0:00:00 > 0:00:01will be talking to Ryan Sidebottom about what he thinks rugby union
0:00:01 > 0:00:07need to do. Now though, it's time for the Film Review.
0:00:18 > 0:00:21Hello, and welcome to The Film Review on BBC News.
0:00:21 > 0:00:24To take us through this week's cinema releases is Mark Kermode.
0:00:24 > 0:00:30So, Mark, what do we have this week?
0:00:30 > 0:00:35We have Bill, which is a film about the Boston bombing survivor Jeff
0:00:35 > 0:00:46Bowman -- Stronger. Human Flow, and effective documentary by Ai Weiwei.
0:00:46 > 0:00:57And the Dinner.We can discuss that. Stronger, this is about the
0:00:57 > 0:01:02aftermath of the Boston bombing. Jake Gyllenhaal as Jeff Bowman, a
0:01:02 > 0:01:05young Bostonian who was at the finishing line and was involved in
0:01:05 > 0:01:10the blast and lost both his legs. And then having survived the bombing
0:01:10 > 0:01:14then had to rebuild his life both physically and indeed mentally, and
0:01:14 > 0:01:17deal with the fact that he had suddenly become right at the centre
0:01:17 > 0:01:22of the spotlight which saw him in many ways as the body meant of the
0:01:22 > 0:01:25Boston strong mantra. Here is a clip.
0:01:25 > 0:01:29All right, when you're ready, scooch ahead before you stand up.
0:01:29 > 0:01:31OK, I'm going to straighten out like that.
0:01:31 > 0:01:32OK.
0:01:32 > 0:01:36Yeah.
0:01:36 > 0:01:39OK, scooch ahead.
0:01:42 > 0:01:45Up, hips back, hips back, chest out.
0:01:45 > 0:01:46Chest up.
0:01:46 > 0:01:51OK, chest up, chest up.
0:01:51 > 0:01:52Good, good, OK.
0:01:52 > 0:01:57You OK?
0:01:57 > 0:01:59You are so tall!
0:01:59 > 0:02:04Oh, my God.
0:02:04 > 0:02:09I've got pins and needles in my legs.
0:02:09 > 0:02:13Good job, Jeff.
0:02:13 > 0:02:16You're doing amazing, Jeff. You look amazing.
0:02:16 > 0:02:17Keep going.
0:02:17 > 0:02:18Keep going.
0:02:18 > 0:02:19I can't.
0:02:19 > 0:02:20I've got to sit down.
0:02:20 > 0:02:21Good job.
0:02:21 > 0:02:24Good job.
0:02:27 > 0:02:31The story is extraordinary not least because the first thing he does when
0:02:31 > 0:02:35he wakes up in hospital is say, I saw the bombs, he wanted to pass on
0:02:35 > 0:02:39that information. What the film is really, really interested in is the
0:02:39 > 0:02:45way in which he struggled to recover and also his relationships with his
0:02:45 > 0:02:49own- of girlfriend and his mother and his family. You saw Amanda
0:02:49 > 0:02:53Richardson as his mother, who is terrific. What is central to it is
0:02:53 > 0:02:58the film doesn't play him as a hero, it plays him as somebody who is in a
0:02:58 > 0:03:01position which they had nothing to do with and suddenly finds himself
0:03:01 > 0:03:05in the centre of this great personal struggle and suddenly finds himself
0:03:05 > 0:03:09the centre of all of this media attention and is, you know, on the
0:03:09 > 0:03:12one hand doing this very, very heroic thing, but on the other hand
0:03:12 > 0:03:21finding it very hard to cope with that attention. What I like about
0:03:21 > 0:03:24the film is that it doesn't try and pink two-dimensional pictures. He
0:03:24 > 0:03:26has fractures relationships with his family and girlfriend, he goes
0:03:26 > 0:03:28through different phases. What happens with the movie is that it
0:03:28 > 0:03:31involves you in the story in a way that you genuinely believe that what
0:03:31 > 0:03:35you're seeing is a realistic portrait. It's not exploitative,
0:03:35 > 0:03:40it's not melodramatic.I think it's based on a book that he wrote, isn't
0:03:40 > 0:03:45it?Details of it are true, you've seen enough Hollywood movies which
0:03:45 > 0:03:49are doing fired over adversity but do so in a way which is kind of
0:03:49 > 0:03:52saccharine and very sentimental and the lies very heavily on
