Review: Doctor Strange (Spoiler-Free)

Doctor Strange is the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and brings yet another classic super-hero to the party. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a world-class neurosurgeon whose work is some of the best in his field, but all this success has made him arrogant and selfish. After being involved in a terrible car accident (caused entirely by his own reckless driving), Strange's hands are seriously injured and he is unable to perform surgery. His desperate attempts to heal eventually lead him to The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), who opens his eyes to a world of magic and endless possibilities.

Doctor Strange stumbles out of the starting gate with an opening act that brings little new to the table. The title character initially comes off as little more than a less likeable Tony Stark, and the supporting cast take some time to grow into their roles. Additionally, in the film's first half many of its attempts at humour fall flat, with numerous jokes more likely to be greeted with awkward silence than thunderous laughter. Fortunately though, the further this movie gets into its two-hour runtime the stronger it becomes, with its final impression being that of yet another satisfying super-hero epic from Marvel Studios.

There are a lot of interesting new ideas in Doctor Strange which make it well worth the price of admission. For starters, the visual effects are some of the most mind-bending ever put to film and ensure that this movie lives up to its name. Initial fears that the visual style would draw too heavily from the likes of Inception are unfounded; while there are certainly moments that are reminiscent of that 2010 hit, Doctor Strange puts enough new spins on these ideas (sometimes literally) that it successfully crafts its own identity.

Also, without spoiling anything, this movie has a fascinating final battle sequence which is a very inventive departure from what is usually seen in the genre. Genuinely unexpected and refreshingly original, this finale could be used to argue against the view that super-hero films have nothing new to offer.

Something that the MCU movies have consistently struggled with is a lack of compelling villains, with Tom Hiddleston's Loki being the only one to leave a lasting impression. Doctor Strange's main villain Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), doesn't reach the giddy heights of Hiddleston's charismatic trickster but is in the upper echelon of MCU baddies. With a clear motivation, personality and an intimidating look he shouldn't be as easily forgotten as some earlier villains have been.

Mikkelsen does well in the role and most of the cast is similarly strong; once they get past their aforementioned early wobbles Cumberbatch and Swinton bring some great performances, with Chiwetel Ejiofor as Baron Mordo also deserving of praise. One weak link would be Rachel McAdams as Christine Palmer, a role which fails to develop outside of the generic love interest archetype.

Overall though, despite a troubled start and a few rough edges the finished product is an entertaining movie, one which should please both fans and newcomers alike. The initial shortcomings are redeemed by an exhilarating second half which offers some fantastic action sequences, and ends in a clever and satisfying way.

Read More

Review: Warcraft -- Is This The Beginning or The End?

For those unfamiliar with the games on which it is based, Duncan Jones' Warcraft could be an intimidating watch. Throwing its audience in at the deep end of the extensive lore that this series has accumulated over its twenty-two year history, there's no denying that the movie could have tried a little harder to welcome newcomers to its world. Warcraft's story struggles under the weight of a wave of new concepts and terminology that come with relatively little explanation, some sound mixing that leaves numerous lines seemingly inaudible, and a script which even after years in development hasn't been able to rid itself entirely of plot holes.

 

Nonetheless, in its grandest moments it's difficult not to get swept up in the vast world that Warcraft presents to us, and while flawed it has to be said that this is a far more competent film than the videogame adaptations that have come before -- thanks in part to a talented director with a passion for the source material.

 

Warcraft tells the story of how the long-waged war between orcs and humans began, with the grotesque creatures opening a portal from their decimated world to ours (the peaceful Azeroth) with plans to conquer it for themselves. Led by the sinister Gul'Dan the orcs begin attacking settlements, taking captives with the intention of eventually sacrificing them to reopen the portal to the orc homeworld. This would let in the so-called orc 'horde', and in the process destroy any and all chance that the humans had of winning this war. Needless to say, the stakes are very high indeed and the film does a good job of keeping the audience engaged throughout its two-hour runtime in spite of its aforementioned story issues.

 

This can be put down to some likeable leads in the form of Travis Fimmel's Sir Lothar, Paula Patton's Garona and Ben Schnetzer's Khadgar; they are perhaps the most well defined characters of the piece, and it's no coincidence that all three are from the human side of the conflict. While early interviews reveal that Warcraft's intention was to tell a war story that depicted neither side as inherently villainous, it seems hard to imagine that anyone could leave this film rooting for the orcs. Not only do they follow the repulsive warlock Gul'Dan, but they also have a lack of engaging characters with Toby Kebbell's Durotan being perhaps the only exception. The design of the creatures likely doesn't help; attempts were made to differentiate these characters visually, but the absence of strong personalities on the orc side still makes it difficult to pick them apart in a fast-paced action sequence.

 

That's not to say that the human characters are handled flawlessly, with a subplot about a father and son on our side of the conflict being severely undercooked. Additionally, characters like Dominic Cooper and Ruth Negga's King Llane and Lady Taria found themselves in dire need of development, while Ben Foster's Medivh found his initially intriguing character thrown into incoherence by one of this film's more nonsensical plot twists -- a great shame as Foster's performance was possibly the strongest in the film, but was unfortunately put to waste.

 

It is quite possible that these characters would be better defined in a director's cut of the film, as reports of many scenes being scrapped to keep the runtime down are given credibility by the abrupt nature in which more than a few of them end.

What Warcraft lacks in character development it makes up for in world-building; while some aspects of this universe would have benefited from further elaboration, it was still enjoyable seeing the many different cultures and creatures on display here. This film successfully conveys the idea that Azeroth is a world that has been lived in for thousands of years, with secrets buried in every beautifully crafted set. Indeed, Warcraft is at the very least a treat for the eyes. While it perhaps leans too heavily on CGI here and there, the meticulously designed sets and costumes are a joy to behold.

With an ending that makes no attempt of tying up the film's many loose ends, it's quite clear that the hope is to turn Warcraft into cinema's next big fantasy franchise. Ultimately, that will depend on whether international box office numbers can make up for the movie's underwhelming prospects stateside. But given the effort that was put into making this movie a faithful adaptation of its much-beloved source material, one could argue that it deserves a second chance at the gold. It's true that Warcraft isn't a homerun for Legendary and Blizzard, but nor is it the disaster that some critics have gleefully declared it.

