Just a quick update today; get out the jelly and ice-cream, it's our 11th birthday! (or anniversary... I'm never sure which one it is)
We are The Watchers. We are three movie buffs on a mission to bring you real views on movies - no bull, no lies, just real gut instincts. We watch then we record as soon as we get out of the theatre!
The Watchers

Sunday, 29 January 2023
The Watchers Film Show Blog is 11 today!
Just a quick update today; get out the jelly and ice-cream, it's our 11th birthday! (or anniversary... I'm never sure which one it is)
Saturday, 29 January 2022
The Watchers Film Show Blog is 10 today!
- Revisiting A Classic: The Star Wars Saga (Episodes IV-VI)
- Revisiting A Classic: The Star Wars Saga (Episodes I-III)
- Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? (1962)
- Masters Of The Universe (1987)
- Alien (1979)
Sunday, 28 November 2021
The Watchers Film Show: 10th Anniversary Special!
Today (28th November 2021) marks a very special date for us; it's been ten years since The Watchers Film Show launched!
Friday, 29 January 2021
The Watchers Film Show Blog is 9 today!
Can you believe it? The Watchers Film Show Blog is 9 years old today!
I'll be honest, I'm never sure whether this is meant to be a birthday or an anniversary, but either way, it's a time for celebration.
Whilst the show itself started in November 2011, we decided to branch out into blogging after a few months of recordings (which means that in November of this year, we'll have been at this mad little enterprise for a decade!)
When we started the Blog, the MCU was still in Phase 1 and about ready to drop The Avengers; the DCEU was a few years off, whilst the news that Star Wars Episodes VII-IX were going to be made was still just a fever-dream in the minds of fans... there are those that argue it perhaps should have stayed that way, but we couldn't possibly comment...
We were anxiously awaiting a new Daniel Craig Bond film (now, that feels familiar...) and we were knee-deep in awards season (that also feels familiar).
Sunday, 10 January 2021
Review: Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (UK Cert 15)
1927. On a sweltering hot Chicago day, renowned blues singer Ma Rainey attends a recording session for a new album. There are tensions between members of the band- with young trumpeter Levee, eager for his own record deal, clashing with established older members Toledo and Cutler- which escalate further when Ma arrives an hour late and begins her demands.
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is the second piece in playwright August Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle [also known as the Century Cycle] which looked at the Black experience throughout the twentieth century (with each play set in a different decade). Another of the Pittsburgh Cycle plays, Fences, was filmed in 2016, directed by Denzel Washington. Washington acts as producer here, as part of an arrangement to bring Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle to the big screen. Direction duties are taken by George C. Wolfe (Nights In Rodanthe), with the script adapted from Wilson's source material by Ruben Santiago-Hudson.
Frankly, Viola Davis could read a takeaway menu and make it engrossing. Here, she's utterly superb as the rambunctious, take-no-prisoners Ma. Despite limited screen-time (27 minutes of a 94 minute film), she looms large over proceedings. There's a short, but very powerful scene, right at the beginning when Ma arrives at the studio and her car is damaged; immediately, she is out of the vehicle and starts to remonstrate with a white policeman. The cop's reaction is telling: he's never had a Black person, let alone a Black woman, speak to him in such a way before. What's also interesting is Ma has a girlfriend, Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige), but that's never made an issue of or seen to be something controversial or wrong. Ultimately, Ma knows her worth- she knows the white producers see her voice only- but she'll be damned if she doesn't get the respect she's due. In a career of fascinating performances, this stands high as one of Davis' very best.
As with Fences, the ensemble cast all meet the high standards laid down by the leads. Colman Domingo, Michael Potts, and Glynn Turman are just superb as the old-timers in the band, laughing at Levee's naivete and wanting to get the session done to get paid and go. There's such an authentic camaraderie between the men; you can believe them as an established group. Jeremy Shamos and Jonny Coyne play Ma's manager Irvin and studio owner Sturdyvant, at odds with how to deal with Ma: Irvin knows that you catch more flies with honey when it comes to Ma, whilst for Sturdyvant, time is money. Rounding out the cast are Paige as Dussie Mae- a sensuous and flirty performance- and Dusan Brown as Ma's nephew Sylvester whose stutter causes issues with the recording of the titular "Black Bottom".
