MANDY; Full-Tilt review

“They lit her on FIRE! They were weirdo, hippie-types, whole bunch of 'em. 

And then there was some muscle - it didn't make any sense. 

There were bikers, and gnarly psychos, and... crazy evil.”

Red Miller

Hard day at the office, Nic?

Synopsis:

1983, the Shadow Mountains. Free-spirited artist Mandy and her timber-working partner Red live together in a secluded cabin. The pair, both of whom have known past hardships, share an intimate and profound love. However, their idyllic life is shattered when Mandy inadvertently attracts the attentions of deranged cult-leader Julian Sands and his sinister followers. What transpires is a surreal decent into tragedy, lunacy and carnage- with chainsaws.


Script: 1/2

Mandy, as a script, is a fairly simplistic affair- a generic part-A-into-part-B revenge plot; man goes on the warpath to avenge the death of a loved one. However, director Panos Cosmatos, something of an auteur (with the equally striking Beyond The Black Rainbow also under his belt), would likely be the first to admit he's not really all that interested in the story- his passions are undoubtedly rooted in the aesthetic and mood of the film. This, and the general hallucinogenic nature of the film, make reviewing the script in isolation quite difficult. While the plot may be fairly standard, the dialogue is tight and well judged; both Mandy and Red are given ample time to develop as characters, and their relationship is portrayed with a raw vulnerability. After the portentous first half, the film takes a fast nose-dive into the more grime-house elements, and from here the dialogue becomes minimal, although offers up a few memorable lines destined for cult status.


Pace: 1/2

The film really unfolds in two sections; the first and slowest part belongs to Mandy Bloom, as played by Andrea Riseborough. It's a slow-burning scene-setter that, while it may feel meandering at the time, does pay dividends later- without this, the films emotional core, all that follows would ring far more hollow. Bloody revenge is all the more cathartic because of the tender relationship at the film's heart. After this point, with Mandy dead and Red having survived his ordeal, things move at a fair lick, with our now dead-inside hero out for blood, and it moves from one bizarre and grotesque set piece to the next.  One small nag I did have with this is concerning the structure of the film, which sees Red overcoming the biggest dangers at the start of his quest, rather than working his way through a string of progressively harder trials (which would be more traditional in a film of this nature), but it's not big deal in the scheme of things...


Acting: 2/2

Given the confines of the world Panos Cosmatos has conjured (which clearly lies somewhere between a lucid nightmare and a prog rock record sleeve), everybody acts in, if not a believable, then at least an 'emotionally honest' way. Riseborough's Mandy is transfixingly off-kilter, and given enough screen-time that she doesn't feel like a plot-point just to get Nic Cage's Red dueling with chainsaws. This brings us to cage himself. Now, he's a man who's had to endure some slack in the past; as much derided for his choice of projects as he is for his scenery-chewing portrayal of losers, loners, lunatics. It's easy to overlook the fact that, actually, Nic Cage can act. Here, he imbues Red in with a sense of taciturn pathos- you can see very clearly just how much he adores and is in awe of Mandy and her imagination. This makes what might otherwise have been a fairly exploitative death-scene into something very heart breaking. In those scenes you can literally see the light going out in Cage's eyes, enduring a loss that has all but killed him also. This isn't the goofy-meme Nic Cage we know and love, but a glimpse of something real, and a fierce reminder that the man still possesses some true talent. That said, after this, we get to see Cage do what Cage does better than anyone else, only taking time out from his mission only to forge a silver ax, snort cocaine, and sample demonically-tinged LSD. Oh, that, and to watch a TV advert for the Cheddar Goblin (must be seen to be believed). Linus Roache is on villain duty as the cult leader Julian Sands- dangerously manipulative and unhinged, driven by a ravenous and fragile ego. Like cage and Riseborough, he also brings a little something extra, making his character skin-crawlingly vile. Sands may be a caricature, but that makes him no less of a monstrosity. But, before we discuss the asthetic, I can't move on without a special mention for 80's movie veteran Bill Duke (of Predator and Commando fame- he's barely aged a day) as Red's loyal friend Caruthers. Duke, effortlessly cool here, delivers possibly some of the best lines in the film, and the delivery of his monologue is a thing of pure style- which makes me wish I'd seen him in far more films.


Aesthetic: 2/2

So, this is pretty much the raison d'être of the film; pockets of mist and shimmering lakes, the geographical splendor of a forbidding temple, neon gleams and deliberate sun-spots, a lurid spectrum of colour, garish green strobes, and the grain of dirty celluloid. And that's all without mentioning the animated sequences! Really, there's no way to describe the film's look in a way that does it justice- although anyone who's watched the trailer will have a clear understanding of what I'm referring to. While it may make the occasional nod to the likes of 80's horror cinema, including the garishness of Dario Agento, the film is really it's own thing. For me, the stand-out visual cue came with the arrival of the Black Skulls, a demon-like posse of of bikers, resembling the Cenobytes of Hellraiser by way of Easy Rider. Their motorcycles appear from out of the forest as silhouettes in blood-red smoke- and given Nic Cage's presence in the film, a sad reminder of the Ghost Rider film which could have been.


Intention: 2/2

The film is self-consciously, unapologetically, ludicrous. By turns inventive, macabre and darkly tongue-in-cheek, and never less than intriguing, Mandy is a kaleidoscopic experience of phantasmagoric imagery and dreamlike dialogue set to an ominous synth soundtrack. Best viewed as an experience rather than a narrative, it's sure to divide it's audiences. Those looking for grungy blood-letting may leave disappointed by the leisurely pace, while those of a more patient and 'arty' disposition may find it hard to difficult to stomach the decapitations, mutilations and other explosively repulsive gore scenes. But it is what it is, and I have a suspicion that nothing has been left to chance- this is exactly the film its director had intended to make- something of a rarity in this day and age.


Final Word: 8/10

Mandy is a fever-dream of a movie, with all that this entails; it's disjointed, excessive, idiotic and haunting. It's also a love-letter to 70's & 80's genre-cinema in a way that's less obvious and more deftly handled than anything pumped out by the likes of Rob Zombie or Quentin Tarantino. My advice to anyone watching it (and I do recommend watching it) would be to 'feel' your way through it rather than 'think' your way through it. To go back and ask yourself questions such as “were the bikers actually demons?” or "what's the deal with that crazy closing image?" would be to almost miss the entire point of the film- that is, if there is any point to it, outside of it's guilty surface pleasures. Sit back, drink-in the imagery, revel in the ambiguity of its mumbled dialogue, allow yourself to be carried along, and succumb to the arch-dread of the late Jóhann Jóhannsson's dazzling soundtrack.

IT, THE LOSER'S CLUB; Full-Tilt review

"Derry is not like any town I've been in before. People die or disappear, six times the national average. And that's just grown ups. Kids are worse. Way, way worse..." 

Ben Hanscom

They sat gaping in fear at the horror on the TV-  Noel's House Party.

Does this scene remind anyone else of Apocalypse Now?

Synopsis:

Based on Stephen King's novel of the same name, the story follows a small group of misfit children, self deprecatingly called 'the loser's club', who band together to seek companionship and respite from the hardships of their daily lives. But, after a spate of recent disappearances, the group must confront an age-old evil that lurks beneath their hometown- a shape-shifting entity which exploits the fears of its victims as it preys on the weak.

As I've often said, films do not exist within a vacuum....Stephen King wrote his seminal book It in 1986. He'd already had quite a prolific career, and this was to be his 22nd novel (18th under his own name). As well as the book, most people are also quite familiar with the 1990s TV series adaption, staring the wonderfully unnerving Tim Curry. While most people, including myself, have fond memories of this series, it's not aged particularly well given its low budget, a cast of hit-and-miss talent, and the stark fact that much of the novel would be unpalatable to TV audiences of its day (including sexual abuse, animal torture, underage sex and the graphic mutilation of children) And don't forget, these were long before the days where Stephen King adaptions were considered a box-office goldmine, and hardcore violence was commonplace. Much has since changed. However, despite a weak second half, most people will fondly remember the show's flashbacks featuring the children (the younger cast being arguably more believable than their adult counterparts), which provided the narrative spine of the series. So it was with a feeling of trepidation that fans of the book and TV series alike reacted to news of a film re-imagining. I, like others, felt the TV show left room for improvement and would have been quite happy to see It on the big-screen, save for the nagging fact that, after the TV show, which despite flaws has become something of a cult classic, and Curry's performance now being so firmly cemented in most people's perception of Pennywise the Dancing Clown, a film would seem destined to fail... The following review proves that concern to be misplaced.

