don't know why they bothered and I wish they hadn't. I also wish that Steve McQueen gets back on track for his next film. With his previous films: Hunger, 12 Years a Slave and Shame, McQueen has been building a very individual style: he has also gained a reputation of telling a unique kind of story in his own way. I think he should stick to that.

The last film David Lowery gave us was "Ghost Story", which I thought was an audacious but seductive drama. It starred Casey Affleck as the Ghost. It had a slow meditative atmosphere which suited the story well. Unfortunately the same spirit (or lack of spirit ) does not work so well for this film. This is one of the most unexciting heist movie I have ever seen. It feels like it's half asleep (I think the audience were too by the end of it). Some say this might be Robert Redford's last film. I hope not, because he deserves to go out on a higher note than this. Set in the early 1980's, it's the "somewhat true" story of Forrest Tucker, a serial bank robber. We meet Forrest when he is in his seventies. At this stage he has linked up with a couple of other old school bank robbers - cameos from Tom Waits and Danny Glover - so most of his heists are done as a team. Forrest Tucker is what you might call a gentleman bank robber. As he walks into a bank wearing his suit and tie and carrying his large briefcase he looks like a business man about to make a deposit. He speaks quietly and gently to the staff telling them ,this is a robbery, he has a gun, and they should co-operate, as he doesn't want to hurt anyone. On the run from one robbery he meets Jewel (Sissy Spacek), a woman he decides he'd like to see more of. "I'm a salesman", he tells her in the beginning. By the time she learns his true profession she's only seen his good side or Forrest and she is in love with him. Meanwhile we follow Detective John Hunt (Casey Affleck) who might still be playing the Ghost again for the amount of life he puts into his performance. Showing his home life we are given the most contrived and unconvincing portrait of a marriage. He's also the most sleepy, lackadaisical, uninspiring cop you'll ever meet. He hasn't even got the energy to open his mouth to speak clearly, let alone keep up with an old man, which might sound amusing, but actually he just comes across as irritatingly dopey.