Reviews

If you're a fan of psychological thrillers, then you know there are far too few good ones. Kubrick's notable recurring motif is the loss of one's grip on reality, because it's the scariest thing to us humans. 'Saint Maud' is a film that successfully blurs the lines of reality and delusion and taps into that basic fear.

It's a deceptively simple story: a young woman (Morfydd Clark) takes a new job offering palliative care to a woman (Jennifer Ehle) who is dying of cancer. We soon discover she's not exactly up to the task and is dealing with her own issues and a checkered past, which she seems to be masking with religious fervour.

The craft in this film is superb. Beautiful cinematography, lush art direction, fine acting, visual effects in keeping with the reality of our protagonist. The characters and situations are tragically believable.

As with most A24 films I've come across, 'Saint Maud' offers more than simply entertainment, but artful and fresh filmmaking with thoughtful social commentary on the thin line between the fervently religious and the mentally ill.

'Whistle Down the Wind' has been on my watchlist for at least two decades, since I first started my deep dive into films and directors. I'd seen Bryan Forbes' name pop up as a writer and director, and became curious about his filmography. I'd just never come across this one. Boy, am I glad I finally tracked it down. What a stunner.

The story is so simple, yet so has so much depth, in terms of character development and references. The plot is centred around three young siblings who live on a rural farm, as they attempt to keep secrets from their grandparents and the farmhand, and one big secret turns out to be quite dangerous.

The camera work is absolutely gorgeous and captures the sparse rural landscape beautifully, while never drawing attention to itself. Combined with well-paced editing that carries us effortlessly through the story, always wondering what's going to happen, never tedious, there's a level of craft rarely seen.

Then there's the casting and acting. Astounding. Getting adults to deliver real performances is difficult, but try it with dozens of kids who aren't ancillary characters, but have to carry the film! Hayley Mills, in particular, delivers an Oscar-worthy performance that's both charming and heartbreaking. Then there's Alan Bates, who brings depth, complexity and humanity to the role of the 'baddie'.

Despite the ever-present danger and suspense, 'Whistle Down the Wind' is ultimately an incredibly charming film with a fair amount of humour. It's part thriller, part fantasy and completely unique.

Clouzot's 'Les Diaboliques' and Hitchcock's 'Rear Window', 'Vertigo' and, of course, 'Psycho' radically altered the suspense genre, with daring misdirects, dark subject matter, unexpected twists and psychological explorations. 'The Nanny' builds on this new kind of film by blurring the lines between who's good and who's bad, creating a more nuanced and complex thriller that keeps you guessing.

I won't recount the story, since any explanation gives up too many spoilers. It opens with a family recovering a tragic incident and the boy who was most certainly behind it returns home, to the dismay of everyone, including the family nanny. And it really does keep you guessing.

I only recently discovered Seth Holt's 'Scream of Fear' (aka 'Taste of Fear'), which is also a superb psychological thriller in the Hitchcock tradition and is sadly under-appreciated. Starting out as an editor-on many top-shelf Ealing films-Holt obviously knows how to tell a story and control the pace.

As for the acting, there are no false moves. Despite the apparent conflicts between Holt and Bette Davis, they managed to craft a subtle performance that is both terrifying and heartbreaking. Even the children, notoriously difficult to get right, are on point, particularly William Dix as Joey, who should rightly be considered the lead actor.

My only complaint is it does seem like the studio got involved and clipped a bit too much out of the end, likely to fit to the 90-minute formula. While we sort of get what happened, it felt like it was missing a scene or two to wrap things up.

Overall, though, a great suspense film, tightly directed and well worth a watch, especially for Davis, who is superb.

'My Name is Julia Ross' has a fairly unique premise: a young lady desperate for work jumps on a job opportunity that ends up being a nightmare. Without giving too much away, she's held captive by the parties who hired her.

While this film does have lots of suspense and wonderful sinister performances by George Macready as the disturbed son and May Whitty as the protective mum who'll do anything to cover for her son, the fatal flaw is ultimately the believability of their plan. Really, they'd go to these lengths? I just couldn't buy it.

