Chris At The Pictures: fantasy
Showing posts with label fantasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fantasy. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 September 2017

'mother!' - Review

9/19/2017 10:29:00 pm 0
'mother!' - Review

★ ½ ☆ ☆ ☆

After the big budget blowout of Noah, Darren Aronofsky returns to simpler times with this deliberately provocative tale of a man and woman (Javier Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence, whose characters remain unnamed) living peaceful, but soon-to-be interrupted lives. Basking in their Eden-like seclusion, Lawrence’s eponymous matriarch sets about restoring the house (with which she shares a mysterious, organic connection), while Bardem plays a troubled poet looking to write his masterwork. Just as inspiration appears to strike, an unknown couple (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer) stumble upon the pair, bringing with them the unspoken threat of upset and destruction.

For all it’s unclear narrative strokes and ambiguous dialogue, mother! is not a subtle film. The instant it’s central metaphor takes root, it's nigh-on impossible to focus on anything else. The intended discomfort and tension as Harris and Pfeiffer encroach upon the couple’s handiwork is totally undermined by an allegory so ham-fisted you could slice it up and serve it in sandwiches.

That a film so steeped in parable and analogy is playing in multiplexes should be something to celebrate, making Aranofsky’s failure to combine symbolism with a compelling story that much more infuriating. The overriding thesis of the film – at least, as it was apparent to me – is one I sympathise with, but I can’t see it winning over the average movie-goer. As evidenced by the movie’s plummeting CinemaScore across the pond, they’re likely to remain resolutely alienated by a mood piece comprised mostly of Jennifer Lawrence gasping and shrieking at the camera.

To see Lawrence return to comparatively ‘out there’ cinema after her string of mainstream roles is an exciting prospect, and sadly remains just that: something still to come. Her role here (to use the word ‘character’ seems generous considering her deployment as reflection or caricature) gives us nothing but fear and loathing, of which she gave ample demonstration across all four instalments of the Hunger Games series.

Pfieffer tries to save what she can (largely through a particularly delicate method of sipping lemonade), but it’s a hopeless effort. She – along with Harris and brief spells from Dohmnall Gleeson and Kristen Wiig – becomes just another face in the crown of walking, talking emblems that slowly but surely begin to overwhelm the isolated abode.

This increasingly fraught and claustrophobic home-invasion section of the film is where things truly go to pot. In terms of pure technical construction, there should be much to admire as time, space and bodies fast-forward, tighten and twist in a finale clearly designed to shock and awe. The established composition of mother! (a repetitive, clumsy and dull array of close-ups and over-the-shoulder shots) instead consigns us to crock and bore.

Saturday, 2 September 2017

Minor Star Wars Characters Who Need Spin-Offs

9/02/2017 01:02:00 am 0
Minor Star Wars Characters Who Need Spin-Offs
This summer, the Star Wars rumour mill kicked into high gear once again thanks to an exclusive from The Hollywood Reporter’s Borys Kit. Kit wrote that Oscar-nominated director Stephen Daldry would be directing a spin-off centred around Obi-Wan Kenobi, and that Lucasfilm were also considering movies featuring other fan favourite characters to fit in around the three trilogies, Rogue One and the (still!) untitled Han Solo film.

Many fans seemed excited, others less so. The alleged decision to choose characters already given a trilogy or two dedicated to their stories (Obi-Wan, Yoda), secondary characters whose involvement smacked more than a little of fan-service (Boba Fett) drew everything from exasperation to downright ridicule (Jabba the Hutt movie, anyone?).

Still, as many commentators observed, this is Star Wars: whether it’s Obi-Wan’s tales from the desert or Boba Fett’s thousand-year digestion in the belly of the Sarlacc, you can be sure as the (twin) sunrise that audiences will shell out the cash. But just how far will this goodwill/franchise loyalty/slavish devotion (delete as appropriate) stretch? To find out, I drew up my own roster of minor and background characters who could star in their own standalone films...


Ben Quadinaros:

The excitable Podracer pilot who spectacularly lost control of his BT310 during the Boonta Eve Classic in The Phantom Menace wasn’t always a failure. This Rush-style racing drama would showcase his rise to power across the raceways of the galaxy, from Malastare to Ando Prime. High on a string of wins and against the advice of his sponsors, the skittish Toong invests his reward money into highly-experimental pods, ignoring his exasperated pit droid team’s complaints. A fellow racer attempts to copy one such design, and is killed in a mid-race explosion. Arrogantly confident that he can control the pod, Quadinaros journeys to Tatooine and, in the closing moments of the movie, takes his seat in the four-engine monster that will soon lose him everything.



Kitster:

This dark character study examines the life of an impoverished Tatooine teen when his best friend, Anakin Skywalker, suddenly leaves to follow his dreams of becoming a Jedi. Without the interest of Anakin’s racing exploits to excite them, Kitster’s friendship group lose interest in him. We cut to ten years later: the Clone Wars are being broadcast across the galaxy. A jealous Kitster, now a grown man, spends his evenings in the cantina, cursing his old friend as he is forced to watch Anakin hailed as a champion of the Republic again and again. In a biting piece of metanarrative, Kitster – who, in the 18 years since Episode I came out, has never been replicated as an action figure – burns a stall selling holo-posters and toys of his old friend.


Zuckuss and 4-LOM:

This chirpy buddy comedy details the exploits of the two bounty hunters seen aboard the Executor during Darth Vader’s search for the Millennium Falcon. Sick of being belittled and mocked by Boba Fett, Bossk and the rest, the duo makes it their mission to secure the Falcon first. Unfortunately, the hapless Gand mercenary and his droid companion learned everything they know about Bounty Hunting from watching the galaxy far, far away's equivalent of 21 Jump Street, and, in their haste to prove themselves, weave an accidental path of destruction across the cosmos. The film’s recurring gag is that everyone from assailants to clients and producers of wanted holograms keep mistaking them for one another, due to their fly-like heads.


Salacious B. Crumb:

Think King of Comedy with a Kowakian Monkey Lizard instead of Robert De Niro's Rupert Pupkin. Crumb, sleeping rough on the streets of Mos Eisley and taking whatever grimy cantina gig comes his way, dreams of playing the premiere clubs of Tatooine. During a particularly raucous pub brawl, he kidnaps one of Jabba’s henchmen in a desperate plea for attention, offering the bodyguard’s release for a chance to entertain the gangster. Given De Niro’s recent propensity to take even the most degrading gig (see Dirty Grandpa…actually, don’t), I can’t imagine he’d need much persuasion other than a lucrative Disney paycheck to voice the gnarly creature. In accordance with the recurrent preference for practical effects over CGI and against the advice of film historians, the original – rapidly degenerating – puppet will be used.



