RichardvonLust Reviews

Dunkirk (2017)

Shining example of the utter corruption inside the film industry

[1/10 · 7 February 2018]

There can be only one explanation how every professional film critic has praised this production to the roof tops whilst virtually every reviewer here has exposed it as a worthless piece of junk; the 'idependent' professionals got paid to lie.

There is nothing at all to merit even a score for this sickening mumbo jumbo of absurdity. Kenneth Brannah has revealed himself to be nothing more than than drama prostitute able to take any part that conveys him as a British hero even though his lines are entirely trite. Mark Rylance puts on a good show and Harry Styles shows that he has more than just a pretty face but one character survives no less than 5 ship wrecks on one day whilst a gliding engineless spitfire proves to be a fatal opponent for a fully armed German bomber. There is no script, no character development, no story of the battle and no attempt to show the vast scale of the original event. Just leave this rubbish alone and avoid anything ever praised by any of the critics who try to sell it to you. You are better off watching paint dry.

Marie Curie: The Courage of Knowledge (2016)

Tedious vehicle using Marie Curie to push a 21st. century adgenda.

[4/10 · 20 January 2018]

This is sadly not a film about a great woman who dedicated her life to science and paid the ultimate price in doing so. Rather it is simply yet another tedious promotion of today's feminist agenda telling us how terrible it was to be a woman in the past and (indirectly) how much we must strive to strengthen women's rights in the future. Marie Curie is simply the canvas used to restate this message for the millionth time.

It tells us nothing about her background, her early interests, her historical meeting with Pierre Curie or even the substance of the relationship between them. And most awful of all it tells us nothing of her actual work, how it was that Radium and Polonium were discovered and how this was received at the time.

Instead the film concentrates upon a series of soft porn, soft focus and heavily romantacised encounters between her and a married man whom she partnered after Pierre's death. Curie was then 44 and fairly full figured after having two daughters. But the actress in the film is nothing like that. She has a slim lithe body with perfectly neat compact breasts that would emulate a teenager. In short the woman who partnered a man becuase of shared scientific exploration is now displayed as a sex godess worthy of our admiration on physical grounds alone.

Do youself a favour. Chuck this film in the bin and watch the 1943 version instead. It is much much more rewarding.

King Charles III (2017 TV Movie)

Wonderful acting but a deeply flawed concept.

[7/10 · 14 July 2017]

The day has finally arrived. Charles is at last king and without the restrictions of his mother. Almost immediately he finds himself at odds with his prime minister and refuses assent to a bill passed by Parliament.

In typical Shakespearean style Charles then finds himself tangled in political intrigue and family betrayal. The politicians seek his abdication. William is portrayed as a rather weak character entirely under the ambitious thumb of his ruthless wife who lusts for power. Harry seems more obsessed with finding love somewhere in an East End council flat than the duties of his birth whilst Camilla does her best to keep everything together.

So far so good. All the characters are entirely believable and extremely well cast although perhaps Prince Harry is somewhat better looking than his stage counterpart.

But sadly there is major flaw in the script. The bill in question would restrict press freedom and the plot suggests that public outrage at the King's refusal to allow this is sufficient to cause 'bloodletting' in a virtual civil war. Such is more than unlikely. Moreover both William and Harry turn against their father as the crown is wrestled from him by force with their support. Such is even more absurd. Eventually Charles accepts the betrayal and crowns his own son with bitter sentiment. Never can one imagine that the ancient rites of kingship would be so trampled simply because the king would protect free speech. And were that to transpire I am certain that Charles would invoke the Plantagenate curse that saw the Tudor usurpers extinct in three generations after their treachery at Bosworth. Now that would have been a far better ending as Charles crowns the son that stole his throne. What a pity the writer did not compose with greater imagination and less absurdity.

Spies (2017– )

Fake show making entertaining nonsense

[4/10 · 19 March 2017]

For a short pleasing unwind before bedtime this show can suffice. It is well paced and mildly interesting excepting the repeated introduction sequence which is tediously long and pompous. But the show is fake. The short listed candidates are described as 'highly intelligent' and 'especially gifted' whilst in fact they were mostly quite ordinary people who could have been picked at random. However some of the candidates were quite special. They were so incredibly inept, so amazingly dull and so ridiculously clueless that the show collapses on take off.

'How could any professional body accept such fools for intelligence training?' is the first question that arises when the show's cover begins to crack. Even amongst the final four a candidate is stupid enough to call the emergency safety line simply because no one has contacted her for a few hours. Julian Fisher, supposedly a former intelligence officer of some rank and now the organizer of this 'course' for MI5 hopefuls exclaims "intelligence officers are made and not born" as if his business model can actually create gold from lead. But it cannot. In fact the whole show proves that his training cannot succeed where the raw material simply isn't good enough.

