OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies

Cairo, Nest of Spies is a classic Eurospy parody written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius, director of The Artist, and also stars the leads of that Oscar winner. It is in fact where Hazanavicius met his future wife, Berenice Bejo and her Artist co-star Jean Dujardin. The film is a parody of the spy films of the 1950s and 60s, most notably, early James Bond. It stars recent Oscar winner Dujardin as OSS 117, a French spy in the mould of Sean Connery’s 007 who in the words of the film ‘foils Nazis, beds beauties and brings peace to the Middle East. 117 has all the style, charm and quips of 007 but without any of the intellect or wit. The films opening scene, a homage to classic Film Noir shows 177 foiling the escape of a Nazi in 1945 along with his partner, Jefferson (Phillipe Lefebvre). Fast forward ten years after a fantastic and funny 60s Bond-esque Title Sequence and 117 is sent to Egypt where Jefferson has recently been killed. His bosses believe there may be a link to a missing Russian ship and Islamic radicals and it’s up to 117 to put the pieces together.

Michel Hazanavicius shows that The Artist’s cinematography and set design was no fluke as this film contains impressive and authentic sets and costume. At first glance it feels like you could be watching Dr. No or From Russia with Love. The film rivals Mad Men for its fantastic attention to detail and design. The background and costumes are extraordinary. The look of early Bond is added to with some great homage to those early films such as obvious rear projection cameras whenever the actors are in cars and a slightly grainy look to the finished film.

The film on the whole is in a word, hilarious. For most of its running time I had barely finished laughing about one joke or incident by the time the next one arrived. It’s spectacularly funny and very silly. There are lots of running jokes, including one involving a man in a fez calling the bad guys every time 117 enters or exits a building. This is homage to Bond in which there is invariably a henchman waiting for 007 when he reaches a new location. Another running joke is the increasingly homo-erotic flash backs to 117 and Jefferson on a beach. Much of the rest of the humour comes from Dujardin himself. He is wonderful in the film. Somehow he manages to bumble is way through fights and crime scenes, missing blatant clues and making a complete fool of himself but at the same time remaining suave and cool and irresistible to women. Dujardin has an almost identical look to Sean Connery and from certain angles it looks like you are watching Connery. He is just as smooth and has the most expressionistic eyebrows I have ever seen. Some of the humour comes from the blatant political incorrectness and misogyny which again is reminiscent of the films it is parodying. 117 also knows nothing about his surroundings claiming the Suez Canal is over 4,000 years old and confusing a woman for a Pharaohs’ niece. There are several layers to the comedy.

Dujardin is supported by a good cast which includes Aure Atika as an Egyptian Princess who finds 117 irresistible and begs him to make love to her in every scene which they share. The Artist’s Berenice Bejo is the second lead, playing the assistant of Jefferson but as so often with Bond Girl types, there is much more to her than that. She is fantastic and gorgeous and fast approaching Scarlett Johansson at the top of my ‘women I’d like to ‘meet’ list’. She is the real brains of the piece and often has to lead 117 through the clues. Bejo plays an Egyptian but looks more like a French Socialite and wears ball gowns rather than a Hijab. She looks nothing like a 1950s Egyptian woman but this fits with the early Bond pastiche in which actors were rarely from anywhere near their character’s supposed home country. The film’s baddies all look and play the part and one in particular; Richard Sammel looks like he has walked straight out of an SS Training Camp. He has also played Nazis in Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds and the brilliant Italian film Life is Beautiful as well as a henchman in Casino Royale so has a fitting resume.

The film contains all of the great sets, locations, costume, puns and action which make early Bond films so wonderful but adds to this a great sense of farce. The film laughs at both the ridiculousness of the genre as well as itself and contains numerous wonderful comic moments. It’s a great spy film and a great comedy. It is far superior to Austin Powers in comedy and look and without it we may not have had The Artist.      

9/10

Wanderlust

Before watching this film I couldn’t help feeling that Ross and Phoebe were going to be really pissed when they found out that Rachel and Mike had secretly got married and starred in a film together. Having seen the film, I think they’d probably be more pissed that they’d had to sit through 98 minutes of some of the most painfully awful cinema ever.

