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.

"BIG THINGS HAVE SMALL BEGININGS..."

David (Prometheus).

The "money shot".

Why do I keep doing this to myself?

Growing up Alien and Aliens were two of my favourite films, a love that has followed me into adulthood.

Alien 3, after initial disappointment as a teenager, I've grown to appreciate as a beautiful disaster. Alien Resurrection, however, I believe is total and indefensible garbage, for which all those involved should be totally ashamed of themselves. That film marked the absolute low-point for the franchise till Aliens vs Predator and the subsequent sequel. It's not that I took offense to the notion of a cross-over, simply that the films were as life affirming and enjoyable as a one-way trip to a Swiss clinic.

By that point I couldn't see how things could get any worse and hoped (Christ, how I hoped) that would be an end to it.

Then, news surfaced that no other than Ridley Scott was returning to the franchise, for a prequel to his first Alien. That got me curious, and as the release date grew closer and closer, my expectations ran higher and higher.

Long story short: Prometheus was shit. Poorly defined relationships, and a smorgasbord of forgettable one-dimensional characters who only serve to drive the story into a number of contrived hoops- and for what? Some hackneyed space-Jesus plot! Hardly an original idea. And to top it off, the crowning turd in the water-pipe (something you'd not even credit for a film in the Alien franchise) no fucking alien!

Anyway, Mr Scott is returning to the series for this next installment and has decided to back-track on his “I-know-best” NO-ALIEN policy.

We've had a number of little teasers so far, including two trailers (one much more subtle than the other), a closer look at the new stock-android (it seems most crews feature one, even though this was a major surprise to those on board the Nostromo first time round), and a “bloody-hell-it's-in-broad-daylight” view of the new 'Xenomorph' design- although I need to add at this point, I personally hate it when people call the aliens Xenomorphs like that's their official genus, it's a term used by the Colonial Marines to describe a generic 'bug' before they even meet their first monster...

One of H.R. Giger's early designs- look familiar?

I wasn't entirely sure about that 'money shot' at first, but given how everyone and their dog knows how the alien looks these days (Scott once famously said he spotted the alien in Disney Land), maybe it's better to tackle that head-on. Looks like much of the bio-mechanical styling have been dropped in favour of a more naturalistic and 'butch' design- the alien till this point had always been predominantly slender and feminine. In truth, it sticks quite accurately to Giger's original sketches from the first film, and I feel like that's a bold move on Scott's part.

Other 'tools' in the marketing campaign for Alien Covenant are the release of a number of clips. One of these is entitled Last Supper and provides a look at the new soon-to-be-doomed crew, while another shows Shaw (Prometheus' only human survivor) repairing David the android's destroyed body. Given how one of the things I loathed about Prometheus was the lack of group dynamics and believable characters, I was relieved watching Last Supper to see a little more of the 'old magic' at play; the scene felt believable and intimate. Obviously this is just a small window into a feature length film, but it's reassuring. A final clip revealed a now-repaired David essentially laying waste to what appears to be the Engineer's homeworld with their own weaponised black toxin (which truth be told felt a little like a spoiler).

However, for everything Alien Covenant might be doing right, it may be making further errors. News is now circulating which throws the whole premise of the current Alien saga in a different direction... Apparently David, the android who just barely survived the events of Prometheus, is responsible for engineering the particular strain of alien we've so far seen in the franchise, thus entirely decoding the subtext of the film cannon. What had once been a case of 'man is inferior to nature / man is not on top of the natural order of things' is now 'man sows the seeds to his own destruction': man created A.I, A.I creates the alien, alien destroys man.' Scott is quite pleased with this little gimmick, pointing out that while the 'man vs nature' trope has been played out quite often, this particular little avenue of creativity is fertile ground... Aside from my own reservations (personally I actually really like the 'man vs nature' trope) what the blinding-fuck is Ridley Scot actually talking about? 'man sows the seeds etc' is a trope as old as the hills! I mean, Christ alive, that's the entire through-line for the Terminator franchise for a start! Man creates A.I ' Skynet, Skynet creates terminators, terminators destroys man', not familiar at all? Ridley! This is James Cameron's shtick, you've probably heard of the guy, he got the job of doing a sequel to your first Alien film! Off the back of his first Terminator film! I despair, I really do...

