Get ready for an Amazonian adventure of a lifetime. If your name is Percy Fawcett, you'll be so hooked you'll go back again and again. If your name is Everybody Else, you'll get to experience two and a half hours of the epic (and true) journey. Directed by James Gray and featuring the likes of Charlie Hunnam, Sienna Miller, Robert Pattinson and Tom Holland, this is one not to be missed on the big screen. 

Fun fact: when you Google search 'Amazon', the first results page is somehow entirely dedicated to Jeff Bezos's global online giant Amazon. But long before online shopping and Google Maps and SatNav, 'Amazon' referred to a giant rainforest in South America. (It's still a thing, Google!). It was vastly undiscovered, unmapped, and full of legend and mystery. Enter Percy Fawcett, a military captain whose chance to prove himself by leading an expedition in turn led to his obsession with finding a lost city...called 'Z'. After finding evidence pointing to an unknown ancient civilisation, he made it his mission to discover it.

Taking place over approximately 20 years, the first thing to note about The Lost City of Z is the sheer scope of it. It's a very English period drama, it's a trek through the murky rivers of the Amazon with tribal encounters, it even somehow crams in war scenes from World War One. What is this film!? The result is a longer-than-long running time but each setting is vastly different and impressive, with no compromise on quality. The scenes of family life are often just as compelling as those in South America, whilst those in turn act as a liberating break from societal standards during the age of the British Empire. It's no fast-paced Indiana Jones adventure, but it has all the raw ingredients from a real-life jungle drama, as Fawcett ditches his loved ones to go and explore, and when he's out there he's facing piranhas, cannibals, sneaky survival tactics and other deadly dangers.

Benedict Cumberbatch apparently signed onto the role during the earlier stages, but it's Charlie Hunnam (not Brad Pitt FYI) who takes on the mahoosive Amazonian challenge. He's famous for Sons of Anarchy, Pacific Rim and very nearly playing the role of Christian Grey, but it's The Lost City of Z that gives him a lot of Leading Man Time for a brand new audience. He commands attention, speaking slowly and carefully, much like how he treads through the lush but mysterious green leaves of the jungle. Credit to Hunnam (not Tom Hardy, either) for delivering wisdom and managing to portray a fascinating character we totally root for, even if he is reckless and arrogant at times. The film presents him as an honourable hero, fair and fearless; a man people can relate to even if his story seems like the stuff of legends. However, and this isn't Hunnam's fault or maybe it is, I didn't feel the full extent of an adventurous spirit came across. Instead, it's more like he is easily riled and spurred on by others. The 'journey to self-discovery' becomes intermingled with the journey to find this lost city, and soon you can't have one without the other.

Charlie Hunnam may be good, but it's a great Sienna Miller who steals the show as Fawcett's wife Nina. They're both shown to be different to their peers at the time - Nina represents a triumph for women and a strong role model. Utterly loyal and patient, she's also refreshingly independent and integral to the plot. From the start, she's complaining about wearing a corset (woo!) and there's even a bit where she wishes to accompany her husband on his travels, but oh no - she can't cos she's a woman (boo!). Miller is a British icon who isn't always first known for her acting, but this role could be the performance of her career and firmly marks her as one of the best British actresses around. Other noteworthy performances are given by an unrecognisable beardy Robert Pattinson as loyal companion Corporal Henry Costin who gets all the cool dry one-liners, and Tom Holland as neglected son Jack who goes from public enemy number one to number one fan in the biggest U-turn since last week's Budget...

Have I mentioned that this is a lengthy film? Nope? The editing is good, though not perfect as it gets a little choppy (with big leaps through time even though Hunnam barely ages).  My biggest critique is its often slow pace, but the pace does pick up during confrontations and attacks. Watch out for the gripping river scenes - and one which involves singing. Yepp. The cinematography is awesome, immersing you in the depths of uncharted land and it's really cinematic so you should really check it out at a cinema.