The film’s central characters are George (Paul Rudd)  a successful financial worker in New York and Linda (Jennifer Anniston), George’s wife, who has yet to discover her calling in life. At the start of the film the couple are seen in the midst of a decision about whether to carry on renting an apartment or to take the plunge and buy. They decide to buy only to discover the next day that George has lost his job and Linda has had her latest project, a film, turned down by HBO. So, with no income they decide to take up a job offer from George’s brother and move to Atlanta. This is the first of the film’s ridiculous plot holes. Answer this. If you were a successful New York City financial worker, on the verge of a promotion but then lost your job due to the company going bust would you A) Look for another job in the financial capital of the world? Or B) Move to Georgia and live in a commune full of hippies? Another question. If you had made a film but it was turned down by the first TV station you took it to would you A) Take it to another station? Or B) Say, ahh well, I gave it a go. Let’s bin this film I’ve made about the fucking South Pole and move to Georgia to live in a commune full of hippies? It is preposterous!

How I felt while watching. Bored and wishing I was crushing the life out of Anniston so she'd stop.

On their way to Atlanta, the couple get tired and find a B&B which happens to be full of the most ridiculous stereotype hippies I have ever seen. There is of course the naked wine maker, the Earth Mother who gets upset when a fly is swatted, the sexy free love girl, the long haired, bearded man who talks nonsense and plays guitar, not forgetting the old guy from the 70s in a wheel chair. It. Is. Unbelievable. It’s like the film makers just Googled hippy and thought, “Right we’ll have one of those, one of those…” The characters are such caricatures that they are unbearable to watch. Upon arriving it is George who wants to stay and set up their home at the commune but after a ridiculous montage suddenly this switches around and he wants to go back to New York but the previously apprehensive Linda discovers ‘herself’ and decides she wants to stay. This causes problems for the couple and the rest of the film portrays their attempts to fit in and live their lives.

Even before the couple leave New York it is already apparent that these two characters aren’t suited (and it’s not just because of their unshakable Friends incarnations). All the way through I was just thinking, “Piss off back to New York George and leave her there. What the hell are you doing there? You are a successful banker who has left New York to live in a fucking commune that you hate”. They don’t feel like a married couple at all so there is no emotion from the audience when their relationship takes a turn for the worse.

Look! A stick with orange peel on it! Ha! How quirky and funny.

The film is meant to be a comedy but they are really stretching the use of that word. I laughed twice; once when a child said something sarcastic and again when Paul Rudd was talking to himself in the mirror. The rest of the ‘jokes’ were just awful. There was a recurring joke about names which was irritating and most of the humour was meant to be coming from when the audience says “ha-ha! Look at those funny hippies. They are doing and saying things differently to me. That’s funny”. Well it really isn’t. It was just boring, cheap and dumb. In the half full cinema I counted only three laughs from the majority of the audience. It’s just not good enough. I don’t know how people can get away with making films this unfunny and still come out the other side with mixed reviews. The film has a 58% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I must have been watching a different film. I’m disappointed with myself for watching it. If people keep going to see this tripe, it will only encourage more of the same.

Jennifer Anniston is back to her usual self here. After a good performance in Horrible Bosses, she is back in Just Go With It territory. I know that she gets pigeon holed but I wish she’d just stop or say no. Surely she’s rich enough to say no or to seek out smaller, independent films so she can prove everyone wrong. Paul Rudd is the only actor who emerges with an ounce of credibility. The films best moments come when he is on screen alone but he is better than this. The supporting cast are made up of half recognizable faces but their characters are so desperately annoying that it was difficult to get past and think about the acting. I guess that most of the actors probably aren’t irritating, outlandish dick heads so maybe they were very good. Just when you think that the film can't get any worse, there is a cameo from an actor who has appeared in a title role in one of Martin Scorsese's greatest films. His appearance creates no laughs and just makes you say to yourself "What happened to you? You are in THIS film. For thirty seconds. Naked.." Its pitiful.

Wanderlust is a film that I wouldn’t want to subject on my worst enemies. It is 98 minutes of incredibly boring, ill defined drivel with barely any laughs and an ending which made me want to vomit.

2/10

Fright Night

Fright Night is a comedy horror which is neither funny nor scary. It is a remake of the 1985 film of the same name which I haven’t seen so cannot pass any judgement. The premise of the film is that central character Charley’s (Anton Yelchin) life is turned upside down when a vampire (Colin Farrell) moves in next door to the house which he shares with his mother (Toni Collette). Farrell’s vampire becomes hell bent on killing everyone Charley knows including his friend (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and girlfriend (Imogen Poots). It is up to Charley to save his friends and family and to save the day.

