Hacksaw Ridge Review

Hollywood is a curious place filled with equally curious people, every now and then one of those people becomes more highlighted than the others, they succumb to a public downfall and everyone tells us that we have to hate this one person, despite the fact that they're probably no worse than 70% of the people around them who share their weird and wonderful choice of career. Mel Gibson went through one of the more frequently publicised of these downfalls, he did say and do some questionable things but as with any of the other freaks and weirdos that dwell in tinseltown, you have to be able to separate the art from the artist.


It would be all too easy to forget that before all that, Mel Gibson was doing some truly exceptional work behind the camera. An Oscar winner for his work on Braveheart few would expect the change in style that came from the double punch hit of The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto, both were challenging pieces of cinema that really explored new depths of our capacity as an audience to experience violence of such an intense and visceral nature, more importantly than that was both made money and in the case of his wince inducing Christ tale, it smashed the whole damn box office.

After a 10 year hiatus, Gibson returns behind the camera to bring us a stunning true life story of immense bravery in the face of harrowing circumstances. Hacksaw Ridge is the story of Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield) a charming, deeply religious American man who wants to serve his country in WWII, but refuses to compromise on his beliefs by killing and will not carry a weapon. The film focuses on the conflict he faces with his own military and the eventual conflict he faces overseas with the enemy.

Hacksaw Ridge is almost presented as three distinct acts, and what is very evident is how each part is more impressive than the last. The first part is by far and away the weakest of the three, it follows Desmond around in his home life in his idyllic hometown, as he develops a relationship with nurse and Desmond's future wife Dorothy (Teresa Palmer). None of this is particularly offensive and there is a sense of who Desmond is being offered, but the level of sacren and sugary nonsense that is lumped on the screen runs the risk of inducing a diabetic coma. Fortunately Gibson has the presence of mind to move things on and the film heads on to Desmond in basic training. It's here when we are introduced to a plethora of supporting characters that will feature for the rest of the film, most of them are instantly forgettable, but It's a credit to Vince Vaughan that he does enough with his performance as Sgt. Howell that you can almost begin to forget every sub-par comedy you've had to endure him in for the last 10 years, same too goes for Sam Worthington as Captain Glover, who isn't given much to do but does it well enough. It's in these scenes though where Garfield really comes into his own, all his beliefs are put to the test, and Garfield completely sells this mans unwavering commitment to his faith and courage in the face of those who think he's just a coward. By the end of this section you're completely on board with Desmond's reasoning no matter how mad he might appear to be for doing what he wants to do.

So, then it's off to war, and a chance finally for Gibson to get his teeth stuck in and doing what he does best. The first set piece on top of the titular Hacksaw Ridge is a reminder of everything we've been missing out on from Gibson, his slow tense build leads to a full on frantic and monumentally bewildering battle that is a complete affront to the senses. It really does take you aback and by attacking you in such a manner it can become quite an emotional experience, reminding yourself that in the midst of this chaos is an unarmed combat medic called Desmond. There are moments where it strays from harrowing to borderline absurd, but they are only ever cautionary steps that are followed by hasty retreats.

In the midst of all this though is Andrew Garfield, his performance is a difficult one to tackle, with so much going on he always manages to make you invested in Desmond's experience of war, with little room for dialogue his expressions say so much whilst doing very little, it's definitely not a performance that you would say betters his in Silence, but few could argue that he didn't deserve his Oscar nomination.

It isn't as revolutionary as Gibson's last two features, in terms of its style it definitely feels closer to his earlier work on Braveheart, but it's an effective film with some challenging depictions of violence in wartime. If Hacksaw Ridge confirms anything though its that Gibson is someone who's work we should want more of.


(Low 4 Stars)

Logan Review

What feels like a lifetime ago, it was announced that the new Wolverine spin off movie was to be directed by Darren Aronofsky, it eventually didn't come to anything as Aronofsky ended up stepping aside. However the thought that came to everyone's mind was Darren Aronofsky, him of Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler, what could have interested him in a comic book character like Wolverine? Years later, and James Mangold's Logan answers that question.

Set many years into the future, Logan sees Logan (Hugh Jackman) now old and haggard, he's still a physically imposing person but he's clearly wearing the weight of all his life's scars. Logan lives with Charles (Patrick Stewart) in a derelict waste site of a home with fellow mutant Caliban (Stephen Merchant). Charles, now in his 90s, is beginning to deteriorate, and with a brain as powerful as his this proves potentially catastrophic. Logan plans to get away with Charles but things are then complicated when a young mutant a lot like Logan enters their life in the form of Laura (newcomer Dafne Keen).

The greatest strength of Logan is that it doesn't feel like it is has to fit in with anything that has come before it nor anything that may follow on after this, it feels like an entirely self contained film, and yes it wouldn't carry anywhere near as much weight if we hadn't seen these actors in so many of these films prior to this, but it's never straining to tie everything together and the ambiguity in its references to greater things that may have happened only ever add to the films strength.

Once the character of Laura is introduced the film essentially becomes a road movie as Logan, Charles and Laura travel across the country to reach a safe place with the bad guys hot on their tails. It's this road movie sensibility where James Mangold's skills really become apparent. Mangold feels like he is connected to the classic american model, his remake of 3:10 to Yuma remains one of the best westerns in modern times, and here he adopts and re purposes similar practices to exceptional results. In previous films Logan has been akin to the masterless samurai, and here Mangold compares him to Shane from the 1953 classic which features heavily in the film. Logan is a man of violent practices who just so happens to help those who might need it, often reluctantly. But the film offers the view that maybe he's never been entirely comfortable in this role, 'there's no living with the killing' being quoted from Shane.

In the past, the reason many have commented on for us not having the definitive Wolverine film was that we've never been able to see the full violent rage that is enshrined into his character, opting for a 15 certificate over the usually targeted 12a, it has finally given the necessary leeway for the character to breathe. It is an unflinchingly and spectacularly violent film, but it never feels unnecessary or exploitative, there is pain and there is suffering and it is never depicted as anything other than that. It is also impressively nihilistic, in one particular scene at a farmhouse it is genuinely shocking and upsetting, but it importantly never threatens to derail the film.