Constable Zuvio:

Remember Niima Outpost's very own long arm of the law from The Force Awakens? If you answered yes, you'd be lying, because – despite getting a whole article in Empire magazine dedicated to his first appearance – poor Zuvio was cut from the film, appearing only in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment during Rey and Finn's escape from the First Order. For the sake of justice, I say we give him his own movie. Jakku Vice? Heat (because it's a desert planet, geddit)? They can even throw in a cameo from a now-ancient C2-B5, Rogue One’s Imperial astromech droid, similarly left on the cutting room floor. They'll save a fortune in merchandise, too: why manufacture new action figures when you can simply apply a new logo sticker onto the hordes of plastic policemen still warming the pegs of your local toy shop? Gotta shift those Funko Pops somehow!

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

'The Dark Tower' - Review

8/23/2017 12:21:00 pm 0
'The Dark Tower' - Review
★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆  

Look, I get it: a one-star rating always looks very harsh. This one isn’t chiefly directed towards The Dark Tower for its technical faults (though they’re certainly plentiful), but at its total failure to bring anything new to the table whatsoever, or drum up the slightest inkling of interest in its soon-to-follow franchise. Apparently optioned by studio heads who thought cinema needed another book adaptation that turns potentially interesting source material into listless young adult fare, this hopeful sequel to an as-yet unmade TV series wastes its ammunition early.

Based very loosely on Stephen King’s eponymous series, the film follows young New Yorker Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor), a mop-haired ‘Chosen One’ plagued by nightmares of a giant tower, the evil sorcerer bent on its destruction (Matthew McConaughey) and a gunslinger sworn to protect it (Idris Elba). Jake carries within him a mysterious power known as ‘The Shine’, which McConaughey’s Man in Black (or Walter, to use his hilariously underwhelming real name) wishes to harness against the tower at the centre of the universe. Upon its collapse, untold horrors from outside the realms of our reality will spring forth.

It seems irrefutable now that Interstellar marked the end of the so-called ‘McConaissance’: the Texan actor’s recent strain of underwhelming performances come to a head here with Walter, a drawling bore who, for all his (exceptionally badly-dubbed) expository dialogue, never actually explains what he stands to gain from letting all the nasties into our universe.

Elba doesn’t fare much better, mind. His natural charisma prevents Roland the gunslinger from becoming a total non-entity, though his backstory and relationship with Jake can essentially be summed up by the bit in Hot Fuzz when Danny asks Nicholas “Ever fired two guns whilst jumping through the air?”

Taylor is fine, but the screenplay never gives him an opportunity to express any awe at all the extraordinary sights revealed to him. When Jake first enters the gunslinger’s world through a portal (guarded by a floorboard monster, no less), there’s a brief pause for breath before he encounters Roland and then we’re off on a plodding expedition to the next plot point. The journey across alien landscapes and through the bowels of New York is notable only for a smug littering of references to other King works and – even in the constraints of a 90-minute movie – feels a slog.

There’s also some seriously misjudged darkness thrown in for good measure, too, for what 12a-certificate film wouldn’t be complete without child slavery, torture, skin-harvesting monsters and several-hundred gory gunshot wounds? This tonal patchwork – see-sawing between Walter burning innocent people to death and Roland discovering the delights of a certain branded cola – does nothing to stave off images of Akiva Goldsmith (Transformers: The Last Knight) and Jeff Pinkner (The Amazing Spider-Man 2) drafting their screenplay by squashing all seven volumes of King’s original story into a blender. Pity they didn’t do the same with their keyboards.

Friday, 18 August 2017

'Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets' - Review

8/18/2017 10:51:00 pm
'Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets' - Review

★ ★ ½ ☆ ☆

Luc Besson barely avoids going full Wachowski in this overstuffed sci-fi adventure. Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne star as special operatives Valerian and Laureline, a bickering will-they-won’t-they duo charged with uncovering a massive disturbance at the heart of a vast space metropolis, home to countless sentient species.

The production design of Valerian is almost worth the ticket price by itself: seemingly limitless aliens, spaceships, locations and future tech are immaculately rendered and displayed with absolutely eye-popping abandon…but boy, is it tiring. This overload has been praised by some as ‘ambitious’, but I don't see the ambition in simply throwing everything at the screen. Besson’s crowded frame occasionally resembles a lumpen mixture of John Carter (can’t help feeling like a rip-off despite existing decades prior to the properties it calls to mind) and Jupiter Ascending (a ‘visionary’ director equipped with more money than sense). Nowhere is this better demonstrated in a chase sequence which kickstarts the second act: if Valerian’s ship didn’t look like a Poundland Millennium Falcon, it’d be impossible to pick out from the surrounding visual soup.

For all the ocular wonder and visible diversity, the political attitude of progression and multiculturalism (a beam-worthy montage of humans greeting a myriad of alien representatives to the tune of Bowie’s Space Oddity opens the film) is upset by a disappointing tang of misogyny in the aftertaste. Delevingne is very poorly served by a script that requires Laureline to be rescued a lot and complain about Valerian’s inability to commit, all the while her suitor cracks jokes about her inability to drive. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that her name has been dropped (the original comic series was titled Valerian et Laureline) by a director who says women “look so fragile”, and by a film that’s more devoted to its hero than his supposed equal, never mind the audience.

DeHaan remains a bit of a charisma vacuum for me, and watching Rihanna as an alien stripper (don’t ask) running rings around him before being swiftly booted from the plot only served to exacerbate the disconnect. Once the crooning popstar and Ethan Hawke as her pimp, Jolly, have left the picture, Clive ‘Hand me another slice of ham’ Owen is the only one apparently having any fun beyond the halfway mark. We certainly aren’t.

Friday, 2 June 2017

'Wonder Woman' - Review

6/02/2017 08:25:00 pm
'Wonder Woman' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ 

Wonder’s the word, alright. Patty Jenkins brings a pop-culture icon to the screen in grin-broadening fashion with this electrifying and earnest superhero film that aims to expand the DC cinematic universe. Thankfully, Wonder Woman’s part in building the latter is small, taking a step away from the stodgy forward-planning of films past to tell a singular, self-contained story (imagine that!). Its larger and more important contribution to the world is to finally deliver a female-led, female-directed megabudget film that puts to rest both the nightmare of Catwoman or Elektra, and the pig-headed mindset that audiences don’t want to see films made by, for, and starring women.

Gal Gadot (returning from her brief appearance in Batman V Superman) plays our heroine, Diana, an Amazonian warrior of the all-female utopia, Themyscira. Their peace is shattered when pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) takes a tailspin into their paradise, explaining that the wider world is engulfed in the Great War. Believing the God Aires has poisoned the minds of humanity into committing such atrocities, Diana decides to leave her home, despite the express wishes of her mother, Hippolyta (a fiercely tiaraed Connie Nielsen). Nevertheless, she persists, taking command of her people’s most powerful weapons and following Steve back to the pointedly termed “world of men”.

Her values are soon challenged by the prejudices and practices of 20th century London, as well as the sinister plotting of German General Ludendorff (Danny Huston, wearing his best sneer) and his scientist accomplice, Dr. Maru (Elena Anaya). They plan to unleash a new form of gas to scupper the oncoming armistice, so – after some smartly funny fish-out-of-water escapades in London – Diana, Steve and his hand-picked gang set off to the Western front. At this point, the film threatens to stick Diana in the backseat while Steve and the trio (engagingly played by Ewen Bremner, Eugene Brave Rock and Saïd Taghmaoui) momentarily take centre stage. This is one of few points where the pace limps somewhat, but how refreshing that it’s in service of character building rather than crash-bang-wallop.

