Disclosure Day

Disclose Encounters

Disclosure Day
Directed by Steven Spielberg
USA/Canada/New Zealand/Japan 2026
Universal
UK Cinema Release Print

Warning: Slight spoilers.

Well then... Disclosure Day is not the suspected sequel to Close Encounters Of The Third Kind it was rumoured to be (although it does have a couple of on screen references and could easily be taking part in the same shared world... in which case it definitely is, despite Spielberg’s protests). What it is happens to be Spielberg’s third ‘aliens on Earth’ movie after his brilliant, original, studio release cut of Close Encounters and his abysmal ET - The Extra Terrestrial movie. Disclosure Day is somewhere in the middle of the quality of those two... not quite as good as the former but walking all over the latter.

We have the various ‘everymen sucked into extraordinary adventures’ which is a particular Spielberg signature, often seen as a legacy archetype in his pictures. These are played by the wonderful Emily Blunt, Josh O’ Connor and Eve Hewson. Then you have the obligatory human villain, played by Colin Firth and the wise, helpful ally to the good guys, played by Colman Domingo. Plus assorted ‘also ran’ characters performed by the likes of Wyatt Russell and Elisabeth Marvel. 

The film is not quite, as I’d suspected, a reveal about the various alien/human hybrids living in society among us (see the Al Adamson documentary Blood And Flesh: The Reel Life And Ghastly Death of Al Adamson, reviewed here, to find out more about those, since Adamson actually met one and then died in particular ghastly circumstances sometime after, before he could finish his expose documentary... whether that aspect of his life was relevant to his death or not) but more a look at the way aliens are trying to escape the knowledge-prison of the independent task force trying to stop the leakage of their existence on Earth.

So, in terms of the plot... it’s not what I was expecting but, the sad thing is, everything else went exactly as I’d expected. It’s not a bad movie by any means and it hits some nice Spielberg moments such as an elabourate and suspenseful ‘car being dragged along on the side of a train’ chase and various metatextual references back to cinema over the years. It’s true to say that in some ways it’s somewhat of a postmodern pastiche of things we’ve seen over the years in many movies.* 

Perhaps my favourite appropriation is when Eve Hewson’s character is being psychically interrogated from afar by Firth’s sinister invasion of her mind and, she uses her crucifix in just the same manner that Michael Caine’s Harry Palmer used the rusty nail in the brainwashing sequence of The IPCRESS File (reviewed here) so, yeah, Spielberg really nailed that one. 

The film neatly bypasses the effect on mass culture of the possible lack of faith in religious practices in a way which is, perhaps, not multiculturally sensitive (although I don’t mind) and uses a direct quote from the Bible to directly allow for the possibility of alien life forms being present in the universe. So for a certain section of the audience he has that pretty well sewed up. 

I did object to the use of animal scenes in the film... not because this is not what aliens do, as documented in numerous cases (whether you believe those cases or not) but because, the logic of using those encounters out of an environment where there are only one or two humans present seems contrary to logic and not a part of, as Spielberg and screenwriter David Koepp neatly put it, how aliens represent. So, atmospherically it works effectively in a spooky manner in the movie but, one or two of those scenes seem somewhat out of place. 

Now the ending is, I suspect, going to divide people. Not because you won’t see it coming... I defy anyone to not figure out exactly when the camera is going to cut to the end credits before it actually happens... but because there’s no real sense of closure to the disclosure. That is to say... how else could you end this movie? It’s absolutely the right way to end this without leaving some section of the audience bitterly disappointed in the content of the message of the aliens. That would then become a different movie and this way at least allows for that all important message to go either way, in terms of the fate of mankind, for sure.

Added to this we have an excellent, post-retirement score by regular Spielberg collaborator John Williams, who at 94 is still able to come up with one of his best scores in years. So that’s a CD I will hopefully be getting a hold of soon. 

All in all though, I’m about done with Disclosure Day. Excellent performances in a not too shoddy package with a nice bit of scoring is certainly enough to take a trip to the cinema for but, ultimately, I was a little underwhelmed by the whole experience. I suspect that’s because I’ve been around too long, though and I’m sure the younger audience... who have not seen much of the history of cinema to be as jaded by this plot as I am... will be thrilled with this one and lionise it, to a certain extent. At least until they get a few films under their belt. Not a film I’d easily recommend because I felt it pulled its punches a little too much but, not a huge disappointment either and I think it will find its audience, for sure. 