The reductive quality of people isolating comic book films from other films is that more often than not the performances are tragically overlooked. On the antagonist front in Logan it is a little underwhelming, yes this film is more interested in Logan's internal battles but Richard E Grant's Dr. Rice is unfortunately a cardboard cut out evil doctor character, and whilst Boyd Holbrook's Donald Pierce is initially engaging he's sadly sidetracked towards the end to make room for a physically more daunting foe that is introduced to Logan. However on the good guy side of things, this films takes it to another level. Dafne Keen is exceptional as Laura, mute for at least two thirds of the film she provides a stunning physical performance both in her body language and facial expressions in the quieter moments and an immense fierceness when she's cutting up baddies when it all kicks off. If the academy are going to look for a performance in a comic book film to nominate, one hopes that they have long enough memories to recognise Sir Patrick Stewart for his exceptional performance, its a serious and sensitive portrayal of an old man approaching the final period of his life, he's often angry and he carries the weight of something awful he's done that he frustratingly can't remember, often there are moments you forget the source material, his performance would be equally at home in a Still Alice like drama.

There really is only one man this film is about though and that is Hugh Jackman. Now it is impossible to separate the actor from this character, yet 17 years ago few would believe that an Australian unknown more commonly associated with musicals would turn out to be the perfect choice. He's been in some good films as Wolverine such as X2 and Days of Future Past and some not so good such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men: The Last Stand. The title of this film says so much, he's not wolverine anymore he's just Logan, and Jackman carries the weight of all the films prior to this, yet it strips away everything that made those films about Wolverine, here his healing factor is a curse not a superpower. Logan has lived for so long and lost so much along the way, he's a man who just want's to lay down and die, but he cant fight the good in him, and if he's going to die he's going to die for something worthwhile. It might have been possible to picture someone other than Jackman in the role before this film, but now its an inconceivable task, because Jackman has experienced everything with Logan and we've seen what it's done to him, they're enshrined forever now, and what Jackman does with his performance here
is the definitive version no matter what follows.

If this film does anything, hopefully it will be to allow more filmmakers to tell the stories about these characters that they want to tell. Approach them with maturity and treat them as films rather than just comic book films, because as the results show here, something really special can be produced.

(High 4 Stars)     

Kong: Skull Island Review

It's not hard to see why there's a revival coming of all the monster movies, with every studio desperately looking through their records to see what properties they own that could potentially start a shared cinematic universe, it was almost guaranteed that we were going to see Godzilla and King Kong back on the big screen pretty quickly, probably with Mothra and all the other beasties not too far behind. It all kick started off back in 2014 with Gareth Edwards solid, if perhaps unremarkable Godzilla and now we see a return to the big screen of cinemas biggest Monkey in the new feature Kong: Skull Island.

Clearly keen on young independent filmmakers, Jordan Vogt-Roberts was handed the reigns of this latest outing, tasked with creating something very different from the Peter Jackson version we saw 12 years ago, and also keeping in mind that this has got to fit in with future sequels down the line. So the first thing Vogt-Roberts has made sure to do is to make Kong much bigger, a hell of a lot bigger in fact, because if he's got to fight Godzilla in future then he's not going to last long if he can only get shots in around his shins, but that's not the only thing that's different.

The film focuses on an exploratory mission to Skull Island lead by government agent Bill Randa (John Goodman), he recruits some assistance from former British Special Forces James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) and a Military escort in the form of a Vietnam War Helicopter Squadron led by Lieutenant Colonel Packard (Samuel L Jackson). After napalming the island to map its geographical structure (or something along those lines that makes even less sense) they awaken a collection of creepy creatures on the island and run into another one in the form of Kong.

There are some genuine pleasures to be taken from this film. Vogt-Roberts is clearly an enthusiastic and passionate guy, he seems to revel in its 70s setting and although a lot of it are cliches that have been in a thousand films before, there is still some enjoyment to be taken from them. He is also a very cineliterate director, and he litters the film with intertextual references, obviously to vietnam war films but also many beyond that. Similarly to Gareth Edwards Godzilla it suffers from all the same problems. Visually Gareth Edwards was able to create some moments of real beauty but as a film it didn't really hold up, and yes you will come out of this and remember the stunning shot of Kong stood with the sun setting as the helicopters approach, but it's not enough to have good moments, you can watch them in a trailer.

It is also, objectively, one of the most poorly written blockbusters this year. Its characters are so poorly formed and one note that it is genuinely impressive they managed to assemble such a good cast to give a good old stab at selling this tripe. Samuel L Jackson's military man is a  bit angry, John Goodman's government guy is a bit untrustworthy, John C Reilly's crash landed pilot is a bit crazy and Brie Larson's photographer likes taking pictures. As poor as those characters are, nothing comes close to the staggering dullness of Hiddleston's James Conrad. For starters, it is the most miscast role in recent memory and he sticks out like a sore thumb for the whole film, there is never a reasonable explanation given as to why there's a need for him to be there in the first place. He's introduced in a bar shooting pool and getting in a scrap, so we guess he's a bit of a rogue and he's not going to listen to the rules. He gets to the island and it becomes genuinely exhausting to try and figure out what he's offering other than occasionally bending down, looking at the floor then standing up and saying "it's so many clicks this way" or "we need to go so many clicks that way". Hiddleston is a talented actor, but this is perfect example of why not to shoehorn an actor into a film just because they're a big star. 

The real star of this film, as should always be the case, is Kong himself. For the most part the redesign of the character is a fairly successful one. After Andy Serkis provided so much personality and warmth to Kong in his last appearance there was always a risk that this was going to completely eschew that level of effort. However despite Kong being physically much larger and theoretically much younger, there is some effort to give him a personality that can be developed going forward, helped ably here by Toby Kebbell's performance capture. If there's a problem its with Vogt-Roberts' direction. There's almost a lack of respect shown towards the character in the way that he is presented. A character of Kong's caliber needs to have a slow build reveal, teasing the audience before eventually having a hero shot that shows him in all his glory. Here however, Vogt-Roberts opts instead to blow his load in the opening prologue scene, there may be something to the notion that this is a refreshing approach, but you're then left feeling more impatient with the earlier scenes knowing that we've already seen the big star.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is set for release in 2019, after a very slow start with these first two films, hopefully they can take note that the visual spectacle of a giant monster is less engaging when there is no well formed human characters selling it. There are promising moments, but there needs to be more than that to result in promising films.

