Until I watched The Conformist my only experience of Italian filmmaker Bernardo Bertolucci was 2003‘s The Dreamers starring Eva Green and Michael Pitt. Needless to say I found The Dreamers an easier watch, not least because the majority of that film is in English. The same cannot be said for The Conformist Bertolucci’s 1970 political drama. Spoken in Italian and French the film focuses on Marcello (Jean-Louis Trintignant) a young man starting a career in the Mussolini government. The film centers around Marcello’s mission to assassinate his former University Professor Quardri (Enzo Tarascio) who has fled to France. While this mission provides the essential plot, the film is essentially a character study of Marcello, the Conformist of the title. Through a number of flashbacks, Marcello’s childhood, marriage and his relationship with his parents are explored in detail. The flashbacks form the first half of the film and while they inform the events that follow the non-liner time frame along with the language barrier can be confusing at times. By exploring certain traumatic incidents in his childhood as well as the strained relationships with his morphine-addicted mother and his mentally ill father, we understand why Mercello is the way he is and why above all he strives to conform to the world around him, socially, politically and sexually. Mercello’s mission is further complicated by the presence of his new wife Giulia (Stefania Sandrelli) who believes that they are traveling to Paris for their honeymoon. The character of Giulia is deliberately irritating and when the Professors young wife (Dominique Sanda) is introduced she provides a huge contrast. The film then goes through a period of a becoming a love-quadrangle of sorts between Mercello, Quardri and their wives while the two men try to figure each other out. This in itself could have provided the basis for an entire film and in the wider context of the running time it feels a little rush. All the same everything that has gone before makes the climatic scene in the French mountains all the more powerful and we are now so deeply invested into Mercello’s character that he doesn’t need to speak. In a final dénouement the film flashes forward to the end of Mussolini’s dictatorship and we witness Mercello struggling to come to terms with his past. To reveal more than this would be a spoiler but lets just say the incident with the professor is not the only skeleton in Mercello’s closet. Your enjoyment of the film to some extent depends on your attitude towards subtitles. To me the only issue with subtitles is that it detracts from the performances, as your focusing on the text rather than the actor speaking. With repeat viewings this becomes less of an issue though and given its depth and complexity The Conformist definitely needs revisiting.
Blackthorn effectively retells the story of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid made famous by the Robert Redford and Paul Newman film. Sam Shepard plays an old Butch (now calling himself James Blackthorn) living out his days peacefully in Bolivia. As Butch makes one final journey back home to America he gets tangled up with a young bandit called Eduardo (Eduardo Noriega) and soon he is once again being chased across a barren landscape by gangs and lawmen. The film’s narrative is intercut with flashbacks revealing a new version of the Butch and Sundance myth, detailing how they survived the famous gunfight in San Vicente. The King Slayer himself (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) brings life to the young Butch and along with Padraic Delaney as Sundance the two capture the fun of the partners that made them so endearing in 1969. Like Unforgiven before it, Blackthorn deals with the realities of cowboys living to an old age. Filled with regret and a longing for the past, Shepard portrays Cassidy with a subtle blend of melancholy and the same sense of humor and attitude that makes it clear this is the same character played by Paul Newman. The actor even contributes to the soundtrack, singing original versions of ‘Ain’t no Grave’ and ‘Wayfaring Stranger’ made famous by Johnny Cash and Jamie Woon respectively. Lighter moments of the plot are often contrasted with some brutal violence, reminding us of the realities of the time. While Blackthorn expands on a story and stands as a film in its own right I would definitely recommend revisiting the Robert Redford film beforehand if like me you have vague memories from watching it on TV on a Saturday afternoon.
Josh Trank’s Chronicle is a strange beast. To call it a sleeper hit seems almost too obvious at this point as the film currently stands atop both the UK and the US box office. For those who have missed the campaign the central premise of the film is to take two apposing cinema trends of the last few years and force them together. Here the superhero film is crossed with the ‘found footage’ idea made famous by Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity. A superpower film might be a more accurate description however as, refreshingly the film’s teenage protagonists do not run straight for the spandex as soon as they discovered their powers. Instead they do what we know in our heart of hearts we’d all do at first; they play. The juvenile antics of Andrew (Dane DaHaan) Matt (Alex Russell) and Steve (Michael B. Jordan) provide the much needed comedy and lightness of touch missing from the rest of the film. From the shooting style to the dreary Seattle setting the tone remains dark even throughout the frivolity of a high school party (complete with the now customary red and blue plastic cups). The darker tone owes much to the central character of Andrew. It’s through Andrew’s camera that we view the majority of the action, and although this premise is sometimes stretched a little too thin it does allow a sense of realism which combined with the subtle special effects of the superpowers, provides a new take on the superpower film that has been done in almost every variation up till now. As the film explores Andrews troubled life his slow decent (hinted at strongly in the trailer) is portrayed perfectly by DaHaan. It is this kind of subtle and layered character development that would have been perfect for the Star Wars prequels, to see Anakin turn to the ‘dark side’ in the same way as Andrew would have been far more satisfying. By the time the film reaches its conclusion Trank has pulled out every possible technique in order to preserve the ‘found footage’ premise using every conceivable camera to provide a new angle on the complicated events. Although the majority of these work, the character of Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) a little too convenient. As a video blogger Casey conveniently films a number of conversations between her and Matt as well as a panicked drive into the city. At times this pushes the premise to breaking point as audiences are taken out of the action simply thinking – ‘why would you film that?’ Chronicle provides a bold, dark and realistic take on a well worn premise and through strong performances from the entire cast as well as a lingering unexplained mystery is sure to secure its place as a cult hit.
Set in and around the sewers of Sydney ‘The Tunnel’ follows a group of journalists as they investigate the labyrinth beneath the city. Borrowing styles from the ‘found footage’ genre, Carlo Ledesma’s film in many ways achieves a consistency and believability that other more Hollywood offerings, such as ‘Chronicle’, have failed to deliver. The fact that the characters are a film crew whose main source of light in the tunnels is the high powered torch mounted on their professional news camera allows you to forget the ‘why are they filming this?’ contradiction that can often take you out of theses sorts of films. As for the characters they are the typical mixed bunch. The crusading female journalist Nat (Bel Deliá), her producer Pete (Andy Rodoreda, think of an Australian Michael Fassbender), cameraman Steve (Steve Davis) and sound recorder ‘Tangles’ (Luke Arnold) are all given a key part to play both in the narrative and, in the case of the crew members particularly, in the actual documentation of the events. Starting off as a political news story surrounding an abandoned government project to use the sewers of Sydney as a water recycling plant, the film makes sure to set up a level of realism as conversations are captured on CCTV or used as ways of the crew checking their kit. The opening of the film also allows the characters and their relationships to take shape, and while this would usually involve the characters themselves interacting with each other (in the car on their way to the cabin, or abandoned town or wherever) the film also employs another technique in order to get to know the characters. Interviews are cut to throughout the story and provide personal accounts from characters as the events unfold (in much the same way as ‘District 9′). While this does allow us further insight into the characters and what they think of each other, discerning viewers may find it spoils the film somewhat as things start to go wrong down in the sewers. As for the horror aspects they are mostly played brilliantly. While there are no particularly gory images (save one or two) Ledesma cunningly employs the ‘Alien’ philosophy (its not what you see, its what you imagine thats scary) which is used to great effect in the often pitch black setting. To give away the threat itself would ruin the suspense of a horror film like this but I will say there is one particular reveal that is so damn creepy the image is likely to stay with you for a while. ‘The Tunnel’ definitely a good watch for horror fans, but don’t be put off if this isn’t usually your sort of thing. With a well thought out premise, solid cast (with a particularly good performance from amiable Steve Davis, who is in fact a cameraman ‘giving acting a go’) and genuinely creepy horror, ‘The Tunnel’ is a great example of Australian independent film.
(Insert missing arm joke here) So what do you do when you’ve just won eight oscars with a film that could just as easily have gone straight to DVD? Cash in and direct the latest Spielberg/Michael Bay produced blockbuster? Make a nice, easy rom-com? Take some time off? Well if your Danny Boyle the answer is ‘none of the above, I’m going to make a film about a man trapped in a hole on his own for six days’. Truth be told, it’s a hard sell and it could be argued that were it not for Boyle the film would not receive the attention and wide theatrical release it has done, despite it’s subject matter. 127 Hours tells the true story of Aron Ralston, an amateur rock climber who, in 2003, became famous when he was forced to cut off his forearm having been trapped by a boulder for almost six days. The media attention surrounding the story at the time, along with Ralston’s own recounting of his ordeal in his book Between a Rock and A Hard Place, presents Boyle with yet another obstacle — how do you engage an audience who (for the most part) will already know the story? Well from the first frame it’s clear Boyle is taking us for another roller-coaster ride. The opening of the film grabs the audience just as Iggy Pop and Ewan McGregor did in Boyle’s seminal Trainspotting. This time however the director employs split screens to bombard the viewer with images, images of us, the 21st century western audience in our masses, going to and from work, to sports events to play the stock markets. Into this confusion and chaos we are introduced to Aron (James Franco) a happy go lucky young engineer making ready for a weekend trip into the wilderness, ignoring the phone as it rings in the background and getting his gear together. In this opening sequence Boyle has successfully brought us in to his film in a strikingly visual and aural attack on the senses which can almost be seen as a directional trade mark (28 Days Later, Sunshine). From here on in the focus is squarely on Franco who delivers a truly remarkable performance. The most striking aspect of the performance however is just how subtle and measured it is even in the most emotionally challenging scenes. It’s Aron’s matter-of-fact delivery and quiet despair that come across and ultimately involves the audience, not as I had expected going in, an intense Bale-esque inner turmoil punctuated by dramatic outbursts. Aaron’s claustrophobia is shared by the audience after the accident. Boyle depicts a sense of freedom in Aron’s early scenes in the wilderness both physically and socially as he meets two young women. It is this freedom and social interaction that we crave along with Aron throughout the bulk of the film as we are trapped with him. Despite various flashbacks and fantasies, everything onscreen after the first thirty minutes can be seen to take place either in the cave or within Aron’s mind. The psychological journey undertaken by Aron is what the film is really ‘about’. Through the deepest despair we see Aron gain acceptance that his choice of individualist lifestyle is what ultimately led him to his predicament, if he had just told someone where he was going or invited a friend he could have saved himself. Here in lies the fundamental question of the piece that goes beyond the much debated ‘could you cut your own arm off?’ : should we choose to give up our own individual freedom and join the rat-race depicted earlier, or do we choose to keep our freedom and accept the risks of living outside the mainstream? Which brings us to the infamous liberation scene, during which Aron cuts off his own arm. Boyle doesn’t pull any punches and it’s safe to say the scene plays out with graphic detail. To me however, it is the sound design of the scene and one particular effect which made me most uncomfortable. Is it necessary to provide this much detail? I believe it is, Aron has been presented as a man who is specific, who sets targets and thinks with a rational, mathematical mind and throughout the film Boyle reflects this is his visual style, concentrating on minute details, to cut away now and not show the audience the event in detail, would be a betrayal. Danny Boyle has delivered a bold piece of film making which along with a superb score by Slumdog maestro A R Rahman and a riveting performance by James Franco makes 127 Hours a truly cinematic experience. Not bad for a film about a man trapped down a hole, all we need now is for Danny to adapt the story of the Chilean miners onto the big screen.