 *Although, after only a few days of the film’s release into cinemas, I’m already sick of reviewers making assumptions that the Inn-Di-Ana Motel where two of the characters stay overnight is a tip of the hat to Spielberg’s Indiana Jones movies. Take a step back and realise that the home of Roy Neary in the original Close Encounters Of The Third Kind is situated in Indiana and, maybe do a little better at connecting the dots on your film references people!

Bridget Jones - Mad About The Boy

Keeping Up
With The Joneses

Bridget Jones -
Mad About The Boy
Directed by Michael Morris
UK/France/USA 2025
Universal

Warning: Some character spoilers from the outset.

So once again, after a substantial break in the franchise, Renée Zellweger returns to the role which really put her on the map, at least internationally. Bridget Jones - Mad About The Boy is the fourth of the Bridget Jones films and, to be honest, after the last couple I really wasn’t expecting all that much from it. I’m happy to say I was wrong but, more on that later.

It’s interesting in that, while most of the important regular actors from previous installments are back for this fourth time round the merry-go-round that is Bridget Jones’ life… some of the characters are no longer with us at the start of this one. So we get a brief new scene in this featuring Jim Broadbent as her father, in a scene reminding us how important he was to Bridget before it’s revealed that, alas, his character has now passed on between films. Similarly and also very importantly to the title character, Colin Firth’s Mark Darcy character has also been tragically killed between movies, leaving Bridget alone to cope with their young son and daughter on her own. This doesn’t, however, stop Firth from turning up every now and again as a kind of memory ghost when Bridget needs him to.

One important character who is back was absent from the last movie, that of Hugh Grant as Daniel Cleaver. He’d spent the last go round missing presumed dead until it was revealed at the end that he had been found… he’s here now as a much more mellow, vulnerable and toned down version of the character and, as usual, Grant does it amazingly well, as a true friend and baby sitter to Bridget.

And, as Bridget decides to go back to her old job, she Tinders herself into a tryst with a new toy-boy suitor played by Leo Woodall and also gets interested in her kids new science teacher Mr. Wallaker, played by the always brilliant Chiwetel Ejiofor (who I shall eventually forgive for trying to kill Captain Mal in the Firefly movie Serenity). So it’s business as usual for Miss Jones (aka Mrs. Darcy) and all the usual shenanigans apply as she tries to engage with various different, sometimes overwhelming jigsaw puzzle pieces of her life at once… taking on Brazilian lip serum and negotiating the prospect of labial adhesion midst the minefield of problems life throws in her way.

Now I loved the original Bridget Jones’ Diary (don’t worry, I’m not going to make the same grammatical mistake as the people who marketed the first movie) but found the two sequels - Bridget Jones - The Edge Of Reason and Bridget Jones’ Baby to be much less interesting or even entertaining movies. So I’m very pleased to say that this last entry in the series is a much more satisfying film (despite a more linear structure than I was expecting in terms of the new relationships she has to juggle) and easily the best of the sequels, for my money. Not only that but, it also gets very emotional and, all I’m saying is there may have been tears for this audience member. Most of the jokes don’t fall flat and the actors are all absolutely great… it’s also nice to see James Callis back as the ‘one hit wonder’ millionaire who is still very much ‘in the money’ after his song is used in a viral video of a dog doing mathematics.

It was also great seeing actress Josette Simon, who I remember playing Dayna in Blake’s Seven when I was a teenager, added to the cast of characters. Glad these people are still working.

Another thing is, the film is true to the original characters quite a bit, with Zellwegger perhaps looking slightly more streamlined in the face but absolutely on point playing Bridget once more. This whole film seems like a non-starter after all this time but it’s actually a lovely way to conclude the series (although, I do see how they could maybe do one more if they wait another ten or so years, I think). So as far as I’m concerned, Bridget Jones - Mad About The Boy is an absolutely lovely film and a big recommendation from me. As I said earlier, easily the best of the sequels.

Kingsman - The Golden Circle

Kingdemonium

Kingsman - The Golden Circle
UK/USA 2017 Directed by Matthew Vaughn
UK cinema release print.

Disclaimer: The only real spoilers you will see in here can all be easily gleaned from the trailer. However, if you haven’t seen the trailer then I would urge you to go in blind.