Brandford Marsalis' incidental music and arrangements of 1920s blues songs is absolutely sublime, as are the fantastic costumes by Ann Roth, whose attention to detail- from Ma's OTT dresses to Levee's yellow shoes- is unparalleled. Wolfe doesn't pull many directorial tricks, allowing the script to do the talking, and focuses on the action in an unobtrusive way.
Ultimately, as with Fences, this feels like watching a theatre broadcast rather than a film. That said, it certainly doesn't take away from the raw power of the performances. Expect to see this getting some major awards love in the upcoming months.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Tez
Thursday, 24 September 2020
The Watchers Film Show: Bottom 100 IMDb Movies
Our latest podcast is now available!
Wednesday, 24 June 2020
The Watchers Film Show: Lockdown Special 5
Saturday, 23 May 2020
The Watchers Film Show: Lockdown Special 3
Thursday, 7 May 2020
The Watchers Film Show: Lockdown Special 2
Thursday, 30 April 2020
The Watchers Film Show: Lockdown Special 1
Wednesday, 29 January 2020
The Watchers Film Show Blog is 8 today!
Thursday, 31 October 2019
Review: Midsommar (UK Cert 18)
Ari Aster's second film (after the gutwrenching Hereditary) ventures into Wicker Man territory with a nasty but guiltily pleasurable folk horror.
Dani (Florence Pugh) and Christian's (Jack Reynor) relationship is foundering, but- just as Christian gets the nerve to end it- Dani suffers a horrific family tragedy. Lost and grieving, Dani goes with Christian and two of his friends- Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter)- to Sweden, along with their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) for his home village's once-in-a-lifetime midsummer festival. But what should be a summer of fun soon descends into a nightmare as the festivities reveal a darker motive...
This isn't a traditional horror movie. There are several shocking moments of gore and intense violence, but if you're looking for a more jump-scary film, this might not be for you. The film is also slow, deliberate, and takes a long time to get going (which sounds like a criticism, but it isn't). We spend a long time with the characters before they get transplanted into Sweden, which is good- it establishes the characters effectively so, when they do get to Pelle's village and things really start to kick off, the audience has got a sense of who they are and- more crucially- what they may do.
Florence Pugh's performance is visceral, authentic, and intense. She bears the emotional heavy lifting of the piece, if you will, and is utterly compelling. As tragedy piles on tragedy, she is undoubtedly the one character you're meant to root for and her emotional arc (whilst somewhat predictable) is still satisfying. By the utterly batshit bonkers finale (which again, sounds like a criticism but isn't), Dani isn't the same girl who entered the village at the start and you can't help but have a little twinge of pleasure seeing her change. I believe the word I'm looking for is schadenfreude...
Christian could easily have just come across as an unfeeling douchebag, so it's to Reynor's credit that the character isn't just an absolute tool (which could easily have been the case). True, he's emotionally distant and there are times you wonder how the hell this relationship ever got as far as it did (it's telling that there's no scenes of intimacy between the two; not even a kiss). But in a hamfisted and desultory way, he's trying to be there for Dani. It's just not enough. Again, there's a perverse kind of pleasure seeing what happens to Christian: even if it does involve one of the most bizarre and- frankly- unerotic sex scenes I've seen in a while.