Script and Direction: 2/2

Firstly, as already widely known by now, the film is a sassy, scary and entirely justified retelling of King's most famous novel. Yet, we should be clear that this film is not a wholly faithful adaption of said book- there are differences. For starters, the film is now being retold in the same era where the book found it's main characters as their adult selves, the mid 80's being, what was at the time, the present day. It was written chiefly for people who, like the author, had grown up through the 50's and were now reminiscing on the hardships and excitement of their own youth. So, given that, it feels perfectly natural that film makers of my generation approach the material of the film in the exact same way- this is a story about the childhood of our middle-aged generation. Along with this change of setting, the film has had to embrace certain other changes, but all of which feel entirely justified and, dare I say it, even necessary. I feel that this change in setting came from an honest place, and not simply a way to cash in on the success of the similarly 80's set Stranger Things, which was probably born of the same feeling of nostalgia. This new treatment is intriguing. Sure, it's a horror, but it works on so many other levels; it's a coming-of-age tale, a kitchen-sink drama, and, most surprisingly, hugely funny. Funnier than a straight-laced horror has any right to be, and so much so that you could almost call this a horror comedy (although the elements of comedy are played straight and dark).


Casting and Acting: 2/2

Most of the young cast get a chance to deliver a funny line or two, but most of the hilariously sweary wit goes to the character of Richi Tozier, as played by Stranger Things' own Finn Wolfhard. His frizzy hair, be-speckled and innocent face and diminutive height go a long way to helping his laugh-out-loud delivery. While Richi will prove to be an audience favorite, most of the more dramatic moments are handled by Sophia Lillis who, as the gang's only girl, Beverly Marsh, faces the most distressing moments. Testament to the youngster's talent, these scenes feel all too uncomfortable, and ground what's otherwise quite a light-heated take on child murder (if you can say such a thing). Yet, these scenes never feel entirely out of kilter with the rest of the film and are handled deftly. There were points where (because we might as well be honest at this point, we're talking about child sexual abuse) I felt “actually, these bits are probably worse than the friggin' child-eating clown”, and that these parts were in danger of undermining the chief ghoul- yet, in a stark and beautiful moment of realisiation, I understood this was actually the point, and this conceit pays dividends later on. Jaeden Lieberher plays Bill Denbrough, arguably the lead of the film, the stuttering lead of the misfits, and along with Lillis takes on the more serious aspects of the story. Bill's character is a sad case, haunted by the disappearance of his younger brother and is as yet to come to terms with the very likely fact that the boy is dead (something the audience is already aware of). His grief is what galvanizes the characters into a confrontation with the creature It. Jeremy Ray Talor, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer and Wyatt Oleff all offer fine and adoring support as the remainder of this gang of friends... Which leaves us with Bill Skarsgård, as the epinonimous It. Now, Tim Currey was always going to be a difficult act to follow, and in the age of Heath Ledger's Joker and the need for artistic integrity and originality, there seemed little breathing space for a new Pennywise the Clown. However, Skarsgård (a few little nit-picks aside) may have just found such a niche. With a voice pitched somewhere between a drooling imbecile and the horse-groan of a gravel-dry throat, his puppet-with-the-strings-cut sagging shoulders, a walk like a clockwork toy, and the highly-sprung tension of a coiled spring, his Pennywise truly is a sinister creation- director Andrés Muschiett, who cut his teeth on indie-horror Mama clearly has a penchant for juddering movements and unnaturally crooked limbs, bringing some of that ghost's near stop-motion way of movement to bear on this Pennywise. At times the ghoul threatened to teeter too readily into creepiness (Its guise of the clown was initially meant to lure children in, rather than send them running in fear for their lives), and this version also lacked Tim Curry's comically nasty quips, but all-in-all, a very original and successful take.


Pace and Focus: 1/2

While nobody among the cast ever feels like they're letting the side down, you can't help but feel that the script certainly favors some of the characters over others. Love it or hate it, this is arguably something the original TV show has over this big screen adaption- a more balanced story. Here, the characters of Stan, Ben, Mike and Eddie are mostly peripheral, there to make up the numbers, which is a shame because given the talent of the young actors you can't help but feel they've been a little wasted. And, rather oddly, while Bill is, academically speaking, the main character (it's he who leads the group and drives the story onward towards it's conclusion), I felt like this was Beverly's film; her character has the lion's share of the screen time, and the harder obstacles to overcome. While I'd have welcomed the film to allow her to take starring role, this wasn't to be the case. It's here that the film loses some of it's focus and momentum, struggling to find a line to walk between the lead as it appears on paper, and the lead which comes through strongest on screen. Another issue I had while watching the film, slight as this may be, was the lack of any real build-up. While the surreal and bizarre set-pieces are definitely creepy and jumpy, the characters are given very little introduction before 'shit gets real', and given how the film boasts a run time over 2 hours, it would seem odd that the first 90 mins of the TV series again manages this task more successfully. Perhaps this is symptomatic of a modern audience and its demand for things to get going, but personally I'd like to see a little extra character-building. Who knows, maybe I'll get my wish in the DVD release, because it did at times feel like we'd had moments trimmed out; a quiet before the storm always makes the thunder sound a little louder and the lightning seem a little brighter.


Aesthetic and Style: 2/2

The film invokes an accurate sense of time and place, and it's not for nothing that the film finds itself often compared to The Goonies (and not just in as much as a group of humorously foul mouthed kids having an adventure). For me, the film is at it's creepiest when it's dialed back slightly, I always find when CGI is obviously in use, somehow things become less tangible- CGI has no heft or presence, which is important to suspend an audience's disbelief. But, again, it's a minor grumble, seeing how CGI is the go-to of modern cinema, and I'm obviously hankering for the latex and physical effects which simply aren't in use any more. The film has done well to carve out a unique version of the Pennywise character, although it's possibly on the over-stylized side of things, again, a preference rather than a criticism... I guess my biggest gripe with the film, and I'll mention it here seeing how it doesn't really belong anywhere else, is with the opening moments of the film. We're introduced to the character of Bill first, and his ill-fated little brother Georgie. Their chemistry is believable, and while it's touching it's never saccharine-sweet. Watching this I begun to feel really uncomfortable. I was thinking “Jesus, I know what's going to happen and it's awful, this is gonna' be heart breaking”. Then little Georgie goes into the basement, and spies what he thinks are two eyes staring at him in the basement, and a genuine chill went down my spine. The lights come on, and low-and-behold, it was the reflection on two glass ornaments. Was this just the overactive imagination of childhood innocence, or, was this some evil presence, already marking its next prey? The screen lingers here in the basement for an ominous moment before cutting away. It was in this moment that the film was, for me, at it's absolute apex of horror. All at once it was a lament of childhood fears I'd long ago abandoned, and what was probably the most inexplicably creeped-out I'd been in over 20 years of watching horror films. But the film was soon to lose that edge of intensity. Georgie goes out into the rain, encounters It, and is inevitably slaughtered. This is the films weakest moment, served up only moments after it's strongest genuine scare. And why? Because the film, at pains to prove that it's got the courage to 'go there' and eviscerate a child on-screen, over plays it's hand. Not only is there some obvious CGI (a personal bugbear), but also because, if you lob the arm off of a person, said person is going to be crying out in the most extreme pain imaginable while the wound explodes in a fountain of gore: this did not happen in the film. By simple fact that a child this age cannot act in this amount of pain convincingly, or that there was nowhere near enough blood, or that the then injured child attempts to crawl away from his attacker when, in truth, he should be screaming out till his vocal chords break, this destroyed the magic and subtlety of the previous scene. The moment would have been all the more terrifying to simply cut away at the penultimate moment (perhaps just to see the wellie boots disappearing into the storm drain?), but instead the film plays it's hand and you realise it's a bluff. However, the film then turns on a pin, and instead of subtleties and spine tingling horror, what you get instead is 2 hours of jump-scares, grotesque set-pieces and playful banter.


Intention and Originality: 1/2

The interplay between identity and belief that was present throughout the book is more visible in this big screen adaption than the TV series; Bill becomes leader of the group because of the belief his friends install in him, while Beverley assuming the identity of 'womanhood' creates it's own issues. Likewise, It feeds on fear, and it's possible the creature only feeds on children as a way of promoting this fear- it's easier to scare children with night-terrors than it is to scare adults, and similarly It finds itself powerless if you don't believe It can harm you, or moreover, you believe you can harm It.

Despite early concerns and minor misgivings, It is an amazing film. The problem facing the sequel, which will probably focus on the adult versions of these characters in the 'present day', will be the same which plagued the second part of the TV series; the most enjoyable parts of the book, indeed, the book's unique selling point if you can call it that, is the fact that the story concerns children. When it's children up against It, they're all the braver for their vulnerability, and far more interesting than a bunch of middle aged people. A follow-up, focusing on adults in a different era, will by definition feel like a different film entirely. And to be frank, it's the children that make this movie. Without the Goonies-like friendships, or that Stand By Me coming-of-age aspect, the film is a fairly generic horror re-make that plays to well used troupes; Evil-Dead without the brutality, or Ring with red balloons. Perhaps the film would have been wiser to drop any notion of telling a later story about adults, and instead invest it's time in a story where the children actually manage to vanquish the monster at the end of the film? Instead, and possibly to bend cap-in-hand at the alter of money-money-money, this is clearly setting up a future installment, and following that maybe even a franchise? Integrity will always take a back seat to success because, movie making like any other business, is still just a business.


