STAR WARS, THE FORCE AWAKENS; Carlisle's Final Word

"Hope is not lost today... It is found."

Leia.

 A Force to be reckoned with...

A brief editorial note- I'm trying to keep this spoiler-free... It wasn't easy.

SYNOPSIS:

So, here we are; J.J. Abram (now something of a go-to guy for reboots after his success with Star Trek) helms Disney's latest blockbuster franchise- the first of many sequels to be set in the Star Wars universe.

30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi, Force Awakens finds the galaxy under threat from a new enemy- the First Order, led by the sinister (and self aggrandisingly titled) Supreme Leader Snoke. Also counted among their number is the darkness-tainted Kylo Ren, a Jedi apprentice turned bad. Elsewhere, Rey, a scavenger on a far-flung desert planet, comes into possession of a droid which the whole of the First Order will stop at nothing to possess. Forced to unite with Finn, a runaway Stormtrooper suffering a crisis of conscience, as well as some recognisable faces from the old Rebellion, Rey not only becomes embroiled in this latest galactic war, but also sheds some light on her own mysterious past...

SCRIPT: 1/ 2
Back in 1999, Star Wars fans could hardly contain their excitement leading up to the release of The Phantom Menace, George Lucas' long awaited follow-up to his original trilogy. To say that the Phantom Menace was something of a disappointment falls a long way short of the mark, and the following two films did little to remedy that bitter sting...

OK, to be honest, the script for Force Awakens isn't without issues, but it's hard to discuss what these are without giving away some massive spoilers. I'll likely get round to discussing these another time, but for now I'll err on the side of discretion...

What I can say is, Force Awakens borrows lovingly from the original trilogy, in a way that feels more reverential than lazy- although the R2D2 related 'revelation' after the climax was both clumsy and irritating, undermining much of the film's central conceit. However, despite this 'Deus ex machina' moment (and a few other minor concerns), screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, whose previous credits include Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, plays something of a blinder! In no small way the film owes it's success to him. Kasden's story is reverent, touching, at times tragic, and perhaps most surprisingly of all, very funny- the humour flowing naturally from the characters and situations while never seeming forced or campy.

Possibly the biggest 'fair' criticism to throw at Force Awakens (seeing how other plot related issues may be covered in the fullness of time) revolves around it's heroine, but we'll come to that a little later. I should cover it here, seeing as it's a writing-related issue, but it makes more sense later...

PACE: 1 / 2

At just over 2 hours, Force Awakens felt like it would benefit from a little trimming. Although, to be fair, each installment of the original trilogy was likewise over the 2 hour mark, and when you compare Force Awakens to The Phantom Menace (which again has a similar run time), this feels one Hell of a lot less bloated. Perhaps in light of that, the issue isn't so much length than pace? One sequence in particular, concerning rampaging monsters and a completely unnecessary Han Solo back-story, was completely unneeded. Entertaining enough, but felt like padding in relation to the main plot. There was also a lull during the 'smuggler's keep' portion of the story, and personally I'd have finished the film maybe 4 minutes sooner...
OK, I don't think I'm giving too much away now by saying the film ends with the heroine coming face-to-face with Luke. No dialogue, just a dramatic and meaningful stand-off. It's this section I'd personally have held back till the next film, but I do understand the reasoning behind it's inclusion her. I think a great many fans would simply have imploded without a glimpse of the character. I just felt as though it was an odd note to end the film on, considering how snappy the original trilogy handled their closing moments. Still, not a major gripe.

ACTING: 2 / 2

I cannot stress enough, as a long-time Star Wars fan, what a giddy thrill it is to see some of the older actors and actresses reprising their roles. The inclusion of such beloved characters, like Han Solo, Chewie and Leia, go a long way to keeping this new effort feeling much more like a traditional Star Wars film. Harrison Ford looks as though he's having the most fun he's had in years, and effortlessly steals every one of his scenes with that devil-may-care charm the fans have come to love. His scenes with Carrie Fisher (playing Leia, his on-screen old-flame), while brief and are intensely emotional- it was raw and very moving to see them embrace once more...

So, it's all very well that the old-hands get their moment to shine, and shine they do, but what of these new-bloods? Despite an array of familiar faces, the real stars of the show are Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Adam Driver- who in turn play the films heroes Rey and Finn, and it's answer to Darth Vader, Kylo Renn. Can they hold a torch to the original stars? Oh yes. Daisy makes a very plucky lead in what can only be described as the post Twilight / Hunger Games revolution, and at no point is she ever not at the real cut-and-thrust of the adventure. Even after being captured, Rey is no damsel in distress, and is soon going about the business of hatching her own escape... And here's my concern from earlier;

If there's an issue to be had with Rey, it's that she's probably too capable. When we meet her, she already speaks fluent droid, she's a tough athletic explorer, a gifted mechanic and electrician, a hot-shot flyer and a kick-ass fighter. During the film's climax she sees to her own escape, perfects some advanced Jedi mind tricks without any guidance, and comes off on top during her first light saber battle with an accomplished enemy. With a repertoire like that, her growth surely can't be as dramatic as the naïve young farm hand who dreamed of joining the rebellion all those years ago? While it may not be beyond the realms of possibility that Rey would have all these skills, it does feel like bad writing- heroes need to develop. Potentially, yes, she could be due something of a hard fall in the next film, but still- Luke only survived his first adventure because of all the help he had along the way; a magical teacher, a gruff gunslinger, a giant alien-bear. Before he meets these allies he gets his ass kicked by some sand mutants, and he would have been murdered in the bar room if not for a swift intervention. Hell, Luke only manages to defeat the Death Star because he gets some ghostly advice and a friend blows Darth Vader out of the sky. In comparison, Rey never actually needed anybody's help with anything- is this a symptomatic flaw of Hunger Games fallout? The 'politically correct' brigade gone mad? Possibly, but whatever the reason for it, she's still an overpowered character...

But, as capable and commanding a presence as Ridley is, it's Boyega of the two that most charms the screen. His turn as the rouge Stormtrooper is one of the film's real strengths, and he makes the most of a part that allows him, by turns, to act humorously naïve, impishly excitable and genuinely soulful.
And as for Adam Driver? Rest assured, these new films have a very charismatic and delightfully complex antagonist in Kylo Ren, and I have no doubt he will go down in Star Wars history as THE definitive Dark Side Jedi. He may not have Vader's bulk or icy composure (why try to even compete with that?) but what he does have is a hair-trigger temper and enough issues to make him one very messed up kid. He's the galaxy's answer to We Need to Talk About Kevin; a pompous, delusional, petulant outcast with dangerous powers beyond his understanding, and that's a combination a hundred times more frightening than any Vader or Darth Maul- a lethal cocktail that speaks of our own generation of toxic brats. Like so many internet "trolls" who hide behind their screens to feel omnipotent, Kylo Ren retreats behind a mask to hide his own insecurities- and everything in Driver's astute use of body language in-and-out of said mask confirms this. It's creepy because it feels real, not simply the fantasy bogeyman role that Darth Vader once occupied.