The film has a stylish look to it. Despite being set in the hot, bright desert (Las Vegas) the majority of the film seems to be set at dusk which gives a very eerie look to the proceedings. In the cinema, it was released in 3D but I watched it at home in 2D (as all films should be watched) and there were far too many pointless pointy things coming towards the screen. Maybe in 3D this would have looked good, though I doubt it. In regular 2D it was just annoying. Despite this the film did have a good horror look to it. It is a shame then that it wasn’t in the least bit frightening. There wasn’t even one moment where I was slightly worried or anxious. It fails miserably on the horror front. In terms of comedy, most of the comedic moments come from either Christopher ‘McLovin’ Mintz-Plasse or David ‘Dr Who’ Tennant but both of their roles are small and I felt could have been expanded. There were no real laughs to be had but the script did contain the odd witty line and was quite snappy and fresh sounding.

Colin Farrell was born to play a vampire. He gives off an air of dangerous sexuality to which the female characters (and my girlfriend) are drawn. He is very well cast and his accent holds up admirably. The rest of the cast were fine. Mintz-Plasse was excellent as I stated previously although he basically just recycled his McLovin character from Superbad. David Tennant has a good cameo, at first as a kind of Russell Brand impersonator but later as a character with depth and back story. He pulled it off well. Anton Yelchin is very good as the hero of the piece. He is turning into an actor to watch for the future. Imogen Poots had little to do to be honest but look pretty and scared and Toni Collette was agreeable, especially when flirting with Farrell’s character.

"You gotta' kill em' with a Crossy Woss"

The film could have been so much more had there been just a few more laughs or just some scary moments. There was potential for a very good film here with a strong cast and excellent central performance from Colin Farrell but in the end it turned into a bit of a damp squib. It isn't terrible but it is in now way good.

5/10

Troll Hunter

Released towards the end of 2011 in the UK, Norway’s Troll Hunter (Trailer Here) was one of the more pleasant surprises of the year for me. I originally came across the film on an impromptu visit to our local art house cinema and have since watched the Blu-Ray. I was blown away both times. The film uses the found footage formula which is often hit or miss but the mokumentary style works well within the confines of this story. The footage is shot by three university students who are investigating illegal bear poaching in Volda but stumble across Norway’s best kept secret - Norway is home to trolls and there is one single man whose job it is to keep the human population from discovering their existence.

Much of the film could be used as a tourist advert for Norway. The scenery is amongst the most beautiful in the world and provides an impressive backdrop to the darkly comic story. Just watching the film made me want to travel around Norway, visiting every mountain, lake and waterfall… That is, until the trolls make an appearance. The film features several different variations of trolls, from a three headed Tosserlad to smaller Mountain Kings and the 200 foot Jotnar. Each troll species has its own distinct look and personality and despite the odd dodgy bit of CGI are impressive and menacing. For the most part the CGI is very good given the budget.

One of the films best scenes

The film is packed full of great comedic lines, often delivered dead pan by a terrific cast of comedians and relatively unknown actors. The acting feels natural and the cast do a fine job of displaying first amusement then later fear, excitement and confusion. Otto Jespersen in the role of Hans the Troll Hunter is absolutely brilliant. He plays the role with an air of resentment towards the Government and you really get the sense that despite his respect for the trolls and dedication to his job he has had enough. In one scene he complains about receiving no extra pay for working nights which is hilarious given the nature of his job. A scene on a bridge featuring a metal suit and sheep had me in stitches.

The world which the film creates is full of very nice little details. For example, you may think that power cables are there to deliver electricity across the countryside but the film comes up with a genius alternative explanation. Other little details such as the Governments hilarious attempts to cover up troll activity using bears add to the world created by the film. Many of the films ideas come from troll fairy tails such as their aversion to light and attraction towards Christians. This second idea is used to comedic effect when one character asks if being Muslim will be a problem, to which the hunter replies “I have no idea, but we’ll find out”. The film is full of little ideas and bits of dialogue which help to make the film the stunning success that it is. The way the film is shot keeps the audience on their toes. There is a well balanaced mix between the students being in control of their film and total panic when they are confronted with the trolls. 

"Lets have a look in that dark, abandoned mine"

The film is quite unique, or at least it is at time of writing. As per usual a Hollywood remake is in the works so look forward to a US set film coming in the next couple of years which will more than likely take the heart and soul from this film and have trolls ransacking Los Angeles with Tom Cruise hot on their tails in a helicopter. *Sigh*

One great part of the film for me was the choice of music over the end credits. I was introduced to what is now one of my favourite current bands, Kvelertak. The use of their song Mjød works very well and it’s a great song. I advise anyone with a puncheon for Scandinavian death metal to check them out.