Set against the decedent and dangerous backdrop of 1976’s Formula One World Championship, Ron Howard’s latest true 20th Century story focuses on the bitter rivalry between Brit James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Austrian Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl). Reuniting with screenwriter Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Last King of Scotland) Howard’s dynamic style and keen eye for period pieces bring the proceedings that Spielbergian sense of a heightened reality. From the choice soundtrack to Hunts flamboyant wardrobe the style effortlessly evokes the 1970’s while resisting the temptation for nostalgia. The films greatest strength is the ambiguous nature with which it treats the central characters. Both Hunt and Lauda are presented as flawed, driven men, though completely different from one another in their approaches to the sport. It is never made clear who we are to root for and as the season has its ups and downs audience allegiances will turn almost from race to race. Hemsworth brings the same affable arrogance to Hunt as he did to his most famous creation but is also given an opportunity to add layers to the man and as the film progresses it becomes more and more clear that the **** attitude and flippant disregard for life frequently displayed by Hunt is only skin deep. Brühl’s passionate Lauda drives the film with a sheer minded focus and determination that can at times be both admirable and incomprehensible. Through strong performances, dynamic direction and a sharp and evenly weighted script, Rush transcends its Formula One backdrop to focus on the nature of rivalry, sportsmanship and risk. Like all great rivalry films (see The Prestige, Warrior) it will split your allegiances, make you sympathize with and at times detest its characters and entertain regardless of your interest in the subject matter.
It’s almost impossible for anyone to separate the politics of the War on Terror from Katherine Bigelow’s Oscar nominated drama. The film certainly pulls no punches when it comes to the representation of real world events, from the chilling opening using voice recordings from 9/11 victims you know you are in for a rough ride. First and foremost the film is in no way a glamorised depiction of the hunt for Osama bin Laden or the CIA operatives that carried it out. This is not an air punching salute to the American flag in the style of Michael Bay’s much derived Pearl Harbour. In the opening scenes of the film we are introduced to our main protagonists, our heroes, as they brutally torture a detainee. The camera does not pan away, we do not see a cell door close followed by muffled screams, we see in full the extent of the ‘harsh tactics’ and their effects on the prisoner. This introduction to Jessica Chastain’s Maya and Jason Clarke’s Dan is bold to say the least. Usual Hollywood fair would introduce these characters within a family setting helping you identify and sympathise with them as the film goes on. Not here. Here we have the opposite effect, for the first third of the film I personally found it very hard to like or root for Maya. This lack of empathy towards the character could be exactly what Bigelow and writer Mark Boal were going for. By presenting the facts, events and people involved in this story as dispassionately as possible the filmmakers have allowed the audience to draw their own conclusions. Much like William James (Jeremy Renner) from the Oscar winning The Hurt Locker, some audience members will consider the protagonist a hero others will consider her a dangerous and often arrogant anti-hero. As the plot slowly unfolds it would be very easy to get lost in the technical jargon of the CIA characters as they meticulously sift through information, set up meets with informants and follow paper trails. However by keeping the focus on a central lead in the search (which Maya becomes personally obsessed with) Bigelow keeps a clear narrative that helps to tie together an incredibly complex manhunt with the tense final raid at the films climax. The Hurt Locker proved Bigelow’s talent for building suspense and that talent once again shines through. The fact that the audience knows how events play out and is still on the edge of their seats during the films infamous finale is testament to the skill of the filmmaking on show. Above all Zero Dark Thirty‘s greatest achievement is that it captures the essence of the War on Terror. From the minute details of intelligence gathering to the world changing horrific events that took place, Bigelow shows a sensitivity and frankness that will see the film endure as a drama documenting the zeitgeist of the post-9/11 world. I saw the film in a small screen at a cinema less than 10 miles from the centre of London. When the image of a red double decker bus along with the date 7th July 2005 appeared on screen you could feel the atmosphere in the room change. The War on Terror continues to effect the lives of millions in one way or another. In Zero Dark Thirty audiences all over the world have an intelligent, honest and at times brutal thriller which will provoke debate and discussion for years to come.
About a week ago I saw Interstellar, Christopher Nolan’s new Sci-Fi epic. It’s taken me this long to write about because honestly, my opinion on the film is still changing. Part of me wants to call it a masterpiece, part of me wants to mark it down as an overthought and underwritten mess. The truth (or at least how I see it, and lets face it, I’m just one of thousands of nerds shouting into the vast vacuum of the internet where no one can hear you scream) is somewhere in the middle. Parts of Nolan’s ambitious story of wormholes, relativity and the fifth dimension are truly awe inspiring. The space scenes, and even some of the more intimate character moments, are just pure cinema at its best and NEED to be experienced in the movie theatre. It’s hard to even describe the wormhole scene about an hour into the film because we have simply never seen anything like it before. In the era of endless reboots, sequels and ridiculous special effects, that feat is almost enough to justify seeing the movie by itself. But Interstellar goes beyond stunning visuals. Nolan has become a star of a director, one who’s name can sell out cinema screenings in a way not seen since Spielberg’s glory days. This means every actor in the business is clamouring to work with him and that pays off big time here. I am now fully on board with the McConaissance. Shamefully, I still haven’t seen Dallas Buyers Club (I know I need to but it’s really hard to motivate yourself to watch something so dark and heavy when you could just watch Guardians of the Galaxy again) but I was absolutely blown away by True Detective earlier this year. McConaughey’s world weary and at times bitter performance ground Interstellar and stop it from becoming a dreary, if spectacular, three hour science lesson. Here in lies the essential problem of the film, and it’s one that is starting to threaten film as a format. Three hours is simply not long enough to tell the story Nolan is trying to tell. In the new golden age of television we are now seeing, complex and epic plots play out across sixty hours of movie quality entertainment. With the likes of Game of Thrones, House of Cards and Breaking Bad now eating up weeks of viewers time, its hard for a film to make the same impact. How can any actor or any director make you invest in a character and a story the same way you have with Walter White or Tyrion Lannister in just two and a half hours? This is not to say people can’t love movie characters or stories, it just means that performances and scripts have to be that much tighter and direct in order to really connect. The problem with Interstellar is that there is so much dense science to explain and such an involved story to tell that the character development and emotional impact get lost in the mix. The films greatest strength is also its greatest weakness — the cinema as a format. If Nolan had instead made a five part HBO miniseries, for instance, telling the same story, he could have achieved both the character development and the mind blowing scientific accuracy he’s striving for. The downside is we would then miss out on the shear spectacle of the sights and sounds (Hans Zimmer, killing it yet again) on display as they should be experienced. Maybe we already have the solution — the splitting of films into multiple parts. Unfortunately this format seems to have been highjacked by young adult novel adaptations looking to increase their all important box office. Not something I think Nolan would sign off on, I mean this is the guy who refused to shoot the Dark Knight films in 3D despite studio pressure to the contrary. Would audiences go for an Interstellar parts 1 and 2? Maybe not given the films critical reaction. The fact remains, Nolan has created something special with Interstellar. Supported by a flawless cast and a truly original and mind blowing premise, it is both a cinematic triumph and a harsh reminder of the limitations of film. To use a really cheesy suburban wall art saying, Nolan reaches for the moon and, even though he falls, he lands in the stars.
Back in 2010 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 started a dangerous trend — splitting novel adaptations into multiple parts. Since then we’ve seen the Twilight series split its finale in two and (unforgivably) J.R.R Tolkien’s 300 page ‘The Hobbit’ turned into a three film, nine hour epic. So how does the latest entry in The Hunger Games franchise fare? To be honest, I think its pretty good. After two films of build up the oppressed people of Panem are finally taking up arms against a brutal, totalitarian regime led by Donald Sutherland’s President Snow. So you’d expect a lot of large scale action right? Na, we do get a lot of propaganda though. Here the Battle Royale style ‘games’ take a back seat as the two political entity’s battle for the hearts and minds of the population. The ideology of war and the effects of state run media are not often the subject of mainstream Hollywood films. To me however this has always been the most interesting element of the franchise, one that elevates it above the teenage, love triangle, blockbuster it is often dismissed as. I mean these films are so overtly political at this point that its even starting to negatively effect the box office takings in key worldwide markets. So does all this politics and propaganda make the film boring? Absolutely not. Jennifer Lawrence’s performance once again brings real emotion and depth to Katniss demanding empathy despite some tricky (and at times downright unlikeable) character traits. The extended running time also allows some of the series’ side characters to have some much needed development. Liam Hemsworth’s Gale and Elizabeth Banks’ Effie finally get scenes of their own, free from Katniss, where they can establish their own motivations and backgrounds. The returning cast also up their game. Josh Hutcherson is fantastic as Peeta (despite reduced screen time) showing real restraint when needed in scenes a lesser actor would overplay. Of course Donald Sutherland is on fine menacing form as President Snow. The only disappointment in terms of performance is the late, great, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Don’t get me wrong, he’s great, it just seems he's a little underused. It's a shame that what would turn out to be his final screen role is that of the rather subdued Plutarch Heavensbee. This is hardly a defining or particularly memorable posthumous role like Heath Ledgers Joker or Oliver Reed in Gladiator. Of course the filmmakers can’t be criticised for this and they show Hoffman the upmost respect, dedicating the film to his memory. Unfortunately much like The Deathly Hallows, Mockingjay Part 1 can’t escape the feeling of being connective tissue and not a film in its own right. This instalment could quite fairly be accused of simply being a two hour trailer for next years’ conclusion. It’s impossible not to see the irony in a film with a quite Marxist message (the downtrodden proletariat rising up against a powerful ruling class) being split in half by a Hollywood elite for commercial gain. But politics and commercialism aside, the fact remains that Mockingjay-Part 1 is a well made, well acted movie. In all honesty it probably shouldn’t exist but, as it does, there are far worse and less thought provoking ways to spend a couple of hours.
Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy comes to a bombastic conclusion in a film thats all crash with very little wallop. We all know at this point that the Hobbit trilogy is a bit of an overblown mess, that really should have been a straightforward two parter at the very most. Living in the long shadow of The Lord of the Rings series this prequel trilogy (even typing that makes me feel dirty) has struggled to find its own identity. However outside of the heavy weight of five films and fourteen years of cinematic backstory The Battle of the Five Armies (or TBOTFA as I’ll refer to it) remains an enjoyable, if OTT entry into the saga. The two crowning jewels of the series have been Martin Freeman’s Bilbo and Ian McKellen’s Gandalf. Freeman is fantastic as eponymous Hobbit bringing warmth, humour and at times great pathos to a part that has often become lost in his own story. As for the Gandalf the Grey, McKellen is effortless in his career defining role. The rest of the cast also step up for their final bows. I have never been impressed with Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the dwarf party tasked with reclaiming his ancestral home from Smaug (the Dragon voiced, briefly, by Benedict Cumberbatch). However in this concluding part of the story the actor is given some interesting, if sometimes overdone, material to work with as the King under the mountain descends into a paranoid madness while he protects his newly claimed horde. Luke Evans’ rather thankless role in part two is also given much more screen time. Unfortunately many of the Hobbit characters can’t help but come across as pale imitations of their Lord of the Rings counterparts. Evan’s Bard is the honourable, reluctant leader, a lot like Aragon, while Ryan Gage plays a far less creepy and more comical version of Grima Wormtogue. Thorin’s journey from honourable to corrupt and back again also offers a mirror image to Boromir’s arc in The Fellowship of the Ring. The ‘battle’ of the title is unfortunately the weakest part of the film. With far too much CGI and not enough character the Siege of Erebor doesn’t hold a candle to the battle for Helm’s Deep. This isn’t surprising when you consider the different techniques used to make the films. The Lord of the Rings trilogy often relied on practical effects, make up and real locations to achieve its spectacle. People got dirty making those films, people got hurt. The Hobbit looks as though it was filmed on a soundstage or a green screen studio with the cast never too far from their armchairs and books. All the perilous action was left to the computers. While there are some awe inspiring and at times emotive scenes in the film, there are an equal number of laughable moments of sheer ridiculous, overblown action in the style of the Star Wars prequels (shudder). At times it feels like you're watching someone else play World of Warcraft. The final confrontations, although far better than the large scale battles, are spoiled slightly by a few really silly moments. There’s one involving ice that actually got a big laugh from the audience and less said about Legolas’s work on the falling staircase the better. The CG throughout the film is a mixed bag, when it works we get Smaug’s attack on Laketown, when it doesn’t we get Billy Connolly’s character who I swear just stepped right out of Who Framed Rodger Rabbit. Unfortunately the effects side of the film pulls focus from the characters and story, resulting in meaningful moments and deaths often falling flat. The sequence involving Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett is an insane fever dream that leaves plenty of questions unanswered and doesn’t really add much to the overall story. The effects can’t be blamed for all the films’ failures, however. Sometimes the script can produce just as many cringe worthy moments. The ‘love’ story between Aidan Turner’s Kili and Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel is ridiculous and condescending to the Nth degree. The film makers are essentially saying ‘lets throw something in for the wives and girlfriends’ and think that a poorly executed and unwritten romance is the answer. Then there’s the comedy relief of Ryan Cage’s character which strays into pure Jar-Jar Binks territory. After the chaos of the Battle the film and (hopefully) The Middle Earth Saga draws to close in a suitably small way as McKellen and Freeman share a couple of reflective, underplayed moments that then link directly to their scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring. The Battle of the Five Armies cannot live up to its Lord of the Rings predecessors. With too much over the top action and serious character development problems outside of the main protagonists, I can see general audiences struggling to engage with this final entry. Ultimately many will just be glad that it’s all over, which is a shame given the heights the series has reached in the past.
From the creators of Kick-Ass, comic book writer Mark Millar and director Matthew Vaughn, comes another mad, bloody and above all fun romp that knows exactly what it needs to be and loves it. As a direct reaction to the more ‘serious’ spy films of the current era, the espionage action film pays more than a little homage to the Bond films of the sixties (clearly an influence on Vaughn’s previous X-Men: First Class) but never slips into the parody of Austin Powers or, god forbid, Johnny English. Just as Kick-Ass did for superheroes, Kingsman wears its cinematic heritage on its sleeve and isn’t afraid to have characters directly confront the ‘outlandish plot’ and their own character ‘archetypes’. Those expecting a family friendly throwback should be warned though. To quote Mark Strong’s character the violence on display is **** spectacular’. The frenetic, dynamic action of Kick Ass is ramped up to 11 here as Colin Firth shows us a physical side that we have never seen before. Firth’s Harry Hart combines the charm and wit of Sean Connery’s Bond with the speed and brutality of Jason Bourne to make one pretty unique and memorable character. The real star of the movie however is Taron Egerton’s Eggsy. The boy from the streets who is inducted into the world of the secret service by Hart could have easily become irritating and unlikeable. In Egerton’s hands however Eggsy makes for a great protagonist as he grows from petty criminal to gentleman spy via a prolonged training period that never feels like it's dragging. What brings charm to the character is his unmasked excitement and enthusiasm for the world of the Kinsmen, like us he knows this stuff is just cool, no matter where your from. No classic spy film would be complete without a ‘colourful megalomaniac’ trying to take over the world and who better then Mr Samuel L. Jackson to fill that role. As tech billionaire Valentine, Jackson is having enormous fun hamming it up without ever becoming Dr Evil; as he so eloquently puts it — ‘this ain’t that kind of movie’. From the outset its clear that everyone involved in the project is having the time of their lives and it’s hard for that to not translate offscreen. Although sometimes things my go a bit too far, and in some cases the films CGI lets it down, Kingsman is a funny, clever and gloriously violent tribute to the spy films of old. I don’t want to get too ahead of ourselves but I would definitely like to see a sequel, although hopefully one directed by Matthew Vaughn and not a repeat of the mess that was Kick-Ass 2.
I have been trying to collect my thoughts on the latest entry to the Bond franchise for the best part of a day now….here goes nothing. After three films of origin stories and departures from the Bond formula, the end of Skyfall finally saw all the pieces in place for a return to the classic Connery-era Bond. In many respects Spectre delivers on this promise. Ben Whishaw’s Q, Naomie Harris’ Moneypenny and a scene steeling Ralph Fiennes as the new M provide great energetic back up to Daniel Craig’s Bond as he embarks on his latest globe trotting mission. I have always been a fan of Craig’s portrayal of the character, but in Spectre the actor has reached a new level. Here Bond is cocky, deadly and cold while simultaneously remaining witty, charming and at times even playful. However the film’s plot also allows Craig to display those rare moments of vulnerability as his past comes back to haunt him in the form of the shady organisation of the title. Unfortunately it is also the plot that lets the film down. As is often the case with franchise films the end result is only as strong as the lead villain and their scheme. Although two time oscar winner Christoph Waltz delivers a subtly sadistic performance the writers have let him down in a major way. The role of SPECTRE and Waltz’s Oberhauser in the film is often reduced to a MacGuffin, only there to give Bond motivation to move from one scene to the next. We spend the majority of the film waiting for Oberhauser to step out from the shadows and explain his organisations’ goals and motivations. When he is finally revealed however no such explanation is given. From the context of the secondary plot and a standout scene where the members of SPECTRE meet in Rome, the audience is left to piece together their scheme without being spoon fed via exposition. For this reason above all Spectre is a film that demands repeat viewing. I feel like during my first watch, any time the plot was unclear or I missed a key line, it was ok because Waltz would inevitably spell it all out for me. The fact that this never happened is really to be comended. I feel that modern audiences (myself very much included) have now come to expect this overt kind of expository dialogue, so much so that when it is missing films feel incomplete and disjointed. However commendable though, this is still a major flaw that leads the last third of the film feeling decidedly anti-climatic. Despite these plot concerns (and a somewhat misjudged and underdeveloped attempt to tie in Craig’s previous Bond films) Spectre certainly doesn’t disappoint when it comes to action set pieces and sharp dialogue. With standout performances and some great action, if this is indeed to be Craig’s final outing it certainly gives the audience the Bond film they have been asking for ever since Casino Royale. Whether this is the Bond film we deserve however, is another matter entirely.
Quentin Tarantino has never been known to return to a genre. Instead the director has become a genre unto himself. When you go to see a Tarantino film you more or less know what your going to get….sharp dialogue, stand-out performances and a narrative that messes with the timeline. All these elements are present and correct in the film-makers’ latest outing The Hateful Eight, the second western to enter the Tarantino-verse after Django Unchained. Plot wise this is probably the most straight forward movie he has ever made which allows the director to play to his strengths — dialogue and directing actors. On those two fronts, it’s safe to say, he delivers in spades. If I were to think of the stand-out scenes of Tarantino’s last two films they would probably be the opening sequence of Inglorious **** (featuring a tense stand-off between Col. Hans Landa and a French farmer) and the dinner scene in Django Unchained, during which Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) interrogates his guests. Now imagine one of those scenes stretched out into a film….there you have The Hateful Eight. The action is almost entirely contained within a single location - Minnie’s Haberdashery, a mountaintop refuge for the eight reprobates of the title. After a (slightly) over-long set up, bounty hunter John Ruth (Kurt Russell) arrives at the haberdashery with his prisoner Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to wait out an approaching blizzard. That’s where things get really interesting. Populating the beautifully realised Haberdashery set are an eclectic mix of Tarantino veterans and newcomers who proceed to give a master-class in character acting. To give away much more of the plot really would be spoiling things but needless to say not all of the patrons are quite what they seem. From Samuel L. Jackson’s Marquis Warren to Tim Roth’s Oswaldo Mobray every character has their moment and each is portrayed with incredible skill. As suspicions and mis-trust run high the audience is put in the unique position of not knowing who to trust, making the interplay between the characters all the more complex. While the plot thickens and motivations are revealed Tarantino has another opportunity to explore the politics of slavery, this time with a focus on the American civil war. The moral ambiguity in The Hateful Eight forces characters to question their own prejudices and moral codes. By comparison, the film-makers’ first attempt at addressing the issue, Django Unchained, was far more black and white in its outlook. To my mind the new films’ take on the subject is far more interesting (not to say the violence of Django’s final act is any less satisfying). As The Hateful Eight ramps up to it’s bloody conclusion, Tarantino masterfully plays with the structure, dropping in an intermission and an extended flashback in the third act at the perfect moments. It’s this third act that seals the deal as the director plays with audience expectations. At times you wonder if the The Hateful Eight would be better as a stage play or even a novel. However by the time all is revealed there is little doubt, film was the medium in which to tell this story – and it’s told in style. The Hateful Eight is a must for Tarantino fans and in my humble opinion is stronger than his previous two outings (the aforementioned Inglorious **** and Django Unchained) which often suffered from meandering story-lines. The ensemble cast are phenomenal in their respective roles and, as we all know, no one delivers a Tarantino monologue like Mr Samuel L. Jackson….