Finally towards the end of the series Justin blows his own cover. He tells the viewers that arrested agents must achieve a rapport with their interrogators and not antagonize them. This is absolute nonsense. The relationship between agent and interrogator is entirely dependent upon the cover being used. Posing as an experienced international businessman an agent might well strike a good tone with his interrogator. Successful businessmen are normally cool and smooth. But these candidates were posing as tourists. Innocent holidaymakers do not take kindly to police interrogations for no apparent reason. After five hours of solitary confinement the average tourist would either be absolutely livid with his interrogator or so deeply shocked that their responses would be muted and sullen. Anything else would raise suspicion.

One candidate acted as if the cell experience had blown his mind and so hardly responded to his interrogator. He was immediately suspended from the show and thrown off the course as a failure. As I wrote, this is absolute nonsense and entirely fake. Justin Fisher was either never in MI5 or was removed for being an idiot. Watch this show with a bucket of salt.

Tut (2015)

A trash production that trashes history

[4/10 · 23 November 2016]

It is difficult to describe just how bad this production is. Besides depicting interior design in 18th. Dynasty Egypt as a carbon copy of 21st. Century luxury hotels, the events described are almost entirely fabricated.

Incestuously bred, Tutankhamun was a genetically deformed cripple who could not even walk unaided let alone lead his army into battle. He was unusually tall and slightly built and yet the production shows him as a muscular young hunk, a modern day action man valiantly defeating the odds in every battle and able to slice the heads off men twice his age and size. He was also intensely religious and quickly reversed his father's drive towards monotheism by replacing the ancient Gods in common worship. He restored the traditional priesthood and yet the production shows him in constant struggle with the polytheist faction to the extent that he has the entire priesthood exterminated whilst personally dispatching the high priest himself. Murder rates high in this production. In fact there are so many slit throats, hacked off limbs and graphic impalements that blood flows like wine throughout the experience. And yet there is no evidence of any large scale wars or mass executions during his reign. In fact records show him to have been something of a peacemaker and diplomat who established peace with several major enemies.

But it is the modern day interpretation of style, behavior and reasoning that really renders this mini series into the trash level. The women are all glamorous and dominant. The male heroes are all good looking 'alpha' hunks and the bad guys are all ugly, gay or old. The bedrooms are straight out the Hyatt Regency Presidential Suite in Dubai, the haircuts are pure Hollywood and the costumes garish facsimiles of Egyptian tomb images.

Quite frankly I wanted to vomit the production away but struggled through it largely because no other detailed dramatization of Tutankhamun's reign exists. What a pity; the series could have been quite good if only Hollywood had not taken it on.

Endgame (2001)

A portrait of boy exploitation which itself exploits the boy actor.

[5/10 · 18 August 2016]

It is no wonder that Gary Wicks who wrote, cast and directed this effort has found his career limited to low key gay productions ever since. This film suggests a peculiar personal bent which has little relevance to the wider public whether gay or straight.

A rather cute rent boy is retained by a wealthy gangster to be exclusively available to him in a posh West End apartment. He uses the lad to service business clients or entrap business rivals or debtors. Sessions are filmed for subsequent blackmail use.

The gangster himself is turned on by violence and rape and we see the youth seriously abused on several occasions. Plainly there is little humanity in his treatment. Eventually a series of deaths occur as the plot evolves into a search to retrieve blackmail tapes hidden by our attractive young hero.

The camera work is both artistic and indulgent for admirers of boy beauty. Daniel Newman, a prolific 90's UK child star with elfin good looks and a well tuned physique, is filmed in every glamorous method. Soft lighting, superb make up, imaginative angles, explicit full frontal and frequent erotic posterior shots provide the viewer with a definitive 'soft porn' experience that has probably made the young actor into masturbatory fantasy image for millions of gay men ever since. But did Daniel Newman ever realize the motivation of Gary Wicks to produce this effect? The young man probably had to spend hours on set stark naked for the 'artistic' pleasure of his employers. And what we see in the finished film is probably just a censored fraction of the full unexpurgated footage taken during shooting. Gary Wicks went on to produce an intimate portrait of real life boy porn star Johann Paulik and, unless Dan Newman was entirely unmoved during the filmed sex scenes, I expect there is an archive of XXX material depicting him somewhere.

