ALL 4 TV REVIEW – THIS IS ENGLAND ’86 (2010)

ALL 4 TV REVIEW – THIS IS ENGLAND ’86 (2010)

Created by: Shane Meadows

Directors: Tom Harper, Shane Meadows

Series Producers: Mark Herbert, Derrin Schlesinger, Rebekah Wray-Rogers

Cast: Thomas Turgoose, Vicky McClure, Joseph Gilgun, Stephen Graham, Andrew Shim, Stephen Graham, Andrew Ellis, Rosamund Hanson, Danielle James, Kriss Dosanjh, Chanel Cresswell, Johnny Harris, Michael Socha, George Newton, Jo Hartley etc.

Cinematography: Danny Cohen

Music by: Ludovico Einaudi

**CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Having watched Shane Meadows classic British film, This is England (2006), again of late – review can be found here – I thought it would be fascinating to catch up with the subsequent television series via ALL 4. Thus, Meadows and co-writer, Jack Thorne re-introduce the gritty lives of beloved and some not-so-beloved working-class characters, within the satanic Midland mills of England.

I would strongly advise, if interested in watching this drama, you begin with the film first. That way you can familiarise and experience the events and characters of the show in the correct order. Indeed, this classic series works best when you watch the film and subsequent series, This is England ’88 (2011) and This is England ’90 (2014) as a continuous whole. That way you get the full power of Shane Meadow’s vision for the characters and the period it is set.

The series for me is an engrossing mix of nostalgia, comedy, drama and socio-political exploration. Opening some three years after the original film, we re-join the “gang” going about their lives attempting to breach the difficult gap between youth and adulthood. After the tragic events of 1983, Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) has lost contact with the group but over the course of the four episodes he integrates back in. The others are either unemployed or in Woody’s (Joe Gilgun) case employed and attempting some form of upward mobility. Moreover, Lol/Lorraine (Vicky McClure) and Woody are planning to get married. However, the return of Lol’s father (Johnny Harris) brings back painful memories for her and his presence gives the series the villain of the piece.

The structure of the series echoes that of the film. We start with mostly lighter episodes containing a comedic flavour. The seeds of drama, such as Woody backing out of the wedding at the altar, are planted early on. Nonetheless, the early episodes contain some really funny scenes. These include Shaun’s run-in with the local bullies and a party which gets completely out of hand too. There’s much in the way of bawdy and sexual humour, especially when Gadget is used as a sex toy by local divorcee, Trudy. These scenes make us feel safe and warm, yet we know that trouble isn’t far away for the characters.

Once again, the soundtrack is a fantastic mix of eras with a classic collection of 1960s, 1970s and 1980s rock, ska, punk and pop music. Similarly, the fashion of the characters is a postmodern melange of punk, mod and new wave looks. Politics and sport are also thrown into the mix with the 1986 “Hand of God” World Cup dominating the backdrop of the series.

As the characters and era are established and some laughs have been mined, the drama really kicks in. Lol and Woody’s relationship breakdown causes her to make some poor decisions, as she capitulates in the stress of her father’s return. Vicky McClure is fantastic as Lol. You can feel the trauma in her whole being during the scenes with Johnny Harris’ evil patriarch. The culmination of their conflict is one of the most harrowing scenes I have ever witnessed on a television screen.

Overall, This is England ’86 is full of complex emotions, humour and drama. There’s a real honesty to the characters who are just trying to live their lives in the Midlands, despite all the disadvantages it brings. Ultimately, they are striving to be decent but find their loyalties tested by friends, family and their lack of opportunities. Amidst the humour and camaraderie of the series we get some brutal and unforgettable moments of drama which remain long after the credits have rolled. The politicians of Westminster may not care and want to forget about such lives, but Shane Meadows won’t let us forget, delivering a powerful character chorus of laughter, tears and togetherness.

Mark: 9.5 out of 11

OZARK (2018) – SEASON 2 – NETFLIX TV REVIEW

OZARK (2018) – SEASON 2 REVIEW

Created by: Bill Dubuque & Mark Williams

Producers: Jason Bateman, Chris Mundy, Bill Dubuque, Mark Williams

Director(s): Jason Bateman, Andrew Bernstein, Phil Abraham, Alik Sakharov, Ben Semanoff, Amanda Marsalis

Writers: Chris Mundy, David Manson, Alyson Feites, Ryan Farley, Paul Kolsby, Ning Zhou, Martin Zimmerman

Cast: Jason Bateman, Laura Linney, Sofia Hublitz, Skylar Gaertner, Julia Garner, Jordana Spiro, Lisa Emery, Jason Butler Harmer, Harris Yulin, Peter Mullan etc.