While not perfect, Troll Hunter is a fantastic monster movie which keeps both the genre and the found footage style fresh. It is full of funny lines, great action and suspense and creates a world which I’d be thrilled to visit again.

Moral of the story – Christianity = uhoh.

9/10

The Immigrant

Charlie Chaplin’s 1917 short film The Immigrant features Chaplin’s Tramp character aboard a ship to America and later penniless on a New York street before a final set piece in a restaurant. Along the way he meets Edna Purviance, also an immigrant, and the two strike up a relationship.

The film’s most enduring scene features The Tramp and other immigrants being herded like animals and cordoned off as they arrive in America. During this scene, Chaplin kicks an immigration officer, something which was later held against him when he was accused of Communism and anti-American sentiment during the McCarthy era.

The immigrants corralled by the authorities in an overtly political scene

Although only twenty minutes long, the film features some tremendous sight gags and stage direction and Chaplin’s Tramp is a fully formed character by this point in his career. The makeup is also fantastic. I am a big fan of the white face/dark eye makeup of early cinema. Another area where the film is superb is in its direction and cinematography. Despite being fairly new to moving pictures, Chaplin’s mastery of the camera is clear to see. This is especially so in a scene in set aboard the boat featuring the whole cast eating soup in which Chaplin slides across a slippery floor as the ship rocks from side to side. Suspense is built towards the end of the film when The Tramp after seeing a man beaten for being 10c short on his bill, realises he has lost his money. His attempts to find money and or escape while under the watchful eye of a burly waiter are comic genius.

On the downside some of the scenes on the ship are a bit stale. These were actually filmed later than the final scenes as the film was written and performed as and when Chaplin came up with the ideas. The card game was boring but it did allow Chaplin to give Purviance’s character his winnings, thus introducing himself to her. I unfortunately watched a 1946 print of the film which contained some very annoying sound effects associated with the era. By the 40s with silent films long out of fashion, many earlier silent films had annoying sound effects added to them to give them a more up to date feel. This almost ruined the film for me. Most of the effects appear to have been produced using kazoos and slide whistles and are unnecessary and irritating. I also have a feeling that the film was lacking its original score. It’s a good idea to try and source early films without added sound effects and with their original musical accompaniment.

For Chaplin fans, this film is a must watch, however if you only have a passing interest in him or the films of the era then perhaps you’d be better off searching out the kick scene on YouTube.The film can be watched for free on YouTube here.

7/10

Room in Rome

WARNING : Adult Content

Room in Rome is a Spanish (albeit with English dialogue) erotic/romantic drama starring Elena Anaya and Natasha Yarovenko. Anaya plays Alba who meets and seduces Natasha (Yarovenko) in a club in Rome and persuades her to accompany her back to her hotel room. Despite protesting that she is not gay, Natasha agrees. What follows is a whirlwind affair which takes place over the course of a single night, within the walls of Alba’s hotel room.

While at its heart the film has a very good romantic story, this takes a back seat because of the characters sex and the amount of sex within the film. Although loosely based on a Chilean film about a mixed sex couple, Room in Rome’s protagonists are both female and that brings a whole new audience to the film. I think people who wanted porn would feel disappointed and people who wanted a good romantic drama would feel equally as disappointed. The film unfortunately falls between the two. Both actresses spend almost the entire film naked. While I didn’t mind this on an aesthetic level (they are both incredibly beautiful) it is slightly off-putting. There are whole swathes of the film in which the characters have sex but while this is titillating to watch, the story itself suffers. The last third of the film deals with what will happen in the morning; will they go back to their separate lives? Could they be together? Do they want to? By the time it gets interesting you have already sat through 90 minutes of soft core lesbian porn interspersed with poignant romance by which time you have forgotten about the plot.

It isn't easy to find suitable photos of this film!

Much of the dialogue feels fake and forced. Both the actresses and the director are working in their second or third language and I think that being a Spanish film, it may have worked better in Spanish with the Russian character speaking Spanish. This wouldn’t be a stretch. As it is she speaks Russian, English and Italian during the film. Why not try Russian, Italian and Spanish? Both actresses are fine in their roles. They play the emotional scenes well and the sex scenes ‘convincingly’. If I had to pick then I’d say Anaya comes out on top (if you excuse the pun). Elena Anaya is an actress who I shall always be interested to see after she gave a wonderful performance in The Skin I Live In.

