Blade: Trinity (2004)

 "Sooner or later, the thirst always wins."

So Blade is back. And now it's 2004, well into the era of Marvel superhero films that Blade pioneered. So what do we get for my most recent unwatched Marvel film?

But well, this is a very flawed film, if not an awful one. It tells us two things. Firstly, Wesley Snipes, while an effective '90s action film actor, is... well, washed up by this point. There's something very off about his performance.

Yet this is, perhaps, partly due to the lacklustre performances of everyone in this film. Kris Kristofferson is oddly wooden, too. Even Ryan Reynolds isn't firing on all cylinders. And, if the stars are beneath their usual standard, we must blame the director.

Interestingly, though, the script- by David S. Goyer- is perfectly good. It's just that it's badly directed- also by David S. Goyer. The man can write, as we've seen countless times. He just can't direct. He really can't. This is all very music video, something very popular at the time. Proper cinema it is not, despite the many well-conceived fight scenes.

And that's interesting, isn't it? The script is perfectly good. The concept is epic, Blade versus Dracula (whose Sumerian origin here is weird, like Vlad Dracul never existed), with a rather fun Hannibal King, Jessica Biel as a somewhat cool kind of female Hawkeye, and lots of well-written fight scenes thsat sort of fail in the execution and- especially- the cinematography. A good script, sadly, doth not equal a good film.

Aliens vs Predator (2004)

 "And they usecus like cattle. They're hosts for us to breed."

 I was poised to watch something su/btitlred and intellectual until, at the last moment, I decided to watch this. Parasite will come later. It's Saturday night, the little one is in bed, the missuys is gaming, and I have a bottle of Rioja.

You know what? This is goodf. Yes, I know: it centres on a mysterious pyramoid found in Antarctica from prehistorical times, showing clear influences from Aztec and Cambodian culturres as well sas Egyptian civilisation, which is orders of magnitude older, making nonsense of the history.

I don't give a shite.

This is, if we ignore the fact it ends in the middke of things and doesn't actually end, actually not a bad film at all. LKet's hooe, however, that we get a resolution.

The script is excellent until it suddenly stops without resolution. It's a plus that the cast abounds with resoected character actors rather than stars. Lance Henriksen shines as a tycoon who is actually acting in the interests of the greater good, if not entirely without the sae desire for glory that they all share. It's interesting that this should be set in comntemporary times and, er, recycle the general vibes from both Sgtargate and Erich von Daniken.

Notghing here is original, But it's actualkly fairly well written with a strong intitial hook, and the cast is superb. It may be exploitative tosh, but thus is avtually pretty decent.

Catwoman (2004)

 "I'm a woman. I'm used to doing things I don't want to do.

This film has, well, not the best of reputations, but I was determined to go in with an open mind. Can this film really be as bad as it's cracked up to be?

Er, yes.

Why? Firstly there's the horrible music video direction and cinematography, with the horrible dated use of green light everywhere. Secondly there's the bizarre decision to completely ignore the comic book background. Some varitation is inevitable, even a lot of variation if justified, but this is barely based on Selina Kyle at all. It certainly doesn't use her name. The CGI is awful. Sharon Stone is even worse, although Halle Berry is not actually bad at all. And the early scenes about replacing the "face" of a cosmetics company remind me of The Wasp Woman, a much better film.

And then there's the script. Frustratingly, the plot could have been made to work with a little more doctoring, but we have what we have. I'm as big a cat lover as they come- we have four cats and I cuddle them all every day- but would I walk out on to the ledge of a window on the umpteenthh floor to rescue a cat? Er, no. The whole bit about Patience realising her employer is up to something and getting killed for it is like a crapper version of Batman Returns. The resurrection is silly, and the CGI cats don't look or move like real cats. Oh, and why would Tom be assigned to interview the suspect he was on a date with the previous night as opposed to a colleague with no conflict of interest? It's all very silly.

Much as I'd like to be contrary... yeah, this is rubbish.

Layer Cake (2004)

"England. Typical. Even drug dealers don't work weekends."

I'd wager this film was not entirely without influence in Daniel Craig winning a certain high profile role a couple of years later, but it deserves recognition for far more than that. The directorial debut of Matthew Vaught after producing Lock, Stock and Snatch, it superficially resembles them with its gangster subject matter and its fast, witty directorial style.