Original Network: Netflix

**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

The Byrde family are back for a second season trying to keep their heads above bitter Ozark lake water once again. If you haven’t seen the show Jason Bateman plays an accountant who has to go on the run with his family to Ozark, Missouri while working for a murderous Mexican drug cartel. Accompanying him is his wife, Wendy, portrayed by Laura Linney and their two teenage children, Jonah and Charlotte.

Without wishing to give away too many spoilers I can reveal the first season found the Byrde’s lives under threat from the Mexican Cartel and the FBI, while at the same time they made new local enemies in the Langmores and the Snells. The structure of the season one and two is to essentially place the American “nuclear family” at the heart of a crime noir thriller and watch them use their intelligence and wits to save their skins. What is even more apparent though in Season 2 is that, like with Breaking Bad, the ingenuity of the writing means we are rooting for the bad guys. I mean, the Byrdes are money-laundering criminals, but somehow the performances and screenwriting makes us root for them, mostly.

Having created some geographical and financial stability in the Ozarks by funnelling drug monies through various local business ventures, Marty and Wendy spend all of this season planning to get a casino up and running on the lake. Of course, this is met with resistance from many parties, notably the local crime family, the Snells; the FBI led by twisted obsessive, Roy Petty; Ruth Langmore’s jailbird father, Cade; and most significantly the State Senate which must pass the bill for a new casino. The latter is where Wendy’s character proves her worth as she has experience manipulating the political process following years working as campaign manager in Washington.

In the past I have criticised some Netflix shows for having too many episodes and being full of filler. Well, it’s safe to say there is little in the way of filler in these ten episodes. The suspense, pace and narrative zip along, fully committed to the substantial plots and compelling subplots. Of course, it feels very familiar, yet the “innocent family under threat” trope so often used by Hitchcock and other thriller filmmakers is cork-screwed here. Both Marty and Wendy fight back against their nemeses with cunning and threat. Wendy’s character arc is particularly enthralling, because as Marty begins to waver and his Borg-like cloak of non-emotion slips, she revels in the power-games, even as the body count begins to mount up.

If you love crime thrillers as I do you will love Ozark. While the elements are quite generic the acting, writing and directing are right out of the top draw. I also love the cinematographic style too. Some may say they find it literally too dark. However, the lack of white balance adds to the murky nature of the events in play. The crisp darkness and shadow paradoxically illuminate the inner machinations of some very dark souls. I mean, while the Byrde family are criminals, they are actually sane when compared to the likes of psychotic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) and sewer rat, Cade Langmore (Trevor Long). Their characters are so unhinged I wouldn’t want to argue with them, even on the phone.

Ozark, also has at least three almost-perfect acting performances from Jason Bateman, Laura Linney and Julia Garner as the young Ruth Langmore. Garner for such a young actress steals every scene. I think she is destined for a great career. Garner gives her character a sparky, intelligent and tough-nut exterior, but vulnerable interior. Plus, a strong theme of the show is loyalty and survival of the family unit. As much as Ruth Langmore tries to stay loyal to her family, fate and her poor choices conspire against her. Oh, and I almost forgot the Season 2 acting cherry on the cake, with Janet McTeer’s crime lawyer kicking in our dramatic shins with wicked aplomb.

In short: Ozark is a treat for an audience hungry for plot driven crime dramas. It perpetually springs narrative traps as the themes throb darkly. The underlying theme seems to be you have to be bad to survive and anyone who isn’t ultimately pays the price. Because God and humanity have forsaken Ozark, Missouri, with only shadow in bloom. Blessed with incredible acting, fine writing and twists throughout, I for one cannot wait for Season 3 to be released next month on Netflix.

Mark: 9 out of 11

ALL 4 TV REVIEW – DEREK (2013 – 2014)

ALL 4 TV REVIEW – DEREK (2013 – 2014)

Created, written and directed by: Ricky Gervais

Producer: Charlie Hanson

Cast: Ricky Gervais, Kerry Godliman, David Earl, Karl Pilkington, Brett Goldstein, Colin Hoult, Holli Dempsey, Ruth Bratt, Arthur Nightingale, Doc Brown, Joe Wilkinson etc.