Although their relationship became interesting towards the end of the film, for the first two thirds the two women tell each other lie after lie in order to hide their true identities from one another and I found this very tiresome after a while. The film keeps the audience waiting too long to discover who the women really are, by which time they have lost interest.

An example of the beautiful cinematography

I really feel that the film would have been improved had it not contained so much explicit sex. While these scenes are great for showing the passion and heat between the two women, they detract from the story as a whole. The most intense scenes in the film aren’t those which are overtly sexual in tone. The film is at its best when the two are talking quietly, maybe stroking a thigh or back or looking into each others souls.

The ending is fairly ambiguous and for once I actually wished for a ‘Hollywood Ending’. I suppose this shows how invested in the love story I was and how well the film showed the passion and love between the characters.  It also has to be said that as well as the beautiful naked women, the film also has some beautiful cinematography but in the end the sex got in the way of the story.

6/10  

Beginners

Beginners is a wonderfully sweet and sad film from writer/director Mike Mills who is perhaps better known as a Graphic Designer and Music Video Director. His past comes across in a very pleasing way in Beginners, a film which doesn’t shy away from unusual ‘arty’ cinematography and surprising pop up images. The film follows the lives of Oliver (Ewan McGregor) and his father Hal (Christopher Plummer) mostly towards the end of Hal’s life and shortly after his death. After the death of his wife, Hal comes out as being gay at the age of 75 and wants to experience a lifetimes worth of homosexual activities in the short time he has left. Oliver is mostly supportive of his father but feels distanced from him as a result of their lack of time together in the past. There is also an undercurrent of animosity towards his father as a result of seeing his mother’s unhappiness throughout their marriage.

For the entirety of the film I either had a huge smile or sad look on my face. The film is full of emotion at both ends of the spectrum. There are some incredibly light and happy moments which often come with the interaction of Oliver and his dog or Oliver and a woman he meets, Anna (Melanie Laurent). Their love affair is filled with the same diametrically opposed emotion as the film itself. As is so often the case, this film features more laughs than most out and out comedies. There is subtle humour woven throughout and it boils over into full on laugh out loud moments on a number of occasions.

All three principle actors are superb. Melanie Laurent, in her first English language role is both frothy and seductive but has a deep lying cheerless existence while her accent is very appealing. Ewan McGregor is equally as good playing a depressed graphic artist. His American accent is also much better than his English accent! He shows emotional depth which I haven’t seen from him before. While the two aforementioned actors are both excellent, it has been Christopher Plummer who has drawn the most critical acclaim, winning both the BAFTA and Oscar awards for Best Supporting Actor. His performance is sublime. He manages to convey his excitement for his new life as well as the sadness that his life is coming to an end when it is only just beginning.

The film is full of hopeful optimism as well as gloomy sadness and is directed and acted wonderfully throughout. I thoroughly recommend it.

8/10

Rampart

I’d been looking forward to Rampart for some time after hearing rumours of an excellent performance from Woody ‘cooler than Sam Jackson in a fridge’ Harrelson but left the cinema feeling a little disappointed. Harrelson stars as Dave Brown, an LAPD Cop who is from a different era and gets embroiled in scandal after scandal. He is considered a dinosaur by colleagues and friends for the way he goes about his police work and has no qualms about placing evidence on suspects, beating them or even killing them. We follow Harrelson as his character spirals ever deeply into trouble with both his family and the police department through a series of ill judged moves.

I felt that the film was quite boring. Despite a fantastic central performance from Woody Harrelson I didn’t really care what happened to him and it was obvious from the outset that there would be no way back for him. The film looks great. I am a big fan of the kind of beauty in urban decay shots found here and in films such as Tyrannosaur, Coriolanus and Lebanon. You get the sense of a never ending battle that the police are facing in both the visuals of the film and the actions of its characters. But as I said, I felt bored and the film seemed much longer than it was.

Woody Harrelson is fantastic as the bent cop, Brown. He is from a different era, the last of the renegade cops who sees nothing wrong is doing anything he has to in order to clean up the streets. His self destructiveness shows no bounds and he goes out of his way to piss off and alienate those closest to him. This is especially so with the female characters such as his partner and ex wives. The supporting cast is all good. Sigourney Weaver and Ice Cube are excellent and could have done with a bit more to do. There is a brief cameo from the always excellent Steve Buscemi but Ben Foster is the standout in the supporting cast as he wonderfully portrays a down and out, homeless Vietnam Veteran. He is quite superb in his few scenes.

