Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger." There aren't enough superlatives for this work of art. Denis Villeneuve has crafted the impossible - a sequel that, in my opinion, transcends Ridley Scott's original visuals and Philip K. Dick's noir narrative, while catering to its own modern version of entertainment. I'm amazed how Villeneuve has succeeded in portraying a film with an old-fashioned agenda, whilst simultaneously appealing to the new generation. There's incredulous art in that. But there's a sense, with this long, complex and intellectually demanding film, that every shot counts. Every uncomfortable piece of imagery sets the futuristic scene for the proceeding conflict. And yet, nothing seems unoriginal - every scene has its own characteristic decoration; a prop or two that defines the local atmosphere. Most importantly, though, this new film continues the original story, with a number of references to the ancient history of this pollution-battered husk of California.
True to its origins, the film is riddled with cosmic scale, coupled hauntingly with a loud and unnerving soundtrack, reminding us of this almost autonomous society, where the progression in technology has superseded any recollection of humanity. There's a quote in the film where a replicant mentions that they have become more human than humans. Incredibly self-aware as this film is, it's story pays great homage to the original, by continuing the dark themes of questioning mortality. With its main character, it has constructed another complicated example of binary existence - a person who is unsure of their own identity. The intention with the original film is that it was constantly questioned whether Deckard was actually human, or secretly a replicant. Surprisingly, this film turns that argument on its head, and has a replicant wonder whether he is actually human, and not just a trained assassin with one mission in life. Without imposing too much on Scott's premise, Villeneuve has created some wonderfully beautiful parallels with the original. Characters from the original reappear, not just as cameos to attract and tempt the audience, but as well-scripted recurrences. Edward James Olmos, for instance, returns as Gaff to relay information about the location of Deckard's child, and reminding us of his connection with origami - potent symbolism for the internal memories of replicants. A similar form of memory reconstruction is used in this, with wooden toys. I like the use of wood, simply as it refers to humanity's negligence as custodians of the planet; a planet where its own vegetation and life-force has become a rarity. Even amongst the direct themes to the mortality of replicants, there are indirect nuances regarding the destabilisation of community and its accompanying common decency. Production-wise, I struggle to find fault. There are emphatic contrasts between the separate future communities; abandoned cityscapes bedded with sand adjacent to the bright, iridescent lights of the Los Angeles metropolis; old-fashioned cookers counterbalanced with holographic artificial intelligence. One of my favourite scenes has to be as K falls unconscious following a skirmish with the Wallace Corporation employees, and the camera follows Deckard's abandoned dog padding sorrowfully towards a broken window with a ship disappearing into the distance. There are so many examples of stupefying imagery whereby the production team have outdone themselves in scale and effortless imagination. Clever editing allows for bouts of silent tranquility, followed rapidly by a crescendo of sound - keeping the audience as disconcerted and alert as its characters. Acting was one area I was skeptical about when approaching the film. But, there was no need to doubt the casting. Everyone involved is totally engaged with the material and environment. Ryan Gosling naturally embodies the stubborn, combative and persistent Blade Runner that made Harrison Ford so endearing in the original. As he's barely off the screen, it's commendable to see him so easily capture our concentration. Robin Wright and Sylvia Hoeks both demonstrate their calibre of performance in their roles, equally fierce and authoritative. Hoeks in particular shows great promise as the new actress on the scene, giving us a villain we can truly hate. Above everyone else though, despite having less than half an hour screen time, it's Harrison Ford who gives his all. In a role that has already been established, it might seem like a piece of cake to portray Rick Deckard, but Ford adds many layers to his performance, giving depth to the feelings his character has experienced over the terrible years since 2019. A lot has changed him, and the events toward the end of the movie bring out his grittiest moments. There's one scene in particular that grabs your attention from the off. I'm still revelling in the majesty that is this film. Despite its length, it doesn't feel arduous or monotonous. Villeneuve has devoted enough time to capture the important content - the scenes that require extra notice to fully fathom their meaning. There's so much detail in the shots sometimes, that it immerses you completely in the world, similarly to its predecessor. Whilst nobody asked for this expansion of the Blade Runner world, this film provides good reason for you to see it. Meticulously dancing between meaningful conversations and violent encounters, there's no end to the entertainment, and the satisfying feeling of being pulled into another science-fiction world populated with the latest peaks of imagination. It is an unquestionable spectacle. 9.5/10
0 Comments
It's a good day to die." There are a number of problems with this movie before it has even begun. With an incredibly revealing trailer, most of the plot has already been divulged before we've seen any of the main characters. The opening scene takes us back in time to the devastating moment in Courtney's life when her carelessness leads to her sister's death. This is the morbid basis for a very depressing and convoluted movie trying too hard to address the question of mortality. There are some rare and disparate moments of good-quality filmmaking, but the third act is particularly lost in its own land of pseudo-science. Whilst a lot of the events that happen in the movie can be attributed to hallucinations, a lot of the effects are so extravagant that the element of the unknown disappears.
