Star Wars is well and truly back, baby! Ever since Disney acquired the rights from 'LucasFilm' in 2012, there's been a seemingly endless wave of new Star Wars movies, comic books, animated series, video games - its literally everywhere. I genuinely saw 3 different 'Star Wars: Battlefront II' trailers before 'The Last Jedi' had even begun. Due to the sheer density of Star Wars in the media right now, it was very important that Episode VIII was a fresh take on what had come before it. After all, despite 'The Force Awakens' being really terrific, one of the biggest complaints of Episode VII was that it retread a lot of old ground and was at times just a retelling of 'A New Hope'. Thankfully, it appears that the studio has allowed director Rian Johnson enough creative control that he has been able to craft a film that feels very much like his vision of Star Wars. There are of course references to it's predecessors, but on the whole Episode VIII takes the Star Wars universe in a fresh and immensely exciting direction - which is just one of the many reasons why 'The Last Jedi' is fantastic.
The story follows on directly after the events of 'The Force Awakens'. The galaxy is in a state of turmoil. Despite the rebel's victory destroying 'Starkiller base', they are fleeing the wrath of the First Order. Rey has gone off in search of Luke Skywalker and answers about her newly discovered force powers.
The performances on the whole are superb. The new trio of heroes established in Episode VII are all great, with the most interesting developments in character given to Rey and Poe. Mark Hamill is amazing as returning Luke Skywalker, made bitter and hateful by years of neglect and self-hatred due to a mistake made in his past, before being given one last stand as the 'legend' that Episode VI made him. Adam Driver's Kylo Ren is truly incredible. He balances simmering anger with a naive and childish spite masterfully and the conflicted nature of his character makes him both an intriguing and terrifying villain. New additions such as Vice Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern), Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) and DJ (Benicio Del Toro) all play really well. Andy Serkis gives yet another impressive turn as Snoke. Special mention though must go to Carrie Fisher. Perhaps it's bias created by the influence of her passing, but her performance here is heartfelt and quite frankly mesmerising. It's a beautiful send off to one of the most beloved movie characters of all time.
The action on show is amazing. Frantic yet meaningful space battles, intense fight scenes and one of the best lightsaber duels in the whole franchise. There are a few instances of CGI that are a little bit shaky, but on the whole the film looks great. Yet all of the action and explosions are undercut by several lengthy pauses and even silences that are included to give the audience time to breathe. This is perhaps unusual from an action-packed blockbuster, but the time for reflection that they present to the audience gives each action set piece so much more in terms of emotional impact. There's one silence in particular which, coupled with some stunning visuals, brought a tear to my eye.
I do have some complaints. The movie does feel overly long, which I think is perhaps due to some of the subplots being much less interesting than the main narrative of the film. As a result, you do feel like some scenes could have been cut to allow more time with the main protagonists. There is one chase sequence in the middle of the film that feels very referential to the prequels (in the worst of ways) and ends up contributing very little to the story, which does beg the question why include it? Also, whilst there are some generally funny moments, lots of the jokes do feel slightly out of place and it's almost a shame to see Domhnall Gleeson's General Hux reduced from a Nazi-esque antagonist to comic relief in this movie.
However, one of the strongest elements of this film is the way it advances the Star Wars world in creative and interesting ways. There are answers offered to many of the mysteries posed in 'The Force Awakens', but the ways in which they are handled and dismissed are genuinely shocking and brilliant in equal measure. There are call-backs and references to everything that has come before it (which will have your inner child punching the air with joy), but they are balanced really well with innovative ideas and concepts that I really hope to see developed further in the future.
I liked the original Star Wars movies yet I never really understood what all the obsessive fandom was about. My moment of realisation was getting goosebumps from seeing the title crawl for Episode VII in a movie theatre for the first time and as the iconic theme tune blared out, I finally understood. They had recaptured the magic of Star Wars and re-gifted it to my generation. Personally, I really enjoyed 'The Force Awakens' but 'The Last Jedi' is a step up. A perfect blend of original ideas with classic elements that all contributes to an emotional rollercoaster of a movie. Highly recommended - I can't wait to see it again.
4/5 Stars
Monday, 18 December 2017
Monday, 20 November 2017
'Justice League' Spoiler free review
The odds were, undoubtedly, stacked against Justice League being a success even before it was released. Burdened by being a part of the much maligned DCEU and being under immense pressure to continue the upward curve that appeared to have begun with Wonder Woman earlier this year, people's expectations for Justice League have been pretty low. Personally, I was cautiously optimistic. I was hopeful that DC had learnt their lessons and confident that, at the very least, this entry could't be any worse than some of its predecessors. I was wrong. My optimism and goodwill towards this movie (and lets face, it the franchise as a whole at this point) has now all but disappeared, because Justice League is a bad movie.
After Superman's death in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) is a changed man. Fearful of a imminent otherworldly invasion, he seeks the help of Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to assemble a team to defend the world now that their 'beacon of hope' is gone. With the help of Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller), the heroes must unite in order to stop the villainous Steppenwolf and his army from destroying our world.