Original Network: Channel 4

**MAY CONTAINS SPOILERS**

So, let’s address the elephant in the room with my review of ALL 4/Netflix bittersweet comedy, Derek. Is it acceptable for a person to seemingly inhabit the character of someone who could be perceived to be mentally challenged or disabled? Not forgetting, the person is a successful TV writer/actor, Ricky Gervais. After all we’re in a progressive age where it is right to be sensitive of perceptions and reactions to the representations of people of colour, religion, race, heritage and mental capacity. Is it in poor taste for Ricky Gervais to ultimately, get seemingly cheap laughs out of a gurning, simple man?

Well, on the surface and initial watch Derek, could be deemed offensive for reasons of poor taste. However, having watched series one, two and the final hour-long special for the third time, I have decided that, while it may have puerile and childish humour, Gervais has created a positive, and in some cases, heroic role model who promotes kindness to the elderly, animals, friends and basically everyone, whether they are horrible or not. The comedy and pathos derive not simply from cheap shots, but, organically from a set of outsiders and forgotten people inhabiting a care home. Lastly, Gervais is a talented actor and while he’s no Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot (1989), his character of Derek Noakes is a genuinely fine human being worth spending time with.

Moving past the controversial issues of taste the most important question remains: is Derek funny? Well, it is both funny and very moving, encompassing themes relating to life, death, grief, romance, love, redemption, depression and memory. Set in a care called Broad Hill it features a collection of disparate ensemble of characters who are existentially trapped within their day-to-day lives. These include hard-working Hannah (Kerry Godliman), gruff handyman, Dougie (Karl Pilkington), alcoholic wastrel, Kev (David Earl), and the titular, Derek. Furthermore, the care home becomes a haven for characters doing community service such as Vicky (Holli Dempsey) and of course the elderly residents who are cared for at Broad Hill.

Shot in Gervais’ often used mockumentary style, each episode unfolds in a gentle slice-of-life style as the Broad Hill employees go about their business. A common theme running through the series is the pressure the staff, notably Hannah, find themselves under looking after old people who have been dumped by their family and society at large. Moreover, the children or grandchildren of the residents are mostly represented as greedy, callous or self-absorbed. Gervais has commented that the show is a tribute to family members who worked in care homes and Derek succeeds in that context.

In representing the working classes and societal outsiders, Derek also works very well. I’ll be honest there is some easy humour to be had from the sexual perversity and drunken antics of Kev, portrayed with greasy acumen by David Earl. However, in Season 2, Kevin’s sad decline comes into focus as his alcoholism causes his health to fail and the friends he has alienated have tough choices to make. Nonetheless, the comedic interactions between Pilkington, Gervais, Earl and Kerry Godliman are priceless. These, plus Brett Goldstein as Hannah’s boyfriend, Tom, are all gifted performers and they shine throughout the episodes.

Gervais faced much critical controversy when Derek was first released. But having watched it again I actually think this was undeserved. Derek is not a figure of fun but rather a complex human being and richly empathetic character. If you find it offensive or do not enjoy Gervais’ performance then I understand that. Ultimately though, the series has some childish humour such as characters writing obscenities on crabs at the seaside, Dougie’s stupid hair, and Kev crapping himself at a staff meeting. However, it also has some fine comedic set-pieces as occurs when Derek, Dougie and Kevin put on a play about Duran Duran at a talent night. Plus, the scene where Kev and Derek try and sell their autographs of “famous” people is pure comedy gold.

Overall, Derek is a life-affirming comedy full of eccentric characters on the fringe of society. Somehow, they all band together to create this weird dysfunctional but very caring family. It’s a show about life, death, gain, loss and the human spirit. Moreover, through Derek’s homespun philosophical musings we get a lot of simple, yet effective life lessons. Yes, it’s full of toilet and school-playground humour, and at times is really mawkish and sentimental, but it is also full of heart and poignancy all performed by a fantastic ensemble cast.

Mark: 9 out of 11

SIX OF THE BEST #18 – FILM ANTHOLOGIES

SIX OF THE BEST #18 – FILM ANTHOLOGIES

While we all love a good proper feature film containing one continuous narrative, the anthology or portmanteau film has thrown up some fine cinematic entertainment over the years. Generally, an anthology film can be described as a collection of works with a linked theme, genre, style and author etc.

