:00:00. > :00:00.match. We will also look at Rafael Nadal in the Australian open. Now
:00:00. > :00:21.though, it is time for film review. Hello, and welcome to
:00:22. > :00:23.the Film Review on BBC News. To take us through this week's
:00:24. > :00:25.cinema releases, as ever, Mark Kermode is with me,
:00:26. > :00:38.and what will you be telling us It is a very big week. Trainspotting
:00:39. > :00:43.T2, they beat up after 20 years. Then we have a look at a film by the
:00:44. > :00:53.people that brought us minions. And Hacksaw Ridge, Mel Gibson at war.
:00:54. > :00:59.Trainspotting two. I can't wait. T2 Trainspotting. One of those titles
:01:00. > :01:04.you can't quite get a measure of. 20 years later, the original characters
:01:05. > :01:09.are reunited. Renton is drawn back into his past for reasons which are
:01:10. > :01:13.not immediately explained and we find the old crew ravaged not so
:01:14. > :01:18.much by heroin is by age and by disappointment and buy a degree of
:01:19. > :01:23.emasculation and the way in which their lives have not worked out as
:01:24. > :01:27.they will have expected. Bigby has been in prison and Spud, when Renton
:01:28. > :01:33.first bind him, has basically all but lost the will to live, until his
:01:34. > :01:38.friend returns and getting new figure. He is a clip. -- and gives
:01:39. > :01:56.him new vigour. I can't fail again. I need to detox
:01:57. > :02:00.the system. Spud, detox the system? What does that even mean. It's not
:02:01. > :02:08.getting it out of your body that's the problem, it's getting it out of
:02:09. > :02:15.your mind. You are an addict. I am trying. So, be addicted. The
:02:16. > :02:19.addicted to something else. You have got to channel it, you have got to
:02:20. > :02:29.control it. People try all sorts. Some people try boxing. Boxing?! It
:02:30. > :02:38.was just an example. What did you channel it into? Getting away. That
:02:39. > :02:43.clip is good because it was funny but ends on a melancholic note. As
:02:44. > :02:49.somebody who saw the original 20 years ago, I remember being really
:02:50. > :02:53.astonished by how dark it was. But people forget about how shocking it
:02:54. > :02:59.was. What I liked about this was it felt like a film about middle age,
:03:00. > :03:04.about the way in which the world changes, about the way in which the
:03:05. > :03:10.characters bodies have changed, their characteristics have changed,
:03:11. > :03:13.and as with so many of Danny Boyle's films, it's about friendship, the
:03:14. > :03:19.way the present loops back to the past and has this elegiac longing
:03:20. > :03:23.for the past. My only reservation with this, I thought it worked
:03:24. > :03:27.really well because I didn't want to be let down. I didn't want them to
:03:28. > :03:33.be revisiting this for cash, Paul Money, because that is an easy thing
:03:34. > :03:39.to do. It is a film with integrity. The screenwriter has created
:03:40. > :03:43.something new. They have created something artistic. It is really
:03:44. > :03:47.well directed. My only question would be, I don't know what it would
:03:48. > :03:50.look like if you were a young viewers seeing it for the first
:03:51. > :03:53.time, not having all that history with Trainspotting, because a lot of
:03:54. > :03:57.what it is doing is playing with the past. But I like that about it. The
:03:58. > :04:02.interplay between the past and the present. It's like meeting these
:04:03. > :04:06.characters again and genuinely seeing what time has done to them.
:04:07. > :04:14.And the screenplay from the original from the Irbin Welsh book was funny
:04:15. > :04:21.and quite philosophical. A brilliant screenplay. If it as good? I think
:04:22. > :04:26.he has done a brilliant job. There are an awful lot of laughs in it. It
:04:27. > :04:30.is definitely more melancholy than the original. It doesn't have that
:04:31. > :04:36.vampiric bite that the original had, not the venomous feeling. But what
:04:37. > :04:41.it does have is a sense of ennui, though I feel like I am underselling
:04:42. > :04:44.it. A sense that life is full of disappointments but somehow finding
:04:45. > :04:50.vibrancy and giving a life to those -- a voice to those characters who
:04:51. > :04:55.would otherwise have been written off as deadbeats again, following on
:04:56. > :05:04.that tradition. I am looking forward to your other choice. Sing is by
:05:05. > :05:12.is about a group of animals in a is about a group of animals in a
:05:13. > :05:17.singing competition. It owes a lot more to Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland,
:05:18. > :05:21.old school, let's put the show on here than a singing competition. It
:05:22. > :05:26.starts out as a singing competition but moves on to saving a bit. It won
:05:27. > :05:31.me over very gradually. At the beginning I thought it was sweet
:05:32. > :05:36.natured barn but as it went on, it started to have that child, that
:05:37. > :05:41.old-fashioned throwback charm which I loved from all those old musicals.
