Our friends Annie and Dave run the podcast "Will You Still Love It Tomorrow". The premise is great - take a film that you love but you haven't seen for ages, and see if it still holds up.

They asked me and Liz to nominate a film to discuss with them. What's something that we loved but last saw 20ish years ago? We suggested The Story of the Weeping Camel. It is my go-to answer when someone asks me for my favourite film - it is sufficiently obscure to elicit further questions and sounds cool enough to make me seem interesting.

So we re-watched it in preparation for discussing it on the podcast. How did it hold up?

It is still my favourite foreign language movie. The story is simple and beautifully told. The cinematography is stunning. It is the perfect mix of heartbreaking and hopeful.

Weeping Camel is presented as a documentary - but it is rather closer to Nanook of the North, mixing documentary and drama. At its heart is the story of motherly love. Deep in the Gobi desert, a camel has a difficult birth and rejects her colt. Can the Mongolian farmers help bring mother and child together?

One of the best aspects of the film is that it is 100% on the side of "show, don't tell". If this were a documentary, there would be pointless narration telling us what was going on. Instead, we're treated as grown-ups. We can plainly see the pain - we don't need it spelled out.

Similarly, the Mongolian language is barely translated. Do you need to know what is being sung as a lullaby to a sleeping (human) baby? No! You understand the context. Similarly, what are the grandparents chatting about while playing cards? It isn't important to the plot, they're just sharing their love for each other.

There's a tension at the core of the movie about the tug between tradition and modernity. The vast and empty vista with all its magnificent beauty holds no appeal to a kid who just wants to watch cartoons on TV. The family's traditions are noble and ancient - but they're all supplemented with modern technology.

Back when Russell T. Davies was pitching Doctor Who in 2005, he said "If the Zogs on planet Zog are having trouble with the Zog-monster [...] who gives a toss?" There's a limit to human empathy. Why should we care about creatures so different to us? The Story of the Weeping Camel shows how wrong Davies was. I don't mean to imply that the Mongolians are an alien species and that their concerns shouldn't bother us - but that with the right skill, it is possible to make humans care about the emotional difficulties of camels in a distant desert.

If you want a gentle, moving, and uplifting movie - I urge you to seek it out. It is a tragedy that the film isn't better known. It is unavailable on any streaming service that I can find. Despite being Oscar nominated, it hasn't be re-released in HD, but you can buy it on DVD.

You can listen to "Will You Still Love It Tomorrow" wherever you get your podcasts.

Like the darkest of chocolates, the bitterness only accentuates the tender sweetness of the protagonist. A young female vampire who suffers from what can only be described as Dental Impotence. Her family take drastic steps to help her "come of age", but to no avail. She's too sensitive a soul for something as tawdry as killing.

But is it really murder if the victim is suicidal?

That's it. That's the whole film.

This could have been a "What We Do In The Shadows" farce, or a slapstick teen-comedy. Instead, it is dark and subtle. It creates some beautiful vampire-lore in the background, while keeping the action in the foreground. It is laugh-aloud funny, not too gory, and ramps up the tension perfectly.

You owe it to yourself to see this film.

Got neighbours on both sides? Good! Your rears speakers will also be thoroughly abused by Godzilla's roar and the terrifyingly loud explosions.

There's almost zero buildup. No backstory. No exposition. At exactly 4 minutes and 30 seconds into the film BAM! Godzilla starts fucking shit up. Absolutely no messing around.

The story isn't exactly subtle. You don't have to do much close reading to see that an alien invader devastating Japanese cities with mushroom-clouds might just be an allegory for something! It isn't a biting satire like シン・ゴジラ (Shin Godzilla) - but the story is serviceable enough.

The pacing is just right - slowing down to normality and then CRASH! Godzilla shows up and smashes the state. It's wonderful to see the total carnage wrought by the monster. And it is also wonderful to see the emotional carnage his presence brings.

Despite winning the Oscar®©™ for special effects, I thought some of the visuals were decidedly ropey. The monster is incredible, but the ships and people occasionally look... well, like cheap CGI. Godzilla looks like the fearsome predator that it is and, I guess, that's what we're here for.

Sadly, the film is only available as a Japanese import and without English subtitles. Personally, I think Godzilla should stomp on all the IP lawyers delaying its official release over here!