I will start with the positives, despite there not being many. To me, the undisputed best part of this film is Superman. Shock horror - he's back from the dead. Despite his resurrection being a bizarre mixture of incredibly convoluted and stupidly basic, its well worth it because in my opinion this is the best interpretation of Superman that has ever been put to screen. The crying and the scowling from the previous movies is gone, replaced by a comic accurate suit, an insanely overpowered skill set and, perhaps most importantly, a smile. He can finally be seen as the symbol of hope that he was always meant to be. His dialogue is somewhat cheesy and the difference in his power-levels in comparison to the other members is hilarious, but that's exactly what I want from Superman. Hands down the strongest part of the film. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman is also a strong as ever. Stepping into a leadership role in Kal El's initial absence, she is powerful and gorgeous in equal measure and Gadot makes her really endearing and likeable to the audience. However, there are several occasions where she is needlessly over-sexualised, which goes against everything that was established about the character in her solo film. I enjoyed Jason Momoa's Aquaman and was really impressed by Ray Fisher in his first cinematic performance. Generally, all the heroes get equal chance to showcase their abilities and contribute something to the team, which can be difficult in large ensemble films but is handled well here. Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons and J.K. Simmons are all good, given that they have very little to do. However, there is little else about this movie that I didn't hate.
I do feel genuinely bad for Ben Affleck. For all the criticism that the DCEU has received, his performances as Batman have always been one of the strongest parts of this franchise. However, the stresses of critical panning and constant bombardment from fans asking 'Hey, when are you gonna direct the Batman movie?' has clearly taken a toll on him and it's painfully evident here. Throughout Affleck's performance is static and poor, clearly the result of his general boredom and disinterest with this project and this series as a whole. You can tell that he's only here to cash his pay cheque until he can eventually find a way out of this hellish role. I can't blame him. Why would anyone want to commit to continue having your work torn apart by critics and fans alike? The other weak point in the performances is Ezra Miller's Flash. I don't necessarily think its the fault of the actor, but I hated this portrayal. He's intended to provide comic relief, yet without exception everyone of his punchlines felt forced and left an uncomfortable silence. The funniest part about him is Miller's pathetic run. The effect of his speed-force is pretty good, but it's never really used for anything.
In fact, despite trying desperately hard to be, this film is not funny. At all. All the best jokes were used in the trailers so had no impact upon viewing and the rest were unmemorable and again left almost eerie silences among the audience. I'm not quite sure how this is possible, given the fact that Joss Whedon, the man who's quips brought The Avengers to life back in 2012 was responsible for much of the dialogue. Yet here, the dialogue is awful, interactions between character is uninspired and at times boring and the humour has clearly been forced into a universe that was not built for it. People have been asking for the DC movies to be more lighthearted, and this certainly is, but it's such a knee-jerk change from the dark and gritty Batman vs Superman that it feels wholly unnatural and unearned.
Due to the tragic and untimely death of his daughter, Zach Snyder stepped away from the project back in March and Joss Whedon was hired to finish what he has started. Unfortunately, this has been to the detriment of this film. It's clear to see where the two differing ideologies of these filmmakers has been squashed together and it quite simply doesn't mesh. The story is practically paint by numbers, to the point where if you've seen one of the trailers for this film, you know exactly what is going to happen. There are no twists and turns along the way. The villain is just awful. Visually uninteresting and with dull one-note motivations he is no more entertaining than any of him army of faceless para-demons, which also feels very played out by this point. I don't understand how it's possible to make a film with such great characters boring, but they achieved it.
Coupled with the uninteresting story, is a lack on any memorable action scenes. With only one or two exceptions, the set pieces are poorly paced and offer very little enjoyment. Snyder's favourite slow motion shot is yet again massively over used and there are examples of action beats that have literally been ripped straight from Avengers Assemble but are somehow executed worse. Quite remarkably, despite having a whopping $300 million budget to cover Whedon's reshoots, the visuals in his movie range from quite good to simply God awful. The design of the villain is poor, there are some excruciatingly obvious location changes that have been horribly green-screened over and the attempt to digitally remove Henry Cavill's moustache is frankly laughable.
I cannot help but wonder, if I had not seen a Marvel movie would I have enjoyed this. Potentially. Unfortunately for DC though, I have and in a year where the MCU has released 3 great movies they needed something infinitely better than this to stay relevant. It's infuriating the amount of potential that is wasted here. It baffles me that two directors with such an iconic group of characters backed up by a undeniably strong cast and a $300 million budget couldn't make better than this. Uninspiring, uninteresting and on the whole a massive let down - though to be honest I don't know why I expected anything else.
2/5 Stars
After Superman's death in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) is a changed man. Fearful of a imminent otherworldly invasion, he seeks the help of Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to assemble a team to defend the world now that their 'beacon of hope' is gone. With the help of Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller), the heroes must unite in order to stop the villainous Steppenwolf and his army from destroying our world.