Except it’s more than this. Layer Cake is certainly a fast-paced gangster film with a complex plot full of layers upon layers of motives and double crosses in the dangerous, impossible to escape world of criminality. But it’s unnamed protagonist is deliberately different from the stereotype- middle class, educated, professional and unflashy, he’s only in crime because of the money to be made from the drugs trade, and intends to make his fortune and then retire. Naturally, he isn’t going to be allowed to do this for all sorts of reasons involving various British character actors.

It’s amusing to see the character of the Duke as a contrast; clearly intended as a piss-take of the typical British cinematic gangster, he’s a joke, out of his league and inevitably doomed. Our protagonist is different, right?

Over a riveting couple of hours we slowly discover that no, he isn’t really, in spite of his smarts and his apparent sense. This is not a world from which one can ever escape, or expect a long life to expectancy. However clever he is, however he may run rings round his many sudden enemies after an ecstasy deal gone wrong, this world will kill him- and it’s fitting that he should be killed over a girl, randomly, after he thinks he’s got out.

What adds even more depth, though, is that the film is about something. Once there was cops and robbers, then along cane the drugs trade. As the opening narration says, one day all this will be legal. But, for the past several decades, prohibition has spawned a shocking amount of unnecessary crimes and innocent victims. And that’s the moral of this film; prohibition has blood on its hands.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

“I’ve got to do a wee first.”

It’s hard to write objectively about a film you’ve seen as many times as I’ve seen this one. I saw it at the pictures back in the day and make no bones about the fact that I love everything about it. It’s funny, it’s brilliant and I’m two years younger than Shaun; this is my generation.

Obviously the whole thing is a tribute to George Romero, with zombies standing for both consumerism and the autopilot nature of the rat race; several times Shaun gets up and gives a zombie-like yawn, and in the background of the early scenes there are many instances of blatant zombie behaviour that look normal in the context of the morning commute. This is at once very funny and making an effective point. This sort of thing punctuates the film.

But of course this is a comedy, and a very good one, the first of Edgar Wright’s trilogy featuring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost and the last one of the three that I’ve blogged. It’s not so long, this being 2004, since Spaced, so it’s good that Jessica Hynes makes an appearance and indeed is the hero of another film- a nice touch; Shaun and co don’t save the world; other people do. They just want safety,  comfort and a pint until this all blows over.

The British TV comedy cast is uniformly brilliant, and both Pegg and Frost are superb. Kate Ashfield deserves praise for her performance as Kate; the straight role is often underappreciated in a comedy. There’s lots of visual comedy for which Wright deserves much credit. And the script is bloody genius- I love the moment when they’re choosing what records to throw at the zombie. And, of course, there’s the heartwarming ending. I’ve seen this film about half a dozen times and, yes, I will see it several times more.

The Punisher (2004)

“Frank Castle is dead. Call me... the Punisher.”

Come back, Dolph Lundgren; all is forgiven.

The previous, straight-to-video outing for the Punisher may have been a bit silly, but it had charm and unwitting silliness beneath its po-faced veneer. This film isn’t and while, to those who are themselves po-faced, it may appear to be the better action film, it’s far more forgettable.

Oh, the set pieces are good; the big fight with the Russian, the opera scene, Howard Saint’s “Revenge” against his best friend and his wife; his fiery comeuppance. There’s lots of spectacular violence here. Trouble is, the film has three glaring faults.

The first is the casting. It’s harsh to say, but while Thomas Jane certainly has the acting chops he simply doesn’t have the charisma to be a leading man. Compare him to John Travolta, who does nothing but chew scenery all the way through but does so with real charisma- and in a role that sort of works when played as a cartoon baddie. There’s a charisma vacuum in the heart of the film.

Then there’s the fact that this is yet another bloody origin film, with far too much time spent on the deaths of Castle’s family including an interminable car chase. And that leads us to the third and most serious fault; by making this a film about Castle avenging his family, we lose everything about the Punisher as a character and his troubled morality as a bloodthirsty vigilante. The element of personal revenge takes this away and only at the end does he announce his “mission”. The film comes across as a generic revenge-themed action film and, when you play on this territory, there are better films around. A much more interesting film would have skipped the origin and addressed the issues around law and order vs. crude vigilantism that go right back to the Oresteia; this film fails to address that obvious theme at all.

A fairly decent action film, then. But a wasted opportunity.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

"You're my favourite person. But every so often you can be a real c***."