The story has been passed down through tribes and historians, eventually taking the form of David Grann's bestselling book The Lost City of Z. At a StudioCanal screening with an expert panel discussion, Grann spoke of how Fawcett was ahead of his time, a pioneer for adventurers today, and how if he were alive today he'd be into Anthropology. The interactions with the indigenous tribes (cruelly labelled 'savages' in England) are some of the highlights. I won't reveal any spoilers (I managed to avoid reading up on history before watching it and I'm glad), but it is a bittersweet journey and not a scripted success where the Lost City of Z is found on the last attempt and everyone rejoices. The last act, which feels like it's the start of a new film,  is beautifully put together and a well-crafted conclusion, if you can call it a conclusion.

I'd never heard of Percy Fawcett before watching The Lost City of Z, so this was, for me, a piece of lost history. I feel enlightened now that I've found it.

An enchanting rendition that's very faithful to its original source, Beauty and the Beast is a musical, visually-pleasing crowd-pleaser that will give you all the warm fuzzy feels. Emma Watson and Dan Stevens lead the live-action cast, whilst the likes of Sir Ian McKellen, Ewan McGregor and Emma Thompson get the animated treatment.

Is it bad that I watched James Corden's Crosswalk the Musical version before I'd even seen the new cinema release? Both versions had me wanting to join in song and dance, so that must be good riiiight? One, however, was vastly different to the 1991 version: the one that's 10 minutes involving Corden in a bright yellow dress. Bill Condon's 129 minute production is a remake of the cartoon whereby it's pretty much the same. Bar the 'real people', and a few extras of course. Not that this is a bad thing, because we're treated to a delicious feast of everything we loved the first time round and it's satisfying.

You know the story: beautiful small town girl Belle falls in love with the cursed Beast. He keeps her as his prisoner in his enchanted castle and his ugly exterior begins to melt away as they get to know each other and stuff. Hmm, so you're falling for the guy who's kept you captive...? To their credit, the chemistry is there and Dan Stevens does, through the makeup and visual effects, eventually show the charm of the furry 'monster', particularly when he smiles that smile. The development of this unusual relationship feels natural too. (Speaking of the Beast, his name is still a mystery. Whereas Prince Charming receives the fine name of Kit, we're told not to call Beast 'Beast' even though there's no alternative. Even X-Men's Beast is Dr Hank McCoy by day. I digress...)

Emma Watson is a graceful and defiant heroine and a safe fit for the role of Belle, even it felt restrained (and a bit tooo safe) at times. It also wouldn't be Beauty and the Beast without the magic household objects - the former castle residents add buckets of charm and energy. Sure, Ewan McGregor's French accent is...questionable...but he pours so much light into candelabra Lumiere that we can forgive him. If candles could have jazz hands... Sir Ian McKellen is also perfect casting for Cogsworth, as is Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts. She knows everything can be fixed with a cuppa. I've got to say, however, my standouts were perfect Luke Evans as slimy, arrogant Gaston and Josh Gad swapping his Disney Olaf boots to LeFou. The Gad-related headlines and ruckus over Disney's "first openly gay character" have essentially created loads of buzz over nothing - it's a vaguely subtle hint at best.

The 3 new songs are hardly the main selling point for the cinema ticket, but it's the music that captivated worldwide audiences once upon a time that brings this to life again. Magnificent musical numbers are set in the little village, starting with 'Belle', the funny 'Gaston' and the highlight and completely over-the-top 'Be Our Guest'. New addition 'How Does a Moment Last Forever' (first sung by Kevin Kline then Celine Dion) manages to capture the essence of the original soundtrack, whilst 'Beauty and the Beast' is spine-tingling iconic. The cast may not be known first for their vocal ranges, yet they all hold their own. Emma Watson's singing voice is sweet and lovely, but it has noticeably had a few rounds through the autotune machine. It's Luke Evans, however, who impresses all round - did you know he started out on stage in the West End in productions like Rent and Miss Saigon? It shows; he's fantastic.