In short I got the distasteful impression that an innocent former child star was hoodwinked into appearing in a soft porn production that ultimately wrecked his career. He has done very little since, despite the fair reviews of his acting performance, and runs a fitness center in Wimbledon today for his living. Type cast as an effete boy prostitute with nothing of his body left for the public to imagine, there was very little future in the industry for him and he was just put on the sidelines.

This film portrays homosexuality as a sick violent disease, boy prostitutes as 'trash' figures without any sense of self esteem and women as the only qualified givers of worthy love - even though they betray their husbands to sleep with boy prostitute neighbors that happen to need their help. I give the actors top marks for this production - especially Dan Newman who probably suffered a lot for it - but the film itself is nothing more than soft porn masquerading as respectable drama.

Sacrifice (II) (2016)

A complete waste of time

[2/10 · 12 August 2016]

This is just about as bad as could be for a film with such fine actors. But Rupert Graves has shown us how tough times can be in his profession. The star of such great films as Maurice and a Handful of Dust has finally descended into formulaic feminist pulp in order to pay the taxman and we are left with 91 minutes of entirely predictable stomach shriveling drivel.

An American doctor is childless and married to the heir of a Scottish estate. The Laird, hardly older than his son in appearance, is the wealthy benefactor of a State of the Art maternity hospital built on a remote Western Isle where he has his castle. He has kindly helped his son to adopt a child from this facility in order to progress the line. And then a dead body with a slashed open rib cage and ancient Runic brand marks appears in the garden - and the rest is depressingly obvious.

The entire cult involved here is naturally made of evil men and all the heroes are wonderfully motherly women with the exception of fading heart throb Rupert who is scripted to be a great husband and potential father - unless one dwells upon the notion that he must have known and supported everything going on in the past - and is therefore just as guilty as the rest of them.

This film is simply a waste of time and space. Put it in the recycle bin where it belongs.

Room (I) (2015)

Jacob Tremblay deserved the Oscar but not Brie Larson.

[7/10 · 10 March 2016]

The scenario is interesting enough. A mother and her little son are imprisoned for 7 years by a man in small shed halfway down his garden. We think of the horrors experienced by similar victims publicized in the media and we are immediately intrigued to learn more about this phenomenon. But very sadly this film does not fulfill its potential. It concentrates almost entirely on what appears to be a hackneyed feminist agenda - namely the love of a mother for her son - rather than breaking new ground and explaining to us how and why such things occur. In short it leaves far more questions unanswered than it manages to solve.

There are too many absurdities to list in this production.

With only a single door between her and freedom it beggars belief that the mother was not able to force it open or make her escape at the moment it was opened. There was a skylight to the roof but in 7 years she had not the ingenuity to smash it and escape. There were various metal objects around the room and it would not have been impossible.

The man enters the room and sleeps with her regularly. Indeed their relationship seems quite calmly domestic. He does not need to force sex upon her but they simply undress and relate as if normal husband and wife. And both are able to sleep peacefully at night as if everything was normal. She complains at the food and he tells her that he has no work and struggles to keep them both. He buys presents for the boy and seems reasonable normal and decent.

It doesn't make any sense. Any man who would imprison a woman and child in a tiny shed for 7 years must be insane. And yet every action of this man is rational. And we are told nothing about the origins of the story. How did her relationship with the man ever materialize? How long after meeting did he imprison her? How did it ever happen? Instead of covering this ground we are subjected to nearly two hours of thoroughly predictable motherly behavior as if we could not imagine it ourselves. Brie Larson executes the task quite competently but this was not an Oscar winning performance. She merely left her Gucci gowns in the closet, left her make up in the drawer and acted herself. Her award was purely a boost to the underlying feminist message of the film.

But the boy was something else. Jacob Tremblay dominated the film in every way. His mood swings, his emotions, his play as a boy half his real age and his capture of our imagination in every scene was nothing short of masterful. Not only should he have been given the Oscar but his performance illustrates the need to introduce a new category in the annual ceremony: Best performance by a child actor. He certainly deserved it.

Bungalow (2002)

Even worse than the 'Killer Tomatoes'

[1/10 · 27 November 2015]

This has to be one of the most tedious, pointless and plot less films of all time. It's only redeeming quality is that the experience of sitting through an hour of it allows an appreciation of every other film one can think of - even the ubiquitous 'Attack of the killer tomatoes'.

In the days of compulsory National Service, a young man deserts the Army and goes home where he finds himself attracted to his brother's girlfriend. That's the plot. The pace can only be described as static. The lead actor is a handsome young man who drops his underpants in at least four scenes. In fact one might be forgiven for thinking that the whole point of this production was the director's urge to get this young unknown actor to be naked on set for as long as possible. There is even a scene where he actually begins to explicitly masturbate on camera. This did not exactly propel him into stardom as he appeared in only 4 more productions. One really has to question the value and the purpose of his displays in this production.