Thus, in my occasional Six of the Best series I have decided to pick some favourite ones. To make it more interesting I have chosen them from different genres. Otherwise, I would have just chosen all horror films. So, here are six of the film anthology films worth watching.

**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**


THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS (2018) – WESTERN

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is a mischievous alchemy of stories. Here, the Coen Brothers reach into their cinematic bag of tricks to deliver an entertaining and memorable collection of characters, songs, bloody death, jokes, pathos, landscapes, snappy dialogue, dark humour and action. Coen’s films often improve with each viewing as their work is so full of stylish depth and this is no different. Quite often, you’re laughing so much you miss the philosophical happenstance which is occurring in many of these fine stories.

Image result for buster scruggs

DEAD OF NIGHT (1945) – HORROR

It seems sacrilege not to include the likes of George Romero’s Creepshow (1982) or one of Amicus’ unhinged collections such as Dr Terror’s House of Horror (1965). But, having watched this classic recently I can certainly say it has some brilliant and scary stories which stand the test of time. Full to the brim with the cream of British acting, writing and directing talent, the standout tale is Michael Redgrave’s troubled ventriloquist, although the whole film is a nightmarish treat for horror fans.

Image result for DEAD OF NIGHT

FANTASIA (1940) – ANIMATION

With the current trend for Disney to remake their back catalogue as “live” action films in mind, I very much doubt they will doing this with Fantasia. Conceived as a short to re-invigorate the slowing career of Mickey Mouse, the film is unlike any other Disney have made. It consists of experimental, non-narrative and hallucinogenic vignettes mainly set to wondrous classical music. A masterpiece of hand-drawn animation, style, colour and design, it’s certainly not just for kids. I recall many images giving me nightmares when saw it as a child and it remains a powerful cinematic work to this day.

Image result for fantasia

NIGHT ON EARTH (1991) – COMEDY

I was going to choose Woody Allen’s erotic sketch film, Everything You Wanted to Ask About Sex but were Afraid to Ask (1972), for the comedy section. However, I decided to select a more deadpan and character oriented film. What better then, than a Jim Jarmusch curiosity. I love the concept of the film as Jarmusch sets several themes and parameters in place. There are five slice-of-life vignettes set on the same night in the cities of Helsinki, New York, Rome, Paris and Los Angeles, all starring some of Jarmusch’s favourite actors. Relationships and quirky interactions between cab driver and passenger are explored in the filmmakers’ inimitable style.


PULP FICTION (1994) – CRIME

Quentin Tarantino’s second feature film remains a fresh masterpiece of colliding gangsters, uber-cool hitmen, fixers, boxers, sexual deviants, femme fatales, drug addicts and general criminal types. With an over-lapping timeline that kind of does a figure of eight, we get stories ranging from a couple robbing a diner; a boxer double-crossing a crime boss; and an employee almost killing his boss’s wife. Tarantino breathes life into the crime genre and the stock pulp characters with one of the greatest screenplays ever written; full of incredible dialogue, startling twists and a brilliant ensemble cast.


WILD TALES (2014) – DRAMA

Damián Szifron conjures up a delectable and devilish set of stories mostly based around the themes of obsession and revenge.  It opens with a breath-taking little prologue featuring a horrific incident on a plane and culminates in arguably the wildest tale when the Bride goes on the rampage at her wedding.  Everyone’s favourite Argentinian actor Ricardo Darin pops up in the middle as an explosives expert who enacts revenge on City Parking fascists. I love the whole thing as the film delivers a full deck of twists that master of the macabre Roald Dahl would be proud of. 


ALL 4 TV REVIEW: END OF THE F***KING WORLD (2017)

ALL 4 TV REVIEW: END OF THE F***KING WORLD (2017)

Directed by: Jonathan Entwhistle, Lucy Tcherniak

Producer: Kate Ogborn

Written by: Charlie Covell (based on comic novella by Charles Forsman)

Cast: Alex Lawther, Jessica Barden, Gemma Whelan, Wunmi Mosaku, Steve Oram, Christine Bottomley, Navin Chowdhry etc.