(3 Stars) 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 Review

Marvel Studios are the undisputed daddies of the box office at the moment, so much so that now with each new release people tout as the film where the bubble bursts. Back in 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy was singled out as their biggest risk by far. It was a comic that even comic book fans weren't big followers of, it features a talking raccoon and a walking tree alien, it was to be written and directed by James Gunn alumni of Troma Entertainment, and its leading man was the chubby one from Parks and Recreation. A haul of almost $800million at the box office and Marvel once again could do no wrong. The Guardians will join up with the Avengers next year, but before then James Gunn returns to bring us volume 2.

After the events of the first film The Guardians have essentially been working as guns for hire, in a really charming title sequence the now baby Groot dances to ELO whilst in the back ground Peter Quill/Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Drax (Dave Bautista), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Rocket (Bradley Cooper) battle with a giant space slug. Whilst on this mission they upset the sovereign race. Fleeing across the galaxy the Guardians run into a charismatic individual named Ego (Kurt Russell) who turns out to be Quill's father, but he may be much more than that.

Right from the off Gunn sets the tone that this film wants to have, its freewheeling and animated, its fun and its incredibly daft. The interplay between the guardians grows here, there is a really fractious relationship forming between Rocket and Quill, there is a romantic relationship possibly forming between Gamora and Quill, meanwhile Drax is getting used to being part of his new family. Stylistically it is filled with colour and explosions and it really is one of those fun sci-fi films that zips here there and everywhere offering brilliant vistas and new worlds. As with the first one, Gunn also punctuates the film with a brilliant soundtrack of classic tracks aptly named 'awesome mix vol 2'.

The problem however is that after about half of the film has passed you realise that nothing has really happened yet in terms of consequence, and then it feels a bit later like the film realises this and reacts by remembering it needs a plot and a villain and quickly throws one at you. It's sad that all the enjoyment of the silliness and hijinks feels perfunctory by the end. It's nice that this feels like the closest you'll get to an MCU film that doesn't connect with all the other films, but as a side effect of that it also feels a bit superfluous.

It does however show a level of maturity towards the end that really stand outs in the context of the rest of the film, which gives Michael Rooker in particular some really good stuff to do. Plus you wont be able to listen to Cat Stevens at the end and not come at least vaguely close to shedding a tear.

(3 Stars)

Alien: Covenant Review

Now that the dust has settled and the furious film fans stabbing away at their keyboards making sure that everyone online knows that Prometheus was a terrible, awful, abysmal film, we can look back and say that it's probably not quite as bad as people remember. Ok, Prometheus isn't great, it is riddled with clunky errors and missteps, but there is also a lot of good to take from it, not least the fact that it really is swinging for the fences. Now Ridley Scott brings us Alien: Covenant, on the face of it is a sequel that looks a lot more like an Alien film, but it may not be quite the film people expect.


The Covenant of the films title refers to the colonization ship heading towards a new planet. The ship is being monitored by android Walter (Michael Fassbender), when a neutrino storm hits resulting in the loss of some of the colonists including the ships captain, and waking the rest of the crew out of stasis. The crew come to terms with where they are and after receiving a distress signal from a nearby planet they decide to take a detour to investigate. Needless to say this is an Alien film and it isn't long before things start to go horribly wrong.

It really is an impressive improvement on Prometheus, Scott has returned to a lot of the leaner and intense fear of the earlier films, the slow build of dread the moment they land on this planet escalating to a gloriously violent climax to the first act is peak Scott, a director that people forget that when he operates in his best form, there are genuinely few around as good as him.

It's at the end of that first act where the film completely flips with the re-introduction of Fassbender's android from Prometheus, David. David has been living on this planet for a while and although he seems pleasant to the crew at first, something has changed in him and too much time in his company becomes deeply uncomfortable. It essentially becomes Fassbender's film, and what follows is a series of bizarre, uncomfortable and creepy scenes featuring David talking about life and creation and engaging in conversation with his newer self Walter, playing flute and even kissing. What's amazing about this section of the film is how fascinatingly compelling these scenes are, Fassbender is absolutely extraordinary as the deranged David playing off an equally good performance from himself as Walter. The film doesn't stay in that mode forever, David has been working on something, and that something provides a descent into a traditional gory alien showdown.

There are problems in how Scott approaches this film, the beginning is Alien the middle is Prometheus and the end is the mutated alien offspring of both of them. Whats great is how well those aspects work individually, but when put together there is some tonal jarring that becomes noticeable, its a credit to the film that they work well enough on their own that the jarring never completely compromises the film. Much has been commented about how the crew make some of the stupidest decisions ever, but in the context of the film they make sense, the crew are all paired into couples and its an interesting spin in how this affects their judgement. Also as people operating under intense fear and panic their judgement isn't always going to be at optimum levels, they're also going to have no idea not to look into a facehugger pod, because guess what? These characters don't exist in a world where they have seen the original Alien film, of course you'd be curious.

It is absolutely bewildering to think where this might go next, the ending of this outing could take whatever is next in a very interesting direction. Lord knows how this links up, if it does at all, with Alien, but how amazing it is to see a director like Ridley Scott at his age just turning up and making the films he want's to make, and so long as they have lots of Michael Fassbender in they will always be worth watching.

(High 4 Stars)  

The Mummy Review

It's the summer blockbuster season and Hollywood has treated us to a brand new reboot, of a reboot, of what also could possibly be considered a reboot. Directed by Alex Kurtzman, he of angering fan boy fame after writing the poorly received Star Trek Into Darkness and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Universal Studios bring us their first film in what we're reliably informed is set to start their own cinematic universe 'The Dark Universe' which will feature all the classic horror characters they own the rights to. So The Mummy holds the weight of

an entire movie universe on its shoulders, success is essential.

