DESTINATION DEWSBURY (2019)
Writer: Aaron Nelson
Director: Jack Spring
Starring: Matt Sheahan, Dan Shelton, David J. Keogh, Tom Gilling and Michael Kinsey 

Jack Spring, Britain's youngest film director, talks to Movie Parliament about how he's putting Dewsbury and Grimsby on the cinematic map...

If you ​Google Dewsbury, the first few results make it clear that people’s perceptions of the West Yorkshire town are far from positive. For example, an Examiner Live article lists 16 reasons why you should never go to Dewsbury. While it is in fact a tongue-in-cheek promotion for the town, its headline plays with the widespread assertion that it’s somewhere to avoid. Meanwhile, a Daily Mail article proclaims that Dewsbury ‘has become a breeding ground for ISIS jihadis’. Hopefully, Destination Dewsbury, the debut feature from Jack Spring, will soon supersede these search results. With production starting on the film when he was just 19 years of age, Destination Dewsbury made Jack Spring Britain's youngest film director. 
 
The film is about four old school friends who come together for a road trip in order to see their friend Frankie one last time before he dies from cancer. Its influences are clear from the get-go, with an opening title sequence that’s reminiscent of The World’s End. Speaking exclusively to Movie Parliament, Spring confirmed that director Edgar Wright was an inspiration. This can be seen through some of the film’s quick cuts and one boozy, beer-fuelled montage.
 
The film's gross-out humour makes it something of a middle-aged The Inbetweeners, as the road trip involves an inadvertent detour to a swingers hotel and a cat-and-mouse chase with a Russian gangster. However, it comes to a surprisingly emotional conclusion, where the strength of the lead performances really shines through. In particular, David J. Keogh brings depth to the brash Adam, and Tom Gilling is an endearing presence as the lovable Smithy. While the characters do reach Dewsbury, the film itself ultimately ends up in a rather unexpected place. 
 
This echoes the film's own unconventional journey to the big screen. Spring explains on his website how, being so young, financing was initially hard to come by. In order to impress potential investors, Spring started a hot tub hire company. Starting with just one hot tub, Spring and his friends grew the business to the point where they were renting out over sixty hot tubs across nine cities. Such success meant that Spring could return to investors with a proven record for financial returns.
 
With one feature film now under his belt, Spring says how financing for his second has proven far easier, raising in minutes what it took years to accrue for Destination Dewsbury. This is particularly good news as far as this site is concerned, as Spring’s next feature film, Three Day Millionaire, will be set and shot in my hometown of Grimsby.

​Similarly to Dewsbury, Grimsby is a town that gets a bad press. It doesn’t help that, internationally, the place is best known for the Sacha Baron Cohen film The Brothers Grimsby. I recently wrote an article for Film Stories magazine about that film, which called for more productions to base themselves in Grimsby so that the town could receive a much-needed boost to its image.
 
Unlike Baron Cohen, Spring has shown with Destination Dewsbury that he isn’t out to mock his film's setting. While there was some skepticism at first from locals, Spring explains how when they saw the sincerity of his approach, they were incredibly helpful and happy to receive the attention. 
 
Grimbarians can rest assured that Three Day Millionaire will have a similarly, if not even more, reverent approach to its location. Spring’s family comes from the North East Lincolnshire town, and he himself is a huge Grimsby Town F.C. fan. Spring remarks how “people in Grimsby are very proud of where they’re from and it’s a big part of their identities. Grimsby Town is certainly a big part of mine.” While Three Day Millionaire’s script originally set the action in Hull, when reading it, Spring could picture the exact places in Grimsby where he wanted to film. 

The film is inspired by those fishermen who would come back to the land for three days a month after being away at sea. It was fishermen’s folklore that if you didn’t have a family to support then you had to spend all the money you’d made before you got back on the ships, otherwise they'd sink. As a result of such spending sprees, these fishermen became known as the three-day millionaires. Spring says to expect a party-fuelled, fourth-wall breaking opening montage, inspired by Guy Ritchie’s Snatch. However, when the fishermen are told that they’re not going back to sea, and one of them finds out that he’s going to be a father, they turn to pulling off a heist in order to get their money back.
 
The film will be more of a drama than Destination Dewsbury, with Spring mentioning Shane Meadows’ This is England as another reference point. Meanwhile, he’s hoping that the higher budget will allow him to do more ambitious things with the camera.
 
With a visual style influenced by Edgar Wright and thematic concerns similar to Shane Meadows, Spring has the potential to combine two successful strands of modern British filmmaking. Meanwhile, in setting films in locations such as Dewsbury and Grimsby, he's giving British towns some much-needed exposure on the big screen. With Grimsby MP Melanie Onn pushing for the town to become Britain’s first Town of Culture in 2023, Three Day Millionaire could show Grimsby’s cultural potential, and finally provide a cinematic counterpoint to Sacha Baron Cohen’s film.
 
Destination Dewsbury is currently screening at Showcase Cinemas across the UK and Three Day Millionaire is scheduled to start shooting in June.
 
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton

​When you see a sign warning you of strong violence before walking into a film, you start to brace yourself. Full disclosure here, I haven’t seen the original Suspiria, Dario Argento’s cult-classic horror from 1977. However, as a film fan, it’s impossible not to have heard of it or felt its legacy. Nevertheless, going into this remake, or ‘cover version’ as its called by its director Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name, A Bigger Splash), I had no idea what to expect.
 
Set in Berlin during the ‘German Autumn’ of 1977, Suspiria focuses on a young woman called Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson), who joins the prestigious Markos Dance Academy, which is run under the guidance of Tilda Swinton’s Madame Blanc. Prior to her arrival, a student called Patricia (Chloë Grace Moretz) has gone missing, but not before divulging to her psychiatrist Dr. Jozef Klemperer that the school is in fact a coven. As Susie finds herself ever more central to the school’s plans, the psychiatrist’s investigation leads him ever closer to the truth.
 