Leonardo DiCaprio is the greatest actor of his generation. **** that we’ve got that out of the way… The Revenant is the based on Michael Punke’s fictionalised novel telling the story of 19th century bear trapper Hugh Glass. After a brutal bear attack Glass is left for dead in the wilds of South Dakota with the harsh elements, murderous native Americans and, worst of all, the French to deal with. Glass is determined to track down the man who betrayed him — John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) who is not only responsible for leaving him behind, but also killed Glass’s son while the hunter was powerless to stop him. From the outset director Alejandro González Iñárritu delivers an incredible sequence featuring a full scale attack on Glass’ group by native Americans. The majority of this scene appears to be one long take, a favourite technique of the directors’ used throughout his previous oscar winning credit Birdman. This battle takes things to another level however. The number of elements on screen at any time, from charging horses, to firing rifles, to burning trees, leaves you wondering just how the sequence was accomplished. Beyond the performances it is the cinematography of The Revenant that is it’s greatest achievement. Director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki has previously worked on the award wining Gravity as well as 2007’s Children of Men which also featured a breathtaking ‘single shot’ battle sequence. To my mind The Revenant must be his greatest work to date. Almost every frame of the film could be printed on canvas and hung in a gallery. The visuals are all the more impressive when you consider that Iñárritu largely insisted on using only natural light when filming, meaning Lubezki often had to rely on something as inconsistent as the weather to light the desired shots. While The Revenant is often pitched as a survival story or a revenge story, to me it is more of an exploration of men as animals. Between Glass’s animalistic drive for retribution, the native Americans and their on-going quest to find an abducted member of their tribe and the animals themselves, everyone has largely the same goal — to protect their young. The bear mauling that acts as the inciting incident for the drama is also driven by the bear protecting her cubs when Glass comes across them while scouting. Speaking of the bear — the mauling scene is another breathtaking piece of filmmaking that has to be seen to be believed. Quite how it was put together I still can’t figure out. Again using ‘one long take’ technique, the attack is relentless, desperate, and brutal. I’ve heard the expression ‘mauled by a bear’ before but I’ve never really knew what that meant, until now. While its safe to say the plot of The Revenant is fairly thin, it is DiCaprio and Hardy that remain the driving force of the narrative. Isolated for the majority of the run time Dicaprio has very few lines and relies on physicality and facial expressions alone to convey Glass’ suffering. It’s hard to imagine anyone else that could bring the humanity and desperation to the part that DiCaprio does. The debate about the actor winning an Oscar is almost redundant at this point. He should have won years ago. If this doesn’t do it however, I don’t know what will. Hardy’s job in the film is more straight forward but is no less compelling. Fitzgelard is a bitter, selfish and unforgiving man who bullies and intimidates his way through the situation for his own personal gain. Hardy’s character represents the other side of man’s animal nature, advocating the philosophies of survival of the fittest and every man for himself. With two complex characters played by two actors at the top of their game, the film builds to a tense and deeply personal confrontation which I will not in any way spoil here. The supporting cast should not be overlooked however. Fresh off Star Wars Domhnall Gleeson continues to prove himself as a great character actor as the conflicted Captain Henry while Will Poulter shows he can hold his own with Hardy in some pretty intense scenes. For me The Revenant is the perfect cocktail of source martial, directorial style and performance. In equal parts harrowing and beautiful it may not be a film to be casually re-watched, but if you think of yourself as a film fan in anyway it is certainly deserving of your time.
I can’t say I’ve ever thought of myself as a Rocky fan. The series has suffered from over familiarity and almost too much cultural impact. In all likelihood my generation of movie goers are more familiar with the endless parodies of Rocky than the films themselves. So its safe to say reinventing the series is no easy task. With Creed however, director Ryan Coogler and star Michael B. Jordan build on the Rocky legacy while creating their own distinct and entirely modern boxing drama. The story centres around Jordan’s Adonis Creed, son of former world heavy weight champion Apollo Creed. Apollo (played by Carl Weathers in the first four Rocky films) died in the ring after fighting Ivan Draggo, leaving behind not only his wife and their children, but also an illegitimate son in Adonis. Adonis (or Donny) grows up wanting nothing more than to emulate the father he never knew as a fighter. After quitting his job and moving to Philadelphia, Donny tracks down Apollo’s former rival come-friend Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) to mentor him as both a boxer and a man. As a sports film Creed very much plays on familiar troupes, as Adonis rises through the world of boxing all the while trying to get out from his father’s shadow. However, it’s in the scenes between Stallone and Jordan where Creed really shines. The younger actor has been consistently great in almost everything he’s touched so far and his performance here is no exception. In certain moments the actor’s restraint as he holds back tears, anger and pride, is simply phenomenal. Sylvester Stallone’s performance in Creed is by far his best in decades. In certain scenes his portrayal of the character he created back in 1976 is simply heart-breaking. In my opinion the actor’s Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win are certainly well deserved, wether he’ll win the Academy Award on the night however, is another matter. Coogler has a great understanding of what audiences’ first engaged with in the original Rocky film from ‘76. As well as a compelling sports story the film was as much about Rocky’s relationships with those around him and the city of Philadelphia as it was about two men hitting each other. The director brilliantly recaptures this feeling in Creed allowing Donny’s relationship with ‘the-girl-next-door’ type Bianca (Tessa Thompson) to develop in much the same way that Rocky and Adrian came together in the original. Although Creed’s greatest strength is as a drama, the boxing scenes are perfectly handled and give a real sense of being in the ring with the fighters. Despite being vastly different films, Creed shares certain techniques with The Revenant — namely the use of long unbroken shots. Donny’s first professional fight is shot in this style as the camera switches from one fighters’ perspective to the other in a fantastic display of fight choreography and film making. If there’s is one major flaw in the film is that the focus on Donny and Bianca’s relationship can often pull you away from the Rocky-Donny storyline at its centre. Having said this, if there is to be an ongoing series the foundation must be this central relationship and in this sense, we may be glad of the amount of screen time given to Bianca further down the line. To my mind any great sports film transcends the sport itself to become something more. Creed can certainly count itself amongst such contemporaries as Rush and Warrior in achieving this goal. Ultimately the film is about a lost boy finding a father and a lonely widower finding a son. I for one can’t wait to see where this new series goes as it continues to step out from the Rocky series’ shadow to create its own cinematic legacy.
When discussing any ‘true story’ media it often becomes very difficult to seperate the telling of the story from the facts themselves. The lasting impression of Spotlight is not the visuals, the performances or even the writing, it is the truth upon which the film is based. Much like the outstanding documentary series Making a Murderer, Spotlight draws you in with the narrative of what happened and how it happened allowing the facts to speak for themselves. The film tackles the challenging story of the Catholic Church abuse crisis that was brought to public attention in January 2002. The title refers to the investigative team of the Boston Globe who uncovered an astonishing history of abuse and negligence within the city of Boston and it’s institutions. Played by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachael McAdams and Brian d’Arcy James, the team takes on the story after a new editor is appointed to the paper in the form of Liev Schreiber’s Marty Baron. From there the story unfolds through a series of powerful, yet underplayed scenes between the journalists, the lawyers and the victims involved in the case. Each member of the team has some personal connection to the story. As Bostonians born and raised they all have their own experiences with the Catholic Church and often have to face uncomfortable truths in their search for the facts. If I was to delve into the case (or cases) themselves I would be here all day. To reduce the story to the numbers of priests or victims would be a disservice to those involved. These are not numbers on a page, these are people who’s faith was taken away from them in the worst possible way. There is a distinct lack of Hollywood ego on display here. From writer-director Tom McCarthy to the outstanding ensemble cast, no one is in it for themselves. Despite the film’s undeniable awards potential, it feels like it has been made for the right reasons. A lesser film-maker would have distorted the facts, framing one particular journalist as a crusading hero and creating a vehicle for a ‘Best Actor’ Oscar bid. One of the most commendable aspects of McCarthys script is it’s refusal to shrink away from the hard truths. In this case, there are no innocent parties, as Stanley Tucci’s Michael Garabedian puts it ‘If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse them.’ The writer-director confronts this concept head on and allows the Boston Globe themselves to share some of the blame. As evidence comes to light it becomes clear that something could have been done sooner by the paper, and this revelation is not easily dismissed as something a former employee may have overlooked. Above all Spotlight gives a real sense of conviction in the film-making. From the on screen performances from Ruffolo, McAdams and Keaton it is clear that the actors feel just as passionately about the source material as the writers they are portraying. That is perhaps the greatest praise I could level at the cast as a whole, often you forget you are even watching actors playing parts, simply a group of journalists trying to do the best job they can. The truth behind Spotlight is something that needs to be shared as much as possible. If, in 2016, the best way to spread this story is through an Oscar-worthy docudrama filled with big name actors, then so be it. Everyone should be aware of what happened, not to vilify the Catholic Church or to spark anger, but simply so that people understand the importance of community in an increasingly individual world. If everyone looks the other way, we may yet see another great institutional injustice in our time.
After 17 years and 10 appearances Hugh Jackman and director James Mangold bring us the Wolverine movie we always wanted. Set in a run-down post-mutant future, Logan pitches itself as a character study of two former superheroes at the end of their rope. The legendary Wolverine is now a Las Vegas limo driver (a suitably sleazy profession for the film’s tone) scratching a living and doing his best to protect an ailing friend. Although the film takes some inspiration from the Frank Millar graphic novel Old Man Logan, it’s key point of difference is also it’s greatest strength i.e. the inclusion of Patrick Stewart’s Charles Xavier. Suffering from a degenerative brain disorder and struggling to retain his former self, this is a Professor X we have never seen before. At first this felt like a jarring shift for the character, especially given Charles’ new found foul mouth. As the story progresses though, the intricacies of Stewart's performance become clear and the true heartbreak of Xavier’s fate is felt. He has come a long way from the eloquent, sophisticated head-master of his School for the gifted, this is man who has lost himself. What makes this character arc great though, is that here, in this comic book movie, Xavier hasn’t been turned to the dark side by some demi-god or manipulated by some contrived plot (see Magneto in Apocalypse) instead he is an older man who is battling his own age and mortality. It’s a great example of the X-Men films doing what they do best — humanising these larger than life comic book characters and making them relatable. Despite this films title, for me the heart of Logan is Xavier and his relationship with those around him. He serves as father figure and continence to Logan throughout and anchors Hugh Jackman’s ageing hero. Re-watching the previous X-Men/ Wolverine films also brings a greater sense of depth to this central relationship. In Jackman and Mangold’s previous effort 2013’s The Wolverine, Logan is described as a Ronin — a samurai without a master. When viewing Logan’s journey as a whole (and this movie serves as a definitive end for this interpretation of the character) it becomes clear that Xavier is and always has been Logan’s ‘master’. Before he met Charles, Logan was lost (‘when I found you, you we’re making a living as a cage fighter') when Charles was no longer around (if we have to treat The Last Stand as something that happened) Logan became a reclusive outsider we saw at the beginning of The Wolverine. It is only when Charles is by his side that Logan has any sense of purpose and drive. As the plot of Logan kicks in to gear and the second act gets going the protagonists are introduced to a new young mutant — Laura (Dafne Keen). From there the film becomes a road movie of sorts as Laura is perused by a sinister organisation, hunted by Narcos alumni Boyd Holbrook as Pierce. Although Laura is the driving force of the film’s story, from a character point of view she serves a much greater purpose, although this doesn’t become clear until the third act which, of course I won’t spoil. As Logan and Charles are forced out of retirement we are treated to some spectacularly brutal action beats, the film fully embracing its ‘adult only' rating. What impressed me most about the film, but can also be seen as a flaw, is the remarkable restraint it showed in terms of being a blockbuster comic book movie. In press junkets and promotional material for tent-pole releases, actors and directors often wax lyrical about how ‘it’s all about character’ when more often then not, the ‘talky bits’ are just there to get us to the next action set piece. In Logan however, James Mangold has really committed to the idea of a character driven comic book movie. Previous attempts often fall at the last hurdle, Batman Begins is a fantastic character piece until someone turns up with a mustache, a ‘microwave emitter’ and a plan to poison the city’s water supply in the third act. Logan is not afraid to pump the brakes and really dig in to why everyone is doing what they’re doing, why they’re thinking what they’re thinking etc. While this is a welcome change it also means the pacing of the movie is a little all over the place. When the action scenes kick in they are relentless, but they are few and far between which may disappoint fans hoping for a straight up action film. When all’s said and done Logan is a rare beast — a comic book movie that transcends the genre and is just a great movie full stop. Brilliantly directed, perfectly acted and subtly written, Hugh Jackman’s X-Men swan song is no doubt an early entry into 2017’s top ten lists.