The Mummy stars Tom Cruise as Nick Morton, a US military officer who along with 'comic' sidekick Chris (Jake Johnson) and archaeologist Jennifer (Annabelle Wallis) discovers the tomb of ancient Egyptian Mummy Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). Needless to say they awaken Ahmanet and she sets out to find Nick, stab him with an ancient dagger, which in the process will unleash the evil God Set into a human form who Ahmanet owes a debt to for giving her powers in the first place, simple enough.

There are plenty of things to like about this film, the first of which is that with its 15 rating it is really effectively creepy in many places, it should labour on the gothic in more places but there are some mildly frightening jump scares. Performance wise it's also quite strong, Cruise makes this sort of fare look easy, and following on from Jack Reacher and Edge of Tomorrow it is interesting to see him play another largely unlikeable character. Anabelle Wallis gives it her all but she is lumped with an extremely poor character, even by Hollywood's usual standards she is given next to nothing to do. Sofia Boutella could have been the most exciting thing about this film, gender swapping the main antagonist could have been a bold move and Boutella really is stunning in the role, but what they've done with the character is deeply infuriating and borderline offensive. Instead of Ahmanet being a fearsome foe, she's made completely subservient to a greater male God, which through narrative quirks means that Ahmanet is infatuated with Tom Cruise's character. It also leads to a third act conclusion which plays out in a manner which makes for deeply uncomfortable viewing.

There's no way of getting around the fact that the moment that you pause for any semblance of thought, this entire film falls apart, but if you avoid fighting against it and ride the wave of stupidity, there are some base level pleasures to be taken from it. Kurtzman draws heavily from Raiders of the Lost Ark, An American Werewolf in London and the previous The Mummy films in all their forms, but it's never as fun or as original as them, but without them the film wouldn't be any good at all, because whilst your watching moments that remind you of those films it at least momentarily gives you joy at the thought of watching those far superior films when you get home.

The greatest sin that this film commits begins in the opening titles of the film, the moment we see Universal's 'Dark Universe' logo and we realise this is all a part of something bigger. Attempting to set up this new universe is so detrimental to this film as an individual picture, its script becomes unnecessarily clunky and baggy, and it also means that it has to introduce Russell Crowe in to what is surely the most stupid and laughable scene you'll see this year. It puts the cart before the horse and the lack of patience on the studios part will only be to their loss.

No sugar coating it, this has absolutely died at the box office, the universe hasn't yet ended before its begun though, too many wheels are in motion and Johnny Depp is signed up for The Invisible Man and Javier Bardem is on board as Frankenstein's Monster, but no matter the stars or the subject matter, if the films continue to be as disappointing as this and lose as much money as this, then the 'Dark Universe' could become a whole lot darker.

(High 2 Stars)     

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge Review

Many moons ago, 14 years ago to be exact, a film based on a theme park ride seemed like an absurd prospect. Yet, here we are all these years later after 4 films and a few billion at the box office we arrive at the 5th, and quite possibly the last film in the series.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge (given the much better title across the pond of Dead Men Tell No Tales) see's the young Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites) set out on a quest to find the trident of Poseidon in order to break the curse that keeps his father (Orlando Bloom) bound to ship The Flying Dutchman. To find it he requires the help of his fathers old friend Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Along the way they enlist the help of a spirited young woman and astronomer Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario). Meanwhile Captain Salazar and his band of ghost pirates are out for revenge against Jack who as a young man bound them to their ghostly torment in the devils triangle, in short, there's a lot going on in this film.

The original trilogy was helmed by the weird and wonderful Gore Verbinski, however overlong and bloated the films felt, Verbinski's set pieces always had a unique offbeat energy and feel to them. This latest outing sees Fast & Furious, but its only the final act that really begins to lose you in its ridiculousness.

the directing duo of Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg take the helm, and although it often feels Verbinski-lite there is still a lot of pleasure in their set pieces, particularly a hilarious visual joke featuring a guillotine. There is also a very impressive opening set piece which features the first attack from Salazar and his crew which is effectively gothic and a little creepy. There is a sense of the ridiculous in many parts, with set pieces featuring zombie sharks and pirates doing

The new young'uns in the cast are entirely forgettable, its not necessarily their fault as both actors have been better in better things, but their characters are a bit one note and poorly formed. Geoffrey Rush returns as Captain Barbosa, a character who always gets extra brownie points for actually sounding like a traditional Pirate. Many of Barbosa's character beats seem forced and a particular revelation towards the end is so monumentally rushed that it barely registers. Bardem is quite menacing as Salazar, but again his character is poorly drawn, his entire motivation is meant to be explained in one flashback but it isn't enough to sufficiently explain his rage, there's more there to his character we just never get a chance to see it.

And so it comes to Captain Jack Sparrow, a character who is now so intertwined with the actor playing him that its' hard to see where one ends and the other begins. One has to remember that Johnny Depp was Oscar nominated for his performance in the first film, and though there are those who hate the character its hard to disagree that its Captain Jack who has carried this film series, his idiosyncrasies and scene stealing are always watchable when the films have perhaps been less so. The problem that becomes apparent here is that the makers of this outing have completely forgot who Jack Sparrow is. In the original films, Captain Jack for all his bumbling and chaos was a very capable pirate who just happened to have a bit of a problem with drink, but there was also a certain menace and melancholy to him that made him so compelling. Salazar's Revenge gives us a Captain Jack with no nuance or subtlety, he is unquestionably and absolute fucking moron. The saddest part is that he's not funny either, the writing for Jack has become too bawdy and on the nose, Johnny Depp still is 100% Captain Jack Sparrow, but not the one you fell in love with 14 years ago.

Post credits sting aside this really needs to be the last outing for Captain Jack, each outing has seen the law of diminishing returns in full effect. This is going to make Disney money, but with so much creativity out there it would be nice to see them take a risk on something new like they did 14 years ago on a film about a theme park ride.

