New to Netflix is Love. Wedding. Repeat. The world right now is a challenging place with so many of us under lockdown restrictions, during these times sometimes what you want from a film is light escapism.. sadly what I got with this was something that made the difficulties of lockdown seem like the humourous escape!

Let’s get this out of the way, I really did not like this, that’s not necessarily the films fault as this type of story are not for me, I’m not a huge fan of “farce” type comedy which normally compromise of a bunch of annoying characters who are unable to make simple choices that would easily avert the next “humourous” mishap, leading to an increasingly unbelievable and frustrating scenario.

This one aims to tell a story about how love and relationships are a random set of circumstances that you either grab or you don’t. Focussed on the wedding of Hayley to her Italian love Roberto, the story centres around Hayley’s brother Jack and a paper thin premise of an unwanted wedding guest and an attempt to stop him spoiling the wedding. Alongside this we see Jack’s bumbling attempts to grab a second chance with a previous brief encounter.

The story is familiar and one that Richard Curtis has made a dozen times before, just better. The premise here never really holds, Sam Claflin’s Jack is a pale Hugh Grant imitation with all of the annoying dithering and inability to avert the ensuing disaster with a couple of simple decisions and the basic sense to explain the circumstances of his odd behaviour to the focus of his attentions.

Although only 100 minutes long it felt about 3 1/2 hours as this charmless story with very limited laughs unfolded. There are a couple of bright spots, a humourous narration (that sounded very much like an uncredited Dame Judi Dench) and a couple of nice performances from Joel Fry and Aisling Bea, but beyond that it is a bit of a turgid mess.

These films done well can be a pleasure, but done badly they are nothing more than unfunny, frustrating nonsense and Love. Wedding. Repeat. Was certainly in the latter camp, self isolation is tough enough, it doesn’t deserve this.

Currently showing on Amazon Prime (UK) is The Aeronauts, a based on true events film looking at 19th century scientific discovery.

It tells a story based loosely on that of James Glaisher, a meteorologist who broke the world altitude record to study weather in the upper atmosphere in a balloon piloted by fictional chatacter Amelia Wren, a composite of a number of outstanding female 19th century aeronauts, perhaps most closely tied to real life character Sophie Blanchard.

It is possibly the telling of this partly true, partly fictional story that is at the heart of the problems I had with this film. While at its centre is two watchable and talented actors in Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones the whole thing never quite seems to click.

The characters feel paper thin, never quite developing a back story strong enough to explain why they would take on such an incredibly dangerous adventure and with that there never feels enough jeopardy to the tale from which ultimately unfolds a story I didn’t really care about.

There is a nicely told sub plot with Tom Courtney playing Glaisher’s father in a beautifully judged performance but it is only fleeting.

While I could see that on the big screen some of the effects and set pieces could have looked fantastic again they never really carry the weight or pull you in the way you’d expect at home.

In the end it was a film that never really engaged me enough to care about the characters the adventure or its outcome which is a pity as it had the potential to be a spectacular adventure but it never really hits the heights, which is ironic!

I’ve reviewed a few films I’ve caught up on recently but here’s something new, Impractical Jokers:The Movie which dropped onto video on-demand services last week.

This is a big screen adaptation of the successful TV show, for those who aren’t familiar, the show is a modern candid camera where four lifelong friends create hidden camera challenges for each other competing to avoid the end of show forfeit, a simple format and for those who enjoy it one that works well.

Always two questions with these kind of adaptations, does stretching the 30 minute format into 90 work? Would people who’ve never seen the show find it funny?

The answers for me are just about and I don’t really think so. Taking the second part first, Jokers is an unapologetic film for fans of the show and that’s fine, it doesn’t take time setting up the concept or explaining it to the uninitiated, but with that in mind I’m not sure this will appeal to new audience.

Secondly does it stretch to 90 minutes? Just about, although I did get the feeling that the movie lost the courage of its convictions half way through, it started with a nice setup a look back at the four portraying their younger selves having a run in with Paula Abdul which leads, in a roundabout way, to a roadtrip to Miami, which in itself acts as a device to shoehorn in some Jokers sketches.

The setup is fine but it feels as though they ran out of story ideas as the film progresses ending up with more Joker games than film. The problem with relying on that, is what works so well on TV is the games include an unexpectung public and it doesn’t quite transfer to the big screen as it’s never clear if these are all actors and scripted stunts or members of the public.