My other issue is the lead character Julia Ross' complete ineptitude at escaping her situation. Hysterically played by Nina Foch, the character is pretty much the dumbest protagonist I've ever seen, thwarting her own smart plans in the stupidest of ways. Certainly, the writer could have built the suspense and dashed the audience's hopes while not making the hero so bloody thick.

Anyway, it's not totally without its suspenseful moments and very good baddies, which probably explains why it was remade by Arthur Penn as 'Dead of Winter', but ultimately the premise that makes it so different also makes it extremely hard to believe.

'The City of the Dead' has all the hallmarks of what should be a great horror film. It's got witches. It's got devil worship. It's got Christopher Lee. It's Milton Subotsky, technically the first from the Amicus team. Unfortunately, it falls apart on basic film craft; acting, direction, storytelling, editing.

There truly is so much promise, from the opening credits that feature beautiful creepy shots of hooded people, a prelude of some dark secret society. However, in a way, this opening is emblematic of the main failure of the film: it telegraphs everything you're going to see before it happens.

The plot involves a witch who is burned at the stake during the witch hunt days and curses the town that did it to her, a curse that hangs over the town to this day. In modern times, a young student travels to the town to work on her term paper about witchcraft.

Along the way, everything from Christopher Lee's overly suspicious performance to the town's overly haunted house vibe to the townspeople's overly obvious staring to the innkeeper's overly creepy and combative manner telegraphs everything that's going to happen. The student reads from a book of witchcraft that telegraphs what will happen in the next scene. Even the jump scares are telegraphed; you see the look of fright before you see the scary bit.

A little basic filmmaking would have gone a long way here. Leaving more to the imagination, crafting more subtle performances, hacking out unnecessary exposition, allowing us to buy into characters being innocuous or even trustworthy before revealling they are bad actors.

And speaking of bad acting, Venetia Stevenson is just god-awful, obviously chosen for her appearance in women's lingerie rather than her skill as an actress. She's entered a town that's as over-the-top creepy as Disney's Haunted Mansion yet acts like it's any ol' small town, just a cheery little ray of sunshine. Of course, the script could have given her a bit of an edge, which would have made her character semi-believable.

Anyway, I'd recommend watching 'Rosemary's Baby' for real secret society frights or 'Hot Fuzz' for a piss-take. This one doesn't have enough mystery or laughs to make it worthwhile.

'Whistle and I'll Come to You' is based on an M. R. James story that follows the unravelling of an eccentric professor after coming across an enigmatic whistle in an old cemetery. Honestly, I don't know much about M. R. James, but this spooky story feels like it could have just as easily come from Poe, with its drab seaside location, gothic elements and focus on the internal mental state of its protagonist.

This short film produced by the BBC, like 'The Innocents', is blends ghost story with psychological horror. It's beautifully photographed and generates some genuinely eerie moments.

The highlight is the lead actor, the prodigious Michael Hordern, who gives a masterclass. Because it's virtually a one-man play, he has his run of the shop and does not disappoint. He's a joy to watch, some of the best acting I've seen anywhere.

'Whistle and I'll Come for You' isn't for everyone. Mainstream viewers may find it artsy and strange, but for people who love the craft of film making, it's truly a joy and definitely worth 40 minutes of your life.

I've seen a few Argento films and generally appreciate the imagery, the suspense and the twists, but damn, this one is not good.

First off, the story seems like a mashup of four or five horror scripts, one about a homicidal maniac, one about a somnambulistic psychic, one about a super-intelligent chimp, another about a disturbed child, and yet another about a girl who can control insects. It's as if he said, 'None of these are interesting enough on their own, so let's put them all in one film.'

Secondly, the acting is atrocious. One can forgive Jennifer Connolly, as she was about 15, but beyond a decent showing by Donald Pleasance (who for some odd reason needed to put on a Scottish accent), every other kid and every other adult is P. U. And as is typical with Argento, they randomly flip back and forth between Italian dubbed and English, for no apparent reason.

Thirdly, the music is totally inappropriate. Goblin totally ruined 'Deep Red', and not only do they ruin this, Argento tosses in some Iron Maiden and Motorhead to make suspenseful moments seem like a joke. I firmly believe Argento could have been a music video pioneer. Instead he crapped out movies that have the depth and intelligence of music videos.