I will start with the positives, despite there not being many. To me, the undisputed best part of this film is Superman. Shock horror - he's back from the dead. Despite his resurrection being a bizarre mixture of incredibly convoluted and stupidly basic, its well worth it because in my opinion this is the best interpretation of Superman that has ever been put to screen. The crying and the scowling from the previous movies is gone, replaced by a comic accurate suit, an insanely overpowered skill set and, perhaps most importantly, a smile. He can finally be seen as the symbol of hope that he was always meant to be. His dialogue is somewhat cheesy and the difference in his power-levels in comparison to the other members is hilarious, but that's exactly what I want from Superman. Hands down the strongest part of the film. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman is also a strong as ever. Stepping into a leadership role in Kal El's initial absence, she is powerful and gorgeous in equal measure and Gadot makes her really endearing and likeable to the audience. However, there are several occasions where she is needlessly over-sexualised, which goes against everything that was established about the character in her solo film. I enjoyed Jason Momoa's Aquaman and was really impressed by Ray Fisher in his first cinematic performance. Generally, all the heroes get equal chance to showcase their abilities and contribute something to the team, which can be difficult in large ensemble films but is handled well here. Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons and J.K. Simmons are all good, given that they have very little to do. However, there is little else about this movie that I didn't hate.
I do feel genuinely bad for Ben Affleck. For all the criticism that the DCEU has received, his performances as Batman have always been one of the strongest parts of this franchise. However, the stresses of critical panning and constant bombardment from fans asking 'Hey, when are you gonna direct the Batman movie?' has clearly taken a toll on him and it's painfully evident here. Throughout Affleck's performance is static and poor, clearly the result of his general boredom and disinterest with this project and this series as a whole. You can tell that he's only here to cash his pay cheque until he can eventually find a way out of this hellish role. I can't blame him. Why would anyone want to commit to continue having your work torn apart by critics and fans alike? The other weak point in the performances is Ezra Miller's Flash. I don't necessarily think its the fault of the actor, but I hated this portrayal. He's intended to provide comic relief, yet without exception everyone of his punchlines felt forced and left an uncomfortable silence. The funniest part about him is Miller's pathetic run. The effect of his speed-force is pretty good, but it's never really used for anything.
In fact, despite trying desperately hard to be, this film is not funny. At all. All the best jokes were used in the trailers so had no impact upon viewing and the rest were unmemorable and again left almost eerie silences among the audience. I'm not quite sure how this is possible, given the fact that Joss Whedon, the man who's quips brought The Avengers to life back in 2012 was responsible for much of the dialogue. Yet here, the dialogue is awful, interactions between character is uninspired and at times boring and the humour has clearly been forced into a universe that was not built for it. People have been asking for the DC movies to be more lighthearted, and this certainly is, but it's such a knee-jerk change from the dark and gritty Batman vs Superman that it feels wholly unnatural and unearned.
Due to the tragic and untimely death of his daughter, Zach Snyder stepped away from the project back in March and Joss Whedon was hired to finish what he has started. Unfortunately, this has been to the detriment of this film. It's clear to see where the two differing ideologies of these filmmakers has been squashed together and it quite simply doesn't mesh. The story is practically paint by numbers, to the point where if you've seen one of the trailers for this film, you know exactly what is going to happen. There are no twists and turns along the way. The villain is just awful. Visually uninteresting and with dull one-note motivations he is no more entertaining than any of him army of faceless para-demons, which also feels very played out by this point. I don't understand how it's possible to make a film with such great characters boring, but they achieved it.
Coupled with the uninteresting story, is a lack on any memorable action scenes. With only one or two exceptions, the set pieces are poorly paced and offer very little enjoyment. Snyder's favourite slow motion shot is yet again massively over used and there are examples of action beats that have literally been ripped straight from Avengers Assemble but are somehow executed worse. Quite remarkably, despite having a whopping $300 million budget to cover Whedon's reshoots, the visuals in his movie range from quite good to simply God awful. The design of the villain is poor, there are some excruciatingly obvious location changes that have been horribly green-screened over and the attempt to digitally remove Henry Cavill's moustache is frankly laughable.
I cannot help but wonder, if I had not seen a Marvel movie would I have enjoyed this. Potentially. Unfortunately for DC though, I have and in a year where the MCU has released 3 great movies they needed something infinitely better than this to stay relevant. It's infuriating the amount of potential that is wasted here. It baffles me that two directors with such an iconic group of characters backed up by a undeniably strong cast and a $300 million budget couldn't make better than this. Uninspiring, uninteresting and on the whole a massive let down - though to be honest I don't know why I expected anything else.
2/5 Stars
Sunday, 29 October 2017
'Thor:Ragnarok' spoiler free review
A crucial element to the success of Marvel Studio's cinematic universe is the diversity between each entry. Despite all featuring in the same world, each film covers vastly different themes and storylines. Captain America:The Winter Soldier was a paranoid spy thriller, Ant Man was a heist comedy and the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise is a glorified space opera. This is surely due to the wide array of directors Marvel have assigned to their projects. Of the 17 MCU movies, 13 different directors have been at the helm, all offering their own spin on the superhero genre. The appointment of Taika Watiti for 'Thor:Ragnarok' was a left of field and perhaps slightly risky choice, but it has absolutely paid off as he has crafted perhaps the most odd and audacious movie yet. A surreal mix of entertaining and consequential action and outrageously daft humour that is blended extremely well - 'Thor:Ragnarok' is a fast paced, genuinely hilarious romp.
In exile on the other side of the universe, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) must do battle with a very familiar face and enlist the help of his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and new ally Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) in order to return to Asgard to prevent the all powerful Hela (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home and its people.