As for the rest? Well… it is shot on film with a unusual aspect ratio. So, you know, that's cool...

There's also lots of ✨acting✨ and quirky camera angles…

The final third is your typical mismatched buddy movie. Isn't it funny that the old man and young boy are so different? And yet, in many ways, aren't they the same?

It is a totally unremarkable and utterly predictable movie.

Every single frame of this movie is a delight - even the closing titles. It is an explosion of outrageous colour, extravagant lenses, and delirious shots. Like an Escher woodcut electrified into life.

I adored director Yorgos Lanthimos' earlier film The Lobster - this feel almost like that film was injected with several million more dollars and a sprinkling of psychedelics. This magic is what happens when you give creative people freedom to be as weird as they dare.

As beautiful as it all is, the story is vicious and nasty. It has a slimy and voyeuristic atmosphere which suffuses the sex-scenes, moving them from titillation to pivotal set-pieces in the development of the characters.

This isn't an easy film to watch. While it superficially shares a garish palette with Barbie and a sceptical view of science with Oppenheimer, it is so far away from those two mainstream films that I am stunned it exists.

It is impossible not to be constantly entertained - and continually horrified - as the film progresses. It is visceral fun.

It isn't very good.

Even if you ignore the rampant racism - and there is a lot of racism - you still have to content with the brutal misogyny - and it is toe-curlingly grim. Then you get the homophobia which, may have been of its time, but the sexual assault isn't. And if you can get past all of that, you still have to suffer though a movie that gets so bored of its central thesis (war isn't fun) that it gives up ⅔rds of the way through to... do a sports movie?

Similar to How I Won The War, M*A*S*H is a set of barely interconnected "comedy" sketches. Sure, the humour and the slang are dated - but that can be overlooked. Some of the absurdism works well - but is done better in the TV series. The juxtaposition of the comedy and the bloody surgery is influential - but hardly revelatory.

In the end, M*A*S*H is a mess. Sure, war is hell - but you'll have an enjoyable time sexually assaulting women and getting boozed up. Yeah, some kids'll die - but think of all the fun you'll have drinking, playing golf, and abusing the people around you.

I think Frankie Boyle said it best:

American foreign policy is horrendous 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse, I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

Before you leave a comment telling me how wrong I am - take off your rose-tinted glasses and watch it again.

That's why this is a decidedly average film. Every single actor is incredible - stuffed as it is with Oscar^©®™ winners and nominees. But some of the dialogue is just risible - for example, the revelation that JFK had a bit-part in the proceedings goes like this:

Aide: A young guy trying to make a name for himself, didn't like what you did to Oppenheimer.

Strauss: What's his name?

Aide: Kennedy. John F. Kennedy!

I mean, the actor delivers it well, but it isn't exactly a masterful plot construct.

Robert Downey JR - freed from the franchise shackles - gets to act once again. He is outstanding - which is incredible seeing as the only dialogue he has is narrating what's happening in flashbacks.

Similarly, when it comes to the naming of the "Trinity" site, Oppenheimer just recites a random bit of poetry. There's no rhyme or reason to it (and it seems none was given in reality) so it sticks out compared to the (endless) exposition in other scenes.

Every single frame is a masterpiece. Nolan and his team know exactly how to get the most out of a film shoot. But the rapid changes to aspect ratio are a constant distraction.

The mini-physics lectures contain less detail than a do-your-own-research YouTube video. Which is fine; this is a piece of entertainment, not a physics lesson. The constitutional implications of Senate confirmation are less educational than a West Wing episode. Which is fine; this is a piece of entertainment, not a civics lesson. The exploration of workers rights and the rise of intellectual communism is dismissed without thought. Which is fine; this is a piece of entertainment, not a political philosophy lecture.

But because the film tries to cram in so much, it ends up not really exploring anything.

And on it goes. For every moment of beauty and delight, there's a moment of clock-watching and eye-rolling.

I preferred Barbie.

Well, a few days ago, I found out that Netflix remade the film last year. In Hindi!