I'd like to start with the positives. Ellen Page, an actress everyone will remember from Inception, is quietly confident as the aspiring medical student, who's haunting past encourages her extra-curricula investigation. She steals every scene, and her character's demise is psychologically damaging. Credit to the director, this scene quickly transformed the movie from a science-fiction thriller into a horror drama, and Page pulls all the stops out to portray a frighteningly tormented woman who's shocking death is the most gripping moment of the entire two hours. It's just a shame this was followed by another half hour of miscellaneous insanity. The music, whilst not always prominent, was quite effective at building the tension, but by the end, that wasn't often. Whilst the movie looked grand and beautiful in its psychedelic scenery, the point was quickly lost. Never mind the afterlife, the writers may have been indulging too much in the depiction of beauty, rather than the rational possibilities of a brain suffering asphyxiation. The science may have been present in diagnostic and revival scene, but as one character mentioned within the film's context, it was all pseudo-science in the end. Marlo's perspective in the afterlife was the best example of the production going overboard on its use of the unknown. If they'd kept the effects and visionary to a minimum, the final product may have been a little more mysterious, and a lot less chaotic. My main problem with the film is its incapacity to write its characters. A lot of the time, they are very quick to assume things, almost as if the writers are trying to intentionally push an agenda. But, in general, the characters are very unlikable. Candid, rash and uncharacteristically stupid. They don't suffer any consequences, despite all the rule-breaking they've committed, and because we're concentrating so much on them, the rest of the world is forgotten about. This doesn't help the fact that the afterlife story is unbelievable already. Whilst there was so much emphasis on what the characters saw, the explanation was not as thorough, meaning that by the end of the movie, we lack any understanding of what's just occurred. Simply put, a messy plot, filled with inconsistencies and errors of character. I haven't seen the original, but I imagine it has a similar story. The premise of flatlining has its interesting propositions, but inevitably - because this is something unknown in the scientific world, and often ridiculed - there's no standing in whatever is depicted. Despite a strong lead performance from Ellen Page, and a nice cameo for Kiefer Sutherland, the rest of the film is riddled with overcomplicated scenarios with morality and mortality attempting to combine to create non-existent threat. The conclusion is particularly unsatisfying. It's a shame, because the horror genre had a reawakening of a sort in this film, and there are some genuinely creepy moments, even if they're nonsensical in the story's perspective. 6/10 Manners... maketh... man. Want me to translate that for ya?" Kingsman: The Golden Circle is as bombastic as its predecessor. Prodding the line of incredulity at an alarming rate, Matthew Vaughn continues to demonstrate his talent for action flare and relentless comic humour. Whilst maintaining the British image of etiquette and a good dress-sense, the introduction of an American equivalent makes for a series of new jokes, predominantly aimed at the Anglo-American relationship. The tie-in music sums up that partnership beautifully as we traverse between Britain and the US, making fun of both nations with equal sincerity. What makes the Golden Circle even more relentless than its predecessor though is its scope and breathtaking cast. Without the astonishing calibre of cast, I highly doubt this feature would've got off the ground.
What the film does well is setup another world-threatening power by almost completely wiping the slate on Kingsman. Pretty much everyone who was part of the team initially is blown away in the first twenty minutes of the movie, leaving you feeling a little shell-shocked. But, Vaughn has enough class and skill to keep you laughing, even in its darkest moments. Dinner with the Swedish royal family is particularly a high-point in the comedy spectrum as Eggsy attempts to progress his heated relationship with Princess Tilde. But this passionate relationship is threatened when the world is struck by a strange epidemic and Eggsy and Merlin, last remaining members of Kingsman, are forced to adhere to their American cousins, the Statesman, and form a lasting bond to defeat the new rising menace. That menace is in the form of Poppy, a nostalgic psychopath who harkens to the 50s era. Played indescribably by Julianne Moore, there's no doubt you're in for a wild portrayal early on, especially as she's taken Elton John captive as part of her 50s entertainment. Moore's performance balances a creepy love for the old-fashioned landscape with a dark and deluded love of bloody violence as she churns up a former member of the Golden Circle in a meat grinder. Vaughn never shies away from the gritty violence and sometimes needless