Category: Film

I was sat at home one evening thinking “I don’t want to sit here and watch a movie in a room on my own”. That just felt a bit lame, so I went to my local chain of cinemas specialising in independent film and decided to give this film a go in the hope of some form of community. I went in and took my seat, waiting for this monsoon of other viewers to come in, hopefully without their loud smelly snacks, just so I could have a morsel of humanity… Nobody else came in. So there I was, sitting there and watching a movie in a room on my own. Lame. The rest of SW19 letting down the great leader Boris. When you’re all trialled for treason, I’ll be sat in the back row watching, while eating my quiet non-disruptive snack. Who will be laughing then?

So, the movie? Well, first of all, don’t get it mixed up with the Steve Carrell “No, Kelly Clarkson” movie. This film is totally different. It’s written/directed/acted by Radha Black and is semi-autobiographical. Radha is about to be forty and having won an award for thirty play writes under thirty, her career seems to be stalling. She’s lonely, teaches drama at the local school and she’s trying to get her new play she’s written into theatres, although the white theatre owner wants it to be more “universal”. It’s essentially a gentrification of a play about gentrification. In between this, Radha feels she needs to express herself more, so decides to start doing rap, something you don’t see 40 year old women do. It’s an attempt to reinvent the forty year old version of herself. It’s not really an A Star Is Born as it’s much more grounded.

I was on the way out of the house to a Picturehouse surprise film preview and my house mate asked me “What film are you seeing?” I replied that I didn’t know as that was he spirit of this evening. I then said “I’m worried it might be a horror film called Saint Maud”. I’m not a fan of horror and when the BBFC card came up revealing the surprise film, well as you can guess from the title of the review, Saint Maud was introduced to me.

When I go to a surprise film preview (I highly recommend them), I want two things, to enjoy it firstly and secondly for it to be something I wouldn’t usually go and see. This film certainly ticked the second part. A low budget horror, we follow former nurse Maud who has gone into palliative care and under the deep spiritual guidance of God finds renewed purpose in dancer Amanda. Amanda’s spine disease means she will die soon, however Maud sees her as lost and considers herself to be the way to focus Amanda and make her soul pure. It’s not a cutesy little film way, it’s a creepy cultish way.

Seriously, do people actually like horror? What on earth appeals about seeing people deliberately stepping on nails or peeling the skin off their hands and being burnt alive . There was some dark un-supernatural shit which wasn’t pleasant to watch either. The director never quite knew what she wanted to do. I knew what I wanted to do and that was to go out of the exit door.

I didn’t really like the film because Maud was a crazy witch and Amanda was boring as well. I know horror films are not character focussed, but these ones were just so… lame. The plot thought it was smarter than it was. It was First Reformed without any great questions and a plot twist so predictable that half way through I thought no, it won’t be that easy. Turned out it was.

The music was horror-y, but because it sounded horror-y, I could tell I was watching a horror film. Great, whatever. Now I know I’m watching a film I don’t really like because I don’t like this type of film. The acting was okay. It hardly changed acting.

Not my cup of tea, but horror fans seemed to like it [Grade: D+]

Just before I start no doubt what is a very high quality review which discusses themes, cameras and all that twaddle, I want to make something clear. I went to the cinema because I wanted to, not because Boris told me to. This was a decision of my own free will because I am a free man and don’t just bow down to his every whim. This blog is also not part of the deep state, encouraging you to attend the cinema. If you want to, great. If you don’t want to, fine, then don’t.

Frankly I don’t quite know what Andy Serkin was hoping to achieve. Could any court scene top the one where Pheonix Buchannan is jailed for 10 years and informed he is a disgrace to the noble profession of acting. No, because that was a perfect movie (Unironically).

But on a more serious note, is there a more standard genre of film than a legal drama? I mean, they’re all just very okay. Put in some story of significance, bring in a couple of good actors and a funny moment, and you’ll be fine in the box office. Add in a couple of dodgy legal moments and a character you allegedly care for, that’s a template movie sorted. That’s the main problem I had with Chicago 7, I just felt like I’d seen it before.

I don’t usually discuss my opinions on Netflix films I haven’t seen in the cinema unless there is a lot I want to say about them or I’m bored on a train journey. Both are true today, so let’s talk about Charlie Kaufman’s film.

We start off this 134 minute film with a car journey as our two protagonists the woman and man are just talking. The woman is monologuing in her mind about how she wants to end the relationship and it’s a little bit creepy as the man almost seems to hear her thoughts. Does he have the shinning (Not the shining, we don’t want to get sued)? Anyway they then go through this long 20 minute conversation about some pretentious shit which is as entertaining as your usual Kenny Jackett brand of football. These characters are pretentious, which means pretentious film snobs might like them because “Oh they’re like me”, but frankly to the rest of the world they’re kind of… you know…