The word that’s been used most in relation to Suspiria is divisive. Not only has the reaction to the film proved polarizing but the film itself is about a divided Berlin, constantly framing its story against the backdrop of Red Army Faction violence. It’s clearly a film with a lot on its mind and Guadagnino ambitiously loads the film thematically, attempting to tell a story about generational guilt as well as a gory body horror about a bunch of witches.
 
While some will appreciate this attempt to deepen the source material, it was unsurprising to find out that it’s this element of the film that is missing from the original. These two plot strands of doctor and dancers don’t come together as naturally, or as satisfyingly, as they could. Too often in the film you might find yourself wondering, while intrigued, why the film is focusing so much on Dr. Klemperer at the expense of the growing tension within the walls of the school.
 
This is especially frustrating as when Guadagnino does turn his attention to the horror, it makes one hell of an impression. One scene in particular, some dance moves with a horrific twist, makes for one of the most disturbing sequences I’ve seen all year. However, that scene aside, the tension he builds is too frequently undercut and leads to a climax that is silly and overdrawn more than anything else. Nevertheless, credit must go to him for his versatility. Where Call Me By Your Name had a big, beating heart, oozing love and warmth in every frame, this is an icy cold experience that’s drenched in dread.
 
That being said, you can tell that this is a horror film from the director of Call Me By Your Name. The film attempts to end on a bittersweet, romantic note. Meanwhile, that aforementioned scene aside, its moments of horror seem more concerned with aesthetics than impact. The original score from Radiohead’s Thom Yorke plays into this feeling. While it is an evocative piece of work and some of the best film music of the year, it is more interested in creating a mood than in truly getting under your skin.  
 
Where the film is most impressive in terms of craft is the make up. While credited as being played by Lutz Ebersdorf, it has since been revealed that the actor behind Dr. Klemperer is in fact Tilda Swinton. The way in which this has been achieved is simply stunning. While it could be distracting, and some would argue unnecessary, I soon forgot who it was and found myself utterly invested in the character. As Madame Blanc, Tilda Swinton is suitably creepy and domineering, hinting at deeper layers to what could otherwise have been a one-note performance. However, it is in her second, hidden role as Dr. Klemperer where the most affecting work of the film is done. Meanwhile, Dakota Johnson gives an intriguing, committed performance, yet too often feels like a lost protagonist.  
 
Ultimately, despite its ambition and achievements, Suspiria is too long to be scary and too silly to be taken seriously. Guadagnino’s versatility is notable, but he might have been better served making either a film about post-war guilt or a film about dancing witches. As it goes, the two feel out of step and it results in an overly long film, blunting its impact.  

One horrific sequence and some great make-up work aside, Suspiria doesn’t justify its running time or get under your skin as much as it should.
 
Movie Parliament Rating: FRINGE PARTY
 
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton 

​Love him or loathe him, nobody makes political documentaries quite like Michael Moore. There was no way he was going to let the Trump presidency, something he predicted, go by without making a cinematic comment. With its title, Fahrenheit 11/9 positions itself as a companion piece to Fahrenheit 9/11, his 2004 documentary that took aim at George W. Bush and the Iraq War. This time the titular date comes from when Trump beat Hillary Clinton to the White House. Moore opens his film on election night, showing the excitement as everybody geared up to welcome the first female president. He asks, as he did at the start of Fahrenheit 9/11, was it all just a dream? A lot of people will have replayed that night over and over again in their heads, but few summarize the madness of it as succinctly, funnily or as chillingly as Moore does here. When Trump’s victory is confirmed and his face is beamed onto the Empire State Building, Moore asks another question, one that forms the crux of this film. “How the fuck did this happen?”
 
Moore’s answer will be unsurprising to those familiar with his politics. While sold as a documentary about Trump, the majority of the film isn’t about him specifically, but rather the broken system that created him. As a result, the Democratic Party, and in particular the Clintons and Obama, come out of the film looking just as villainous as Trump if not more so. While correct to take a systemic view, it is clear over the course of the film that Moore has his own biases. In putting forward parts of his argument, counter-arguments aren’t explored and contradictions are made. Some would say this is par for the course for Michael Moore and indeed any polemicist. However, the risk is that when he does turn his attention back to Trump later in the film, comparing him to Hitler and warning about the death of American democracy, it feels somewhat undermined by what’s come before.
 
Whether you agree with all of Moore’s opinions or not, he is an undeniably skilled filmmaker. Fahrenheit 11/9 grabs your attention from the start, with Moore having an ability to make political documentaries that are funnier than most comedies while also being scarier than most horrors. There are sequences in this that stand up amongst some of his very best work. However, where Fahrenheit 11/9 suffers is in lacking the single-issue focus of his earlier films. It is at its most focused, and not coincidentally strongest, when dealing with the poisoning of the water supply in Flint, Michigan. It being his home city, Moore addresses Flint’s plight with a real forcefulness, the details garnering audible shock from the audience. While he uses it to make a bigger point about disillusionment with the system, you can’t help but feel a whole film dedicated to the subject may have been better.
 
Meanwhile, the film is at its most empowering when Moore lets others take centre stage, most notably the group of students who have turned to gun control activism following the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Getting a behind-the-scenes look at their operation is an inspirational moment of hope in a film that otherwise sorely lacks it. There’s a telling moment where, speaking to the teenagers, Moore says that if his generation did anything right it was in raising them. “My smartphone raised me,” comes the reply. In relation to their efforts, and others who Moore highlights in the film such as striking teachers in West Virginia, his customary stunts (this time an attempted citizen’s arrest on Michigan Governor Rick Snyder) can’t help but feel superficial. Perhaps realizing that the future belongs to them, the film’s last word is saved not for Trump, or for Michael Moore, but for Emma Gonzalez.
 