Kong: Skull Island is so excited to get going it can’t even wait for the studio logos to get out of the way. Within the opening few minutes of director Jordan Vogt-Roberts, first blockbuster, we catch the final moments of a World War 2 dogfight and get our first glimpse of the titular hero. ‘Hero’ is definitely the right word for Kong in this latest version of the well worn tale. Despite some A-list stars in the ensemble human cast, there is no clear lead character to latch onto. Instead everyone has a role to play — Samuel L. Jackson’s military leader, Brie Larson’s ‘anti-war photographer’ and Tom Hiddleson’s ‘tracker’ (although the later’s role seems to mainly be reduced to posing heroically in a impractical baby gap t-shirt) all serve a purpose and propel the plot along until our next encounter with the inhabitants of the legendary Skull Island. The real ‘characters’ in the film are the creatures, and they are by no means in short supply. Vogt-Roberts and ILM do a great job of making Skull Island feel alive and dangerous, literally anything could end up being a monster and there are plenty of varied sequences of horror and action, the film going to great lengths to keep delivering on the monsters without getting repetitive. In the age of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures are attempting to create there own ‘Monsterverse’. Kong: Skull Island is the second entry into this latest interconnected franchise, following Gareth Edward’s (underrated) Godzilla in 2014. The vast majority of the wider connections are left to John Goodman’s Randa and Cory Hawkin’s Brooks to explain. As employees of the ‘monster hunter’ organisation Monarch these two serve as the expository ‘mad scientists’ essential for any monster movie. Some references to this growing cinematic world are subtle, some not so much, but they never get in the way of the movie itself. So far, Kong: Skull Island and Godzilla serve as a great example of how two movies can be polar opposites in terms of tone and style yet share enough connective tissue to exist within the same universe. Warner Brothers could definitely learn a thing or two from this approach with their DC comics films. Allowing directors to create their own movies within a ‘shared universe’ will add variety and breath of appeal to a franchise. You can make a dark, serious Batman film (i.e. Godzilla) and a light, fun, action heavy Superman movie (i.e. Kong: Skull Island) and still have them be connected in a meaningful way. Once the universe building on the mainland is out of the way the vast majority of Kong: Skull Island is spent moving from one action set piece to another. While the film is light on plot the addition of John C. Riley as veteran Hank Marlow and the relentlessly likable cast keep things moving at a brisk pace as the ragtag group of characters attempt to escape the island and it’s inhabitants. Another stroke of genius from the filmmakers is the Vietnam-war era setting, bringing a sense of colour and a great jukebox soundtrack to film that is built to be an assault on your senses. While the 1970's setting does allow for an explanation of sorts as to how the island has remained undiscovered, it also means we get an some less than subtle political analogies. The war mongering Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) becomes hell bent on killing Kong after the team’s initial encounter, insisting that ‘This is one war we’re not going to lose’. Of course, as our the moral centers of the film, Hiddleson, Larson and Riley’s characters band together to defend Kong, insisting that ‘he was just defending his territory’ (a little bit like the Viet-Cong who successfully devastated the invading U.S. forces during Parkard’s last deployment). Although you can read some subtext into Kong: Skull Island that is by no means what it is intended for. The film is big, dumb, fun, pure and simple, balancing a light tone, brutal action and likable, if a little one-dimensional characters to create a great ‘popcorn’ movie. If Legendary and Warner Brothers keep this up, they could have found their own formula for the next successful shared movie universe. Which only leaves one big question…when the inevitable clash of titans comes, who’s side are you on? Kong or Godzilla?
Get Out is a physiological thriller. It is also a horror film. It is also a satire. It is also a political commentary on race in America. In short, Get Out is a unique film going experience. The premise at the outset is simple enough, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) a young African-american man from Boston, takes a trip to the suburbs with his white girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams) to meet her parents for the first time. In the early scenes debut writer/director Jordan Peele (of Key and Peele fame) expertly combines tried and tested horror tropes (‘That deer came out of nowhere!’) with the uncomfortable racial undertones of modern America to build tension and just generally make you feel uneasy. Chris’ first evening with Rose’s family is where the script is at its best. Before anything too left of field happens the film is content to play out as a kind of social horror as Rose’s affluent parents Dean (Bradley Whitfield) and Missy (Catherine Keener) attempt, unsuccessfully to make Chris feel welcome. From the family’s ever present African American ‘servants’ to Dean’s declarative statement that — ‘I would have voted for Obama a third time’, every line and visual cue is meticulously designed to put Chris and the audience on edge. The real gut punch of the first act though doesn’t come from the any member of the increasingly sinister Armitage family. During Rose and Chris’ private ‘debrief’ on the days events it becomes clear that Chris isn’t shocked or appalled by the casual racism he’s experienced. Instead he shrugs it off, saying simply ‘I told you so’. For me, this scene and Chris’ attitude is the crux of the film. Jordan Peele is using this everyday context to highlight a harsh everyday reality; that this kind of racism is not only common, it is sometimes accepted by those on the receiving end as a fact of life, something they just have to deal with. Now for me to say I understand this in any real world way would be incredibly reductive and facetious. I am after all a white guy from England, I don’t know the first thing about A) being black or B) being any part of American society. What I would say though is that with the character of Chris, Jordan Peele has created a compelling, complex protagonist who can be related to on a deeply personal level as well as being a representative for African Americans. Any good horror/thriller is nothing without a hero you can get on board with and Daniel Kaluuya’s performance here is nothing short of outstanding. As a showcase for his talents Get Out provides an amazing launching point for what I hope will be a long and varied career (next up he joins the Marvel Universe with a role in Black Panther in 2018). After the initial evening with the parents the film uses Missy’s profession as a psychiatrist to kick things into a new, horrifying and visually dynamic gear while the arrival of a dozen or so very white house guests the next day pushes the social awkwardness to whole new levels. As the true plot unfolds, new revelations and twists pile up, adding fresh context to the earlier scenes (this is definitely a film that will benefit from repeat viewings). As always I won’t spoil the main plot but needless to say its all very **** up. Throughout the film a subplot involving Chris’ friend Rod (Lil Rel Howery), provides some much needed comic relief which, although welcome, would’ve felt a little out of place if things hadn’t played out the way they did. To discuss the film any further would require me to go further into spoiler territory and really dig into the Armatige’s ‘evil scheme’ and all it implies. For now all I’ll say is Get Out is unlike anything you’ve seen before. It’s entertaining, it’s thought provoking and it is sure to be discussed for many years to come. Go see it at you earliest convenience….then we can talk.
Krispy Kreme’s Power Rangers is the latest franchise to receive the ‘dark and gritty’ reboot treatment. Following the same basic structure of the 90's Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers TV show, the film follows five teenagers from the small town of Angel Grove as they discover five coloured ‘power coins’ as well as an exposition wall called Zordon played by Bryan Cranston. The biggest issue with this new interpretation is that magic word that a lot of big studios seem to be struggling with these days: tone. Throughout the movie the script and the young cast push hard to bring a grounded, dramatic reality to the characters themselves. Each of the Rangers is going through some personal trauma or identity crisis which vary in relevance and impact. Meanwhile Elizabeth Banks is having a great time as Rita Repulsa, cackling away in true OTT tribute to the original show. Unfortunately the film never fully embraces either of these contrasting tones. At times the script makes some surprisingly relevant points about being a teenager in 2017 (at least I think it does, I’m about 10 years outside of that demographic) but this is immediately undermined by a over the top scene of crashing Zords and singing nuns. The result is a film that aims for two distinct audiences, it wants to introduce a new generation to an old franchise and play on the nostalgia and affection of those who (like myself) grew up with the original show. At one point we even get a brief stab of the old theme tune, lyrics and all, before the filmmakers panic — ‘we’re losing the kids! quick put Kayne on, kids like Kayne right?’ This contrast of old and new is an incredibly hard balance to strike and I think the only film in recent memory to have pulled the juggling act off successfully is Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Now I’m not saying either approach is better or worse and Power Rangers certainly has its moments. The five newcomers genuinely give great performances (R.J. Cyler’s Billy is a particular highlight) and the script gives them plenty of relevant, real world issues to deal with. Simultaneously there are moments of pure joy and nostalgia littered throughout, and the final act of the movie fully embraces the silliness of the core concept. The pacing of the film however is also a major issue. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that the suited up Power Rangers are saved until very late in the day to make their appearance. The vast majority of the run-time is dedicated to the teenagers earning the ability to morph into the Rangers themselves. In this core conceit is another contradiction that will no doubt frustrate nostalgia fans who are hoping for two hours of colourful punching and gymnastics. From a character point of view I completely get this — you cant just give a kid a magic coin and then he/she becomes a superhero with little to no effort, they have to earn it through ‘the power of teamwork’. From an entertainment point of view however, I did find myself asking WHERE ARE MY GODDAMN POWER RANGERS? With this new interpretation director Dean Israelite and Saban have hedged their bets leaving us with a final product that is for everyone and no-one at the same time. The slow place and dark colour pallet (the film looks way too much like a Zack Synder DC film at times) will frustrate old school fans and runs the risk of boring younger audiences. While its not without its charms this first entry into a potential new franchise is off to a shaky start. Here’s hoping that a sequel can capitalize on the character groundwork laid here and fully embrace its more over the top heritage.
After a troubled production history and amid a storm of controversy and cries of ‘whitewashing’ 2017 has finally delivered a live action adaptation of the iconic 1995 anime. In taking on the beloved sci-fi property the filmmakers had too choices. Either use the framework and themes of the original material to create a bold new vision of Ghost in the Shell in a post-Matrix, post-Westworld marketplace, or do a straight beat-for-beat remake. Unfortunately director Rupert Sanders and his team have attempted to do both and what we are left with is a watered down mess. Where the 1995 version was very much a movie about high-brow ideas this new version is far more driven by plot and character. The plot however bears little resemblance to the original and is decidedly unoriginal. As the cyborg cop Major (Scarlett Johansson) delves into her mysterious past it becomes increasingly apparent that we’ve seen this all before (Blade Runner, Ex-Machina and even RoboCop have touched on very similar plot points). While the story is unoriginal it’s not without its merits. In some instances the new film successfully expands on the decidedly one dimensional characters of the original anime (Pilou Asbæk’s Batou is a particular highlight). The very nature of live action brings renewed humanity to the characters and there are a number of genuinely well acted scenes, no one is disputing that Scarlett Johansson is a good actress. Every time the new elements of the story start to become remotely engaging though the film digresses into slavishly recreated versions of memorable scenes from the original animation (Major’s swimming scene, the garbage truck chase) regardless of whether they fit into a coherent structure or not. Both versions of Ghost in the Shell have their strengths and weakness. While the original is a deep and visually engaging reflection on the advance of technology and the concept of the singularity, it often suffers from a meandering pace and a lack of character development. Equally while the 2017 version gives more backstory to the characters, it has none of the groundbreaking originality of the anime that has allowed it to stand the test of time. In my view the world of Ghost in the Shell would be best served by TV adaptation from the likes of HBO or Netflix. This would allow the time and budget to expand on the deeper concepts left on the cutting room floor this time around and build strong characters and plot lines. A sci-fi police procedural featuring android cops wouldn’t even be unprecedented, as the underrated and now cancelled Almost Human already touched on the potential of a television show to explore the crimes of the future. While the 2017 Ghost in the Shell will likely go down as a failure I definitely don’t think we’ve seen the last of the property, especially as the technological concepts of the source material become closer and closer to reality.