So the time is already upon us when we get the first and, possibly, not the last sequel to Kingsman - The Secret Service, a film which I loved and reviewed here. Now, it has to be said that I was was really not looking forward to a sequel to that first movie because, while Taron Egerton as Eggsy and Mark Strong as Merlin were bound to be back for the next one, I thought that Colin Firth’s stand out role of Galahad (aka Harry Hart) was an important ingredient in making the whole thing work. Well Vaughn and co-writer, the often quite wonderful Jane Goldman, obviously thought so too because they managed to find a way to bring Firth’s character back which, while utterly implausible in real life, doesn’t really stretch the credibility of the hyper-real world of the ‘Kingsman universe’ too much and... a little more on that later. That being said, I have seen a lot of negative comments about the film being either dull or unwatchable from several quarters on Twitter and the like over the last couple of weeks so... yeah... I wasn’t exactly holding my breath to wait and see this one.

However, as it happens, it’s my firm belief that the bad criticism I’ve heard of it is, for me at least, quite wrong. Not only does Kingsman - The Golden Circle live up to and honour the spirit of the original movie, it also builds on that world fairly successfully and, to boot, is another fun ride. It’s quite true that it isn’t quite near as good as the first one but, honestly, that would be a pretty tall task. However, what the cast and crew have delivered here is a solid, action comedy super-spy thriller which, although I’m sure it completely strays from the comic book source as much or, posssibly, even more than the original movie did, is a nice slice of cinematic spectacle and, I would have thought, a bit of a crowd pleaser. There are, it has to be said, quite a lot of what I would call minor problems with it but, ultimately, these don’t add up to a significant movie killer and the film coasts along quite nicely with, as the first one, a real feeling of empathy and good will conjured up for the main protagonists to succeed in their mission.

Okay so, the three cast I’ve mentioned above are supported by a very strong, somewhat misused in cases, cast which boasts several big names. Julianne Moore is excellent as Poppy, this film’s super-villain, although I believe she is written quite badly and it does hurt the film a little, I think, that Eggsy and Harry don’t actually get to meet or interact with her until their final confrontation scene. So, excellent as she always is, she does tend to feel like she’s been plonked into the film in a corner to just cut back to every now and again in an effort to remind us that there is an evil mastermind making all these things happen in the film. Which is a shame.

Similarly, Channing Tatum is in this but you’d barely know it. His role is quite small and, although he stays the course of the film, the plot line treats him as just an example of how deadly the super-villain’s plan is... like he’s an egg timer so you know how crucial the mission is getting. Jeff Bridges is similarly wasted as the boss of Statesman, the US counterpart to Kingsman and Halle Berry is also not given much to do as the US version of Mark Strong’s Merlin character. I was surprised to see an excellent singer, Tara Hugo, in a little cameo as a bar maid. I don’t know much about her or even, to be honest, that she was also an actress but she brought out a truly great album of Philip Glass songs a year or two ago which is worth giving a listen to. And talking of singers, I was similarly caught unawares to see that Elton John has such a large and crucial part in the story. He’s like ‘the cameo that never goes away’ and he has some nice little moments during the course of the film. There are quite a few more ‘name’ actors putting in appearances in this one but if I list them all I’d be here all day and this would be the longest, scroll hungry review ever... so I won’t.

These people are all good, of course but, it was the surprise reappearance of a number of characters and actors from the first film which really helped pull this one together. A couple of main players are back but I don’t want to spoil the surprise if you haven’t seen this one yet. That being said, as in the first movie, the writers are not afraid to kill off well loved characters and, by the time this film is done, I found I wasn’t eyeing any further sequels with much anticipation after the loss of yet another main ingredient of the series... at least in my eyes.

The film is a joy to watch, though, for the most part and the director has got this really nice thing going with scene transitions which are reflected from the end of one scene into the next... so a pile of drugs will be the side of a mountain next to Poppy’s secret lair, a hole punched through a wall in that lair will be the hole left on the bomb site of the Kingsman shop in London and a bottle of whiskey would morph into a big building in Kentucky shaped like the bottle of whiskey, etc. It’s a nice touch and it really works through the movie without being overdone to the point that it begins to wear thin.

The stunt work and action in this is also great and there’s the usual strong humour undercutting things as it did first time around. Colin Firth’s resurrection is handled particularly well in that he doesn’t immediately snap into mission mode and a lot of scenes of him not being able to remember who he was are not rushed unduly. The way he is brought back into himself, as it were, hinges on the credibility of an ‘expanded’ flashback to part of the original film that everyone remembers and it’s done very well. Even the scene where he goes into a deliberate parallel scene of his famous “manners maketh man” moment from the first doesn’t go as you’d expect it to, being used to simultaneously show that the resurrection isn’t completely taken, as yet and also used to try, not all that successfully, to up the stakes with another character to give the final quarter of the film a little more edge... but, again, I can’t say anything more here because it’s quite definitively in spoiler territory (although a certain plot twist could be deduced from the trailer and I was wondering about a certain possible reveal before I even started watching the movie, to be honest). And even the resurrection of another character (who appears in the film right from the start) is pretty well accounted for and makes total sense, in all fairness.