After an hour I had to fast forward the last fifteen minutes to reach the climax. It was that bad. So boring are the characters that any interest in their fate evaporates in the warmth of drowsiness. And when I opened my eyes the plot had advanced to an entirely predictable, utterly unpoetical and completely banal ending. Don't bother watching this.

Goodnight Mommy (2014)

Much underrated drama underneath a mask of horror

[9/10 · 7 November 2015]

The truly brilliant film is built upon a mood of mystery and suspense that I would not wish to breach by revealing the plot too much. It tells the story of a wealthy mother and her two sons who experience an immense tragedy together. Their isolation in the remoteness of wealth is a major element because the events that transpire are perhaps less believable in normal society. Certainly this tragedy could never have occurred in the past when society was stronger and more communal.

But it is the plausibility of the story today that gives it the greatest power. However unusual these circumstances might appear there can be no doubt that such mistreatment, such grief and such insensitivity towards others can and does occur. And the results of such a nightmare are mostly terrible.

This is not a horror film in the standard sense. There are some gory scenes but they are entirely in context with the drama and not at all contrived for pointless spectacle. The horror here lies in the mental state that tragedy brings upon its victims. It is a nightmare for all involved. And the horror for us is realizing that black and white, right and wrong and good and evil become very blurred when reality is fully examined.

Lovers of serious drama should certainly watch this film intently. The ending is both dramatic and strangely poetic. But it is not at all clear rather like the truth of any tragedy. If you like standard escapist horror for entertainment then go somewhere else. This is too close to the core of our Psyche.

Short Term 12 (2013)

Hashtag SUPER YAWN

[1/10 · 3 November 2015]

This has to be the most banal screenplay since 'Attack of the Killer Tomatoes' in 1956. Every single element of this production is main stream, manufactured, formulaic drivel. If you have a mind then please exercise it more by watching paint dry - it will be far more enthralling.

The kids are not really kids but young adults trying to play them. The carers are also all young adults pretending to be mature. But genuine human reactions are either simply ignored or more probably not even understood by the cast or production team. For example in one scene, where a very disturbed adolescent is robbed of his treasured toys, the carers simply sit next to him and sympathize with words or a touch on the shoulder. He is plainly distressed but no one thinks of giving him a cuddle or a tickle to make him laugh or at least smile. It is as if real human care doesn't exist anymore - and had that been the them of the film it would have been more interesting.

But as it is the film seems to project the media comfortable image that modern child care is entirely healthy and that all we need to do is tell the kids they can achieve anything they want in life given the right effort. What utter rubbish.

Avoid at all costs.

Die Kinder aus Nr. 67 (1980)

Beautifully filmed but poorly acted

[6/10 · 21 June 2015]

For those interested in a realistic insight into working class Berlin life during the 1930's this film is a must. The sets are not only authentic but actually original apartments undamaged by WW2 and left virtually unmodernized in the 35 years before filming. The domestic fixtures, fittings and furnishings are entirely original. The costumes could have been made in the period and the actors are wonderfully unaffected by media fame.

The story surrounds two 12 year old neighbor boys who are the best of mates. They share everything from their food to their street earnings from shining shoes and flattering the wealthy. But one lad has a communist father who is friendly with a Jewish family whilst the other is attracted to the Hitler Youth and eventually joins it. The boys become enemies and the tragedy of Germany is laid out before them.

Unfortunately neither of the boy actors could actually act. Their lines are forced and rushed and whilst the adult cast help to maintain a professional production, the lads themselves should never have been given such large parts without much more drama training and stringent directing. The script is weak and almost unnecessary because the visuals alone convey the plot. But there was so much more that could have been included and the ending seems to be more a beginning than a conclusion. How much better the film would have been if a scene from 1943 could have been added depicting the boys as adults facing the awesome reality of opposite sides in a conflict of ideals. But sadly the director did not have the vision that current German cinema so excellently displays.

Land of Storms (2014)

Extremely powerful, moving and poignant. Unmissable.

[9/10 · 17 April 2015]

Although the themes in Land of Storms are well worn and familiar, this incarnation of the ills of homophobic society is particularly effective at alerting us to the madness of it. It is beautifully made both artistically and dramatically - in many ways it might even be a masterpiece of emotion.

