peter-stead-740-486963 Reviews

Just One Last Thing (2024)

Screenwriting as it should be

[8/10 · 2 March 2024]

This mostly single location comedy drama creates an entire universe within its four walls. It uses skill, imagination, humanity and pathos to unite its diverse narrative elements into a seamless whole and deals with difficult and timely subjects with the kind of light touch that actually makes a strong impact. Saw this yesterday afternoon at Romford Horror Festival and it was a real crowd pleaser. I think one Q&A-er described it as a thing of beauty, which is probably the most apt description.

I strongly urge you to take the opportunity to watch this where you can, as I expect it to feature in many more festivals. I also urge the British film industry to take a break from imploding and to support talent like this.

I Hate You (2022)

A one show argument for the sale of Channel 4

[1/10 · 16 October 2022]

Dear Channel 4. A "sitcom" is short for "situation comedy". That is, a comedy that comes from the situation. And these situations come from characters, whose actions reflect their personalities and who are different from each other. Even bad sitcoms understand this.

What you have here is the kind of cringe, forced spontaneity that Channel 4 comedy has been churning out for the last ten years. Two protagonists with a series of gags where their personalities should be, who do identically the same stuff in set ups that might work in sketch shows but definitely do not in sitcoms. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and research shows like Happy Endings, Workin' Moms or (the first 4 episodes of) Broad City.

For anyone looking to check this "sitcom" out - you will predict the climax of Episode 1 - I guarantee it.

You Are Not My Mother (2021)

A curate's egg

[5/10 · 1 July 2022]

I was actually pleasantly surprised by a number of factors here: the directing, the editing, the sound design, and especially the acting is crisp and sharp.

It also captures well the sense of slow decay in a family home where someone suffers from serious mental health issues and the problems this causes in the outside world. The dramatic elements are great.

However, this Irish film shares so many of the flaws of recent subsidised horrors from here in the UK - including an absolutely unexceptional premise, using a mythology which is barely explored. It's monotonous - and so any sense of dread it builds up dissipates. By the end there is none left and the ending itself makes no sense. In the bedroom, where her mother is tied up, it must be obvious that it is in fact a changeling, and so for her to test this by drawing her near fire is superfluous.

The script never feels like anything other than a hasty first draft. This was co-produced with Screen Ireland. I don't understand. There seem to be an army of script editors and yet in film after film I see, what stands out as poor is the script. Something is clearly very broken in the industry.

Anatomy of a Scandal (2022)

The real scandal: the woeful writing

[1/10 · 20 April 2022]

I hated this within the first thirty seconds: the expressionistic sex scene that tells you exactly what the last two minutes confirm it's going to be about - a rape allegation. It is therefore a thriller with zero twists, at least in the first episode, which is all I can cope with.

Then a powerful female barrister strides in powerfully with powerfully sweeping camerawork, who then has to deal with the (gasp!) male (servant? Colleague?)'s *microaggression* that the case she just won came down to luck. None of this has anything to do with the plot. In fact, none of the female barrister's scenes are remotely necessary, they don't so much beget the story as act like a distant estranged cousin to it. But they're in there because feminism.

And what is the plot. Well, it's...mundane. A Tory minister's affair gets leaked to the press, and the party and family have to deal with the political and personal consequences, which they do bizarrely well. The feminist theme continues - every male character is boorish and/or a scumbag, every female character a virtuous victim or a girl boss. The women support each other. The wife even defends the aide - even though she screwed her husband, presumably knowing he was married.

This isn't really about holding the powerful accountable - that's simply a plot device. It's about holding men - and only men - accountable, at least judging by the first episode. Melissa James Gibson has worked on the fantastic The Americans, so it is nothing short of disturbing that she (and/or her co-creator/writer) has become yet another writer apparently so lobotomised by modern feminist ideology that she is willing to flush her writing craft down the toilet.

Paper thin characters, that even wonderful actors like Rupert Friend, Sienna Miller and Anna Madeley can do nothing with, an obvious plot a four month old could follow and a total absence of tension and credibility, not to mention the absolutely bizarre ending to episode 1 means that the real scandal here is that this is part of the U. K.'s new, apparent hatred of intelligent, mature, multi-layered scripts.