All this being said, though, the film does have a fair few problems too. For one, a cable car sequence relies on having the car fitted with something which is both completely useless to anyone, super-villain or not, and makes absolutely no sense. Nobody would have a cable car that could do what it does here and, especially, for absolutely no good reason or practical use as it is portrayed during this sequence. Similarly, a character who is branded as part of ‘The Golden Circle’ would surely not let themself be played in the way that Eggsy plays that person in this movie. You can’t claim that a specific character is a naive person if we’ve already been shown how rigorous a ritual it is to be allowed to be a member of The Golden Circle. It makes no sense.

Another big problem is the quality of the action. Like I said, it’s all great but it also feels a little anti-climactic at times because the opening action sequence of the film which involves a fight and chase in a Kingsman cab (as seen on the trailers) is so blisteringly good and makes for such a strong introduction to the film, that nothing else in the movie really feels as intense as that again. Great opening though. However, for a film that does a lot to link in with the first to the point of both replaying scenes and setting up parallel versions of some of those set pieces, then I was bemused that the two most talked about orgies of violence from the first - the blood rage church sequence and the head exploding sequence - had no alternate versions explored in this one and... I felt it really needed something as extreme as those towards the end of this one to keep the feel a little closer to the first.

The film is probably, I suspect, not all that great as a stand alone movie either. There are a lot of jokes and nods to the first one but some of them are quite subtle and rely on knowledge gleaned from that movie. For instance, when an exchange between two characters goes to saving the world, unless you’ve seen the first one then you won’t know what that little hook in the conversation is all about and no idea that they’re really talking about anal sex. Similarly, when we are shown Eggsy’s Kingsman office in his flat, people who haven’t seen the first one may not understand why three, completely unglamourous newspaper front pages are decorating the wall. Even when Colin Firth’s character is being questioned by Merlin about the exact same thing, unless you know what Firth’s explanation of the newspapers is in the first film, you may find yourself scratching your head as to the significance of these questions. So this really is a film for people who are familiar with the first... not least because so many scenes from the first one are ‘given away’ here. That’s not particularly a problem, mind you and I prefer it like this but... I can see how some people might get lost in this one.

However, even with all the minus points, the film still manages to be a cut above many others which have tried... and failed... to do this kind of thing properly. They've also convinced me that the time is right for somebody to have a crack at a movie version of The Ballad Of Halo Jones at some point soon please (anybody who remembers Toby will know exactly what I'm talking about when they see this).

And the score, once again by composers Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson from the first film, creates the all important musical continuity which so many big screen franchises (Marvel, DC, Alien, Star Trek etc) get wrong. The Kingsman theme is used more, has instant recognition value here and I suspect I’m going to be playing this score a lot more than the first one when it comes out on CD at the end of next month. It even, apparently, has some of Jackman’s score for X-Men - First Class deliberately used for a certain scene here.

All in all, then, Kingsman - The Golden Circle is a great night out at the movies. Not devoid of problems but definitely one which I think fans and admirers of the first film will enjoy a lot. Like I said earlier, I can’t see how a third movie would be able to work without a certain ‘ingredient’ in the mix but, hey, there’s at least a possible replacement character already lined up for that role here, I suppose, so... lets see how the box office on this one goes before we write off another sequel.

Bridget Jones' Baby

Apostrophe, Now

Bridget Jones' Baby
2016 Ireland/UK/France/USA
Directed by Sharon Maguire
UK cinema release print.

You know, I think it’s really irresponsible for a movie studio, after they were hopefully hauled over the coals for it when the first Bridget Jones movie came out, to continue to perpetrate the unbelievable crime against grammar/spelling/punctuation of the title of this movie that is seen on all the movie posters and tie-ins. It’s not a title I would reproduce here and I have removed the superfluous ‘S’ from the way it’s spelled so at least it doesn’t perpetuate the ignorance like a virus from this site... although I guess I’m forced to leave it on the pictures of the posters above (was tempted to just blur it out). I’ll stop going on now about this extremely important issue of mangling the English language and encouraging generations of students (and grown lecturers, believe it or not) to continue to spread this disease of no small concern but I won’t have it on my blog. Period (or full stop as it’s called over here).