Final Word: 8/10

The success a of horror depends more on our own individual tolerance than it does on movie-making technique. As this story is at pains to explain, we each fear something different. It's opening scare may be something everybody felt, but likewise might only be speaking to me and my experiences personally rather than on any tangible communal fear. For me, It isn't so much scary as it is a grotesque carnival of attractions. However, given the nature of the story, as well as the sense of mischief and fun present throughout the film, that seems quite a fitting detail. In closing, It earns it's stripes and ranks among the better Stephen King adaptions. It may only get 8/10, but it's a very high eight, and if genre pictures are more your thing (as they are mine), you can't really ask for too much more than this. That said, you may well find yourself leaving the cinema still humming the carousel-like theme tune from the 90's TV show; a sign that, while this may stand on it's own achievements, this It never quite manages to distance itself from the shadow of that same-titled cult. Still, it marks director Andrés Muschiett as one to watch out for, and all the more impressive when you consider It is only his second feature film.

SPIDERMAN HOMECOMING; Full-Tilt Review

“Can't you just be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man?”

Tony Stark

"With great power..."

Synopsis:

Following on from the events of Civil War, well-meaning high school student Peter Parker excitedly awaits his next mission with the Avengers, unaware that he has been essentially 'shelved' from the most dangerous assignments because Tony Stark isn't confident he's ready for the big-leagues. Elsewhere, salvage specialist Adrian Toomes is all but put out of business by Stark Industries, and so turns to selling illegal weapons created from alien technology to support his family. When Parker stumbles across Toomes' operation the stage is set for a super-powered battle of wills with far-reaching consequences.

For your consideration...

Spiderman Homecoming does not exist within a vacuum. Most will realise that this is the third reboot in 15 years (that's a reboot every 5 years for the slow of math). I've always maintained that re-boots not only deserve to be, but in all fairness should be, considered alongside previous incarnations. After all, if you don't feel confident that you can improve on what's already come before, then why are you rebooting something? The first of Sam Raimi's Spiderman films was a film for adults pretending to be one for children (complete with an attempted rape, a bone-crunching final and a hero who fails to 'get the girl'). His second Spiderman was a children's film pretending to be for grown-ups (featuring a villain who 'learns the error of his ways' and redeems himself saving the hero, as well as some sickly-sweet soul searching). Raimi's third entry failed in just about every way, but by now Raimi had proved once and for all that superheros could be big business. Marc Webb's (oxymoron alert) 'Amazing' two efforts somehow turned everybody's favourite unassuming teenager into a prick; there's more to updating a character than giving him a skateboard and an attitude (he was more of a Bart Simpson than any Peter Parker). It was therefore with a mixed reception that Marvel finally managed to buy back Spiderman's rights from Sony and announced yet another reboot by launching the character into it's expanding MCU (the Marvel Cinematic Universe). There were those who were happy to see the character back in safer hands, those who were upset that they would never see the close of Marc Webb's announced trilogy (idiots mostly), and those who thought a third reboot was simply too much too soon. Even Kirsten Dunst,Raimi's leading lady, waded in to the debate. "We made the best ones, so who cares?... They’re just milking that cow for money.". It was a fair comment, and in most instances she'd be dead right; the first 2 Raimi films would be hard to top, but let's not forget the movie business is still a business and I'm sure she's taken the odd job 'for the money'. However, on this occasion Ms. Dunst may have to eat those well chosen words... The first thing that needs to be said about Spiderman Homecoming is this; it's by far the best Spiderman movie to date, and one of Marvel's strongest entries. Secondly, it's very, very funny. Most of the Marvel films to date have been an entertaining combination of whip-smart banter and explosive mayhem, with Guardians of the Galaxy thus far being the most humerus. However, Spiderman goes one step further to the extent it's probably first and foremost a comedy and a super powered adventure second. That's certainly no bad thing... I once said the time for a perfect Spiderman has come and gone, but I was (as the scores might suggest) dead wrong, although I do feel vindicated in the accuracy of some of my points. I said Marc Webb's Nolan-esque take on the character was a step totally in the wrong direction, and for a character like Spiderman it should sway more into the comedic realms of Kick-Ass (which in so many ways essentially was a Spiderman story). Homecoming is EXACTLY that, thanks to a terrific script credited to no less than 12 writers, which would normally result in disaster. Read-on, Spidey fans...

Script: 1/2

Despite the fact that the script is incredibly entertaining, there's no disguising the fact that, so far as the plot is concerned, it's pretty silly. However, that said, you're not watching a Spiderman film for the plot, right? By placing Spiderman into the Marvel universe (a God-send in so many ways), it does mean having to embrace some of the more 'wild' elements of that franchise, including alien technology. But with Marvel's favourite son back on home ground and in safe hands, it's a very small price to pay... On another note, it always bothered me how anybody was supposed to overlook the fact that a teenager on a low to modest income could afford to create the Spiderman outfit and web-shooter tools (a point that became laughable in Marc Web's gritty attempt). In Tony Stark the Marvel universe finds it's answer, and it's at once such an obvious and shrewd move. Naturally, Stark is responsible for essentially bankrolling Peter Parker and providing him with the tech, and it becomes suddenly believable that the suit would be blue and hot-rod red (this from a flashy and extravagant billionaire who designed himself a gold suit). Minor grumble; too many gadgets for my liking, but it feels a reasonable fit for the MCU. Wasn't overly sold on the suit's internal-voice, but it proved a great way of keeping the character talking and provided the occasional laugh.

Pace: 2/2
While I was watching the film I always felt like we were moving from scene to scene with such speed and efficiency that by the time it ended it had felt like a relatively short experience. I was surprised to read that actually the film was just over 2 hours in length. While I adamantly stand by my opinion that most stories can be told successfully in 90 to 120 minutes, Homecoming obviously stands as proof to the fact that a well told film will justify it's length. Thankfully, none of this time is spent wasted on an origin story (not even Civil War bothered). The Marvel head-sheds, quite wisely, have figured out most people know the whole 'uncle Ben thing' pretty well by now, and instead just get on with telling the story at hand.

Acting: 2/2
Not sure how else I can put this, but Tom Holland IS Peter Parker. He's perfect; he's nerdy, he's self deprecating, he's enthusiastic, he's innocent, he's witty, he's good natured while never being a goody-two-shoes. He's not wet like Toby McGuire was (his moping got tedious after a while), and he's not too-cool-for-school like Andrew Garfield. And, shock-horror, he's pretty close to actually being of genuine high-school age- that's a first and it makes a huge difference. McGuire and Garfield were both clearly adults, adults in peril. Holland looks like a kid, sounds like a kid, acts like a kid- he's just a kid doing the right thing in the face of real danger, and all the more braver for it. That's what Spiderman should be about!... In Raimi's first Spiderman, Willem De Foe chewed the scenery with relish and gusto, and made for the perfect Green Goblin. There will never be a better Goblin, why try? Wisely, Marvel didn't bother. Instead, they've found a perfect foil in Michael Keaton, and rather than dial in a zany Beetlejuice-styled performance, Keaton again proves his range by making Adrian Toomes a very nuanced character. He's ruthless but not an entirely unlikable, he's a character that started with honest intentions and, true to life, found himself on a slippery slope. He's justified his crimes (he has a family to support), he had the opportunity (the alien technology from his clearance days) and he had the motivation (forced out of work by Stark Industries). Ruthless but not cruel, nothing he does ever feels for the sake of causing suffering, although he's clearly dangerous. It all comes from an honest emotional place, who hasn't at some point felt like they're put upon by 'The Man'? And, in a refreshing turn, Toomes, AKA The Vulture (although in the film nobody ever calls him this) is one of the few villains in the Spiderman rouge's gallery who isn't the result of a failed science experiment.

I don't think it's saying too much to point out that, once again, the villain learns of Spiderman's secret identity (after all, it's only happened in every film so far; Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Harry Osborne, Venom, Sandman, Lizard, Hobgoblin). So naturally, Parker also learns who Adrian Toomes is (in one HUGELY shocking twist which I did not see coming). In the scenes that follow with Holland and Keaton sans-masks, the air is electric and both actors show the standard of their game; Holland looks genuinely heartbroken and terrified all at once, and because he's (importantly) "just a kid" he looks all too vulnerable. Keaton is totally conflicted- all seething rage and reluctant adoration. It's a Hell-of-a scene, and sets up the dramatic tone for the remainder of the film. On that subject, like Ant Man before it, Homecoming's stakes are relatively small. There is no doomsday bomb, no city-sprawling gas-cloud, no alien invasion. Ant Man (while not the best film in the Marvel cinematic franchise) was, in the end, a man trying to save his daughter from a maniac: as an audience we can relate to those stakes much easier than, say, the Avengers saving the world from aliens. Spiderman's stakes concern an attempt to steal a shipment of powerful weapons, but that's about it. But, given the smaller-scale, and Spiderman's relative inexperience and the terror he feels confronting the Vulture, that's significant enough. This is about bravery, loyalty and dedication, and what is at the end of the day (super powers not withstanding) "just a kid".