Despite being the definitive 3rd entry in the Thor series, 'Ragnarok' is a vast departure from anything we have seen from his character before. It was a wise move for the franchise to leave behind the regal stoicism of the first film and the dreary and uninspired nature of the sequel. Chris Hemsworth is an actor with incredible comedic understanding and timing and under the genius vision of Taika Watiti, he is finally allowed to show off this talent in a way that the MCU has never demonstrated before. He's still big-headed, noble and at times ignorant but this is coupled with new found sense of humour. Sometimes he means to be funny, others not so much but he's hilarious throughout the film. In fact, everybody is. You can see how much fun the actors are having bouncing their lines of dialogue off each other. Mark Ruffalo offers his best Marvel performance yet as Hulk and Bruce Banner. Tessa Thompson's Valkyrie offers a perfect counterpart to Thor. Tom Hiddleston is charming and devious as always, but even he gets his comedic moments which he handles very well. Jeff Goldblum goes all into his role as the eccentric and unhinged Grandmaster. Idriss Elba, Benedict Cumberbatch and Anthony Hopkins are all great in more fleeting roles. Cate Blanchett offers one of the most powerful and menacing Marvel villains yet in the Goddess of Death. Her strength is demonstrated almost instantly and she proves a worthy adversary to Thor. Taika Watiti even appears as the loveable Korg, who is one of the most enjoyable parts of the film.
The tone of this movie is spot on. It incorporates classic elements of superhero movies and combines them with the outlandish nature of the director's comedic brain. Slapstick is balanced perfectly with more cheeky irreverent humour, that feels fresh out of What we do in the the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople, is all executed brilliantly by the cast. It could be argued that at times more serious moments are undercut by the use of a pun, but on the whole the high stakes are partnered with the levity really well.
There are also some stunning action set pieces. Hela's initial conquest of Asgard, high speed spaceships battles and the Hulk taking on a giant wolf all spring to mind as highlights. The Thor vs Hulk showdown does not disappoint. It was the part of the trailer that got everyone excited and it fully delivers. It's funny, tragic and throughly entertaining to watch.
There are certain freedoms allowed to directors by having your film set away from earth. Much like in Guardians of the Galaxy, there's really no restriction to the sets and characters you can implement and this movie does not hold back. Of course its nice to see the golden streets of Asgard again, but the star of the show is Sakar. A junk planet used by the rest of the galaxy to dump their unwanted crap turned into a gladiator arena by the Grandmaster. Miles and miles of weird and wonderful alien tech, three headed aliens and a giant hologram of Jeff Goldblum. Sakar acts as a physical example of the style of this film. Its colourful, camp and at times very stupid but its all intentional to assure that the audience has as much fun as possible whilst watching, which he has definitely achieved.
Taika Watiti (Honestly, I cannot stop saying his name, I mean seriously try saying it aloud) recently said in an interview that he was sick of the current state of our world and wants to offer his audiences and fun and ridiculous escape. He has achieved this and then some. His direction and general approach to filmmaking has breathed new life into an already tremendous cast who all offer hilarious performances. As Marvel movies go, its certainly one of the weirdest and most ridiculous we've seen but its also right up their with the very best of them. I promise you that you will leave 'Thor:Ragnarok' with a grin plastered across your face.
4/5 Stars.
In exile on the other side of the universe, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) must do battle with a very familiar face and enlist the help of his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and new ally Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) in order to return to Asgard to prevent the all powerful Hela (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home and its people.
Despite being the definitive 3rd entry in the Thor series, 'Ragnarok' is a vast departure from anything we have seen from his character before. It was a wise move for the franchise to leave behind the regal stoicism of the first film and the dreary and uninspired nature of the sequel. Chris Hemsworth is an actor with incredible comedic understanding and timing and under the genius vision of Taika Watiti, he is finally allowed to show off this talent in a way that the MCU has never demonstrated before. He's still big-headed, noble and at times ignorant but this is coupled with new found sense of humour. Sometimes he means to be funny, others not so much but he's hilarious throughout the film. In fact, everybody is. You can see how much fun the actors are having bouncing their lines of dialogue off each other. Mark Ruffalo offers his best Marvel performance yet as Hulk and Bruce Banner. Tessa Thompson's Valkyrie offers a perfect counterpart to Thor. Tom Hiddleston is charming and devious as always, but even he gets his comedic moments which he handles very well. Jeff Goldblum goes all into his role as the eccentric and unhinged Grandmaster. Idriss Elba, Benedict Cumberbatch and Anthony Hopkins are all great in more fleeting roles. Cate Blanchett offers one of the most powerful and menacing Marvel villains yet in the Goddess of Death. Her strength is demonstrated almost instantly and she proves a worthy adversary to Thor. Taika Watiti even appears as the loveable Korg, who is one of the most enjoyable parts of the film.
The tone of this movie is spot on. It incorporates classic elements of superhero movies and combines them with the outlandish nature of the director's comedic brain. Slapstick is balanced perfectly with more cheeky irreverent humour, that feels fresh out of What we do in the the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople, is all executed brilliantly by the cast. It could be argued that at times more serious moments are undercut by the use of a pun, but on the whole the high stakes are partnered with the levity really well.
There are also some stunning action set pieces. Hela's initial conquest of Asgard, high speed spaceships battles and the Hulk taking on a giant wolf all spring to mind as highlights. The Thor vs Hulk showdown does not disappoint. It was the part of the trailer that got everyone excited and it fully delivers. It's funny, tragic and throughly entertaining to watch.
