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.

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.

TOP GUN; Full-Tilt Review

"I feel the need..." 

Maverick 

"..The need for speed!"

Maverick & Goose 

Looks as though Val doesn't understand how to play 'rock-paper-scissors'.

 
Synopsis:

Tom Cruise takes the lead as Lieutenant Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, a gifted pilot selected to attend the elite 'Top Gun School' for training ahead of rising tensions with Russia. However, his reckless attitude causes friction among his fellow pilots. And to confuse matters even further for the hot-headed Maverick, he develops an infatuation with Ms Blackwood, his astrophysicist instructor.

Script: 1/2 - a generic sports arc plotline, but you're not here for the plot, are you?


Pace: 1/2 - not bad, but a little baggy in Act 2.


Acting: 1/2 - the scenery is sufficiently chewed.


Aesthetic: 2/2 - a film that drips in 80's excess cool.


Intention: 1/2 - as a drama it's pretty weak, it's at its best when the jets are in the air.

Final Word: 6/10

I missed this film growing up, it just sort of passed me by, never having been fond of Tom Cruise or planes. Perhaps, because of this lack of judgement-bending nostalgia, my reaction to the film was only luke-warm. I found the character of Maverick almost impossible to root for, and I was actually pretty glad to see him taken down a peg (I'm not convinced that was the intention). Kelly McGillis makes for a love interest with all the sex appeal and chemistry of a used cotton bud, and if Val Kilmer was any more wooden he'd start sprouting roots and leaves... Having said that, the plot and the characters are a thinly veiled excuse to get the jets up into he air, and it's in these moments that the film comes to life. It's easy to see how so many impressionable (read "stupid") youngsters decided a glamorous life in the Navy was for them after viewing watching Top Gun. Naturally, all that time in the class room needs to pay-off, resulting in a logic and history defying dog-fight with Russian jets which somehow doesn't trigger World War III. On it's own terms, I guess there's some fun to be had with Top Gun, I just came to this particular party too late it seems.

ANT-MAN; Carlisle's Final Word

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

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

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

SYNOPSIS:

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



SCRIPT 1/2

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

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

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

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

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

PACE: 2/2

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



ACTING: 1/2

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


AESTHETIC: 1/2

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


INTENTION: 1/2

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



FINAL SCORE: 6/10

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

OLDBOY (2013); Carlisle's Final Word.

“Heaven make me free of it. The rest is silence.”

Adrian.

Work was murder.

It's been a while, but here's another film review... 

Synopsis;

Well, most people know the story by now; a selfish and reckless ‘nobody’ (this time by the name of  Joe Doucett) is snatched from the streets and imprisoned, seemingly without reason,  in solitary confinement- only to be mysteriously released 20 years later.  Fuelled by a burning lust for vengeance, and to free his daughter from the clutches of an evil mastermind, Joe goes in search of answers- and blood.

Most people felt a remake of the original was unnecessary, and much has been made of the fact Spike Lee, the films very outspoken director, has all but disowned it (the credits tellingly allude to this with "A Spike Lee Film" rather than his usual "A Spike Lee Joint"). Despite this, and it may come as a surprise to some, I kept an open mind (as always) and hoped to find something positive about the film- despite its poor box-office figures and critical mauling.

The following review contains spoilers and assumes you’ve already seen the original Oldboy.

Script Logic; 1/2

While this American remake makes some noble attempts to legitimize the original’s more surreal aspects, it does make a few missteps in the process.

Now, instead of a main character who’s all but forgotten he even had a family, this time round Joe’s motivations clearly relate to his daughter’s safety and the brutal rape and murder of his ex-wife (for which he was framed). That’s a very good move, and the character arc of ‘absentee father’ to ‘protective avenger’ instantly lends the once reprehensible Joe some much needed kudos.

Of course, anyone who’s ever seen the original Oldboy knows of the film’s tragic revelation, so the explanation of the daughter’s abduction (a new plot-point for this remake) is another nice touch- sure to fool more than a few new viewers.