AESTHETIC: 2 / 2

And we finally come down to it. Forgetting for a moment the acting, the old cast members, the plot points, the gags- what really solidifies this film as being a part of the Star Wars universe is it's visual and audio DNA. It LOOKS like Star Wars.  It SOUNDS like Star Wars. Because of that, it FEELS like Star Wars! Stormtropers attack, X-Wings soar, the Millennium Falcon dives, Blaster rifles fire, Light Sabres bristle with power as they clash- it's all instantly familiar.
Aside from being poorly written and poorly directed, the prequel films didn't look or feel much like Star Wars- they were cartoonish and CGI laden (about the only thing they had going for them was a decent score). Force Awakens cannot be accused of making that same mistake, and it has a real scene of old-fashioned physicality to it- what CGI it does utilise, for the most part, it does so sparingly.

INTENTION: 2 / 2

So, aside from the mass media frenzy and excitement surrounding the release of Force Awakens, the older and more cynical fans (that is to say, those old enough to remember how crushed they felt after the prequels) could be forgiven for a slight apprehension... So it's with a sense of overwhelming relief I can truthfully say "put those fears to bed". Force Awakens is EXACTLY the film YOU want it to be! A film for fans, by fans. It's clear from the outset the referential love these film-makers have for the original trilogy. George Lucas, I suspect, must have been secretly hoping for a flop (since Disney essentially paid him to keep away), so it's no great surprise he's been quite outspoken recently. Lucas didn't much like Force Awakens, labeling it a "retro film" (I'm not even sure if that's actually a criticism?) but if anything, that can only mean Disney are getting something right. Sour grapes, Mr. Lucas?

A further criticism leveled at Force Awakens in respect of it's attempts to restore what has gone before is “it's much too similar to A New Hope”, and to be fair it's easy to see why people feel that way; it does share a great many plot points with the first film, but (to my mind at least) it felt less of an exercise in recycling old ideas and more like a return to the familiar Star Wars films of old, and I can't blame the film-makers in this instance for playing things safe- there's plenty of time for originality in what's still left to come.

FINAL WORD: 8 / 10

Force awakens is a roller-coaster film in every sense- it's exciting, it's fun, it's scary, it's dramatic. It's also got space ships, shoot-outs, weird and wonderful aliens, a multitude of planets, villains with English accents, explosions, light-sabre fights, and more! Everything you'd want in a "true" Star Wars film.

Aside from making money (which it has, and by the bucket load), Force Awakens felt like a sincere effort to put the Star Wars franchise back on the right track, and it absolutely has. JJ, whatever my reservations concerning him have been in the past, has breathed fresh vitality into this series (no small feat after the prequels) and set the mark pretty high for the inevitable follow-ups.

I suppose the highest compliment I can pay the film is this: watching it I felt like a young kid again, and surely that's what Star Wars is all about?

Final, Final Word; I had the good fortune to see this film with not only two very good friends, both of whom are also Star-Wars fans like myself (and were just as relieved with the new film as I was), but also with my good lady. She's not particularly 'into' films, hadn't ever seen a Star Wars movie before this point, and didn't particularly have any inclination to- she came along mostly just to meet my friends and have a night out... Well, if anyone out there's thinking "do I need to be a fan for Force Awakens to make any sense" or "I don't really like fantasy and science fiction", then worry not. My lovely lady thought the film was amazing, and she found the story easy enough to follow without any prior knowledge. Oh, and she laughed a LOT (see, told you it was funny). 
So, there you have it, fan or not, Force Awakens is a hugely enjoyable experience.

"WHY SO SERIOUS?"

The Joker (Dark knight)

The late Heath Ledger enjoying a meal and a laugh with his co-star Christian Bale. Life is sadly much too short...

When I began this Blogging lark, I'd always intended to favor entertainment and humor over lofty critical pretensions... Having reread my last few reviews, accurate as they are to my feelings, they have tended to feel a little 'dusty'. Somewhere, between my honest intentions and where I am now, it seems to me I've lost my way.

Let's fix that.

Firstly, I'll try for a few less film reviews, as well as a few less film-orientated articles.

Secondly, I'll try and be a little more pithy and a lot less ostentatious. After all, I'm writing mostly to entertain, not inform. Everyone's a critic these days, all it takes is an opinion and you're half way there.

Thirdly, because I have a lot less time these days I'm going to keep the reviews shorter (new releases and films of particular interest may still be a little longer), and these will be tagged 'Full Tilt Reviews' rather than 'Carlisle's Final Word'.

 "(at) full tilt": headlong, hastily, wildly, impetuously, recklessly, at breakneck speed.

Fourthly, I'll try to be more frequent in my posts- hopefully two a month or more, but we'll have to see how that works.

And lastly... I'm going to try and take this movie-critic thing a little less seriously. Sure, they're are lots of films that I personally 'don't get', and some I actively loath, but I'm getting mellower in my old age. I'm adopting a more forgiving live-and-let-live philosophy. That is, on most occasions....

Well that's all for now, expect the first Full-Tilt Review sometime soon.

MACBETH: Carlisle's Final Word

 "...They say blood will have blood."

Macbeth 

Macbeth... Surprisingly light on laughs.

SYNOPSIS:
Justin Kurzel,  the serious-minded director of Snowtown, helms this latest adaption of the bleak Shakespeare play. Macbeth, a loyal captain (or "Thain") to the King of Scotland,  presently locked in a bloody war against traitorous factions. It is during the heat of one of these viscous battles that Macbeth is visited by three witches, who reveal a prophesy to Macbeth that he will seize the crown of Scotland. Driven by this eerie revelation, and further goaded by his ambitious wife, Macbeth descends into a perilous spiral of greed, madness and ruthless betrayal.

SCRIPT: 1/2
To the best of my knowledge this adaption of Shakespeare's work is perfectly faithful while still allowing for a unique breadth of vision. While the story and it's outcome may be known to many by now, Macbeth is not necessarily a story building to an unexpected climax. Rather, even as a newcomer to the material, it is clear that Macbeth's efforts, in the best traditions of 'self-fulfilling prophesies', will eventually lead to his downfall, and as an audience we are encouraged to witness the man essentially build his own gallows. In this respect the script is as solid, and the experience will not be ruined by anyone being too familiar with the story.
Any reservations I have regarding the script probably relate more to Shakespeare's writing than with anybody involved in the film itself. Perhaps a sign of its time, I found some of the exchanges stilted and plodding. Perhaps in the arena of hyper-drama that is 'the stage' these moments are more fitting, but in the cold realism of the film's setting, and delivered in such a way by the movie's cast as to feel 'real', this only highlights the enormity of the void between 'stage art' and film. What's left is a dreamlike experience, where the unreal and the unfeasible are treated with grim-faced mundanity.