As a fan of the show I found plenty of laughs and it could’ve been much worse, but as an idea it was stretched pretty much to breaking point and to non jokers fans, not sure it would’ve worked well enough.

There were snippets of a fun story in there and its a pity they didn’t take the punt on it and instead fell back into more familiar territory which they just about get away with.

Another on my list of “wanted to watch” is Mrs. Lowry and Son and I’m glad I finally caught up with it.

I was quite surprised to see some sniffy reviews on, what for me, was a brilliantly delivered two hander, based on a BBC radio play it focusses on a small portion of the life of L.S. Lowry just before he finds wider fame and especially the relationship with his bed ridden elderly mother.

The charm about Lowry’s art is its simplicity, trying to show beauty in the grim reality of life in early 20th century northern England mill towns and for me this is captured perfectly in this film, set almost entirely in Elizabeth Lowry’s bedroom and is a wonderful example of two talented actors Vanessa Redgrave’s Elizabeth and Timothy Spall’s L.S. Lowry, captivating an audience for 90 minutes, with limited material and environment to work with.

What we get is an exploration of two people trapped by circumstance but seeing it as very different the mother seeing it as a miserable failure, a son looking to capture the beauty in his grim reality.

It is engaging, warm and humorous and while it never explores much beyond Mother Lowry’s bedroom and the life that exists within it, in the hands of two excellent performers it captivated me from start to finish.

I had a lovely 90 minutes finding joy in this films simplicity.

I’ve been looking forward to seeing Barry Jenkins follow up to the fabulous Moonlight for quite a while and finally did this weekend.

In reality I wanted to like this film much more than I did and while there were things to enjoy it was problematic in other areas.

Based on the novel by James Baldwin Beale Street tells the story of Tish and Fonnie a young couple who we meet with Fonnie in prison and Tish expecting their first child.

The story bounces around their lives, following their love story, the challenges of societal racism and how persecution leads ultimately to Fonnies’s incarceration, taking its time to explore the complexity and challenges that their lives present.

It is that pacing that for me was a problem, the film moves very slowly and feels as though it takes many an unnecessary detour and whilst some of those detours are pleasures in themselves they don’t really move the story a long.

That is a real pity, because at the heart of the film is a beautiful love story and Kiki Laynes and Stephen James play it brilliantly with superbly balanced, subtle performances and the film is at its best when focussed on their relationship.

Sadly though outside of that the film feels as though it to often drags and drifts from the main story telling and don’t get me wrong I don’t mind a film that meanders and is patient but for me Beale Street overstepped the boundary.

As I said I wanted to enjoy this more than I did and can easily see why those who speak highly of it do, but for me a film that could’ve been a charming love story missed the mark and felt an overly long missed opportunity.

Another in a growing collection of Netflix’s critically acclaimed films The Two Popes give us not one but two oscar nominated performances.

Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce star as Pope emeritus Benedict and current Pope, Francis, in a fictional account of a meeting between the two men in Rome ahead of Benedict’s decision to resign, the first Pope to do so in nearly 800 years.

What has the potential to be a dry piece of modern history is anything but and is more a portrayal of two men both racked with doubts, regrets and questions of self worth, what it gives us is a surprisingly humorous, warm story which is at its best during the scenes between the two, often sparky, often humorous, often warm and tender.

The film occasionally drifts in the final act as it looks back at Bergoglios regrets during his early life in Argentina, however it’s an important part of the story, but does take us away from the more engaging world of Hopkins and Pryce.

It is a really enjoyably told story, built around two fantastic central performances, it’s not really a story about them as religious figures, but about the development of a warm friendship and it’s a pleasure to spend time with them as it develops.

Catching up on films I didn’t see at the cinema carries on and looks like it will do for sometime to come. Next up is “Can you ever forgive me?” Marielle Heller’s take on the true life story of Lee Israel a frustrated writer who finds a career forging letters of famous literary figures.

Melissa McCarthy and Richard E. Grant turn in oscar nominated performances as Israel and her friend and accomplice Jack Hock.