Indeed, there’s the suggestion early on in Fahrenheit 11/9 that it might represent something of a mea culpa from Michael Moore. At the beginning of the film he highlights his own interactions with the Trump family over the years. For example, did you know that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner held a party to celebrate the release of Moore’s healthcare documentary Sicko? Or that Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, was behind the home video release, and lauds Michael Moore as a brilliant filmmaker? Moore stops there in terms of examining his own role in the creation of Trump. Perhaps understandably, he is unwilling to consider in front of his audience whether to his opponents he is now part of the furniture at best, or an inspiration at worst.
 
Despite having lost none of his fire or filmmaking ability, it is hard not to see with the release of Fahrenheit 11/9 a loss of Michael Moore’s influence. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was released it was a political and cultural phenomenon. It won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival and was the highest grossing documentary of all time. By contrast, Fahrenheit 11/9 took only $3 million in its opening weekend. Seeing the film at the London Film Festival, where Michael Moore came on stage afterwards for a disappointingly brief and unrevealing interview with Owen Jones, it was clear looking at the audience that he was preaching to the choir.
 
Perhaps it was ever thus, Bowling for Columbine didn’t end gun violence. Fahrenheit 9/11 didn’t stop the reelection of George Bush. And if anything does stop Donald Trump from enjoying success in the midterms or winning again in 2020, it won’t be Fahrenheit 11/9.
 
Nevertheless, relevant or not, consistent or not, Michael Moore is still fighting and has released a passionate, moving and urgent piece of work. What it lacks in focus it makes up for in fierceness, and is an undeniably affecting watch wherever you fall on the political spectrum. 

Despite its scattershot construction, Fahrenheit 11/9 is an undeniably powerful piece of filmmaking. 

Movie Parliament Rating: MINORITY GOVERNMENT 

By Movie Parliament Prime Minister, 
Michael Dalton 

​What’s relevant when judging a candidate’s suitability for office? That’s the question at the heart of The Front Runner, a film based on the book All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid, which focuses on how Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman), the favourite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, found his candidacy wrecked by accusations of adultery. Gary Hart was polling ahead of Republican rival George H. W. Bush, and the argument goes that had he won the Democratic nomination, the presidency itself would have soon followed. Such a result would have dramatically altered the course of modern American history and left us in a very different world today. 
 
The Front Runner is in many ways a throwback. Not only is its story a throwback to what seems like a simpler time in politics, but the way in which it tells that story feels like its been ripped from the era at hand. Director Jason Reitman imbues the film with period detail, while the screenplay is a considered piece of work that avoids sensationalism and strains to give everyone their say.
 
However, like the Hart campaign, what gives The Front Runner its momentum is the performance of its leading man. Most famous for playing Wolverine, it’s rare to see Hugh Jackman take on a more grounded, human role, especially one that is based on a real-life figure. Here, Jackman’s natural charisma and screen presence is put to good use, as he perfectly fits the image of the charming politician. Jackman has to do a lot of the heavy lifting for the film in terms of conveying to the audience why a Hart presidency was such an attractive prospect. While a lot of people in the film talk about what a good president he would be, it’s up to Jackman to make you believe it.
 
That being said, it’s in capturing the darker aspects of Hart’s character where Jackman’s performance is at its most impressive. One of the more likable men in Hollywood, Jackman excels at capturing Hart’s initial sneakiness when embarking upon the affair and later stubbornness when confronted with the media's attention. Through Jackman’s performance, one theory the film posits as to why Hart was treated differently to others is his own refusal to accept the new realities of politics. In one standout scene where he argues with his campaign manager Bill Dixon (J.K. Simmons), Hart angrily shouts that he’s defending ‘the sanctity of the process.’ Although, in that moment it appears as if he is more concerned with the sanctity of his own privacy above anything, or anybody, else.  The question of whether or not those two things are one and the same is among many that the film asks of its audience.
 
The film’s refusal to give any definitive answers of its own is something that works both to its credit and detriment. On the one hand, its level-headedness could be seen as a refreshing act of respect to both the people involved and the audience. On the other, in the polarized times in which we live, such an approach can seem like the story it’s telling, a quaint throwback to a simpler time. In moments it’s like watching a politician who’s afraid to give their stance on a particular issue, strategically hedging their bets, much to our frustration. Furthermore, in being so reluctant to explicitly make the connection between its story and the present day, the film slightly devalues its claims to timeliness.
 
It didn’t help The Front Runner that I’d seen Sorry to Bother You a few days before it and Fahrenheit 11/9 immediately afterwards. Those are films that, while not without flaws, feel engaged and alive to the current moment. We’ve had a particularly political year at the movies with Trump’s presidency trickling down to our cinema screens in films ranging from Spike Lee’s BlackkKlansman to Blumhouse horror The First Purge. While something more restrained may therefore be exactly what we need, in relation to some of those films The Front Runner can’t help but feel outdated. This is something that is especially unforgivable considering the overdue conversation that is going on in the public sphere in the wake of #MeToo.
 
Overall, The Front Runner is an interesting if occasionally frustrating watch. Its old-fashioned approach is refreshing, yet its lack of fire slightly undermines its coy claims to timeliness. Nevertheless, propelled by a strong performance from Hugh Jackman, The Front Runner is a considered and thought-provoking piece of cinema. 

One of the better performances of Hugh Jackman's career carries this thoughtful, if sometimes overly-cautious, film. 