There's gross imagery and violent deaths galore, but the mystery and the characters aren't even decent enough to sustain your interest in those. And even within the ridiculous world he creates, there's no consistency or logic. I don't give many low ratings, as I understand the difficulties in pulling off a good film and I tend to enjoy even bad films, but wow, this is rubbish and a waste of time.

'Kairo' starts out promising with some very creepy imagery (that seems to have been ripped off more than a few times since). But it doesn't take long before you start wondering why you're continuing to watch, other than the creepy images, and ultimately just want it to be over.

The central problem with the film is lack of character development. Granted, none of the characters seem to last long, but I've seen slasher films where characters are knocked off straight away and even those characters are better formed.

Unfortunately, this leads to not only a lack of empathy for the characters, but a fatal lack of motivation to continue watching. Forget the 'hero's journey', there's not even a backstory to the characters. In fact, it's not even clear who the main protagonist is until about halfway through the film.

I'll give Kurosawa credit for a visually interesting film with wonderful creepy imagery. But even ignoring the lame script (and the truly embarrassing and completely unnecessary explanation of what's happening), some basic errors in storytelling make it extremely difficult to follow. The geography of where he action is taking place, the mysterious changing of clothes for no apparent reason, the jumping back and forth between characters and storylines.

Ultimately, like a slasher film, you know who's going to be next and roughly how it will happen. Personally, I prefer horror that taps into deeper themes or social like 'The Babadook' and 'Get Out'. Regardless, it's possible to give people the creeps and make you at least care about the main character's fate. 'Kairo' just fails to go there.

Anyone who loves movies and who's lived in Los Angeles for some time can't help but be sucked in by a film about shooting locations around town and the soul of the city as reflected in cinema. However, you begin to notice after a bit that you're as lost finding your way through this film as a tourist driving through the Valley looking for the Hollywood sign.

There are all the landmarks you'd expect to see in a great film about films shot in L. A.-clips from 'Chinatown', 'Sunset Blvd.', 'Blade Runner' and 'Kiss Me Deadly'. But you start to wonder what the point is after a while.

One minute you're watching meander a montage of a location-for instance, a gas station or building-as seen in several somewhat random films, and the next, you're meandering a poignant essay about race or inequality or corruption.

It's not that there aren't great insights into the city, it's just that it's not very focussed-there's no arc, no thesis or conclusion, just a series of cool movie clips kind of clumped together by theme or place.

My other quibble is that, of all the films shot in Los Angeles, the director's selections are often lame straight to video rubbish. Don't get me wrong, I'm no snob, but why show so many clips from unnoteworthy B-grade films when you have great cult classics like 'Repo Man' or 'The Hidden' to choose from?

At the end of the day, film lovers will buy into the momentary glimpses of their favourite films, some introductions to new films they may want to watch, and the fun of knowing where that moment was shot. But getting through it all is a bit of a slog, because of the lack of direction and jumping from place to place and topic to topic.

So glad this series is back. Charlie Brooker is a bloody genius. As usual, 15 minutes into the future, 'Joan is Awful' examines the coming issues we face concerning our ready acceptance of terms and conditions from big tech and the potential abuse of our likeness. Certainly makes you think about what we're clicking away.

This episode was a joy to watch from beginning to end-super clever, laugh-out-loud moments, with heaps of wonderful cameos from big celebs. Sucked in immediately and the hour blew by. By the end, I really cared about the characters-a quality missing from many of today's shows.

I'm looking forward to the rest of Season 6. Highly recommended.

Despite yet another tremendous performance from Charles Laughton, and Robert Siodmak's steady hand and eye for photography, there are several elements of 'The Suspect' that are hard to swallow.

Laughton plays a wealthy old gentleman with a shrew of a wife, and he's ready to move on. He meets a lovely young lady played by Ella Raines and is spurred into action, leading to a twisted and tragic series of events.

The acting is fine, and there are some brilliantly dark and suspenseful moments. My problem is, I found the wife character to be far too terrible to be believed. Even husbands and wives who grow to despise each other can be terrible, but have good sides.

And as much as Laughton can make you feel for the character and pull off a certain charm, it's still hard to buy the relationship between he and Ella Raines. She needed to be either a money-grubber or totally naive and easily manipulated to pull it off.