I loved the first movie in this series, Bridget Jones’ Diary (see how easy it is to just ignore the bad punctuation?) but was fairly disappointed with the second. Also a little confused because my dim memory of that second one, Bridget Jones: The Edge Of Reason, is such that I thought she’d gotten together with Mark Darcy at the end and he’d proposed to her... or something similar. However, the story has obviously moved on quite a lot because, at the start of this one, Darcy is married and her other former lover, Daniel Cleaver, is lost and presumed dead (although I’m sure you can all guess how that one turns out).

Hugh Grant’s presence in this movie is confined to a few photos only but the incomparable Renée Zellweger and the always amazing Colin Firth are back to reprise their roles as Bridget and Darcy, for a third time. As are a lot of the wonderful supporting actors and actresses from the other two movies such as Gemma Jones, Jim Broadbent, Sally Philips, Shirley Henderson (somewhat wasted here as she’s a blindingly great talent) and James Callis (who was absolutely awesome as Baltar in the modern iteration of Battlestar Galactica and who is reprising his role here as Mr. One Hit Wonder of the pop scene). We also have a few new comers with Mark Darcy’s new rival Jack, played brilliantly by Patrick Dempsey (who I’m assured has a nice puppet) and Bridget’s news 'anchor woman' mate Miranda, played so entertainingly by Sarah Solemani, who I guess is at least partially responsible for getting Bridget into the dilemma she finds herself in for the remainder of the film.

Said dilemma lands in two parts when Bridget has six hours of passion with millionaire Jack by stumbling into the wrong tent at a music festival and then also, within the space of a few weeks, temporarily rekindles her passion with Mark Darcy. However, the condoms she is using are well past their use-by date and so, she finds herself pregnant and without any real clue as to who the father is. To make matters worse (aka funnier), she is half in love with both of them and, for a while, neither knows about the other... causing some awkward moments not just for her but for her doctor, played by the always watchable Emma Thompson, who also did double duty as a script doctor on this one too, I’m told.

So the big question in the movie on everybody’s lips is... who is the father of Bridget Jones’ Baby and... well you’ll be hanging on until the very last minute to find out. And if you want it clarified even a little further, you might want to stay for an easter egg in the form of a photograph which flashes up for a few seconds after the final end credits have played out.

Okay... so the film has its moments but, even with the same director as the first installment in the sequence on board, I have to say it’s no masterpiece. The first one was absolutely phenomenal but this one shares with the first sequel the feeling of a slightly missed opportunity and people just... well not milking the memory of the first one exactly but, maybe losing a few of the ingredients which made the original so special along the way. That being said, the adult edge to a lot of the humour is back in place and you can’t say the film isn’t gutsy in places. I personally didn’t find the movie all that funny this time around, it has to be said... but please don’t take me at my word on that one because I did observe that the audience were absolutely falling off their chairs with laughter during certain scenes so I think that, if anything, it’s definitely a crowd pleaser with, certainly, some of the most enthusiastic audience reaction I’ve seen all year.

Mind you, saying that, there were obviously some celebrity cameos in this movie made by people who I was obviously supposed to know and, I’m sorry but... I’d never heard of them. So I’m guessing a lot of the jokes just went over my head on this one. And, of course, even if you don’t find this one all that funny...  Renée Zellweger is such a perfect actress with impeccable comic timing that you can’t help but relate to the characters... especially when she’s supported by such a fantastic cast. I’ve always had a soft spot for Zellweger and, although this isn’t a film I was overly keen on, I did enjoy the presence and continuity she brought to the role here.

And that really is pretty much all I’ve got to say about Bridget Jones' Baby, I’m afraid. This is probably one of the shortest reviews I’ve written in a few years but there’s not much more I can add. Would I recommend the movie? Sure, Bridget Jones fans are bound to at least like it a little and, judging by the audience response, most of them will love it. I think it’s a tad of a stretch to hear people saying that this is the best of the three but, heck, I’m not entirely sure I'm a good judge of the subject matter in this case, to be honest. So I think I would just say that, if you didn't like either of the first two movies then I would err on the side of caution and not go. For everybody else I would say... it’s maybe worth a watch but don’t go in expecting the first movie or you will be disappointed.

Kingsman - The Secret Service

Klebb Sandwich

Kingsman - The Secret Service
2014  UK
Directed by Matthew Vaughn 
UK cinema release print.