(2 Stars)

John Wick Chapter 2 Review

It feels like its a very difficult thing to create a solid action character that can support sequels over a franchise. The problem is that companies try and force sequels out of a character who isn't anywhere near as interesting as they think they are, who exist in worlds that barely have enough material to support one film, case in point the seemingly never ending amount of times Liam Neeson's Brian Mills has things Taken from him. Fortunately 2015 saw the introduction of Keanu Reeves as John Wick, finally an action character who you feel could kick John McClane's ass and still have enough energy to beat the bad guy. The first John Wick film also established an interesting underground assassin world which had so much more it could explore, and now in John Wick Chapter 2 it does.

John is getting ready to settle back down to his normal life after his one man rampage saw him take revenge on those that wronged him. Word has got out that he has come out of retirement and he is paid a visit by an old 'friend' Santino D'Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio). John is indebted to Santino and Santino needs John to kill someone for him. John assures Santino that he is still retired, but things aren't that easy.

As with the first film the strength of this is Keanu Reeves commitment to the cause, unlike most actors you are entirely aware that Reeves can do the stuff that John Wick does because the camera pulls back and you're able to watch him do it. There's no need for editing to cut around stunt men jumping in and out of place for the star because Reeves can shoot like an expert marksman and can perform intricate martial arts, and in the major set pieces of the film it is an absolute beauty to witness. Occasionally it feels as though some sequences are going on slightly too long, but its a fleeting feeling before something else comes along to change it up.

Action set pieces on their own do not a good film make, and fortunately this has much more to it. The plot of the actual film is a fairly simplistic one of John Wick killing people then people coming to kill John Wick, but the effort that has gone into the films world building is what makes the difference. There's so much fun to be had watching the inner workings of this underground assassin world, there are rules enforced by hotel patron Winston (Ian McShane), there are blood debts and unique currencies, a sommelier who deals specially in weapons (played brilliantly by Peter Serafinowicz), and there's a sort of interesting style to how things are run with women operating old fashioned switchboards and typing up bounty's for assassins, there are small moments where this begins to emulate something akin to Gilliam's world building, which to have in a mainstream action film is absolutely fascinating. There's also a small decision that it makes with a particular characters death that really changes the tone of a scene and gives it a considerably more interesting angle.

Chapter 2 leaves John Wick in a very interesting place, who knows how far they can go with this world and this character, but two films into the adventures of John Wick and there is a genuine intrigue and desire for a second sequel, and that is as big a pleasure as it is a surprise.

(High 4 Stars)   

T2 Trainspotting Review

There are films which have such an impact with its audience that that question of a sequel never really goes away. Danny Boyle's Trainspotting was a cultural phenomenon, it defined an entire generation, it became the film of the 1990's and was a film riding the wave of 'Cool Britannia', so how on earth do you follow that? The answer appears to be to wait a while.

It's now 20 years on from Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) stitching up his mates and leaving with all £20,000 of the cash they scored from a drug deal, Mark, now in his 40s, is living in Amsterdam, after a health scare he thinks it's time to pay a visit home to see how things have gone for everyone else and possibly make amends with his 3 mates. Upon returning he falls back into old habits of dodgy deals and substance abuse with best friend Simon 'Sick Boy' Williamson (Jonny Lee Miller), with lovable friend Spud (Ewen Bremner) trying to get his life back on track and psychopath Francis Begbie (Robert Carlyle) out for revenge against Mark.

Time really has played a major part in making this sequel feel so intriguing. To make a sequel only a couple of years after the original would have meant placing the same characters into similar situations whilst never reaching the dizzying originality they achieved first time out. T2  is the same characters, but 20 years on they're different people in many ways, and much the same in many others. There is a rich sense of nostalgia and a melancholy for a time gone past. It's sensitive to how we view our lives at an older age and think more fondly of times we've had before. It's been 20 years since these actors have played these characters, but you don't think that for a second, it almost feels that they are these characters, they've never left them.

The sense of nostalgia and looking back never entirely overwhelms the film of being something of itself. It obviously doesn't have the same power as the original and it definitely isn't going to resonate as big culturally speaking, but it reminds you that Danny Boyle is still an outrageously cool director. Boyle is constantly looking to provide something different and new to keep the energy flowing through the film, and for the most part he achieves it, 20 years later he is still just as inventive.

The thing that everyone remembers about the original is the soundtrack, it was the thing that tied the film so well to its young audience. The soundtrack here is also very impressive, it's a little more mixed as it blends together some classic pop with more contemporary pieces, the best example of this is the remixed and pumped up version of 'Lust for life' which was the score to the famous opening of the 90s original.

Ultimately this isn't Trainspotting and it also very much is Trainspotting, its like looking at your dad really, he's the same person as he was when he was in his 20's, he's fun now but in a different way, he's matured but you know that he used to tear it up 20 years ago, he's not as cool but he's more warm and good spirited. Although your dad probably doesn't take anywhere near as much heroin.

(High 4 Stars)   

Get Out Review

Horror cinema feels like its picking back up, it had become so monumentally generic and stale, Hollywood had seen it as the easiest genre to make a cheap buck in and would give formulaic scripts to workmanlike directors. Thankfully, in the last couple of years or so there has been a revival, the horror output has gotten better and new voices have been found in the likes of Corin Hardy, Robert Eggers, Jeremy Saulnier, Fede Alvarez and David Robert Mitchell. You can also add another name to that list, because with Get Out Jordan Peele has become a very big player.

Get Out focuses on Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) a talented photographer who is in a relationship with Rose (Allison Williams). It's finally time for Chris to meet Rose's parents (Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener), only Chris is worried that because he is black and Rose is white that they wont approve. This leads to a weekend spent in Chris' worst nightmare, the lone black man in a mass of middle class white Americans. After an awkward but polite start, things start to deteriorate and not everything may be as it appears.

Jordan Peele is mostly known in America for his work as a comedian as part of a writing and acting duo with Keegan-Michael Key, and has co -starred and co-written a very successful sketch show is the US. This might seem like a complete change of pace for Peele but what is evident in Get Out is how much the boundaries between comedy and horror are blurred. Peele's script is incredibly smart, every sentence seems to have underlining meanings, people are saying one thing that might seem innocent, but upon second viewing you realise the far more sinister connotations. Event's in Get Out do eventually deteriorate into a great cathartic violent climax, but everything done before that is so subtle and smart it earns that ending.