About five minutes in to Fast & Furious 8 Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) tells a member of his ‘family’ to take the battery out of a car to make it go faster. It’s at this point that you remember where you are. The Fast & Furious franchise slipped past the point of self parody about three films ago (which was the one with the never ending runway?) and is all the better for it. The trick to enjoying Fast 8 is to go in with the right mind-set. Do not, under any circumstances, take it seriously. If you expect the film to essentially be 28 Jump Street, you’re going to have a great time (take a look at the helicopter scene from 22 Jump Street below, at this point the action scenes in the Fast & Furious films are about the same level of ridiculousness). In this latest addition the team faces they’re greatest challenge yet as Dom goes ‘rogue’. As always though the ‘story’ of the film is largely secondary as director F.Gary Gray (which can’t surely be a real name) lurches from insane action sequence to insane action sequence with little regard for those trivial things like logic, believability or character consistency. As has been the case on a number of occasions in the long running series, the villain of the previous outing (Jason Statham) has now been completely forgiven and joins the ever growing family. Regardless of whether it makes sense or not, allowing Statham to stretch his comedic muscles is definitely playing to his strengths and his continuous back and forth with Dwayne Johnson’s Hobbs produces a few genuinely entertaining (if eye-rolling) moments. Generally speaking the rest of the cast is on auto-pilot as they bassically play themselves. At any moment, Johnson could walk off set and continue his interview with Jimmy Kimmel without missing a beat. There is one new cast member who sticks out like a sore thumb however, which becomes an even bigger issue as more and more of the cast start to resemble mumbling thumbs — Charleize Theron is far too good an actress to be in this. As Fast & Furious 8’s bad guy she makes Vin Diesel, and everyone else in the room, look silly by comparison. That’s not to say she even gives a standout performance, but Theron phoning it in with some melodramatic dialogue is better than Diesel on his best day. It’s in these scenes that the film gets close to taking itself too seriously, luckily though we’re never too far away from the physics defying, computer-generated madness that we paid our money for. Fans of the series will be well served by the obligatory cameos, call backs and the return of the occasional loose plot thread. The filmmakers also dance delicately around the absence of the late Paul Walker, name dropping his character is a far better way of addressing the issue than simply never speaking of him again (The Dark Knight Rises went with the latter strategy in a similar situation, much to that film’s detriment). For the rest of us (I wouldn’t really count myself as a fan) Fast & Furious 8 is more of the same and that’s fine. The franchise is essentially a fictionalised version of Top Gear. We’re watching a group of people who are having the time of their lives running around, driving expensive cars and blowing stuff up. F8, like its predecessors, is a film that knows exactly what it is and who it’s for. In a year that has so far seen a couple of mis-judged re-imaginings (I’m looking at you Power Rangers and Ghost in the Shell) that is definitely something to be admired. Love them or hate them Toretto and the ‘family’ aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, so we may as well enjoy the ride.
After the amazing reception to their first outing in 2014, Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy return with a surprisingly character driven sequel. Picking up a few months after the events of the last film, Vol.2 finds the fully formed team enjoying their status as ‘Galaxy savers’ and working from job to job in a very Firefly-esque scenario (love James Gunn but can you imagine how good a Joss Whedon Guardians movie be?). These early sequences with the team altogether is when the script is at its most fun as one-liners and jokes come thick and fast and the action moves at a neck-braking pace. Its in the second act though that Gunn’s decision to divide the team and delve deeper into their back stories becomes a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand each of these dialogue-heavy duologue scenes is pitched perfectly and successfully builds each character. On the other hand a string of these scenes one after the other means there is a fair amount of runtime where the plot doesn’t progress at all. This isn’t to say this approach is a negative in any way, however in the pantheon of Marvel movies we are used to having a world-ending villainous scheme pushing through the whole movie and giving the heroes a clear obstacle to overcome, there are often even cutaways to let us know what the villains are up to (Ronan’s subplot in Guardians 1, Zemo in Civil War, etc). In Guardians 2 however the key driving point that insights the main conflict of the film isn’t revealed until at least 90 minutes in (an estimate). Now going completely plot driven isn’t necessarily a good thing with these films. Thor: The Dark World for example did zero character development and focused on some generic plot about dark elves making it one of the most forgettable entries into the Marvel franchise. The key of course, is finding a balance between plot and character, something Guardians 1 absolutely nailed. In any other franchise this could result in an empty, meh, experience (I’m looking at you Suicide Squad). With Guardians though, the characters are so engaging and genuinely fun to spend time with, that the pacing problems don’t really matter. Everyone is great in this and everyone gets their own funny moments, action moments and even touching moments. Drax (Dave Bautista) often steals each scene with some fantastic one liners and Rocket (Bradley Cooper) has never been more of a badass. Obviously Baby Groot is everything…. Gunn also does a great job of expanding on characters that were side players in part 1. Nebula (Karen Gillan) and Yondu (Michael Rooker) both get their own, satisfying arcs whilst also forcing members of the core Guardians team to take a long hard look at themselves. At the centre of it all is Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) and his newly found father Ego (Kurt Russell). The pair share a few standout scenes together as Peter’s heritage is delved into in a big way. After a few meandering scenes of character building the final action set piece of act three does feel a little rushed but is nonetheless spectacular to look at. To get any further into the final scenes would be to spoil things but needless to say everything that had proceeded them makes perfect sense in context. As part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 has the weight of some unreasonable expectations on its shoulders. At this point fans have spent almost a full 7 days absorbing a mountain of content across the various properties and mediums. When every new film comes out we have already known for years when the release date is, who the new characters are, who's coming back, who’s not, how many post credits stings there will be etc etc. All of this means you build a picture in your head of what the film will be and how it will play out. When things go differently to how you expect, as with Guardians 2, it takes a moment to re-adjust. James Gunn has taken a gamble with Guardians 2, relying on the strength of his characters to see him through. Luckily for us Star Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, Groot, Yondu and Nebula remain some of the most engaging, funny and human characters of the MCU. Now that we know more about them I for one can't wait to see them collide the Avengers in next year’s Avengers: Infinity War.
After the mostly negative response to 2012’s Prometheus, Ridley Scott returns to the universe he created with Alien: Covenant. Clearly the director has taken on-board a lot of fan feedback when it comes to the direction of the franchise as Covenant abandons some of the more pretentious parts of its predecessor in favour of returning the franchise to its horror/sci-fi roots. Wisely though, Scott doesn’t jettison all of the groundwork laid by Prometheus and Covenant very much acts as a sequel to that film as much as it remains a prequel to the main Alien series. Michael Fassbender was by far in a way the best part of the last film and the filmmaker gives him plenty of screen-time this time around as Walter, a new model of ‘synthetic’ android accompanying the crew of the Covenant as they set out on a colonisation mission. As with all great space films, the mission does not go as planned and the crew quickly find themselves going off book with life or death decisions and calculated risks to be made in order to survive. Covenant’s central device is a fairly simple one — this time around the crew under threat is composed entirely of couples. While the script is somewhat ham-fisted in it’s constant reminders of this fact, (‘That’s my wife’ ‘is my wife ok?’ etc etc) the cast nonetheless do a great job of conveying the added horror of seeing ones spouse in some pretty horrific situations. While previous missions in the Alien universe have consisted of teams of marines or groups of colleagues, the Covenants’ mission is that much more personal. These are people on their was to start a new life and supposedly families when they are diverted by the obligatory ‘distress call’ and the whole thing goes **** That core idea brings a fair amount of melodrama to proceedings as scientists, pilots and terraforming experts abandon their scientific reasoning and sometimes common sense, in order to protect their loved ones. This doesn’t mean there aren't any eye-rolling moments where characters make outright dumb decisions, but at least there is a believable reason for it this time around. While a fair amount of the cast are disposable cannon fodder, the main team provides a solid ensemble of character archetypes. Katherine Waterston’s Daniels is essentially a proto-ripley although her transformation into action-hero towards the end of the film does feel a little unearned and rushed. Billy Crudup and Danny McBride continue the grand ‘Alien’ tradition of a crew made of character actors and each get a number of moments to shine. This film is all about Fassbender though, to get into any detail as to how and why he steals the spotlight would spoil the entire second half. The marketing team have done a great job of letting us know the right amount of information from trailers, clips etc, while keeping most central revelations for the cinema and that’s the way it should stay. As the slow-burn first act gives way to the horror of the Alien threat itself, Scott delivers some truly visceral and violent deaths. The mark of any good horror or action film should be a audible reaction from the audience and in my screening Covenant certainly delivered on that front. By the time the film reaches its climax it feels like the Alien franchise has come full circle. Both Prometheus and now Covenant end with a clear set up for a sequel and while the latter was groan-inducing and frustrating, this time you are left anticipating the next chapter with enthusiasm for a franchise that seems to have found its feet once again. Covenant acts as a soft-reboot of sorts for Alien, picking and choosing the best parts of previous chapters to create a new hybrid. Six films in, the franchise has been re-invigorated by going back to it’s roots, while a sequel promises to be something completely different. Ridley Scott has essentially created the ‘Force Awakens’ of Alien movies, and depending on your own opinion, this is by no means a bad thing.
It’s fair to say Wonder Woman represents a make or break point for Warner Brothers and their extended universe of superhero films. After last years’ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad disappointed fans, critics and the box office, Wonder Woman was an opportunity for the studio to get back to basics and tell the origin story of a character that has never seen a cinematic adaptation. For the most part, director Patty Jenkins and the creative team have succeeded, telling a straightforward story that, while at times a little generic, entertains throughout. The casting of Gal Gadot has been controversial for a number of reasons. First off many (admittiadly myself included) dirided the fact that a catwalk model had been cast as the amazon warrior. Not only does this bring up issues in terms of the portrayal of WW’s body image, there is also the question of Gadot’s acting ability, can she hold her own movie? I’m pleased to say the answer is unequivocally — yes, Gal Gadot is great in this movie. Growing up in isolation on the island of Themyscira, the film sees Diana introduced to the world through her relationship with Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) and the context of the First World War. Gadot gets the opportunity to mix the wonder and naivety **** woman stepping out into the world for the first time with the strong moral indignation at a world going to hell, and she nails it. Whether sampling ice cream for the first time or telling **** for his cavalier attitude towards human life, the actress gets a number of great opportunities to shine. Alongside Gadot, Chris Pine is fantastic as always. Pine is one of those actors who you often forget is as good as he is. Here he gets to be funny, charming and carry a lot of emotional weight and he never misses a beat. Visually, Jenkins delivers a few standout action sequences including a beach skirmish with the Amazon warriors and the German army as well as Diana’s defiant stride into no-mans land. While comparisons to Marvel are somewhat unavoidable and the finale falls into some over familiar tropes, the film’s period setting and the mythology surrounding Diana give Wonder Woman a clear sense of its own unique identity within the ever growing superhero pantheon. World War I provides a great setting to introduce Diana to the complexities and brutality of mankind with the ensemble of characters providing insights into war profiteering, moral ambiguity, race relations and of course gender inequality. The film recaptures the early days of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, specifically Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor, telling its own story without being overly concerned with crossovers or interconnectivity. If DC can deliver a similar experience with the upcoming Aquaman and the ensemble of Justice League works well, they may yet create a great universe and Wonder Woman is certainly a step in the right direction. For now we have a positive, fun and above all enjoyable origin story with some stand out performances and solid action. Wonder Woman is a superhero film with broad appeal and if early box offices predictions are accurate it could be DC’s first runaway success of the new era.