There are certain freedoms allowed to directors by having your film set away from earth. Much like in Guardians of the Galaxy, there's really no restriction to the sets and characters you can implement and this movie does not hold back. Of course its nice to see the golden streets of Asgard again, but the star of the show is Sakar. A junk planet used by the rest of the galaxy to dump their unwanted crap turned into a gladiator arena by the Grandmaster. Miles and miles of weird and wonderful alien tech, three headed aliens and a giant hologram of Jeff Goldblum. Sakar acts as a physical example of the style of this film. Its colourful, camp and at times very stupid but its all intentional to assure that the audience has as much fun as possible whilst watching, which he has definitely achieved.
Taika Watiti (Honestly, I cannot stop saying his name, I mean seriously try saying it aloud) recently said in an interview that he was sick of the current state of our world and wants to offer his audiences and fun and ridiculous escape. He has achieved this and then some. His direction and general approach to filmmaking has breathed new life into an already tremendous cast who all offer hilarious performances. As Marvel movies go, its certainly one of the weirdest and most ridiculous we've seen but its also right up their with the very best of them. I promise you that you will leave 'Thor:Ragnarok' with a grin plastered across your face.
4/5 Stars.
Saturday, 21 October 2017
Blade Runner 2049 spoiler free review
Making a good sequel is an extremely difficult task. Finding the right balance between further exploring the elements that made the first movie successful and creating new and interesting advancements in characters and worlds is a very enviable skill, particularly as many sequels tend to end up ruining the charm of their predecessors in the interest of making it 'bigger and better'. A good example of this is the recent 'Kingsman' sequel. Don't get me wrong - its a good movie. Yet it pales in comparison to the first, as it's attempts to be even more outrageous and ridiculous crossed the line into stupidity and the message of the original was seemingly cast aside. This is coupled with the fact that Blade Runner came out over 30 years ago (to a critical panning upon release), meaning that the sequel had to appeal to an almost wholly new audience, whilst still pleasing the cult fan base. Thankfully, Denis Villeneuve has passed this tricky test with flying colours, as Blade Runner 2049 is simply spectacular.
Officer K (Ryan Gosling) is one of the new era of Blade Runners, tasked with 'retiring' all prior models to Niander Wallace's (Jered Leto) supposedly more compliant Nexus 9 variants. K discovers a long buried secret that could potentially reshape society and the existence of replicants. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) in search of answers to the mystery he has unraveled. There really isn't much more you need to know going in to this movie. There are many twists and revelations (some of which coming very early in the film) which I feel are made all the more engaging if you don't know they're coming.
The performances are fantastic throughout, from all members of the cast. Ryan Gosling absolutely kills this roll and cements his place as one of my favourite current actors. His performance is immensely captivating, as a cold hearted killer who gradually becomes more emotionally conflicted as the story progresses. He's likeable, relatable and serves as a great action hero. Harrison Ford also really shines. His role is briefer than you might expect, but seeing how Deckard has changed and grown in the years since the first movie is entertaining and quite moving. Jared Leto goes all in, as he so often does, and to his credit he does come off a sinister and unhinged. Sylvia Hoeks is surprising and brilliant. She serves as Wallace's slave but also a Terminator-esque killing machine that can murder a man with a single tap. She's menacing and terrifying to watch, probably stealing the spotlight from Leto as the films main villain. Dave Bautista offers perhaps his best performance in a movie so far and Robin Wright, Ana de Armas and Carla Juri all do amazing work in brief yet impressive roles.
Visually, the film is incredible. Just like the original, its a perfect blend of digital and practical effects that are all stunning to watch. The colour palette alone is a thing to behold - the rich orange of the Las Vegas dessert, the dark gritty blues of the LA streets and the sterile whiteness of Wallace's facilities all complement and contrast each other exceptionally well. Sound is also handled very well - the mix of screen shaking synthesisers and eerie silences gives a much more sinister tone to the score than the first movie and creates some extremely tense scenes.
Of course, propping up this visually baffling universe is an intriguing and clever narrative. Its fascinating to see how people opinions of replicants has changed as the line between humans and robots becomes increasingly blurred and serious questions are posed about what it means to be human and what does it mean for something to really 'live'. The ideas are explored in much more depth here than in Blade Runner and its extremely welcome.
As much as I enjoy the first movie, a fair criticism is that it does drag at times and whilst the long unbroken shots of the city skylines are breathtaking to look at, they do go on a bit in parts. You might expect a similar fate for the sequel, given that it comes in at a whopping 2 hours and 43 minutes. The movie does feel long, but at no point does it ever bore you. The flat out action scenes are, just like the original, few and far between but what we do get is fantastic. Spinner crashes, gun fights and replicants beating the shit out each other in very visceral yet stylised ways. Yet a lot of the film creates tension and excitement in other ways. Lengthy, unnerving silences and the increasing aggressiveness of the score offer just as much to the audience as any of the action. The way that the action is blended with the lingering shots of mesmerising scenery is done perfectly and means that the movie never starts to meander in the way the first did.