Regardless, it's a competent film, with some good photography. There are some entertaining moments. It's notable, but not a major film.

As someone who's spent a lifetime watching every film noir I could get my hands on, 'The Big Combo' deserves a place high in the pantheon of noirs, if only for the sublime photography of John Alton. It's dark and it's stunning.

But 'The Big Combo' also has a stellar cast, including Cornell Wilde, as Lieutenant Leonard Diamond, who is obsessed with bringing down the kingpin of a criminal mob, Mr. Brown, played by a particularly menacing Richard Conte in one of his best roles.

While the cat and mouse plot may seem familiar, there are a few twists and turns that keep the chase exciting. And the supporting characters are well cast and well drawn, including Brian Donlevy as Brown's smarmy and ambitious right-hand man, Lee Van Cleef and Earl Holliman as Brown's thugs, and Jay Adler as Diamond's partner and conscience, Sam.

While 'The Big Combo' isn't without flaws, it's always entertaining, it's genre defining and it's simply a beautiful film to watch.

I heap praise on few films, but 'The Big Heat' is not just one of the best noirs or one of the best films from Fritz Lang's illustrious career, it's one of the best films, full stop. When I saw 'The Big Heat' for the first time, the brutality absolutely shocked me, and it still does.

Glenn Ford is on fire in this taut pot-boiler cop film as Detective Sgt. Dave Bannion, one of the few cops not on the take in a town run by the mobster Mike Lagana. He's a man of integrity in a world where no one else has any. It's pretty depressing, and hits close to the bone in today's world. Surely, his character was the prototype for 'Dirty Harry.'

Lee Marvin is at his smarmy best as Lagana's right-hand goon, Vince Stone, who sets the standard for the loose-cannon baddie. And Gloria Graham is splendid and sympathetic as Vince's ditzy, loud-mouthed girlfriend.

I think the reason 'The Big Heat' still packs a gut punch 70 years after its release is that it taps into the reality of how easily people are corrupted by money, greed and power, and that's just as relevant today as ever. This is a must-see.

It's difficult to know what exactly happened to 'The Strange Woman' along the way: Did the censors make them inject the morality? Did Hedy demand her character have some goodness? Whatever the case, the end result is somewhat schizophrenic and confused.

Hedy Lamarr is at her sultry best in this melodramatic period romance (I wouldn't call it a noir) that follows the life of a young girl in a small logging town Maine who uses her natural beauty and powers of seduction, to gain wealth and power, leaving a wake of destruction in her path. She's the sort of anti-hero you really want to hate, a real bad seed. But for some reason, she keeps doing nice things for people, which is totally confusing, because it's utterly out of character.

There are a whole lot of indecent affairs, backstabbing. There's also a whole lot of God bothering and women's temperance meetings, none of which is all that relevant to the story, but probably served to get the movie through the censorship gauntlet. It all leaves one wondering what this film could have been.

Jules Dassin is pretty hit or miss with me, but 'Night and the City' is a real cracker of a film noir. Widmark is in top form as an ambitious American in London who has a history of blowing his money trying to make it big, and Gene Tierney is the girlfriend trying to save him from himself.

The photography is superb, capturing on location street London scenes using dynamic, cutting-edge techniques, like car-mounted cameras. In true film noir form, the more 'composed' shots use the light within the darkness to tell the story.

The pacing is brisk, the story well told, and the cast of underworld characters is memorable. You do feel for Widmark's character and are pulling for him to do the right thing, even as he continually hits new lows.

Gene Tierney's character seems to be a little inconsistent and could probably have used some more development, but I suspect at a running time of more than two hours, the studio likely chopped a fair bit out.

Regardless, it all comes together at the end, with a fantastically suspenseful chase scene and a few twists and turns. Even if you suspect how it will all end from the beginning, it's still incredibly fun to watch.

Had high hopes for 'Bunny Lake is Missing', based on the name alone, the Saul Bass titles and interesting cast. The street shooting in London is pretty fantastic, the score is quite avant-garde and Laurence Olivier is superb as the jaded detective who can sniff out strange behaviour and inconsistencies with aplomb. However, I felt it started to unravel in the last act.