Not even worth a hate watch.

Paintball Massacre (2020)

Hit n Miss (geddit?)

[5/10 · 12 February 2022]

It's a great title and premise, and this is what drew me to it and delivered most of the enjoyment. Plus it had a great tone and vibe which carries you through to the end.

It does have some flaws, though. The script only really starts the character development at the same time as when those characters try to work out in earnest who is actually attacking them - about halfway through the film - and therefore will be too late for some of the audience. So the first half just feels like a series of clunky, implausible, unnecessary jokes. Plus, there are some holes. When they find the initial massacre, they strangely underreact, even talk about going for a beer. In all, the first half chooses jokes over believability and suffers for it, but the second half comes into focus plot-wise very well.

I will say some of the acting is pretty wooden, some is okay, but also there are some really great performances, especially from Cheryl Burniston and Aoife Smyth.

This is one of those heroic efforts on a tiny budget, which I am here for. If you go in with that in mind, you'll have the best time.

Censor (2021)

Talent has been censored in Britain

[1/10 · 30 January 2022]

Blurring fiction and reality can be fertile ground for exploring the darker truths of the human psyche. But it can also be a go-to for filmmakers who just don't know how to tell a story. And don't care to.

It turns out Prano Bailey-Bond has really nothing to say about the relationship between censorship and personal/societal control, nothing to say, either, about the nature of grief, sex or violence or the specifics of the '80s video nasty subculture. "Censor" spurns any intelligent direction the film might have gone in and instead simply half-heartedly dances around a very basic premise using an under-developed script.

Monotonously in love with its lead actress and production design, it becomes soporific when it should have been hypnotic.

I imagine this is why so many users gave this a major thumbs down and why it underperformed so badly at the box office.

Oh, but it does have a nasty man or three being butchered by a woman, much like "Shortcut" (same director) - and so has the "correct" politics. Plus it has most of the UK's film establishment and critics acting like Bailey-Bond is the new Kubrick - and that's all that really counts these days, isn't it?

Bad Blood (2021)

Classic storytelling within a micro-budget

[7/10 · 11 September 2021]

Saw this at Frightfest '21. Boy #5 does an incredible job of knitting a classic and well-trodden mythology with a modern setting and a socially relevant theme. Despite the title, the central character is the human social worker who succumbs to her fatal flaw of getting too emotionally involved in her cases, in this case, the titular character (a young vampire). This classic approach to storytelling delivers a satisfying emotional arc and structure for the film as a whole, with the central relationship of social worker/boy providing a strong spine to the film with some lovely, natural acting.

Some of the scenes are a little too slow and some are stilted. I saw an interview with the director who said he doesn't like rehearsing. Sometimes over-rehearsing can be bad for sure, but sometimes under-rehearsing can also be negative. If I were him, I would revisit that stance.

But overall, the director with his team does an incredible job, especially on limited resources, and especially in the hastily improvised (from a filmmaking point of view) vampire club scene. It's a wonderful achievement and a huge inspiration to grassroots filmmakers out there.

Fright Bites: Shortcut (2016) Season 1, Episode 1

Nonsensical garbage

[1/10 · 30 January 2021]

There have been so many of these. Horror shorts where a man who is a scumbag comes across some kind of supernatural retribution. If it's a vampire or werewolf, at least there is a kind of implied mythology there, but this is just a pair of scissors attached to a hand which comes out of a bush and cuts his dick off at the end. Is his girlfriend endowed with powers and dreamt it into reality? Did he enter a liminal space where this is possible (despite the description, this isn't clear)? Ah, who cares, amirite? As long as yet another cartoonishly awful guy meets a violent fate, that's all that matters, it seems.

Lazy, vapid, unfunny throughout, derivative and dumb-without-intending-to-be. But - the 'correct' gender prejudice. So, of course it plays well with all the cliques it needs to.

If you're going to indulge a dark fantasy, and be that cynical, at least put some effort into the story.