The plot can lose its footing here and there (something which will be particularly noticeable to those with no prior knowledge of the universe), and the film would have greatly benefited from spending more time defining the characters that make up its ensemble cast. But to say the film is without merit would be unfair. Warcraft's story does hold some exciting moments and there's great potential for the movie's surviving characters to be better served in a follow-up. Indeed, while Warcraft isn't entirely successful in all its aims, it sets up a rich and interesting world with far more skill than a typical video game adaptation; fans of these games and of fantasy in general could leave this feature feeling quite satisfied, and certainly shouldn't brush it off without consideration.

 

Read More

Review: Eye in the Sky

Gavin Hood's Eye in the Sky chronicles the unfolding of a complex military situation in Nairobi, where two Al-Shabaab extremists have been found preparing suicide vests for an imminent attack on a populated area. British Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is eager to eliminate them with a drone strike before they have the chance to leave, but the situation is made far more complicated by the arrival of a young girl selling bread who would likely be caught in the blast radius and possibly killed.

 

This already impossibly difficult situation is made all the more so by the tightly restricted time window those in charge have to make a decision. As Powell points out numerous times, the extremists could potentially leave at any given moment and the consequences of their escape could be devastating. The audience isn't spared from the gut-wrenching indecision as the film takes place more or less in real-time, and feels very much like watching a real military operation in action.

 

 

This is an impressive feat, especially when considered that some of the technology in the film is quite clearly beyond what is currently at our disposal. But even with this knowledge, there's a great sense of realism carried throughout this film's runtime and that is because the futuristic tech never distracts from the theme this movie is drawing attention to; that being the ethics of drone warfare.

 

This is a theme handled with surprising delicacy and sophistication; as characters start taking sides in the debate on whether or not to strike, neither preference is made to seem like the "right" choice nor is either side portrayed as either villainous or heroic. The film is remarkably objective and never tries to force a point of view onto the audience, instead giving us all the arguments and allowing us to form our own opinions on the matter.

 

This high-tension story is anchored by strong performances across the board with the aforementioned Mirren portraying a hardened Colonel, but still managing to retain a sense of humanity. Aaron Paul, still searching for his place in a post-Breaking Bad world, reminds us why he was the emotional core of that show in his role as American 2nd Lieutenant Steve Watts. As the one who would have to fire the missile, Watts is arguably the most concerned for the life of young girl Alia and displays quite powerfully just how much strain a single day in the military can put on a person's mind. 

Barkhad Abdi of Captain Phillips fame is undercover agent Jama Farah, and as the character in the most imminent danger is easy to empathise with and proves here that his 2013 Oscar-nominated debut was no fluke. Finally, Alan Rickman (who tragically passed away earlier this year) puts in an excellent performance here as Lieutenant General Frank Benson. Rickman manages to perfectly deliver some of the film's comedic lines while never losing his persona as a respected and somewhat intimidating high-ranking member of the military.

 

Indeed, that is something that could be said for the film as a whole. It does occasionally veer into darkly comic territory in its satire of government and military indecision, while pointing out just how far removed some of the key decision makers can be in situations like this. Still though, it never makes light of the obviously highly sensitive situation it depicts and doesn't become so satirical as to lose the very grounded and brutally realistic tone that it establishes early on.

 

Eye in the Sky is a thrilling look at the ethics of drone warfare that could quite possibly end up being one of the most thought-provoking films of the year.

 

Read More

Batman v Superman v Daredevil (2003) | Which is Better?

Batman v Superman has a lower score on Rotten Tomatoes than the Daredevil movie from 2003! But is this really accurate? David Craig presents this in-depth exploration of both films, with the intention of deciding once and for all which is the better super-hero movie: Batman v Superman or Daredevil (2003)?

 

Read More

Review: Midnight Special

This review is spoiler-free.

Midnight Special has been showered with praise by many critics, and so I'm quite disappointed to say that I feel the film has really let me down. Expectations were high given the strong track record of director Jeff Nichols and the impressive cast which counts Michael Shannon, Kirsten Dunst, Joel Edgerton and Adam Driver among its number. Unfortunately though, Midnight Special ends up buckling under its own weight by setting up a mystery it can't satisfyingly solve.

Indeed, it was around halfway through the movie that I began to suspect answers to the many questions this film poses were unlikely to be revealed, and as a consequence what tension the film had began to be drained. This also wasn't helped by its plodding pace and thin characters, many of whom lacked development.

Joel Edgerton's character stands out to me as particularly odd; he explains in the film that he only has a distant relationship with Michael Shannon's character Roy, and yet he seems quite happy to put his life on the line for him and his son while being remarkably unaffected by the young boy's superhuman abilities. This kinds of oversights make these characters feel less real, and in a film focused on exploring superhuman events in a very real-world setting that becomes a problem.


Still, the actors do the best here with what they're given. The entirety of the main cast are at the top of their game right now and it shows; frequent Nichols collaborator Michael Shannon rarely lets us down, while Kirsten Dunst, Joel Edgerton and Adam Driver are hot off of recent head-turning performances in Fargo, The Gift, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens respectively. Meanwhile, Nichols was able to find a child actor with real talent, as the young Jaeden Lieberher impresses in only one of his first main roles in a major motion picture.

There are some engaging sequences in Midnight Special, particularly in the film's earlier scenes however when the final act falls apart quite so catastrophically as it does here, it's hard to see those moments as redemption. There is really no pay off to anything in the ending Midnight Special provides, ending with a bizarre sequence intended (I assume) to be emotional and exciting but ultimately failing at being either.

The warm critical reception to this movie implies that for some Midnight Special will be a pleasing experience; however, for those looking for a coherent story that can actually answer the mysteries it sets up I would recommend looking elsewhere.

 

Read More

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Is It Really That Bad? [Review]

[This review contains spoilers for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.]