I cannot urge you enough to rush out and see Blade Runner 2049. It's in my opinion the perfect sequel. It does justice to the original through homage, whilst advancing the universe and it's characters in new and meaningful ways. Visually exceptional, captivating storyline and outstanding performances. One of the best films of 2017.
5/5 stars.
5/5 stars.
Saturday, 14 October 2017
'The Meyerowitz Stories' Review
Adam Sandler is, at his core, a decent actor. Before you start laughing at this statement, allow me to explain. Granted, the movies that he appears in are more often than not terrible, but its undeniable that as a performer he does quirky outlandish humour very well and with the right direction and supporting cast around him he is more than capable of carrying a role and even a movie. The Meyerowitz Stories serves as a handy reminder of just what he can do.
The narrative of the story (or stories as the movie is split into three connected chapters) is a simple yet extremely effective one. Retired New York sculptor Harold Meyerowitz (Dustin Hoffman) is offered a chance to get 'back on the map' through an art retrospective by his daughter Jean (Elizabeth Marvel) and two sons, high flying Matthew (Ben Stiller) and low life Danny (Adam Sandler). The reunion of these differing personalities quickly leads to half-buried arguments come bubbling to the surface.
The performances of each and every member of this cast are amazing, especially Sandler. As a great father but a disappointment in the eyes of his own, he really makes this role his. He's funny, endearing and extremely relatable. The audience can sympathise with every knock-back, which Danny has seen his fair share of. Ben Stiller also really shines. Another actor who due to the low quality of most of his movies has a stigma associated with him, he portrays the polar opposite of Danny. He's rich, successful and obsessed over by his father (not that he would ever tell him). Both Stiller and Noah Baumbach (both writer and director) handle this character really well. Despite their obvious differences, Danny and Matthew are both striving for the same goal of their father's affection and respect, whilst approaching from the opposite ends of the spectrum. Of course, as this is their third appearance on screen together, Sandler and Stiller share great chemistry and watching them repair their damaged relationship is the real emotional crux of the movie. Similarly, Hoffman delivers a strong performance. He is by all accounts the villain of the piece, and if he wasn't so unintentionally hilarious he'd be near insufferable to the audience. Yet Hoffman brings a boyish charm to this dysfunctional old man. Elizabeth Marvel's Jean serves a good middle ground between her brothers and proves to be just as damaged as her siblings. Emma Thompson and Grace Van Patten both have a lot of fun in their roles and wrap up this mess of a family nicely.
Now being an Sandler/Stiller movie, there is an un-written requirement for a certain kind of comedy to be included. Strong language, dialogue that arrives at break-neck speeds and even an hilariously hapless Sandler on Stiller fist fight that will have all Happy Gilmore fans appeased. To the film's credit, its funny. Very funny. Yet under this veil of a light hearted comedy, there is an at times heart breaking tale off the adults who due to different forms of mental abuse from their father are all equally, as Jean puts it so eloquently, 'f*cked up'. All three have never truly been allowed to grow up, Matthew's success in business was all to gain his father's approval, Danny nearly breaks down when he hears the family house is being sold and Jean is haunted by incidents that I won't spoil. The realisation the three siblings undergo - that they will not resent their father's attempts at parenting as they want to be better than him - is truly compelling. Coupled with themes of betrayal, redemption, acceptance and Danny saying goodbye to his daughter as she leaves for college make this core of this movie profound and sincere, which is blended perfectly with the outrageous sense of humour.
Overall, I was massively impressed and surprised by The Meyerowitz Stories. Its a genuinely great movie. Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller offer the undoubted best performances of their careers and supported by an excellent cast they hold up narrative that is both hilarious and heartfelt in equal measure. And it's now available on Netflix from the comfort of your sofa. What could be better than that?
4/5 Stars
The narrative of the story (or stories as the movie is split into three connected chapters) is a simple yet extremely effective one. Retired New York sculptor Harold Meyerowitz (Dustin Hoffman) is offered a chance to get 'back on the map' through an art retrospective by his daughter Jean (Elizabeth Marvel) and two sons, high flying Matthew (Ben Stiller) and low life Danny (Adam Sandler). The reunion of these differing personalities quickly leads to half-buried arguments come bubbling to the surface.
The performances of each and every member of this cast are amazing, especially Sandler. As a great father but a disappointment in the eyes of his own, he really makes this role his. He's funny, endearing and extremely relatable. The audience can sympathise with every knock-back, which Danny has seen his fair share of. Ben Stiller also really shines. Another actor who due to the low quality of most of his movies has a stigma associated with him, he portrays the polar opposite of Danny. He's rich, successful and obsessed over by his father (not that he would ever tell him). Both Stiller and Noah Baumbach (both writer and director) handle this character really well. Despite their obvious differences, Danny and Matthew are both striving for the same goal of their father's affection and respect, whilst approaching from the opposite ends of the spectrum. Of course, as this is their third appearance on screen together, Sandler and Stiller share great chemistry and watching them repair their damaged relationship is the real emotional crux of the movie. Similarly, Hoffman delivers a strong performance. He is by all accounts the villain of the piece, and if he wasn't so unintentionally hilarious he'd be near insufferable to the audience. Yet Hoffman brings a boyish charm to this dysfunctional old man. Elizabeth Marvel's Jean serves a good middle ground between her brothers and proves to be just as damaged as her siblings. Emma Thompson and Grace Van Patten both have a lot of fun in their roles and wrap up this mess of a family nicely.