I saw the director's talk at the BFI, liked it and I really wanted this to be good.

Better Things (2016–2022)

Usually comedies are funny or not funny but this one is just depressing

[1/10 · 22 October 2020]

First season was great, it really captured an authentically chaotic home life. Dysfunctional yes, but somewhat truthful in its raw portrayal of people's self involvement and a kind of charm that came with that.

I don't know what happened in season 2, I wonder if the changed political landscape had an impact, but Sam becomes ruthlessly and relentlessly vicious, especially to men. The way she treats Rodney is honestly disturbing and psychotic, but the writing itself doesn't acknowledge this. I've now spent several seasons hoping that this show gets back on track, mainly because I loved Pamela Adlon in Louie and I do think the actors are great here, but the writing is just a disaster and has a real, obvious issue with men. The husbands are douchebags it seems, but nothing is ever properly explained.

I'm on season 4 now and it's just going round in circles. It's not about a single mother and three daughters, but four children who will never grow up, with all the future psychosis that implies.

I May Destroy You (2020)

This Show May Bore You

[2/10 · 18 June 2020]

There are more than a few nods to Girls - the protagonist's OCD, the narcissism, the vapidity, the entitlement. But whereas the writing in Girls used this to explore the psychology of a generation, this series seems not to know how dull, bloodless and downright irritating these characters are and so doesn't go down the social commentary route at all. So then there are just scenes of hookups, clumsy conversations, drug taking. It's all very blah. The only moments it kicks up a gear is when it remembers the central plot and shows signs of detective work on the part of the protagonist to find out what happened to her that night. But it loses the tautness of this main story with a million distractions, that, yes, seem intended to make you doubt the state of her mind (esp. the massive drug taking, the videos on consciousness), but just take ages fulfilling that plot function, or seem completely irrelevant to it.

It's all too slow and laborious when it should be a taut thriller with proper character development. It's simultaneously lazy and try hard. There is some good thought here, but finally, it's complacently executed.

A Serial Killer's Guide to Life (2019)

Deceptively ambitious, quite original

[7/10 · 21 March 2020]

What A Serial Killer's Guide to Life attempts is a very tricky balancing act. On the one hand, as a horror, it demands a taut, lean, thrill-ride, on the other, as a road movie, it would suggest a meandering, spiritual journey. That it mostly succeeds in this balance is down to the unfussy, firm hand of writer/director Staten Cousins Roe.

One of its biggest successes is grounding the reason for Lou's odyssey in a carefully drawn, dysfunctional home life with her emotionally manipulative and abusive mother, who is probably mentally ill, herself. This is not just a situation Lou, the protagonist, has to contend with, it's something she has to come home to night after night and live and breathe. This is her 'normal' and it has shaped her into someone with nearly no sense of self worth.

The other success is the big twist in her relationship with Val, her life coach, on this messed up journey of self discovery, which I didn't see coming.

One criticism. The film could have immersed us in much more detail of the self-help/pseudo-spiritual cottage industry so we could really understand more about the psychology, religiosity and sales tactics of what in some cases are legalised mini-cults. This would have reinforced Lou's choices and brought a stronger satirical/social commentary angle. Also, more could have been made of the power shifts between Lou and Val.

But this is an interesting and unusual film with very sharp direction. Worth checking out.

The Politician (2019–2020)

Bingeworthy to Cringeworthy in 5 episodes

[5/10 · 18 December 2019]

It started off great, a sort of college level microcosm of grown up politics, but soon it stopped trying to "say" anything, lost interest in the reason for River's suicide (and therefore the emotional backbone of the series) and became tied up in a multitude of subplots, repetitive story points, an insistence on including a death or near-death in every single episode, so that it ended up a sort of mish-mash of Glee and Jane the Virgin (with a score that reminded of the latter). By the end of episode 5 with my eyes glazing over, I decided to call it a day. A really wasted opportunity.