PACE: 1/2
The story of Macbeth, when all is said and done, is quite a simple and direct fable, with a very clear arc for the characters, moving towards its inevitable conclusion. While the film never felt overly long, it did at times move at what I consider to be a rather indulgent pace. The sheer number of silent and lingering shots of barren landscapes and scowling close-ups probably add to this sensation; all these shots are good for establishing character and atmosphere, but by the half-way point hardly seem necessary, and their inclusion feels more for the sake of aesthetic than any storytelling device. Art for its own sake is fair enough, but it does come at a price to the pace. Dirge-like would seem a fitting description as any to describe this pace, and put me in mind of the western classic Once Upon a Time in the West, in as much as I was more aware I'd seen a great deal of nothing only after the film had ended.

ACTING: 2/2
Michael Fassbender (who at present does seem to be in everything, right?) once again proves his acting credentials are well deserved. His role as the ill-fated Macbeth suits his somber and weathered features, and he's never less than a charismatic screen presence- much needed when his character is the villain of the story, the audience certainly won't be rooting for him. Magnetism compensates for the support a more sympathetic character would receive... Marion Cotillard is also on fine thespian form as Macbeth's wife, an opportunist manipulator who, much too late, realises she has created a monster. David Thewlis (fresh from an equally small but pivotal role in Legend) and Paddy Considine (one of Britain's unsung acting heavyweights) give excellent support as the doomed King and Macbeth's closest friend respectively. Only Sean Harris, here playing Macduff, a character who's destiny is fatefully entwined with Macbeth's own, hits what feels like a 'wrong note'- but I can only fault this subjectively; personally I found Harris' Macduff (a character who should have the audience's full support come the violent climax) strangely removed and hard to like. Still, Harris plays the part convincingly.
Like I said before, to their credit all the cast play their parts straight- camp posturing and stage theatricality are left by the wayside, lending the film an oddly engaging surrealism.

AESTHETIC: 2/2
I can't stress this enough; Macbeth is a stunningly beautiful film. You only have to watch the trailer, or view some of the stills, to get a sense of what to expect. Every single frame is lighted and arranged on the screen like a work of gallery art. It's in this respect, more than any other, that Macbeth is worthy of your consideration. Not since Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula has a film ever been so lovingly and artistically staged. Scotland has never on screen been so rugged, inhospitable or as elegant (and as Game of Thrones did for Ireland, I expect Macbeth will do for the Isle of Skye). The soundtrack is also pitch-perfect; a pulsating and foreboding thrumming which compliments the sparse and imposing visuals.
There's an argument to be made here that it's the films awe-inspiring visual vitality that makes what is otherwise a familiar tale, in a world already chock-full of remakes and reboots, worth another screen interpretation. Because, without this very striking identity, the tale of Macbeth is essentially the same as it always has been... Perhaps more present day reboots could learn a lesson from this?
While it could hardly be considered a miss-step, I do consider some of the aesthetic choices in the costume department quite strange, and found (not from a particularly well informed viewpoint, granted) that some of the outfits, as well as the style of the combat, were more reminiscent of Persian cultures rather than Scottish. For example, a distinct lack of shields are present on the battlefield, despite a couple of the bard's lines which refer to their presence. Still, the film is never less than striking...

INTENTION: 1/2
Why the director or cast felt we needed another Macbeth, I'm not sure. People are all too quick to bemoan a rebooting of a superhero franchise or other pop-culture icon (such as Robocop, John McClain or Indiana Jones), but are far more accepting of the dusting-off of a Shakespeare play. Does a classic heritage exclude this 'remake' from criticism, a tenancy to view culture with a more forgiving eye? After all, how many times has Macbeth been retold on the screen? 3 times? 5? Maybe 7? No, 17 so far... Food for thought?
What struck me most about watching the film, and the marketing for that matter, is just how "self-worthy" the film felt. I get a bad taste in the back of my mouth whenever I sense the well-educated and the well-paid are patting each other on the back, nodding and smiling, self-congratulatory, because every one of them is 'aware' they're involved in something 'important'; something that 'transcends the medium'. Well, to my mind, and to its own detriment, Macbeth reeks of that elitist critical thinking.

FINAL SCORE: 7/10
Epic visuals, haunting storytelling, and (as a cinema goer behind me aptly commented) "monumental" in its delivery, this is a worthy retelling of the Shakespeare play. If it does have a flaw, aside perhaps for being a tale too "hooey" for modern sensibilities, is that you can almost hear the crew practicing their acceptance speeches... But who knows, perhaps justly?

FINAL, FINAL WORD:
Macbeth's director Justin Kurzel, writer Michael Lesslie, and star Michael Fassbender are set to reunite for 2016's video-game-to-movie adaption Assassins Creed. On the face of it, the three would seem above such a low-brow project, but maybe I've got it all wrong. Having said that, Macbeth's costume isn't a thousand miles away from the look of the game, and Fassbender isn't without experience in the genre, having been in projects such as 300 and Centurion. Perhaps we're finally due a computer-game tie-in worthy of some attention? We'll wait and see...

LEGEND; Carlisle's Final Word

"We're talking about being gangsters, that's what we are!"

Ronald Kray 

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, from Tarantino's new Alice in Wonderland... Or not.

SYNOPSIS:
As most people should probably realise, Legend is the cinematic retelling of celebrity-gangster siblings Reggie and Ronni Kray. Penned and directed by Brian Helgeland, screenwriter of the fantastic LA Confidential and Man On Fire, Legend opens on Reggie's first encounter with Francis, the naive narrator of the story, and it is through her perspective that we see both her troubled relationship with the Kray brothers, as well as the hedonistic and violent pinnacle of their criminal empire before it's subsequent (and inevitable) collapse.

SCRIPT: 1/2
The first half of the film, lambasted by some critics as over glamorous, is intentionally rose-tinted because it's a story seen through the eyes of one who is head-over-heels in love with one of the central antagonists- here Frances is never intended to be anything other than an unreliable narrator. It's only when married that Frances, now jaded and growing rapidly more reliant on drugs, is in the full realisation that her "darling Reggie" has no intention of ever going 'straight'. It is in this second half of the story that this image of the 'lovable cockney rouge' begins to crumble. Tellingly, the colours are never so bright, the smiles never so sincere, and Reggie turns from antagonist to protagonist, and both brothers begin to sow the seeds of their own downfall...
The experience feels almost like watching two films; the transition is in no way gradual, it's actually quite jarring, but this suddenness makes the device all the more powerful. But, in spite of this novel approach, Legend is, in all truth, a simple nuts-and-bolts gangster film- only notable for the (supposedly) real-life subject matter (more on this later) and a towering duel performance from Tom Hardy.