Other pitfalls (due to genre and period) can’t quite be avoided. The special effects occasionally overwhelm and comparisons to Captain America: The First Avenger are in abundance, but they’re momentary setbacks that can’t harm the film’s feminist message. No matter how broad the strokes, the statement feels genuine and direct, and the moment when Diana climbs into No Man’s Land is unspeakably powerful. It’s a set piece that feels long overdue, delivering on a spectacular and emotional level that no amount of trailer footage can spoil. If Gadot batting away bullets can bring a tear to my eye, I can only imagine what it’ll mean to an entire generation of young girls.

Jenkins proves a confident action director in these sparse but thrilling sequences of derring-do, shedding the gawping male gaze and murky composition of her contemporaries. Cinematographer Matthew Jensen streamlines the Snyder aesthetic into something appropriate (it’s several shades brighter, but doesn’t let up on the speed-ramps and slow-mo), and composer Rupert Gregson-Williams proves me right about that signature guitar riff: it's a killer cue, and works incredibly well when embraced by a full score.

Tom Holkenborg’s leitmotif is the only hanger-on from the wider cinematic universe: the film spends less than a minute tying itself to the DC web, managing subplots you can count on one hand and connect without the assistance of Wikipedia. Given time to develop a single central character as opposed to the lead, their partner, their nemeses and – lest we forget – Granny’s Peach Tea, Wonder Woman builds to a satisfying series of emotional payoffs that are all to do with rooting for real heroes, not a brooding bulk or snarky pretty boy (Pine easily deflects any Kirk comparisons).

For Diana is not one of the boys, nor is she a damsel. Her quest for peace is taken utterly on her own terms and speaks to something often spoken but rarely felt in this genre: optimism. Not the staunchly-defended principles of Captain America or Batman’s misguided faith in his corrupt city, but a genuine belief that people are innately good, that lives are worth saving for more than the purposes of reparation or showboating. Batman V Superman failed to deliver on the promise of Clark’s smile at the end of Man of Steel, but Wonder Woman takes up the charge with conviction. When tragedy strikes, Diana is visibly shaken. When her powers manifest, she learns to command them without aid or exposition. When faced with the awful truth of humanity, she lassos the last vestige of goodness available and digs in her heels.


This refusal to go all self-referential or edgy seemed to draw out a smattering of sighs and snickers from the audience, but none from me. The unabashed display of hope and courage brought me back to watching my Dad’s DVD of Superman: The Movie as a child, and Gal Gadot’s performance succeeds entirely on her ability to convey that yearning, that desperation, even, to do the right thing. I don’t believe this to be some overcooked attempt on the behalf of Jenkins, Snyder and co. to counteract criticisms of the series’ dire grittiness, but because the movie honestly means to be so. It left me beaming, occasionally through watery eyes, but never through derision. My prayer that the DCEU (or, Goddess forbid, the genre as a whole) learns the right lesson from Wonder Woman may go unanswered, but it’s one as genuine as Diana’s desire for justice. I’m with her.

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' - Review

5/23/2017 12:00:00 pm
'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' - Review

★ ★ ½ ☆ 

Chock full of smirk-inducing dialogue and many a fire-wielding enchanter, Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword finds it very difficult to avoid the obvious Monty Python jokes. As the opening expository scroll faded, to be replaced by the location marker ‘Camelot’, all I wanted to do was lean across to my neighbour and whisper “It’s only a model!” Far from the usual social anxiety, my reason for resisting was that I had no-one to talk to: in solidarity with the film’s lacklustre US box office performance, the cinema was nearly empty.

Emptiness is a key problem on-screen, too. For all the fusing of Ritchie’s guns ‘n’ geezers formula with indestructible myths, there’s nothing but sparse and superficial thrills to be gained. With so much of our pop culture landscape defined by retellings of Arthurian legend, this return to the original tale feels oddly derivative. Narratively, it’s more akin to Star Wars than any fantasy yarn of old: the wizards have all but died out, and a young man must summon the courage to wield his father’s blue-glowing weapon and face a series of trials and visions before confronting a black-clad enemy who’s bound to him by blood.

Charlie Hunnam portrays an Arthur raised in a brothel on the streets of Londinium, who swans about with his motley crew of characters who owe more to EastEnders’ Queen Vic than Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur. Their exaggerated accents are jarring, but at least they’re committed to the ‘Danny Dyer goes LARPing’ aesthetic. Our lead remains resolutely on-brand, emoting purely through shoulder-squaring and the odd grimace.

While Hunnam is humdrum, Jude Law is far from a bore. Embracing the role of Arthur’s evil uncle, Vortigern, and all the leathery bellowing that comes with it, he may not be the most sympathetic presence, but is easily most fun to be around. One scene sees him deliver a threat to one of Arthur’s chums, cutting off their ear when they refuse to comply. Law repeats his deadly promise into the severed ear in a way that should instil stunned fear, but instead caused yours truly to stifle a giggle. Another such joy occurs later when a topless, gimp-masked Vortigern dares Arthur to “Come and touch me”.

The most sympathetic role by far is Ritchie's own blink-and-you’ll-miss-it appearance as a shady dealer who takes one look at the assembled cockney crusaders and delivers the gestural equivalent of “Nah, y’alright, mate”. By this point in the film, we’ve all made a similar assessment. The occasional, unintentional chuckle and a bravura opening sequence (which offers more to fans of the Halo: ODST video game than anyone else) are poor reward for the total lack of self-awareness on display, best demonstrated by the female characters. Arthur’s unnamed mage accomplice (played with eye-popping gusto by Astrid Bergès-Frisbey) is only brought up when the plot demands her mystical abilities but is otherwise forgotten because learning to write women isn’t something Ritchie and his cowriters (Joby Harold and Lionel Wigram) have bothered with yet. Similarly wasted is Katie McGrath, who British viewers will recognise from her role as Morgana in the TV series Merlin, killed off before five minutes have passed.

Despite the furious pacing, snap-zoom camerawork and Daniel Pemberton's glorious romp of a score, there’s no urgency to any of it. The constant use of slow-mo and a colour palette that forgets to include anything but orange and grey drains what energy there is until a cameo from David Beckham fails to elicit even the most exasperated smirk. Legend of the Sword’s slim but laudable potential slowly gives way to a drab exercise in indulgence and buffoonery, its foul mouth betraying an empty head.

Thursday, 4 May 2017

Feeling The Force - What 'Star Wars' Means to Me

5/04/2017 08:10:00 am
Feeling The Force - What 'Star Wars' Means to Me
“This’ll make you feel old…”

It’s a statement I direct at my parents quite a lot these days whenever a certain celebrity, family member or piece of media survives another decade. It’s not something I have levelled at myself very much (with the slight exception being two years back, when Toy Story – a film I consider to be the first cultural landmark of my life – turned twenty), but seeing that swish 40th anniversary logo plastered across various hoarding and merchandise at last month’s Star Wars Celebration event in Orlando, Florida, somehow caught me off guard.