Greener Grass (2019)

Think of this as absurdist and experimental, not satirical

[3/10 · 28 November 2019]

Like most people, I went in with no preconceptions and of course wanting to be entertained. Within the first scene, I started sensing that, despite the garishly 50s production design, stilted dialogue and vapid forced jollity of the characters, this actually wasn't a satire, as such, of suburbia, or capitalism, or whatever. Satire is usually biting and this is not. When Jill simply gives Lisa her baby as though it is a new item of clothing, it feels like a joke gone too far for its setting, rather than what I believe is an early sign that this is 'Theatre of the Absurd' territory. That's a very difficult genre to pull off in film and even theatre audiences familiar with, say, Ionesco or Genet would need to have this genre framed very clearly at the start and giving away the baby does not really do that. Later, Jill's son jumps into a swimming pool and turns into a dog, which would have been a better way of achieving this, but it comes too late in the film to frame the story and orientate the audience correctly.

So, after the opening scene, we are in uncharted territory and a story we are expecting to make some kind of sense, instead meanders through a series of set-pieces, gags etc, that actually do not really seem to be intended to be either funny or serious. They all drag the pace and have the same tone, and soon the film truly slows time.

So, as per my title, the best way to enjoy this is not as something as easily recognisable as satire. Absurdism is incredibly difficult to do without confusing the audience and the most effective use of it I have seen is when elements of it are used in a basically naturalistic setting - I'm thinking Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch and Harold Pinter in theatre. Otherwise it is wildly ambitious and you need to have a genius director on top of their game to have a chance of success. If you have an avant garde taste, this might be for you, but my 3 rating is based on what the majority of people will think, at a guess.

Head Count (2018)

More like 'minutes till it's over' count

[3/10 · 13 November 2019]

Good direction, good acting, but there was only enough story here for half an hour to 45 minutes. This must be why it is so slow and repetitive, almost every line is delivered after a long pause which is meant to convey some kind of simmering tension in the group? I guess? But it makes it just monotonous. And what tension there is is barely explored and revolves mainly around Evan hooking up with Max's ex. The fact that she is Max's ex is only revealed about 2/3s into the film - a long road to a very standard plot point, which has zero to do with the main plot anyway. Towards the beginning, as Evan and Zoe share an awkward hot tub, Evan asks her to fill him in on the "group dynamic." I was already screaming "None! There is no group dynamic!" They spend vast amounts of time drinking and doing drugs, but none of them ever seem drunk, on drugs or hungover. It's like the director tried to sanitise student behaviour in the weirdest way possible.

There is hardly any investment in the mythology behind "Hisji" - (not apparently, anything to do with local legend, but something Evan randomly gets off the internet) so there is no section where they try to reckon with it, figure out how to defeat it. This means all of the characters are totally passive - constantly reacting to whatever is thrown at them. I actually like the idea of the Hisji, but the script was woefully underdeveloped and in the end it was just a very long short film.

Fleabag (2016–2019)

Good god

[1/10 · 9 January 2019]

Just on the first episode. Technically bad writing. Waller-Bridge is so invested in what she imagines to be witty or juicy asides to the camera, it becomes clear that none of the characters or situations mean anything to Fleabag. The stakes are therefore as low as they can be, so what happens to her just isn't riveting. The situations themselves are contrived and serve only the one-liners, which crop up every 10 seconds, not the other way round. The narrative is so disjointed it is impossible to say what the first episode is actually about. For example, she steals an expensive statuette, but she must know that she will not get away with it, so - to what end? The sly look to camera at the end of the episode of course, but neither that, or much else, makes sense.

Fleabag comes across as smug and unbearable, convinced every one of her flaws is cool or adorable in some way and that every word she utters is a rare zinger. She's not a loveable rogue, she's a deeply unpleasant bore.

A lot of stale, hackneyed gags - "don't stop me leaving, no, don't," etc. Ugh.

She seems to feel a need to portray all her Male lovers as wimps, so again, there is nothing for her to contend with, sucking all of the dramatic tension out of everything. The most tense and therefore successful sequence is between her and her sister, which hints at a troubled back story. But it's the only one and, for example, it does not belong in the same comedy style as the guy she goes on a date with who would be better off in a League of Gentleman episode.