The special effects are another highlight. I guess, as not an awful lot has changed, you might look to the 2017-standard effects. They're impressive, but not groundbreaking. The family of objects are not as adorable as they were in 2D drawing form, and Mrs Potts is ever so slightly scary, but combined with the stellar voice acting there's enough personality to go around. They all get some very emotional farewells (and flamboyant 'live actor' comebacks) - who would've thought a little teacup would be able to make me cry!?  'Be Our Guest' takes the visual element to the extreme too. The setting is equally beautiful, despite the fact that it often feels like a theatre stage set rather than film. The town feels limited, but the gorgeously gothic castle goes all out. I guess it balances out.

4 stars is bordering upon slightly generous, but it's brilliantly nostalgic and definitely one for the fans. Although my Disney childhood favourite was Cinderella (and I got my live-action remake in 2015), Beauty and the Beast ticked all the right boxes for me. And 5 year old me, for that matter. The library scenes for bookworm Belle will bring back Harry Potter throwbacks, plus the over 2 hour running time flies by pretty quickly. Within the added minutes there's more depth in the father-daughter relationship (Kevin Kline is superb), and a prologue for the Prince. Emma Watson may have been the star billing and buzz-generator for this film, but there's a lot more on offer.

We've had revamps of Cinderella, The Jungle Book and on the horizon there's Cruella (starring Emma Stone), Mulan (reportedly without music!?), and The Little Mermaid. I'm hoping for some more adventurous adaptations for those, but for me, Beauty and the Beast is a strong start.

Beauty and the Beast is in cinemas now.

A frank look at the struggles of ALS...this is the story of former American football star Steve Gleason. This documentary details how motor neurone disease has impacted his life and his family through brutally honest home videos and diaries over 4 years that are more than often difficult to watch. It's full of heart, matched with equal amounts of inspiration and devastation.

I don't know anything about Steve Gleason the American football player, bar the stuff I found on Wikipedia. I could maybe name one or two players at a push. For me, this is an eye-opening and beautifully (and heartbreakingly) made documentary on ALS/MND. The film seems to agree too, with little time dedicated to his football background. It's less about his star quality and public image, but more about the real human struggles he faces, particularly as this is a topic I don't have too much previous knowledge on. Sure, we all remember the Ice Bucket Challenge a few summers ago where over $100 million total donations were reported. It amazingly led to a research breakthrough, but apart from that, most of us still probably don't have first-hand knowledge of what people suffering from the disease go through. The disease itself is progressive, attacking the nerves in the brain and spinal chord which leads to gradually worsening weakness and losing the ability to control voluntary movement. Gleason opts to show us from a very personal perspective.

Documentaries are factual and often personal, but Gleason seems to go one step further - somewhat inevitably as his diagnosis falls pretty close to him discovering his wife is pregnant with their first child. This turns the film into a touching open love letter to his son, from even before he's born whilst Steve still has most control over his movements. This is a document of himself, holding nothing back, for his child. We as an audience can learn a thing or two in the process. What happens next is his gradual deterioration, shown pretty realistically since so much is caught on camera. I feel a bit too intrusive at times, uncomfortable at being this close to it all.

Although it is a sad story, Director Clay Tweel is determined not to make this a sob story. Gleason's own vision is outlined when he's still speaking. He prioritises technology over medical research and campaigns to make them more accessible for others: "I'd like to advance those technology, equipment and services." This leads to former President Obama even signing the Steve Gleason Act into law in 2015, making critical technology more available. "I want to give people a purpose," Gleason says to a room full of people, and he turns his words into actions so that they speak louder even when he cannot. This is the inspirational side - choosing to live life to the full, adventure, repair relationships...