0:03:52 > 0:03:56sentimentality and melodrama. I found this very moving. There are
0:03:56 > 0:03:59moments when it will make you cry and moments when it'll make you
0:03:59 > 0:04:02laugh, but the most important thing was that it seemed honest and
0:04:02 > 0:04:10truthful and was done in a way in which it was low-key enough in which
0:04:10 > 0:04:12it felt like it didn't exploit the situation. I was surprisingly moved
0:04:12 > 0:04:15by it. It doesn't change the form at or do anything major to the
0:04:15 > 0:04:18structure of the kind of story that we've seen before. But it plays it
0:04:18 > 0:04:22well and it plays it in a heartfelt weight and it feels like an honest
0:04:22 > 0:04:27endeavour that was moving and affecting. -- in a heartfelt way.By
0:04:27 > 0:04:33Ai Weiwei form. Sadly I haven't seen it yet. I can only assume that it is
0:04:33 > 0:04:38unbearably moving.It is very moving. Ai Weiwei is an exceptional
0:04:38 > 0:04:42artist. This is about the current refugee crisis, the humanitarian
0:04:42 > 0:04:47disaster on folding and the world. It is a portrait of global
0:04:47 > 0:04:52displacement, shot in 25 countries, 25 film crews, some of the food did
0:04:52 > 0:04:57is hand-held, some of these extraordinary aerial shots, drone
0:04:57 > 0:05:01shot of huge numbers of people moving through incredibly hostile
0:05:01 > 0:05:06terrain of refugee camps. We do get interviews, we do get discussions,
0:05:06 > 0:05:14but the most affecting staff is this of humanity on the move, and the
0:05:14 > 0:05:17persistence of barriers and Borders and boundaries and people rather
0:05:17 > 0:05:22than receiving a welcome facing a wall. It is a film which has a
0:05:22 > 0:05:26cumulative impact. Over the course of the movie, you do become
0:05:26 > 0:05:31overwhelmed by the scope of this. I think again, it's a very interesting
0:05:31 > 0:05:34piece of film-making because it's using film to tell this story in a
0:05:34 > 0:05:38way which is specifically gradual. Obviously we do get discussions of
0:05:38 > 0:05:45these terrifying subject -- specifically visual. The stuff that
0:05:45 > 0:05:49works less well is when Ai Weiwei is talking to some of the refugees, we
0:05:49 > 0:05:53believe that has less impact than when you see the scope of the what
0:05:53 > 0:06:01the film is the big thing. It's called Human Flow.OK, the Dinner.
0:06:01 > 0:06:07What did you think?Is adapted from a novel, it is a story of the hidden
0:06:07 > 0:06:10violence of the bourgeoisie, and it asked the question, what would you
0:06:10 > 0:06:16do to protect a loved one? In upstate New York, two talking cheese
0:06:16 > 0:06:20brothers and their respective partners meet in an upmarket
0:06:20 > 0:06:25restaurant, one is tetchy and awkward and difficult, Richard Gere
0:06:25 > 0:06:28is a smooth politician, but there is a terrible family secret that they
0:06:28 > 0:06:30have to discuss. Here is a clip.
0:06:30 > 0:06:31This is long overdue.
0:06:31 > 0:06:33What were you talking about?
0:06:33 > 0:06:34We were just...
0:06:34 > 0:06:36We were just enjoying one of those awkward pauses, as they say,
0:06:36 > 0:06:40not talking about anything.
0:06:40 > 0:06:42Not talking about anything?
0:06:42 > 0:06:44Well, we're going to talk tonight.
0:06:44 > 0:06:49We're going to put it all on the table.
0:06:49 > 0:06:51Is something wrong?
0:06:51 > 0:06:56Are you OK?
0:06:56 > 0:07:01There's a lot...
0:07:01 > 0:07:02No, no, don't.
0:07:02 > 0:07:03He doesn't like the big table.
0:07:03 > 0:07:05No, really, it's all right.
0:07:05 > 0:07:06We're fine here.
0:07:06 > 0:07:08You know, actually, the other room could be better.
0:07:08 > 0:07:09This one is private enough.
0:07:09 > 0:07:13Just a second, I'm going to go and check it out.
0:07:13 > 0:07:19I'm not moving.