Edgar Wright has become one of a handful of star directors in recent years. Some filmmakers’ work demands attention simply because of their back catalogue. Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg; audiences will go out to see their films simply because of who directed them. With Baby Driver, Edgar Wright has firmly cemented himself in the star directors category. This is a film by film lovers, for film lovers, blending music, stunning visuals, action choreography and an outstanding ensemble cast to create a cinematic experience that is simultaneously a throwback and something completely new. Ansel Elgort plays Baby a young getaway driver pressured into a life of high-speed heists by crime boss Doc (Kevin Spacey). In a seamless blend of character and film-making style, Wright creates the character of Baby with a unique affliction. Suffering from tinnitus, Baby listens to music via a pair of (carefully product placed) apple earbuds to drown out a constant drone. Putting the audience firmly in Baby’s shoes, the director has curated an eclectic soundtrack that is blended throughout the film. At times Baby will mime, or walk/dance along with his chosen track, sometimes gunshots and action are synced with the beat of the film’s jukebox. This style is something that takes a while to get used to and, while innovative, there are moments when the film comes dangerously close to becoming a music video rather than a straightforward narrative. Just when it’s getting a bit much, Wright brings everything back to earth with some fantastic performances from the central cast. Ansel Elgort brings a delicate balance of ‘impossibly cool’ and real world vulnerability to Baby that manages to keep the character grounded despite his, at times superhuman, abilities. At the heart of the film is Baby’s relationship with Debora (Lily James) a waitress at a local dinner. The pair share some great on-screen chemistry that reminds me of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in the Amazing Spider-Man films (by no means a bad thing). If this central (at times overly romanticised) pairing didn’t work, the whole film would fall flat. Lucky the two young leads, armed with some charming dialogue, are more than up to the task. As his relationship with Debora grows, Baby’s life of crime catches up to him and it’s not long before things start getting tense, thanks mostly to Bats (Jamie Foxx), the obligatory ‘loose cannon’ of the crew. I say obligatory, but Wrights’ ability to play with genre conventions and character archetypes should never be underestimated, things do not play out the way you think they would. Every member of the ensemble does a great job of playing their roles perfectly without scene-stealing or grandstanding. Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm and Kevin Spacey; each one of those names is a leading actor you could build a film around. Here though they bring added gravitas and intensity to the more dramatic scenes, leaving Wright to do what he does best. The director has always had an eye for kinetic action. In Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim and a standout scene in the underrated The World’s End, fight choreography and camera work go a long way to giving the director his signature style. In Baby Driver though, Wright has a much bigger toy box to play with and it pays off spectacularly. These are some of the best car chase scenes you’ve seen in years, putting films like the Fast and Furious franchise to shame with pure, in-camera stunt work. While the breathless pace of the films’ final act threatens to give the audience a bit of cinematic whiplash, the cast and director manage to give each character a satisfying arc, although not necessarily in the way you might expect. Baby Driver is a love letter to car chase cinema and to heist movies (Wright has been very open about his influences even putting on a programme of his favourites at the BFI) but above all the film is a celebration of music. No matter what your personal taste, the soundtrack crosses musical boundaries and that is precisely the point. In a summer full of reboots, crossovers and sequels, the action, musical, drama is a breath of fresh air and one no film fan should miss.
So what makes this latest interpretation of Spidey different? Pretty much everything , and that is both the film’s greatest strength and its biggest weakness. The biggest change is obviously Spider-Man’s inclusion in the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Homecoming embraces this right from the outset. Both Tom Holland’s Peter Parker and the film’s antagonist Michael Keaton’s Adrian Toomes, feel as if they are living in the shadow of The Avengers. While this idea of the working class hero vs the working class villain (both of whom are deemed unimportant by the Tony Stark’s of the world) is a good way of framing Spider-Man’s world in a wider context, it does feel a little reductive. In previous versions of Spider-Man we are used to him being a big deal. He sours through New York’s sky scrappers, saving the day from world ending catastrophes while the public argues about his role as a vigilante and savoir. This time though, the stakes feel much lower in comparison to the likes of Iron Man and Captain America. Peter’s main mission in Homecoming is to prove himself to Tony Stark, following his recruitment in Captain America: Civil War. He needs to prove that he has what it takes to become that legendary New York defender that we are used to seeing him as. From a franchise point of view this is a great idea, it means we have a long journey to go on. With Homecoming, Sony and Marvel have potentially set up the superhero equivalent of the Harry Potter series, allowing us to see an actor mature across a decade of films and grow up on screen, learning from each experience and becoming the hero we always knew he could be. This fresh take relies on the re-framing of Peter as a high school student, something we have seen in both 2002’s Spider-Man and 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man. This time though they really nail the high-school aspect of Peter Parker. Rather than 30-year-old actors dressed as teenagers seen in previous iterations, Tom Holland feels like a 15 year old kid, with just the right level of awkwardness and self-doubt. Holland brings a joy to being Spider-Man that was only glimpsed previously, while at the same time maintaining the morality and compassion that have defined the character for 55 years. Here Spider-Man never feels like a burden for Peter, its something he can’t wait to do. Likewise Peter’s classmates are re-contextualized. Peter’s relationship with Laura Harrier’s Liz is charming and awkward but never feels like more than a high-school crush rather than a all consuming ‘love of my life’ romance. Tony Revolori’s Flash Thompson is a new breed of ****, a stuck up rich kid who's tormenting of Peter comes more out of jealousy than the more traditional — ‘jock vs nerd’ school bully paradigm. I can’t say I’ve ever heard of Zendaya before Homecoming but apparently she’s a big deal. She plays Michelle, who is a bit of a curve-ball in terms of high-school archetypes, but never the less gets some of the funniest moments of the film. At the centre of the plot is the class trip to Washington DC, giving us a new visual context for Spidey as he announces himself to the world with a quintessential Spider-Man rescue. This scene, among others, highlights one of the most jarring changes from an action point of view - Peter’s Stark designed super-suit. The high-tech costume comes equipped with its own on-board AI (similar to Iron Man’s JARVIS) and a plethora of new abilities. While all this tech is fun to see and certainly differentiates Homecoming from previous Spider-Men, it can sometimes take away from what makes him an enduring hero. Creator Stan Lee has always maintained that the reason Spider-Man endures is that audiences can relate to him — he’s just a kid doing what he thinks is right. By giving Peter the Stark suit it takes away from his own unique abilities, in short, it makes it too easy for him. What stops this from becoming a film-ruining issue though is the filmmakers clear understanding of Stan Lee’s creation. When it comes to it, Peter will find the strength to do the right thing, both morally and physically, and that is what makes him a hero. In a key exchange with Tony, Peter confesses — ‘I was just trying to be like you’ to which the mentor replies ‘And I wanted you to be better’. By the end of Homecoming Peter has proved not only that he has what it takes to step up to the Avengers level, but that he is indeed a ‘better’ hero than Tony. While Stark and the Avengers save the world from messes of their own making, someone has to look out for the little guy. Tom Holland’s Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man is here to stay, the people’s champion in a world crammed with the isolated and often detached heroes of the MCU.
Christopher Nolan has developed a reputation as a continually ambitious and clever film-maker. His back-catalogue has played with the conventions of narrative (Memento), deconstructed film itself (The Prestige) and tackled challenging cinematic subjects such as the nature of reality (Inception) and the time-space continuum (Interstellar) with mixed results. With Dunkirk, Nolan brings his unique sensibility to a true story of war and survival, and the results are equally stunning and ambitious. Beyond the incredible cinematography and film-making craft on display the most striking thing about Dunkirk is its unique structure. Rather than following a linear narrative, the film cuts between three perspectives; land, sea and air. While the action cuts between these viewpoints the timelines can at times get a little confused, (an evacuation taking place at night cuts back to a dogfight in broad daylight for instance) which can distract from the film itself, at least on first viewing. As with most of Nolan’s films, Dunkirk demands repeat viewing and I’m sure on further thought these stylistic choices will become more clear. Individually however each element of the story is played out perfectly. While a group of young soldiers battle to get home, a squad of Spitfire pilots desperately provide air-deference and a civilian father and son sail their small yacht across the channel to help in anyway they can. Each thread is played with subtlety and pathos by the ensemble cast. There are no showy, oscar-bait performances in Dunkirk. Instead the cast deliver understated and powerful depictions of real men in real situations. For almost all his screen time, Tom Hardy (easily the biggest star in the film) is hidden behind a flight mask. It is a testament to his skill that with only his eyes he is able to communicate the indecision and internal conflict within his character. Likewise, veteran actors Mark Rylance and Kenneth Branagh exude British fortitude with their stiff-upper lip attitude tinged with underlying emotion and empathy for the young men in harms way. To say Dunkirk is light on action is a disservice, however in terms of battles this is no Saving Private Ryan. Instead Nolan depicts the constant threat to the British forces as an existential horror. The German forces are almost an element to be overcome like fire or the sea rather than an enemy with a set of goals and motivations. This approach* is incredibly effective and certainly succeeds in putting the audience in the position of the soldiers as the terrifying sound of the Luftwaffe dive bombers rises to meet the defenseless British ground forces. On first viewing the sense of desperation and dread is only undermined by the films structure. As a tense scene on the beach inter-cuts with a claustrophobic standoff on the sea, you find yourself wondering, ‘hang on, was this the day before? or is this all happening at the same time?’. Ideally you should be so engrossed in the drama of the situations that questions like this shouldn’t matter too much. By cutting in-between though, Nolan sometimes denies scenes the opportunity to play out. Towards the films climax however, the three threads are brought together in a breathtaking crescendo which makes all the narrative trickery worthwhile. As with his previous film (Interstellar), the director has shown that his own ambition can sometimes be a hindrance. However each element of Dunkirk does a stunning job of recreating an amazing true story and the experiences of those involved. No doubt it will be a film that will be discussed and re-watched just as much as Nolan’s fictional works. If that demand for repeat viewings is his greatest trick, then the film maker has succeeded in bringing a little known military miracle to the public consciousness, not just for a few weeks during the summer blockbuster season, but for years to come. *While showing the Germans as these faceless machines of war is effective, it does fall into the age old trap that war movies struggle to escape — demonizing the enemy. In all likelihood the soldiers on the other side of the conflict were also young men called up to serve their country and give their lives for someone else’s political beliefs. This isn’t a problem with Dunkirk specifically but more of a wider societal issue where cinema continues to reflect the old saying that ‘history is written by the victors’. While films such as Dunkirk and last years’ Hacksaw Ridge tell true stories of extraordinary heroism from the British and American sides of the war, any similar stories from the opposite side of the conflict seem to have been lost to history.