The story seems simple enough: An American mum has just arrived in London and drops her daughter at school in the morning, but when she arrives to pick her up, the little girl is missing, hence the title. But of course, there's much more to this mystery than meets the eye. There are several creepy suspects, played by superb character actors. The mum, played by Carol Lynley, seems a bit off. The relationship between her and her brother (Keir Dullea) is odd to say the least. And neither can seem to keep their stories straight.

The film has some colourful English characters and interesting dialogue, so it is generally a good watch. My issue is, just when you think you know what's happening, there's a M. Night Shyamalan-style twist comes out of nowhere, which ends up opening up plot holes you could squeeze an elephant through and questions dangling like unravelled ball of yarn.

I don't require a film to answer every question, just to answer a few of them convincingly. It's unfortunate, because the performances are pretty convincing, and it's generally absorbing, interesting and at times, refreshingly odd by '60s standards. See what you think.

Undoubtedly, Penelope Spheeris has captured some of the most raw and authentic L. A. punk scenes ever filmed. My problem is pretty much everything that takes place outside the club: the character development, the story, the writing, the acting, like all of it.

'Suburbia' is basically a series of punk performances, by some of L. A.'s great acts, like The Germs, TSOL, The Vandals, strung together by a loose story of a group of young punks who all left their homes to live in a derelict house.

Admirably, Spheeris uses street casted talent and real punk musicians, like a young Flea, to play the various roles. Unfortunately, none of them are very good. The characters are characterless, almost interchangeable. The dramas are fairly predictable, with lots of fights, theft, drugs and general mayhem.

I also found it somewhat frustrating trying to figure out the intent of 'Suburbia'. Is it meant to be a cynical nihilistic B camp film along the lines of 'Toxic Avenger', a rebellious comedy like 'Animal House', or a poignant drama like 'Trainspotting'?

It does some similarities with 'Trainspotting', the energetic music and celebration of mindless mayhem, the tragedy that comes out of youthful idiocy, but unfortunately without the great writing, acting and character growth. The moments that could have been poignant and shed light on the human condition seem to just be thrown away as we move on to the next scene of our madcap gang gleefully running through the streets.

All in all, my recommendation is to skip the whatever and cut straight to the music scenes. Then go watch 'Trainspotting'.

The plot is simple: rich road house owner (Richard Widmark) uses money to 'buy' a singer (Ida Lupino) as his woman, but she's more interested in his right-hand man, the manager (Cornel Wilde). As you can imagine, this creates some tense moments and comes to a quite suspenseful head. Anyone familiar with Joel and Ethan Coen's first film, 'Blood Simple' will recognise the similarities.

Look, I've got a few complaints. It's really more romance than film noir. The police procedure seems a bit lax, even for small town '40s. Widmark's character seems too likeable up front, making his transformation a bit much; more a factor of the script than him. But Ida Lupino and Cornel Wilde are both mesmerising actors, and their chemistry makes this worth a watch.

I was looking forward to this one. 'Thieves Highway' has a solid viewer rating, a big name director and it's chockers with good actors, which should be a recipe for a good movie, yet it somehow manages to fill up with holes quickly.

The plot is a simple revenge story about a veteran who returns home from WWII to find his dad has been disabled by a gang of thugs then sets out to avenge him. But this pretty quickly goes off piste and turns into a tragedy and a super-awkward love story.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Richard Conte. While he is better in other movies, he always seems to play a tough guy who's, well, pretty lightweight. The impetus for his seeking revenge is clearly laid out: dad has been cruelly wronged by criminals. It's way more infuriating than John Wick losing his dog. And yet, the motivation seems to fizzle almost immediately.

Then the hero stupidly and somewhat improbably dumps his entire life's savings into the apple business; for the record, of all the 'thug life' pursuits, not the sexiest. He easily finds the crooks who wronged his dad, then gets his revenge by...selling them apples at a fair price? (facepalm)

The worst of it, our 'street-smart' hero keeps making street-dumb moves, I mean real rookie mistakes, like being distracted from his produce by an attractive prostitute. (headslap) This leads to some of the most awkward 'love' scenes ever put to film. Below zero chemistry.