gore, but it helps to portray Poppy as the maniacal power that she is - devoid of conscience or mercy. Her pet robotic dogs are evidence enough of her sheer strength and intelligence. The story is widespread that it can sometimes veer wildly around the world to separate locations. But, as it progresses, it never fails to keep the past in mind. Colin Firth's welcome return as Harry Hart is explained succinctly and well, even if extraordinary technology plays a part in his revival. His obsession with butterflies is great way to show how amnesia has affected his mind. It takes Eggsy's fake attempt to shoot a puppy to recover his sound intellectuality in the agent field. His contribution in the film is immense, and the film is written so well, that even as the break-neck speed of the plot continues, character development is never let down. Eggsy and Harry's relationship continues to blossom as if they had never been separated. Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges are also welcome additions to the world of Kingsman, even if their roles are short-lived. Tatum brings a typical American character and adds an ounce of comedic license to his performance, just for show. Bridges may be playing a character he's played many times before, his screen presence never falters though. Halle Berry's appearance may be underused, but the script has enough space to give her a chance to shine alongside Mark Strong, and hopefully her legacy will continue in a third film. It's Pedro Pascal who makes a large impression in the film though, playing a supposedly good Statesman, known as Whiskey, on the outside, but with an alternate motive inside. He provides a lot of laughs throughout, and his skill with a "skipping rope" make him almost the action anti-hero. I'd like to pinpoint Mark Strong as a highlight in the film who plays Merlin with just as much class and well-mannered integrity as in the first. As a good friend to Eggsy and a stalwart and loyal member of Kingsman, his brains are often the only way of escaping trouble. His final scene is possible the highlight of the film, in which he sacrifices his life after Eggsy mistakingly steps on a mine. His rendition of Take Me Home, Country Roads will always be remembered as one of the greatest send outs for a character ever. Considering all the losses Eggsy had in this film, I'm surprised he wasn't even more emotionally degraded by the end. Action plays a prominent role in Vaughn films and this no exception. Nothing beats Colin Firth's church scene in the first Kingsman, but there are so many battles to watch, one even in the first minute of the film, that it's like one long rollercoaster. The expert camerawork is like a piece of art - the way he can visualise an action scene simply through the perspective of weapons and constantly rotating around the fight makes you feel completely exhilarated. As usual, there's no holding back on the violence as people are impaled by giant scissors, thrown through car windshields, split in half by robot dogs and a lasso, not to mention shot, shot and shot again. Even the end result of the potion from the drug misuse is pretty gory to see. In terms of missteps, the only thing that I perhaps riled over was the perhaps mildly misogynistic scene in which Eggsy sexually implants a tracking device inside a woman at Glastonbury. In a film as busy as this, it's extremely impressive that there was a chance for Elton John to gain the crown for most hilarious character as he swore in abundance, high-kicked a security guard and squashed the head of a robot dog with a bowling ball. The writers even had a chance to jibe at the President of the United States by having him impeached. Poppy's demise may have been anti-climactic, but by then you're so satisfied with the story up until then that it becomes null and void. The most satisfying thing is that the end of the film teases a possible further sequel as Tequila arrives at Kingsman in London, possibly to pick up a new assignment. Whilst it doesn't quite make the comedy genius and timing of the first film, the Golden Circle is most definitely still up there with one of the great action flicks. Holding up with the visually breathtaking special effects, it's beautiful to watch and gains a lot of praise for its balance of relentless action with emotional interactions. In my opinion, another win for Vaughn, and another additional flick to add to the collection of great films this year. With Get Out, The Circle, Logan, It and Wind River, they're mounting fast. Nothing has come close to Dunkirk though. 8/10 This isn't the land of waiting for back up. This is the land of you're on your own." What Wind River does right is introduce its audience to this harsh, consistently wintry landscape and describe its danger and sometimes unwelcoming image. In my opinion, the mountains capped in snow is a picturesque sight, but the way Taylor Sheridan paints it is bland, desolate and is some cases quite hostile. The inter-changeable weather for one thing tells a complicated story. But, more than everything else, the story is the element that really darkens the atmospheres, and where the movie finds its success.