PACE: 2/2
Despite the fairly standard gangster film arc of criminal-on-the-rise to criminal-on-the-fall, Legend moves at an expertly timed pace; characters are allowed to develop, the film favors tension over explicit violence (for the most part), and at just over 2 hours no moment ever feels too rushed or too stretched. The mid-way change in tone also works to wrong-foot viewers, meaning (whatever your thoughts are on other matters) you can never accuse the film of being dull.

 ACTING: 2/2
This is truly where the film comes into it's own. Emily Browning (of Sucker Punch and Sleeping Beauty infamy) manages a London accent that's never less than 100% convincing (an achievement in itself, but coming from a native Australian when even most British actors can't manage it, all the more impressive), and her classic/soulful beauty is very well suited to the period setting of the film. But not only does Browning look and sound the part, her narration successfully grounds and frames the context of the film (only occasionally does it feel intrusive, but that's hardly the fault of the actress). The ever-dependable Christopher Eccleston and David Thewlis make the most of smaller roles but are never less than engaging, as you'd expect from such talent, while Paul Bettany is also very good but wasted as a rival gangster, his screen time accumulating to approximately seventy seconds... Although (perhaps wrongly?) I sense Bettany's part may have once been a larger role now trimmed during the editing...
So that leaves us with what can only be described as the linchpin of Legend's success, Tom Hardy. I'm not sure I have anything to add to what's already been said about Hardy's roles, but I'll give lip service where it's due: Yes, he's brilliant, and very fast you'll forget you're watching the same man in both roles- such is the level of both his personal magnetism, intimidating bulk, and the CGI trickery. As Reggie, Hardy is, to begin with, all twinkle-eyed charm and devil-may-care swagger, but slowly we begin to see the sad truth that, despite his seeming reluctance to be a gangster, Reggie is secretly very much a danger through-and-through. Hardy's Ronnie is, at times, dangerously close to parody, but an alarming knee-jerk suddenness to violent outbursts, as well as a very unnerving stare, ensure the character will forever be compared favorably to Martin Scorsese's back catalog of psychopaths, and yet somehow Hardy manages to weave a sense of tragedy into this character; like an abused dog gone feral, you can pity the beast but that never makes it any less frighting.
Oddly enough, it is Reggie who gets the film's most comical lines, of which there are a great many. You may not realise this going in to the film, but it's probably funnier in it's first half than most comedies. Hardy utilises his wit and playful delivery to great effect, and as such the audience will find themselves reluctantly warming to the Kray brothers, being seduced into their world, and ultimately duped by the persona of 'lovable cockney rouges' in much the same way as the film's narrator.


 AESTHETIC: 2/2
The film's sense of time and place is very astute, largely down to a canny use of fashion and songs, including such genre-defining hits as I'm Into Something Good, Chapel of Love, Somethin' Stupid, and The Look of Love. The street sets, as well as the street decoration and CGI alterations of existing locals, is also very convincing while never being too over-stated or detracting. While I rarely comment on soundtracks, it's worth pointing out that singer/songwriter Duffy is well applied throughout the original score, just as she was hired for the similarly 60's-set The Boat That Rocked. Duffy has a voice that suits the period perfectly.

 INTENTION: 1/2
It's hard to guess exactly what  Brian Helgeland was hoping to achieve when he first put pen to paper; it's unlikely that he would have known then that his project would live or die by it's central performance. As a biopic, more than a few people have argued that Legend is selective with it's truths, as most biopics are in the attempt of making a story work on film: in reality (according to those who knew them best, lovers and enforcers alike), there was little between Reggi and Ronnie's temperament. In some claims, a jealous Ronnie has even been accredited with Frances' death, and it's widely accepted that the attempted assassination on Leslie Payne was agreed on jointly by both brothers, not simply the unhinged reaction of a distrustful Reggie... As a gangster film, Legend makes little attempt to break new ground, so if you're familiar with the genre (even if you're unfamiliar to the Krays) you'll be able to see the general trajectory of the film with ease. More than liberal traces of Scarface, Good-fellas and The Godfather are inherent in Legend's makeup- not simply because the story of the Krays demands it, but partly out of what feels like a lack of inventiveness.

FINAL SCORE: 8/10
Taken purely as a biopic Legend is, at best, shallow, and at worst in danger of poor taste. Taken simply as a gangster-flick, Legend is both conventional and uninspiring... However, Legend makes no claim to be either, and so taken as a slice of pure entertainment, a showcase for a bravura and avant-garde performance by Hardy, and an undeniably brazen calling card for everyone else involved (from the supporting cast, the filming crew and the art department) Legend is a roaring, swaggering and surprisingly nuanced success. Brian Helgeland, like the duel antagonists and protagonists of his film, may not have reached true greatness, but he has at least jumped two-footed into the arena and made his presence very known. Love it, hate it, but you can't ignore it.

ANT-MAN; Carlisle's Final Word

"My days of breaking into places and stealing shit are over! What do you need me to do?" Scott Lang

 "...I want you to break into a place and steal some shit." Hank Pym

I imagine when Paul Rudd was offered a lead role as a superhero, Ant-Man wasn't what he had in mind...

SYNOPSIS:

Down on his luck cat burglar Scott Lang is fresh out of jail, broke, and unable to see his little girl unless he can find a way to settle his outstanding alimony. However, little does he relaise he's an aging scientist's last hope of preventing high-tech weaponry from falling into the wrong hands. Under the tutelage of this scientist, as well as the older man's estranged daughter, Lang must don an experimental costume and become the Ant-Man.



SCRIPT 1/2

The script is an interesting thing, and it's as much a success as it is a failure. It manages to be witty, smart and self assured, always ready to poke fun at it's own (frankly) ludicrous premise, and revels in its own small-scale- as apparent in the marketing. Bravely it steers away from the typical Marvel climax of 'giant-things-falling-out-of-the-sky-and-endangering-the-world-or-city' in favour of a brawl through a little girl's bedroom- which manages to be dramatic and humorous all at once (Thomas the Tank Engine has never been so terrifying). See, for me, the success of the story was in it's intimate scale; sure, the world was technically in danger, but the drama which played out for the characters was personal; it was about families, children, broken relationships, and the heartbreak of parenthood. In a way that would seem oddly fitting, the larger-scale world-effecting issues feel less significant (or smaller), and the small-scale personal drama is played-up (made larger). I would suspect these elements were very much present in the Edgar Wright script- but more on that later.