0:07:19 > 0:07:22What's interesting about this is, this discussion that they are not
0:07:22 > 0:07:26having, that they move towards having, played out over the course
0:07:26 > 0:07:30of this ridiculously elaborate dinner. Each course is described by
0:07:30 > 0:07:34the maitre d' in incredible terms. At the centre of the discussion is
0:07:34 > 0:07:37this hidden secret about something which has happened with the
0:07:37 > 0:07:42children. And I think the film has got really good performances in it.
0:07:42 > 0:07:46A great cast, a good ensemble cast. A really good performance out of
0:07:46 > 0:07:51Richard Gere, this director got previously in which he was playing a
0:07:51 > 0:07:56homeless man. The problem with the film to some extent is it is
0:07:56 > 0:08:00probably two courses too long. It is two hours and it should be 89
0:08:00 > 0:08:04minutes. When we are at the table, when the kind of unspoken arguments
0:08:04 > 0:08:08are sort of boiling and seething away, I actually think it works,
0:08:08 > 0:08:12well. It then has this kind of flashback structure in which it
0:08:12 > 0:08:20moves back to events in the past and we see things unfolding from lots of
0:08:20 > 0:08:22perspectives. For me that works slightly less well. I know some
0:08:22 > 0:08:25people have really taken against the movie, and one of the reason is they
0:08:25 > 0:08:28are pretty claustrophobic company. They are not people you actually
0:08:28 > 0:08:33want is bent that much time in the company at all. Steve Coogan's
0:08:33 > 0:08:36character is so difficult and awkward, and Richard Gere's
0:08:36 > 0:08:40character is so smooth and smarmy. But during the course of the drama
0:08:40 > 0:08:44it plays with our expectations of how each character's motivations
0:08:44 > 0:08:49will fall. It is flawed, no questions about it, and it is two
0:08:49 > 0:08:53courses too long. But in the middle of it there is a main course which
0:08:53 > 0:08:56is well worth trying. I think I've actually kill the metaphor stone
0:08:56 > 0:09:05dead now!Thank you very much. Best out, I'm so delighted that you have
0:09:05 > 0:09:08chosen this, because it will encourage me to see it again, a film
0:09:08 > 0:09:12I haven't seen probably since I was at university.One of the greatest
0:09:12 > 0:09:17movies ever made, made immediately in the oft of the war. The Ministry
0:09:17 > 0:09:23of Defence said, can you make a movie which encourage the Brits and
0:09:23 > 0:09:28Americans to like each other more. It has just been released, it is so
0:09:28 > 0:09:32moving, it starts with a doomed M and falling in love with somebody on
0:09:32 > 0:09:36a radio -- a doomed M on. The emissary coming to get him gets lost
0:09:36 > 0:09:41in the fog of the channel. The film plays out, you can read it as a
0:09:41 > 0:09:45psychological drama or an otherworldly drama or you can read
0:09:45 > 0:09:50it as some slightly metaphysical romance. It's funny and smart and
0:09:50 > 0:09:53looks brilliant, extraordinary cinematography. How many times have
0:09:53 > 0:09:57you seen it?I think this was only my second. But you effectively
0:09:57 > 0:10:08forced me to watch it again, I thought some of the script was
0:10:08 > 0:10:11wonderful.I hate to say this, it is the kind of film they just don't
0:10:11 > 0:10:13make any more! And yet, it's incredibly future looking. It
0:10:13 > 0:10:16reminds you of the Wizard of Oz, everything down on Earth is
0:10:16 > 0:10:18technicolour and everything else is black and white. It is one of the
0:10:18 > 0:10:24greatest movies ever made is not the greatest movie ever made, and it's
0:10:24 > 0:10:28out against quite very quick thought about DVD. Atomic blonde, this is
0:10:28 > 0:10:34our version of the graphic novel, it is a tale of spies and neon. Shell
0:10:34 > 0:10:38is the run is having a ball in it. It doesn't make a lot of sense but
0:10:38 > 0:10:42it's very stylish and entertaining. I think there is a place, you know,
0:10:42 > 0:10:49for the stylish, empty film, and I enjoyed it very much, although it's
0:10:49 > 0:10:54probably a guilty pleasure.I loved that, stylishly empty! Thank you,
0:10:54 > 0:10:59Mark, see you next week. Plenty to discuss this week, as we have just
0:10:59 > 0:11:05proved. Enjoy your cinema viewing this week. Bye-bye.