[Image: starwars.com]

Being just shy of 22 years old, I've barely witnessed half of what constitutes four decades of Star Wars’ cultural impact, but the simple fact that I can’t even remember a time when I didn’t know what Star Wars was probably speaks for itself. I wasn’t there for the original release, nor Empire, nor Jedi. Heck, I was still in nappies when the Special Edition came around! My first clear memory of Star Wars is, tellingly, my first clear memory of childhood (to any family or friends reading this who’ve heard this story a million times before, feel free to skip ahead a paragraph or two).

My Dad and I are sat in the Warner Village cinema, Cambridge (now a rather swanky VUE – other cinema chains are available, etc.), and I need the toilet. Being a four-year-old, I’ve chosen the most inconvenient possible time to announce this, and Dad rushes us both to the gents with the urgency and efficiency of a well-practiced fire drill. It’s my first visit to the pictures, (a special occasion all by itself) but, more importantly, we’re seeing a Star Wars film. Being an observant reader who’s done the math, you’ll realise by now that the Star Wars film in question was Episode I – The Phantom Menace. We make it back to our seats with moments to spare, as ‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…’ fades from the screen. Three seconds of total, unbelievable silence pass. Then…

WHAM! Two gigantic words emblazoned in fiery yellow and backed by a roaring orchestra fly into the vacuum. In that moment, nothing else in the world mattered. I was there. I was in the screen. I was in the film. And the rest, as they say, is history.

[Cambridge VUE, as it currently stands]

I still don’t know how to really explain that feeling. I don’t know if I ever will. It’s this…oomph in my chest that only those 8 (soon to be 9) films can create. Once again, I still can’t muster the right words to explain why it’s more than just a favourite film – everyone has a favourite film, but there’s a difference between having a favourite film and a cinematic experience that comes to form your future. The only explanation I’ve found that even comes close to what I’m trying to express is Mark Kermode’s description of his first time watching The Exorcist – “my imagination took flight, my soul did somersaults, and the physical world melted away into nothingness around me.”

Obviously, there’s a vast difference in the perceived cinematic quality of The Exorcist compared to The Phantom Menace, compared even to the Star Wars series in general. To some, it’s a dumb throwback space opera that got too big for its boots, signalling somewhat of a death knell for the serious American cinema of the seventies. To others it’s a benchmark for storytelling, reaching that perfect balance between screenplay and special effects to which many strive, but few accomplish. To me, it’s that feeling I have watching X-wings swoop into the Death Star trench, of being pinned back in my seat as podracer engines shoot across Tatooine and feeling the room vibrate as Rey and Kylo Ren’s lightsabers clash.

It’s not always had the most positive impact, mind. My obsession often drove others to bully me at school or meant I was often fixated on happenings in a galaxy far, far away when I probably should have been concentrating on schoolwork, friendships, relationships, future planning etc. Not to mention the trivia, which likely composes half of my brain. I joke in my Twitter bio that I’m not really a person but just the Wookieepedia database disguised as one, but it’s not a million miles from the truth: for instance, I can’t drive a car or tell you how the off-side rule works, but I can attempt a detailed drawing of what’s inside a lightsaber and explain the difference between the Millennium Falcon’s proximity and deflector shield alarms, respectively (in case you’re interested, one’s a ‘boo-doo-boo-doo-boo-doo’ sort of noise and the other’s more a ‘weeweeweeweeweewee’). Oh, and I once won a Chewbacca impression competition by Yoda quote tiebreaker. And by once, I mean last year. Drunk.

But for better or worse, it’s still been there for me during every stage of my life. The originals fuelled my imagination as a child. The prequels were the films I grew up with. The Clone Wars served as inspiration for the stop-motion films I made between 2008 and 2012, when I didn’t have many friends. The build-up and release of The Force Awakens was a constant source of excitement throughout university (more on that here), and the release of Rogue One came at a crucial time in my struggle with depression.

Even now, the fleeting glimpses we’ve had of The Last Jedi have stoked the fire all over again, because seeing new Star Wars isn’t like seeing other films for the first time. Other films may intrigue, entertain, confuse, annoy or astound me, but trying to take in a new Star Wars film for the first time is like making a new friend: even if I’m unsure about them at first, once they’ve made me smile and gasp and cry, they’ll always be there.

So why did that big ‘40’ make me, a recent graduate still struggling to amass the smallest amount of facial hair, feel old? Because I'm now the age of Star Wars' heroes: Luke, Anakin and Rey finally faced their destinies and confronted great challenge at the onset of their twenties. The tests I face - escaping my hellish retail job, pursuing a career I'm often told is dying out, finding a new place to call home while conquering lingering low moods and ever-present social anxiety - may seem rather minimal compared to destroying the Death Star, turning the galaxy on its head or gathering the courage to summon a legendary weapon...but not to me. 

...I kinda hope it's closer to blowing up the Death Star, though; big medal ceremony and all that jazz. Plus, if I can survive that, I get The Empire Strikes Back immediately afterwards, which is pretty great. Although it is the one where the bad guys win. This analogy's falling apart. I'm going to stop now. May the 4th be with you.

[Awkward nerd bothers droid at Star Wars Celebration, 2016]

Friday, 24 March 2017

'Beauty and the Beast' - Review

3/24/2017 12:04:00 am
'Beauty and the Beast' - Review

★ ★ ★ ½ 

Emma Watson and Dan Stevens lead an all-star cast in this live-action remake of Disney’s 1991 animated classic. A smart and impetuous young woman named Belle (Watson) takes her father’s place in the abandoned castle of a hideous beast (Stevens), once a handsome prince punished for his selfishness. Trapped within the confines of the crumbling ruin, Belle befriends the transfigured house staff, slowly coming to discover there’s more to her monstrous captor than meets the eye. Meanwhile the caddish, swashbuckling Gaston (Luke Evans, firing magnificently on all cylinders), along with his infatuated sidekick, LeFou (Josh Gad), schemes to kill the beast and make Belle his wife.

Watson is a stunning Belle. That’s about all I can muster, really. I'd like to think my critical faculties extend beyond inserting several heart-eye emojis, but when Watson first appears it’s as if everything else (crisp faux-period detail, glittering landscapes, even Kevin Kline as Belle’s tender father) leap away at warp factor 9. Watson’s well-read inventor is a tad more outspoken and empowered than previous iterations of the story, and no less in control of the frame, the music, or the romance (and, to the huge relief of Potter fans, her eyebrows).

The photorealistic renderings of our favourite characters are intricately designed, but come off more than a little creepy (Madame Garderobe and her void-like maw, especially…yikes!), even when given such joyous sparkle by Hollywood’s finest: Ewan McGregor as Lumière, the talking candlestick, Ian McKellen as the finest incarnation of Cogsworth, the grumpy clock, and Emma Thompson, who gives reassuring life to Mrs. Potts, the cockney teapot.