 

Zack Snyder's DC Comics sequel Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has finally seen release this weekend after many years in production, only to find itself on the receiving end of some truly scathing reviews. This wasn't something I found particularly surprising; having suspected that the film would suffer similar flaws to its predecessor Man of Steel, I released a public service announcement over a month ago warning people not to raise their expectations too high. Needless to say that video was just a drop in the ocean of Batman v Superman coverage and so did little to prevent the heartbreak many DC fans felt this weekend. Many, but not all.

 

Indeed, some fans have left screenings of Dawn of Justice singing the film's praises which ended up leading me to purchase tickets for opening night, as I look for a place to stand on one of the most divisive blockbuster films since... well, Man of Steel I suppose. So the question is, is Batman v Superman really that bad? I would say no. While undoubtedly deeply flawed, Zack Snyder's two and a half hour epic isn't unwatchable -- whether or not that's a compliment is debatable, but frankly it's more than I expected.

 

 

The biggest problem with this movie is the same one present in every Zack Snyder production, and that's a bad case of style over substance. Snyder can undoubtedly create some visually arresting action sequences, but he struggles to understand the humanity in these conflicts. Something I couldn't help but notice was that many of the scenes in this movie failed to make me feel something -- anything in fact.

 

Whether I was watching Amy Adams'  Lois Lane be held at gunpoint, seeing a young Bruce Wayne struggle to come to terms with his parents death, or even witnessing the brutal "death" of Superman (one of the world's most beloved super-heroes, need I remind you), my general feeling throughout this film's runtime was one of indifference. I didn't care when I saw Superman impaled on a spike and that puzzles me.

 

 

I feel that perhaps the root cause of this problem is that the characters in these movies are lacking in something. I hate to compare the DC films to those produced by Marvel Studios, as that would suggest I'm implying all super-hero films should follow the same formula. I don't believe that for a second. However, it's hard to argue against the fact that the Marvel movies have well defined characters, each with a unique personality and it's because of this that they play off each other so well in the Avengers team movies.
 

The DC characters at present are severely lacking strong personalities. Henry Cavill's Superman comes across in this film as little more than a grumpy guy with super powers. Ben Affleck's Batman makes a similar first impression, as a grumpy guy without super powers. I think perhaps this is why I appreciated the presence of Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman quite so much: she was the only character in this film who genuinely seemed like she was having fun.

 

A smile during the overwhelming final battle. A fun remark about how Bruce Wayne has never met a woman quite like Diana Prince. These are miniscule things that go a long way in a film otherwise devoid of any comic relief whatsoever, and carrying an overall tone that is depressing enough to prevent all but the most dedicated DC fans from coming back for repeat viewings.

 

Wonder Woman isn't the only thing this film has going for it; given that her screen-time isn't huge, that would be rather dire indeed. But she is quite possibly the stand-out, which makes me optimistic that perhaps Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman solo movie coming next year could fare better than this film has with critics. Jeremy Irons and Holly Hunter are also worthy of praise, crafting characters with more personality in their relatively minor roles than arguably either of the two lead actors do in this film's entire run-time.

 

A figure of much disagreement has been Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor, who is indeed a drastically different take on Superman's arch-nemesis than we've seen before. I fall somewhere between the groups that love and hate this interpretation of the character, believing that while the performance was by no means disastrous it wasn't compelling enough to justify changing a character who was fine to begin with. Indeed, one can't help but wonder how different this film would be had the fan-casting of Bryan Cranston come to fruition.

Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was an interesting but unnecessary experiment.

The plot of this movie also isn't entirely without merit. It's true that the premise of the film i.e. watching two characters who have no reason to fight each other doing just that, does feel forced and indeed I feel this film could have been stronger had it been focused on a team-up rather than a showdown between these two iconic characters. Additionally, this film does fall into the trap that many comic-book movies have found themselves in recently (The Amazing Spider-Man 2 perhaps the worst offender), of being more concerned with building a 'cinematic universe' than they are with telling a coherent story.

Cameo appearances from other DC super-heroes while fun for fans to see, do feel somewhat shoe-horned in to a story which really doesn't involve them in any way. Although that being said a certain Flash cameo has the potential to be very exciting if future films can successfully tie into it: that's a big 'if'.

However, credit should be given to screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer for juggling all these balls and not ending up with an utter disaster on their hands. Dawn of Justice's plot may be messy but it isn't totally incoherent, and with the exception of a few moments here and there held my attention for the duration.

Batman v Superman perhaps isn't as bad as its harshest critics are claiming, but unfortunately it's too flawed to be called a success. Performances from Gal Gadot, Holly Hunter and Jeremy Irons combined with Snyder's dazzling action sequences provide this film's glimmers of brilliance, but ultimately aren't enough to save it from mediocrity. Having two lead characters with little in the way of personality certainly doesn't help matters, while the scattered story pales in comparison to some of the much more sophisticated work found in the comic-books from which this movie takes inspiration. As I stated earlier in this review, Batman v Superman is watchable but by no means is it the masterpiece many fans were no doubt hoping for.

 

Read More

Review: 10 Cloverfield Lane

10 Cloverfield Lane made headlines when its first trailer debuted in front of screenings for Michael Bay's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, not only for being connected in some way to the 2007 cult hit Cloverfield but also for how much of its production was done in secrecy; that's no mean feat in the era of information leaks. Fans hoped that the film would live up to their great expectations (let us not forget that a Cloverfield sequel has been wished for by many for some time now), and I'm pleased to say that 10 Cloverfield Lane truly is a fantastic film although perhaps not the one fans of the original were hoping for.

 

Indeed, if you were optimistic this film would shed light on the nature of the so-called Cloverfield Monster then you will be left disappointed, as producer J.J. Abrams insists that this film does not even take place in the same continuity as the found-footage sci-fi flick released nine years prior. But while you won't find answers in a screening of 10 Cloverfield Lane, what you will find is a well-written atmospheric thriller which deserves to be recognised as far more than just "Cloverfield's sort-of sequel," but as an impressive drama feature in its own right.

 

The film follows the story of Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Michelle who upon waking up in a doomsday bunker is left to wonder whether the world above her is quite as uninhabitable as her captor Howard (John Goodman) claims: and she's not the only person struggling to make her mind up. Throughout this movie I found myself trying and failing to unpick the true nature of this situation as we the audience are constantly being thrown to different conclusions for the duration of this rollercoaster story. This makes for a thrilling viewing experience, one that quite literally had me on the edge of my seat for almost the entirety of the climactic second half.