Will Poulter plays Mark as an abrasive asshole who totally disrespects the village, and does it well; such is the performance that you're just waiting for Mark to get his comeuppance (which, of course, does come). If you're used to seeing William Jackson Harper as the nervy Chidi in the frankly brilliant The Good Place, you'll see a different side to him here: Josh is much more laidback, although even he can't resist crossing some lines (for which he duly pays the price). Blomgren's nice-guy Pelle is a lovely contrast to the Americans and never comes off as creepy or deranged. He also seems to genuinely care for Dani, although there's never a hint of impropriety. Whilst the outsiders see barbarity in the festival, he sees it as natural, what they do. There's also some strong performances by Henrik Norlén and Gunnel Fred as village elders Ulf and Siv, who lead the festivities.
The cinematography by Pawel Pogorzelski is sublime. The village and its environs look beautiful and it's interesting to have events that (in traditional horror) would take place in dark places out in the bright sunshine. The script also does something that I like; when the villagers are speaking Swedish to one another, it's not subtitled. We, like the outside characters, are left to intuit what's being said.
I think I've said more than once on the blog that The Wicker Man (1973) is one of my favourite films, and there's a definite vibe of that film in Midsommar. Outsiders to an otherwise insular community who have their own ways of doing things which seem unusual to those not from there, charismatic leaders, seductive maidens, and a striking ending where things go up in flames... but Midsommar has a style of its own and isn't just a pale rip-off of a superior film. Yes, there are moments where the plot gets predictable but that doesn't really matter as the performances carry those moments.
A cerebral and visceral horror film, perfect for Halloween.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Tez
Wednesday, 9 October 2019
Review: Joker (UK Cert 15)
SPOILER WARNING! This review discusses and/or mentions a few important plot points. If you would prefer not to have these spoiled, please stop reading now and come back once you've seen the film.
Afflicted with a condition which causes sudden and uncontrollable laughter, Arthur Fleck makes his living as a clown, although he aspires to be a stand-up comedian. However, when he is sacked from his job then gets into an altercation with three Wall Street douchebags on the subway, Arthur begins a spiral to becoming... the Joker.
This film was always going to be a tough sell for me. As I've said in previous reviews, I'm not a massive fan of Joaquin Phoenix so the film already had that going against it. Also, I was wary about any kind of origin story for the character, as the Joker always works better as an enigma, an agent of chaos and anarchy, rather than there being a man with a past behind it (the obvious exception to that is The Killing Joke, but even that's not definitive). So, the film had a bit of an uphill climb before it even started. But I suppose director and co-writer Todd Phillips (The Hangover, Due Date) and co-writer Scott Silver should be congratulated. They've done something I never thought possible: they've made the Joker dull.
I'll give Phoenix this: his performance as Arthur/Joker is certainly committed. Losing over 50lbs, his body looks ravaged, angular, and frankly unwell. It's a physical transformation up there with Christian Bale's in The Machinist, and it does make for a striking visual image. But the script is bland, tedious, self-important, and over-reliant on Phoenix's tics and tricks which (had they been used sparingly) would have been more effective. Take the laughter, for instance. The first time you hear it, it's unnerving. Not so much, the fifth or sixth. It loses its impact quickly. Similarly with all the dancing; the first time it happens, it's quite striking (although goes on too long). But that is used and overused to the point of absurdity.
Arthur/Joker describes himself as a "mentally ill loner" but the illness is never specified, and frankly the screenwriters are playing a dangerous game tying mental illness to villainy. Jesus, as if it needs saying, but not everyone with a mental illness is an unhinged obsessive with a streak of sadistic violence lurking just under the surface. See? You've made me go all 'Not all men...' on this issue, Phillips! Similarly, the script goes for the most low-hanging fruit to give some kind of explanation for Arthur's mindset (child abuse), which is frankly insulting. At least they (sort of) undo the 'Arthur-is-Thomas-Wayne's-illegitimate-son' angle which had more than one audience member scoffing with derision (although there's still a maddening hint at the end that it could still be true) and they don't pull a Batman (1989) with having Arthur as the Waynes' killer which looked glaringly like the case at one point.