The other side that is the one that really hits home: the home life. Gleason's loyal wife Michel is introduced early on and her strength is something that doesn't need to be edited into this film. "I'm so with you," she says early on, and this carries on through her pregnancy, through when she becomes a carer for her husband, on top of raising their son Rivers. Rivers features later in the film, and the father-son interaction and exchanges are probably what made me cry most. (Oh yep, prepare tissues and all.) Watching the strain on their marriage is also hard to sit through. He repeatedly asks his wife if she's ok, then confronts her for rushing her care and lacking compassion: "You didn't even look at me...Do you feel angry when you are with me?". And then, "What can I do to be more important to you?" Oh boy, like how do we watch this? When such deep real life vulnerability, more than just a snapshot, is right there, it's tough. And then you realise how tough it is for them, and then for all families going through similar situations.

It's kind of like The Theory of Everything, which looked at Jane and Stephen Hawking and really delved into their relationship and the irreversible deterioration of that, particularly from Jane's point of view. Gleason is like that, but with real life footage and no Hollywood elaboration. Michel is a big part of this - she speaks about losing a bit of her happiness and light and how she's trying to find it back. It's so real it hurts: "I don't want to be a saint. I just want to be a real person."

There are a few dilemmas presented, for example the fact that the emphasis is on a longer life, though longer he lives, the harder it'll get for those caring for him. Secondly, the surgery he receives is able to prolong life but 95% of people are forced to reject it due to the high expense of it, and the need for round-the-clock care. Even though this is an education from start to finish, it's hard to ignore the fact that many ALS sufferers wouldn't be able to afford such treatment and care, making this an even more heartbreaking reality.

The team have created something bigger, beyond just a film, and I have to applaud them for their openness and willingness to share. It must've been strange for them to live their lives constantly on camera, and even stranger to share that with a world of strangers. As well as driving awareness, it's so obviously and touchingly a message for Rivers.  The theme of fatherhood is also explored through Gleason's difficult relationship with his own father, to how he deals with being a father himself. His words of wisdom - whether spoken or computer-generated - are ones we can take away with us too, so I'll leave you with a few:

"No matter what, we all face adversity...I want you to put yourself out there and put yourself out there for rejection...that's how we grow and how we gain perspective."

"I fight to stay alive. I am not giving up."

"That's what dads do - they pass stuff on; the best of themselves to their kids."

GLEASON is in cinemas 17th March and out on DVD and Digital Download 24th April.

Samuel L. Jackson, John C. Reilly, Tom W. Hiddleston and Brie S. Larson and form a super-squad ready to take on the famous colossal ape/giant gorilla/big...monkey. They do so in style - and there's some substance behind it too. The reboot is a visually impressive, good ol'fashioned fun trip to the cinema (and down memory lane).

A few snaps from the European premiere! 

Oh, Wolverine. Our beloved but scary wolf-man with the big hair, deadly claws and feisty temper is finally growling adios. Hugh Jackman, Hollywood's Mr Nice Guy, I will miss you too. The 8th and final film featuring Wolverine as we know him is the most X-Men divergent, dark and painful offering we've had yet, but it's also one of the best. The claws are out; more of a violent drama and Western than a superhero film, it's not perfect but it's pretty damn good.

Considering the last X-Men was the widely-panned X-Men Apocalypse, and that The Wolverine (2013) didn't exactly make it into the comic history books, you might be forgiven for not having the highest of expectations for Logan. But right from the pre-release start, we were promised something different, grittier, grown-up and a fitting goodbye. Even watching the trailers (backed by the haunting vocals from Johnny Cash's Hurt), there's a remarkable change in tone. Logan has aged, he seems fragile and human (for the first time), and it also looks so much more violent than usual as he slashes his way through the screen. The film people have delivered the film that Wolverine fans (over the age of 15 cos it's rated 15/R) have been waiting for.

We have a film set in 2029, although they haven't made a particular effort to make this a futuristic setting in any sense. (It's more Mad Max-style dystopia.) What's different is that this is an age where mutants are dying out and no mutants have been born for 25 years. James Howlett/Logan also appears to have put his Team X-Men days behind him, borderline rotting away with a limp, a job as a limo driver, and dreams of sailing away. Then comes an unexpected wake-up call - the film's trigger in the form of a mysterious girl who likes to eat cereal and wear sunglasses...oh and she has adamantium claws too. She brings out another side of Logan, thus forming the adamantium backbone of the story - and bringing the epic duo claw fights.