One must praise all three of the lead performances for being truly stellar; Winstead is compelling as the main protagonist, while Goodman consistently manages to expertly walk the line between caring and creepy creating one of the more complex characters of mainstream cinema so far this year. 10 Cloverfield Lane's unsung hero may well be John Gallagher Jr., who lacks both Winstead's screen-time and the mystery of Goodman's Howard but nonetheless plays a pivotal role here as Michelle's fellow captor Emmett.

Where 10 Cloverfield Lane has proven divisive is in its final act where a drastic shift in tone has left some scratching their heads. Personally, I enjoyed even this part of the film as I was so invested in Winstead's character by this point that little could have taken me out of this immersive story, however I can understand why some would see these final scenes as an odd change of pace.

In spite of this contentious finale 10 Cloverfield Lane remains a remarkably strong film, one that is without a doubt worth your time and money. Familiarity with the first Cloverfield entry is entirely optional as those with no knowledge of that experimental sci-fi feature will still find themselves wrapped up in the intense human drama this movie provides.

Read More

Review: Crimson Peak

Crimson Peak has been far from a success story for Guillermo Del Toro, struggling at the US Box Office while also disappointing some of the director's most loyal fans. This whole situation is surprising to me however, as I found the film to be a very strong addition to the director's filmography: a rich, atmospheric romantic-horror which perhaps suffered from it's relative uniqueness in a market dominated by low-budget found-footage movies. Indeed, going into this film I had purposefully avoided trailers in an attempt to keep my expectations reasonable, however in interviews with the prolific director I had discovered that romance was as big a part of this film as the horror elements. This is something that I believe most mainstream movie-goers were not expecting as the first act of the film - which is essentially just a romantic drama - was not spotlighted in the trailers very heavily. Indeed, were you to arrive at the movie theater expecting non-stop scares in a house riddled with ghosts then I could perhaps understand you'd be disappointed, if only because what you got wasn't what you thought you'd be getting.

That being said, it would be unfair to criticize Crimson Peak too heavily just because the trailer was misleading, and I would encourage those people who found themselves in the situation outlined above to give the film another chance now that they know exactly what they're getting into. If you take Crimson Peak for what it is - a Gothic romance first and a horror film second - then you may well get more out of the film than you did upon first viewing. But I digress. This is supposed to be a review, not a sales pitch after all.

Crimson Peak tells the compelling story of Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), a woman struck by tragedy at a young age and literally haunted by it for many years afterwards. Struggling to make her own path in life in a world which seems poised against her, things begin looking up for Edith when the dashing Sir Thomas Sharpe enters her life and offers her all the love and support she's failed to find elsewhere. Of course, things aren't as they seem and the menacing presence of Sharpe's sister Lucille (wonderfully portrayed by Jessica Chastain), brings an uneasy feeling to the largely horror-less first act. Indeed, while I'll admit that during these scenes I was eager for the action to move to the ominous mansion this film takes its name from, this opening act was an effective way of getting the audience to invest in the film's main cast - particularly the naive Edith who is instantly easy to sympathise with, thanks in large part to Wasikowska's innocent performance. Innocent at first that is, but as the film progresses each and every character comprising the main cast goes to interesting and unexpected places, a welcome sight given that the character's in Del Toro's previous feature Pacific Rim left something to be desired.

Although the character work on display here is impressive, it could be argued that the greatest character in the film is the mansion that sits atop Crimson Peak. Much of the house was actually built for the movie, a refreshing change of pace from the CGI practices usually found in Hollywood productions today. Thanks to the absence of a computer and the presence of some truly gifted designers, the house has a very lived-in feel to it; watching the characters walk its creaky corridors you get a real idea that the house has history. It's very easy to believe that generations of people have lived and died there and that there are likely secrets held within its wall that not even Thomas and Lucille are aware of. All this creates a film that is less scary than it is consistently atmospheric, something which ultimately I find more interesting and engaging.

Read More

Review: Spectre

This review contains minor spoilers for 007: Spectre.

It's a shameful secret of mine that - despite being a film blogger, a british film blogger at that - I've only ever seen one James Bond film: 2012's Skyfall. As Spectre is only my second, my thoughts on this new outing for the world famous super-spy may be different to those from long-term fans of the series. Indeed, while my expectations were somewhat high following Skyfall, which was one of my favourite films of 2012, I found myself quite disappointed by this new installment. That's not to say that Spectre is bad, in fact there were many enjoyable moments, but there were simply too many flaws for the film to be considered one of the stronger entries in this long-running franchise.

For starters, let's talk about the villain played here by Christoph Waltz. Details on both himself and the criminal organisation this film is named after have been sought by fans, as both were rumored to be closely intertwined with James Bond's life. This film reveals that this is indeed the case however it simply isn't enough to turn Waltz's character into a memorable villain. In fact, I'd argue he is quite the opposite coming across as rather underdeveloped even when the credits start rolling. Perhaps this is particularly clear in the wake of Javier Bardem's turn as Raoul Silva, one of the most menacing villains I've seen in a blockbuster film in the past decade at least. Not only did Waltz come across inferior in comparison but additionally never seemed to pose a great challenge to Bond, whilst the grand plan of evil organisation Spectre never seemed to be explained in depth. Indeed, upon leaving the cinema with my friends the first thing I said was, "So what were the bad guys planning again?" They knew no better than I did. Needless to say, it's difficult to be engaged in the conflict between Bond and his antagonist when the audience is given little indication of the stakes involved.

In spite of these problems, Spectre does hold some entertainment value. Daniel Craig puts in a great performance as a weary-looking Bond (perhaps a reflection of Craig's own exhaustion with the role), and the return of well-executed one-liners and comedic moments offer some much-appreciated relief amidst a relatively gloomy atmosphere. Craig has expressed a desire to leave the Bond franchise behind, and although he is contractually obligated to do one more installment, Spectre does feel like the natural end to his run given how it pulls together plot threads from Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. Waltz does the best he can with what he's given although as we've already discussed his character Franz Oberhauser leaves something to be desired, and the rest of the cast particularly Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw are all on top form as Bond staples Moneypenny, M and Q. Former wrestler and Guardians of the Galaxy star Dave Bautista is perhaps the weakest member of the ensemble, given little to do besides look angry and punch Daniel Craig. I understand that silent muscly henchman are a Bond tradition but the lack of substance and charisma to Bautista's character made his scenes less engaging than others, and I wonder if it would have been wise to reduce the character's role to allow more time to develop Waltz's main villain.