Now being an Sandler/Stiller movie, there is an un-written requirement for a certain kind of comedy to be included. Strong language, dialogue that arrives at break-neck speeds and even an hilariously hapless Sandler on Stiller fist fight that will have all Happy Gilmore fans appeased. To the film's credit, its funny. Very funny. Yet under this veil of a light hearted comedy, there is an at times heart breaking tale off the adults who due to different forms of mental abuse from their father are all equally, as Jean puts it so eloquently, 'f*cked up'. All three have never truly been allowed to grow up, Matthew's success in business was all to gain his father's approval, Danny nearly breaks down when he hears the family house is being sold and Jean is haunted by incidents that I won't spoil. The realisation the three siblings undergo - that they will not resent their father's attempts at parenting as they want to be better than him - is truly compelling. Coupled with themes of betrayal, redemption, acceptance and Danny saying goodbye to his daughter as she leaves for college make this core of this movie profound and sincere, which is blended perfectly with the outrageous sense of humour.
Overall, I was massively impressed and surprised by The Meyerowitz Stories. Its a genuinely great movie. Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller offer the undoubted best performances of their careers and supported by an excellent cast they hold up narrative that is both hilarious and heartfelt in equal measure. And it's now available on Netflix from the comfort of your sofa. What could be better than that?
4/5 Stars
Tuesday, 10 October 2017
Kingsman: The Golden Circle review
Matthew Vaughn has a real knack for bringing fun into each film he makes. Even before Kingsman: The Secret Service, he had created an epic fantasy in Stardust and in Kick Ass he managed to make superheroes fun again before Marvel Studios had the genre on strings. Yet Kingsman was something else. He managed to make the current run of James Bond movies, which were universally praised, look boring in comparison to his clever twist on the spy concept. It was ridiculous, hilarious and hugely over the top - but it absolutely worked and succeeded in its task to bring the irreverence back to the British Spy films that had been missing since the Moore era of Bond. I am pleased to report that the follow up Kingsman: The Golden Circle is much of the same. It's an action packed romp of a movie.
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a psychotic Cartel leader, the Kingsman must seek the help of their American counterparts, Statesman in order to save the world again.
The returning members of cast all give great performances. It's very satisfying to see Taron Egerton's 'Eggsy' developed from a London youth without direction in life into the suave gentlemen spy we see in this movie. Whilst the return of Colin Firth does somewhat undermine Eggsy's character growth, he is a welcome inclusion and the two share some great on screen chemistry. Mark Strong's Merlin is also explored further in this film and its nice to see how he and Eggsy have changed and bonded even further in Harry's absence. Of the new cast members, I have some complaints. Of the big names that were added to the cast, many if not all of them are underused. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry's roles are both fleeting and Channing Tatum is barely in the movie despite featuring heavily in the promotional material. Pedro Pascal has a decent go at Agent Whiskey, but some of the writing for his character is quite poor and he could easily be swapped out for another character. Julianne Moore's villainous Poppy is also considerably weaker than the first films big bad. Yet again the performance is fine, yet her character is a little underwhelming in comparison to Samuel L. Jackson's 'Valentine' and I didn't buy many of her motivations and character developments. There is also an Elton John cameo, which initially is very funny but is massively overused and steals screen time from some of the actual characters.
If you didn't like The Secret Service then this movie is not for you, as there are many returning elements that are undoubtably the strongest parts of this film. Fast paced, super violent yet stylised fight scenes, some gripping action set pieces and a whole host of new and exciting gadgets for the agents to employ. Unsurprisingly, the best elements of this movie are those that are taken from the first. Call backs to conversations, jokes and fight scenes are all present and offer rewarding chuckles to the audience. However, there are some bizarre creative choices in this film. The core concept and execution of many of the films themes and ideas is not as good. There's one particular moment that is intended to mock the incredibly sexist nature of Bond movies just as the outrageous anal joke did the first time round, but actually becomes very vulgar and uncomfortable to watch. I wonder if perhaps this is due to studio interference, who after seeing the success of the first movie were so eager for another that they didn't allow the necessary time for the writing and script to be as strong as they needed to be.
I had heard a lot of negative press about 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' before I saw it and I have to say that I feel its very unjustified. Is it as good as the first? No. Is it a perfect movie? Far from it. But its funny, action heavy and a well executed continuation of the story. There are some missed opportunities and elements that don't need to be included, but its still an enjoyable movie that I would recommend seeing, especially if you love the first.
3/5 Stars
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a psychotic Cartel leader, the Kingsman must seek the help of their American counterparts, Statesman in order to save the world again.
The returning members of cast all give great performances. It's very satisfying to see Taron Egerton's 'Eggsy' developed from a London youth without direction in life into the suave gentlemen spy we see in this movie. Whilst the return of Colin Firth does somewhat undermine Eggsy's character growth, he is a welcome inclusion and the two share some great on screen chemistry. Mark Strong's Merlin is also explored further in this film and its nice to see how he and Eggsy have changed and bonded even further in Harry's absence. Of the new cast members, I have some complaints. Of the big names that were added to the cast, many if not all of them are underused. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry's roles are both fleeting and Channing Tatum is barely in the movie despite featuring heavily in the promotional material. Pedro Pascal has a decent go at Agent Whiskey, but some of the writing for his character is quite poor and he could easily be swapped out for another character. Julianne Moore's villainous Poppy is also considerably weaker than the first films big bad. Yet again the performance is fine, yet her character is a little underwhelming in comparison to Samuel L. Jackson's 'Valentine' and I didn't buy many of her motivations and character developments. There is also an Elton John cameo, which initially is very funny but is massively overused and steals screen time from some of the actual characters.