On the flip side, the “shocking reasons” behind the new villain’s motivations are, to say the least, a wash-out, and the reason for their alteration remains a mystery to me, if it’s not broke why fix it? With the original, one could almost understand how the villain came to direct his hate at the protagonist, all be it his revenge was extreme and misplaced, but this time round it feels more of a stretch.

Pace; 2/2

I can say this much; I was never bored. While the first movie felt occasionally like a choir while it meanders between plot points and tonal shifts with all the grace of a 2-legged bison, at least this remake builds-up momentum nicely and never out stays it’s welcome. Every moment felt like it was moving the story towards its inevitable confrontation.

According to Spike Lee and the film’s star Josh Brolin, the original running length of the film was 140 minutes, and both are resentful that the studio intervened and trimmed it to a brisk 105 minutes. I can understand their bitterness, no artist would like to see something they cherished edited in such a way, but to be fair a film like this doesn’t need another 35 minutes of ‘character building’, the characters here are pretty successfully defined by their actions.

Acting; 1/2

Before I go further into this, I have to say the film feels a little divided by its intentions…

In part, and for the weight of its revelation to fully work, the story needs to be played straight. That is to say, it has to feel “real”, even though it’s obviously pure fiction. That’s one of the reasons why the original film never felt AS grim as it perhaps could have- it had comic book sensitivity. To this end, the likes of the ever reliable (and ever beautiful) Elizabeth Olsen and Michael Imperioli add weight to their meagre roles as love-interest (?!?) and best friend. Elizabeth has the whole sweet-but-troubled thing down-pat, and Michael is never less than concerned with a healthy underpinning of self-preservation.

On the flip side, the violence and the action scenes feel like they’ve stepped right outta Sin City. Hammers break through people’s skulls as though they were over-ripe watermelons, goons are kicked through the air like helium balloons, or spun overhead, only to come crashing down on snapping necks. It was like seeing the Marv fights from the aforementioned Sin City, only without all the high contrast black-and-white. Some of the performances fit more neatly into this later style concession, most crucially that of the lead villains; Adrian Price and Chaney, played (or over-played) by Sharlto Copley and Samuel L “motherfucking” Jackson respectively. Adrian is camp-moustache-twirling evil at its most hammy, and Jackson is, well, Samuel L “motherfucking” Jackson, and both of these characters would feel right at home in (using the same analogy as before) Sin City.

The two strands don’t particularly make for a coherent style, although both are well acted in their own distinct ways. Only Josh Brolin, giving a power-house performance of barely withheld swaggering aggression, is able to straddle both sides of this divide. He would have made a fine casting choice as an older and jaded Batman…

Aesthetic; 2/2

Nothing about the film looks cheap, yet nothing is particularly striking. The violence is suitably brutal, and the film manages some subtle nods to the first film (the angel wings worn by the Chinese street vendor, the octopus in the takeaway tank and the yellow umbrella). Perhaps, in keeping with the source material, and the comic-book nature of the material, a more striking visual style would have gone a long way to giving the film a more individual feel.

Originality & Intention; 0/2

This is where the film loses some real points. The world did not need, nor want, an Oldboy remake, and it’s hard to imagine why or how such a thing came to be. Not similar enough to be a straight remake, nor different enough to be truly original. Perhaps a more interesting idea would be to set a film in the ‘world’ of the first Oldboy, with a different character held in captivity before his release, from the American wing of whatever company it is that confines these victims in their cells? Theirs would be a completely different story, with a different set of twists and revelations... Still, for what it is, it can be called neither original nor inventive, and the only intention I can see for its existence is to spin money.

Final Score; 6/10 

Truth be told, this Oldboy is far from a terrible film, just not as polished or as daring as it needed to be in order to succeed- but if you’re coming to the film ‘fresh’ (or just plain don’t give a shit about it being a remake) then you could easily add another point or two to the score. The end result is a faithful, yet patchy, take on the first story. It deserves to be seen on its own merits, of which it has several, not least a fantastic central performance from the underrated Josh Brolin. I'll finish by saying this; it’s a much easier ride than its predecessor, although they share the same sucker-punch ending, and (dare I admit it) I much preferred this Oldboy’s denouement.