It seems odd that such an otherwise tangible and lavishly designed yarn should have frayed digital edges: the Beast in particular feels very much an artificial insertion. Dan Stevens has an astonishing set of pipes on him, but the grumbling voice distortion and lack of physical heft somewhat squash his natural broiling charm. Still, he delivers the same heavy-pawed comedy-catharsis combo we expect; certainly enough to forgive any less-than special effects.

CGI is also used so extensively during the many musical numbers (‘Be Our Guest’ is the biggest offence) to compensate for the colour and flair of the original you wonder why they didn’t remake it into a 3D animation, rather than live action. Likewise, the grand ballroom sequence is a little flat-footed. Lacking the fluid, ground-breaking elements of its animated counterpart and opting instead for a whirling digital lightshow, director Bill Condon’s desire to enthral youngsters of a new generation could mean anti-climax for long-time fans.


Maybe this is a sign that the ‘tale as old as time’ has finally been drained of all invention? Perhaps, but those simply after a good time at the movies won’t be deterred by such a sweet, funny and soulful retelling. The songs, story and characters are pretty much invincible at this point, and to see them all brought to life again by some of cinema’s brightest stars is undeniable fun. Like the recent revivals of Cinderella and The Jungle Book, it shines with the high-tech glimmer of modern filmmaking and attempts to develop some new material: nothing much is lost, but there’s really nothing there that wasn’t there before. 

Friday, 17 March 2017

'Kong: Skull Island' - Review

3/17/2017 09:47:00 am
'Kong: Skull Island' - Review

★ ★ ★ ½ 

We wave a cheerful goodbye to awards season and prepare for the imminent onslaught of summer blockbuster season with this, the latest incarnation of King Kong and the second in Warner Bros. monsters shared universe. If even half of the franchise properties headed our way in the coming months are as amiable as this fantastically enjoyable romp, we have little to fear.

Kong: Skull Island leaps a few decades past the usual 1930’s escapades and lands just as the Vietnam War is coming to an end, and so that conflict becomes the metaphor at the heart of the film. A band of US soldiers led by war-starved Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) and a constantly-sleeveless SAS tracker (Tom Hiddleston) are tasked with protecting a scientific expedition to a hitherto unexplored island in the Pacific. Brie Larson tags along as magazine photographer Mason Weaver (a decent attempt to knock Mark Wahlberg’s Cade Yeager in Transformers from the top spot of dumbest action movie names).

You’ll notice I just sort of stuck Larson on the end there as a footnote but believe me, that’s more appraisal than the film gives her. She’s mostly there to provide (admittedly very convincing) horrified stares and awe-inspired gawping. And, for most of the running time, we’re firmly with her. To use a phrase I promised never to use; this movie is a visual feast. Cinematographer Larry Fong – so usually stuck with adhering to the iron-grey sensibilities of Zack Snyder – makes full use of an eye-piercing colour palette here, creating a myriad of iconic shots that you just want to bathe in. Kong’s silhouette framed against a burning sunset, napalm explosions reflected in a grinning pilot’s aviators and a dozen others that I daren’t spoil ensure this film is at least a stylistic match for Gareth Edwards' Godzilla.

While the first of Warner/Legendary’s series was about the myth and mystery, Skull Island is all about the monsters. Almost no time is wasted on shipping our intrepid cast to the island, where they’re immediately set upon not only by the giant ape, but also by skull-faced lizards, enormous spiders, tree-like carapaces and all manner of creepy crawlies. The enormous success these creatures have on drawing the eye is commendable, not least because they distract from the risible dialogue (poor John Goodman’s professor is dealt a bad hand in expedition exposition from the start).

Luckily, clunky lines are often overridden by thunderous sound design or the music. Henry Jackman’s score plays much like his Captain America: Civil War album on shuffle, but it works fine. His part usually plays second fiddle to the jukebox collection of 60s/70s hits, just in case you forgot the whole thing was a metaphor for Vietnam for two seconds.


The military forces ill-prepared to face a jungle-bound enemy, extensive use of napalm, a sophisticated and resourceful indigenous populace and more (Hiddleston’s character is literally called Conrad, for goodness sake) create an analogy so heavy-handed they may as well have called the movie Viet Kong. But Kong: Skull Island is a film that thrives on lack of subtlety, on creatures and camp and its British hero slicing up giant lizards with a samurai sword. It’s one Wilhelm scream away from a classic.

Thursday, 9 February 2017

'Rings' - Review

2/09/2017 09:20:00 pm
'Rings' - Review

★ ½ ☆ ☆ 

The most immersive moment in Rings – a resurrection of the killer VHS saga – came when the DCP from which the film was projected cut off, just for an instant. In that deathly still second, it was almost as if the jittery, unstable nature of the series’ cursed videotape had infected the cinema itself. But then sight and sound returned, and my sudden immersion was shattered by Vincent D’Onofiro’s blind priest bellowing so loudly that the scenery he’d been previously chewing flew from between his teeth and spattered the camera lens.

Besides the basic premise (you watch a weird videotape, you die seven days later), my experience with this franchise is limited to watching Gore Verbinski’s The Ring with several drunk friends who shouted “Non, Gaston!” when Martin Henderson’s character died (I have no idea why, either), and one of the two funny jokes in Scary Movie 3. Just Google ‘Scary Movie 3 nah I'm just screwing with ya’ and you’ll find the clip, and – by awful, unbelievable extension – spoil the ending of Rings for yourself.

In this long-gestating instalment, attractive young couple Julia (Matilda Lutz) and Holt (Alex Roe) are drawn into the dark world of Samara’s curse by Gabriel (Johnny Galecki) and his obsession with the tape, which leads the two on a search for the ghostly girl’s resting place. After some initial and not entirely unexpected VHS fetishism, the original video goes digital…because apparently smartphones and e-mail are the ‘hip’ thing for horror now.

I watched Rings following my fourth viewing of Rogue One (leave me alone), and D’Onofrio’s hammy madman is something of an amalgamation of characters from the preceding film: a sightless religious man blessed with near-supernatural powers also inherits Forest Whitaker’s prestige beard. The fact my brain even made this connection is probably an indication that I wasn’t that involved in the film, but, then again, none of the actors seemed to be, either. I suppose it’s hard to feign interest in playing the same old horror archetypes that wore out their welcome even before the first incarnation of the Ringu legend hit screens in 1998.

The closest resemblance this bears to previous episodes is stylistically; by which I mean it looks and sounds like a schlocky genre film from early 2000s. There’s a peppering of fairly smart editing, the lighting leans heavily on various shades of green and black, and there’s a piano and string score to lend a cinematic feel that most modern horrors would ditch.

What a shame that more signifiers of the current found-footage era weren’t left by the wayside. I could maybe forgive the university students being played by people obviously in their late twenties, or the bit where it turns into Don’t Breathe for two minutes. But the boring camerawork, shoddy attempts at tension building and frightening moments notable only by their absence are a chore to sit through. Plus (and I know this isn’t his fault), Roe’s likeness to the bargain basement baby of Dave Franco and Nicholas Hoult is immensely distracting.