Of course another trademark of the Bond franchise is the casting of beautiful woman for the titular character to seduce. In this movie however, things on this front came across very dated. Indeed, this film pulls the audience in with the illusion of progression. The first woman Bond seduces is one his own age which is a turn-up for the books and indeed Monica Bellucci's character shows much potential as the events of the opening scene leave her life in grave danger. It is a great shame then that she is soon abandoned for a younger model (twenty years younger to be specific), in the form of Lea Seydoux's Madeleine Swann. Although all hope is not lost immediately as after being forced to join Bond, Swann quickly makes it clear she has no intention of sleeping with the spy and can handle herself without his slightly patronising lessons. This too is a refreshing level of competence for a female character in the Bond franchise, but again this too is soon thrown out as by the end of the film Swann does indeed succumb to Bond's charms and becomes little more than a damsel in distress in the film's final act. This not only contradicts the character traits the film itself established in Swann's first appearance, but also seems to highlight the outdated views this franchise holds when it comes to female characters.

However, the aforementioned strong performances and effective comedy moments do strengthen this film's weaker aspects, while the action sequences are as grand as you would expect from the 007 series. Indeed, from the beginning Bond is involved in some of the most ambitious action scenes I've seen this year, and so fans who may have felt Skyfall was somewhat light on action will be surely better served here. Ultimately, I didn't dislike Spectre, but likewise I didn't find myself overly enamored by it. The antagonists were forgettable and their plan unclear, while the series has begun to show its age in some places. That being said, there are just enough entertaining moments to fill the film's lengthy two and a half hour runtime, although its true that you may occasionally be looking at your watch and wondering how long is left until the credits start rolling.

Read More

Review: Ant-Man

After years in development hell, Ant-Man finally hit cinema screens across the world last week. Not without its fair share of behind-the-scenes dramas, expectations were relatively low across the board for the film that is arguably Marvel Studios' biggest gamble to date. With that in mind, I think things turned out remarkably well; while Ant-Man is by no means perfect, it is a very enjoyable blockbuster flick and one that I'd love to see a sequel to before Avengers: Infinity War Part I hits in 2018.

Ant-Man follows the story of the (kind of) reformed criminal Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), who is attempting to rebuild his life after being released from prison. This proves to be harder than first thought after he is dragged into an astonishing conflict by genius inventor Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his estranged daughter Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly). Together they must stop the villainous Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) from putting the dangerous Ant-Man technology into the hands of the evil organisation, Hydra!

The plot is by no means complex but it is very entertaining to watch play out. This is in part due to a fun script that was re-written by Rudd and his long-time writing partner Adam McKay, and is unsurprisingly full of funny moments as a result. Of course some of the jokes do fall a bit flat, but the majority of them land well - particularly the punchlines delivered by Michael Pena who puts in a charming and energetic performance.

In the run-up to the film's release, those involved in making Ant-Man had said that father-daughter relationships play a large role in the film, and I'm relieved to say they are handled relatively well. There are occasional moments of awkwardness, seemingly due to the fact that this film is only truly comfortable when focusing on comedy, and as a result doesn't let things get serious for very long. This isn't a terrible trait to have, but it does lead to some jarring transitions from drama back to comedy, and prevents the emotional stakes from getting too high.

On the upside, one of my biggest concerns about this film - the ageing-down of Scott Lang's daughter Cassie - who in the comics is a teenager and super-hero in her own right - was fortunately unfounded; the seven year-old Abby Ryder Fortson puts in a surprisingly strong performance. During a time when genuinely good child actors seem to be in short supply, it's always a nice surprise when a talented and charismatic young actor comes along.

That charisma also extends to the adult cast with Rudd, Lilly and Douglas all putting in memorable performances and the aforementioned Michael Pena very nearly stealing the show as Luis, the crook with a heart of gold. Corey Stoll puts in a solid performance as Darren Cross; while the character does seem a little two-dimensional, he is far more memorable than other recent Marvel villains Ronan the Accuser and Thor: the Dark World's Malekith.


Peyton Reed had some big shoes to fill after fan-favourite director Edgar Wright left the Ant-Man project in one of Marvel's biggest controversies to date. Fortunately, I feel Reed has succeeded in pulling Ant-Man back from the brink of disaster. While Reed lacks the distinctive style of Edgar Wright, he still constructs a memorable film in Ant Man, with the several Wright-esque moments paying tribute to the man who spent so many years developing this film.

Ultimately, I found Ant-Man to be a very enjoyable palate cleanser between the action-heavy Avengers: Age of Ultron and the upcoming all-star Captain America: Civil War. The smaller scale of the story helps make things more character driven, with the script finding time to establish both the main cast and supporting players, while leaving doors open for future movies in classic Marvel Studios style. Upon leaving the cinema after seeing Ant-Man, all I could think about was how I wanted to see these characters in action again - a sign that in spite of its flaws, Ant-Man has successfully established one of Marvel's stranger characters in their ever-growing cinematic universe.

Read More

The Lego Movie Review

The Lego Movie has already become a huge success worldwide, and you've likely already seen many rave reviews of the movie - but just in case you're not convinced just yet, let us add one more to the pile. The Lego Movie is a very fun time for all ages, filled to the brim with jokes, great voice acting, and a touching story. Overall, it is a must see.

I can't say huge amounts about the plot of the Lego Movie without spoiling it, so I'll keep these details brief and vague. The lead character, Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt) is an extremely average Lego-man. He follows the instructions to life exactly, and it isn't until he stumbles upon the piece of resistance that he starts to explore his creative side. From here he is taken on a crazy journey with a group of "master builders" that range from original characters such as Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), and Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), to well-known faces like Batman (Will Arnett).
The story is full of laughs, surprises and emotional moments and is an absolute blast to behold. With that in mind, I'll say no more. The Lego movie is best watched knowing little about it beforehand.