Both Harrelson and Foster excell

Overall this is a film with a great cast, equally good acting and there is an interesting story in there somewhere but it just doesn’t seem to take off. Some of the director’s camera work was off-putting and for the most part it was dull. It’s a shame as the story and cast involved should have produced a much better film. While it isn’t terrible, it isn’t particularly good either.

6/10

The Woman in Black

The Woman in Black stars Daniel Radcliffe in his first post Potter role as Arthur Kipps, a young widower solicitor who travels north from London to a remote village on the North East coast where he has been tasked with handling the estate of a recently deceased woman. When he gets there, Kipps finds the locals to be unfriendly and wary of him but he finds a friend in a local landowner Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds) and begins the process of going through the paperwork of the estate. It is not long however before Kipps gets caught up in paranormal goings on at the old, cut off house of the deceased.

I must admit that I have probably seen fewer horror films that any other genre, including to my shame romantic comedy. I am not a huge fan of the genre and don’t particularly enjoy being scared. This being said, I really liked The Woman in Black and thought that it was one of the scariest ghost-horrors I’ve seen. The films great strength for getting scares comes from its use of sound and reflection. As in all horrors, it’s what you don’t see which is scariest and the film makes good use of glimpses in mirrors, shadows and reflections. The sound and music heighten the tension and come to a crescendo in time with the audience’s gasps and leaps from their seats.

The fact that it is so scary had my wondering why the BBFC had rated it as a 12-A, especially given its lead actor’s previous work. I can imagine that there will be some parents who will see the 12-A certificate and Daniel ‘Potter’ Radcliffe and take their young children along. Had the film been a 15, this would be avoided. I’ve heard Radcliffe say in interviews that he strongly believes that no one under 12 should see the film but with the 12-A rating, it is more than likely that some will. My other age related problem comes with the casting of Radcliffe as a father of a four year old. I understand that families began younger in Edwardian times than they do today (not including Lancashire of course) but in part due to his past and his youthful looks, he just didn’t pull off the ‘adult’ character. I think that Radcliffe is showing promise as an actor though as he was much better in this than in the Potter films. I also think that his choice of project was wise.

The Woman in Black could be seen as a throwback in many ways to the horror films of the past. We have become used to the torture style Saw films and Paranormal Activity type of thing (90 minutes of suspense, BANG! Thanks that’ll be £8 please) and I’d much rather watch this type of horror to those aforementioned. The atmosphere is menacing, helped in a great way by the isolation and fantastic period sets. The story has an arc and a purpose rather than just being gruesome set piece followed by gruesome set piece. The story itself is interesting and the reason for the Woman’s existence, satisfying.

Overall this is a chilling horror that should have you reaching for loved ones (my girlfriend’s fingers still hurt) and jumping out of your seat and should be successful in scaring modern audiences who are more used to gore than chills.  

7/10

Tyrannosaur

Tyrannosaur is the fantastic debut film from actor Paddy Considine. The film focuses on the lives of two people who are bought together through their mutual loneliness and apathy towards life. Joseph (Peter Mullan (NEDS)) is an unemployed drunk, a violent man who is on a path to destruction. After killing his dog in a fit of rage he seeks shelter in a charity shop where he meets Hannah, (Olivia Coleman) a Christian charity worker for whom life seems good but as we learn more about her we discover that she is just as damaged as Joseph, if not more so.

This is not an easy film to watch. It is most definitely not a Friday night popcorn kind of movie. It features abuse, degradation and violence from the onset and that sets the tone for the rest of the film. Some scenes are very upsetting and difficult to watch. Despite the despair and humiliation on screen, the film looks very beautiful. The shots of council estates on cloudy days are stunning. Considine has found beauty in a place which is known for being ugly and grotty and that is a testament to him.

The acting is tremendous. There has already been a lot written about Olivia Coleman’s award snubs and having seen the film, I couldn’t agree more. I’d also put forward the case for Peter Mullan who is equally sublime here. Both actors are incredible throughout and that is what makes the film so great. I don’t know whether the film would have been so good had they not been involved. I really feel that it is a travesty that neither has been nominated for any major awards. This being said, both have won awards but it’s their lack of BAFTA and Oscar nominations that has surprised everybody, me included.  

This is a film which can hardly be described as enjoyable but is powerful and incredibly well acted.

8/10