Movie Parliament Rating: MINORITY GOVERNMENT 

By Movie Parliament Prime Minister, 
Michael Dalton 

​A plastic bottle filled with urine by a worker too scared to take a toilet break. These are the sort of stories that have come out of Amazon warehouses from undercover investigations. Meanwhile, last week it was revealed that employees have reported 440 serious health and safety incidents across the company’s warehouses since 2015. Jack Dromey, Shadow Work and Pensions Minister, has referred to it as a “national scandal”, while GMB General Secretary, Tim Roache, has accused Amazon of treating its workers like robots.
 
It is this exploitation and dehumanization of labour that rapper Boots Riley exhilaratingly skewers in his directorial debut, Sorry to Bother You. In the film’s dystopian yet disturbingly real world, a company called WorryFree offers people food and accommodation for life. The only catch is that it’s in exchange for a lifetime employment contract. Despite the cramped, over-populated living quarters and the questionable quality of the food, the company presents a friendly face to the public and its slave-labour working conditions aren’t considered illegal. However, a rebellion called Left Eye is growing, making its mark on the numerous WorryFree billboards that dot the streets of Oakland, California.
 
It is amidst this backdrop that Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) gets a job as a telemarketer at a company called RegalView. Initially struggling to make a sale, he is advised by a co-worker, played by Danny Glover, to use his ‘white voice’. Adopting this new persona (voiced by David Cross), Cassius soon works his way up the ranks to the esteemed position of ‘Power Caller’. Moved upstairs, away from his friends and co-workers who are struggling to unionize, Cassius is now responsible for selling WorryFree labour to the highest bidder. Blinded by financial riches, a meeting with the company’s CEO Steve Lift (Armie Hammer), shockingly exposes Cassius to just how far WorryFree is willing to go in order to have an efficient workforce.
 
Sorry to Bother You is a film that defies categorization. Speaking to us after the film’s UK premiere at the London Film Festival, Boots Riley brushed off the constraints associated with specific genres. This attitude is reflected in the film itself, which shifts gears in a way that is utterly unconcerned with your preparedness. It starts off as a comedy first and foremost. The film is laugh-out-loud funny in an immediately accessible way, with one scene in particular, which Boots Riley referred to afterwards as ‘The Compliment Argument’, absolutely bringing the house down. The film then takes its capitalist critique to the most surreal extremes, resulting in a third act that has more in common with horror and science fiction. A scene where Cassius asks to go to the bathroom results in one of the biggest left-turns you’ll ever see in a film.

​Meanwhile, with his visual approach Boots Riley creates what is a work of magical realism. The world he crafts here is a nightmarish reflection of our own, with the way in which the camera moves giving it the air of a fever dream. The sense of not quite believing what you’re seeing is a consequence not just of the story itself, but also of how that story is presented. There are also some unexpected and unique uses of practical effects. All of this comes together to create what is one of the boldest directorial debuts in years.
 
In front of the camera, Lakeith Stanfield (Short Term 12, Get Out and Atlanta) is finally given the big, leading role that his superb supporting performances over the years have deserved. He has a charismatic presence on screen that makes him simultaneously relatable and aloof. Describing his process, Boots Riley explained that Lakeith didn’t learn his lines for any given scene until the day before filming. That way, his delivery could feel authentic rather than rehearsed.
 
Meanwhile, as the monstrous CEO Steve Lift, Armie Hammer gives one of the most wickedly entertaining performances of his career. Chosen because his lovable persona perfectly captured the friendly face modern capitalism presents itself with; it’s one of the best uses of his profile to date. Furthermore, Tessa Thompson provides a great foil to Lakeith Stanfield as his girlfriend Detroit, who becomes more involved with Left Eye as he excels at RegalView.
 
In his post-film remarks, Boots Riley said something with which I fervently agree. It is a view that forms the foundation of this very website. He said that every film, whether it is aware of it or not, is political. In the act of creation, a world-view is put forward, with people bringing their own baggage to whatever it is they’re making. Sorry to Bother You is an unashamedly political film. While some may find it too broad, and it certainly isn’t subtle, it is at its heart a scathing satire of modern capitalism. The leaps it takes in its third act may be too extreme for some; however the stories coming out of Amazon and across the growing gig economy show that in its madness, this film is an unfortunately perfect encapsulation of the times we live in. Don't be fooled by its title, Sorry to Bother You is a thrillingly unapologetic piece of polemic filmmaking. 

One of the fiercest and funniest anti-capitalist satires ever put to film.
 
Movie Parliament Rating: LANDSLIDE 

By Movie Parliament Prime Minister, 
​Michael Dalton 

Writers: Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber 
Director: James Franco 
Starring: James Franco, Dave Franco, Alison Brie, Seth Rogen, Josh Hutcherson, Zac Efron and Jacki Weaver 

Review: Michael Dalton, Prime Minister 

​Is there such a thing as an objectively good or bad film? It’s a question that critics in particular have to regularly reckon with. Sure films can receive unanimously positive reviews and win awards, but will we still be watching them decades from now? Can a film that is clearly bad in every way, shape and form, actually be good if it brings joy to so many people?
 
Released in 2003, The Room was an instant failure, only kept in cinemas by its writer, director and star so that it could qualify for Oscar consideration. However, over the years it has garnered a cult following, as people enjoyed its haphazard plot (“I got the test results back and I definitely have breast cancer”), melodramatic dialogue (“YOU’RE TEARING ME APART LISA”), and in particular, the eccentric performance of its mysterious creator, Tommy Wiseau (‘oh hai Mark”). Now a midnight-screening favourite, The Room enjoys Rocky Horror Picture Show levels of fandom.
 