This movie is based on the comic book The Secret Service by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons but, apparently, it’s a very loose adaptation of the source material. Unfortunately, it’s not one I’ve read so I can’t say how well it does actually do in that area but my understanding is that it’s just a couple of the ideas and three of the minor characters from the comic (and even those with some changes, apparently) which were the only elements finding their way into the movie. That being said though, it’s a much better film than I was expecting, based on the look of the trailer which, to be blunt, didn’t really sell it to me. I was pleasantly surprised, however, because the movie is smartly put together, has a great screenplay courtesy of the director and Jane Goldman, and is technically quite efficient while still being stylish and warm with the various characters and situations.

It’s also quite unusually edgy considering the teenage target audience it looks like its going for but... I’ll get to that in a minute.

Kingsman - The Secret Service is, unsurprisingly, an homage to the old Bond films and various other super spy movies of the 1960s and it certainly doesn’t let you forget about it throughout the course of the movie. The film is loaded with references to various fictional ‘spy culture’ phenomena and, when you see some of this stuff coming through in the trailer, it all looks like it could turn out to be a bit of a postmodernistic jumble leading to a huge mess of a movie. Well, I’m happy to report that, while the film is, indeed, a postmodernistic jumble, the various referential and nostalgic elements which the cast and crew use to their best effect are treated more like the ingredients of a fine meal... that is to say, it’s well cooked, holds together a heck of a lot better than you think it might under all that eclectic weight and, more importantly, tastes delicious.

That being said, there are a hell of a lot of the clichés you will also associate with this kind of film and, well... just a lot of rather obvious things in general. Without spoiling it here, you probably all know where the end game of the “pick a puppy” scene in the trailer is going to go, for example, and there are lots of little moments of the expected happening with the predictable 'pay offs' left developing for later scenes. It’s certainly very formulaic, perhaps as part of the modus operandi of the ‘homage factor’ at work in this movie but, equally, there are also a lot of little surprises throughout the movie which you won’t... well not always... see coming and, despite the predictability of certain elements in this thing, it’s all done so well that you really won’t mind that you’ve seen most of it before... it’s put together in such a way that you kind of want some of the more predictable rewards to come to light within the scripting anyway.

I say it’s a postmodernistic pot pourri of its influences and it does, I have to say, wear these on it’s digital sleeve throughout the movie. The fact that the cover for the entrance to Kingsman HQ is a tailor shop on Saville Row, linked back to the origins of the Kingsman group and the history they are given in the film, will probably ring a few bells with the audience. It harkens back to the early James Bond movies and the fact that director Terence Young had Sean Connery taken to a tailor in Saville Row for the suits for Dr. No (reviewed here). Another reference, among many, is the appearance of the Rosa Klebb style knife boot, popularised by that character in Fleming’s original novel From Russia With Love (in the book she kills Bond with it, only for him to be resurrected by popular demand in the next book, Dr. No) and, of course, brought to life in the film of the same title by Lotte Lenya (my review of From Russia With Love can be found here). Bond films are also the subject of a discussion between Colin Firth’s Harry Hart character and Samuel L. Jacksons super villain Valentine, played much better and much more ruthlessly than you might expect from the way the trailer has been cut together.

Valentine’s beautiful henchwoman Gazelle, played by actress Sofia Boutella (a male character in the comic books) has a pair of prosthetic lower legs manifested as sharpened blades with which she can accomplish all manner of gory violence... which she, of course, does. This in itself referencing a number of Bond villains of the past who have had a lethally enhanced handicap ostentatiously transformed to their deadly advantage (think the title character of Dr. No,  or Jaws from both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker etc).  Even one of the posters for the movie is a parody of the old, controversial at the time, For Your Eyes Only advertising. So when I say the movie wears its influences on its sleeve, it is at least a well tailored sleeve and it does so in the most haute couture manner possible.

There’s some lovely stuff going on with the cinematography and editing too... some of which looks well thought out in terms of the way the shots are cut together long before certain specific set ups are even filmed. For example, there’s a nice rolling montage of four or five shots about a third of the way through the movie which has the camera moving from the bottom of the screen to the top and as it reaches the top of the scrolling screen (which is travelling downwards, obviously), a clear and well designed frame stop comes into view and peels into the next part of the scrolling montage. It’s a way of getting the basic messages over quickly and efficiently as to where different elements in the story are heading but, it also pays homage to the film’s comic book routes by presenting scrolling frames which could perhaps be read by some as an echo of comic book panels... so this was all rather well thought out. The camera had to pan through the shots at exactly the same speed to make the edit  work... although that may be an added movement in post production for all I know... but however it was achieved, it all works rather well.