So considering that, it would seem an odd thing it made such a ham-fisted attempt in other areas. Aside from the ever present nag that the very idea of Ant-Man is completely bonkers, the story itself was awfully contrived. The Marvel formula of advanced technology falling into the wrong hands has been so over-used now, and it's tiring having so many Marvel Cinematic World references and set-ups shoe-horned into what should be a stand-alone story. But most daunting here are the giant lapses in logic. Marvel films may be fantasy but they make sense in their own internal worlds. Unfortunately some of the plot-holes in Ant-Man are so glaring they prevented me from enjoying the many quirky pleasures of the film.

If the military could enlarge and control thousands of ants, would they really bother with a suit? 

The antagonist of the films is said to have had his mind warped by imperfect shrinking technology, yet we know as an audience that this can't be true because until half way through the film he hasn't perfected shrinking beyond accidentally turning things into jelly...

 And those explosives planted in the building during the climax? They were put in place knowing full well all the characters would still be inside the offices, and if not them, God knows how many innocent security guards and employees (after all, the main characters were hardly likely to warn everyone inside or alert the villain to their plans)...

PACE: 2/2

Like all the Marvel Studio films, this moves along at a fairly snappy pace, but unlike the majority of these other films, bloated behemoths over the 3 hour mark, Ant-Man is also a much shorter film, and this lends proceedings a sense of urgency missing from most blockbusters. This fast pace also deprives the audience time to consider the absolute ridiculousness of the plot, or the many plot holes that will begin to dog them as they leave their seats.



ACTING: 1/2

As with other recent Marvel efforts, most of the casting is top-notch. Note I use the word casting, rather than acting; it feels as though everybody plays a part rather than a character. I guess that's the distinction here, it's not about acting or about being believable, it's about entertainment. Everyone seems to be having a blast making the film, especially Michael Douglass, who steals all of his scenes as the curmudgeonly scientist (and inventor of the Ant-Man suit) Dr. Pym. Paul Rudd gives a good turn as the snarky cat-burglar with a heart forced to become the Ant-Man (although some of his dialogue feels a little forced), while Evangeline Lilly, playing Hope, Pym's estranged daughter, brings a certain spark and wit to an otherwise bland troupe. But like Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America, Iron-Man 1 and 2 (to mention but a few), the film's central villain is pretty weak. Corey Stoll, here playing the morally bankrupt Darren Cross, the ruthless protege of Dr. Pym, just comes across as made-for-TV-bland. He's bald, he's unhinged, he's rich, he wears a suit- he's pretty much a diet Lex Luther.


AESTHETIC: 1/2

Considering the budget Marvel Studios has at it's disposal, a lot of the film looked quite cheap, most notably the poor CGI used for the ants; they looked like something you'd see on a straight-to-DVD film, alongside titles "Sharknadeo" and "We are Omega". That's unforgivable considering the money involved, or how important the ants are to the story of Ant-Man! Having said that, the sound design, optics and focus-pulling used when the characters shrink is very, very effective. Familiar surroundings feel gargantuan- it genuinely feels like a tiny camera is being used to film a miniature little man, as opposed to someone just scaled down with computer effects.


INTENTION: 1/2

Well, you can't criticize it's noble intentions; Ant-Man strives to be an entertaining antidote to the usual high-steaks and large-scale-damage of other Marvel films, and for the most part it succeeds. It's rare to see a film with such a budget take genuine risks, or by straddling so many different genres all at once, but Ant-Man manages to be an endearing, if flawed, mash-up of superhero blockbuster, comedy and heist movie. It may not manage to fully pull-off it's intention, but it's a brave effort.
Having said that, in a lot of respects this is pretty much more of the same from Marvel Studios, and it suffers from the constraints of association with that cinematic background, while the almost patented witty-banter-with-big-explosins Marvel blue print is also showing signs of age.



FINAL SCORE: 6/10

Much was made of how Peyton Reed stepped up to direct this after Edgar Wright (he of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame, as well as Scott Pilgrim infamy) left the project after continual disagreements with Marvel Studios- despite the public support of Joss Whedon, the man responsible for shaping the quote/unquote Marvel Cinematic Universe... But, unlike most people imagined, Reed can hardly be said to have dropped the ball. Sure, it's not a perfect movie, but at this point it would be unfair to blame Reed for this, seeing how the real power behind the camera are Marvel Studios.
Ant-Man remains a lovable and gimmicky bag of tricks, but far from a satisfying whole, and while Wright's writing certainly still remains in the spine of the film, it's intriguing to contemplate how different his version might have been...

MAD MAX, FURY ROAD; Carlisle's Final Word

"You know, hope is a mistake. If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane."
Max Rockatansky

Wait, where's Max? Isn't he supposed to be in this film?

SYNOPSIS:
30 years since completing his troubled third installment of the Mad Max series, writer/director George Miller returns to his roots with this, Fury Road, part sequel and part reboot of the classic science-fiction franchise.
After escaping from the clutches of a mutated tribe of marauders led by the fearsome Immortan Joe, Max is forced into a fragile alliance with Furiosa, a warrior woman who has just liberated Joe's prized sex-slaves and is now in search of the fabled 'green place' she once called home. Can Max and Furiosa survive not only each other, the seemingly endless challenges of the vast desert wastes, but also elude Immortan Joe's war-party, hot on their heels and thirsty for blood.

SCRIPT: 1/2
The emphasis of the first couple of Mad Max films was the acquisition of fuel, and by any means (still not entirely sure what the hell was going on in Thunder Dome). This time around however the focus is on life; water, vegetation and birth giving- the hope of a better future ("who killed the world?" is tellingly graffitied into the background of one dramatic shot). Life and hope become the subtext, but don't expect that to slow the pace or curb the insanity none- because while these themes remain prevalent throughout, the film is essentially a 90 minute chase from start to finish- a delirious homage to the western Stagecoach, or if you prefer, Mad Max 2's own brutal finale 'tanker chase'. It's very simplicity is the key to it's strength.
That said, the script isn't quite issue-free. The most notable 'issue' with the script, put simply, is this is NOT a Mad Max film. Firstly, While Max may well be an important character, he is, essentially, the sidekick. He's Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker: this is not his tale to tell. The character who drives this story forward, whose arc is changed by these events, who develops and becomes a stronger character throughout (although admittedly she's pretty bad-ass to start with), is Furiosa. And while I'm cool with that notion (Hell, it's quite daring to have your titular character drifting into someone other's story), I felt cheated by it's presentation. It's Max that opens the film and narrates the introduction, so it follows that, even if Max is not the most important character in this story, it should at least unfold from his perspective. But it doesn't...