What I will say however is that the voice cast in this movie is phenomenal. The aforementioned main cast made up of Pratt, Banks, Freeman and Arnett are the core protagonists and all of them do a great job. While some have more comedic experience than others, all of them are naturals in this genre and show some hilarious comic timing and tone. Other stand-outs in the star-studded cast include Liam Neeson as Bad Cop, a role that winks at his new action star status, while still being totally original in itself. Finally, Charlie Day was brilliant as 80s space-man Benny who, while not getting as much screen time as the other characters, is a very memorable and loveable character.

What is really great about this movie, and what separates it from many other animated films is its great messages. While on the surface the main message appears to be about being yourself, and being creative it actually goes a lot deeper than that. Through the use of a surprisingly sophisticated Lego dystopia, the film subtlety encourages the viewer to stand up to the suits and governments of this world, and take an active involvement in our own lives rather than letting the people higher up make our decisions for us. Not something you'd necessarily expect to see in a Lego Movie, but powerful and effective nonetheless.

I tried hard to think of something to fault this movie with, but I really can't do it. I have been criticised before in my review of The Avengers for singing its praises and not criticising it for anything. However, my view is a review is an opinion and when films like The Avengers and The Lego Movie come along - films that I love - that love will be shown in my review.

Read More

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Review

Last year, I was one of the many who enjoyed the first Hunger Games movie. As a fan of the book I accepted it had some shortcomings, however I gladly accepted them merely relieved that we didn't end up with another Twilight, or Alex Rider. With the sequel, I was cautious as I found the second book much harder to read and with a new director on board there was a lot of room for error. Thankfully, not only is The Hunger Games: Catching Fire better than the first movie, but it is also one of my favourite movies of the year so far.

Catching Fire picks up directly where the last film left us. Katniss and Peeta are now huge celebrities who have been forced into the public eye where they must live out there loveless relationship for the cameras. Meanwhile, President Snow is hot on their case after their actions in the finale of the first movie have sparked rebellions in the districts threatening the rule of the Capitol.
The great thing is - while I'm not fully decided - this may have been my favourite part of the movie. The first Hunger Games book had a lot of dark satire in it that was unfortunately lost in the translation to the big screen. This left some of the non-arena scenes feeling a little drab. In the sequel however, the scenes building up to the pair's entrance into the arena are some of the strongest parts of the movie. The satire of this dystopian future is delivered with much more impact, with some great character and world development. The film does a great job in making you as passionate as the suffering people of the districts in wanting to see the downfall of the Capitol, and I personally had strong sympathy for these characters - most of which don't even have names - throughout the movie.

However, that's not to take away from the arena scenes, which are also much better than those in the original. In Catching Fire, we are treated to a whole new arena which has a jungle theme, and a whole new cast of fellow contestants. In the first movie the only contestant we had a chance to feel attached to was Rue, however almost all of the contestants in the 75th Hunger Games are brilliant, each with a distinct personality of their own. Of course it may have helped that the age ranges were much more diverse this time round, with the contestants of this year's games being reaped from previous winners. This allowed us to see a whole new view of the games, which I really enjoyed. Plus, it was great to see some truly evolving characters in this movie. The characters of Katniss, Peeta, Haymitch, Effie, and Gale really have changed and it was very interesting to see the ways how.

Of course, the outstanding cast is what made this so compelling. Jennifer Lawrence was outstanding as always, with Josh Hutcherson also putting in a good performance. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and Jena Malone were also stand-outs in a cast where everyone was great.

Read More

Pacific Rim Review

Pacific Rim has been without a doubt one of the most-hyped films of not only this year, but maybe even the last few. So much so, that I had been trying to limit my excitement to stop the hype from taking over. Plus, I had my doubts that a story about giant robots punching giant monsters would have enough substance to fill a two hour movie. Fortunately, having just seen Pacific Rim I can confirm that it has lived up to the hype and is some of the most fun I've had in a movie this year.

The plot of Pacific Rim focuses around the giant monsters known as Kaiju emerging from the bottom of the Pacific ocean and attempting to destroy humanity. Following this is the introduction of our Kaiju-fighting weapons - the huge piloted mechs known as Jaegers. 

I do feel like perhaps the plot is a little basic revolving basically around the idea of "we have to stop these monsters," but in the end I'd say the somewhat simple plot doesn't weaken the film at all. It's just too much fun to watch these events unfold. And plus, the story does have a few twists and turns hidden inside which will manage to keep things interesting for those who aren't satisfied with the incredible action set pieces littered throughout the movie.

Now some people may be against seeing this movie as they may not be big fans of action - if that's a statement you can relate to, then let me reassure you - I have great faith that the action in this movie would please someone of your mindset. Why? First of all, the action in this movie is completely unique. Those of you worried that it would devolve into the mindless explosions of Michael Bay's Transformers movies may put your fears to rest. The action in this movie has been carefully choreographed to fit the slow moving Yaeger's, as well as to not get too repetitive - both the mechs and the monsters are capable of a lot more than just punching each other until one of them dies (something I wish the characters in Man of Steel were capable of).

Not to mention that both the Yaeger's and the Kaiju's are both beautifully brought to life using a genius mix of both CGI and practical effects.

Another reason why all this action doesn't get too overwhelming is because you care about the people involved. Charlie Hunnam plays the main character of Raleigh Becket and is a very likeable lead, his co-star Rinko Kikuchi (who plays a character called Mako Mori) is also very good in her role. The characters have both been through heartbreaking struggles, and it doesn't take long for you to feel invested in them.

Idris Elba puts in another great performance here, this time as the intimidating commanding officer Stacker Pentecost. But two of my favourite performances here came from Charlie Day and Burn Gorman who play a pair of arguing scientists - they offer some comic relief, as well as playing a significant part in the story.

Of course, a good script does help to make these characters as great as they are - and with more and more scripts letting movies down recently it's great to see one that delivers.