The main problem I have is that Arthur never feels like the Joker. If you look back at other versions of the character (specifically Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson), there's a tension, a menace, every time they're on the screen. At any moment, they could erupt into an act of hideous violence then continue as if nothing had happened. That danger makes them enthralling. Not once, never once, did I feel that about Phoenix. There was a hint of it in the final scene when he gets on to Murray Franklin's chat-show, but by that point it was too little too late. Phoenix does a better job at the character than Jared Leto did in Suicide Squad, but if that isn't damning him with faint praise, I don't know what is.
In the press interviews for Joker, one of the main influences that has been talked about a lot is late 70s/early 80s Scorsese, specifically Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and The King Of Comedy. So it's no surprise that Robert De Niro turns up to try and give the film a bit of legitimacy by having him as talk-show host Murray Franklin who initially mocks Arthur (and even gives him the name 'Joker', although not as a compliment). It's a solid turn by De Niro, but the role of Murray Franklin could have been played by literally any other actor.
Zazie Beetz (Deadpool 2) gets massively underused as Sophie, a nascent love interest for Arthur, but there's a clue from the off that things aren't quite right; when Sophie goes to Arthur's door to ask whether he had been following her to work (because nothing says romance like stalking, am I right?), she decides to forgive him this massively creepy behaviour because he's 'funny'. Frances Conroy- another great character actress- is wasted as Arthur's overbearing mother Penny, although she does get one or two good lines, especially one where she asks Arthur 'don't you have to be funny?' to do stand-up.
The film isn't a complete let-down: there were some bits I liked. The scene where you see why Arthur gets fired (for bringing a gun to a performance at a children's hospital) is well done. I liked Brett Cullen's unexpectedly hard-man turn as Thomas Wayne; Thomas always seems to be presented as a kind of wimpy milquetoast, but here he's got some guts. The Modern Times sequence (where Arthur infiltrates a gala showing of the Chaplin film then confronts Thomas in the men's room) is strong. Plus the sequence towards the end, where he's driven through the rioting streets of Gotham, surveying the madness that he's wrought, is pretty effective. It's just a shame that the 'Kill The Rich'/us-v-them/destroy the 1% now feels a bit like going over old ground; had the film been released a few years ago, say around the time of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it might have felt a bit more relevant.
All said, Joker was a letdown. A few interesting moment shine through amidst the self-indulgent claptrap but they're few and far between. There was no real need for this film to be made at all, and even less need for a sequel. Let this end here. For the love of God, please.
Rating: 2 out of 5
Tez
Sunday, 3 February 2019
The Watchers Film Show Podcast: January 2019
Starting with January 2019, we will be doing (at least) one podcast a month to talk about our recent geeky experiences, including film, TV, books, and anything else that takes our fancy.
We discuss some recent news in the film world and give our opinions on Mary Poppins Returns, Stan & Ollie, The Favourite, Bird Box, Glass, and Can You Ever Forgive Me?
We also have a chat about recent TV we've watched too: The Good Place, The Blacklist and The Haunting Of Hill House all get a mention, as does a Welsh-language drama with a surprising Watchers connection. Intrigued? Listen to find out more!
Tuesday, 29 January 2019
The Watchers Film Show Blog is 7 today!
Monday, 29 January 2018
The Watchers Film Show Blog is 6 today!
Wednesday, 17 January 2018
Review: All The Money In The World (UK Cert 15)
In 1973, John Paul Getty III- grandson of oil tycoon and richest man in the world J. Paul Getty- was kidnapped in Italy, and a ransom demand for $17 million was issued. Just one problem: Getty refused to pay a penny. Paul's mother Gail and one of Getty's negotiators, Fletcher Chase, travelled to Italy to try and negotiate Paul's release without the old man's help. This unbelievable real-life story is the basis for All The Money In The World, directed by Ridley Scott.
I want to start this review by addressing the elephant in the room. It's no secret that the film underwent extensive reshoots a month before its release, recasting the role of J. Paul Getty after the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct made against Kevin Spacey. Christopher Plummer (Scott's original choice for the role of Getty) was brought in to replace him, and there were nine days of reshoots in November 2017 to re-film the twenty-two scenes Getty appears in.