Another nail in the coffin for British comedy, no wonder BBC 3 was taken off air. Just awful.

The Handmaid's Tale (2017–2025)

Incredibly shallow writing given how it pitches itself

[2/10 · 29 May 2017]

These are just my thoughts on the first episode, because I'm pretty sure I won't bother with the rest of the series.

I'll get right to the point. It's clear that this series wants you to feel Offred's pain every step of the way. What gets in the way of this is the total lack of political context and therefore the believability of its created world. In an attempt to avoid the dreaded exposition dump, the writer explains - well - nothing. We just do a pole vault over the major causative factor of this 'dystopian future' - what happened to get us to this apparent coup? What was the clash of values? What were the early warning signs of political trouble? In a way that is eerily reminiscent of Lady Macbeth, nothing is adequately explained, just a long and tedious procession of people abusing the protagonist. As such it just hits the same or similar notes over and over again. Imagine a pianist only using three of the keys.

Therefore its difficult to feel anything for Offred, because the world as created just seems downright silly and so it neither draws us in, nor thrills us.

It also uses a confusing flash-forward structure - it starts with Offred on the run with her kid, which she then re-explains in the dystopian future in a way which is dramatically redundant. Signs like this indicate to me a sloppy approach from conception to execution.

And to think this is what replaced Homeland on C4...

Domestic Policy (2016)

More like propaganda than comedy

[1/10 · 13 May 2017]

It's highly ironic that a comedy that purports to demonstrate the mindset of propaganda, seems, itself, to operate as modern feminist propaganda.

Therefore, this is not a comedy, not because it is not funny, but because comedy does not appear to really be its aim. It seems simply rooted in the more modern idea (more modern than 1919) that women's body insecurity is the result of a patriarchal desire to oppress them. Whatever my thoughts are on that particular theory, my main objection is that it is, at least in appearance, as I said, propaganda for this specific idea, hiding as comedy, and also apparently using the comedy genre to avoid questions around big holes, such as - in this 'top secret' meeting - who are these men discussing this?

As such the writing is as childish, biased and hollow as any party political broadcast. It's quite shocking to me that the BFI would fund stuff like this, I wish they would instead back more things such as Under The Shadow, which was exceptional.

The Atlas of False Desires (2016)

High Concept, but clear message

[8/10 · 3 May 2017]

This film puts forward an intriguing premise - what if the reigns of the awesome power of social media were handed over to people who want to do good?

The other question it begs is - what if the only way to stop the destruction of the planet were to use social media, rather than rational debate or intellectual/scientific investigation?

It is, in equal measure, an inspirational and depressing film. There is a kind of deliciously dark irony to social media being converted from the current Petri dish of fake news, anonymous trolling, pictures of food and perception manipulation to becoming an invisible force for good.

It is, ultimately, a film very relevant to now, and one that attempts - and in my view succeeds - in getting to the heart of the matter.

An impressive achievement.

Wattmarck (2017)

A breakthrough

[9/10 · 2 May 2017]

I'm not a big sci-fi fan, but I love concept-led films.

The opening is simply a fascinating commentary on how we experience sound. It's simply mesmeric. What then proceeds is a plot that gradually coalesces around one woman's obsession with finding the 'prinzhorn frequency' - or the frequency of the human mind.

If this sounds quite dark, there is light relief, for example, in her part in a talented, but ultimately ill-judged techno band which forms part of her quest. All of the comedy is done well, though I wondered how much of it was necessary. What was fascinating, to me at least, was the concept itself, and this woman's obsession with it. I would love to see this as a full, if pared down, feature.

Truly outstanding, cast, writing, directing - and ultimately storytelling.

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)

I was ready to hate this, but...

[6/10 · 16 April 2017]

This seemed to be the kind of pretentious, heavily referencing, derivative, black and white rubbish that critics crave here in the U.K., within the first 30 mins. Particularly the drug dealer, who seemed largely played for laughs in this otherwise sombre film. His demise was ridiculous, yet predictable and put it at the Tarantino end of the spectrum.