Other mentions; Robert Downey Jr is always a delight as Tony Stark, although his long-suffering assistant 'Happy' Hogan, as played by Ironman director Jon Favreau, has more screen time in his function as Parker's minder. Marisa Tomei gets a few laughs as a MILF-style aunt May, and Disney heartthrob and teen model Zandaya is a 100 miles from her usual glam image as one of Parker's fellow students (I dare not say more). Laura Harrier plays Parker's popular but sweet natured love interest Liz, while Jacob Batalon is a joy as Parker's nerdy best friend; he and Hollander have a warm and believable chemistry which the film does well to exploit.

Aesthetic: 2/2
The effects are (despite earlier misgivings) all good, and the suit design has grown on me some. The Vulture (never my favorite villain) here has a cool makeover, and the scenes where he's flying around while fighting Spiderman are all serviceable. Most of this sort of action we've seen a lot by now, no matter how good this reboot is there's no denying a strong sense of deja vu in the visuals. What makes it different this time round are the characters and situations at play. That said, the film does include a few novel touches; by moving much of the climax to very high-up in the air (beyond the 'playground' of buildings seen in most of the other films) there's a genuine sense that Spiderman is out of his element and in great danger, and it's also funny to see Parker suffer from a bout of vertigo, a joke that works all the better for Holland's youth. In fact, his relative inexperience is a cause for many of the funniest moments- it's refreshing to see that, just because he has the suit, this doesn't make him the fully-fledged and capable hero that McGuire and Garfield instantly became (although I admit things on occasion did go wrong for McGuire). But yes, the budget and effects are well utilised, and the smaller scale means that the spectacles somehow feel more grounded in reality.

Intention: 2/2
Homecoming is the first film that nail's it's target audience, in the purest sense. It's a film about a teenager, for teenagers. But, by extension, teenagers being the middle-audience, there's something here for everybody. It's funny (very funny), it's sweet natured (while never saccharine) and it's exciting (especially if you're too young to remember the first 3 films). Familiar themes and characters are given fresh overhauls, but are never so different that they're somehow offensive to long term fans. As a child I grew up on Spiderman, and I personally thought the changes were not only made with good intentions but entirely necessary; I've seen Aunt May as doddery, I've seen MJ as the perfect cheerleader type, I've seen Flash Thompson as the mindless brute, I've seen Harry as the best friend. I honestly didn't have high hopes for Homecoming, like a lot of people I thought it was a film the world didn't need, even if Marvel would likely do better than Marc Webb (I really, truly, hated those films). But, happily, I was wrong. Another feather in Homecoming's cap is how it essentially stands alone. Sure, it references events from Avengers Assemble and Civil War, but in such a way that, even if you have no prior knowledge, the film feeds you this information easily. Sure, it also features Tony Stark, and 'Happy' Hogan, both to great effect (Stark's relationship with Peter is particularly poignant in parts, hysterical in others, not to mention an excellent way to introduce Spiderman into the MCU) but, again, it's set-up in such a way that anyone can enjoy this film without an encyclopedia-like knowledge of all the other Marvel output. This didn't feel like a 'tent-pole' film; it wasn't there just to set-up more cross-overs, an issue that plagues many of the Marvel films. Nor does it suffer from the twin plagues of too many characters and establishing too many plots. No, Homecoming is Homecoming, it's that simple. Refreshingly, anyone can enjoy this on it's own merits.

Final Word: 9/10

Let's hope “friendly neighborhood Spiderman” is less a disparaging remark and more of a statement of purpose for the wall-crawler's future films, because it's this smaller scale which is one of the films most vitalizing and promising strengths. Will something be lost in seeing Parker transform from a well-meaning but fledgling hero into a sure-footed mega-hero on par with the other Avengers, as it was in the dreadful Kick-Ass sequel? We will have to wait and see, but the future is looking bright. It was very brave for the studio to have the entire climax of the film take place without use of the iconic Spiderman suit, (for reasons I can't discuss just yet), but like Tony Stark chastises “If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it”. And with those words, Marvel invest everything they have in the character of Peter Parker and not the cash-cow image of Spiderman, a conviction that pays off in spades. I've heard Homecoming described as "Harry Potter meets Avengers", and while that's not entirely inaccurate it also fails to capture the films level of success or significance: Homecoming didn't try and rework that old line "with great power comes great responsibility"; it lived it. Homecoming isn't just the title, it's the Marvel welcome the character deserves. A joy from start to finish. Kudos Marvel, one right out of the park.

RUSH; Full-Tilt Review

“Twenty five drivers start every season in Formula One, and each year two of us die. What kind of person does a job like this? Not normal men, for sure.”

Niki Lauda

Not exactly 'The Tortoise and the Hare'...

Synopsis:

The “true life” story of one of Formula One's “greatest rivalries”. James Hunt, a charismatic English playboy racer who enjoys his hedonistic lifestyle of fast cars and lose women, finds his spate of easy wins come to a sudden halt with the arrival of Niki Lauda, a straight-laced and coolly calculating Austrian. Tempers flair off the track and tragedy looms on the horizon...

Script: 2/2

Despite the fact that there seems to have been very little rivalry off the track between Hunt and lauder in real life (photographs are widely available of the 2 chatting amicably between races), the story obviously takes a few liberties in pursuit of drama. That's not necessarily a failing so much as an observation. Rush instead presents a character study between two men who, ironically, would only later come to realise they had more in common than first appears, not least of all a near self-destructive and all-consuming passion to be the best.

Pace: 1/2
While I was aware on odd moments that I was sitting and waiting for the 'next thing' to happen (the first half is especially episodic), it's hardly a dull ride- and the races themselves are suitably covered without ever taking the lion's share of the screen time.

Acting: 2/2
Despite a range of familiar faces, this is really a two-man show. Chris Hemsworth dons his best English-toff impression and, despite a few wobbly accent moments, is suitably chiselled and roguish while never being too self engrossed that we can't find something in the character to warm to. Hemsworth gets by more on charisma than any real acting, but it serves the character just fine and doesn't hamper his performance. Daniel Brühl as Lauda is almost the antithesis of Hemsworth (as Lauda was of Hunt, fittingly); his was a character that would be easy to dislike, a cold-fish seemingly devoid of emotion, but due to the subtlety of Brühl's performance and subtle comic timing he manages to make the audience really route for his character. Their scenes together, though few and far between, really spark.

Aesthetic: 2/2
The film has a fairly loose grasp on time and place, but intentionally so. The fashions and staples of the mid-70's are present on screen but never in a way which draws attention; the film is at great pains to appear contemporary, most likely so it doesn't isolate or distract it's audience (the 70's is hardly a selling point). The races themselves are filmed in an exciting flourish of quick edits involving screeching tires and heat-hazed tarmac, even people without an interest in F1 will likely find their pulse quickening.

Intention: 1/2
I'm always dubious of anything “based on true events”, because, by and large, there's very little fact involved. But likewise I'm not a stickler for fact either, I'm aware films have to work to a certain dramatic format. It's easy to see what attracted director Ron Howard to the project; there was plenty enough in the Hunt / Lauda dynamic to make the situation worth mining for inspiration, and Lauda for his part (still alive) approved of the film.

Final Word: 8/10

Where the film struggles the most is in its closing; trying to make something dramatic of a non-event (the most dramatic moment happens at the close of Act 2), artistic license can only be taken so far. However, this is redeemed in part by it's melancholy denouement. All in all, Rush is a commendably character-driver spots movie, and a film which should hold the attention of anyone regardless of how excited they are about F1, or for that mater, how much or little they might know about the Hunt and Lauda rivalry and how it ended. 

As a point of interest, the casting of this film was incredibly accurate. I found this online, thought it was worth sharing. Naturally, there's a certain Hollywood glamorizing, but on the whole striking similarities...

 

Biggest change here is poor ol' Lauda.

WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS; Full-Tilt Review

(on the subject of feeding from virgins)
“I think of it like this. If you are going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew no one had fucked it.”

Vadislav

Just your average vampires... Sort of.

Synopsis:

A small group of Vampires living in Wellington New Zealand agree to be followed by a team of documentary film-makers. Instead of establishing themselves as the dominant terror of the night, they only illustrate how out-of-touch they are with the world around them. Things are further complicated when, to help them connect more successfully with modern life, one of the Vampires decides to add to their number by turning an outsider into one of their undead clan. Shame that the 'new-blood' happens to be arguably the most arrogant and dim witted man in all of Wellington...

Script: 1/2

A format where the documentary style feels like a natural aspect of the story and simply not shoe-horned in for budgetary constraints (as it usually is). For every 4 jokes that misfire there's a real gem, that's pretty good odds.

Pace: 1/2
Perhaps a direct result of it's budget and indie nature, but the film does feel (at best) meandering. It's almost as though the story isn't quite sure what ending it's heading towards.

Acting: 2/2
For what it is, a surreal comedy, all stars hit their stride. Jemaine Clement steals the show as the barbaric and over-sexed Vladislav, while Taika Waititi is endearing as the foppish Viago- also the main narrator of the documentary. Jonny Brugh is also entertainingly embittered as an ex Nazi experiment turned punk.

Aesthetic: 1/2
It's a cheap movie but the budget is well-used and thankfully required little else other than for it's stars to show up in costume and bicker.