Looop Lapeta (লুপ লাপেটা - literally "Crazy Situation Looping") is a hyper-modern update of the original, and it is joyous. It's lovely seeing a film made by someone who likes film-making. Most Netflix films are content to point static cameras at actors and hope for the best. This absolutely revels in cinematic trickery. The updates contain lots of subtle (and not so subtle) nods to the original. The whole cast are gold, but it's Shreya Dhanwanthary who shines with an absolutely scene-stealing monologue in a deftly filmed uncut shot.

It doesn't have quite the tension of the original and is perhaps a little stretched out. The use of flashbacks is fun, but the slow-motion sequences do drag a bit. The Gappu & Appu comic relief felt a bit tacked on.

I can thoroughly recommend it as a delightfully bonkers film.

WHAT IF THAT WERE A ROM-COM!?!?!?!

Anthony Mackie and Zoe Chao are stuck on a spaceship a million miles from Earth. Their communications and navigation systems are broken so they spend their days watching movies, working out, and doing chores. Until - bored and horny - they discuss whether they should break their respective marriage vows and get it on.

It's a delightfully weird mix of When Harry Met Sally and a dozen other movies. Thankfully, there is no hint of coercion on either part. It is touching (fnar), sweet, and rather uplifting. Despite the paucity of romance, it is an excellent comedy. The absurdity of the situation is taken to the extreme in a way you could never do with For All Mankind.

The film is weird though. It's obvious shot on a budget so, rather than go for tacky CGI - the spaceship and planets are made of cardboard. It's very "Dave Made A Maze". The interior shots eschew every sci-fi cliché of gleaming octagonal corridors and go for an IKEA æsthetic. It is jarring and rather odd - but does make more sense as the film progresses. It almost feels like it is designed to be produced in a little off-Broadway theatre.

The plot, in retrospect, makes no sense. The sci-fi is a little cheesy and superfluous. But it is staggeringly good fun.

Straight 8 is an intriguing idea for a film competition. Film-makers have exactly one roll of Super8 film - which runs to about 3 minutes. The only editing they can do is in-camera. There's no audio - a soundtrack is submitted separately. And the first time they see the film is when it is shown on the big screen.

The premiere at the BFI showed the top 25 films from the competition. The best 8 also had a showing in Cannes and, I'm incredibly proud to say, my mum's film was among them.

The films themselves are an eclectic mix. Lemonade Stand-Off is 3 minutes of perfect silent comedy - with the most laughs per second that I've ever seen. The Bezoar by Jeff Zorrilla and Mía Miceli is a viscerally little horror film. Orlando Cubitt's Quinacridone Gold tells the story of the UK's first President via the medium of AI generated images. Every single one either told a perfect story or had something interesting to say. It's amazing how much you can pack into 3 minutes.

Here's the trailer. My mum is the woman covered in blood. Because of course she is.

The livestream premiere is TONIGHT! 3rd of June at 8PM UK time.

One Cut Of The Dead is - if you'll pardon the pun - a cut above the rest of the zombie flicks. It asks some deep questions about cinema and the role of the audience. Are we morally culpable for the actions that occur on-screen? Without us, there is no bloodshed. Without our insatiable desire for more blood, more gore, more torture - there is no pain and suffering.

And what's the camera's role in all this? We willingly suspend our disbelief that there's a magic window into this world that none of the characters can see. It's like we're the one hungering for brains and the poor cameraman is merely our fungus-driven avatar.

The first act of One Cut is stunning. There's no other way to describe its audacity. It's a schlocky splatter-fest which, as the name suggests, is filmed in a single take. It plays on every trope in the bloody genre, it pillages every classic scene from Blair Witch to Zombieland, and it drenches every cast member in gallons of blood.

Yes, it is low-budget ($25,000!) but it takes a lot of skill and effort to make things look so cheap and tawdry and exciting.

I don't want to spoil the rest of the film, but it will leave your head spinning off its axis. It's the sort of film that's done backwards and in high-heels.

In JCVD, Jean-Claude Van Damme plays Jean-Claude Van Damme. He's an ageing movie star, dealing with a fading career, money problems, and divorce. Unexpectedly, he's caught in a criminal plot where he has to live up to his reputation as an action star. At one point, he breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience about the nature of reality.

JCVD is a truly excellent film. So it is no surprise that it has been lovingly ripped-off remade as The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent with Nicolas Cage playing Jean-Claude Van Damme himself.