I said the film was quite edgy for the teenage audience it’s going for. By that I don’t mean it’s inappropriate, far from it, but it is quite gutsy of the movie company to let it through in this form bearing in mind the way the BBFC have de-clawed anything and everything in recent memory and I applaud the company for it (there seems to be some disagreement as to whether there were cuts for the UK market or not). Where would the hero of a movie be offered, and make good on, the prospect of anal sex with a princess if he saves the world, for example... no, I’m not making this stuff up.

The film is also very violent, quite spectacularly so a lot of the time. I don’t want to spoil too much of this for people who, like me, are going to go in relatively blind, but there’s a scene utilising a curiously British adorned version of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture which will really make people pay attention (and hopefully giggle uncontrollably) and there’s a lovely little breakdance sequence where Gazelle faces off against the film’s main protagonist Eggsy (played likeably by newcomer Taron Egerton) which will hopefully bring a smile to your face too. The violence in both of these sequences is mostly used to comic effect but there’s also a more serious tone to the violent shenanigans of some of the characters too...

The main premise of the way Valentine intends to threaten mankind, for example, is all tied into a plot device which, when activated, brings on a kill crazy spree of brutal violence not unlike the pseudo-zombies in the 28 Days/Weeks Later movies. There’s a brilliant sequence which is a full on 5 or more minutes of fight choreography involving Colin Firth which is both stylistically brutal but which also shows off one of my favourite things about the action sequences in this movie... they are all edited together so well that, even in a free flow melee involving 80 or more people, you aren’t going to get confused or lost in the choreography. Which is pretty impressive if you think about it, and one of the arts of modern action film-making that seems to have fallen by the way side a little with some directors.

The acting performances are all superb and the editing and pacing all flows right along to give the audience a path through the movie which never once gets boring. The sound design is also pretty amazing, with the sound of the gunshots in particular seeming to have a lot more presence in the mix, so that they sometimes surprise you with their speed and intensity on the soundtrack. Like I said... the film is quite edgy.

And last but by no means least, we have the score composed by Henry Jackma and Matthew Margeson, which really does have one foot in the modern world of action scoring and one foot in the sixties. At various times throughout the course of the movie, the same kind of slow build ostinato fugues that John Barry used to conjure up for such Bond films as You Only Live Twice (reviewed here) and Diamonds Are Forever (reviewed here) are referenced both structurally and in terms of their orchestration, to give the audience a big hit of nostalgic, sixties, super-spy magic at the appropriate places in the narrative. This is all good stuff and I’ll certainly be ordering the CD when it comes out later in the month (hopefully).

At the end of the day, Kingsman - The Secret Service is a big popcorn movie for teenagers and adults alike. It is unashamedly this but, since it also hits all the right notes in terms of tone and does so in a technically competent and brilliant manner throughout, I think even the most jaded popcorn warriors will be hard pushed not to get a thrill out of this one and, frankly, the slightly lengthy running time just whizzes along and will leave you wanting more. I know I’m hoping for a sequel at some point, if the creative people can bring the same kind of charm and intensity to the finished product that this one has. A really great little movie and a definite hard recommend from me. Enjoy.

Before I Go To Sleep

Sleeping Pill

Before I Go To Sleep
2014  USA/UK/France/Sweden
Directed by Rowan Joffe
UK cinema release print.

I’ve got two minor observations about this movie, based on a best selling novel by S. J. Watson, that you might find worthy of me mentioning here.

Number one is that I’ve seen the overly long trailer for this film so many times now at the front of other movies at my local cinema... so you would think that, after suffering it so often, I should be able to at least remember the title of this movie, right? However, every time someone asked me what movie I was going to see, I had to describe the main premise, “Nicole Kidman can’t go to sleep without losing her memory”, because the title is just not interesting enough to stick in my mind.

Every time.

My friend and I even had to order our tickets at the box office when we got there with a description of the movie because, in the few seconds between spotting the poster outside the cinema and walking in to buy the ticket... we’d forgotten the name of the movie again. And, even now, as I sat down to write this review, I had to look at the IMDB page for Nicole Kidman to find out the title of the movie I was writing about. So I think my main conclusion here is... the title may (or may not) have been right for the novel but as a movie title it’s so unbelievably generic that it just doesn’t stick in the mind, to be honest. It could have done with being called something a little more poetic or imaginative, I think, as a film you aspire to go to see at the cinema.

My other point is that, when I told a few different people the basic premise, because I couldn’t remember the title, they all responded passionately with the same message... “not that old plot again?”. And then trotted out a few movie titles which have used similar plots. Of course, I tried to defend my choice by saying that there would be some kind of extra spin on this concept somewhere down the line because, after all, it was based on a best seller so there must be something more to it than what appears on the surface. Imagine my disappointment after having seen the movie, then, and realising that... no, they were right. It is the same old plot we have seen so many times.