An intense and entertaining opening – in which the tape is played to the inhabitants of an airborne passenger plane – sets us up for immediate disappointment. The jump-scares (or, rather, ‘scares’, because they’re all cattle-prod cop-outs) are signposted in skyscraper-high neon lettering, and so any sense of fear or dread is quickly ejected from this forgettable, tiresome footnote of a film with all the grace of an ancient VCR spitting out a particularly worn tape. 

Saturday, 14 January 2017

'La La Land' - Review

1/14/2017 06:51:00 pm
'La La Land' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ 

Like many others, I’m sure; this review begins with a clarification. No, more a resigned confession: I’ve never been one for musicals. While everyone else of my generation grew up with the animated song-and-dance phenomenon of the Disney renaissance, the closest I got were cartoons with a few songs in them (predominantly Toy Story, the Phil Collins-heavy Tarzan and a crummy VHS copy of The Transformers: The Movie). There’ve been some exceptions every now and then, including but not limited to Jeff Wayne’s The War of the Worlds, parts of Les Miserables, and the time my housemate practically forced me to watch Chicago. Despite the varying quality of those examples, nothing has ever been able to shake my innate prejudice. I spent the opening logos of La La Land braced to cringe, waiting for the spasm in my gut and the embarrassed shiver to cross my cheeks…but neither came.

Instead, I spent two hours jigging my knee up and down in glee, weeping in wonder and beaming in total surrender, side-by-side with my mum (who, fittingly, took me to see Tarzan all those years ago). For those of you who’ve been living under a rock since the film’s dazzling first appearance at the Venice film festival, Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) directs Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as Sebastian and Mia, two California dreamers who begin to fall in love after a chance encounter on a busy highway. Seb aspires to open his own Jazz club (in order to save what he sees as a dying genre), and Mia, a wannabe actor, is desperate to escape her life of serving coffee to the inhabitants of the Warner Bros. backlot (“That’s the street from Blade Runner!” – I whispered excitedly as the pair wandered among the vintage façades).

Yeah, I’ve never found myself attached to the grand heritage La La Land is so clearly besotted with, but throw in a location from one of my favourite movies, an original John Legend song and not one, but two sequences paying homage to Rebel Without a Cause, and you’ve got every inch of my being in an unrelenting embrace. Plus, giving Stone a lead role helps. Honestly, I could gush for hours about how her every eye roll, head spin and half-smile in this has extended my life expectancy by several decades, but we’d be here for twice that length.

Where Gosling is concerned, another of my long-held prejudices has been put to rest. While his woozy eyes have understandably wowed many, to me his expression has always appeared vacant, almost detached. In Shane Black’s The Nice Guys, this worked wonders (his character was a complete klutz), and here, too, his hazy gaze speaks to something authentic: the far-reaching mind of a dreamer. I finally get it, you guys.

Okay, now I’ve confessed and repented for my sins, can I gush about the routines, please? Cool, thanks: Justin Hurwitz’ songs are perfect, the dances move with the sweep and grace of sublime animation, and all are presented in a rainbow-soaked palette as flavoursome and primary as a packet of fruit pastilles. Standouts include a hilltop toe-tap (that moonlit beauty from the poster), a one-shot parkour through heavy traffic and a soaring waltz among the stars. Despite wanting to, I hesitate to blabber further: I’d hate to ruin any of what this film has in store.

In contrast to the stark colours, the morality of the story - of Seb and Mia’s victories and sacrifices - is far from black and white. I’m pressed to label it ‘earnest to a fault’…but, well; it hasn't got one! Chazelle knows we’re too cynical to buy a total lovesick ode to Tinseltown right now, so peppers the sweet with spice. Even I (a sometimes fantastically over-sentimental soul) could understand why the film makes certain moves towards the flip-side of fairy tales, undertaking manoeuvres I can’t illustrate any clearer for, again, fear of spoiling the surprise.

So: a glorious ear-worm of a soundtrack, astounding visuals, unfairly loveable stars and a surprisingly textured narrative…I think that just about covers it! Wait, there’s a ‘Take on Me’ cover, too? Complete with Gosling passive-aggressively plinking a keytar? Sod it, take your five stars and get out of here; you’re already too good for 2017 as it is.


P.S. Please don’t actually go, we need you. Badly.

'A Monster Calls' - Review

1/14/2017 12:57:00 am
'A Monster Calls' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ ½ 

If you’ve ever been a fan of Doctor Who, you may vaguely remember a David Tennant episode called ‘Fear Her’. It revolved around a young girl struggling with loneliness and familial disruption, channelled through drawings which came to life via an alien host. From the barest glance, A Monster Calls resembles an extrapolated parallel to this story: Lewis MacDougall plays Conor O’Malley, a shy and bullied preteen whose mother (Felicity Jones) is suffering from terminal cancer, whose father (Toby Kebbell) is distanced by continent and circumstance, and whose grandmother (Sigourney Weaver) is uptight and uncaring. Conor is met not by an alien, but a fantastical tree monster (voiced by Liam Neeson), who springs from the boy’s drawings. The Monster promises to visit Conor three times, each encounter packed with a myth or legend. Upon the fourth visit, it will demand a story from the boy, a tale that will prove to be his ‘truth’.

For those who require more persuasion than references to a mediocre episode of British television, allow me another analogy: picture The Iron Giant filtered through the operatic spectacles of Guillermo Del Toro. Getting the picture yet? This is a boy and beast tale at its most thoroughly cinematic, where the power comes from a seamless combination of beautiful performances and truly fantastical film-making. Whilst MacDougall carries himself with the tenacity of the young Harry Potter leads from all those years ago, eagerly pulling at our heartstrings, Oscar Faura’s cinematography soars wondrously. As Felicity Jones brings me to tears for the second time this month simply by hugging someone, Fernando Velázquez’ score delivers the second blow. And, as the Monster brings rooftops tumbling down upon the landscape, so to do Liam Neeson’s words send tears cascading down our faces.

Yeah, it’s a tough one, this: if you’ve glanced at reviews, poster quotes or reactionary tweets, you may pick up your tickets confidently, sure you won't cry. Speaking from extremely personal experience, you’re very much mistaken. I detected a similar outpouring from my fellow cinema-goers; we’re talking everything from squelchy sniffing to full-on flannel face. This isn’t emotional manipulation on the film’s part, God no: it’s an impossibly well-crafted piece of catharsis, earned through the simplest admission. Endless empty thrillers still can’t mar the gravelly power of Neeson’s delivery, not least during the sublimely-crafted animated sequences, where fairy tales are restored to their cinematic glory and their interpretations left entirely to the imagination. Such a statement seems rather obvious, but after the trite and misjudged retellings of latter-day Disney, it’s a relief not to have ‘the other side’ of these recitals spelled out so blindingly.

If there are any weak links to be found in this glowing chain of interlocking visceral-technical achievements, they’re to be found on the side-lines: the boys that bully Conor deliver some very stilted and swappable dialogue (like many others, the film remains blind to the true complexities of playground trauma), while Sigourney Weaver – surely blessed with one of the most recognisable voices in film – has her weapon of choice scuttled by a flimsy accent. Perversely, it’s a scene in which she barely utters a single sound that redeems inflectional faults with immeasurable, lacerating power.