Szboliks hails from a small village in Hungary. He is a young professional footballer in a small German league team where he finds himself the subject of unsolicited attention from a fellow player, Bernard. There is a scuffle but the German team mates support Bernard over him and the young Hungarian is beaten to the extent that he returns to his home village. There he meets a young builder, Aaron, and eventually a sexual bond forms between them. But their parents and local community are vehemently opposed to any alternative lifestyle and their relationship appears doomed from the start. Eventually Bernard arrives for a visit and the stage is set for a compelling drama of refuted love and jealous passion.

The performances from all characters are solid and entirely convincing. The script is perhaps a little labored but the tension created through the story is so strong that all other considerations are cast aside. The ending is both shocking and poetic - and the story is essentially true. A must see for all eclectic film lovers.

Pasolini (2014)

Highly artistic and mostly accurate but factually flawed.

[8/10 · 12 April 2015]

Without spoilers to begin: Pasolini is undoubtedly a highly artistic account of the famed film maker and his inglorious death whilst pursuing young hustlers in Rome. William Dafoe was an inspired choice to portray the master and both his looks and style are highly convincing. The pace of the film is good and the screenplay wonderfully imaginative with a confusion of reality and the imaginings of Pasolini as he constructs his last but sadly unfinished work in 1975. Anyone with an interest in the foundations of true artistic film making and the interface twixt reality and fantasy should certainly give this attention - as well as those who simply remember Pasolini and his films.

With spoilers now: Unfortunately the true circumstances of Pasolini's death are masked in obscurity and this film does little to help identify the possibilities surrounding it. Indeed it positively leads the viewer to believe that he was killed largely as a result of theft and anti gay aggression by a gang of street youths.

But a number of crucial facts are omitted that would suggest he was assassinated on the orders of higher interests who simply paid the street youths to do the work. The youths arrived by their own transport and left with it. They had followed Pasolini from Rome and waited their chance to spring him in the act. Only 17 year old Pino Pelosi, the boy baited to attract Pasolini, left in his car. Returning to Rome from the beach he was checked by the police, arrested and later imprisoned for nearly 10 years as the sole assassin. Moreover the youths chanted anti communist insults at Pasolini which is again not depicted the film. This is relevant because a random group would not have realized Pasolini's political views - and certainly not from the expensive car he was driving. In 2005 Pelosi detailed the incident some 20 years after his release. He cites a set up and explains that Mafia pressure forced him to make a false confession and prevented him from talking in the intervening period. Two of the attackers disappeared shortly after the murder and we are left with a clear suspicion that Pasolini was murdered not by these youths but by others higher placed to distort the investigation process that led to the simplistic conclusion still portrayed in this film.

John Wick (2014)

Disgusting

[1/10 · 6 February 2015]

So disgusting is this piece of filth that after one hour of perpetual killings, many of them graphic and sadistic, I simply had to leave the room and get some fresh air. I then immediately destroyed the DVD as a public service.

The makers of this material should be arrested and imprisoned for corrupting society. And anyone who actually enjoys watching this ordure should immediately seek mental health advice. What plot there is can only be described as infantile and absurd. The film is simply a vehicle for promoting video games where the player searches out black hooded figures to exterminate them.

We are expected to believe that a trained hit-man is woken at night by his puppy only to be hijacked by three (naturally) Russian mafia gangsters who beat him up, steal his treasured car and kill his dog.

This same man then kills literally hundreds of security guards and other hit men who come at him one by one in a morbid procession of death. Night club revelers carry on regardless as security men are gunned down in their midst. Other security guards have their throats cut whilst seemingly standing there helplessly waiting for death.

The concept that all these security men all have partners, mothers and families does not deter the hero. We are encouraged to think that any scale of revenge is permissible under all circumstances and to all proportions even though most of these murdered guards didn't actually do anything against him.

The only merit of this film is that it represents perfectly the mentality of American culture; namely that if a cell of terrorists kill a few thousand Americans we are entitled to launch decades or war thereafter, bring tens of millions of innocent Muslim civilians into endless suffering and destroy the entire culture of the Middle East. Disproportionate revenge is the spirit of our age and John Wick is it's prophet.

Captains and the Kings (1976)

Brilliant analysis and depiction of the global system.

[10/10 · 28 January 2015]

No words can describe the quality and importance of this masterpiece. Pacey and gripping throughout every minute of this six hour series, Captains and The Kings captures the essence of our political reality both in the past and today.

"Chew on this and get it down: The world runs on money. Call it commerce, call it government, call it the will of the people but what it really is, what we really have all over this world is Government of the Money, by the Money and for the Money."

There has never been a truer line given to any character in any drama and, at the pivotal moment when it is delivered, everything falls comprehensively into place.