Picture the scene: It's dark. The truck used by the main characters has broken down, and the marauders are closing in. Max, grim-faced and determined, volunteers to meet the threat head-on while Furiosa and her allies try and repair the vehicle. Now, if this were Max's story, as the film's title might suggest, we'd have followed him into battle. Yet, it is with Furiosa with whom we linger, and what could have easily been another action set piece is stripped back to distant gun fire in the night.

During the films final action-scene, it is Furiosa who comes face-to-deformed-face with Immortan Joe, while elsewhere Max grapples Joe's muscle-bound henchman. Even the denouement (abrupt and white-washed in my own view, but I appreciate at this point you need to wrap things up) closes alone on Furiosa. No further voice-over from Max to talk us out of the film as he did into it. That's because it isn't Max's story, and more importantly, it's not even Max's film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, the film would be no less successful had he not been in it, or his character's name changed to something else.
And a final, if very minor, gripe- the end of act two is a little late to be introducing a collection of new characters who, essentially, are there to make up the numbers, their only purpose to be killed of in a number of ways while the important characters survive...

PACE: 2/2
This has to be said for the film, it really doesn't slow down, except for a brief moment before the start of the third act, where aforementioned character-fodder are introduced before the climax.
If anything it rushes into the crux of the story a little too soon, and as a result we have little time to learn anything much about our main cast, beyond their broad stereotypes. But, that said, this was never going to be a film about subtleties- we get the bare bones of what we need to know, the rest is left blank. No concessions here to back-story of fleshing out the characters. If it's of no consequence, it's been trimmed. Consider the film like one of its many vehicles; the seats and dashboard have been hacked out, it's been welded with spikes, jump started, turbo injected and driven at 90 mph into the eye of a storm.

ACTING: 1/2
A tricky thing to address. Where do we draw the line between 'brilliance' and 'as much as the film calls for'? Well, for the most part, everybody embraced the absurdity of both the script and the setting and made their characters, if not exactly textured, at least memorable.
The very beautiful Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton have the unenviable task of playing the scantly-clad sex slaves of Immortan Joe, but they also bring a refreshingly barbed aspect to the typical 'damsel in distress' situation, while still fulfilling their quota of screaming and falling into danger. Hugh Keays-Byrne (who also played the lead villain in the first Mad Max film) Literally chews through his scenes with a gusto usually only associated with pantomimes or aboard pirate ships, and is one genuinely creepy head-fuck of a creation- a blistered, bloated and grotesque combination of Road Warrior's Humongous and Tom Hardey's Bane.
Charlize Theorn, herself a respected thesp, is far and away the best thing in Fury Road, and brings some real pathos to her role. In fact, addressing her performance alone is probably worthy of another post. While most action films seem content to simply cast a sexy girl in a traditional male story, Fury Road takes a surprisingly enlightened approach by embracing the work of Maureen Murdock, who built upon Joseph Campell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' in such a way as to address the different desires and obstacles on a woman's heroic journey.
So we come to Max, the titular character, as played by the ruggedly chiseled Tom Hardy. Now, it gives me no satisfaction to say this, because I actually like Tom Hardy, but his portrayal of Max is possibly one of the film's biggest short comings. He's a charmless, twitchy, charisma-vacuum of a character. He's out-shone in literally every one of his scenes and constantly fades into the background, even in the few scenes that focus on him. And when he talks (which he does rarely), he's affecting a voice so deep it borders on parody- like the Dark Knight with a throat infection.

AESTHETIC: 2/2
This is where the film comes into it's own and is truly something to behold. Sure, it's grotesque, surreal, disturbing and grimy, but it's really quite like nothing I've seen before. Writer / director Miller has taken the best aspects of Road Warrior and Thunderdome, given them a dust-off and crammed it full of so much rust, sand and bile as to push beyond the boundaries of science fiction and well into fantasy.
The film is certainly inventive in it's insanity; I mean, come on, while many armies have waltzed into battle behind a drummer, Immortan Joe drives to war with an orchestra and an electric guitarist! Other nice touches include; smiley faces drawn on tumors, donor details tattooed onto hostages, the Dali-esque stilts of the swamp dwellers, the list is endless. The world building detail is so rife you're sure to see more on repeat viewings. Even the War Boys, who could have easily existed as wreckage-fodder, are dealt with in like fashion. The enthusiasm for which they go into battle, with little to no self regard, is almost comical- it's like someone took Gru's Minions and brainwashed them with Prodogy albums.
Much has been made of the films reliance on actual vehicular carnage, but despite this it still leans too heavily on the crutch of CGI, and unfortunately it just isn't up to scratch. In fact, in some points it looks terribly cheap (even the rather impressive looking sand storm looked pretty shoddy inside). The film would have been stronger for keeping moments like this to a minimum, but they pop up with alarming regularity and they compare badly to the physicality of the real-life stunt work. The moments of slow-motion also work to the films disadvantage.
And is it me, or did a lot of the scenes in the first half of the film feel like they'd been cranked-up? Not just the car chases. On a few occasions I swear Tom Hardy's movements had been sped up as well, making him look even more twitchy than usual (especially apparent in the scene where he begins filing his muzzle- keep your eyes open for this and tell me what you think).

INTENTION: 1/2
If the film is to be taken on it's own merits alone, it's a pretty solid effort and will easily entertain action and science fiction junkies, and it will no doubt spawn a successful new franchise. But a Mad Max film it is not. And I don't mean simply that Max wasn't prevalent enough in the story...
I have  a better memory of the first two Mad Max films than I do of Thunder Dome, but as I wrote in my lead up to Fury Road's release date, these were unrelentingly grim, unglamorous and brutal. They were rough-edged and uncomfortable to watch. Simply put, Fury Road is too sanitised. In Fury Road, characters are allowed meaningful last glances and heroism is usually rewarded. Despite all the carnage you 'think' you've witnessed, you never once see people crushed beneath the wheels, smashed through windshields, impaled on spikes and barbed wire, or trapped in blazing wreckage. What little violence is on show throughout Fury Road would almost be permissible at a 12 certificate (I think the scantly clad women and one uncomfortable scene involving a stillborn delivery are what tipped the film into 15). Sure, people are hurled through the sky, and vehicles blow up, but that's mostly what you get- it's a very bloodless affair. Even the death scene of Immortan Joe, who so richly deserved a nasty finish, is cut so fast that I couldn't tell how he actually died.
And I make this criticism not as a gore-hound but as a critic. I'm absolutely fine without blood and guts; a great many of my favorite films haven't needed excess violence to work- but the Mad Max films ARE violent, it's integral to how that universe functions, therefore the removal of such things leaves this an oddly sanitised experience.