The tone of Peel's writing is matched fantastically by a collection of wonderful performances, Daniel Kaluuya is brilliant as Chris, the way he speaks and holds himself in front of certain people and the register he adopts with others is important in identifying the race divide in the film. Whitford and Keener are the standouts in the cast of racists, the racism developed in this film is actually a more important one than is more often depicted in cinema, liberal racism is rife in this film as it is in American society, Whitford's Father character is excited to tell Chris how much he loved Obama because he feels it's something that shows how not racist he is. In a party sequence the liberal racism is depicted in full force as Chris is introduced to various elderly white people who panic and try to name all the black sports stars they like. If this film does only one important thing it will be to show people that you don't have to wear a hood and burn crosses to be racist.

Jump scares are all well and good in horror and Peele isn't adverse to deploying them here either, but what really makes a horror is creating a tone of unease and a sense of dread that stays with people long after they've left the theatre. In his debut film Jordan Peele has created something that is as funny as it is horrific, as smart as it is fun, he might not necessarily stay in the horror genre going forward, but he'd definitely be welcome back to it at any time.


(5 Stars)  

Moonlight Review

Sometimes in an effort to sum up a film you can completely strip away everything that makes it so powerful. When describing Barry Jenkins' Moonlight one might say that its a film about the troubles of a poor black man with a crack addicted mother coming to terms with his own sexuality. However, with the characters the film features, Moonlight is so much more than that.

The film follows the life of Chiron, a young man growing up in Liberty City, Miami. The first chapter follows his life as young boy, and the relationship he has with his drug addicted mother (Naomi Harris) and the relationship he forms with his mothers drug dealer (Mahershala Ali). The second chapter sees Chiron as a teenager, thrown into hormonal adolescence his sexuality and his feelings come more to the fore. The final chapter is Chiron as a grown man, things have changed drastically for him yet much also remains the same.

Chiron is played by 3 different actors and its a testament to their performances that you never once feel like they aren't the same person. All three have a strong screen presence and a sensitivity that always makes Chiron's character immensely endearing. Out of the 3, Trevante Rhodes is the most impressive, in the final chapter Chiron has bulked up to an intimidating size, his muscular physique fills the frame, what's so amazing about Rhodes performance is how he manages to maintain the sensitivity established in the first two chapters, despite his physicality being completely different. The supporting cast is also incredibly strong, Naomi Harris does so much in the scenes she's given, she is an incredibly damaged woman and it would be so easy to hate her, yet there's something that Harris gives the character that by the end there is a swell of sympathy for her. Mahershala Ali took home best supporting actor for his role as Juan, and there can be no argument that he didn't deserve it. He completely undercuts every stereotype and preconception we think we know about drug dealers in poor black neighbourhoods. He offers Chiron a father figure when he doesn't have one, gives him guidance and teaches him to be who he wants to be, and yet there's always this dichotomy that Juan is also responsible in some part for the poor parenting he's receiving elsewhere.

Barry Jenkins is surely going to be a major player going forward, his style is the perfect compliment to his actors performances. Its subtle and unimposing yet also wonderfully expressive, similar somewhat to Steve McQueen, Jenkins is seemingly able to blend both formalism and realism into a perfect cocktail. Moonlight offers so much about the notion of identity and how we define ourselves, characters are complex, they are more than whatever labels can be attributed to them, at the end of it all, Jenkins hasn't just created characters, he's created fully formed people.

This may feel to some like nothing actually happens, and plot wise it is incredibly laid back. But what its depicting is real drama, complex emotions and day to day issues. It's a film that feels personal to Jenkins and writer of the original play Tarell Alvin McCraney, more importantly than anything is that it feels honest. It's confused winning of the best picture Oscar will take most of the headlines for this film, but the headline should really be that for the first time in a while a truly fantastic film made on a small budget has won the biggest honour in Hollywood.

(5 Stars)  

Free Fire Review

As Ben Wheatley's notoriety has risen, so too has the scale of his films. Hard to believe that Wheatley's feature debut was only 8 years a go, 2009's Down Terrace had a monumentally modest budget, with Wheatley quoting an initial budget as low as £6,000. Since then he has seen incremental rises which reached the dizzying heights of a £6million budget on last years Tom Hiddleston starring High Rise. This year sees the release of his starriest and most expensive film to date, Free Fire.



Set in a 70s Boston warehouse (actually filmed in Brighton, a stones throw from Wheatley's own home), Free Fire centres on an arms deal between some IRA affiliates and an eccentric South African arms dealer. After an altercation leads to flared tempers people start firing and bodies start dropping.


Setting the film entirely in one location and in relatively 'real' time is a stroke of genius on Wheatley's part, it really allows him and his DP Laurie Rose to explore every conceivable area of the dusty and derelict setting. Wheatley has spoken about how he sees the film as having two distinct worlds, the world where people are stood up shooting at each other and the world where people are lying down after being shot, those worlds do feel distinct which gives the film much more breadth than it might otherwise have had. Standing out above all other technical aspects is the sound design, it really is on another level here, when guns are shot they are loud, almost deafening, and when a character is shouting across a warehouse whilst people are shooting it isn't distinct, because why would it be? It's approached with logic and it also sounds awesome.

In the past Wheatley's films have tread a very fine line between what's funny and what's 'dark'. If Kill List was his most nihilistic work, then the jet black comedy of Sightseers would sit between that and Free Fire which is easily the most laugh out loud and fun film of his career so far. The wit is quick and twisted and perfectly written  for each character, written by Wheatley in conjunction with co-writer Amy Jump. There are many great one liners, the highlight of which may well be "I look like I tried to have sex with a reluctant panda bear". There is a great physical comedy to the action as well, Di Caprio got many plaudits for his flopping around in The Wolf of Wall Street, but the cast here must be praised for their physical devotion to their performances, just the seemingly simple thing of the consistency in their physical deterioration after the numerous injuries inflicted provides the film with some humorous images.