And so we come to the second part, with Elle unexpectedly killing Budd with a hidden black mamba while the Bride plucks out Elle's remaining eye, leaving her blind and thrashing around.

Only Bill is left. But the story is fleshed out, with a monochrome flashback to the wedding and an extended heart to heat between our two protagonists at the end, with Bill's monologue about Superman finally giving us some proper Tarantino dialogue but also allowing the film to end with fully explored characterisation. There's plenty of aestheticised violence in this second part but this time around we get the characterisation and backstory. We also have a name: er, Beatrix Kiddo.

We also get a proper visual tribute to Chinese martial arts and, it seems, to Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the very silly character of "Gordon" Liu's Pai Mei, the bushy eyebrowed and delightfully rude ancient martial arts master with a beard to marvel at. All scenes featuring him are comedy gold. He's rude, sadistic, bigoted and easily the most likeable character in the film. Oh, and on the subject of cameos we also get Sid Haig as a barman and Samuel L. Jackson as... could it be an older, wiser Jules?

It's a satisfying ending, perhaps more so than expected, and the two parts together make a more balanced and fleshed-out film than the pure fetishised violence of the first half. And the direction, of course, is equally magnificent. I'm so glad I've finally seen this. More Tarantino before too long, methinks.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

"And it rides up in the crotch a little bit too."

Hmm. Still not entirely enamoured with Sam Raimi's take on Spider-Man in spite of having to admit that it has to be considered, objectively, as a very good couple of films so far. It's stylish, well-directed and acted, a faithful recreation of the style of the early comics from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko with a student Peter Parker. And yet... where are Spidey's funny quips?

At least this is the sequel and therefore not another bloody origin story; it's nice how scenes from the first film are used during the opening titles but this is a film which is, yes, about Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina is very good casting), but really about both Peter's roller-coaster relationship with MJ and the increasing disintegration of Harry Osborne- and the fact that Peter may be a hero but he and his Aunt May are struggling with very real poverty, which is brave to show. It's 2004, but Peter must use a pay phone because he has no mobile. We even get a funny cameo from Sam Raimi perennial Bruce Campbell and, of course, a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance from Stan Lee. And, indeed, a minor role for Daniel Dad Kim, who plays Gavin Park in Angel. J. Jonah Jameson is awesome ("Guy names Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?") to the point that J.K. Simmons was surely born to play him.

Ok, it's a good film. Very good, in fact. The central romance is brilliant and, yes, it's faithful in many ways to the source material. Not being an origin story allows this film to breathe and grow, and it lacks a lot in without ever feeling too long. But... where are those quips?

Hellboy (2004)

"Plus, you're nine. You're not old enough to be giving me advice!"

I cannot applaud highly enough the excellent decision to give a big Hollywood comic book blockbuster like Hellboy to art film maestro Guillermo Del Toro to direct; in his hands the film looks gorgeous, atmospheric, stylised, perfect. So much so, in fact, that it threatens to elevate a somewhat so-so script into excellence.

The basic concept isn't very original beyond the character of Hellboy himself: occult Nazis are all very Indiana Jones while the monsters look suspiciously Lovecraftian. Nor is the concept of a secret government agency gratifyingly original and, indeed, Professor Broom and his super powered team of mutants look awfully like the X-Men. But the story, and characters, are nevertheless worth following.

You don't need you to tell me how magnificent John Hurt is, but Ron Peelman is also magnificent, and the cast as a whole has nary a weak link. And the ending is particularly effective, as Myers fulfils his destiny as the virtuous Gakahad-type hero while Hellboy proves that not only can he use his free will to be a hero in spite of being a demon, but also gets the girl.

This film hasn't got an original bone in its body. But dammit, it's fun.

I, Robot (2004)

"Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?"

"Can you?"

This is the only film, as far as I know, that's been adapted from an Isaac Asimov story. And, Ironically, it's based on one of the few pieces of Asimov's SF writing that I've never read. I've read all the Foundation stuff, the Elijah Baley stuff, The Stars, Like Dust and sequels, and all of Asimov's work after 1980 that reads like very good Isaac Asimov fanfic. But I've never read any of the Susan Calvin robot stories. Oops. I suppose I'm not overly qualified to blog this film. Oh well.