Original Network: Channel 4

**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**


This Channel Four comedy-drama can be found on both ALL 4 and Netflix. It is certainly recommended for those who like their comedy darker than an Arctic winter’s day. It concerns a teenager called James (Alex Lawther) who believes he’s a psychopath, who decides to go from killing animals to people. Enter Jessica Barden’s equally maladjusted Alyssa, and we get eight episodes of acidic, violent, rites-of-passage and anti-romantic mischief.

The first episode is arguably the strongest as it starts with a breakneck pace establishing James character history and how he meets Alyssa. They are both very nihilistic and unlikable but that’s the point. The series is an anathema to the conventional feel-good Hollywood sitcoms and comedy films. This is violent and nasty with lost kids ignored or endangered by the adults around them. Indeed, aside from Gemma Whelan’s likeable police officer there aren’t many characters to empathise with here.


It is a testament to the fine acting by rising stars Lawther and Barden that the show held my interest over the eight short episodes. As the two anti-heroes go on the run across country I was reminded of the Tarantino scripted films True Romance (1993) and Natural Born Killers (1994), but filmed in Surrey. Of course, End of the F***king World (2017) doesn’t benefit from Tarantino’s wicked dialogue, however, it compels with a journey into some very twisted places.

Nominated for a BAFTA for Best Drama Series, I didn’t enjoy as much as some reviewers and critics did. I think this is mainly due to the fact it doesn’t really have much to say other than life is shit. Also, the characters don’t particularly learn anything, change or have a particularly intriguing philosophy. Moreover, their story begins and ends in abject nihilism with little hope for a brighter future. Don’t get me wrong, I love dark comedies and dramas, but this was relentlessly depressing and probably would have been better as a punchier ninety-minute film rather than a series. Overall, though the smart script and malignant characters had a dark magnetism. That and the excellent performances make it worth a watching if you’re feeling in a “I-hate-the-world” kind of mood.

Mark: 8 out of 11


ALL 4 FILM REVIEW – LONGFORD (2006)

ALL 4 FILM REVIEW – LONGFORD (2006)

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Producer: Helen Flint

Written by: Peter Morgan

Cast: Jim Broadbent, Samantha Morton, Andy Serkis, Lindsay Duncan, Robert Pugh etc.

Original Network: Channel 4

**CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Continuing my look back on the films and shows on ALL 4, this drama is really Premier League television filmmaking of the highest quality. Written by esteemed screenwriter, Peter Morgan and directed by celebrated director of Oscar winner, The King’s Speech (2010), Tom Hooper, Longford (2006), features fine acting from Jim Broadbent, Samantha Morton, Andy Serkis and Lindsay Duncan.

A much respected but also much maligned character around the House of Lords and Parliament in Westminster, Lord Longford, or Frank as he preferred to be known, came from a very privileged background. However, in various post-war political positions he campaigned vehemently for the underclasses, especially where the prison system was concerned. A complex but kind man he had no issue switching allegiances of politics or faith during his lifetime if he felt it was the right thing to do.

The story begins in the late 1960s with Longford celebrating his programme for rehabilitating ex-convicts. When he receives a letter from infamous child killer Myra Hindley, he takes up her case. Now, I remember Lord Longford when I was growing up and the furore over his constant attempts to grant Hindley parole was often in the news. I’m still struck by what a massive naive and stubborn heart he had. The public outrage was constant, but Longford never gave up this campaign.

Myra Hindley and Ian Brady killed five children between 1963 and 1965 and were described as “two sadistic killers of the utmost depravity.” This character study shows Longford battling his doubts over Hindley and Jim Broadbent’s performance is so compelling. You feel empathy and horror at his decision to represent Hindley, portrayed with nervy guile by Samantha Morton. The scenes between the two are a masterclass in acting with Morton conveying pitiful vulnerability to draw the Longford in. I personally felt Hindley was manipulating Longford but due, in part to her religious conversion, he chooses to ignore such thoughts.

Andy Serkis’ performance as Ian Brady, on the other hand, is one of pure, unadulterated evil. He warns Longford he is being played for a fool, but this only confirms Longford’s belief that Brady controlled Hindley during the murders. Brady’s character is only in a couple of scenes but his cold Scottish brogue chills the heart like an Arctic wind. Obviously, Serkis has gone onto bigger things, but I don’t think he has ever given a more memorable performance.