And so Logan becomes a wild road-trip of sorts, with the added complication of an ailing Professor X's seizures, mystery girl Laura, a baddie search party who have also been creating mutant super-soldiers in the lab (not new, but there has to be some sci-fi in here), and Logan's inner turmoil. Although the aim is to travel the country and reach the Canadian border (it's 2029 and they really are that desperate to flee America), it still manages to feel close to home.

Jackman first auditioned for the iconic role in 1999 - say whaat!? It's more than fair to say that he has completely developed and defined this character, and Logan takes a sombre approach to digging deeper with this in 2029. He's a Wolverine far from the one we recognise, poisoned, filled with rage and a drinking problem, casually swigging from a bottle at any opportunity. This is no superhero. This is a...wolf. He's spent a lifetime struggling with rage and when Laura arrives unexpectedly, this could be his shot at redemption. I feel to privileged to have watched Jackman as Wolverine all these years, and as an audience-member I feel very much attached to it all. At the premiere of The Wolverine a few years ago, he photobombed my photo (ok, I stood in front of him) and I was like *this* far away from him so I'd definitely say we were close! Seeing him pushed to the limit as his career-defining character in his final and most hard-hitting installment demonstrates just how great an actor he is.


Despite Professor X being in this film, it's still very much a standalone character film, with a lot of emotional investment in Logan and the struggles he faces. Having said this, Patrick Stewart shines, showing us yet another side to Charles Xavier. This Charles is also more vulnerable, whilst simultaneously being classed as a weapon of mass destruction due to the instability of the world's greatest mind. He gets to play a mentor again, and his relationship with Laura is sweet to watch. James McAvoy might be great but I've missed this Prof X. His relationship with Logan is also noteworthy - he has gone from being his teacher to being cared for by Logan and mutant Caliban (Stephen Merchant) in a shoddy hideaway in Mexico. Stewart encapsulates the complexities of his character and makes it look effortless. We've all known for ages this would be Jackman's last outing as Wolverine, but Stewart recently announced this would probably be his last appearance too. Noooooo.....

The film 'introduces' 12 year old newcomer Dafne Keen who is mesmerising and truly brilliant, able to capture childlike test-tube innocence and vulnerability... as well as the whole contradictory feral, angry killer claws bit.  With wild-and-wide eyes and some seriously kick-ass action scenes, she impresses without (mostly) having to say a single word. Mini Wolverine symbolises what Logan once was, but with the added element of hope. She's ferocious - she has a lot to learn, like table manners for instance...hmm, perhaps what she needs is a father figure/mentor?! She's intrigued by an iPod (in 2029!?) in one scene, and parkour flipping and attacking face-first with an angry scream in another. I have to say, I'm not comfortable with seeing children in such violent scenes - both attacking and being attacked - but if I overlook that, then Keen puts herself forward as a real raw force to be reckoned with and one to watch for the future.

It doesn't feel like there's a real baddie in this film, even though Richard E. Grant's character had huge potential given that he's kinda responsible for wiping out mutantkind. Dr Zander Rice has a menacing look in his eye, but it doesn't break barriers in the genre, especially since mad scientists hunting Wolverine is hardly new. There's also Boyd Holbrook as Donald Pierce, who obviously poses a threat but doesn't quite have a 'villain' feel either. In fact, I felt that the biggest villain was a surprising someone who looks more familiar and strikes much closer to home...no spoilers. I suppose that, given the focus of the film, this is all about the good and bad within Logan instead, and that even though lack of villain development is a trait across many Marvel movies, this one is intentional.