Am I the only one who thinks Ridley Scott as actually suffered some sort of stroke?

Anyway, long story short, I'm off to see Alien Covenant when it comes out. Here's hoping it's good.

“DON'T BE WHAT THEY'VE MADE YOU...”

Logan (Logan).

Isn't this how most Gillette adverts start?

I mentioned I had a few gripes with Logan as well as feeling it had a few plot problems. Don't read if you're sensitive to spoilers....

SPOLIERS! SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!

1. Laura is one of many mutants grown in a laboratory and designed as weapons, this being an extension of the Weapon-X Program that first created Wolverine. Laura and some of the other children were smuggled out of this lab by a sympathetic nurse, after Dr Rice decided to have the children murdered (choosing instead to work on the mysterious 'third villain')... With that in mind, why do the villains during the climax of the film only try to apprehend the remaining mutant children instead of killing them? Worst of all, it's a needless mishap! If the script had simply stated that Dr Rice still intended to weaponize the children you could argue they'd want to take them alive. You can still show how ruthless the villains are by having them exterminating any children who refuse to act subserviently.

2. In fact, come to mention it, the battle in the climax lacks the intensity and much of the explicitness of the earlier skirmishes (in particular the stand-out opening car-jack), instead opting for the fast editing of more traditional superhero films- save for a few notably gory moments. After all the prior “realism” it feels like the film finally backs down in the final moments because, well, you know, you can't go round gunning-down children (although we are treated to security footage of Pierce dragging around a dead child). Consider what you're witnessing- Logan running through the forest slashing his way through the Reapers, all the while under heavy gunfire, yet when he pauses to catch his breath his injuries are pretty insubstantial; a few cuts and a bloodied vest. Then Logan finally confronts his clone and the two go hammer-and-nail at each other with razor sharp claws for several minutes. Both Wolverines should have been criss-crossed in gaping splits, but both were still in pretty good shape come the ending (before the impaling, that is).

3. During the close of Act 1 Pierce confronts Logan at is desert hideaway, making a final demand that he hands over Laura. Low and behold, Laura strikes from the shadows and clubs Pierce round the back of the head with a lead pipe. This never struck me as odd at the time (although Logan's decision to have Caliban dump his body in the desert did seem bizarre when you consider he was bound to wake up again at some point), but it soon becomes clear this little mutant thinks nothing of slicing and dicing trough her enemies, including innocent shop keepers, so why the Hell did she not gut Pierce given this chance? After all, this was the man responsible for killing many of her friends back in the labs, as well as the nurse who helped get them to safety! And, given just how dangerous the girl is, a near indestructible killing machine in the Wolverine-mould of clawed mutants, why did he think it such a wise idea to confront Logan alone in the first place?

4. Final issue. So the film takes great pains to stress that mutants simply aren't being born anymore. That's fine, I was happy to accept that, I wasn't sitting there in the audience thinking “well, I better get a damn good explanation for this!”. I was aware Logan wasn't a story about world-changing events, the lens was much more intimate, the scale smaller... So imagine my surprise when during the climax Dr Rice casually drops the explanation; he'd perfected a formula to suppress the mutant gene during pregnancy and had secretly administered this to the world at large through foods and drinks. I have 2 issues with this. First- what the Hell happened to my small-scale story? The ramifications of this are huge! It barely gets any explanation at all, just a passing comparison to the Polio vaccine. Why even bother, the story didn't demand it? Secondly, how does an illegal and comparatively small operation on the Mexican border manage to somehow go about secretly administrating this 'mutant antidote' to the world's entire population? Even America alone would defy any belief. How- somebody tell me!?!? A blunt and self-defeating blunder...

Nag over.

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...