It’s a fascinating story and McCarthy, better known for her comedy roles, shows she has much more to her, turning in a fantastic performance as the shy, frustrated, lonely Israel, a women who struggles to develop any kind of relationship and is hugely frustrated by the seeming success of, in her opinion, very average writers peddling rubbish.

Grant supports her well portraying her suave, fantasist friend who is equally vulnerable and lonely.

It is a surprisingly charming story with two character’s you warm to for all of there loneliness and desperation, there is a charm and sweetness to them and their relationship. The story intrigues throughout and is nicely paced and told.

The story is a great example of someone with talent but lacked belief in it, preferring to hide behind the stories and words of others and McCarthy really shines in the lead role. Worth a watch and if you don’t like it can you ever forgive me?

Strange times for us all so I’m starting to watch films I never got around to at the cinema, I’m sure there will be all kinds of random choices to come over the coming weeks.

First up the very average Second Act, I’ve always quite liked Jennifer Lopez on screen and she’s absolutely fine in this and there’s the problem, the whole film is fine and all a bit meh..

It’s the classic underdog story, with pretty much every genre cliche box ticked.. it has its moments with a bit of a twist and a surprising incident with some doves, but they are few and far between, the rest is typical Cinderella story stuff, girl wants more, girl gets makeover (background rather than physical in this case), girl proves worth, charade falls down, all works out well in the end..

It wasn’t horrible, but it was formulaic and not funny enough but it was at least virus free for 100 minutes, so it does have that.

I’m sure I’ll see some much better films on my range of streaming services over the coming weeks… heck if not, it’s going to be a long time at home!

I’ve said in previous reviews that I really enjoy something based on a true story, something that gives me insight into a subject that I feel I should know more about, so I went into Misbehaviour with high expectations.

Based on the controversial 1970 Miss World competition in which the first coloured winner was crowned, a coloured and white contestent were selected to represent South Africa and the show disrupted by the newly formed Women’s liberation movement.

The accusations of racism, the failure to recognise aparthied and the fledgling womens liberation movement all should provide enough story for a fascinating look at a range of subjects and attitudes from 1970, add to that three strong leading performer’s in Kiera Knightley, Jessie Buckley and Gugu Mbatha Raw and this really should have pressed all the buttons.

Sadly though Misbehaviour really feels like it falls short, instead of providing an interesting insight into events we never really do more than skirt around them, we never find out what drives Knightley’s smart and determined Sally, the story behind Buckley’s commune living liberator Jo or the aims of Mbata Raw’s Grenadine winner Jennifer Hosten.

That’s a real pity as this is a story worth telling, but it feels like the film is never really sure what story it wants to share, Miss World, Women’s liberation or even the story from the contestants side that examines the opportunity it presents them but it only ever, frustratingly, touches upon it.

There are moments were the film tries to spend a little time asking interesting questions, especially in a scene between Sally and Jennifer but they are far to infrequent.

It’s a real pity, with interesting raw material and a talented cast this film should have been much more interesting than it is, but sadly never quite gets beyond a very superficial look at the subject, perhaps a bit like Miss World itself.

I always find a story like this fascinating, the scale of corruption, cover up, how authorities and governments can be influenced and the incredible recklessness that powerful companies will show to protect their business and profits always astound me. All of that is on show in Dark Waters.

The other thing I’m always astounded by is how on earth do I not know these stories? This one focuses on DuPont and a long term legal battle with the people from a town in Wisconsin, a battle carried by one man, Rob Billet (Mark Ruffalo), and is based on Nathaniel Rich’s article in the New York times.

Billet is a “hot shot” lawyer who is visited by a friend of his grandma, Wilbur Tenant (Bill Camp), a farmer whose property is next to a DuPont landfill and is convinced that they are poisoning his land, his cattle and his family.

Dark Waters is an interesting film, its pace is very steady, it wanders off occasionally to explore a family story or a way that the case has impacted the lives of those involved and cleverly includes the grey area that comes with a town taking to court not only its largest employer but a company who’s fingerprints are all over the town.

The pacing and occasional change of story focus may be off putting to some but I think they are very deliberate decisions to show just how long and slowly the case has moved (20 years and still going on) and exploring the impacts of those delays on peoples lives.

The story is an interesting one and very much worth telling, it’s understated and patiently told and that patience maybe an issue for some but if like me these kind of stories interest you, then you’ll enjoy this.