The Disaster Artist is based on co-star Greg Sestero's book of the same name, telling the bizarre yet strangely beautiful behind the scenes story of how The Room got made. Much like the book, this is a film that's stranger than fiction, with Tommy Wiseau being a character you simply wouldn't believe if he were made for the silver screen. And yet, this film argues that despite the absurd incompetence of The Room, he was made for the silver screen, just not in the way that he thought. In an introduction before a preview screening at Picturehouse Central, James Franco said how in many ways it was the ultimate Hollywood story, with Wiseau’s reaction to the film almost being one of disappointment that it had taken this long to happen. “If anything we were too late,” he said, “it’s as if it was his plan all along.” 

​Looking at Franco’s career, it’s easy to see why he’s so fascinated by Tommy Wiseau. While best known to mainstream audiences for his roles in Spider-Man and Pineapple Express, as well as for his car-crash hosting of the Oscars, James Franco has been something of an enigma over the years, delivering performances that Wiseau would be proud of in films such as Spring Breakers. He’s also been a prolific director, with his films rarely receiving much critical or commercial love. In the Roast of James Franco for Comedy Central, Jonah Hill joked how Franco's output flew in the face of the 'one for them, one for me' Hollywood attitude of doing a film for the studios and then something more personal. Jonah said that Franco’s outlook could better be described as 'one for them, ten for nobody'.
 
Therefore, not only is Tommy Wiseau a role that an actor like Franco would love to play, but he’s also someone Franco may relate to. Indeed, Franco brings a real understanding and humanity to his portrayal of Wiseau, which goes far beyond mere imitation. Before the film, Franco joked how some people weren't sure if Wiseau was human, but in his hands he undoubtedly is. However, this in no way comes at the expense of inhabiting Wiseau's quirky personality and indecipherable accent, both of which Franco does perfectly. It’s a performance that is both hilarious and heartbreaking, and perhaps the finest of Franco’s career.
 
It is also, without a doubt, his greatest achievement as a director to date. He introduces Tommy Wiseau with great anticipation, the way a superhero film would build up to the reveal of its titular character. Meanwhile, he indulges in late nineties period detail and lovingly recreates many scenes from The Room. In fact, Franco spoke to having recreated half an hour of the film shot for shot, and over the credits the film wonderfully subverts the biopic trope of putting pictures of the actors next to their real-life counterparts. However, perhaps his greatest feat, is avoiding the pitfalls Tommy Wiseau fell into when making his disasterpiece. The irony that Franco is directing and starring in a production about the monstrosity of a film that was directed by and starred the same person is not lost on anyone. Rather than falling down that rabbit hole and dominating the film, this really is an ensemble piece.
 
His brother Dave plays Greg Sestero, and their built-in brotherly bond really helps to sell the friendship between Tommy and Greg. They balance one another perfectly, with Dave bringing a lovely supportiveness and earnestness to his role. Meanwhile, actors such as Ari Graynor, Jacki Weather and Josh Hutcherson all bring real grace and believability to their brief roles as other members of The Room’s cast. Between them, they share the good-natured enthusiasm that makes this film such a charming watch, and The Room such an endearing failure. It has garnered this status not because it was intentionally made that way, like the current trend of cynically-constructed so bad its good films (Sharknado), but rather because the people involved genuinely thought they were making something worthwhile, driven by a genuine passion for what they did and a desire to succeed.
 
The film does stray into self-indulgence at times, however it’s not out of a sense of Hollywood people getting together and having a good time at our expense, but rather from them too enthusiastically winking and nudging at fans of The Room, so that they can laugh along with us. While you can see this without watching The Room, it would be a bit like seeing a sequel before the original, or hearing a punch line of a joke before the set-up.
 
By the time the film reaches its conclusion, it has put a massive smile on your face and told a surprisingly moving and inspirational underdog story. If this really was Tommy Wiseau’s plan all along, then it’s only got one logical conclusion. Let’s finally get him to the Oscars. 

A hilarious and heartwarming ode to glorious failure. 

Movie Parliament Rating: LANDSLIDE 

Have you seen The Disaster Artist? Give us your thoughts in the comments below. 

Writers: Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou 
Director: Yorgos Lanthimos 
Starring: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman and Barry Keogan 

Review: Michael Dalton, Prime Minister

​As far as opening shots go, The Killing of a Sacred Deer’s is one for the ages. An exposed, beating, human heart, mid-operation, fills the entire screen. As the camera slowly pulls back, we see the surrounding area get poked and prodded by surgeons. It’s an evocative, attention-grabbing opening and one that sets the tone perfectly for what is to come. A film that’s cold, clinical, unflinching and utterly unforgettable. 
 
To say too much about the plot would spoil the delightfully delicate way in which the film lures you in, and so I will refrain from divulging too much information. The story focuses on a heart surgeon named Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell) who is maintaining a secret friendship with a teenager called Martin (Barry Keoghan). When a mysterious ailment strikes his family, Steven and his wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) are soon presented with an impossible choice.
 
The Killing of a Sacred Deer is brought to us by writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos, who is best known to mainstream audiences for his Oscar nominated film, The Lobster. If you’ve seen The Lobster then you should have some idea of what to expect here. However, where I personally felt that film ran out of steam, The Killing of a Sacred Deer escalates beautifully, culminating in one of the most intense cinematic experiences of 2017.
 
Yorgos Lanthimos and his co-writer Efthymis Filippou won the Best Screenplay award at the Cannes Film Festival for The Killing of a Sacred Deer and it’s easy to see why. Through their dialogue, a wonderfully off-kilter tone is established. There’s an undercurrent of satire and incredibly pitch-black comedy running throughout the film, which prevents it from being the bleak experience it could otherwise have been.
 