Intention: 2/2
A little too mellow to be true slapstick, and a little to daft to be anything approaching genuine horror, What We Do In The Shadows is far from a masterpiece but endearing in it's eclectic sense of humor and boasts nerd-appeal aplenty with it's innocent flaws and quotable dialogue.

Final Word: 7/10

Bought to you by the minds behind Flight of the Conchords, it's a bizarre sit-com in the tried-and-tested 'outsiders' / 'odd couple' mold. Think something like The Big Bang Theory meets Dracula Dead and Loving It and you're on the right lines. Sort of...

ALIEN COVENANT: Full-Tilt Review.

"One wrong note eventually ruins the entire symphony."

Walther

Probably not a good sign...

Synopsis:

The Covenant is an interstellar shuttle on a mission to colonise a far-off planet. However, after a freak accident causes the Covenant structural damage and fatalities, the remaining crew are reluctant to re-enter hyper-sleep for the remaining 7 years of their voyage. However, their prayers are seemingly answered after they intercept a transmission of apparent human origin from a nearby planet. Closer inspection reveals an almost Earth-like ecosystem easily capable of supporting human life, but is this new utopia all as it first appears, or is something sinister lurking in the shadows?

Script: 1/2

Moments of inventiveness never quite compensate for the loose-ends and flaws in logic.


Pace: 1/2

The characters are never given time to properly develop, while the ending feels tacked-on.

 

Acting: 2/2

Some power-house performances and great supporting work.

 

Aesthetic: 1/2

Beautifully shot and much closer to Alien in style, undermined by some atrocious CGI.

 

Intention: 1/2

It's certainly distanced itself from Promethius, but also feels like a re-hash of better films.

Final Word: 6/10

Before we begin, here's a little context. The first Alien film was essentially a 'slasher' in space, and if you can forgive the paradox, a state-of-the-art B-movie, a 'creature-feature'. Rather than a world draped in the usual kitsch of the era's popular science fiction (Star Wars and Doctor Who being among Alien's contemporaries), novice director Ridley Scott instead presented a believable world populated with believable technology and believable characters ala 2001, but unlike 2001 Scott's films coup-de-gras was the reveal of a monster so terrifying, so nightmarish, so other, that it would leave an impression on audiences spanning decades... This was over 40 years ago, so it would seem unfair to expect the same sense of awe when audiences are much more familiar with the titular beast, but what the franchise lacks in shock-value you'd expect an accomplished director (one with over 40 years experience) to be able to compensate for in flair and ability. That's exactly what audiences thought as they flocked to see Prometheus in their droves. We all know how that turned out; an over-ambitious, hackneyed and unrealistic disaster which didn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Alien.

As the scores on the door reveal, Covenant is a superior film to Prometheus, although that's damning with faint praise. Covenant is still far from a perfect film, although it's issues are somewhat harder to define.

If Alien was Scott's 'slasher' story, then Covenant represents his take on the 'mad scientist' trope. And therein lies some of the problem. Scott is less interested in telling a story about aliens than he is in waxing lyrical about the themes of creation, and to do this he uses the character of David as the lynch-pin of the film: it is David, not the alien, that takes serves as the main protagonist. While the other alien films may have flirted with other forms of villainy, the better films have always positioned the overriding threat as the beast itself. Not the case here. David is ruthless, manipulative and physically imposing, and it's clear that Scott is telling a David-driven (perhaps David Covenant would have been a better title?). His fascination with the character may even explain his recent return to the Bladrunner franchise, which would probably be a more natural fit for the themes he's clearly determined to explore; after all, when it boils down to it, both this and Bladerunner are about artificial slaves rebelling against their human creators. The Bladerunner references don't end there, either; consider the nail worn by Covenant's heroine Daniels (to remember her late husband)- it's a lot like the one that embeds into Roy's hand during the climax of Bladerunner, not forgetting David's line “that's the spirit” being the exact same line Roy utters to Deckard after the former tries in vein to fend him off. But for a puritan like myself, the alien franchise, once being the cornerstone of inventiveness, feels like the wrong place to reference other films. On top of that, tipping the hat to your own film feels about as self indulgent as it can get... All that said, the idea of a David-heavy story isn't the worst idea in the world; he's a very interesting foil and one of the only good things to come out of Prometheus, but to this extent it undermines the actual danger posed by the aliens themselves, leaving the classic alien creature (when it does appear) feeling like it's reduced to a cameo in its own film...

Alien Covenant isn't without it's merits. The film, as you'd expect from Ridley Scott, looks beautiful, and the opening credits call to mind, in no way accidentally, Richard Greenberg's iconic work on the first Alien. And, for what I believe to be the very first time in the Alien franchise, we hear the soundtrack from previous installments- Covenant's score paying service to both Alien and Prometheus. The technology in Covenant looks austere and functional, a definite step towards Alien in terms of design, and similarly a step away from Prometheus' body-hugging space suits and slick Apple aesthetic. Scott has also taken the time to rework the chestburster creature, making the most of (on the whole) better special effects. Now, rather than the worm-on-a-stick first seen in Alien, this little monster is now quite the "tough little son-of-a-bitch". However, it needs to be said, some of the CGI sequences in Covenant look cheap; some of the (what should have been impressive) shots of the Covenant drifting through space had the feel of a Sy-Fy Channel special, as did the mysterious 'electrical pulse' that damages the ship in Act 1, and my jaw literally dropped at the incredibly tacky alien-point-of-view sequence. The airborne virus that wipes out the Engineers (it's not a spoiler if it's in the trailer), swirling around like a swarm of killer raisins, also failed to convince. But, all these problems pale into insignificance compared to the effects used to realise the films menagerie of rabid monsters. I remember being impressed with the the 2 promotional shots leading up to the films release; that of the more traditional alien atop the ship (the “money shot” from the trailer) and that of the newer creature (the so-called Neomorph) perched over the body of a dead woman (see above). They looked like they had weight and tactile presence, which is a rare thing in CGI. Sadly, not so for the majority of other scenes, comparing unfavorably to some of the more heavy-handed CGI from Alien Resurrection. And finally, while we're on the subject, I'm not sure what the idea was with all the odd alien posturing? It's like the aliens have bought into some faddy extraterrestrial yoga class. And when they're not in 'child's pose' or 'downward dog' they're standing ram-rod upright like scarecrows. The whole thing is pretty bizarre...

Back onto better things; the crew are all played excellently, gone are the stock-characters of Prometheus; the Covenant's crew all talk and behave like actual people, they don't talk purely in exposition or high-minded theoretical rhetoric. Katherine Waterson makes for a plucky lead playing Daniels, while Billy Crudup plays Oram, the ships new captain, and turns what could have easily been a simple 'idiot in charge' role into someone who isn't entirely unlikable. Danny McBride, better known for comedy, plays the rowdy Tennessee, and despite little screen-time will probably become a firm favorite in the minds of the audience (I expect to see him in more serious roles as a result of this turn). Demian Bichir, Carmen Ejogo et-al all convince. However, it's Michael Fassbender's show, and he steals every single scene he's in, which, between his 2 roles, is most of them. Here he returns as the sinister David, as well playing Walther, the next model up from David. Both are fascinating characters, and Fassbender has mastered a style of efficiency-in-movement and mannerism that perfectly encapsulates the characters- almost human, but not quite. However, it seems for every one thing Covenant gets right it makes a mistake elsewhere. Yes, the crew this time round feel much more real, but despite what feels like a long lead-in to the actual running-around-screaming section of the film, we find out very little about these characters- putting us (unforgivably) back into “I don't care what happens to these people” territory. That's not the case all over as some characters do manage to shine despite a lack of attention, but for the most part we accept these people are just fodder. This is lessened to some extent if you got round to watching the Last Supper promotional clip, which defines some of the characters and their relationship to each other, but this didn't make the cut of the final film. I'd not watched that clip for a while so I struggled to remember much about it, to the extent that when two of the main characters are killed in the shower I hadn't registered they were actually a couple before hand. The same can be said about the other pairings- especially the much-hyped gay couple.. You only begin to relaise who-loves-who only after the deaths start piling up and the newly widowed begin to sob. Interesting dynamics that have previously been hinted at, such as Daniels' relationships with Oram and Walther, never come to a satisfying fruition. But, and this is an important distinction to make, this is not the fault of the cast! This is the writer and the director (Ridley Scott always gets the final word)! This is not acceptable film making, and if you think that sounds harsh, this past year Ridley Scott, a director with (let's remember has 40 years experience), made $75 million. I don't know about you, but with that in mind I expect a fucking good movie! The dialogue, while well delivered, is also a little flat- you won't find any memorable lines on par with “I admire its purity” or “get away from her you bitch”. All I could remember was the line “sugar tits” and (for all the wrong reasons) “I'll do the fingering”. Yes, that really is a line...