This year has seen a number of the more original genre films in recent memory receive the sequel treatment. Back in 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy was a breath of fresh air for the superhero film, John Wick showed us how action films should be and Kingsman: The Secret Service injected a much-needed sense of fun back into the spy movie. Now, director Matthew Vaughn, along with an all-star cast return for The Golden Circle and waste absolutely no time in establishing that this is going to be 100% nuts. Before the film even starts the disembodied voice of Mark Strong bellows out, in character as Merlin, reminding the audience to switch off their phones or he'll 'repeat the church scene on us'. We're then treated to an insane opening car chase through London complete with android arms, mini-guns and a submarine, all set to Prince's Let's Go Crazy. By jumping the shark in the first five minutes, Vaughn quickly dispels all sense of realism, to quote Eggsy 'This ain't that kind of movie bruv'. As the plot about the sinister drug organisation of the title unfolds, things just get more and more ridiculous. There are robot dogs, there are laser lassos, there are even devices that can repair your brain following a head-shot. That last one is indicative of the main problem with Kingsman 2. There are no stakes. The first film was insane, but it still felt like there were consequences, thanks in no small part to the sheer level of violence on display. Here the tone and the plot lead you to believe that at any point someone will turn up with a gadget that will solve all the problems, save the day and no one will get hurt. The comedic tone has also become a bit of a problem. While the first film flirted with some fairly controversial punchlines, this time things go a step too far. Specifically, there is a sequence set at Glastonbury festival which is just gratuitous in every sense of the word. This scene, which has already started to grab headlines, is one of a couple of instances where the film slips into full Austin Powers territory. Although it sometimes oversteps the mark, The Golden Circle is here to have fun and on that front, it delivers in spades. The cast, both old and new, are clearly having the time of their lives and it's hard for that not to translate off-screen. Julianne Moore is wonderfully nuts as the murderous Poppy in a sickly sweet performance that calls back a certain Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter series (who is, in my opinion, one of the greatest screen villains in recent decades). The Statesman also make a predictably ostentatious debut. The American version of the Kingmen are represented by Jeff Bridges, Channing Tatum, Pedro Pascal and Halle Berry, all on fine form. While the introduction of the Statesman provides a new dimension to the world, it's a shame that a lot of what people loved about the first film i.e. the sheer British-ness, has been lost in the confusion. Sequelitis is on display in Kingsman 2 more so that any other follow-up this year. The filmmakers have fully embraced the 'bigger is better' approach and as a result, the film often feels bloated and overlong. There are at least two subplots that could have been cut out in their entirety, and the kinetic, frantic camerawork that made the 'church scene' from part one so memorable is definitely over-used this time around. That's not to say the film doesn't deliver some great fight sequences towards the end, it's just that we've spent an extra hour getting there that we didn't need. Likewise, some of the best humor is saved for the final act, and surprisingly enough it's often delivered by the one member of the cast who is not necessarily known for being an 'actor'. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is definitely fun, and on that level, it's a success. Much like Guardians 2 and John Wick 2 though, it can't recapture the fresh, genre-shaking impact of the first movie. While embracing the sheer silliness of the world has allowed the filmmakers to fully unleash the craziness this time around, the series is dangerously close to reminding us why spy movies went so serious in the first place....does anyone remember Die Another Day?
Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets is perhaps the greatest example of style over substance in modern film history. Luc Besson is such a huge fan of the comic book source material he has worked tirelessly to bring the film to the big screen, seeking funding from multiple independent bodies to make it the most expensive indie movie of all time. Unfortunately for the director, the end result is an absolute mess. The film starts with a spectacular montage telling 400 years of exposition as the titular city slowly grows from an Earth space station. Soundtracked by David Bowie’s Space Oddity, this is by far the best sequence of the film. Unfortunately, it’s all down hill from there. Despite some genuinely great visual artistry, Valerian is spoiled by stilted dialogue, a meandering plot and two horribly miscast leads. It’s hard to think of an on-screen couple with less chemistry than Dane DaHaan and Cara Delevingne as Valerian and Laureline. After the initial exposition of the opening scenes, it is their relationship that is the key focus of the film, with the plot very much secondary. Unfortunately, the pair have no spark whatsoever and just sort of say their lines at each other in wooden, bland exchanges that are often cringe worthy and painful to watch. Dane DeHann can be good, his performance in Chronicle gave us a glimpse at a realistic super-villain origin story, and for the first half of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 he made a pretty credible Harry Osborne. Here though it becomes clear that ‘swash-buckling, womanising, space agent’ is not in his repertoire. The actor is just lacking that elusive quality that you can’t really teach — charisma. Delevingne is another story all together. At this point I’ve seen two of her cinematic outings — last year’s Suicide Squad and now Valerian. So for me, she is two for two in terms of god awful, wooden and almost film killing performances. It’s hard to get into specifics but from what I can tell she doesn’t seem to get how ‘acting’ works beyond wearing the clothes she’s told to wear and saying the words she’s told to say. As I said though, I haven’t seen Paper Towns for all I know she could be great, judging by Valerian though, it doesn’t look likely. As the film moves on the plot about the wrongful near extinction of a species fades into the background. When it does resurface the plotting and painfully basic dialogue can barely keep it chugging along. For the most part though, the film is concerned with Valerian and Laureline and how much they care about each other/work well together/should be a couple etc. none of which works due to the aforementioned lack of chemistry. Ultimately Valerian comes across as a poor man’s Guardians of the Galaxy and essentially shows us what might have been given some alternative casting. The reason both Guardians films work so well is the interplay between the characters, without that the films would have just been a mixture of bright colours and fun noises, and that is basically what Valerian has ended up as. Even the visual flare of the earlier scenes gives way about half way through proceedings. After setting up a huge universe full of different species and alien environments, Besson for some reason decides we should spend the back half in the dimly lit sewers and underbelly of ‘The City of A Thousand Planets’. The final nails in the coffin are a couple of bizarre cameo appearances from Rihanna and Ethan Hawke (what are you doing?) I would say Rihanna’s inclusion drags the film down but the leads are already doing a pretty good job of that themselves. Instead, her section is another speed bump in a film that makes 2 hours and change feel like an eternity. By the time the final battle gets going, we’re all past the point of caring and no amount of laser gun fights and killer robots can save us (and they usually save everything). I’m sure Valerian will have its supporters from its pre-existing fan base, but the terrible casting accompanied by a script that has clearly been written by someone without a full grasp of the English language means it has ended up as a convoluted mess without enough flair or imagination to make it worthwhile. There is something to be said for films that are ‘so bad they’re good’ (see my Fast and Furious 8 review for further details). Valerian, however, is just plain bad. Maybe it will become a cult classic in the future, ultimately though the film will always go down as a missed opportunity. If, for whatever reason, you do end up watching it, I have one piece of advice — in your head recast Dane DeHann and Cara Delevingne with Tom Hiddleston and Emma Stone. Better isn’t it?
He who trusts Sony with his franchise has forgotten the face of his father…. A film adaptation of Stephen King’s epic seven book series The Dark Tower has been along time coming. After languishing in development hell for decades with directors, stars and studios coming and going, 2017 has finally seen the story of Roland of Gilead and his existential quest for the mysterious Dark Tower brought to life on the big screen. Except not really…. Although I haven’t yet reached the conclusion of the story in its original medium, I know enough to know that this film is for the most part completely divorced from the source material. From the opening text its clear that the filmmakers have decided to simplify and streamline the (admittedly meandering) plot of the books into a more straightforward ‘Macguffin’ plot involving the use of children for evil purposes. From there we get a fairly generic ‘save the world’ story revolving around a young boy from modern day New York (Jake played by Tom Taylor) as he journeys to strange new worlds and meets ‘The Gunslinger’ Roland (Idris Elba) all the while pursued by the sinister agents of The Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey). Making Jake the protagonist of this first attempt to adapt The Dark Tower makes perfect sense. In a complex world of parallel universes, ancient cultures and high fantasy, having a character from ‘our world’ to ask the questions is a tried and tested genre trope (think Neo in The Matrix or any of the Doctor’s companions in Doctor Who). Unfortunately, Jake’s attempts to understand just what the hell is going on are met with vague answers, mountains of exposition and throwaway lines that deserve much more explanation than they are given (did he just say ‘Excalibur’?). For some bizarre reason the filmmakers have decided to try and cram the full story of The Dark Tower, complete with a final confrontation between The Gunslinger and The Man in Black, into one 90 minute film. In a world in which EVERYTHING wants to be a multi-film franchise and The Fast and Furious series has no less than eight entries with a ninth on the way…this choice makes no sense on any level. The film itself doesn’t make a lot of sense either, image if someone tried to edit the entire Harry Potter series into a 90 minute fan film on youtube and then put it out in cinemas — there you have The Dark Tower (2017). One of the most frustrating things about the whole debacle is the casting. Idris Elba is great as Roland, with an unspoken world-weariness coupled with a magnetic screen presence, he is an inspired choice for the part (and another reason I was excited to see the adaptation). Likewise McConaughey brings a detached menace to The Man in Black reminiscent of David Tennant’s Killgrave from Jessica Jones, only this time he has the whole universe at his fingertips. Unfortunately both actors are held back by a thread-bare script with very little in the way of ‘character’ to work with and minimal screen time together. In terms of the plot the stakes couldn’t be higher with the Man in Black seeking to bring about THE END OF THE UNIVERSE by destroying The Dark Tower of the title. This should feel like a big deal, but as the film barrels-on, motivations become less and less clear and the point of the whole thing gets lost in amongst conflicting lore and strange tonal choices. As a comparison, The Lord of Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring did a great job of setting up the potential horror of the world under the rule of Sauron, making it very clear what our heroes were fighting for and setting up their motivations for the next 7 hours of screen time. The Dark Tower instead chooses to make Roland and Jake’s quest to take down the Man in Black far more personal, so much so that by the end, the pair seem fairly apathetic about the whole ‘end of the universe’ thing. More than anything The Dark Tower is a massive wasted opportunity. As a book reader (sort of) it’s hard to know what general audiences with no exposure to the series will make of this cinematic mess but judging from the poor box office it doesn’t look like they thought much. What could have been a epic story spanning over a decade in film or TV has fallen at the first hurdle. While some Stephen King’s fans are understandably angry at the failures of this adaptation I can’t say I feel the same way. I think the negative buzz combined with the short run-time prepared me for the worst. I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed.
I genuinely can't get my head around the amount of hate on this review page. The Last Jedi is built around its characters and gives each of them satisfying arcs helping them grow as people. That forms the core of the movie and everything on screen ties into one of those arcs. MINOR- SPOILERS AHEAD Finn goes from a selfish deserter to someone willing to give his life for the cause. He learns the wider context of what he's fighting for by seeing the inequality on Canto Bight. Poe goes from a hotheaded 'hero' to someone who is truly starting to understand what it means to be a real leader. Rey and Kylo go from lost children unsure of their futures to committed adults ready to give everything to what they believe. They lose their respective mentors and now have to come into their own. Luke has a great arc from the reclusive cynic to the hero the galaxy needs after a pitch-perfect lesson from a fan favourite character- 'failure is the greatest teacher of all'. It's these arcs that hold The Last Jedi together and make it a rewarding film first and a fun Star Wars movie second. Throw in some standout performances and spectacular action and this is definitely a solid entry in the Star Wars series. By no means is it perfect but to say 'it's worse than the prequels' or 'Disney have ruined Star Wars' is completely unfair. It's not going to be for everyone but as a huge Star Wars fan since the age of 6 (when I first saw ANH on its re-release), I was in no way disappointed and neither were the group of 7 fans of various ages and viewpoints that I saw it with. You'll have to see The Last Jedi for yourself to make up your mind but it would be a shame if this is the film that causes a real split in the Star Wars fandom, I guess time will tell.