   

Did you know (or care)? Steven Spielberg was, at one point, supposedly attached to direct the Oldboy remake, with none other than Will Smith in the title role. I can’t imagine a worse choice of combination; the Kings of schmaltz and smarm respectively as the creative talents behind a tale of brutal revenge and ‘accidental incest’… The worst pairing for Oldboy, save perhaps for a movie by Michael Bay and starring Adam Sandler…

THE WORLD'S END; Carlisle's Final Word

"I still think nothing that has been suggested in the last 10 minutes beats smashy-smashy-egg-men."

 Andrew

The three friends were unimpressed with the trailer for the new TMNT movie...

Synopsis;

The team responsible for bringing us Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz (the comedy team of director Edgar Wright and actors Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) reunite a third time for this, a tale of 5 friends attempting to top their epic pub crawl from 20 years earlier. Obviously, things don't go completely to plan as old tensions within the group resurface- and (wouldn't you just believe it?) they also find themselves in the midst of an alien invasion... Talk about inconvenient timing.

Script Logic; 1/2

Aside from a few (irritating) lapses in logic the film plods along nicely and the characters do their thing. I mean, and it's not overly important in the grand scheme of things, but (spoilers ahead) why are some of the robots / clones more life-like than others? Who was the creepy barman (a cameo by Mark Heap) who knew what the friends were going to order? How comes some of the robots repair themselves while others can't? Lastly, under the extreme circumstances the characters find themselves under (i.e. annihilation), it's a contrivance that anybody would assume it was a good idea to keep up with the pub crawl. Blah, blah, blah... So, it doesn't hold up as well as Shaun Of The Dead? It does at least provide the means for some decent gags...

Pace; 1/2

The set-up is well developed and smartly told, but when the aliens / clones/ robots do emerge onto the scene, that's when the film begins to come undone, especially regarding the pace. I feel like I have this complaint a lot, but for the sake of trimming back the script the final finish of the film would have been much stronger- a few less pubs and a much leaner ending would have been of great benefit. It's not that I have no attention span, I'll sit through anything so long as it serves a purpose, I'm just acutely aware of scenes that feel like padding or which don't further character or plot (hey, Tarantino, take note).

Acting; 1/2

Not really an 'actors piece', and perhaps it's a little unfair to hold that against a comedy, but everybody plays their part well enough- and Simon Pegg (looking very gaunt here) goes nicely against type as the manipulative lead character responsible for assembling his old drinking buddies. Still, it's not really Pegg's film- he's overshadowed (as he always has been) by his sidekick Nick Frost, not least because, in this instance, his character is a lot more likeable- the sympathetic beating heart of the film. It's a shame then that, despite the strength of the premise and the set-up, the more dramatic moments lack a satisfying resonance or pay-off.

Anyone familiar with Edgar Wright's other works will also be sure to notice a steady stream of cameos from his many other past collaborators.

Aesthetic; 2/2

Well, it doesn't look cheap, and Wright has made good use of his effects.  Nothing else to add I guess, other than the aliens (when they turn really mean and emit a blue glow from their eyes and mouths) are suitably eerie and serve as an affectionate homage to the clones from the classic film Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, to which this film owes a considerable and obvious debt.

Originality & Intention; 1/2

As a follow up to Shaun Of The Dead it's disappointing (they set the bar ridiculously high) but after Hot Fuzz a good step in the right direction. The laughs are there, it's just a shame the story's not stronger. Still, it's entertaining while it lasts, although a few scares would have gone a long way- the comedy outweighs the horror to such an extent that you never really fear for the characters as much as you might expect, and when they do start succumbing to the alien threat, it's never with as much impact as the deaths in (yep, I'm bringing it up again) Shaun Of The Dead.