To say that Christopher Plummer is an adequate replacement would be to do the gentleman a great disservice; Plummer steals the show. He is absolutely brilliant as Getty. He pulls off a weird balancing act: his Getty is weirdly effusive, welcoming his family in and having a strong relationship with Paul when he was younger; yet, he's also emotionally distant, caring more about the acquisition of wealth (in one particularly callous scene, Getty blithely spends $1.5million on a painting whilst Paul is at the point of being mutilated by his captors). It's a fascinating performance- Getty never comes across as miserly (despite washing his own underwear) or greedy, but he's still as much of a villain as the kidnappers. While we will probably never see Spacey's take on the character- Scott has said that Spacey's footage won't be officially released- this is still a truly remarkable performance.
But Plummer's is not the only superb turn in the film; Michelle Williams is equally strong as Paul's mother Gail. A Getty by marriage only- and divorced from Paul's father- she is thrown into a nightmarish world yet remains steadfast and determined to get her son back. Gail is no wilting wallflower, no passive hand-wringing damsel in distress- she's assertive and can play the game when she needs to; when an Italian newspaper receives a gruesome package pertaining to Paul's kidnapping, she cannily agrees to them publishing full details- so long as she can be paid in newspapers (one thousand copies are subsequently delivered to Getty's English country estate, to shame him into action). It's an assured performance and- in an awards season full of fascinating, complex female characters- is a particular highlight.
Mark Wahlberg is pretty decent as Fletcher Chase, although he's not given an awful lot of character. He's a negotiator, he's been divorced multiple times and... that's really all we know. He gets a particularly strong scene towards the end where Chase- exasperated by Getty's intransigence- lays into the old man. Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) is good as Paul; he's not a loud, bratty, entitled kid, he's a gentle, almost timid person. There are several tough scenes where Paul really goes through the wringer and you really feel for him. There's also a strong performance by Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of Paul's kidnappers (who is sympathetic to the boy and tries to help him out).
This is a sumptuous, good-looking film. Dariusz Wolski's cinematography is particularly good; the opening shot as Paul wanders through Rome before the abduction is beautifully done; scenes at Getty's English estate are opulent, all wood panelling and classical art. There are several standout sequences- the police raid on the compound is thrilling, and the final sequence involving Paul, Gail, Fletcher, the police and the kidnappers all running round the narrow, misty streets of a small Italian town is similarly pulse-racing.
I do wonder how many people will go and see All The Money In The World just because of the Spacey controversy. I certainly can't imagine the decision to recast and reshoot so close to release was taken lightly, and- given such a tight turnaround- the entire crew is to be commended for getting everything shot and edited and ready in time. To be honest, it doesn't really matter why you're going to see the film. It's an intriguing story that's incredibly well told.
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Tez
Tuesday, 16 January 2018
Review: Molly's Game (UK Cert 15)
Molly Bloom has had an extraordinary life- she was an Olympic-standard skiier who was accepted to law school, and- whilst working in an office- she got introduced to the world of high-stakes poker. She eventually ran exclusive poker games in Los Angeles and New York, before being arrested by the FBI. All this happened by the age of 35. Now, the story of this extraordinary life has been made into a film, starring Jessica Chastain as Molly.
I think that it's only a matter of time before Jessica Chastain gets an Oscar. She's a fantastic actress and she really gets under the skin of this fascinating, flawed character here. Fiercely determined to be the best at whatever she does, Molly takes the opportunity to learn all she can whilst arranging the poker nights for her entitled arsehole of a boss and when she finally usurps him and takes over the game herself- in a real punch-the-air moment, after he jealously fires her- she uses her charisma and contacts to elevate the game from a scuzzy backroom in a Hollywood bar to suites at the most exclusive hotels. How the wheels come off the business and she ends up indicted by the FBI is told in flashback as she prepares to stand trial. It's a truly powerful performance by Chastain who- even when Molly is at her lowest ebb- stands tall.