However, this doesn’t make it a bad film and I’m pleased to report that for a lot of the time I was kept mildly curious and interested, waiting for some kind of unguessable twist to arrive in the narrative. It’s hard to not be able to take some pleasure in a film which, for example, stars three very strong actors - Nicole Kidman, Colin Firth and Mark Strong - who you know are going to deliver a compelling performance. Which they obviously do and, coupled with a very slow and almost voyeuristic shooting style for most of the movie, it does have a certain fascination as you watch the drama slowly unfold... up until a point.

Now I’m really going to try to keep this spoiler free but the basic plot concept is that somebody has bashed up Nicole Kidman to the point that she has a very special kind of amnesia that wipes the last 20 or so years of her memory out after she goes to sleep at night. She has to catch up each day making use of a secret diary she is currently filming on a camera. Why is it a secret diary? Well, because the story works as one of those “trust no one” kind of tales of paranoia where either of the two male protagonists in her life, her husband Ben or her psychiatrist Dr. Nash, may not be what they seem. She has to slowly try to solve the mystery of why she is in this state and who she can and can’t trust. Which is fine up until a point.

That point, for me, was about the last 20 minutes of the movie which are less than clumsily handled. I wish Nicole had spent more time trying to unravel the absolutely ludicrous plot holes in the film version of this story, which render the entire scenario unworkable as a real life occurrence... but don’t even get me started on tearing down some of the anti-logic in this one.

Now, all the way through the director has been using everyday objects and vehicles (cars and planes etc) to rush out from nowhere to give the audience a jump scare and I found this cheap and unnecessary for the kind of drama that was playing out. My friend observed that the director needed to feel he had to keep doing that because nothing much happens in the film. I think I’ll be a little more charitable than that and say that stuff does kind of happen from time to time... but you certainly don’t need these jump scares, which add nothing to this particular narrative, inserted at random intervals throughout the film.

I was mostly able to let this fly because of the voyeuristic way in which the drama was unfolding. I don’t know if many people will notice this but the camera is with Nicole Kidman’s character Christine for almost the entire movie, choosing to tell things about the events from how she perceives them... and this is great. However, in the last 20 minutes or so of the movie, when one of the characters is indeed found to be not who they say they were (and I’m not telling you which one, or even if it is just one of them, and this isn’t a spoiler because the movie works by making you suspect either or both of them), the camera then suddenly darts off with that person for a scene or two and we are no longer seeing events purely depicted from Christine’s viewpoint. Now, I don’t know if the decision to do that at this point was coincidental with when I stopped enjoying the movie or not... but I do know that there’s an intense fight scene which seemed a bit over the top, in some ways, to everything that had gone before and, when I saw an iron appear in shot during the fight... that’s when I started giggling at a point the director would probably have considered inappropriate.

This, coupled with a post-denouement sequence which is full of sentiment and utilising two characters we haven’t even met before in the film (although we have heard about them often) seems just really wrong for the tone of this one... at least to me. Now it may have been following the ending from the book, I don’t know because I haven’t read it, but due to the brilliant way the director had been setting up the shots of Nicole Kidman’s character waking up to each new day, I’m pretty sure there was a much better way to end this movie in a more cinematic fashion, possibly involving one of the other characters we’ve gotten to know through the course of the film. Alas, it was not to be and I can’t tell you what my ending to this one would have been because I don’t want any spoilers in this particular review... but it would have certainly have started with an arm moving off a bed sheet and a post diary watch reveal as the last shot.

So is the movie any good?

Well, for me it’s not something I could watch again. It’s the kind of cinema which places great stock in story content and, as far as I’m concerned, it lives and breathes until the revelation of its secrets... and I’m sure I’ve seen all this done before on TV and film anyway. However, if you’re fairly young, and your experience of movies is not so large, then you may well really like this film. After all, it still kept me fascinated and watching with a certain curiosity throughout the majority of its running time. Not one I’d recommend but certainly some people will clearly get something out of this one, I feel. Coupled with the fact that one of the more striking, Herrmannesque pieces of music used in the trailer is not from the actual film, it turns out, means I had a more disappointing time with this one than I was hoping for... but the lead actors are all very strong in this and if you are a big fan of any of them then you’ll probably love their performances here. Not much else to say on this one other than... I still have about as much success at remembering the title of this one as the central character does of remembering what she had for breakfast the day before. I might need to write it down somewhere.