The directing of Guillermo Del Toro is also to be applauded here, as it must of been a very difficult task to keep the action between the gigantic Yaegers and Kaiju from looking chaotic. He handles it brilliantly however, keeping the action controlled enough to be understood by the audience, yet still completely exhilarating and a blast to watch.

 
 

Read More

Iron Man 3 Movie Review

Here is our video review of Iron Man 3! The first film in Phase 2 of Marvel's Cinematic Universe! Does it live up to the hype? Find out here!

Read More

Movie 43 Review

Well how very embarrassing! It's been just over a week since we wrote our feature - 13 Movies to Watch in 2013. Since then two of the films on that list have already been released: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Movie 43. Hansel and Gretel has been getting panned by almost everyone whose reviewed it and Movie 43...well, it's disappointing.

Movie 43 is basically a compilation of sketches written by a large group of writers and starring many famous faces, all strung together loosely on a very weak plot.
Now it should be said that American audiences have a slightly different version of Movie 43 to those of us in the UK. All of the sketches are the same in the two versions, however the plot tying the sketches together is different. The American version focuses around a struggling scriptwriter played by Dennis Quaid pitching the sketches to a film-maker played by Greg Kinnear. However, the UK version focuses on a group of three teenage boys searching for the most awful, shocking movie ever: Movie 43. On their way through the shady corners of the Internet they find the sketches that make up the majority of the film.

Really though, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference as neither versions of the film have impressed critics, not just because the plot isn't good, but because the sketches just aren't that great.

Now you can find a lot of critics out there who are completely destroying this movie in their reviews, and while I agree it isn't a good film, it's not as awful as some are making out to be.
Being a sketch comedy it's bound to be hit and miss, but it's just a shame that there's quite so much miss with all the talent attached. Anna Faris is excellent at what she does - comedy - but her sketch where she longs to be pooped on by her long-term boyfriend just isn't funny at all.


Then there are the sketches that are more middling in quality. The sketch starring one of the most talented new actors around, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick-Ass, Hugo) being ridiculed about her first period has one or two funny lines but overall just isn't very funny.
Meanwhile, the sketch "Veronica" starring Emma Stone is also disappointing. Stone is one of my favourite actors at the moment and capable of some great comedic moments as proven in Easy A, however her sketch in Movie 43 again provides a few funny lines before just getting pretty dull.
Hugh Jackman and Kate Winslet's scene also disappointed with the whole "Hugh Jackman has testicles growing out of his neck" gag getting old pretty quick.
In fact, this is something that happened with most sketches and was possibly the biggest problem - most of them only really had one joke, and just kept repeating that one joke until it dies painfully.

However, that's not to say there's no laughs to be had in Movie 43. Each sketch typically had at least one or two lines that were funny - although, whether its a good thing that some near-20 minute long sketches only had one or two funny bits is yours to decide.
Plus, there were some sketches that I really did like. "Homeschooled" starring Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts I found genuinely funny all the way through! "Super-Hero Speed Dating" also provided some solid laughs, albeit not quite as many.

The parody adverts inserted between sketches were also very funny, including an appeal from the society for the prevention of cruelty to children inside machines. It is just as weird as it sounds.

Overall though, it's fair to say that Movie 43 doesn't make the most of the talent attached to it at all. The stars involved do seem surprisingly enthusiastic about their parts in the film and do the best they can with the script they're given. Unfortunately, it can't stop the fact that Movie 43 is a very disappointing comedy.

Read More

Life of Pi Review

Life of Pi is a difficult movie to review. It does have a lot going for it, but at the same time I think that each individual person is going to have a slightly differing opinion of it. I've seen many reviewers saying it made them ponder religion, faith, and the meaning of life. I've seen others saying the film's story is actually shallow, and misguided. My opinion falls somewhere between those two. I enjoyed Life of Pi to a certain extent but I do think it is very flawed.

The story behind Life of Pi revolves around Piscine - or Pi - a young man who's parents own a zoo in his home town in India. When his parents make the decision to leave India to live in Canada they board a freighter with the animals on board to set sail for a new life. Then the ship sinks. This leaves Pi stranded in the middle of the ocean on a small raft with nothing but a tiger named "Richard Parker" to keep him company.
The resulting tale tests Pi's faith, and makes him a stronger person - but I'm sad to say it wasn't quite so extraordinary for me.

First of all, the story is seriously slow. Watching Pi overcome his fears and form a sort of bond with the tiger should be an amazing journey, but it just takes so long to actually start that I admit I was genuinely bored. There's a chunk in the film where literally nothing happens and it really tested me and my will to never walk out on a movie.
When things do pick up the story does get more entertaining, however it seems to become too obsessed with trying to force a message on the audience. Desperately trying to give us something meaningful to think about. Evidently, it succeeded with some people but I just didn't understand what it was trying to say. God is real? Never give up? It just left me kind of confused with what the purpose of the movie was.

But, that's not to say this was a movie with no good points because that's just not true. The story may have dragged on and seemed somewhat anti-climatic but there were enjoyable parts along the way. You did feel for Pi at moments, although if I'm honest I found myself feeling more for Richard Parker himself. The tiger had a lot of character and so seeing him in times of struggle was probably more stressful than seeing a member of my own species in that situation.

This brings me onto the stand-out selling point of Life of Pi - the visuals. Richard Parker is totally CGI, and yet not only is he a totally believable tiger, but also he manages to develop a distinct character and charm which is impressive considering he can't talk or really communicate to humans in any way. It is undeniable that the tiger was a huge achievement for the movie.
But the tiger isn't all that's CGI in this movie, in fact almost everything is. The animals, the ocean, Pi is surrounded by CGI for most of the film and yet somehow it never feels obnoxious or in the way. It's incredibly realistic, and necessary to the story.

When you think of just how much CGI is in the movie, it's even more impressive how good a performance is given by Suraj Sharma who plays shipwrecked Pi. With no humans on-screen to interact, or react off of it really must have been a difficult act to pull off. Somehow though he does it and I expect we'll see more of him in the future.
The rest of the cast also give good performances but none had quite the amount of screen time as Sharma. Irrfan Khan was good portraying a wiser, older Pi who also acts as a narrator of the story. He shares the screen with Rafe Spall who is always reliable for a solid performance, however I have to say I haven't seen him do anything particularly impressive just yet.