FINAL SCORE: 7/10
At it's best, it's a slick, fast-paced and deliriously inventive chase through a nightmarish wasteland, and at it's worst it feels like only half a story. But kudos where it's due, a shout out has to be made to the studio for helming such a staggeringly strange project- it feels like a straight-to-VHS classic from the 80's. Keep an open mind and think of Fury Road as a homage to Mad Max rather than an actual reinvention and you'll probably enjoy the film a whole lot more. He may be 70 now, but George Miller proves he still has a trick or two up his sleeve, and can still make a better action film than most of today's generation of copy-paste directors.



FINAL, FINAL WORD:
I'm not a fan of the 'haunting' scenes in Fury Road, where Max is tortured by unforgiving visions of his murdered son. I mean, I get that Mad Max isn't a subtle picture, but Christ. If you do have to go down this road, you don't need all the jump-editing and dodgy skeleton flashes, they really steal away any sense of loss or grief. All this CGI trickery, and yet not one single moment as haunting or effecting as the one lingering shot in Mad Max of a lone shoe on the highway... Sometimes less is more, even in a film like this.

Just as a point of interest, I watched the film with two very close friends, one of whom described Fury Road as "30 Days of Night meets Benidorm". I'm not quite sure in which context she intended the statement, but it's a sentence that deserves repeating. How can I compete with a review like that?

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES; Carlisle's Final Word

"War has... already begun. Ape started war. And human... Human will not forgive." 

Caeser

What did I learn watching this film? Never piss off an ape.

Synopsis:

In the years following their escape across the San Francisco bridge, Cesare and his intelligence-enhanced tribe are living peacefully in the forests, almost oblivious to the complete collapse of mankind by a deadly virus. That is, till a small group of human survivors accidentally wander into their territory. What follows from this tense encounter is an unlikely yet shaky alliance, as both sides strive to better their lives, but old hatreds die-hard and tragedy looms on the horizon, threatening to lead both man and ape into a bloody conflict...




Script: 1/2

The script is solid by any standards, with a small-scale focus and intimate drama rarely seen in Blockbuster fodder. Cesare’s character arc is the most effecting (he is, after all, the lead), and it's the primates who are given the most to do on screen. Despite the fact the titular primates do more than carry the film, more effort could have been put into fleshing-out some of the human characters. During the more human-centered elements the film is at its weakest; story arcs and character motivations aren’t so well defined, meaning that the film's nail-biting climax, while very dramatic from the point of view of the apes, lacks punch while resolving the human character's journeys.


Pace: 1/2

Never a dull moment. The story appears to take it’s time and build suspense while simultaneously rushing at break-neck speeds to its inevitable and tragic conclusion. And even though it’s clear from the outset that man and ape will know no peace, audiences will still find themselves engrossed to uncover the reasons for this bloodshed, and captivated by the heroism and betrayal on both sides of the species divide. However, that same script flaw also costs the film a further mark here- while the pace may work in favor of the apes, it still leaves the humans with little time to become fully rounded characters...


Acting: 2/2

No weak links here, believe me. I mean, has motion capture ever been so captivating? Never. But leaving aside the incredible facial performances of the apes (as played by the always incredible Andy Serkis and co), even the less developed humans, as played by veteran Gary Oldman, and the lesser-known but equably reliable Jason Clarke and Keri Russel, convey a desperate and anguished realism: they all have the look of people who have seen terrible things, and lost something inside during the process of survival.


Aesthetic: 2/2

One of the film's many triumphs (and possibly its biggest talking point) is the superb special effects. While they don’t quite manage to cross the 'uncanny valley', like many knee-jerk critics claim, they do represent a big step in the right direction, and this is a far more significant breakthrough than claimed by the overhyped Avatar. While most of the CGI seen in films is distracting at best, on this occasion you'll soon forget that what you're watching are a bunch of CGI primates; instead, you’ll find yourself completely captivated by the realism and subtleties of their performances and character arcs.

One very minor gripe, I personally found the score distracting (all percussion drums and awkward pauses before the beats). While I do understand this is a conscious call-back to the original Planet of the Apes films, I did found myself being “taken out” of the action. But like I said, it’s very a minor gripe.


Intention: 2/2

The first Planet of the Apes reboot / prequel was a pleasant surprise- a blockbuster with both invention and heart, but this, the second in the new run, is a superior film in all respects, and technically and dramatically better than most summer fodder.




Final Score: 8/10

Serious-minded, affecting, heartrending and exhilarating- a film that actually does more than live up to the hype; I hope the series continues in the same vein, although this has certainly set the bench mark staggeringly high.

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN; Carlisle's Final Word

"There's something else about bears not many people know. If a bear gets hooked on the taste of human blood, it becomes a man-killer. He'll go on a rampage and has to be destroyed. And that's why you should never hug a bear. " 

Hobo

Rutger Hauer, you deserve so much better than this...

Synopsis:

A nameless drifter wonders into the city, hoping for a fresh start, only to realise he’s literally entered the most corrupt, sinister and lawless inner-city war-zone this side of Bosnia. As he witnesses with growing despair the violence all around him, he finds himself compelled to act for the greater good of the city’s many victims, arming himself with a double barreled shotgun, and dispensing some bloody civic-minded justice. Along the way he finds time to bond with beautiful-hooker-with-a-heart Abby, before finally squaring-off against the city’s all-powerful, untouchable criminal overlord "The Drake".


Script: 0/2

Not that the script was ever intended to be more than an excuse for  stringing together as much gratuitous gore and shocking violence as possible, even by the most forgiving standards, the script is terrible. Worse than terrible. Fucking useless. Plot holes (even if you’re trying your hardest to overlook them) litter the run-time, patchy ideas are never fully developed, awful (heinous, actually) dialogue undermines the story at every turn, and there is sweet F.A in terms of character development- outside of what ‘old pro’ Rutger Hauer manages to bring to his titular role.


Pace: 0/2

Despite its many faults, at least it rattles along at a fast pace. However, at a relatively brisk 90 minutes the film still feels stretched and, unforgivably, dull. As a 3 minute joke-trailer, the idea had probably run its course, so you can see there could be some issue with the remaining 87 minutes… It put me in mind of all the ‘dead baby’ jokes I heard as a young teenager- because, I’ll freely admit, sometimes shocking people is quite satisfying (although it’s much funnier if you can also make them think, too!), but those old jokes only worked (if they ever worked at all, which is debatable) because they were short and sharp.