While there's a low of fascinating philosophical stuff on both the Three Laws and the prospect of robots nicking people's jobs (very topical), this is fundamentally about the question of what if a robot was to exhibit sentience- what these days we call the Singularity. The theme is essentially the same as Short Circuit, but done with some intelligence.

The script is superb. I've no idea how faithful it is to the source material but it's certainly faithful in spirit to Asimov. Will Smith is excellent casting, charismatic and likeable as the technophobic, irreverent yet philosophical Spoon, while Bridget Moynahan is also excellent as the icy Susan Calvin, in personality almost a robot herself. Sonny the robot, incidentally, is voices by Joss Whedon favourite Alan Tudyk.

The design is also a triumph- the robots look great, and the world of 2035 is just futuristic enough to convince without being futuristic enough to alienate. It's a very contemporary view of the future, with none of the gleaming silver corridors of yore; instead we get a post-Cyberpunk, post-Blade Runner, lived-in future.

There are big action sequences, yes, but this film dares to be, at its heart, intimate and philosophical, and is all the better for that.

The Stepford Wives (2004)

"And I'm gonna attach a pine cone to my vibrator and have a very merry Christmas."

Before anyone says anything... no, I don't blog remakes of films I've not already blogged. But this isn't a remake, just the second cinematic adaptation of a novel. Right? Right.

The critics didn't like this film. Frank Oz directed, and vilified he was. Stick to playing Yoda, he should. Or that was the general gist.

I can see why purists would be put off: this is hardly a faithful adaptation. A gay couple is rightfully included, in a bid to modern sensibilities. And the brainwashing of the Stepford womenfolk is no longer left as a creepy mystery but explained in detail, with Glenn Close's Claire (gosh, a woman!!!) behind it all, and to top it all off the film has a distinctly comedic tone.

But if you judge the film for what it is- a satirical comedy- instead of what it isn't- serious, hard sci-fi adaptation- it becomes rather enjoyable. Nicole Kidman, not usually my favourite actress by any means, is great, although of course completely overshadowed by the great Bette Midler. The script is laugh out loud funny. The skewering of reality TV at the start is delicious. There's even a robot dog, for crying out loud. What's not to like?

Try it. You might like it.

Secret Window (2004)

"I did those things so you didn't have to."

It's increasingly unusual to see Johnny Depp in a film where he's neither playing Captain Jack Sparrow nor being directed by Tim Burton. Here he is, though, on one of those Stephen King-penned thrillers that are, by sheer coincidence, making up an increasingly large proportion of the films I'm blogging.

It's a typical Stephen King thriller, right down to having a writer native to Maine as the hero, and it makes an excellent film with a superb twist. The interplay between Depp's dishevelled Morton Rainey and John Turturro's menacing hick, John Shooter, is disturbingly effective, as it has to be for the film to work.

I won't say anything about the twist, except to praise it in vague yet fulsome terms. But every storytelling beat is perfectly placed for this thriller to have maximum effect, as we should expect for a film based on King's work. There are nice touches; Depp's performance in general, of course, and the use of cigarettes (he's supposed to be giving up) to denote Morton's mood.

The twist is especially neat, especially as life increasingly mirrors the short story under dispute. This is a well executed, deeply satisfying and underappreciated film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

"Come now, Harry. The Ministry of Magic doesn't send people to Azkaban for blowing up their aunts!"

Well, this film is different. The kids are all looking older and the more serious tone persists. We have a notorious prison escapee who turns out to be a misunderstood goodie. Politicians are shown to be stupid and cynical- heaven forbid. The plot is resolved by turning back time as per Superman II. There's a new teacher, Professor Lupin, played by Gary Oldman, who is that unusual combination of werewolf and red herring. And we have a new Dumbledore in the person of Michael Gambon.

We begin with a bit of comic relief, though, before the seriousness starts, as Harry blows up his aunt like a balloon. And there's a pub called The Leaky Cauldron where, it seems, Ian Brown from the Stone Roses is randomly seen reading A Brief History of Time.

But it isn't long before Harry is warned that notorious fugitive Sirius Black (I almost wrote Conrad Black!) is after him, we meet Professor Lupin and it's a new school year at Hogwarts. Unfortunately, Snape is the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, and he isn't very nice, which is as good a time as ever to praise Alan Rickman's performance in these films; he's playing a red herring, and thus gets to play a combination of the two types of character he's best known for playing; the villain and the miserable git. He was born to play this part.