But like I said, Covenant isn't without merits. The film is arguably at it's best when the crew are marooned on the planet. For a franchise previously about navigating claustrophobic metal environments, it was good to see some nature- and it's not like big empty forests aren't menacing in their own special way, especially come nightfall. This tonal shift called to mind moments of Predator and Jurassic Park, especially in one scene where the Neomorphs are leaping velociraptor-style at the crew from out of the grass. Shame then that the film abandons this novel twist in favour of a climax taking place aboard the Covenant itself, but hey-ho. While the film does at least try something new with the old formula (setting the biggest part of the film on the ground, aliens bursting from different parts of the body, the Neomorphs, etc), this is all hindered by poor handling. Scott now seems to think that a shaky camera is the same thing as immersion, and the shots are either too dark to pass as 'exciting action' or too energized to qualify as 'horror', yet another thing the film has in common with Alien Resurrection. The set-piece atop a moving space ship (again, seen in the trailer) felt like the sort of realism-defying thrills you'd expect to see in one of the later Die Hard films. In fact, the entire final climax of the film came off as weak: not only was the inclusion of the alien-on-the-ship scenario totally unnecessary (the film would have ultimately ended the same way regardless) but it felt like the most hollow half-arsed form of lip service. It felt like a certain thin-skinned director declaring “fine, you want more of the same? Here, have it! More of the fucking same!”. I mean, it felt like the director was intentionally dicking me about, even down to how the alien is finally dispatched (yep, you guessed it, flushed into space- and I can't even consider that a spoiler having seen it 3 times now). Which brings us to the ending... I won't give too much away, but while previous Alien films have always ended on a hopeful note (even Alien 3, while bleak, ended with Ripley preventing 'the company' from possessing the new-born queen), Covenant is out-and-out despairing. I have no issue with bleak endings, and in much of horror it seems rightly fitting, but in an Alien film I wasn't sold. It was just morbid... And why, exactly, is the Covenant traveling through space with hundreds of human embryos? How exactly does that help anybody colonise a world?

There are also a number of little plot holes and the like that I'll refrain from going into right now because I don't want to spoil anything (another post down the line might be in order)- but if you're reading this thinking “too late for that”, you clearly didn't watch the trailer, friend. If you have, the bad news is you've pretty much seen the entire film already (thanks for that, modern marketers!).

Much has been made of, what the Americans call, a “hard R rating” (our equivalent of a 15/18 rated film), with everyone saying how gory the film is. I went into Covenant a little perturbed by this. Whatever the first 4 Alien films may or may not be, they're far from full-on gory. Part of what made them work was that you'd always felt like you'd seen more than you ever had; death was, for the most part, implied. Sure, they all have a gory birthing scene, but after that, almost nothing. In Alien most of the character's deaths are cut-away- one of the most chilling moments is in hearing (and not seeing) Lambert scream over the tannoy system- as a viewer your imagination was probably far worse than anything the film could show you. In Aliens, again, characters are mostly killed off-screen, only Bishop is eviscerated in full view but he hardly counts because he's an android. Alien 3, a little bloodier, sure, but death is always edited fast or kept at a distance. However, I can safely say that initial reports of Covenants gore are mostly exaggerated. What it does do, however, is dispatch it's characters with unflinching cruelty. A case and point; one female character accidentally kills herself by causing a mass explosion, and the stranded crew witness her fire engulfed form staggering from the debris before finally collapsing. A touch excessive (as well as unrealistic, I'd have expected her to be blown to pieces), it felt once again like a certain director taking issue with criticism; “fine, if Prometheus wasn't vicious enough for you, watch this- I'm going to kill-off people's loved ones right in front of their eyes- is that edgy enough for you?” And speaking of unflinching cruelty, I always quite liked Elizabeth Shaw, one of the few developed characters of Prometheus. Without wanting to give too much away, Scott has evoked a sense of Alien 3 in terms of the brutal elimination of pre-established characters before they even reach the starting line. It felt a very cynical and very cruel send-off, almost as if a certain thin-skinned director was saying to his audience “fine, you didn't like my last film, I'll wipe the slate clean and the blood is on your hands!”


Final, Final Word

Alien Covenant is hit-and-miss, a step forward in some ways and a step back in others. Tonally, the film is an unsatisfying patchwork, and the end result is simply not scary. Bloody, sure, and brutal, but considering Ridley Scott's recently been quoted as saying of Alien Covenant “I wanted to scare the shit out of people”, then he can chalk this up as a fail. Covenant may have provided him a chance to salvage some of his work from Prometheus, but it's at a cost. In a word, “fatigue”; I'm not sure I want to sit through another alien film, and for the hard-core fan that I am that's not an easy thing to live with. I say that as a man who firmly believes there are still amazing stories left to be told involving the aliens, I just know now that I'm never going to live to see them. In many ways a full-on reboot would have been a better move, at least it would have left the original films with whatever dignity they still had. Alien Covenant is a trashy B-movie in the mold of Relic and Anaconda, with delusions of A-movie importance- too nasty and too self-aggrandising to allow for (in the abstinence of a better film) any of the cheap fun that could otherwise have been had by watching people being eaten by space monsters...

Scott is clearly a gifted visionary, but he's developed over the years into a director far more interested in themes and subtext than he is in character or coherent story, and that's always going to sit jarringly with everything Alien represents. Scott doesn't seem to understand this, he's sadly only as good as the script he's given, and this isn't the best script.

Possible spoiler; You have to ask yourself, at a point, why you need to cast Fassbender twice in the same film? Throughout the franchise the different androids ("I prefer the term artificial person") have been played by different actors, which isn't entirely unrealistic. 2 Fassbenders presents you with an expensive effects challenge you needn't have. This might lead you consider that having 2 Fassbenders running around might become a later plot device, and anyone familiar with 'Chekhov's Gun' will surely begin to suspect something when David starts cutting his hair to look like Walther. But I told myself "Ridley Scott's got over 40 years of experience, surely he isn't planning on that old 'swapping twins' cliche." I tried not to worry. And then, as the film reached its climax, Walther and David go head-to-head, and then there's a pause- will Walther deliver the fatal blow, or will David reach for the knife. Guess what? We CUT AWAY! Why bother Ridley? Why bother? By not showing what's happened you've already told us. If Walther had won you'd have shown it, by cutting away and leaving us in doubt you've clearly set up David to take Walther's place- otherwise there's no point. Not only is it one of the oldest tricks in the book, Ridley's pulled it off with all the grace and sophistication of a Nickelodeon cartoon! Wow, a new low in direction even for you Ridley Scott, you fucking tool. I actually felt genuinely insulted, did he think I wouldn't know what was going on? So then I sat through the last part of the film (which was unnecessary anyway, it was the film Alien crammed into 5 minutes) waiting to see if anybody would find out about David's disguise. Then I thought "oh, that nail Daniels stabbed David with under the chin when they had that fight must have left a wound, she'll probably notice that, that's clever at least" (because, like the 'switch', the nail had been set up with all the subtly of a Jim Davidson gag, and we had yet to see the pay-off). But guess what? Didn't happen... Ridley Scott, you sir are a hack.

THE HATEFUL EIGHT; FULL-TILT REVIEW

“OHHH, you believe in Jesus now, huh, bitch? GOOD, 'CAUSE YOU 'BOUT TO MEET HIM!”

Major Marquis Warren 

The one on the left is hateful. So is the one on the right. Who's the most hateful? Watch and find out... Maybe.

Synopsis:

Daisy Domague is a cunning and feral criminal being escorted by famed bounty-hunter 'the Hangman' to the town of Red Rock, where her execution will take place. But the arrival of a sudden and terrible blizzard means he's forced to take shelter in Mia's Haberdashery with a group of enigmatic strangers; among them another bounty-hunter, the sheriff and the hangman of Red Rock, a Southern Civil War veteran, a cattle driver, and the Mexican left to run the premises in the absence of the real owners. However, one or more of those sheltering inside the haberdashery may be lying about who they are, and why they are present, and so begins a tense game of cat-and-mouse between those gathered. Emotions run high as the storm outside rages, and the only certainty is that before the night is out, blood will spill.

Script: 1/2

It's a Tarantino script, so, as you'd imagine, the dialogue is slick in that special Tarantino way, and plays like a western retelling of John Carpenter's The Thing, only with added “mother fucker”.

The problem in that is, Tarantino only writes in the one voice, which means everybody talks the exact same way- the talented cast can only disguise that so much, and after so many films the trick is becoming all the more noticeable: everybody is playing a version of Tarantino... It also has to be said, Tarantino doesn't really concern himself with accuracy when it comes to a' cussing, and his use of pulling the race card, while revisionist at first, soon grows tedious and, worryingly, a little gleeful.

Pace: 0/2
Oh. My. God. This one really, really takes it's sweet time. The story (a relatively straight froward whodunnit in a novelty western setting) warranted about 90 minutes to work successfully, but this beast takes over 2 and a half hours. I feel like 15 minutes of that was spent sitting through the credits, forced to watch a distant coach slowly make its way towards the screen. I mean, this really drags. Drags. Is this clear enough? When these people talk (as they do at length in that very special “I'm Quentin Tarantino and when I start writing I never fucking stop” sort of way) they go on, and on, and on. I read once that the key to a great screen-writing sequence is come in late and leave early, essentially just cover the important bit. Apparently, Tarantino's never heard of that advice...