Much will be written about the cast Wheatley has assembled here, and thought it is considerably starrier than you'd come to expect from his previous works, whats great is just how perfectly cast they all are. Cillian Murphy and Michael Smiley are a great pairing, Murphy's Jack oozes a cool, cocksure charm and Michael Smiley's Frank is a grizzled curmudgeon with some brilliant one liners. Assisting Jack and Frank is Sam Riley's crack smoking idiot Stevo and his actually quite sweet friend Bernie played by Enzo Cilenti, Cilenti does good work with a character that has a lot less to do, Stevo on the other hand is the main source of comic relief in the film, he's actually quite an unlikable character but Riley manages to make him the right side of endearing. On the other side of the deal is Sharlto Copley's arms dealer Vern, Copley has a very unique on screen energy, which in the past when not sufficiently wrangled can be detrimental to a film. Fortunately here, the vain, pathetic nature of Vern's character is consistently hilarious, It's comfortably Copley's best performance since District 9. Vern's entourage comprised of Martin (Babou Ceesay), Gordon (Noah Taylor) and Harry (Jack Reynor) all give great performances, and their characters are all given enough by the script to be well formed people. The facilitators of the deal also happen to be the starriest names of the cast, and probably the two best characters in the film. Brien Larson is Justine, supposedly there representing the Irish side of the deal, she's the only woman of the piece and as the consistent big dick swinging goes on around her Larson's performance let's you know that she's tolerating it but something else is going on, she is definitely the smartest person in the room. Then there's Armie Hammer's Ord, there supposedly representing Vern but more likely he's there to just have fun. He is an exceptionally cool individual, like Vern he is exceedingly vain, pausing to check his reflection at one point, but unlike Vern he is incredibly efficient and when the shooting starts there's a sense that he is capable of killing everyone in the room and walking away with the money and whatever guns are left.

If there's a problem with the film it's that it sits awkwardly between two places. The peppy and humorous script lends itself to a more comic sense of violence to go with it. However as the film goes on it becomes more clear that what your watching is actually just people slowly dying from the gunshots they've sustained. There's only really two particularly grizzly deaths, it would have been nice to seen some more inventiveness in the way these characters meet their ends, not necessarily a Kill List  hammer to the head, but something other than another gunshot wound.

Though it features much of what we've come to like from Wheatley's work, it seems like a marked difference from his other work. This is perhaps his most accessible work to date hopefully meaning this will reach a bigger audience. Perhaps the greatest praise this film has received comes from the fact that Martin Scorsese is listed as an executive producer, a man who is immensely cine-literate and a master filmmaker himself, Armie Hammer has spoke of how Kill List and A Field in England blew his mind, with such praise from such people in such a relatively short space of time, the future looks very promising for Mr Wheatley.

(High 4 Stars)

   

Jackie Review

Biopics are one of the most common genres of film, there are so many cliches that filmmakers need to try and avoid. The cradle to grave narrative is now well worn and outdated, replacing it has become the focus on a particular period in the persons life which tells us what type of person they were. Even those in recent years have become more generic, so when walking into see a film like Jackie, looming large in the back of your mind are the specters of such cinematic disasters as Diana, Princess Grace of Monaco and to a certain extent, the noble failure of The Iron Lady. How refreshing then that this really isn't the film you fear it might have been.

It's interesting that a film that's dealing with a story that is so ingrained in American culture has ended up with a Chilean director behind the camera. It's probably to the films strength that Pablo Larrain has an almost healthy detachment from the story that allows him to approach it without any preconceived notions of who Jackie Kennedy was. Larrain and screenwrirter Noah Oppenheim's approach to the film mainly centres around an interview that Jackie (Natalie Portman) does with a journalist (Billy Cruddup) a few weeks after JFK's funeral in an attempt to set the record straight. The dynamic in the interview is really well constructed by Oppenheim and really well played by Cruddup and Portman. There is a power play between them throughout, but Jackie has final say on what goes to print so even at her most vulnerable she is still in charge. In one brilliant moment she recounts the details of what happened on that day, slowly breaking down as she does, then pauses, composes herself and informs the journalist that none of that will be printed. 

Interspersed between the interview segments are flashbacks to the day of the assassination and the aftermath leading up to the state funeral. As well as reconstructions of a famous TV tour that Jackie gave around The White House. Though the recreation of these segments seem quite obscure at first, they're there to remind you of the artifice surrounding Jackie Kennedy, how as the first first lady of the TV age her entire personality was a construct, Portman is playing someone playing a part.

Lorrain's style is so unique to this particular type of film. He nearly always seems to frame the characters in extreme close ups, its impressionist in its style and combined with Mica Levi's exceptional score there are tenets of horror to the drama in the aftermath of the assassination, it feels like a psychological horror in large parts more than a historical biopic, as we see Jackie wandering ghost like through the corridors of the White House in becomes mildly haunting.

For a film that is so heavily focused on its lead character it needs a strong central performance, and it has a brilliant one in Portman. It takes a while for the performance to settle into the film, it feels so mannered and arch that it's an awkward watch at first, when you begin to understand that it's all about playing a part then you begin to understand the depth and strength of the performance. There are also moments of genuine warmth to her as well, the moment when she has to inform her young children of what has happened is genuinely heart wrenching. There are a decent spattering of supporting performances also. Peter Sarsgaard probably gets the second largest amount of screen time after Portman as JFK's brother Bobby, he ably manages to capture the disappointment of what will never be and the panic at what legacy might be left behind. John Hurt crops up as a priest who Jackie turns to for counsel and Richard E Grant is really unrecognisable as a loyal White House confidante.

Larrain should be lauded for his sensitivity of dealing with the actual event itself. The impressionist style he employs means we view the event in a collection of abstract ways throughout various revisits to the moment, then only after the film has earned it does it depict the actual horror of the event in what is a sincerely upsetting moment. Footage of the incident has existed for so many years that when it does come it reclaims it from history and draws it back to the emotional pain of the incident, reminding you that whilst a country lost its President, in that car, a wife sat covered in her husbands blood as she watched him die, because of what proceeds this moment it provides a whole new level of melancholia to the event.