The plot tells the story of Joe Armagh, a 14 year old Irish immigrant arriving in America in 1857 to find himself orphaned and responsible for the care of his two younger siblings. He finds work and connections and gradually builds up a fortune only to discover that wealth and power have both privileges and costs. He is recruited to the super rich set who are able to control politics and even world events. And he persuades them to groom his son to be a President motivated to serve them. Of course there is a heavy price to pay and the curse of a Senator driven to suicide through his dealings with Joe plays out its inevitable path.

The similarity of the plot to the fate of the Kennedy family 50 years later is neither an accident to the author nor the director. Indeed it can be argued that the whole drama is a brilliant analysis of the Kennedy assassinations of 1963 and 1968 indicating the powers that orchestrated them and the reasoning behind them.

Joe is clearly paralleled with the patriarch of the Kennedy clan. One of his sons is killed in wartime action, a daughter is mentally handicapped, another son is clever at business whilst the son chosen to be President is plainly modeled on the philandering but noble thinking JFK with a death scene that copies almost entirely the shooting of Robert Kennedy in 1968. Even the camera angle of the dying man are almost a carbon copy of the stricken Senator in a Los Angeles hotel. The curse of the Kennedy's which has seen tragedy strike at the family over four generations is mirrored on the Armagh family.

But the key element to the whole production is that the Super Elite is shown as manipulators of the US-Spanish War of 1898, the assassination of Mckinley in 1901, the Great War against Germany in 1914 and ultimately the assassination of both Kennedy brothers 50 years later. And the descendants of the group are still in power today.

The Imitation Game (2014)

A gross distortion of people and events.

[4/10 · 20 January 2015]

Although well crafted and paced by good professionals in almost every sphere of film making, The Imitation Game is sadly reduced to a piece of populist pulp by the dominance of formulaic 'Hollywood' principles that entirely distort the key events and personnel involved.

Alan Turing did not alone invent the code breaking machine seen in the film. He worked in a team headed by Dilly Knox, not even depicted in the film, who succeeded in breaking the code on 23 January 1940. Gordon Welchman, again not depicted in the film, later headed the military section that developed the 'Bombe' machine (called 'Christopher' in the film) albeit with Turing's help but not under his total dominance as suggested in this fiction.

Moreover the 'Bombe' was not a computer as the film states. It was a mere calculator rather than a programmable digital machine. The first computer at Bletchly was developed years later under Max Newman when Tommy Flowers designed 'Collossus'. This film intensely distorts these events and is a disgraceful insult to those who actually did the work.

Worse still the film completely misrepresents Joan Clarke who is depicted as a rather attractive crossword enthusiast recruited by Turing because she can solve puzzles faster than him. This was utter rubbish. Clarke, a 'plain Jane' type mathematician, was already employed at Bletchly when Turing arrived.

Even Alan Turing himself is misrepresented in character. Eccentric he certainly was but the arrogance shown in the film has no real foundation. Moreover he was not uncomfortable with his sexuality or even the hormonal treatment he received as depicted at the end of the film. His friends report that he laughed about developing breasts that would increase his attractiveness to other men.

But the film, funded by the powers that are today, cannot even suggest the dreadful possibility that Turing's death was not the suicide so adamantly stated at the end. Turing was devoted to his mother (also never depicted in the film) and the concept of his suicide without leaving her a letter is inconceivable. He had been warned by MI6 only months before his death not to continue his homosexual lifestyle (they were paranoid after the Burgess-Maclean saga) but he continued to visit Greece where he openly took up with gay men. Entirely happy only a few days before we are told that he then took his own life whilst eating an apple. His family and friends maintain the real chance that he was expediently removed by MI6 as a security risk. And poisoning food with cyanide was then a well used technique in security circles for such requirements.

When a film depicts a Cambridge Professor of Mathematics attacking a machine with a heavy spanner because it is not working fast enough, when a film repeats the single memorable line about unimaginable people doing the unimaginable three times in 30 minutes, when a film states that the central character had the power to decide 'who was to live and who was to die' (again a total nonsense because how the code was used was decided at top Cabinet level and not by the code breakers at all) when such rubbish is presented alongside a string of historical distortions you will know that is essentially rubbish and a waste of time to watch.

And Benedict Cumberbatch's performance, though competent, was too reminiscent of Derek Jacobi's famous BBC2 portrayal in places to be thought of as original. Timothy Spall as Mr. Turner was not even Oscar nominated for his excellent portrayal but Cumberbatch has been included to expand the Turing myth. Thank God Eddy Redmayne is there to take the prize for his staggering performance as Steven Hawking.

