Imagination runs wild

There is probably a story which is told, but with many layers of eta-vision overlaid. Since we are seeing the world from inside the memory of the detective, Fisher, (is there some nominiative determinism between his name and the waterlogged imagination inside him) do is dredging up memories of a traumatic last case under hypnosis, it is difficult to see through the representation to a possible real world beyond.

Has the society collapsed, or does it just seem so. Something has happened but is it inside or out. Did Osborne, Fisher's mentor and solver of the original Harry Grey case which ended in HG's death - allegedly -, did he then go on to complete the next murder himself, and did he recommend his best pupil to investigate the new case knowing that he would fall into the same trap of using his (Fisher's) "method" and complete the first set of murders himself by finding the missing location whilst having used 'the method' to get into HG's mind, and thus feel compelled to close things with a final murder.

Which begs the question would there have been the outline of a 'G' making a further set of murders...

Charming funny enjoyable

Lovely intertwining stories giving a sense of a very rural community where horses are an integral part of life for the inhabitants of the remote valley.

Several separate stories meld together in a satisfying way producing light comedy, romance, drama and a satisfying conclusion.

Excellent photography, great acting by the horses (icelandic semi-feral  ponies) and the humans (seldom have actors looked so at homeon a horse).

Featuring the first appearance of the Colombian touring cyclist who also pops up for light relief in Benedikt Erlingsson's 2018 follow-up film "Woman at War" which is also excellent.

A classic good film, with many things to like and not a foot put wrong. More like this please.

Nothing Special here, move along please.

Sometimes a film based on a true story can make you like, or see its subject in a different light. Although I knew, and sort of liked, all the anthemic songs and thought Bohemian Rhapsody the song was quite clever at the time, I was never a 'fan' of the band, I never owned any of their records or saw them live. 

This film version does nothing to change my opinion of the band and its singer as nothing special. We see them get a very easy ride to stardom by falling into the hands of a good A&R man and an honest manager rather than the usual rogues.  We see mostly performances on stadium stages and little or nothing of any struggle to achieve stardom with artistic integrety intact. We see the lead singer as a narsacistic self-indulgent exhibitionist who manages to dominate and manipulate those around him, and not in any way as an real person - maybe he was like that.

As a movie it is competently made and executed. The montage scene of a US tour is a bit cheap and rubbish but aside from that it is well done. If you delve into the online comments there are loads of quiblles about the chronology - but those you need to accept as means to compress key events into a coherent 2hr narrative. There are also lots of factual errors and anachronisms in the settings - but those you need to accept for a film made 40 years after the events it portrays.

At the end of the day it is a creative representation of its subject and not a documentary. As such it is probably quite good if you were a fan of the band and can live with the quibbles, but a waste of time if they were just some ok soundtrack music to your younger life. If you are too young to remember them it might give you a flavour of why people liked them - they created anthems for mass performance.