However, if you put this dialogue in other hands it could sound utterly banal. Its effectiveness comes as much from how its performed as from how its written. The dialogue is spoken in a very tightly wound, severe manner that feels both stilted and highly performative. The result is that the most absurd of lines are delivered in the most straight-faced of manners. The age-old critical question of whether quality was there on the page or brought through the performances is made redundant, as it is clear we are watching a perfect synthesis of the two and a pure realization of a director's vision. You’ll never hear more foreboding conversations about watchstraps or how to eat spaghetti. I knew this film had succeeded when, days after, I ate spaghetti and all I could think about was this film's chilling monologue on how it's done. 

​Colin Farrell returns for his second collaboration with Yorgos Lanthimos, having starred in The Lobster. There are some actors lucky enough to find a director who brings the best out of them, or discovers another side to them that audiences are unaccustomed to. With Lanthimos, Farrell has found his filmmaker. The screenplay twists and turns whatever initial sympathies you may have had for his character, all the while not shying away from the impossibility of the choice he's been presented with. In what might appear at first glance to be a muted performance, Farrell absolutely sells the anxieties, cowardice, anger and anguish of his character. 
 
Meanwhile, Nicole Kidman continues what has been a phenomenal run of work. With The Beguiled earlier this year (also co-starring Colin Farrell) and her work on the small screen in Big Little Lies, she is arguably the in-form actress of the moment. Here, Kidman gives the sort of icy, steely performance she does so well, as her character takes matters into her own hands (quite literally in one scene) and manipulates those around her. 
 
However, the star of the show is undoubtedly Barry Keoghan. Best known to audiences as George from Dunkirk ("I'll be useful, sir.") Keoghan delivers a career-turning performance here. As the mysterious Martin, he commands your attention whenever he's on screen. At first you're scanning his face for clues, as you try to decipher the nature of his relationship with Colin Farrell's character. Then, as the narrative progresses and his motivations become clear, you find yourself both terrified and entranced by his presence. Polite and psychotic in equal measure, it's one of the finest performances of the year so far. In terms of career impact, it could do for him what We Need To Talk About Kevin did for Ezra Miller. 
 
By the time The Killing of a Sacred Deer reaches its crescendo, your heart will be in your mouth as one of the year’s most intense scenes plays out. While its humour may be too pitch-black for some, or its conclusion too bleak, in terms of uniqueness and sheer uncompromising vision, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is one of the year’s best films.

Hilarious and horrifying in equal measure, and buoyed by a breakout performance from Barry Keoghan, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is one of the best films of the year.
 
Movie Parliament Rating: LANDSLIDE
 
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
 
Have you seen The Killing of a Sacred Deer? Give us your thoughts in the comments below.  

Writer: Simon Beaufoy 
Directors: Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton 
Starring: Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Sarah Silverman and Bill Pullman 

​Review written by: Michael Dalton, Prime Minister

​Great sports movies are rarely about the sport in question. From Moneyball to Dodgeball, it’s often the action that takes place off the court, or pitch, that is the most compelling. However, despite that, we’re still waiting for the first great tennis movie. It seems that tennis may be the hardest sport to make a film out of that isn’t really about the sport. Step forward Billie Jean King, the number one female tennis player in the world back in 1973. Facing institutional discrimination, as female players were denied the same privileges given to men for winning tournaments, Billie Jean King forged her own path and took her fellow professionals along with her. However, when ex-pro Bobby Riggs starts to claim that he could beat any player women’s tennis can throw at him, Billie Jean is forced to step up and make a point to the world, all the while concealing her true sexuality from society.
 
Battle of the Sexes has such rich subject matter, it's surprising that it took this long to be made into a film. I must admit, being a twenty-two year old from the UK, I didn't know much about this match before seeing the film. While I'm sure an extra degree of appreciation would come from having such knowledge, watching the film without knowing exactly how it was going to turn out made for incredibly compelling viewing. This is a testament to the approach of directors Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton, who deliver a film that satisfies as a sports movie, relationship drama and historical document.
 
Tennis matches have always been difficult to translate to the big screen, with actors unable to match the intensity or pace of the pros, and while the match itself is somewhat less interesting than everything else going on around it, Faris and Dayton do create a lot of tension. However, their greater exploits come from the handling of both the period detail and personal relationships. 
 
The film marks an interesting contrast to Breathe, which was the opening night film at the London Film Festival. I thought that film failed to delve deeper into Robin Cavendish’s personal life, or to convey the broader importance of his actions. However, Battle of the Sexes provides both an intimate account of who Billie Jean King is, and how her actions changed the world around her.
 
On the personal level, Billie Jean King's sexuality is portrayed with a sensitivity and progressiveness. While there are moments of contrivance in how the 'love triangle' of sorts is handled between Billie Jean, her husband and hairdresser Marilyn Barnett, the dynamic between the three (or four if you count Billie Jean's first love of tennis) makes for an emotionally complex relationship drama, which could have been a compelling film in its own right.
 
Central to this dynamic is the hairdresser Marilyn Barnett, played by Andrea Riseborough. Seeing Andrea Riseborough talk to us before the film accentuated the strength of her performance. If you didn’t know, you’d be convinced she was an American actress and not from Newcastle upon Tyne. Having delivered terrific, and chameleonic, supporting performances for years now, hopefully this film brings her the credit she deserves. 

​However, this is very much Emma Stone’s show. Speaking to us before the film, Billie Jean King repeatedly came back to how much admiration she had for her. Listing the accolades won at the start of the year for La La Land, Billie Jean argued that Emma Stone was the number one actress in the world right now. Watching this film it's hard to disagree with that conclusion, as Stone gives the sort of assured and commanding performance that only an actress at the top of her game could give. Great performances of real-life figures go beyond mere imitation, and Stone captures both Billie Jean’s internal conflicts and external drive for change.
 