Read More

Shrek: The Musical Review

Shrek is one of the most successful animated franchises to come out of the last decade, and so of course the logical next step was to turn it into a musical, right? The result is a fun show that manages to be more enjoyable than the last two movies, but still not something that you have to rush out and see. 

One thing that is disappointing about Shrek: The Musical is that essentially its a retelling of the first movie. Now there are some things that give it originality such as the songs themselves which were all written for the show, and some completely original scenes which give an extra insight into the main characters, particularly Lord Farquaad and Shrek himself. But this doesn't change the fact that - assuming you've seen the first Shrek film (which you probably have if your thinking of going to the musical) - you know exactly how everything's going to have gone when the curtain drops.

But let's not be too negative. As I said before there are things that give this show originality, most obvious of which is the fact that it's a musical! The songs vary from OK to great but they're all easy to listen to, with some catchier than others and most filled with funny moments as well. And it's worth saying that, like the early films, there are jokes in this musical for both adults and children which was a relief. The writers knew that adults would be coming to the show with their children and so catered for them too which was a smart move. But then again, moving back to my first point there are some chunks of script that are quite literally lifted straight out of the first movie, which I wasn't expecting to see.

But overall, this doesn't stop the show from being entertaining. The cast were enthusiastic and full of singing talent, and I suppose if your going to recycle a plot it may as well be from one of the most-loved animated films of the last few years! It just seemed like a missed opportunity to tell a truly original tale in the Shrek universe.

Now, I didn't want to talk about the cast too much in this review as in a stage show roles can often switch or be filled in by other talent, but I feel I should say something as the lead cast of Shrek: The Musical really did give great performances. As I said before, the cast were all very enthusiastic putting all their effort into giving the best performances possible. All four of the main cast (Shrek, Fiona, Donkey, Farquaad) sang well and had a great chemistry with each other on stage. I felt that some of the supporting roles didn't hold up quite as well, with both Pinocchio and the Gingerbread Man not singing so much as squeaking their words out -- I know this is a trait for their characters but it still affected how good or even understandable their performances could be.

One member of the cast who really should be applauded though is a certain loveable dragon, portrayed with a magnificent puppet on stage that is handled brilliantly. Yes, you can see the men/women in black skin tight suits pulling the dragon around, but somehow the puppet was still very believable. It really is one of the big triumphs Shrek: The Musical has in bringing the magic of the movies to the stage.

Read More

Skyfall Review

Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film, and the third starring Daniel Craig in the lead role. Now where many felt that last film in the series, Quantum of Solace, was a misstep - I'm pleased to say that this movie is a real return to form, and a must-see this Winter!

I'm not going to lie to you - this was my first Bond film. Over the years I've managed to stay away from the series. I've heard good things, but just never had the chance to see one start to finish. At first I was worried this would be a problem, but thankfully I was mistaken. If your a newcomer to this series as I was, then don't be put off -- there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having a blast with Skyfall. You get acquainted to the characters very quickly, leaving nothing stopping you immersing yourself in the epic story -- and it really is epic.

MI6 and its agents are being targeted by a group led by Raoul Silva (played by Javier Bardem). The identities of said agents are being spilled out onto the Internet, which is leading to their assassinations. This was the last thing that a suffering M (Judi Dench) - who was already being pressured into retirement by new guy, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) - needed. What doesn't help the grim situation that MI6 face is that at the beginning of the movie, Bond is "killed." This isn't a spoiler, as it tells you that in the trailer, but it does leave 007 feeling a little rusty upon return.

The plot is very, very well done. It gives us a deep insight into Bond's character - even giving us a glimpse into his humble beginnings as an orphan living in Scotland - while also piling on some awesome action sequences that will leave both long-term fans and newcomers on the edge of their seat. This is a spoiler-free review, but I have to mention the ending and the final action sequence which really was breathtaking and beautifully done.

I did have some worries at the beginning of the film, as it does take its time before giving you a proper idea of what's going on. This can end up really hindering a movie if the audience is given no idea until the end. Thankfully, though Skyfall did end up feeding the audience just enough information to keep you excited, while at the same time not revealing too much leaving my fears unfounded.

The story really is fantastic, and so it seems appropriate that the cast would be filled with such fantastic actors as well. Daniel Craig makes his return as the more rugged Bond fans have come to know over the last few years and doesn't disappoint. Craig has the talent to not only provide some great acting in the more close-up moments of a scene, while also holding his own in the action sequences proving that after 6 years he still has more than enough energy to play Britain's most dangerous spy.

Ralph Fiennes also makes a great debut to the franchise as the aforementioned Gareth Mallory. Alongside other newcomer Eve, who really is the Bond girl that people should be interested in this time round - and one I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of.
Finally, Ben Whishaw came in to fill the role of series favourite, Q. Unfortunately, I have nothing to compare to having not seen the previous Q, but I don't think long-term fans have anything to worry about. Whishaw gives a strong performance, setting up Q as a likeable character and one I'd definitely want to see back for the next movie. The way Craig and Whishaw play off each other (mainly regarding Q's age) offers up some funny moments as well, which is appreciated when things are looking so bleak for Bond and MI6.

But in my opinion it was Judi Dench and Javier Bardem that really stole the show.
Dench gives a powerful performance in a film that focuses around as much time on her as it does the titular character. This being the first Bond film I've seen, I wasn't expecting to be able to invest so much in a character so quickly, but Dench's M is just impossible not to love played with a charm that deserves applauding. This is shown particularly in her scenes with Bond himself. The two have a mother-son chemistry on-screen which just comes across so genuine and believable.

Meanwhile, Bardem gives a borderline disturbing performance. Playing a character who has obviously lost his mind and yet at some moments almost has a point, a valid reason for his actions. I won't say any more at risk of giving too much away, but he is one of the best, most interesting antagonists I've seen in a film for a very long time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What did you think of Skyfall? Comment below! What did you think of our new review layout? Let us know and any comments we'll try to take on board!

Read More

Sinister Video Review

Don't make the mistake of watching those creepy murder tapes in your attic! Instead watch our review of Sinister!

Read More