The Riot Club (2014)

Entertaining but absurdly propagandist vision of the British upper classes

[5/10 · 16 December 2014]

Two Fresher undergraduates are recruited to join an exclusive dining society at Oxford known as 'The Riot Club' after an 18th. Century aristocrat who excelled in debauchery. The group set up a dinner in a local inn, become intoxicated with drink and cocaine and embark upon an evening of violence, abuse and physical assault.

It's all entertaining stuff with a number of excellent performances and some memorable lines. But there is a nasty and unwarranted slant to it that left me uncomfortable and even angry at times.

Essentially the film portrayed these modern British public schoolboys as arrogant, bigoted, snobbish and entirely unsympathetic with those born less fortuitously. Perhaps some old Etonians and Harrovians may well behave like this although I believe most do not.

But in all my time at Dartmouth, Cambridge and beyond I have never known a single public schoolboy who would descend into the mindless vandalism and sickening thuggish violence upon a defenseless publican that this film portrays. In truth such disgusting behavior which nearly kills an innocent man is much more likely to erupt from a working class youth than any public school undergraduate at Oxford. The plot was therefore not only absurd but a vicious assault upon the upper classes designed to make the public applaud their demise and replacement by today's manufactured celebrities and Billionaire elite.

The closing sequence which portrays a circle of corruption that protects these thugs had some justification - I am certain that such arrangements exist - but the beneficiaries are more likely to be the 'New Rich' than the Ancien classes as the film implies.

It's a good film to watch but please take it with a pinch of salt and remember that British public schoolboys may well do lots of stupid pranks and get very drunk and even create some incidental damage but they do not go around smashing planks over the heads of unconscious old men for fun!

What Shall Become of You (1984 TV Movie)

A sharp insight into the poverty of West Berlin before unification.

[8/10 · 29 November 2014]

Set in 1984, Boris is about 12 years old and lives in a small two room hovel in the run down ghetto district of Kreuzberg in Berlin. It is an old 19th. century tenement house without a bathroom and his bed occupies the only toilet. His father has long since disappeared and his alcoholic illiterate mother has taken in a criminal lover who grabs the only bedroom for himself when Boris's elder sister finally escapes.

This is the glaring depiction of working class deprivation in West Berlin before the wall came down. Criminal survival is the norm. Education for most kids is a past time before accepting low level occupation and repeating the base experiences of their parents.

A young teacher tries to help the lad and encourage him to climb out of poverty but the establishment is critical of his unconventional approach as he tries to befriend the kids and talk their language. Therein lies the drama as inevitable events unfold but the best aspect of this film is the sharp insight it gives into a way of life that was then so common but is now mercifully less oppressive. Boris is no hero but he wins our sympathy and our hearts as he comes to terms with the reality of life around him.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

Astounding Oscar worthy performance from Eddie Redmayne

[10/10 · 26 November 2014]

We are all familiar with the story and with Steven Hawking. His groundbreaking work 'A brief History of Time' and devastating disabilities propelled him irrevocably into the public consciousness and immortal fame.

But few of us could understand the complexities of his personal life and the shocking divorce in 1990 from his long sacrificing wife of more than 25 years. Indeed that episode served to darken his reputation in the minds of many, including myself, who felt ill at ease with anyone who could leave a partner who had done so much for him just at the long awaited moment when international fame and recognition finally arrived.

This wonderful production, so well scripted and paced throughout, serves to explain that vital anomaly in Hawking's life. And it is made all the more poignant as it is based upon the account written by his wife who has borne so much.

But it is the breathtaking performance of Eddie Redmayne as Hawking that simply blasted this film into an extraordinary level. It is difficult enough to mimic so famous a person as Hawking and it is even more difficult to portray so accurately the debilitating and gradually increasing effects of Motor Neuron Disease. But to transmit so clearly the profound emotions and inner suffering that Hawking must have experienced in his agonizing journey was a performance that left me quite speechless and at times in uncontrollable tears.

It would be a travesty of the industry if Eddie Redmayne is not nominated for an Oscar after this performance. And to my mind it was a work of art that simply cannot be equaled let alone beaten.

Have a good handkerchief ready to hand.

This Special Friendship (1964)

Extremely powerful, moving and poignant. Unmissable.

[10/10 · 7 November 2014]

There are very few films made today that can remotely equal the stunning power of this production. From the outset we are drawn into that magical world of schoolboy love where raw purity and awakening sexuality march side by side on the path to maturity.