When moments of near-silence hammer our hearts as brutally as MacDougall's loudest cry of anguish, the film’s greatest success is revealed. At its heart, this is an uncomplicated, uncontaminated fable that insists on the emotion of escapism over any pseudo-psychological explanations, reducing the hideous messiness of pain into a pure and profound search for truth. The Monster’s emphasis on hearing Conor’s story is not a demand, but an act of empowerment; the permission given to every scared, lonely child to scream and rage and sob, to admit their quietest truth at thunderous volume.

Thursday, 15 December 2016

'Rogue One: A Star Wars Story' - Review

12/15/2016 04:37:00 am
'Rogue One: A Star Wars Story' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ 


Back in October, a viral ad campaign for the latest Call of Duty game stated everyone's distaste for 2016 loud and clear, with the tagline "Screw this, let's go to space." Given all that's taken place since, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story – with its cast of multinational talent, themes of hope and resistance, and an incompetent villain with bad hair who sneers at the one woman who dares to defy him – couldn’t be more relevant if it tried. It’s less of a fingers-in-ears escape from reality and more a hyper-realised reflection.

Much like the political horizon, Rogue One takes us into uncharted territory, as the first of Disney-Lucasfilm’s planned array of standalone Star Wars stories taking place around the main saga. This first entry details the events leading up to A New Hope, in which a desperate Rebel Alliance attempts to steal the plans for the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the Death Star. Felicity Jones stars as Jyn Erso, a galactic delinquent with a familial tie to the Empire and a habit for disregarding orders. As the film progresses, she reluctantly amasses a band of heroes including disillusioned Imperial pilot Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), Alliance Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and his sardonic droid partner, K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), plus monk/warrior duo Chirrut and Baze (Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen, respectively). Ben Mendelsohn plays the increasingly infuriated Director Krennic, whose connection to the Erso family provides the starting point for the story. Forest Whitaker also appears as frazzled extremist Saw Gerrera, one of the films many ties to The Clone Wars animated series.

Though this new addition to the saga fills a hitherto unknown gap in the recently re-established Star Wars canon, there are nods aplenty to Expanded Universe material, the place where the mission to steal the Death Star plans was first uncovered (as seen in the Dark Forces video game). Jyn’s father, Galen (Mads Mikkelsen, who spends a lot of time getting rained on), bears the forename of the original creator of the Rebel Alliance, Galen Marek (better known as Starkiller) from The Force Unleashed series, K-2SO smacks more than a little of HK-47 from Knights of The Old Republic, and there's an X-Wing versus Imperial walker denouement plucked from the cover of a Michael A. Stackpole novel.

It's images like this swarm of buzzards taking on an armoured behemoth that helps Rogue One forge its own identity within the larger series and sell the apparent futility and hopelessness of an ailing resistance. The down-and-dirty camerawork itself feels spontaneous, even guerrilla, while establishing shots see the scale games director Gareth Edwards employed to brilliant effect in Godzilla magnified tenfold. Cinematographer Grieg Fraser turns this giant toy box into pure eye candy, with the Death Star as an irresistible jawbreaker at the centre.

Appropriately, while there is a chewy surface beneath, you might break your teeth attempting to get in: a somewhat higgledy-piggeldy first act means that initial character interplay is rushed, which makes seeing them as anything more than another set of archetypal action figures a little difficult. Of the bunch, Jones, Ahmed, Yen and Luna provide the most rounded personalities. If there is any justice in the world, Luna will soon be a gigantic star, and Yen will get further chances to demonstrate his comedic timing. Those with the least to prove (Ahmed and Jones, arguably) still give everything. Oh, and Mendelsohn is great fun as Krennic’s frustration mounts, because no-one does irritable scowling quite like him. A scene between his white-caped thug and a certain helmeted figure is a gift.

Now, for the Bantha in the room: those troublesome rumours of re-shoots intended to lighten the tone or bring the spirit of the film back in line with the other episodes. Fear not. Unless (like me) you’ve scrutinised the trailers more times than is healthy, any sign of later interference is inscrutable. The Force Awakens may be a more structurally coherent film, but this is a very different beast; a war movie more than a fantasy. The spectacle of Stormtroopers getting thrown about in huge explosions is followed by a grimace and a burst of dirt and shrapnel rather than a punchline. Humour is present of course, thanks mostly to Tudyk’s figurative (and completely literal) straight-faced delivery, but it’s less a continuing gag and more a reprieve. The grit and the grime is tangible, and all the (admittedly stellar) practical effects showboating of Abrams’ instalment seem piecemeal compared to what Edwards has achieved: the most ‘realistic’ Star Wars movie since 1980.

While we’re talking The Force Awakens, those who complained endlessly that it’s similarity to A New Hope signified Lucasfilm taking no risks with the franchise ought to be silenced, and possibly even more outraged now. Rogue One is most definitely a Star Wars prequel not only in the chronological sense, but also with regards to its risk-taking, its attempt to re-invent the series, and an insistence on blurring the line between physical and digital filmmaking like never before.  No, not every gamble pays off, but whether it leaves you aghast or amazed, the sheer audacity is gobsmacking.

The effectiveness of fan-service as an antidote should never be underestimated, however, and I doubt there’ll be a single dissenting voice rising against a note-perfect and utterly crowd-pleasing conclusion. These closing moments allow the movie to slide snugly into place with all the satisfaction of completing a high-scoring Tetris combo, with the blip-blop sound effects replaced by Michael Giacchino’s score. This, too, is where the film breaks from tradition. Giacchino’s music is not a symphony of motifs and themes, but a continuous soundscape that blends occasional call-backs with new material that, nevertheless, still retains that epic quality we’ve all come to expect.

As someone with a great deal of expectations, what I’m happiest about is how so much of this movie reminds me why I love this ridiculous franchise in the first place. The year between The Force Awakens and Rogue One has been a year of massive personal upheaval, and returning to a galaxy far, far away to find it still discovering ways to entertain and – most importantly – surprise me is one heck of a Christmas present.

Monday, 28 November 2016

'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' - Review

11/28/2016 11:38:00 pm
'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' - Review

 ★ ★  ☆


This new yarn from J.K. Rowling is akin to retreating from 2016’s horrid winter into an old blanket. It’s warm and cosy with familiarity, but the loose threads are becoming more obvious, and the cold still seeps in through little holes. Eddie Redmayne stars as magizoologist Newt Scamander. Magizoologist Newt Scamander stars as the Eleventh incarnation of Doctor Who. He’s got the floppy hair, tweed suit, ungainly limbs, whimsical shyness, and even a sonic screwdriver (well, it’s technically a wand, but it’s still essentially a glowing stick he uses to open locked doors).

He also has his own TARDIS, albeit in the form of a magically enhanced suitcase, home to a menagerie of magical beasts. The contents of the case are let loose on 1920s New York, where Scamander is befriended by wide-eyed ‘nomaj’ Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and hounded by plucky ex-Auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterstone). As the trio scurry around in an attempt to return the creatures safely to the suitcase, another kind of sorcery stalks the streets. A dark force is causing calamity, and the Magical Congress of the United States sends the mysterious Percival Graves (Colin Farrell) to investigate. A second Salem movement is also on the rise, and, within its ranks, a reclusive teenager (Ezra Miller) secretly rebels against his oppressive mother (a ferociously intense Samantha Morton).