Larrain has done something that few would have expected, he gave the biopic fresh life and a real sense of style. This isn't just a great depiction of a historical figures life, this is a really fine piece of art. It feels like a necessary film for the current political climate that we find ourselves in. Many may find comfort in the words of John Hurts priest, "the darkness might never end, but it won't always be so dense".

(5 Stars)

La La Land Review

Damien Chazelle has an amazing talent, it's partly directing, but more so it is the ability to make you look at your own life and accomplishments and wonder why you suck in comparison. Chazelle is only 32 years old and after his exceptional debut film Whiplash he now brings us a big bombastic and old school musical with a modern flare, now set up as an awards season favourite.

La La Land sees Emma Stone's struggling actress Mia and Ryan Gosling's struggling jazz musician Sebastian meet in the bizarre hurly burly of LA and start a relationship based on their mutual support of each others dreams. Mia works in a coffee shop on a studio lot, which is the closest she's gotten to being on a movie set so far. She goes to audition after audition giving her all and being treated to blank faces in return. Sebastian is a jazz obsessive, he's obsessed with bringing real jazz back and keeping it alive, his dream to open a jazz club where they can play what music he wants.

Straight from the opening scene where the drivers on the freeway in LA break the monotony of the morning commute by breaking out into a performance of the extraordinarily catchy Another Day of Sun, you understand the joy of La La Land. Chazelle has already shown in just two films the spectacular energy he is able to infuse in his films and he really lays down a marker in this opening piece. It also helps that Chazelle has a background in music and knows how to film it, this gives a really dynamic passion to the sequences featuring jazz music. The films shows off old school sensibilities, Mia and Sebastian's song on the hill is a really charming song and dance number that instills the dynamic with a classic screwball romance.

Emma Stone really shows off the full extent of her talent here, her dancing is good, her singing even more so, but its the audition scenes where she excels most. In one audition she delivers a remarkable performance of someone delivering a remarkable audition, which makes the rejection seem even more cruel. Her big Audition song is a marked highlight of all the songs, a song where you genuinely feel someone heart and soul being poured out. The problem with Mia's character however is the manner in which the film undermines her through her relationship with Sebastian. Ryan Gosling is a very talented actor, his dancing is solid, his singing less so, his performance draws most of the films laughs and he wears a suit very well, but there's one inescapable fact, Sebastian is a complete and utter tool. He's a music snob, a self involved ass-hat who thinks he's charming. His existence begins to undermine Mia's character, she only seems to succeed in the film because Sebastian told her she could, if it wasn't for this guy's existence then she'd give up, it's such a shame that Emma Stone has to have her performance weakened by this.

There's fun to be had in the film with Chazelle's gentle ribbing of Hollywood. You can't help but wonder that if Whiplash comes from his experiences as a jazz drummer then La La Land must come from his own experiences of getting to Hollywood. At one point we hear from a screenwriter who has "a lot of buzz around him" because he's a "world builder", the young writers main idea, Goldilocks and the three bears told from the point of view of the bears, "it could be a franchise". It's moments like this where you wonder if that's something Chazelle has genuinely heard.

Character problems aside, you would have to be completely soulless not be caught up in the sheer charm of La La Land. It loses it's way in the middle a bit, but when the songs are so catchy and the set pieces so energetic, it's hard not to feel the films magic.

(High 4 Stars) 

Manchester by the Sea Review

For those of a British origin confused by the film's title, no, Manchester hasn't moved 40 miles west to the coast of England, the Manchester of the title is in fact the town of Manchester-by-the-sea in Massachusetts USA. The  town which plays host to director Kenneth Lonergan's new drama about family and loss which is set to storm awards season 2017.


Quincy in Massachusetts, and we see the day to day life of janitor Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) he's a quiet individual prone to snapping at people and picking bar fights. He receives a call which informs him that his older brother (Kyle Chandler) has passed away meaning he has to return to his home town of Manchester-by-the-sea, he later finds out that his brother has made him the guardian of his 15 year old son Paddy (Lucas Hedges).

This film has a lot of awards season buzz around it, most of it is deservedly being heaped onto the lead performance of Casey Affleck, who is unquestionably brilliant in this film. The way Lee carries himself throughout the film tells you everything you need to know about him, the way he nods or hunches his shoulders, the way he forces half smiles or blankly stares, Affleck avoids so many potential pitfalls and cliches. Lee is a man who is carrying the weight of some extreme emotional burden on his shoulders, he has placed himself in forced purgatory, a form of self persecution for something horrific that happened forcing him to leave his home town. In a spectacular, near operatic sequence where Lonergan reveals what it was that happenedm it really hits like a hammer as to why Lee is the way he is.

Lonergan is incredibly composed as a filmmaker, he's delicate and sensitive, he has the sense and presence of mind to know when to step in on a moment and when to step back from one. The way he works with his editor Jennifer Lame to put the film together should be lauded, the flashbacks featured in the film are placed in perfectly, they drop in like memories would and though never flagged up there is never a moment of confusion as to where they lie in the narrative.

This is 100% Affleck's film, but the film is also littered with very strong supporting performances. Kyle Chandler is brilliant in what few scenes he has in flashback, it hits home the sense of loss for Lee when you see the relationship he had with his brother. Michelle Williams makes a massive impact in the time she has on screen as Lee's ex-wife Randi, she's so brilliant that the film really cries out for much more of her character and more of her story, it would add as much to Lee's character as it would to the overall story. Then there's Lucas Hedges as Paddy, its a character that would be so easy to misjudge and come off as annoying, but its so effective, Paddy is your regular teenager who's mostly worried about having sex, playing sports and being in a band. It seems like he uses the situation to his advantage at first, but as the story unfolds the events begin to take their tole on him. Hedges chemistry with Affleck is electric, whats quite startling is how many laughs the interplay between the two seems to draw, but this never detracts from the emotional power punch moments. In one moment towards the end between the two, just the line "I can't beat it" and the moments after the line are monumentally tear inducing.

Lonergan is a real talent, he has managed to make a film about loss that feels emotionally honest but never morose or morbid. His sensibilities make the film and the experiences of the characters feel genuine and unforced, he's helped ably by a strong supporting cast and a lead actor who is surely now destined to be on stage holding a little gold man come February.

(Low 5 Stars)