Georges is 17 and struggling to qualify for higher learning. At his Catholic Choir school he meets 12 year old Alexander, a boy of rare spirit and beauty. They are drawn to each other with relentless force. Nonetheless their love is not homosexual although it might be interpreted as such. Indeed it is that misinterpretation of this most common infatuation that forms the basis of this profound drama. Every adult attempts to crush their friendship despite the innocence and harmlessness of it. And in the end we are left wondering whether society effects greater child abuse through its condemnation of such relationships than any of the participants could possibly do to each other. This film should be shown in every school.

Boys Village (2011)

Tedious, shallow and rather untalented

[3/10 · 9 August 2014]

The setting, a derelict boy's holiday camp somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and the concept, the spirits of bygone occupants, provide a wonderful opportunity for excellent drama. But sadly this production simply fails to exploit the potential of the circumstances. The first few minutes of any short movie are crucial to establish interest but I found myself thinking of something else after two minutes and actually yawning after five. Even a masturbation scene, presumably inserted to inject more interest, simply fails fails to deliver the goods and I was left wondering how so much time and effort could be given to something so boring.

Rush (I) (2013)

Daniel Bruhl even beats Oscar bound Leonardo

[10/10 · 20 January 2014]

Niki Lauder is among the most well known personalities in the history of Formula One. Even today millions of Germans watch his TV presentation at every race. We know his manner and speech extremely well and any actor portraying him faces an uphill if not impossible task.

But Daniel Bruhl delivers a performance so wonderfully convincing in his faithful and profound portrayal that he should clearly be among the Oscar nominees for Best Actor. The story of Lauda's famous struggle with Hunt in 1976 has become the stuff of legends. And perhaps this production has used some artistic license to enhance them.

But the film isn't really about the thrilling story of those events. That's just the vehicle for a much deeper drama examining the ever relevant dialectic between hedonism and pragmatism. It's about the self beneath the skin rather than the glamor of the surface: a concept normally quite alien to the Oscar awarding Hollywood elite. So poor Daniel Bruhl must await another vehicle to display his superb talents. And one day he might be remembered internationally in his career as Niki was himself.

Stalingrad (2013)

Formulaic Pulp

[3/10 · 5 January 2014]

The special effects are truly awesome. The field of battle in the beleaguered city is reproduced with no expense spared. Battle scenes reach new levels of 3D imagination and gore. And the film is the perfect advertisement for a great new digital game involving endless death and mass murder.

But Stalingrad is just classic Hollywood pulp sold off as a Russian movie. Virtually every character is a fake. The German Brigade Commander is shown perpetually attended by lackeys who wash and shave him. His forces spend the entire film attempting to take a building in which a half dozen Russians are holed up with a young girl that none of them rapes. Meanwhile the German company commander spends most of his time attempting to woo a Russian girl who eventually, of course, he rapes. Instead of blowing the whole building up with tank guns these valiant Germans led by fools perpetually storm the building in their hundreds only to be shot down and blown to pieces by grenades cleverly thrown by the handful of Russians inside it. Women stand at doorways in a sniper zone just to say goodbye. The Russians perform Italian operatic arias instead of Russian folk songs whilst stupid Germans always lose their lives by endlessly pausing before pulling the trigger.

But worse of all the script reads like a Stalinist message about the heroic struggle of the people against a ruthless maniac German machine that would enslave them for a thousand years. The real importance of Stalingrad as a symbol essential to win for both sides is never explained. And the ruthless sacrifice by the Soviet leadership of millions of their own people is never mentioned. Avoid this rubbish and stick to the original German version which is ten times better.

4 Days in May (2011)

The sad futility of war.

[10/10 · 16 September 2013]

Prussia 1945; 8 million refugees, 5 million raped, 3 million dead and countless personal tragedies. One of the most savage and tragic events of human history. 4 days in May records just one of the fragments that made up this tragedy.

A beach somewhere on the Baltic. A 12 year old boy caught up in the madness of war wants to fight alongside the teenage soldiers who face the relentless Russian advance. And so he neglects to lead the local orphans to the rescue boat and they are all captured by the Soviets.

This production is so magnificently directed, skillfully scripted and beautifully filmed that I should not reveal any more of the story. You simply have to see it. It will grab you from the very first seconds and keep you entirely transfixed until the final emotionally draining frame. It still drew tears even at the third viewing.

And 4 days in May is still highly relevant today. It displays the foundation logic of current German neutrality. War appears so tragic, so insane and so ultimately futile that no sensible person would ever participate in it. But most of all the film shows that there is no good or bad side in war. There are only a few individuals who become deranged through the power they enjoy because of it. Our sympathies are encouraged to all ordinary people involved - whether they are German or Russian, civilian or soldier, young or old. Every school child and young person should be shown this film without delay.