Idris Elba is great as lawyer Charles Jaffey, who initially seeks to represent Molly at the arraignment hearing only but ends up taking her case (in a witty yet powerful sequence where he asks her bodyguard to switch places several times so he can get some answers). Jaffey is a principled man, eager to untie the knots around the case, and his exchanges with Molly really spark. He also gets an absolutely barnstorming speech towards the end of the film where he rips into the prosecuting attorneys on Molly's behalf.
Other great performances come from Jeremy Strong as Molly's former boss who introduces her to the world of poker and gives a performance of deliciously entitled arrogance, and there's an intriguing cameo from Michael Cera who plays a slimy Hollywood star known as 'Player X' (widely thought to be based on Tobey Maguire). It's Player X's mocking phonecall after he selfishly dismantles Molly's Los Angeles game that inspires her move to New York, where her downfall begins.
Molly's Game is the directorial debut of Aaron Sorkin (writer of The Social Network and Steve Jobs, and who also writes the screenplay here). The film is very stylish and stylised; there's a lot of on-screen visuals added to help with Molly's explanations of things (in the opening skiing section, for instance, or in one particularly important hand of poker). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if- like me- you're not massively au fait with poker. To be honest, you don't really need to be: anything important is explained (such as any of the terminology used).
The script is tight, full of the usual Sorkin whipsmart rat-a-tat exchanges. It falls down in a couple of places- I had a nagging feeling towards the end that the film tries to pin Molly's actions (albeit subconsciously) down to 'daddy issues'. Molly has a fractious and combative relationship with her authoritarian psychologist father (a strong supporting performance by Kevin Costner) but the final confrontation between the two- where Molly has 'three years of therapy in three minutes' just before she has decide whether she's pleading guilty or not- felt to me like an attempt to wrap things up nicely. Despite this, both Costner and Chastain knock it out of the park with emotionally authentic performances. There's also a heavy reliance on Molly's voiceover to discuss people or scenes which sometimes feels a little laboured. Show, don't tell is the cardinal rule. The film is also long- at nearly two and a half hours- but no part feels like padding.
That said, these niggles weren't enough to derail my enjoyment of and enthusiasm for the film. Take a seat at Molly's game; you won't regret it.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Tez
Saturday, 4 November 2017
Review: Happy Death Day (UK Cert 15
The elevator pitch for Happy Death Day- written by Scott Lobdell (Man Of The House) and directed by Christopher Landon (Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones, Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse)- would be Scream meets Groundhog Day (and, yes, the Groundhog Day reference is made but thankfully right at the very end of the film).
Sorority sister Teresa 'Tree' Gelbman (Jessica Rothe) wakes up in the dorm room of gawky but cute student Carter (Israel Broussard). It's Monday 18th, Tree's birthday, a day she doesn't like. She leaves Carter's room, gets back to her sorority house, sees her roommate, is late to class, then gets ready for a party but- on her way there- she's attacked by an unknown assailant is a very creepy baby mask and stabbed to death. She wakes up again in Carter's room. The day has reset. The same scenarios play out again. With Carter's help, Tree has to discover who wants her dead.
For a teen slasher flick, it's high concept. Cannily, they don't stick to the same death every time, which leads to some inventive offings for the hapless Tree. The jump-scares are present and correct and the tension in several scenes (notably the first murder) is pretty good. And the baby mask is kinda freaky. What's also good is that there's character development- literally. As each Monday 18th passes, Tree gets to examine her life and her personality and makes changes to be a better person. Her relationship with Carter is sweet and develops nicely- although Tree remembers every Monday 18th, Carter (and anyone else she meets) doesn't.