The most frustrating thing about 'Thieves' Highway' is the lengthy character subplots, like his irresponsible business partner and the love of his life, that seem not only superfluous to the revenge storyline but just vanish in a poof of smoke, like they didn't even matter. By the end, even the character motivation, the revenge part, seems to go 'poof', like was that even there? You feel gaslit.

Anyway, you get the idea. The end result is neither plausible nor satisfying. Despite the bevy of fine actors, including Lee J. Cobb and Valentina Cortese, and some of the best character actors, like Hope Emerson and Percy Helton, what could have been a tasty apple pie turns into sour applesauce.

While 'Larceny' has a cast of nasty, amoral characters, those expecting a traditional noir with the interesting camera work and lighting might be disappointed. However, it does have a fair bit of suspense, a few twists and turns and some fine acting, so I'd rate it slightly above average.

The plot revolves around a group of fraudsters who come up with elaborate fundraising schemes to bilk hundreds of thousands from wealthy investors then skip town; frighteningly relevant to today's mainstream business world. And they're very successful until one guy meets a dame and falls in love.

Unfortunately, the love story isn't very convincing, nor is the main character's transformation from amoral scumbag to upstanding citizen, which really makes everything else seem a bit implausible.

Regardless, there are some suspenseful moments, you do feel for John Payne's predicament, and the acting is generally quite good from Payne, Dan Duryea, character actor Percy Helton and especially Shelly Winters as the superbly annoying scorned femme fatale. She's good at being bad.

Anyway, if you're a completist like me, it's worth a go.

Whether you watch 'Sayat Nova' all the way through or turn it off after 10 minutes really depends on whether you believe a film should simply tell a linear story or can be a purely artistic endeavour. Because Parajanov isn't known for his more mundane Soviet-approved films, but the ones that got him tossed in the gulag. And 'Sayat Nova' really rubbed the party officials the wrong way.

Like 'Shadows of our Forgotten Ancestors', this film, popularly referred to in the West as 'The Colour of Pomegranates', is more of a fever dream than a 'movie'. But whereas 'Shadows' tells a very simple folk tale elaborated on with innovative and frenetic camera techniques, 'Sayat Nova' portrays the life of a renowned poet through a series of gorgeously art directed moments that are so intricately detailed, they resemble frescos.

The result is less of a biopic and something more akin to a poem or a religious experience. Admittedly, to me, it felt a bit like walking into the room of a contemporary art museum where an odd art film is playing; sitting through the entire think can get tedious. However, I stuck with it purely to see what stunning image would come next.

While it's not for everyone, 'Sayat Nova' is a one of a kind experience that will truly inspire any aspiring filmmaker or artist. If you enjoyed the imagery of Jodorowsky's 'Holy Mountain' or the weirdness of Ken Russell's dreamlike films, you might want to check this out.

Much ink has been devoted to the obvious unsettling and disturbing plot of 'Dogtooth', a father who rules his family by fabricating an alternate reality. However, it seems by taking this story at face value, many reviewers are missing what to me seems obvious: it's an allegory for the absurdity of religion.

Perhaps it helps to have seen Yorgos Lanthimos' other works to understand how he uses satire and artificial constructs to shed light on human predicaments or societal failings. For example, 'The Lobster' isn't really about people who turn into animals if they can't find a partner, it's about the fragility of love and the sacrifices we'll make (or not) to be in a relationship.

Likewise, 'Dogtooth' demonstrates the illogical and arbitrary nature of religious dogma, albeit via an extremely specific and bizarre example. The father could just as easily be a Father of the cloth. The rules of the house are just as strict as the rules of the church, with their own punishments and built-in misogyny. The mythology is just as illogical as any religion, with their own whacky rituals, songs and scripture.

And like religion, the leader will do anything to keep the flock from having any contact with the outside world, lest they be exposed to new ideas that conflict with their world view that allows complete control and easy manipulation. Any deviation from the programme is met with the harshest of punishment.

As Lanthimos' films, outside of 'The Favourite', are certainly more art than simple exposition, perhaps there are other ways to interpret 'Dogtooth'. However, to me, his films seem very well thought out and quite deliberate, so I doubt the inclusions of such direct comparisons was by accident. Regardless, Lanthimos is amongst the top handful of contemporary directors, and I highly recommend this film.