Harry's good at that scary looking Quidfitch thing, apparently, and is promoted to "seeker". But he soon learns the lesson that team sports are not a good idea, especially when it's tipping it down. 

Things get very dark, very soon. There is a magic map. Hagrid's hippogriff is rather harshly executed. And there seems to be a constant theme of memories, and dark memories at that, running through the film. It all goes horribly wrong, but fortunately Hermione is able to turn back time and save both the day and the low flying hippogriff.

I'm not sure about this trend towards darkness and away from fun and quirkiness, but this is nevertheless an exciting and entertaining film, and the acting talent on display is absurdly brilliant.

Creep (2004)

“It’s like a penis, only smaller”

 

This is a textbook example on how to make a bloody good film about potentially expensive supernatural themes on a low budget.

Step one: Hire a largely unknown cast. The only person in this whom I knew of was Ken Campbell (I bet you read the name in his voice, didn’t you?). The cast performed superbly, however: it isn’t only stars who can act.

Step two: Make sure the music is good and eerie, and preferably Nine Inch Nails inspired. The Insects provide the perfect soundtrack for a modern, claustrophobic horror movie. It is becoming noticeable that movies like this have particularly strong soundtracks, often in this style. I approve.

Step three: Disguise your low budget by providing a dimly lit, claustrophobic environment and shooting it stylistically. The London Underground is the perfect setting for a film like this, and the directorial style is superb. The opening titles instantly tell us that the film is going to look great, and much of the effectiveness of the horror comes from glimpses, suggestion, and clever use of focus. Recently, I have criticised recently made horror films for containing gloss at the expense of scares. This film is as scary as they come while being thoroughly modern. It can be done.

I’m not entirely sure that the nature of the monster is fully explained, but then, as I keep on saying, the unknown is intrinsically scary. The film has an unobtrusive message about homeless people in The Underground. Kate is wealthy enough to be handing out twenty and fifty pound notes left, right and centre, and is clearly from a very different world to Jimmy and Mandy. And yet, even with her affluence, she ends the film sat on an Underground platform receiving money from commuters, indistinguishable from a homeless person. The message seems to be that this could happen to anyone. One nice touch is that the security guard, with his callous attitude to homeless people, dies horribly.

I have to admit that my girlfriend and I thought the rats were cute. The main “villain” was suitably scary, however, like something out of a Tool music video. So much so, in fact, that I suspect this may have been an influence. The most horrific sequence of the film is the surgery performed on Mandy, and the threat of this happening to Kate and George raises the stakes for the rest of the film. The creature, at the end, with all the blood on its face looks sort of like a clown, which deepens the scariness.

This is an excellent little film. If you haven’t heard of it, I recommend you see it now.

Seed of Chucky (2004)

“You killed my mummy and daddy, and now you’re pissing your pants!”

 

So, Chucky and Tiffany have a kid. It’s just like David Bowie in every way, including the androgyny. This is a deliciously silly film, which has just as much metatextual fun as its predecessor. It rips the piss out of loads of films, but is essentially more of the same that we know and love from the last film. Just a little bit more British.

It’s rather surreal to see Hannah Spearitt in a film like this. It’s even weirder, though gleefully hilarious, that the likes of Jennifer Tilly and Redman would play themselves in such a delightfully unflattering way. Best of all, of course, is the way that Glen, or Glenda, acts as a catalyst to the relationship between our two evil dolls. I particularly love the sequences in which Tiffany attempts to give up her addiction to killing. This is the most Californian thing ever.

Of course, there are plenty of gruesome deaths, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that the thing we remember most after seeing this film is the sight of Chucky, silhouetted, er, wanking. This, more than anything else in the franchise, is the stuff of nightmares. I half suspect that the whole plot about children exists solely so that this scene can exist. This film is evil. I love it

Silly though this film is, it is interesting to see how far the franchise has changed from its origins. These last two films, both of them superb, seem to belong to a different age. The animatronics are notably better here even than in the previous film and the humour is both sharper and more evil. I particularly enjoyed the fate of Britney Spears. Each film in the series has been better than the last one, and this film is the peak. Roll on the next one.

Finding Neverland (2004)

“But I’m not Peter Pan. He is.”