On the other side of the court, Steve Carell provides much of the film's humour through his performance as Bobby Riggs. However, the film's portrayal of his gambling addiction is its one big misstep. Speaking before the film, Elizabeth Shue said how her character of Lornie Kuhle, Bobby’s husband, prevented the handling of Bobby Riggs from being one-dimensional, as it gave you a picture of his troubled personal life. I have to disagree, as too often that aspect of his life was used as a punch line rather than a source of drama. While this is very much Billie Jean's story, the filmmakers purport to give a more nuanced picture of Bobby Riggs than his public persona, however, for the most part, it is still very much a one-note portrayal and an opportunity missed. 
 
Overall, Battle of the Sexes is absorbing and satisfying viewing. As a sports movie it works, however it also succeeds as a relationship drama and a piece of social history. Faris and Dayton’s direction provides both scope and sensitivity, whilst Emma Stone gives the performance of an actress at the top of her game.  

​To call it the first great tennis movie is to damn this gripping and satisfying drama with faint praise. 
 
Movie Parliament Rating: MAJORITY GOVERNMENT 

Give us your thoughts on Battle of the Sexes in the comments below. 

Writer: William Nicholson 
Director: Andy Serkis 
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Claire Foy, Tom Hollander, Hugh Bonneville and Stephen Mangan 

Review written by: Michael Dalton, Prime Minister

​Andy Serkis is the biggest actor in the world nobody recognizes. From Gollum in The Lord of the Rings to Caesar in Planet of the Apes, his performances have been seen by millions and revolutionized motion-capture technology in the process. However, were he to walk down the street few would bat an eyelid. Now, he adds another string to his underappreciated bow by sitting in the director’s chair for Breathe, a biopic about polio sufferer Robin Cavendish (Andrew Garfield), who with the help of his wife Diana (Claire Foy) changed attitudes regarding the treatment and capabilities of the severley disabled.
 
For an actor who has helped break such new technological ground, and whose work to date has dealt with the fantastical, it may seem odd that his directorial debut is a period-piece romance based on a true story. Well, in one sense it isn’t his first directorial effort, as his adaptation of The Jungle Book was put on ice after Jon Favreau’s 2016 remake for Disney. Nevertheless, putting that technicality to one side, Andy Serkis remains the perfect person to bring this moving true story to the big screen. His mother taught disabled children, while his sister has multiple sclerosis and Robin Cavendish’s son Jonathan is his business partner, helping him set up The Imaginarium: the world’s leading motion-capture performance studio.
 
Andy Serkis' direction should put to bed any lingering notions that his motion-capture background represents a threat to actors. With the performance-driven nature of this film, it is clear that Andy Serkis' work in those aforementioned blockbusters was rooted in the same principles as those whose bodies aren't transformed into other beings. While the source material may not be as obviously cinematic as some of the films he's starred in, Serkis imbues the film with a sense of scope, with the film's opening landscape shots looking particularly comfortable on the big screen. It's a debut of much promise, and one that suggests he possesses a keen eye for visuals, and the ability to work well with actors. 
 
Speaking of the actors, Andrew Garfield continues to demonstrate what a likeable screen presence, and physical performer he is. For most of the film he only has his face to work with, and responds by being incredibly expressive. The twinkle in his eyes and wide smile play a big part in creating the film's infectious charm and sunny outlook. Meanwhile, while Claire Foy is solid and equally likable, she is given slightly less to work with despite the importance of her character. What she’s asked to do here isn’t a world away from what we’ve seen in The Crown, and she feels rather typecast in the role of posh, stoic British woman. Here's hoping that her upcoming portrayal of Lisbeth Salander will show off more of her range. 

​It's in the script where the film's flaws reside. Speaking to us at the London Film Festival prior to its European premiere, Jonathan Cavendish (who is a producer on the film and played in it at one point by Dean Charles Chapman – otherwise known as Tommen from Game of Thrones) spoke of the pressure of doing justice to his parents lives, and how him and writer William Nicholson spent eight years developing the script. The closeness that those attached to the project have with the material is both a help and a hindrance. The film does have a refreshing spring in its step considering its subject matter, and is an approach that may not have come naturally to outsiders. However, it is at times frustratingly narrow in focus. The discrimination and derogatory treatment that other sufferers, less fortunate than Robin Cavendish, faced is only briefly explored, and the film never really delves deeper into how the situation affected both Robin's mindset and his relationship with Diana. One scene here and another conversation there, is all that these dramatically potent prospects are given. 
 
Clearly a conscious choice has been made  to focus on the positivity and ingenuity that surrounds the story, with the film quickly reverting back to comedy anytime things start to get too dark. It is a refreshingly light-hearted approach for a film of its ilk, which is inspirational in its own way and may be a more representative of how the real-life Cavendish family dealt with the situation. However, that does result in the film frequently avoiding the darker elements of the story and its broader, societal ramifications. Too often it plays like a family jaunt, that at its worst comes off as cliché and cloying, and doesn’t give you as good a picture it could of how important Robin and Diana’s achievements were to others.
 
In playing it so often for laughs, the film never really sells the tension of the situation that at any point Robin could be two minutes from death, nor does it quite reach the emotional impact it wants to by the end. If the LFF opening night is anything to go by then the film is a crowd-pleaser, however there were more laughs throughout than there were sniffles at the end.  
 
Overall, while Breathe may not be as groundbreaking as its subjects, it is a film that's impossible to dislike. Its levity may at times frustrate but it does entertain, and has a certain charm which proves infectious. 