Aware of the title, I thought it would simply be the 'girl' murdering various - entirely male - miscreants, with little story as context, just the offscreen politics, which would largely dictate whether you would enjoy this type of thing.

Things started to change, however, when Sheila Vand came on screen. She has an undeniable magnetic presence. Some people just have it. She reminded me of Mia Wasikowksa in Stoker, though was less well served by the writer. The trajectory then takes a refreshing turn towards the intimate connection between her and Arash, an unexpected love interest. It then reminded me of Let The Right One In and even had much of the same powerful sense of innocence - as a thing that is never entirely 'lost'.

Amirpour then deftly adds in a crucial complication for this new relationship, though she leaves it open whether this complication will be...fatal. She knows dramatic irony, especially by making Arash a peddler of the very thing that indirectly ends his Father's life.

Much of it is overlong, languid and too clearly resembles Jarmusch or French or Italian art-house. I wish she had gone the Lynchian route, really invested in the subconscious angle.

It's a memorable film though, if not a completely satisfying one, with a very strong central performance.

The Lost City of Z (2016)

Massive let down

[3/10 · 28 March 2017]

It's a really good example of how a terrible script can completely destroy a movie. There are too many things which make no sense to list, but the key issues are:

For a film that seems so keen to virtue-signal about white ignorance and racism, it does nothing to explain to us Fawcett's theories about the people of Z. Who were they? How did their civilisation operate? Why did they disappear? Surely these explorers would have built up far more of a picture from the surrounding tribes, artefacts, and previous finds. There is a tiny smattering of these things, but in 2h21ms nowhere near enough to build up a mythology. Therefore it's difficult to see why this obsesses Fawcett. You literally get more detail from the quests in the Indiana Jones movies.

Instead it focuses relentlessly on the most tedious and dangerous aspects of the trips, their suffering, or switches back to London with almost every old man of course a stiff- upper-lip racist and sexist cliché. Imagine a more insidious General Melchett from Blackadder Goes Forth and you won't be far off.

There is an extremely cringey attempt to insert a modern feminist perspective. At one stage, Nina wants to go on the expedition. Her reasoning? She found an important document relating to it. This apparently makes her equal to Fawcett's many years of soldiering and survival skills. It's clumsy and anachronistic. The trip could very well kill them both and so would leave their children orphaned. Surely a more logical argument would be whether he has to go at all. He is, after all, a father, and has responsibilities at home.

The First World War section adds absolutely nothing and captures none of the horror of the battlefield. It's all just tally-ho chaps, almost Hallmark channel-like. Just awful.

Sienna Miller, Robert Pattinson and especially Charlie Hunnam wring what they can from such a sparsely-written script and should be commended for that, which is why this isn't a 1.

Don't be fooled by the title - it's not about a lost city or even a lost man. It's a lazy and pretentious destruction of what could have been a thrilling find.

Fences (2016)

The power of the film builds

[8/10 · 14 December 2016]

This film is a great example of how exceptional writing can rivet an audience.

It's based on a play, I understand. For anyone as unfamiliar as myself, the easiest way to describe it is as being very reminiscent of Death Of A Salesman. It follows in that long line of stories about Patriarchs crushed under the weight of their own psychological implosion, King Lear, the Old Testament's Nebuchadnezzar and so on.

The quality of the writing is such that, by focussing on the psychology of one man and his own life, and its impact on his family, it makes you think about your own life and certainly your relationship with your father. It's called Fences, I interpreted this as the psychological fences people erect to protect themselves, fences which tragically keep those closest to you out.

There was a little unevenness, the beginning seemed on the long side, but when the story steps up a gear, it seemed a little underdeveloped. But this is really a small issue. The writing pulls you in masterfully and exceptional actors work their magic with it. Denzel Washington and Viola Davis deliver master classes in power and nuance.

I'm surprised that the IMDb description has it as being concerned with race relations. As far as I could see it had little to do with it and was instead concerned with the emotional faultlines of a family in a totally universally relateable way.

Really worth it, go see it.