Nothing disappoints me more when watching a movie than knowing it could have been much better. 'The Good Nurse' is based on a truly gripping and incomprehensible real-life crime story. And while the elements of a great film are there-suspenseful story, top-notch cast, good director-all that talent is wasted largely due to a catastrophically flawed script, but also dark lighting, weak score, and plodding pacing. For a thriller, it completely lacks a pulse.

Let's start with the script. If you want a crash course on how to make a true crime thriller seem wildly implausible and utterly boring, watch 'The Good Nurse'. It's paint-by-numbers simplistic and completely linear-'then this happens, then this happens'. No flashbacks or daydreams. No hero's journey. No moments of self-reflection.

The characters are rather two-dimensional and their conversations are purely focussed on moving the plot, not revealing their inner workings. Deep, trusting relationships seem to be built from superficial interactions. The most interesting character trait-Amy's medical condition-is referenced over and over, yet never comes into play to amp up the tension during the denouement.

The most frustrating aspect of the script for me was the simple human interactions that were phony, overly simplistic or hackneyed. I kept saying, 'That would never happen.' For instance, the cops are scolded by their boss for crossing the line-that old chestnut-but they're literally just investigating a series of murders, i.e. Doing their job. The film is riddled with these false moments that leave you wondering whether the screenwriter ever watched a procedural crime drama, much less researched the material.

It's worth mentioning the dark photography. There's no doubt that Jessica Chastain and Eddie Redmayne are very talented actors, but their talent is wasted when you can't see there expressions. Oftentimes, the actors are backlit, so we only see their silhouette, which is pointless for gauging what they're thinking or feeling. The brightest shot in the film is shot from beneath a car. No kidding.

Add the bland score to a straightforward crime thriller story, where you know everything that's going to happen and there are no surprises, and you've got a film that's DOA. Totally missed opportunity. I have to give it five stars for the acting, which was very good.

First off, I just want to say how much I loved the first two Tom Holland Spiderman films. He's the quintessential Spiderman-innocent, bright, a bit cocky, relatable. The films were well-scripted and well-paced. However, with 'No Way Home', the franchise seems to have lost its way.

Sure, it's an entertaining popcorn film, and Marvel fans will marvel at the clever way that several characters from prior films converge, but the bottom line is, there's too much happening, too many stories at once, too many clever twists, too much action, and not enough time to properly follow it all.

It's almost as if the popularity of 'Into the Spiderverse' led executives to push for a way to replicate that in live-action. Unfortunately, 'Far from Home' is too clever for its own good, creating wild plot holes that it has to use magic to patch up, and throwing away awesome characters (and actors) on what are essentially bit roles.

The best part of this particular iteration of Spiderman is the human quality, and while the jokes are all there, I found the relationship scenes to be laboured and often hokey. And the subtext of mental illness-that worked so incredibly well as a character study in 'Joker'-seems superficial and wrong here.

In the end, as the old adage goes, 'keep it simple, stupid.' It was the simplicity of the story in 'Homecoming' that allowed room for the characters to breathe. 'Into the Spiderverse' was excellent, 10 out of 10, but it was a different animal. I hope the producers are able to get this franchise back on track, because the Holland-Zendaya chemistry is magic.

It's the early noughts, and people are dropping left and right. This isn't the plot of the film, it's the state of the film industry. Nobody's going to the theatres anymore, except kids who watch comic book and animated films. The reason Hollywood is in such dire straits? Films like 'Identity'.

Unlike today's streaming services, Hollywood wasn't placing any bets on intelligent drama or thought-provoking sci-fi, it looked to replicate a fluke hit like 'The Usual Suspects' or 'The Sixth Sense'. 'Identity' is essentially a combination of the two-a thriller that tries hard to be clever, yet you'll successfully solve the mystery in the first ten minutes.

Some decent actors try their best to save the film, but the writing is hokey and there's no real character development, just a lot of far-fetched plot points. As is common with these types of wannabe clever films, the plot points are ridiculous and there are holes you could drive a semi through.

Even the scares are hokey, often more humorous than frightening. Plus they slathered on the most tired of horror tropes, like constant thunder and lightning.

The most offensive aspect to me was borrowing from 'And Then There Were None', which is a far superior story and film. I suggest you rent it instead, if you want to watch something both clever and well written.