Final Score; 6/10 

Worth watching if just to see Pegg and Frost doing what they do best, and so long as your hopes aren't unrealistic then there's much to enjoy. A fitting end to Wright's 'Cornetto trilogy'. As a stand-alone comedy it's a success, just don't expect any lasting memories...

OLDBOY; Carlisle's Final Word

"...And your remains will never be found. Why? Because I'm going to swallow every last bit!"

 Dae-su Oh:

"Stop. It's hammer time!"

Synopsis;

Oh Dae-Su is abducted off the street and held prisoner for 15 long years, his pleas for freedom and demands for answers ignored by his captors. Then, as suddenly as he was taken, he is released. Driven by an insatiable appetite for revenge Dae-su embarks on a twisted and danger filled journey into a murky criminal underworld, and even his one and only ally, the seemingly innocent Dae-su Oh, comes under suspicion.

Script Logic; 1/2

Bloody hell, it's hard to write about a film such as this in regards to logic, I doubt it was ever intended to be more than a surreal fantasy. On the face of it, overlooking a few stretches of credibility it holds up- within the constraints of it's own bazaar world, I guess Dae-su was just unlucky to make an enemy of such a supremely wealthy and influential head-case...

Pace; 1/2

Due mostly to the intentional shifts in tone and surreal intricacies of it's own plot, the film moves at a fair pace- but it does suffer for it's own art and many will find the film too disjointed to ever be completely absorbing, instead they'll sit through till the bitter end just to learn the truth behind Dae-su's captivity- which, ultimately, is reason enough.

Acting; 1/2

Again, it's difficult to criticize an intentional decision. Realism is not what the cast and crew are striving for here, instead we are treated to a hyper-stylized decent into insanity, a nightmare world painted in broad strokes and populated by warped caricatures. Min-sik Choi proves a charismatic lead- and if not necessarily likeable, his plight is worth supporting and you'll be engrossed as he aches his way ever closer to the truth behind his captivity.

Aesthetic; 1/2

Nothing really to get excited about, the direction in this sense is unremarkable, save for a few touches of odd inspiration and a strikingly-choreographed one-take fight scene along a narrow corridor (one of the film's highlights).

Originality & Intention; 2/2

I'll say this for old Boy, it's a pretty fucking unique experience. If you're a little warped then you're sure to find a few dark laughs (as I did), and if you're a feeling person, or expecting a 'happy' resolution, then the ending will be sure to scare. It's, well, it's... Different. Old Boy is more an experience than an entirely coherent story.

Final Score; 6/10

Love it or hate it, I'm certain that the finished product is exactly how director Chan-wook Park envisioned his film to be. Uncompromising, unflinching, unapologetic, anarchic, warped, melancholy, perverted and just a little bit funny. It should be on everybody's 'to-watch' list, but will unlikely be anybody's favourite...

THE RAID - REDMEPTION, Carlisle's Final Word

 "Pulling a trigger is like ordering a takeout."

Mad Dog.

Half circle down-to-forward and 'square' unleashes a Fire Ball.

Synopsis;

The Raid (or, The Raid Redemption as it’s also known) is the second film by Welsh (Welsh???) director Gareth Evans- an explosive Indonesian action movie.

A 20-man elite unit is sent on mission to eliminate a notorious criminal king-pin held up on the top floor of an apartment block which serves as his own personal fortress. Amongst the unit are the experienced Sergeant Jaka and young rookie Officer Rama- who also happens to be a master in the deadly art of Pencak Silat. This is a useful thing to know because (as you can probably imagine) the raid quickly goes catastrophically wrong. The surviving members of the team are then forced into a brutal game of survival while being hunted down by the king-pin's ruthless henchmen.

Script Logic; 0/2

There isn't really any logic to the script, but does it matter? The film is hoping you'll be too caught-up in the action to really care for the plot-holes. How did (spoilers ahead) a corrupt Lieutenant manage to deploy an entire armored unit without the proper authority or expecting his superiors not to notice? How was the unit even assembled without the proper documentation and warrants? Not a bother. Such a disregard for realism is ballsy if nothing else.