Overall, this is an exceptional film about the sad aftermath of one of the most heinous crimes ever committed in Britain. Longford, while admirable in his philosophy, proves the adage, there’s no fool like an old fool. Peter Morgan’s script is just brilliant at catching the emotions of the characters, as Hooper’s direction draws formidable performances from a fine cast. The nation was right to be outraged at Longford’s actions, but this film illustrates his motivations in a highly compelling way.

Mark: 9 out of 11

MIDSOMMAR (2019) – CINEMA REVIEW – AMAZING FILMMAKING LET DOWN BY WEAK STORYTELLING!

MIDSOMMAR (2019) – CINEMA REVIEW

Written and directed by: Ari Aster

Produced by: Lars Knudsen, Patrik Andersson

Cast: Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper, Vilhelm Blomgren, Will Poulter etc.

Music: The Haxen Cloak

Cinematography: Pawel Pogorzelski

**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

Midsommar (2019), is ultra-talented filmmaker Ari Aster’s second feature film. His first Hereditary (2018), was two-thirds domestic horror masterpiece and one-third insane, symbolic, nonsensical and demonic denouement. Both films have a lot in common. Both have communes or cults at the centre led by strong matriarchal figures. Both find seemingly innocent characters suffering from grief being lured to a fateful demise. Both have incredibly rich visual systems full of striking imagery, sudden violence and mythological folklore. Both, especially Midsommar (2019), are overlong, pretentious and indulgent B-movie stories masquerading as art.

I have to say, and I am not coming from simply a mainstream perspective, Ari Aster is a film artist. However, unlike many great film artists he has, in my opinion, not managed to marry his vision with coherent and emotionally powerful storytelling. Midsommar, for example, takes an age to kick its narrative into gear and when it finally gets started it drags and drags and drags. How many long, drifting tracking master shots can you abide? How many drawn-out-so-pleased-with-myself takes do you have the patience for? Well, get a strong coffee because when the story cries out for pace, Aster puts the brakes on, marvelling in his own indulgent genius. I might add that a plethora of characters screaming and crying does not make good drama either, unless there is sufficient context.

The narrative is very simple. In a nutshell, it’s Eli Roth’s Hostel (2005) meets British horror classic The Wicker Man (1973). Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper and Will Poulter are college students who take a summer break to experience a communal pageant in rural Sweden. While they are PHD students they are not particularly intelligent given the choices they make later in the film.

Moreover, aside from Pugh’s grief-stricken Dani, the script doesn’t particularly imbue them with much in the way of empathetic characterisation. Indeed, the film relies on Pugh’s dominant performance to create emotion for our protagonists. Aside from providing some comic relief there is no actual point to Will Poulter’s character at all. Lastly, there is some absolutely terrible dialogue throughout this film too.

As the film crawls along slowly, it’s reliant on the music to inform us we’re meant to be scared. Then when the gore does kick in during a particularly shocking ritual, I was almost falling asleep. Don’t get me wrong the production design is flawless with an amazing setting and incredible concepts from Aster. The death and torture scenes are particularly memorable. However, the overall pace and rhythm of the film is so bloody slow I just did not care about anyone by the end.

I don’t mind methodical films establishing dread and psychological fear, but I think Aster has been watching too many Kubrick films. Aster seems to believe slow equals art. What Kubrick did though was usually to have characters that were engaging. They may not have been likeable, but Kubrick’s characters hit you in the heart and mind. Not since The Blair Witch Project (1999) have I wanted such dumb characters (Pugh aside) to die so painfully in a horror film. Likewise, the characters in the Swedish commune are mere ciphers of Aster’s fantasy horror and two-dimensional at best.

Visually stunning Midsommar (2019), will no doubt impress critics and other reviewers. However, at nearly two-and-a-half hours it’s an indulgent-arty-collage-of-film-masquerading-as-therapy. The ending was so loopy that the audience I was with were laughing at how ridiculous it was. Perhaps that was the filmmakers’ aim, but I’m not so sure. Yes, I get that this is meant to be allegorical and symbolic about grief and guilt and religion and a relationship break-up and fate and cultural differences. Furthermore, I get the intellectual depth of the themes on show, but Aster tortures the audience as much as his characters. Mostly, it just doesn’t take so long to tell this kind of derivative narrative, however beautiful and artistic the film is presented.

Mark: 6 out of 11