Logan is a triumphant swansong and I have so much praise for director James Mangold and the team who put this film together. Instead of big budget destruction, we have home visits and desert chases. In the Marvel universe, it kind of sits in its own corner. It's gorier than last year's Deadpool and ambitious in its own right, with a grown-up non-silly script to match. Actually, let's go back to the gore. There are quite a few OMG moments and they really don't hold back graphically either. Get ready to hide behind your hands. Onto the less favourable points...the storyline itself is not complex - it's escaping the bad guys and travelling to the promised land, where supposedly all the world's problems will be solved. Hm, okay. It's got many predictable moments and obvious foreshadowing, as well as some wasted characters, for example Caliban. Not to mention the 2 hour 20 minute running time and the fact that this is deliberately not a fast-paced journey which means it can feel noticeably slow. My brain is also a bit muddled from all the different X-Men timelines and alternate universes, and I'm still Googling answers for some post-film revision. I could have done with some more explanation of context, particularly in one crucial scene. At least with the Doctor Who timey-wimey stuff, we could maybe someday convince Jackman and Stewart to come back eh?!

We've had 17 years of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, and the film has got the bittersweetness down to a tee that stands out within the 17 years.  It's a story that conveys meaning and a whole lotta pain - to see pain in someone who has probably been shot hundreds of times...I mean, that says a lot. He's got an opportunity to find redemption, and going for a 'Logan' non-Wolverine title tells us this will be the most personal story to date. The curtains fall on poignant closure, a sense of finality and so many things we can talk about after. To be honest, I was too busy crying my eyes out: 1) I miss him already, and 2) At the lack of post-credits scene. Boo.

Logan is in cinemas now.

Want a throwback? You'll want to watch this audition...

Indie film Certain Women (in UK cinemas 3rd March) takes a long but simple look at certain female characters and their 'ordinary' tales in a star-studded affair featuring Laura Dern, Kristen Stewart, Michelle Williams, and scene-stealer Lily Gladstone. 

Not to be confused with Twentieth Century Women, also in cinemas right now, Certain Women is written and directed by Kelly Reichardt based on a series of short stories by Maile Meloy. It premiered at Sundance Festival and has been quietly amassing fans from all over. The subtle sadness of everyday life is put under the microscope in a softly spoken but impressive film. Set in Montana, we get the vaguely connected lives of a lawyer, a married couple building their home from the ground up, and a ranch hand and her accidental law teacher. Through the long glimpses into the lives of such independent women, we get a film laden with realism and real moments of joy and sadness, painting pictures of lonely lives.

The three separate stories have underlying common threads and some crossover, but it's no Love Actually or Valentine's Day if that's what you're after! A clean-cut film of three chapters/short stories, you have to be patient with a film like this. I have to admit I'm not a role model - it's thoughtful, but I found it harder to keep the same level of attention in the first two chapters. Thankfully, the third chapter is brilliant...more on this later.

On the other hand, subtlety is one of this film's strengths when you're patient. The silences and absences of speech are simple but effective, designed to make you ponder a little more. It's deliberately slow too - unraveling at real time without the usual director's cutting and editing, they want you to feel the motions instead. And you sure do. Don't be surprised if you spend a good few minutes just watching someone drive, or walk, or stare.

Whilst Laura Dern and Michelle Williams excel in their roles, it sometimes feels slightly restrained. The second story relies on minute dynamics and shifts in tone, as her character Gina feels as though her husband and daughter are against her, plus she's not taken seriously during a negotiation for some stone. In a house-building scenario that should be hopeful and free, there are serious undertones of quiet grief and trouble brewing beneath the surface. It's strange seeing such un-urbanised (is that a word?) settings.

And then we come to the third act. Ranch hand Jamie (Lily Gladstone) lives in isolation, bar her horses. She accidentally comes across an evening law class and becomes enamoured with her teacher, looking at her like she's the greatest person alive and even driving halfway across the country (maybe - how big is Montana?!) to see her. The other half in the story is Kristen Stewart, whose on-screen awkwardness fits in perfectly well here. It's Gladstone who completely steals the show though; her childlike innocence is brilliant and she's the only personality that really comes across in the film. She's mesmerising and you can't take your eyes off her, just as the camera doesn't falter from her face. The authenticity of this story is a little heartbreaking, but they definitely save the best for last (I'd nearly forgotten about the other two stories by this point! I was definitely flagging. A bit.).