Pace; 1/2

Well, the film starts off at a run and doesn't really let-up. I was almost going to award the film 2/2 for this, but a perfect score has to be withheld for a perfect pace, and many of the films individual action scenes are overly-long- especially the final three-way battle, clocking in at over 8 minutes, I was ready for this clash to finish by the halfway point...

Acting; 1/2

Again, it's not really an 'actors piece'.  I mean, they have little to do besides grunt and fight, and the only concession to character building before the action starts is 30 seconds spent establishing that 1; the hero's wife is pregnant, and 2; he's pretty good in the gym. Still, that's all you need, and the film spends very little time concerning itself with minor details like character development. Only Joe Taslim, as the squad's experienced Sergeant, manages to bring any pathos or credibility to his time on screen- everyone else appears to be on strict instruction to ham-it-up.

Aesthetic; 2/2

The sets are suitably grungy and foreboding, so nothing really to report in that respect. However, the real aesthetic here is the martial arts. The Raid works largely as a showcase for Pencak Silat- a fast and fierce Indonesian martial art, almost like a bastard hybrid of Wushu and cage-fighting. There’s no denying that Pencak Silat is impressive, and up on the screen it makes for some breathtakingly athletic scenes- any fan of martial arts or action cinema is going to enjoy seeing this previously under-exploited form , and I’d put money on us seeing it a lot more from now on.

I guess my only complaint with the style, if any (or perhaps this is a failing of the film / director rather than the style), is that I felt like I was continually seeing the same few moves over and over again. It took me a while to notice this, but I found myself by the start of act 3 thinking “seen that, seen that, seen that”- like watching a computer game. I realise that criticism sounds a little harsh, but it’s probably a result of the individual action sequences being over-played. I feel that shorter (and as a result more intense) fights would have gone a long way to preventing this strong sense of Déjà vu. It's as though director Gareth Evans was so excited to 'strut his stuff' that he didn't hold anything back for later encounters.

Regarding a more personal and petty gripe- if I'm watching an 18-rated film with a fight including machetes, I WANT to see someone HIT with a machete! Still, kudos for the inventive door-frame related death, that was suitably grim.

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Well, like what was said during my review of Dredd, it hardly matters that the plot has been done before- is the same story that both Howard Hawks and John Carpenter used to tell so well.  In an odd twist of fate The Raid and Dredd (both of which shared a wincingly similar idea) were released almost simultaneously. It was easy to see why many people suspected subterfuge or breach of intellectual property, but I think in all honesty it was just an instance of cosmic-chance- and one that was disastrous for Dredd which most people compared unfavorably to The Raid. The Raid did good business and was quickly picked up for a sequel (coming soon) while the planned Dredd trilogy was shelved (although it found a new lease of life on DVD).

Admirably, The Raid set out and achieved exactly what it meant to do, and waved an unforgiving anarchic middle finger to everyone else in the process.

Final Score; 6/10 

OK, let’s not kid ourselves here; The Raid is all about the action, and on that score alone The Raid is most certainly a success and it’s easy to see why action-junkies lapped this up. The Raid was never meant to be anything else other than 100 minutes of bone-crunching action scenes. Anyone looking for anything other than this is going to leave disappointment.

“So, why the low score?” you may well ask. Is it possible that my rating system does The Raid a disservice? Well, no, for the simple reason it’s more than possible to have this level of action with a better plot, better acting, and a better pace, etc. Providing the fun stuff doesn’t have to be at the expense of rich storytelling. But I digress, and the entire reason for breaking the review down into separate scores is purely so people can read about the aspects that interest them the most and disregard the rest. I'll be honest, I got bored, but I do appreciate that as a bloodthirsty teenager this would have been right-up-my-street...

Interesting little fact; Yayan Ruhian, who played Mad Dog (the crime lord's diminutive but deadly bodyguard and only memorable bad guy), was once responsible for training Pencak Silat to the Indonesian Presidential Security Forces and the Indonesian Military Police... True.