:05:42. > :05:46.You can tell it's not just something which is just fluff. Yes, it's
:05:47. > :05:50.bright and shiny with more pop tunes in it than you could wave a stick at
:05:51. > :05:55.but it has something important. It has a bit part in it and that is
:05:56. > :06:04.down to Garth Jennings. Hacksaw Ridge. Mel Gibson reinventing
:06:05. > :06:11.himself again? This is about someone who volunteered as a medic in World
:06:12. > :06:15.War II and refused to carry a weapon into the unfolding horror of war.
:06:16. > :06:26.Let's see a clip. How come you don't fight? You think you are better than
:06:27. > :06:34.us? No. What if you were attacked? Do you like that? You have to turn
:06:35. > :06:39.the other cheek customer you see, I don't think this is a question of
:06:40. > :06:48.religion, fellows. I think this is cowardice, plain and simple. Is that
:06:49. > :06:53.right? Well, go on. Take a poke. I'll tell you what, I'm going to
:06:54. > :07:03.give you a free shot. Right there. He to me. Though one. Let him have
:07:04. > :07:09.it. The peculiar thing about this film is before I saw it, I heard
:07:10. > :07:14.people comparing it to what I think is Mel Gibson's best work but this
:07:15. > :07:18.is not it. This is to films fighting for supremacy. The first half of it
:07:19. > :07:26.is almost cheesy. Its saccharine sweet almost. Then we moved to the
:07:27. > :07:31.war scenes and they are brutal and bloody and if you have seen the
:07:32. > :07:35.Passion of the Christ, you know that Mel Gibson absolutely really does
:07:36. > :07:39.law. What that means is you get to separate movie is going on.
:07:40. > :07:44.Sometimes the battle scenes are absolutely horrific and up there
:07:45. > :07:48.with the Stephen Spielberg stuff from saving Private Ryan but
:07:49. > :07:52.sometimes they teeter over into something which approach is parody,
:07:53. > :07:56.almost Tropic Thunder, so you get a weird mix. The movie feels like it
:07:57. > :08:00.is pulling in a number of different ways. I came out of this slightly
:08:01. > :08:05.baffled because there are things addict that I really cheesy --
:08:06. > :08:09.things in its that are really cheesy, something that I really
:08:10. > :08:14.saccharine, other things that are brutal and I think it has moments
:08:15. > :08:18.that are really striking. The story is really striking. It is a true
:08:19. > :08:23.story and I have read a bit about him in the past. It is a great
:08:24. > :08:28.story. The point about that was that he is a brave man and refused to
:08:29. > :08:33.fight. Just because the story is great, doesn't mean the film is
:08:34. > :08:38.consistently great. I wonder if the saccharine start at the beginning
:08:39. > :08:42.was Mel Gibson trying to prepare the American public to find someone who
:08:43. > :08:45.was a conscientious objector brave. I literally spent the first third of
:08:46. > :08:50.the film thinking, when is this going to turn into the great movie
:08:51. > :08:55.that everyone tells me it is? Once we had got into the war sequences as
:08:56. > :09:00.I said, he can do that stuff really well, but he can also push it too
:09:01. > :09:07.far. Not Clint Eastwood then? No, but that is an interesting
:09:08. > :09:10.comparison because his movies are different to an American audience
:09:11. > :09:19.than to a British audience. What more can we set about Lala land? I
:09:20. > :09:24.love it. People are concerned that it is not as good as we have been
:09:25. > :09:32.saying, like it is overhyped, but I haven't stopped singing it since I
:09:33. > :09:38.saw it. I loved Lala land. Best film and Best Director for the BAFTAs and
:09:39. > :09:44.the oft is -- and the Oscars? Yes, I think it will absolutely sweep the
:09:45. > :09:48.board. Finally, under the shadow, which I haven't been yet. You must,
:09:49. > :09:57.because he will absolutely love it. It is a British production set in
:09:58. > :10:01.Jordan. It is about a mother and her daughter in an apartment building
:10:02. > :10:09.being shelled but they are being terrorised by a gin spirit. It owes
:10:10. > :10:16.a debt to things like the tenant, and's baby. It is smart, it is
:10:17. > :10:22.influenced by the brother Dick and I promise you you will love it. Right,
:10:23. > :10:28.that is my homework for the weekend. I shall look for under the shadow.
:10:29. > :10:36.You will find more film news and reviews across the BBC including all
:10:37. > :10:37.our previous shows on the website. Thank you for watching. Enjoy the
:10:38. > :10:52.movies. Hello. January has been dry and we
:10:53. > :10:53.have been watching for the change to much