With Certain Women we get ordinary mixed with the stunning backdrop of Montana. The stories involve isolation...whether emotionally or geographically (like a brand new house, or a ranch overlooking the mountains without a single house in sight). Though so sparse but gorgeous, it exemplifies the loneliness of these lives. I'm left with a beautiful film full of metaphors and hidden meanings left for you to dig deeper. I don't tend to watch indie films too often, but Certain Women has reminded me exactly why I should.

Certain Women is in certain cinemas from Friday 3rd March!

Viceroy's House brings to life the real life drama of the Partition of India in 1947, with a blunt but moving period piece tribute. Director Gurinder Chadha says you're not supposed to 'enjoy' the film as such, but it's as insightful as it gets, unearthing the bitter truths of a topic we don't get educated on enough. 

As film screenings go, I'd like to firstly shout out The Soho Hotel as a venue because those seats are like, seriously comfy. (Second shout out to Director Chadha for a really good intro to the film and quick chat after!) Disclaimer: My subsequent review has nothing to do with how cosy and comfy I felt in those seats...

Ok, Viceroy's House is the main focus here. Focus, Bev! Speaking about focus though, the film has buckets of it as it delves into the 'behind-the-scenes' discussions, decisions and politics that led to the division of a country into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. The Viceroy's House is presented wonderfully with rich colour and wealth, filled with servants who have also built their new communities there. It's through the eyes of these staff - namely Jeet (Manish Dayal) and Aalia (Huma Qureshi) - that we get to see two (of the many) sides to this story. One of the other sides is obviously the Viceroy himself, played by Hugh Bonneville in his element who perhaps brings some Downton Abbey sauce to this dish. He's joined by a very posh Gillian Anderson who plays his wife Edwina (if you close your eyes she sounds like a posher version of the Queen.) The Mountbattens are faced with the pressure of splitting India in the midst of rising violence, as well as the end of British colonial power, and they are portrayed here in a sympathetic manner.


Exit strategies, splits, refugees, migrants, violence and disharmony are all visited or touched upon, making this film politically very relevant. Gurinder Chadha spoke about how she made the film as a British Punjabi after realising her own roots in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?, and that even though it took seven years to make, it has ended up being released at a poignant point in modern history. It's the fuzzy televised scenes (real and not real) that strike the hardest, as they show the brutal real world outside of the House. Within the palace grounds, the rumour mill and tension and eventual violence between staff is just a small dramatised reflection of reality.

As British figures with titles to their names and badges on their uniforms sit around tables and discuss heatedly, the spotlight shines on Jeet and Aalia's parallel story which is essentially a Romeo and Juliet romance. There's a Muslim-Hindu religious difference, as well as the fact that she is set to marry someone else and doesn't seem interested. We realise in a slightly cringe-worthy reunion that they themselves have history, and thus Jeet begins to follow Aalia around like a lost puppy as she in turn looks troubled and gazes intensely into the distance at any given opportunity. They call out each other's names many times until there's more chemistry and then it becomes the gateway to further dramarama. Still, even though I was less convinced and entertained by this star-crossed love story, it does help to raise the valid point of different backgrounds and the shattering of families. The story of Aalia and her father (played by the late great Om Puri) is pretty emotional too. They are the poster faces of the wider revolution. It actually also leads to a soap-style moment at the end which had me in an expected flood of tears! No spoilers...


The making of Viceroy's House is an ambitious project and although there are shortcomings here and there, I think Chadha has succeeded in creating a really meaningful film that moved me to tears. A sensitive portrayal of a true story, it's fitting based on her personal connection which is linked nicely during the outro. When I had the pleasure of meeting the Director afterwards, I told her I was really glad she made this film and I mean it. Putting all the Downton drama aside, it comes down to a real story that simply has to be told.

Viceroy's House is in UK cinemas on 3rd March.