Acting: 0/2

The acting (if you can call it that) should be scored in the negatives, but genre veteran Rutger Hauer somehow transcends the material, rising above the limp scenarios and risible lines of the script to deliver a gravitas and pathos that almost (almost!) makes the film worth catching. He offers something raw and real amongst all the surreal chaos and you’re left wishing bitterly that the film had tackled its subject in a way that showcased his talents in a better light- because, believe it or not, there is a germ of a good idea buried in this rancid shit-stain of a film.
So, does Rutger’s performance somehow counterbalance the shockingly amateur acting offered up by the rest of the cast? Sadly no, not by a long way...


Aesthetic: 1/2

Rating the film in terms of an aesthetic is a tad difficult in this respect. It’s garish and rough-edged, but intentionally so- and if anything it actually looks cheaper than its meager budget. But, having said that, the gore is elaborately handled, and the film does more to recreate its sensibility to time-and-place than simply adding grain and poor focus to some of the shots- even the framing and colour pallet echo the ‘grindhouse’ style, and perhaps in this respect alone, Hobo’s creators deserve some praise, and this mess of a film comes closest to any high-minded pretensions.


Intention: 0/2

Half way through the film, I was struck with a single thought, and once it hit me I was unable to shake it from my mind: “why am I still watching this?” I mean, what is the point of this film, why does it even exist? Is it funny? No. Is it poignant? No. Does it have something to say? No. Beyond offering up shocks, is it of any other value? No. When the controversy dies down (particularly in regard to its censor-bating "school bus flamethrower" scene), will anybody remember it? I doubt it. So, in answer to my own question, I think I only finished watching this film for Rutger Hauer...

It’s not enough to simply ‘be grindhouse', you need to subvert it, or bring something different to the table. 1000’s of films like this have faded into obscurity because (crucially) they were crap. The films that people recall affectionately from this period of cinema history did something more than simply delivering the expected excess and shocks of the genre.


Final Score: 1/10

Kudos where kudos is due; as a 3 minute trailer on the Grindhouse film, Hobo With a Shotgun was pretty funny, in a base sort of way, but at feature-length the joke is pretty thinly spread. At best, Hobo with a Shotgun can be considered a 90 minute ‘dead baby’ joke, and at worst it’s a disturbing harbinger of cinemageddon and a worrying indictment of humanity.


Final Word:

I’ve made a small exception to my usual scoring rules; if you neither care or know who Rutger Hauer is, consider this a neon-flashing 1/10 rating, but if, like me, you respect Rutger Hauer and enjoy his work enough you would consider watching anything, no matter how cheap or awful it is, simply because he’s in it, consider this film a 2/10… The man deserves so much better than this.

"A long time ago I was one of you. You're all brand new and perfect. No mistakes, no regrets. People look at you and think of how wonderful your future will be. They want you to be something special... like a... a doctor or a lawyer. I hate to tell you this, but if you grow up here, you're more likely to wind up selling your bodies on the streets, or shooting dope from dirty needles in a bus stop. And if you're successful, you'll make money selling junk to crackheads. And you won't think twice about killing someone's wife, because you won't even know what was wrong in the first place. Or, maybe... you'll end up like me - a hobo with a shotgun! I hope you can do better. You are the future." 

Hobo.

THE SALUTE OF THE JUGGER; Carlisle’s Final Word

"Someone from The League kicked me. The man from the City. The good one... 
I could be good like that. I'm going away, mama."

Kidda.

Jugger's alternative title is 'The Blood of Heroes'. It's easy to see why...

Synopsis;

In the wastelands of the new world, none are more venerated or adored than the Juggers; gladiator-like competitors of a brutal sport, played for wealth and renown.

Kidda is a young peasant girl who plays this dangerous sport to the disapproval of her family, with ambitions to compete professionally in the ‘Nine Cities’. With the arrival of Sallow, a veteran of the City leagues before his banishment, Kidda may finally have a chance to fulfill her dreams of leaving the desert wastes behind her for a better life among the ruling classes…

Script Logic; 1 / 2

The film, written and directed by genre veteran David Webb Peoples (the writer of some pretty big-hit films, including Blade Runner, Unforgiven and 12 Monkeys) is strong in terms of its structural narrative, although, oddly, the dialogue occasionally falters. To be honest, sometimes it was difficult to tell if the lines were duff or simply badly delivered; some of the exchanges were affecting and powerful (Kidda has never felt the touch of silk, and later laments the rarity of skin unblemished by scars), while other lines are jarringly flat.

Pace; 1 / 2

The pace, while never boring, feels like it never quite ‘pops’- the 90 minute run time felt much longer, probably in part due to the fact that most of the film is devoid of real dialogue- most of the story is told through images alone; desolate landscapes, scowls, and the violence of the Juggers. The momentum is slower than you might expect from a film such as this, but that’s not really a criticism. Rather than being a ‘sports-movie’ in this respect, the film feels more like a journey, which is in-keeping with the journey of the characters, from the desert slums into the bowls of the City.

Aesthetic 2/2

The aesthetics of the film are probably the most notable highlight. The so-called ‘Dog towns’ are suitably sand-weathered and gritty, while the underground chambers of the City, far from the paradise Kidda had believed them to be, are a surreal network of damp corridors and long shadows. There are so many nice touches and moments of creative flair; it’s hard to choose favourites; the animal-skull trophies, stones being thrown against a gong to mark the progress of time, the backpack-wardrobe contraption, or the ‘bedding arrangements’ below ground.

Acting; 1 / 2

Even the less defined characters are surprisingly empathetic (or, in some instances, sleazily vile), and with little in the way of dialogue or screen time, this can only be testament to acting capability. However, the strongest and weakest performances by far belong to the two leads; Rutger Hauer and Joan Chen respectively. Rutger brings equal parts tragedy and valour to his ‘grizzled veteran’ role, which could easily have been a dull cliché in another actors’ hands, and while Joan may not have been quite up to the task of shouldering the bulk of the narrative, she’s still an amiable screen presence and will have viewers rooting for. It would have been nice to see some of the other characters develop further, played by capable actors such as Vincent D'Onofrio and Delroy Lindo, but this isn’t to the detriment of the film.

Intention 2 / 2

It is what it is. It means to be a brutal apocalypse-guised sports movie, and it is. The film weaves between the two genres with skilful and entertaining ease. While it delivers on the promise of the sport’s brutality, it’s never overly explicit or glamorous (and for the most part, a comradery exists between fellow Juggers that prevents the violence ever being the sole intent of the sport), so it will satisfy both action-seekers and those of a more cerebral disposition.

Final Score; 7 / 10

Without doubt, Salute of the Jugger is among the best of that era’s science-fiction blood-sport movies- of which there were many, most notably Rollerball, likewise a decent film. Mostly, this is thanks to a very strong aesthetic combined with the charisma and likability of its two central leads. Well worth a watch for both fans of the typical sporting-underdog story and those of a science-fiction disposition.