Nicolas Cage plays an ageing movie star, dealing with a fading career, money problems, and divorce. Unexpectedly, he's caught in a criminal plot where he has to live up to his reputation as an action star. At one point, he breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience about the nature of reality.

It is an excellent movie. Funny, dramatic, sweet. Nicolas Cage is great at playing himself. There's nothing particularly surprising or interesting about the movie - but you'll have a lot of fun watching it.

I love going into movies without knowing anything about them. I'd seen the poster (made it look like a romance movie) and I was vaguely aware there was some "drama" behind the scenes (hardly riveting) - so I wasn't expecting a smart sci-fi satire which ratcheted up the tension with each scene.

As I said, the plot itself is paper-thin. I daresay if you're a twenty-something it might seem startlingly original to you - but there's nothing new left under the sun. But what is original is the way the film isn't afraid to use every trick in the book to create a fever-dream atmosphere.

The nasty little undercurrent of the "rationalists" and "men's rights activists" gives it a sharp edge - which has probably contributed to its low ratings among angry young men. Chris Pine is grimly fascinating as the villain, only to be outshone by Gemma Chan doing her best Lady M.

It is beautifully cut together, with dozens of little stylish asides. Even Harry Styles (WTF!) is incredible - it's only by the end that you realise what a blinder he's been playing.

If you like sci-fi melodrama, it's well worth seeing this picture.

When I was at University at the turn of the century, there was a guy in our halls named "Big Gay Gareth"⁰. He was my go-to guy when I had questions about the insidious homosexualist agenda¹. He was instrumental in helping me understand what was, at the time, termed the QUILTBAG world. There were such a bewildering array of terms, customs, and issues - it was like being suddenly exposed to a whole new dimension.

Anyway, we live in a different world now. Love and attraction aren't "adult-only issues". There is such a bittersweet moment in the film when one character complains about the younger generation with the line "We got AIDS. They got Glee."

It's a story about frustration - both at the progress made in society, and the progress made in ourselves. It's about finding a way to let love into your life and letting the rage out of your heart. It's a silly movie about orgy etiquette and post-shenanigan clean-up. Oh, and whether Abe Lincoln was gay (maybe?)

You'd need a heart of stone not to find it hilarious.

The only slight negative is that it is - as many movies are - primarily focused on cis, white, and rich people. It's very open about its limitations and spends a lot of time poking fun at itself.

Amusingly, for a movie so focussed on sex, it isn't particularly explicit. While there's a lot of toplessness, there isn't a single buttock to be seen. Although, that said, I watched this on an aeroplane - so I've no idea how much (if any) was cut from the version I saw!

Whina tells the true story of Josephina Cooper, a Maori woman fighting for her rights, and the rights of her people.

The film doesn't sugar-coat the story. Whina was headstrong and, it would appear, sometimes a bit difficult to get along with. I've no idea how true to life it is, but the story is compelling and powerful. It (rightly) raises uncomfortable questions about colonialism and its long-lasting effects.

If you've never seen Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" - I strongly advise you to watch it before this film. No, you probably don't need to - but it adds to the metatextual delights.

Is the "Whodunnit" aspect a bit obvious? Well, yes. But that's telegraphed in the opening minutes when one character criticises the genre by saying "if you've seen one, you've seen them all". The whole point of the movie is to breathe new life into a format which was tired even way back in the last century. Does it succeed? I think so! It plays with the tropes available to it without ever taking the piss out of the characters or the audience.

Perhaps you'll guess the killer - I didn't - or perhaps you'll just enjoy Sam Rockwell's uncannily good English accent. Either way, it is a lot of fun.

I remember watching the original Clerks about a hundred years ago at university. It was a cheap & daring movie then - and remains a mainstay of what you can do if you give a bored kid a camera.

Kevin Smith's movies are uneven. He writes an amazing script - but give him a cast of stars and a bazillion dollars and he falters. Give him a bunch of mates and slightly too little money and he soars. Clerks 3 is perfect. If you were the target demographic when the first movie came out - and you feel like you haven't aged a day - then the new Clerks is just right for you.