Rothe carries the lead role with aplomb- starting out as an obnoxious bitch who you can imaging several people wanting dead, she gets some great one-liners and a real character arc which is interesting. Broussard is an engaging co-lead as Carter, helping Tree out in her quest to discover the truth. There's a wonderfully catty supporting turn from Rachel Matthews as sorority president Danielle, a proper mean girl who out-Regina Georges Regina George. Ruby Modine is also good as Tree's roommate Lori, who has made Tree a cupcake (despite Tree's antipathy towards the whole birthday thing). Charles Aitken rounds the main cast off with a suitably sinister turn as Dr. Gregory Butler, Tree's teacher who may or may not be the man behind the mask.
That said, the film's not perfect. My main complaint is that the killer's motivation is pretty lame when you consider it, which- after such a good build-up- is a let-down. But what comes before it is a delicious slice of black comedy spiced up with a few good jumpscares. Definitely worth watching if you like your horror with an interesting twist.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Tez
Friday, 3 November 2017
Review: The Killing Of A Sacred Deer (UK Cert 15)
SPOILER WARNING! This review discusses and/or mentions a few important plot points. If you would prefer not to have these spoiled, please stop reading now and come back once you've seen the film.
Dr. Stephen Murphy (Colin Farrell) is a successful cardiologist with a beautiful wife called Anna (Nicole Kidman) and two beautiful children called Kim and Bob (Raffey Cassidy and Sunny Suljic), a beautiful house and- as we keep being told- beautiful hands. He also has a secret: he's been spending time with Martin (Barry Keoghan), a strange teenager who has a link to Stephen's past. When Martin starts to impose his way further and further into Stephen's life, Stephen is forced into a terrible decision.
I sometimes wonder whether I've seen the same film as other people, especially if it's been praised immensely highly. Here are some of the superlatives that have been given to The Killing Of A Sacred Deer: 'intense, powerful and unsettling', 'venomously funny', 'truly staggering', 'Colin Farrell is perfect', 'one of the finest performance of Nicole Kidman's career'. These are on the poster to advertise the film and some of them are from reputable newspapers. I tend to ignore reviews (because ultimately it's all subjective) but, if I'd been swayed by any of these comments to sit through this tremendous load of old crap, I'd be feeling massively shortchanged.
Let me unpack some of these statements. 'Intense, powerful and unsettling' (two out of three ain't bad; definitely intense and definitely unsettling- all the characters seem damaged or messed-up in one way or another); 'venomously funny' (I don't think I laughed once); 'truly staggering' (yes, it is staggering; staggering that this film is getting such fulsome praise); 'Colin Farrell is perfect' (he really isn't); 'one of the finest performance of Nicole Kidman's career' (it really isn't; she was better in Batman Forever).
I don't know what irked me more: the fact that everyone seems to speak in a fairly even, dull monotone even in moments where you think they'd be showing some emotion (only twice do either Stephen or Anna break down under the strain of the situation), the incredibly discordant and shoddy sound mixing- where portentous tones suddenly blare over scenes- which actually gave me a headache, or the crashingly implausible moves that Stephen makes as the story becomes more and more ludicrous.
I'm going to get spoilery now because there's no other way to demonstrate exactly how ridiculous I found this film. Aboiut halfway through the film, Bob starts to get ill. At the hospital, Martin tells Stephen he has to kill either Anna, Kim, or Bob to balance the scales from Stephen killing Martin's father in surgery years ago otherwise all three of them will die of a mystery illness that first paralyses theim, makes them stop eating and then bleed from the eyes before they die. The next shot sees Martin being escorted from the hospital by security. At no point do they ever consider calling the police. There's also no explanation of how Martin has made the children ill (because Kim soon succumbs to the paralysis); all medical tests come back negative. It's utterly ridiculous to think that anyone with a scintilla of common sense would go along with the lunatic plan rather than call the teenage psycho out.
Frankly this decrepit piece of horseshit has already stolen two hours of my life, and I'm loathe to give it any more of my time. There's an interesting idea buried amongst the pretention but writer-director Yorgos Lanthimos doesn't utilise it. A major disappointment.
Rating: 1 out of 5
Tez