Saw Gaspar Noé's latest, Climax a couple nights ago and was completely blown away. I think Noé's one of the most original and creative film-makers around right now and I would say not only that this is his best film but that it's one of the best things I've ever seen, period. I don't want to over-hype it or create impossible expectations, but I can't honestly rate it any lower than that.

The basic story or set-up is pretty simple: a troupe of dancers are rehearsing their act in an old school and have a party afterwards just amongst themselves. Drugs are involved. I don't want to say anything more than that, better to experience it on your own. And it is an experience - or so I found it.

Warning: it does get pretty dark and disturbing. Not that what violence does occur is anywhere near what you'd see in the average action film, let alone some horror movies, but of course it isn't treated like an action film - though I did see it described as a "psychological horror film" afterwards, and in some ways that is a fair label to put on it. But better to go in without any preconceptions.

Yeah, I haven't read any of his Dune prequels or sequels and don't intend to, but from what I understand, this is a case where I hope "creative consultant" is a purely ceremonial title.

Saw Tim Burton's Dumbo Saturday and was truly impressed and enjoyed myself. This "live"action version had more heart and soul and story to it than any of the other live action Disney movies. Where the other ones have been of the grand spectacle type, Burton dug down deep into pulling on the heart strings for his adaption. Baby dumbo is all kinds of cute as you would expect and 'freakish' without seeming overly odd or scary or silly. Diverting from animal characters to human characters helped to create more emphasis on Dumbo as a living breathing realistic character. Excellent cast and delightful movie and looking forward to the DVD release to enjoy it again!

Normally I don't like the zombie genre, but it's Jarmusch - I'm so on board for this:

So, I watched Bohemian Rhapsody yesterday on DVD. Hmmmm...cliched, untruthful and mediocre are the words that most readily come to my mind.

Don't get me wrong, the film was entertaining enough, and the music was great (obviously!), but it seemed to rely on tired, well-worn rock biopic tropes. I think Rami Malek did a very good job -- a show stealing job, actually -- of portraying Freddie Mercury. His performance was so strong and the script so fixated upon him that the other characters, particularly the other members of Queen, were left looking really two-dimensional. Most of the retro set design, scripting and wardrobe were excellent -- although I did spot one or two anachronistic things cropping up, and that always annoys me (if you're spending millions on a period piece, get it f***ing right!).

My biggest criticism would be the HUGE liberties it took with the truth. Now, I'm not a massive Queen fan, by any means -- I have their Greatest Hits Vol. I & II, plus the A Night at the Opera and Flash Gorden soundtrack albums -- and I only have the most general knowledge of their history from having read articles about them over the years, and from what I remember myself from the time. But even as an average fan, I spotted a good half a dozen glaring inaccuracies in the script. So, lord knows how many untruths a Queen fanatic would spot.

For me, the two most manipulative inaccuracies were the suggestion that Queen had broken up in the early '80s (because Freddie had signed a solo deal), and as a result they then had to scramble back together in time to do Live Aid; and that Freddie and the band were aware that he had AIDS before Live Aid and that this performance was the band and Freddie's last hurrah, performed in the face of his impeding death. Both of those "facts" are utter bollocks.

Freddie himself didn't know he had AIDS until a good couple of years after Live Aid. Also, Queen never broke up -- and, anyway, both Brian May and Roger Taylor had released solo albums before Freddie. The band had released the hugely successful The Works album the year before Live Aid (featuring the monster hits "Radio Ga Ga", "I Want to Break Free", and "Hammer to Fall"), and then followed it up with a world tour. So, they were definitely not out of shape or unrehearsed in the run up to Live Aid, as the movie suggests.

Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that at the end of the day the screenwriters and director were making a feature film and not a Queen documentary. However, I think that when you are making a film that is clearly based on real life, and presenting the events of the film as a true story, you have an obligation to get the major facts and chronology right. This goes for any historical film, by the way, not just rock biopics. If you play too fast and lose with the facts, then there comes a point when your film stops being simply entertainment and enters the realm of wilful disinformation and/or propaganda. And that's always a bad thing, even if its only something as inconsequential as the story of a rock band.

All that said, one of the complaints I had seen leveled at Bohemian Rhapsody in the media, was that it glossed over the details of Freddie's debauched lifestyle. I don't agree with that at all. I think the film went out of its way to show the audience how debauched and drug-fueled his life was. I mean, what did these critics who accused the film of airbrushing this aspect of Freddie's life want? To actually see Malek engaged in a gay orgy?! I think the film was fairly unflinching in painting the seedier side of Mercury's personality.

So, yeah...overall, the film entertained for the couple of hours or so that it was playing, but the deliberately manipulative economy of truth really annoyed me, and -- Malek's outstanding performance aside -- it seemed quite a lazy, formulaic rock biopic.