It's about male friendship and the unbearable weight of your expectations for life. How we look back on life and what we remember. Whether we can find old friends and pick up where we once left off.

If I were being cynical, I'd say it over-exploits nostalgia and gives us an unnecessary dose of wish-fulfilment. But isn't that what life's like when you meet up with friends? You reminisce about what was and imagine what could have been. Smith writes a script which seems to effortlessly invoke every emotion he requires of the audience, while making them roar with laughter at its intertextuality.

Is this movie going to win any Oscars or awards? Nah. I doubt it'll even make its money back. But that's not what this movie is here for. It's to remind you that you used to be twenty-something and, no matter what it feels like today, it's never too late to stop giving up on your dreams.

Leo Grande is the male equivalent of the Manic-Dream-Pixie-Girl trope. But that's exactly what his character is paid to be. He isn't merely a one-dimensional sex-object - the client needs more than that. So he performs the role of "perfect man". Even when she is probing him to make sure he hasn't been forced into prostitution, he gives the answers which she wants in order to satisfy her set of ethics.

Without giving away too much - there is a little bit of slightly forced drama. It provides a nice counterbalance to the fantasy world we see constructed. And it is a fantasy. Everything happens neatly and without much surprise. But, hey, that's what we watch movies for - right? This isn't a documentary - but it does explore something which is likely to resonate with lots of viewers.

It's tempting to imagine a gender-flipped version of this movie. Cast, say, Toby Jones as the sad-act and pair him up with some smart-talking bimbo or himbo. Would it still get rave reviews? What are the social power imbalances which move something from charming to predatory?

What are the power imbalances in this movie? Emma Thompson is an undoubtedly huge name in movies. Is it manipulative of her to promise stardom to a naïve young Black man wanting to get ahead in the industry?

In the wrong hands, this would have been a slapstick car-crash. I can already imagine the big-budget American remake with Hollywood glamour, wobbly-arse jokes, a pointless car-chase, and extensive product placement for Trojan condoms. I am so pleased that Sophie Hyde has created an intimate, subtle, and - dare I say it? - cosy experience.

I don't know whether the script started life as a play. It feels a bit like "Same Time Next Year" - which features a couple in a single hotel room over a period of time. If it transferred to the West End I have no doubt it would be a sensation there as well.

This is a laugh out loud comedy, with an astonishingly tender heart.

That's the problem with being middle-aged. Your peers are now running the world and know exactly how to profit off you. Stranger Things is designed to tickle every part of your nostalgia gland and Derry Girls zaps you right in the feels. That expensive Lego set you wanted as a kid is now on sale again - and you can just about afford it! Every media property has been relentlessly focus-grouped until it can extract the maximum amount of I-Remember-That! from you - in the hopes that you'll open your wallet.

"Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers" is a cynically exploitative cash-grab which ruffles through the deep-cuts of your memory to blast you with 90 minutes of precision guided homesickness for your childhood.

The problem is - it is very good.

It helps that Disney basically owns all the IP in the universe now. Remember as a kid when you made He-Man fight the Autobots? Yeah, Disney can now make that movie - and throw in a B-plot about Donald Duck training to become a Jedi.

And that's the Chip 'n Dale movie. It's some extremely talented creatives tipping out their old toy chest and making an incredible film. Every frame is stuffed with in-jokes and Easter Eggs. There are a thousand-and-one blink-and-you'll-miss-it references. If the marketing executives are any good, they'll be data-mining exactly where viewers paused and rewound the video in order to determine which long-forgotten character should get a 6 episode miniseries.

It had me grinning all the way through. With occasional gasps of "did they really just do that!?" A worthy sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

What happens if you build a maze you can't get out of? How many people do you inadvertently drag in to your craziness? Are you responsible if they get hurt by the traps you set for yourself?

Remember that 1990s horror movie "Cube"? This has exactly the same vibe. Except all the rooms are made of cardboard. And the deaths are… well, no spoilers - but funny.

It is billed as a comedy-horror. But the horror isn't visceral - and the comedy is close to absurdist. It's sort of like Joe's Apartment in that - if you can accept the fantasy - it is quite magical. It has the feel of a student film inexplicably given a big budget. There are loads of great ideas in there which, coupled with some truly amazing shots all adds up to a splendid, if weird, movie.