If you didn't like The Secret Service then this movie is not for you, as there are many returning elements that are undoubtably the strongest parts of this film. Fast paced, super violent yet stylised fight scenes, some gripping action set pieces and a whole host of new and exciting gadgets for the agents to employ. Unsurprisingly, the best elements of this movie are those that are taken from the first. Call backs to conversations, jokes and fight scenes are all present and offer rewarding chuckles to the audience. However, there are some bizarre creative choices in this film. The core concept and execution of many of the films themes and ideas is not as good. There's one particular moment that is intended to mock the incredibly sexist nature of Bond movies just as the outrageous anal joke did the first time round, but actually becomes very vulgar and uncomfortable to watch. I wonder if perhaps this is due to studio interference, who after seeing the success of the first movie were so eager for another that they didn't allow the necessary time for the writing and script to be as strong as they needed to be.
I had heard a lot of negative press about 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' before I saw it and I have to say that I feel its very unjustified. Is it as good as the first? No. Is it a perfect movie? Far from it. But its funny, action heavy and a well executed continuation of the story. There are some missed opportunities and elements that don't need to be included, but its still an enjoyable movie that I would recommend seeing, especially if you love the first.
3/5 Stars
Tuesday, 8 August 2017
'War for the Planet of the Apes' spoiler free review
We are living in a reboot and remake culture. A modern blockbuster is now more likely to be based on a graphic novel, book or real life event than to be an original concept. Some projects are just rebranded and rereleased stories that have already been told in cinematic form in years gone by, in an attempt to prey on people's nostalgia and draw a larger audience. The issue with this is that it's incredibly difficult to make a satisfying reboot. Either the studio will try to change as little as possible to adhere to fans and the movie ends up offering nothing new or it diverts from the original so much that it loses that spark that drew people to the first incarnation. Either way a lot of modern reboots end up flopping, both critically and commercially. There are exceptions however, the current 'Planet of the Apes' series for example. The amalgamation of some astounding special effects and a fresh, exciting take on the narrative has made the first two entries extremely popular, which put pressure on this film to wrap up the trilogy in a satisfying way. I'm glad to say that it certainly does - 'War for the Planet of the Apes' is great.
There has been quite a significant time shift between this movie and the last. The evolution of both the apes and the Simian flu has allowed Caesar and and his apes to assert their dominance over humanity. However, the apes are locked in conflict with the few surviving humans, led by 'The Colonel' (Woody Harrelson). As the attacks on both sides become more intense and personal, the two opposing sides take one last stand against each other to claim the earth for themselves.
I didn't know that it was possible, but the visual effects have yet again increased in quality from the previous entries. The appearance of the apes is breathtaking. Caesar is of course exceptional but the quality spreads to each and every ape in the movie. Whether they are in the foreground or background, or a main character or an extra, each and every one of the apes looks real. The way sweat and rain runs down and dampens their fur, the ridges in their faces expanding and retracting with different expressions. Its a testament to how advanced the technology of cinema is these days - it is able to create character models that are at times more realistic than the actual creatures themselves.
The visual effects are incredible but it's the performances that really bring the Apes to life. It infuriates me that Hollywood will not reward Andy Serkis with an Oscar for his portrayal of Caesar, when in reality his skill-set has transcended the label of 'acting'. He has transformed himself into an ape - learning in excruciating detail about how they walk, yell, growl. Its this hard work and dedication to his role that allows him to give such a believable and genuine performance. In fact, all of the apes are believable, but Serkis for me deserves some serious credit and recognition for his excellent work. The other stand out performer in this movie is Woody Harrelson. Another aspect of these films that has improved with each instalment is the human characters and Harrelson's Colonel is the pinnacle. Menacing and cold, yet in some ways relatable to the audience as human beings. The perfect antithesis to Caesar.
The action scenes, as to be expected, are great. Apes riding around on horseback wielding two machine guns remains to be one of the most terrifying thoughts I can imagine. Yet the action also feels very believable. I would argue its about the most accurate interpretation of warfare that a movie about talking apes could be. The interactions between comrades and the effect the surroundings have on the battles are fascinating and provide a different element to war.
A surprising element of this movie was it's success at referencing and paying homage to classic films that have come before it. Hints to movies such as 'Apocalypse Now' and 'The Great Escape' are welcome inclusions as they incorporated into the story in a subtle enough way to not distract from the main plot, only to serve as nods to audience members who have seen those films.
Overall, 'War for the Planet of the Apes' is an immensely satisfying conclusion to this trilogy of films. It leaves potential for other stories to be told in the future but also finishes the current arc in a rewarding and heartfelt way. The action is amazing, the performances are great and the visual effects are some of the best ever put to the silver screen.
4/5 Stars
4/5 Stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)