There are two types of films starring Johnny Depp: those which are directed by Tim Burton, and those which aren’t, and on average the former category is better. This is definitely an exception, and shows once again that Depp’s acting range is phenomenal. He’s not just a pretty face, but possibly the most talented leading man in Hollywood today. It’s either him or Robert Downey Jr.

Depp plays the childlike yet wise J.M. Barrie, true eccentric and creator of Peter Pan, with a Scottish accent that sounds flawless to this Sassenach; he has a real talent for accents. He isn’t obvious casting, but makes the role his own with his trademark attention to external mannerisms. There’s also a superb performance from Kate Winslet, and a puzzlingly small one from Dustin Hoffman.

The film chronicles the innocent relationship between Barrie and widowed single mother Sylvia Davies, and the increasingly close relationship between “Uncle Jim” and her four children. His relationship with both mother and children is entirely innocent, but a brief scene with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle at a cricket match makes it clear that suspicions were held even in 1903, decades before Jimmy Savile was born. It’s unfortunate, these days, that the main character is an Uncle Jim.

The children are the inspiration for the play Peter Pan, but the film gradually darkens with the realisation that Sylvia is not well, and the children are fated to be orphaned yet again. The most interesting of the children to the theme of the film is Peter, a boy who rejects imagination and storytelling, finding it hard to disentangle them from the lies he has always been told about the seriousness of both his parents’ illnesses. It is fitting that, of all the children, he seems to be the closest to “Uncle Jim”.

The climax of the film is deeply moving. Ok, if you must, I’ll admit that I cried, dammit, in the most manly way possible. Still, at least my girlfriend didn’t point and laugh. Much.

Thirteen (2004)

“I think my nose is melting off. Ew!”

This is a film I most likely never would have seen if my gorgeous girlfriend hadn’t introduced me to it a few days ago; thirteen girls in 2004 are a very alien species to a thirteen year old boy from 1990. It is, as one would imagine, a rather scary watch for someone who expects to become a father in a few years’ time. I should probably admit that a fair few of the thoughts in this review, especially about the direction, are shamelessly nicked off things said by my girlfriend while we were watching it.

This is helmed by Catherine Hardwicke, who did a rather unimpressive job in directing Twilight, which was largely ruined by the dullness of the washed-out colour. Here she does a much better job but, interestingly, what works so well here is very similar to what failed in the other film, namely the use of colour. At the beginning of the film, with Tracy doing well at school and living a safe and relatively happy life, the film is brightly coloured. But the colours wash away throughout the film until, at the end, there is nothing but a blue tint. There is also a billboard which becomes more and more distressed-looking, mirroring Tracy’s decline as a kind of Dorian Gray painting in reverse.

This isn’t a pleasant film to watch. The actresses may have been eighteen, but it’s extremely disturbing to see thirteen year olds being so sexualised. The peer pressure is awful too; I may not have been one of the cooler kids at thirteen, but I never wore any designer labels or the like; I dressed like the child that I was. Still, I don’t exactly wear designer labels now, so I’m probably not typical. I’m uncomfortably reminded of the fact (I’m 35) that I’m not as young as I was. But I’m reminded of a simple fact: being a teenager is horrible, and too many of us forget that later in our lives. Intense pressure from all sides is combined with a total lack of experience in how to handle this, plus there are hormones on top.

There’s use of LSD and cocaine in this film, shoplifting, a certain amount of sexual activity and, worst of all, graphic and horrible instances of self-harm. There’s thankfully no paedo stuff or sexual abuse, but everything else that parents worry about is here. Most terrifying of all is the powerless of Tracy’s well-meaning but weak mother, who has no way of responding to her daughter’s tantrums and, worse, has a fair idea of what is going on throughout. The climax, when she discovers her daughter’s drug abuse and scars from self-harm, is utterly terrifying to watch. Depressingly, Tracy’s father, well-off though he is, is neglectful and useless. Once again it’s the woman who has to cope while the man does nothing.

The fickle nature of teenage friendships, and their terrible cost, lies at the film’s core, as Tracy’s new “bad girl” friend Evie betrays her. Yet there are shades of grey; Evie’s claims of abuse may easily be true. There are no easy answers, and there is no resolution at the end, a brave choice.

This isn’t a film to enjoy. It’s natural audience may, perhaps, be limited, and I worry about its central message being scarily easy to Daily Mail-ify. Nevertheless, it’s an extremely well-made film. What didn't impress me, though, was the lack of subtitles on the DVD: there's no excuse for this.