I’ve made it sound like you need a whole book to even understand the setup, but the film eases you into the flow with a good helping of earnest adventure before the underlying plot strands begin to convalesce. Much like the later Potter films, Beasts strikes a good balance between child-like immersion in the sparkling spectacle of a magical world, whilst still drawing out the darkness inherent in that universe. The production design alternates between gloomy, effervescent and gothic, and it’s very hard not to be won over by James Newton Howard’s soaring score.

When any franchise enters a new era, there’s always a great deal made of ‘bridging the gap’. With Newton Howard providing the musical connection, the character who guides us through is not Redmayne, but Miller, playing the sunken-faced and scary-haired Credence Barebone. Carrying more than a little Draco Malfoy in his glare and posture, he works wonders with a subplot that is occasionally misjudged in its intensity. The Potter universe is no stranger to darker themes (each film after Prisoner of Azkaban thrived increasingly on this), but the shadows here exist outside the wizarding world, in a place that feels all too real. It’s especially jarring when bookended with scenes of Newt, Tina and Jacob capering about. Still, the dénouement of Miller, Morton and Farrell’s relationship allows the movie to become Return of the Jedi for about two minutes (you’ll know once you’ve seen it), which is rarely a bad thing.

The entire arc of Farrell’s character is revealed the instant we see his haircut, but he’s clearly having good fun. He certainly draws a far more rounded character than his nemesis, Newt; a Tumblr fanfic creation brought to life. Any investment we have in our heroes is channelled through Dan Fogler, who has come a heck of a long way since I first saw him in Fanboys. His performance carries nuance, genuine emotion, and charm that doesn’t require a single wand wave.

Sadly, subtleties in acting and well-crafted details in the film’s milieu are betrayed by broader strokes. Small, delicately handled moments between Jacob and Tina’s sister, Queenie, are a treat, at odds with the reductive thumbnails of their overarching development (or lack thereof). Likewise, any display by the titular beasts is at its most endearing when focusing on Scamander’s tiny, pocket-borne Bowtruckle or the gold-loving, platypus-like Niffler. By the time massive monsters like the Erumpent begin crashing through Central Park with no real consequence, any charm is wearing off.


Even the city itself has this problem: the tiny shop windows and foggy back alleys are unique and intriguing, but the skyscrapers and lines of traffic feel copy-pasted (probably because they are). By the time we get to the effects-heavy finale, it’s only the emotional nature of the climax that redeems its use of 2016’s default antagonist; a CGI cloud. If I may be allowed to return to the Doctor Who analogy, Beasts’ final act is very much in the same vein as a ‘monster of the week’ episode: a fair bit of crying, some very iffy special effects, and, most importantly, an emphasis on empathy over any kind of confused pseudo-logic. Thankfully, its spirit is less Stephen Moffat and more Russell T. Davies. If there really are four more of these to be conjured, let’s hope it stays that way.

Wednesday, 2 November 2016

'Doctor Strange' - Review

11/02/2016 01:32:00 pm
'Doctor Strange' - Review

★ ★ ★ ½ 

The best moment in Marvel’s latest cinematic universe building block comes when an egotistical white man gets punched. For a series that replicates this beat time and again (see any movie featuring Tony Stark, Scott Lang, Thor, or their respective villains), it’s no mean feat to make the act feel special again.

In the case of Doctor Strange, said wallop arrives when Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch, playing a neurosurgeon who loses the use of his hands in a car accident) haughtily discards the very idea of spiritual healing. Tired of Strange’s close-mindedness, The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) delivers a hefty thwack to his chest, whereupon his astral form is catapulted from its physical body, before being hurtled across the dimensions. It’s a brilliant juncture that rewards threefold: as deftly-executed punchline for the scene, an epiphany for the reluctant hero, and an eye-widening joyride for the audience, demonstrating the psychedelic visuals to come.

By this point in the movie, we’ve briefly dipped our toes into the special effects during a brawl between Swinton’s guru and Mads Mikkelsen as grimacing zealot Kaecilius, but Strange’s first encounter with the mirror dimension is a headfirst dive into kaleidoscopic abandon. Entire solar systems fold in on themselves, human faces contort and replicate infinitely, and when the sequence comes back to Earth with a bump, we’re left gasping for more just as much as the dumbfounded Strange.

The Ancient One informs us that these effects are confined strictly to the mirror dimension, with no effect on our reality. So when this maelstrom of magic returns for later action set pieces, the key question is “Why should we care?” The city-levelling CGI clouds witnessed in at least half a dozen other Marvel films may have become repetitive, but at least we understood there was a human cost. Here, the finale deliberately creates a similar setup – broiling clouds of digital distortion included – but subverts our expectations by immediately making the climax all about the characters – more specifically their brains, not brawn. Plus, it’s the closest a Hollywood production has ever come to resembling a YouTube Poop (parody content where videos are warped, repeated, reversed, or otherwise altered for comedic or entertainment effect), and I make this comparison as a massive compliment to the creative minds at play.

This isn’t to uphold the mind-bending visuals as the only, nor even the largest source of comedy. The script is witty enough that our suspension of disbelief can survive numerous silly names (Dormammu, Mordo, etc) and a whole heap of mystical jargon, while Cumberbatch, Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor and co all pick up the Marvel mix of serious and snarky very well. Cumberbatch in particular manages to avoid accusations of overexposure by playing a character that actually gets to emote for once. The cold disinterest of Sherlock or the calculated shyness of Alan Turing are involving facades, but not particularly sympathetic. Strange is a barking, whimpering misanthrope who learns to have a laugh every now and again at himself, rather than others. He also gets ten kinds of stuffing knocked out of him by the Cape of Levitation in his efforts to be worthy, which is endlessly amusing (putting in my early bid for it to win Best Supporting Actor).

Pitfalls appear every once in a while: Rachel McAdams does very well in a reverse-but-not-really love interest role, until the narrative sees fit to drop her from the final act. It’s also a shade too long (but then, what superhero film couldn’t do with losing a good ten minutes of exposition?), and it uses none of its time to give Scott Derrickson any chance to develop a signature directorial style. His previous horror works (Sinister, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Deliver Us From Evil to name a few) bear little idiosyncrasy, so perhaps this is Marvel taking a chance on a ‘clean slate’ as it were, removed from the pop-culture infusion of the Russo Brothers, or the vintage aesthetic of Joe Johnston.


For all the usual MCU potholes it sometimes stumbles into, Doctor Strange is smart, funny, inventive, and hugely enjoyable. It’s the first of the series since Iron Man to feel like a genuine standalone; a story that can be enjoyed by newcomers as much as die-hard fans. The latter will stay seated for end credits stings regardless, but the Michael Giacchino score makes waiting less of a chore and more of a toe-tapping cooldown for everyone else.