Acting: 2/2
Everybody convinces; the eight truly are a hateful bunch. So much so that I didn't really care when any of the eight start to perish. Samuel L. Jackson plays Quentin Tarantino (or more accurately, the person Quentin Tarantino probably wishes he was), who also happens to be a bounty hunter with issues around slavery, as you'd reasonably expect. Kurt Russell also plays Quentin Tarantino who also happens to be a bounty hunter. He's escorting Jennifer Jason leigh, who also plays Quentin Tarantino and happens to be the murdering leader of an outlaw gang. And so on. Yes, my joke may sound a little unfair but it's sadly on the money, although I can't blame the cast for this.

Aesthetic: 2/2

The film is beautiful, no 2 ways about it. Tarantino is certainly an enthusiastic cinephile, and, love or hate his films, that enthusiasm is almost palpable. Every frame of the film is a work of art, from the wide open landscapes, the confined quarters of the coach-house, to the creased and weathered close-ups of scowling faces. The costumes all look of the period (all be it stylishly heightened), and the sets all feel used and dirt-flaked. That, and the cold wilderness and the raging blizzard is captured incredibly. Rarely (if ever) has a film actually made me feel so cold while watching it.

Intention: 1/2
This is Tarantino back on the right track in so much as the story is it's own thing. While it may be heavily inspired by Sergio Leone style 'spaghetti westerns', it's not the usual patchwork of better films and contrasting styles (see Kill Bill 2, Inglorious, Death proof and Django). That said, Tarantino is still reluctant to break from his comfort zone; it's Reservoir Dogs with cowboys, hardly breaking new ground. Not exactly a western, not really a thriller, and only in the loosest sense a mystery, too simple for political allegory, too nasty for simple entertainment and definitively not a morality tale, the overall intention of the film is lost on me.

Final Word: 6/10

It's a simple story told in a complicated fashion, heading towards the inevitable Tarantino bloodbath of betrayal and id-fuelled hostility. It could have been entertaining if only it wasn't so painfully labored and self-congratulatory- even the climax itself feels like it takes an age to end. However, if you're a fan of Tarantino's self-aware and quick-pitter-patter vocabulary style, and you're not so sensitive to having your time wasted in era-sized proportions, then there's much to admire. For my money, this is a step in the right direction but still a frustrating waste of a film that could-have-been so much better.

LOGAN; Full-Tilt Review

"Logan, you still have time."

Charles Xavier 

While it may be true that "the apple never falls too far from the tree", heads can role pretty far.

Synopsis:

Logan, formally the hero known as Wolverine, is now pushing 60, struggling with his eyesight and working a dead-end job as a limo driver, hoping one day to afford a boat so he can escape from a society from which he feels detached- a world where the X-Men are no more and mutants are no longer being born . But that's the least of his worries. His healing factor is now ebbing away, and his now pain-wracked body is slowly being poisoned by the rare metal grafted to his bones (see earlier films). He's also now the retainer to Professor Charles Xavier, himself once the proud and dignified leader of the X-men, but his once powerful mind is now blighted with dementia and his psychic powers rage unchecked... However, Logan's life, such as it is, will be turned upside down with the arrival of a mute young girl pursued by a shadowy organisation from his own past.

 

Script: 1/2

A solid and well-told story marred by two serious plot flaws and some clumsy moments.

Pace: 2/2

At a modest (for superhero films) 2 hours, Logan is an exercise in lean storytelling.

Acting: 2/2

Possibly the most believably raw performances of any so-called 'superhero' film.

Aesthetic: 2/2

The sets and costumes are suitably grungy, the landscapes are beautify framed, and the effects are both sparingly used and brutally unglamorous.

Intention: 2/2

A superhero film devoid of the usual world-saving CGI-laden plots, where character is at the heart of action. Logan's time has truly come.

Final Word: 9/10

Hugh Jackman gives the performance of his career here as the disgruntled and reluctant title character. While the notion of him scowling and limping his way through the film might sound corny (an authentic limp is actually a very hard thing to fake) it's actually truly heartbreaking to behold- he behaves like he is in very real pain, both inside and out. Jackman's performance is that of a man literally breaking under the weight of his tragic past (everyone he has ever loved has met a violent death) and his obligation to his last remaining companion, Charles Xavier- an obligation that comes at a terrible price, seeing how Charles' dementia not only causes the old man to swing between utter confusion and cantankerous bitterness, but also means his powers could run dangerously wild at any moment. As an audience, you will completely understand Logan's resentment and reluctance, even when he's at his most scathingly blunt to the ones closest to him. To be very clear, Logan isn't a likeable character, but we cannot hold this against him. What we do know though is that underneath all that angst and thunderous rage, Logan will always step-up and be counted, he is never beyond redemption. However, if you're expecting him to suddenly have that 'ta-da' moment where the grumpy old cynic suddenly 'grows' as a person, you may be in for a shock; the film continually sucker-punches you by setting up these cues but instead turning them on their head, with Logan continually spurning any such connection in truly frank style... Admittedly, that moment does arrive, but it's later in the day than you'd think, and all the more bitter-sweet for it. Whether Jackman holds true to this being his final portrayal as the character of Wolverine, this will certainly be his defining moment.

It also comes as no surprise that Patrick Stewart has also decided to step away from the X-Men franchise, using this film as his character's swan-song. Apparently he came to realise that there could be no better film to go out on than this, and in all likelihood, the X-men being the patchy collection of films that it is, he's most likely right on the money. He too also brings new depth to a well loved character, by turns tragic and humorous, Charles Xavier's role in the story is a complex one; he is Logan's father-figure and his conscience, but he's also Logan's encumbrance, and while it's clear the two need, and indeed love one and other, they begrudge their dependency on the other and often lash out. As someone who's spent almost 15 years caring for people suffering with similar conditions, I admire the honesty of this relationship- no punches are pulled here, people in these situations do turn against each other, and it's heartbreaking.

First timer Dafne Keen, as the hunted girl who falls under Logan's protection, who most people by now have realised is the comic character X-23 (a clone of Logan's DNA) is amazingly able to hold her own in the presence of Jackman and Stewart. More over, she even manages to steal a few scenes, and while she's by turns precocious and unhinged (there are no Saints in this world), she's not without empathy: like a feral cat that's been kicked around once too often and has now decided to scratch back. I have no doubt she will fast become a fan-favourite, although what with her only existing in the future I'm unsure on just how, if at all, future X-Men films will best utilise her- a spin-off perhaps?

Oh, and (the curiously cast) Stephen Merchant makes for a very likeable Calaban- a put-upon mutant living with Logan on the Mexican boarder, helping to care for the ailing Professor- although allusions to his past with the film's villains, the Reavers, is both confusing and unnecessary.

And so, on that note, we now turn to the villains of the film- an area where most superhero films fall flat. The X-men films in particular have always suffered from dull villains, always overshadowed by the inclusion of the charismatic Magneto. Even the Marvel Cinematic Universe has wrestled with producing worthwhile protagonists. It seems only Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy has totally succeeded in providing us with truly memorable opponents. However, that said, Boyd Holbrook comes pretty damn close to giving us a truly hate-worthy foe in Pierce; an obnoxious, leering and vicious little bastard. He's at the head of a cyborg posse of bounty hunters tasked with hunting down Laura. It's a shame that all that stood between this scum and glorious infamy was his limited screen time, Pierce has to share the screen with less inspiring villains, among them Richard E Grant's 'stock mad scientist' Dr Rice. It's not that Grant can't deliver the goods when given the chance (like Stewart, Grant is a capable thesp), but how does one make such a clichéd character memorable or unique when his dialogue is mostly exposition? He's probably only on the screen for a total time of approximately four minutes, which hardly helps. The film may have been better served cutting him entirely and concentrating on Pierce, but "C'est la vie". In fact, Dr Rice's presence, and that of the mysterious 'third villain' are possibly the film's only concession to the format of superhero films: the hero needs to beat the lead villain, Rice in this instance (a henchman simply won't cut it) and your also needs to have a spectacular battle with a 'superior enemy', and for a character like Wolverine, who can really give him a run for his money? I'm reluctant to say more than this at this point, although I felt that particular void could have been filled by other means- but that's a personal preference and not necessarily a flaw of the film.

Another inspired, if risky, decision of the film is it's total disregard to staying 'true' to the tangled web of characters and plot situations set up in previous films. In fact, in one rather sly scene (whereby the characters are discussing an X-Men comic) Logan even casts doubt on the authenticity of these previous films, as though they could have been overblown stories told within the world we're now watching- it's not for nothing that these exploits go unmentioned, save for a passing comment to the Statue of Liberty. Free of the mythology and the constraints of setting up new stories, or of cramming-in unnecessary characters, the film Logan is able to concentrate on its own narrative. It's that freedom and disregard to prior commitments that allows this story to really flourish.