​Promising direction from Andy Serkis and an expressive performance from Andrew Garfield help to propel a likeable, if at times frustratingly narrow, film. 

Movie Parliament Rating: MINORITY GOVERNMENT 

​When Prometheus was released in the summer of 2012 anticipation was high for Ridley Scott’s return to the Alien franchise. His 1979 original made a hero out of Sigourney Weaver and contained one of cinema’s most shocking scenes. The subsequent sequels tarnished the brand, resulting in the low point that was Alien vs. Predator. Prometheus was not only supposed to mark Ridley Scott’s return to the science-fiction genre, but also the franchise’s return to its bloody roots. However, Ridley Scott had other things on his mind, such as the meaning of life, and delivered a film that left people confused both by its tone and the dubious decisions of its characters. Despite its mixed reception, one thing that all reviews of Alien: Covenant seem to agree on is that it’s better than Prometheus. I disagree, and think that Alien: Covenant actually shows just what a good film Prometheus is. 

Prometheus, for all its flaws, at least had an air of originality. In fact, the film was so original that it would have been better served had it been its own entity, merely taking place in the Alien universe but not directly connected to the original. As an Alien movie it is disappointing. The Xenomorph hardly appears and, one sequence aside, it doesn’t contain any of the original’s visceral horror. However, what it does contain are some superb performances, principally from Michael Fassbender as the android David. The film also boasts some stunning imagery and production design, as well as dark and mature themes. In an industry that is devoid of big-budget, original science fiction, it’s reasonable to assume that had it arrived without the pressure of being an Alien prequel, the reception to Prometheus would have been much kinder. 

However, the reception wasn’t kind and Ridley Scott (or at least the studio) was listening. Marketing for Alien: Covenant has put the Xenomorph front and center and would almost have you believe that this film has nothing to do with Prometheus. And yet, as the film progresses it becomes clear that it wants to have its cake and eat it, revealing itself to be both a sequel to Prometheus as well as essentially a remake of Alien. It feels like two separate scripts were fused together and the result is a dishonest and disjointed mess. 

For somebody who’s called it, ‘the thinking man’s horror film’, Ridley Scott insults the audience’s intelligence in many ways throughout Alien: Covenant (No reference or allusion can be made without aggressive citation from the characters). However, perhaps the most galling is the film’s implicit suggestion that all we wanted was a by the numbers retread of Alien and some Xenomorph action. All of which is phoned in to disguise the film’s true intention, which is a doubling down on Prometheus. It defenestrates the film to try and gain some geek cred, yet also wholly embraces it. Not only that, it embraces its worst aspects, with Covenant’s script making Damon Lindelof’s words sound natural and subtle.  

For somebody considered an auteur director, Alien: Covenant is Ridley Scott filmmaking by focus group. To add bewildering insult to injury, it’s done to cynically dispose of a film whose style and plot it lovingly continues. And if that sounds like a contradiction it’s because it is. And so is this film. Either make Prometheus 2 or a true Alien prequel, all this disjointed mess serves to do is undermine what could have been an interesting sci-fi series in its own right, and further saturate the Alien franchise. You’d think if anybody could make the Xenomorph scary again it’s Ridley Scott and yet the film’s desire to explain the origins of that classic movie monster only serves to rob it of the qualities that made it so terrifying in the first place.
 
If you didn’t know, you wouldn’t think that this film was from the same director as Alien; such is its fundamental misunderstanding of what made that film so scary. Like George Lucas and Peter Jackson before him, in going back to provide his classic with a prequel trilogy, Ridley Scott seems to have forgotten what made his own film so good in the first place. Watching Alien: Covenant, the film I was most reminded of was not Alien, but rather Attack of the Clones. That film got good reviews just for not being The Phantom Menace, but that didn’t make it any good.
 
With this prequel series, Ridley Scott is following the George Lucas mold of providing utterly unnecessary backstory in the most ponderous of ways. To extend this Star Wars comparison further, Alien: Covenant represents the worst of both worlds, having the portent of the prequels and the pandering fan service of the latest sequels. However, whereas The Force Awakens was good, all the Alien moments here feel utterly generic and unspectacular. Who would have thought that a chest-bursting scene could feel like such a non-event?   

​Whilst Prometheus may not have lived up to its billing as an Alien prequel, it is a far more ambitious and original film than Alien: Covenant. The characters are better realized, with the crew of the Covenant being more disposable than the cast of a slasher movie. This is a point of view that the film itself agrees with, as despite Katherine Waterston’s great performance, Michael Fassbender’s David is the true protagonist. The film starts and ends with him, being his story more than anyone else’s. This would be fine if what we were watching was a straight-up sequel to Prometheus, but it’s fundamentally at odds with the Alien film it presents itself as and reduces all the other characters, and the time spent with them, to nothing.
 
Meanwhile, there is no sequence in Covenant as compelling, or disturbing, as the one in Prometheus where Noomi Rapace’s character has to perform self-surgery in order to remove an Alien fetus. Alien: Covenant may dial up the Xenomorph action but it doesn’t do so to any great effect. Whilst we all remember sequences from Alien, Aliens and Prometheus, I’d be willing to bet that in a few years time people will struggle to remember anything from Alien: Covenant. And perhaps that’s the film’s biggest crime beyond its dishonest disjointedness…it just isn’t scary. 

Ultimately, Alien: Covenant is an unimaginative retread of Alien fused with a Prometheus sequel that dials up the portent and feels a need to justify its existence. The result is a hybrid so horrific, it challenges the monster that used to be at the centre of it all. 

Movie Parliament Rating: FRINGE PARTY

What do you think? Is Alien: Covenant a better film than Prometheus? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. 

By Movie Parliament Prime Minister, 
Michael Dalton