The Innocents (2016)

A compelling story undermined by bad writing

[4/10 · 15 October 2016]

I attended this as part of the BFI season. Festivals always give films extra love, I've noticed, and this is certainly a worthy story, about the fallout of war, in particular told through the story of the aftermath of mass rapes at a convent in Poland.

That this packs almost no emotional punch is down almost solely to the writing. In this genre, rounded characters who develop and use of moral dilemma are key and both were noticeably absent here. What we are left with is simply a historical reenactment.

Mathilde is the French Red Cross worker who comes to the aid of the nuns to help them give birth to the babies that are the product of the rapes. Her bind is to keep this - and therefore the nature of her aid to the nuns - secret. This is where I feel moral dilemma as a device could have been used more, because her work at the red cross is equally as important and humanitarian and this begins to suffer - but the writing never lets you in on the series of personal revelations Mathilde would have gone through toward the realisation that helping the nuns takes precedence for her. You therefore get no sense of a character arc and this is embodied by the curiously vacant performance of Lou de Lâage. However, its really the script which does not help her.

The nuns themselves are not really characters, but two different sets of qualities. The older ones are stoic and taciturn and the younger ones are justifiably innocent and scared. You never get to understand who they are and there is a strange lack of religious context. There is the questioning of faith and God's will, of course. But the world of the Bible, its characters and lessons are their whole universe. How do they view what happened to them? Through the prism of Mary Magdalene? Through Jesus? Through the Book of Job? Their philophising seems to come from an authorial, rather than a character, voice. For a film which evokes this world much more clearly, I really recommend Doubt.

There is some very sloppy direction. Early on Mathilde is told off during an operation because of a lack of attentiveness. The doctor yanks down his mask to speak to her. How come he can do this? Is the mask not necessary after all? Why wear it in the first place? Failures of detail here really take me out of a scene.

The acting is generally very good and there is some beautiful cinematography. But the writing is lazy and in places so is the direction. For me, this was a missed opportunity to tell a compelling story.

Under the Shadow (2016)

Restores your faith in film

[8/10 · 7 October 2016]

Congratulations to everyone in the making of this film. Every element simply comes together and builds to some of the most shocking horror moments I've ever seen. The audience jumped out of their seats and then started laughing nervously in places.

I'm going to be quite brief and suggest that not every story element quite came together. Pargol, the creepy neighbour, seems to know a lot about the supernatural Djinn that has infected the apartment block, so why, after initially scoffing at her beliefs, Shideh does not use her knowledge to combat them, does not make sense to me.

The bombing raids were a bit overpowering and pulled focus from the main plot. Everyone just seemed too blasé and I don't understand why Shideh does not just get the hell out of Tehran well before the djinn show up. If this aspect had been replaced with say, a culture of suspicion and neighbours shopping each other to the authorities over trivial things, it would have been more effective and kept the political subtext or background Babak Anvari was keen on.

The focus on Shideh's journey is when the film is at its best. Initially there is the suggestion she is indeed a somewhat neglectful mother, and she transitions to a complete focus on her daughter.

The acting, direction and writing is superb. I really thoroughly recommend this horror.

Lights Out (II) (2016)

Lots to admire, lots of missed opportunities

[6/10 · 31 August 2016]

This is a film about how the mental illness of a parent affects a whole family, told as a horror. That's how they should have gone into this. A ghost effectively jumping out and saying 'boo' will only take you so far.

The 'boos' are very effective, don't get me wrong. But they start big and right away. I thought that was strange. And there were lots of things that didn't make sense - having seen the ghost, they all seemed quite happy to, you know, go back to bed. I couldn't understand how the ghost could find Teresa Palmer at her flat. Lots of set ups not paid off - the boyfriend being kind of a douche, but then okay. Probably the most unsatisfying was the back story of the mother and the ghost, nothing was fully explained.

Teresa Palmer is incredible in this - there are moments when she looks absolutely petrified and puts you right in the scene. A lovely understated performance from Maria Bello and the kid was great.

Well worth it if you like well executed jumps and bumps.