Logan is a film intentionally rough-edged. There is no polish, no glamour, no poetry in its violence. Its less an 'action film' and more of a thriller. While many reviews by now have been quick to point out the use of western troupes (the film itself even directly references the movie Shane), comparisons to films such as Children of Men and A History of Violence are also justifiable, and indeed it has more in common with these than anything from the actual X-Men cannon. Just as certainly as the villains will eventually meet a bloody demise, terrible things also happen to decent people. While there's a certain guilty satisfaction to be had when Logan rages against his enemies (and believe me, the guy really lets rip), the film also possibly makes for the most coherent and heartbreaking case for the Mutant Registration Act of the previous films; when powers such as these are uncontrolled they can only be a danger to all those close by. Ironically, one such incident may have even led to the death of the X-Men, those most responsible for ensuring the act never succeeded... It's a film that poses difficult questions and answers very few, but that was always the intention- there are no 'neat endings'. While Logan may not be a 'fun' film, it's certainly a well made one; brutal and bleak, but also by turns surprisingly tender and restrained. It's certain to change the face of the superhero genre forever more, and the Wolverine couldn't have asked for a better send-off.

Extra kudos for that incredible closing shot...

ROUGE ONE, A STAR WARS STORY; Full-Tilt Review

“Be careful not to choke on your aspirations, Director...”

Darth Vader

Possibly the most ethnically diverse crew ever assembled in a Star wars film.

Well, this will make a change- 

I'm reviewing a film that's actually still out at the cinema! 

Check me out.

 

Synopsis:

Felicity Jones stars as Jyn; a renegade haunted by the murder of her mother and the abduction of her father during her childhood. Having become disenchanted with the rebellion, they come seeking her help on their latest mission. Jyn's reluctance fades however when she discovers the nature of their task- to find Galen Erso, the architect of the Empires newest weapon, who also happens to by her father.

 

Script: 1/2
An inspired idea let down by insipid storytelling. 

Pace: 1/2

After a jarringly disjointed start it moves along nicely.

Acting: 1/2

Mostly good, although some of the cast are taking things more seriously than others.

Aesthetic: 2/2

The distinctive retro aesthetics of the classic trilogy remain, bolstered by some cutting-edge effects, although some of the CGI characters never quite convince.

Intention: 1/2

A bold if flawed entry into the Star Wars cannon.

Final Word: 6/10

Jyn, Rouge One's heroine, heads up a team comprising of; Diego Luna's conflicted rebel assassin Cassian, martial arts legend Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as two Force-worshipping priests (the later having lost his faith while the other is still very much a devout believer) Chrrut and Baze, Riz Ahmed's reformed Empire pilot, and Alan Tudyk's K-2SO, a droid with a good line in dead-pan wise-cracks, a sort of C3P0 meets John McClain. With the exception of Felicity Jones, every one of the above plays their roles brilliantly, and their approach is pitched perfectly, offering character and drama while never at the cost of light entertainment (this is Star Wars after all, not Citizen Cain). Special recognition for Donnie Yen who, despite his impressive real-world bulk and history of playing phenomenal arse-kickers, here plays a surprisingly charming and gentle character. They're a dynamic group, these principal heroes, it just feels like such a shame that the film takes up about half it's run-time bringing them together (especially how, even after all that time, I'm still not entirely sure why they all stick together when the chance comes up for them to part ways). Forest Whitaker also chews the scenery playing unhinged rebel leader Saw Gerrera.

Sadly, Felicity Jones never quite convinces as Rouge One's lead. Her attempts to pull off ‘icy and hardened’ come across as impertinent, and while a flawed character is all well and good, Jones is a total vacuum; no presence, no charisma, and despite her rough orphan-esque upbringing Jyn somehow retains the prim English accent usually reserved for the upper ranks of the Empire (a point that never sits right in the ear). But the biggest stumbling block with Jyn is not so much Jones herself, although she hardly helps matters, but rather how the character of Jyn is written; the latest in a now long line of 'Mary Sue' characters to plague mainstream action cinema. She can brawl like the monk, she can shoot and sneak like the rebel assassin, and she can hack computers like the droid, and despite being 'a nobody' (not even really a rebel for that matter) she attends the high-ranking rebel meeting to discuss the most important decision of the war, and as if that's not enough, the rebel leaders actually hear her out! This contrivance undermines all those around her, their talents no longer so unique or necessary. Why not allow Cassian be the gunfighter and the spokesman at the rebel meetings (he is a Captain after all), let the blind monk be the close-combat specialist, let the droid do his thing- don't take that away from them! But that's a post for another day... Jyn's only real ‘flaw’ is an easily forgotten reluctance to join the rebellion, and that's it. Oh, and we never see her fly a ship, although I assume she's a fucking ace at that as well.

Mads Mikkelsen shoulders the bulk of the drama in Rouge One as the tortured engineer Galen Erso, Jyn's father and the architect of the first Death Star, but as you'd expect from someone of his caliber he convinces utterly and commands every scene he's in. Aside from Felicity Jones, who really isn't up to the task of sharing screen time with Mikkelsen (although she hardly convinces anywhere) the unenviable task of 'thesbing-off' against Mikkelsen falls on Ben Mendelsohn, here playing the villain Krennic. However, Mendelshon holds his own while pomping and sneering his way convincingly, bringing a surprising depth to a rather one-note villain. In fact, the relationship between Galen and Krennic is one of the more intriguing; while no longer fiends, there's still something present that suggests more than the simple hostage / captor scenario. It's not written, but that's just how the characters are played; while the majority of the cast of Rouge One are playing 'parts', here Mikkelsen and Mendelshom are playing 'characters', and while that's commendable and demonstrates considerable talent, here it seems, well, somehow amiss.

And on that note, it's here, among the shades of grey, the compromised characters and the blurred lines that Rouge One somehow becomes more, and so much less, than a Star Wars film. Cassian is a rebel who thinks nothing of shooting an unarmed ally in the back so he cannot be captured, while Gerrara's methods are so extreme they include the torture of prisoners (who have yet to be proved guilty). Galen may have quit building the Deathstar, but that doesn't change the fact he was initially on the side of the Empire of his own free will before a moral crisis, and Bodhi is yet another reformed storm-trooper, which begs the question “how many other poor people in the employ of the Empire are being killed out there, who are probably decent enough people caught up on the wrong side of a war?”. Moral ambiguity doesn’t sit well in the Star wars universe. The first Star Wars trilogy, and I feel this was always part of the charm, was a fairy tale. Good meant good and bad meant bad, and that’s as complicated as it got. Even smuggling rouges like Han Solo and the underhand Lando, while self-serving, were still clearly “good”. That's probably one of the reasons the inclusion of Commander Tarkin worked so well here; Krennic may have been ruthless but his behavior was born of ambition, not evil. Tarkin, however, was cruel, calculating and an utter bastard, and he shines more greatly here than he ever had a chance to in A New Hope. He was bad through and through, no ambiguity there. Elsewhere in Rouge One, the rebel alliance have seemingly got serious, and are as fractal and dangerously unhinged as any Middle Eastern uprising; 'the cause’ is all that matters. It’s easy to see why many have deemed the film as ‘political’. I came to watch Star Wars; if I’d wanted to see a rabble of religious desert fighters defending their holy lands from an invading military force bent on plundering their natural resources I’d have stayed at home and switched on the news. It’s a very uncomfortable comparison, especially seeing how my instinctive reaction is to cheer for al-Qaida, sorry, no, the rebellion (my mistake- I definitely mean the rebellion) and one that seems bizarrely intentional. I mean, narratively speaking, these scenes could have played out anywhere, and in a film series already heavily populated with desert locations, it would seem odd to favour such a well used troupe rather than go for something new (a snow-town could have been a nice addition?). Instead, the film-makers have gone full-on desert and turban chic. When you invoke a sense of realism you also invite (encourage) a greater critical thought. For this reason your story, if you’re going for realism (all be it a realism in the established ‘world’) needs to hold up under close scrutiny. Broad strokes and plot holes are far more noticeable here than when encountered in something more innocent like, say, a fairy tale...

Final, final word:

And that single sentiment comes to the core of how I feel about Rouge One; it may look like a Star Wars film, and sound like a Star Wars film, but it doesn’t feel like a Star Wars film. Guillermo del Toro astutely observed that, if you want to reinvent a fairy tale, you can only askew the characters OR the story, not both, or what you're left with is not a fairy tale. Rouge One, for better or worse, is not a fairy tale. It’s an interesting experiment, bringing maturity and politics to a child-like universe, but I hope that’s all it is- an experiment. A one time thing. I’d hate to see subsequent Star Wars films following the same suit. Present fashion seems to favor ‘dark and brooding’ (even the new bloody Power Rangers film is trying laughably for ‘edgy’); Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy certainly has a lot to answer for! While it would be easy (and probably correct) to call the theory of 'A Star Wars Story' a shameless cash-in, kudos for at least trying something different, ditching the Jedis and the Skywalker legacy to tell what is essentially The Dirty Doezen in space. Would it be anywhere near as enjoyable if you stripped away the Star Wars setting? Most likely not, but hey, it is what it is; certainly not the worst Star Wars film, but still a crushing disappointment given how all the right ingredients were present for a true classic. However, the explanation of  a plot-hole that has long been a point of contention in the original Star Wars film (why build a space base with such an obvious flaw) is finally laid to rest in what has to be Rouge One's defining and most inspired achievement.