The plot reminds me a lot of Fargo, but there's a distinct lack of black comedy in this adventure. The seriousness is absolute from the first emotional scene as a teenage girl helplessly moves her way through a snowy field after an unknown horrific ordeal. The ominous music and the mysterious camera pans set the scene for a very bleak tone. Cory Lambert's back story is used as an emotional background and motif for his determination to find Natalie's killer. This may seem like an old trope, but in truth it provides motivation for Cory and gives us a chance to gain his perspective of proceedings, whereby he's almost reliving the dreadful discovery of his daughter, Emily. Whilst Jane Banner may not be given much exposition, her role in the movie is key to making ground in the investigation and she is effectively the exterior perspective of this hostile landscape, looking in as we are at why some of the local population can live there, but others find it drives them insane. Indeed, the theme of belonging ran deep in the symbolism of this movie. Those innocent affected in this attack are of Native American origin and whose traditions and beliefs almost ostracise them permanently from the wider society and population of Humanity. Despite Cory's cordial relationship with Martin and Annie, who've now lost their daughter, they originate from separate backgrounds. But, simultaneously, they can respect each other's perspectives without problem. This film, perhaps more than anything, attempts to teach us how to co-exist in the humdrum, eclectic world of diversity. That is certainly evident in its final, poignant message at the end of the final scene as Cory and Martin console each other for their loss. As I mentioned, Sheridan brings everything into play using an imaginative vision and employs beautiful scenery to balance the violence and death. Watching Cory drive around on his skidoo was surprisingly exhilarating. That close relationship with nature also helped to identify the main theme of belonging. But, the big scene is the final confrontation between law enforcement and the drill workers who were involved in both Natalie and Matt's murders. The scene is incredibly tense and proves that there's still a chance to surprise in these crime thrillers. Also, the poetic justice of the denouement as Cory gives Pete one final chance at survival, by giving him the same chance as Natalie before she suffered a pulmonary haemorrhage. It's testament to the writing and directing cooperation that ensured that the movie felt complete, but was not at all rushed. On the acting front, Jeremy Renner could definitely be in the running for an Oscar, as the emotionally-damaged father and hunter who sought justice in the cruel world. The scene where he explains his daughter's absence is evidence enough of his talent. Elizabeth Olsen was surprisingly strong in her performance as well, perhaps more the butt of the joke sometimes rather than one of the main characters. However, she took charge of the trailer-search scene with ease and convincing authority. In the supporting cast, Gil Birmingham certainly deserves acclaim for his emotional and visceral performance. Overall, Wind River doesn't shy away from the violence of its subjects, and some scene may be incredibly, psychologically, affective. There's no doubt the time and care gone into its production though, and the setting is most-definitely awe-inducing. Accompanied by all-round strong performances, the story plays along fluidly and the script offers some philosophical questions along the way. It may not be Dunkirk, but this has all the makings of being a stubborn classic, and a worthy contender for one of the best of 2017. 8/10 You give, and you give, and you give. It's just never enough." Perhaps the most abstract film I've watched since Shutter Island - Darren Aronofsky's Mother! is a psychological horror based on the nightmares of a mother. In my opinion, this movie perfectly depicts all the things that I believe my own mother would be distressed by. This has all the makings of being a paranoia-inducing film that will make you question your privacy, your identity and your own role in life - whether you're a mother or not. The concept itself has a great premise and ending, but along the way, the film loses itself in sloppy screenwriting and forgetting to inform the audience of its own intentions. Aronofsky's attempt at horror is commendable, but I think the build-up required more exposition for the audience to be fully invested.
To begin with, I'd like to praise the cast for their emotionally-resonant performances - never is there any doubt that these characters feel all that happens around them. Every horrific occurrence is reinforced with Jennifer Lawrence's gut-wrenching emotion, made even more prominent by the fact that the camera follows her around the house for the majority of the film. Javier Bardem plays a more sincere character than usual, which means he gets the chance to explore his acting skills a bit more (much better than Pirates of the Caribbean ever gave him a chance). His character revelation towards the end is more meaningful with Bardem's performance of love and devotion that is so obsessive it's almost terrifying. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer also provide great supporting roles, meaning there's a few more layers of intrigue to explore. Pfeiffer certainly has an evil turn as her character questions Lawrence's character for her failed attempts at motherhood. I think a lot of people will find the film frustrating, simply because there are barely any answers to anything until the final moments. Some might call it tedious as events unfold with nary an explanation until the revelation is finally given as to why the audience is subjected to the relationship of a writer and his wife in a formerly-destroyed house. There's a lot of small details to take in, and everything soon becomes overwhelming when the mother starts to become surrounded by the hordes of people who come to visit her home unannounced. In truth, it's a harrowing experience to find a stranger wandering your house or using your facilities without even asking for permission. Let alone thousands of people. There are a lot of themes to explore, and it's why I'd recommend (if you have the patience), to watch this film a number of times to pick up on the symbolism and dramatic irony that is riddled within the film. Small moments such as when the mother's baby kicks inside her womb, her husband has opened the front door. A subtle, yet interesting, detail that could mean the difference in this film between reality and insanity. In particular, her husband (known as Him in the credits) is worshipped almost as a deity following the publishing of his new poem, which leads to the mayhem that ensues in their home, and ultimately leads to the death of her baby. This surprising and incredibly claustrophobic portrayal of obsession is perhaps a mirror of modern day obsession, and the violence that develops from that obsession can be the death of that obsession, ironically. This is one of the many abstract elements that continues to fascinate me about this film. Not only has Aronofsky decided to touch on the emotional variations of the mother, but also on the thematic importance of a deity and his subjects - made even more horrific when her baby is embroiled in the obsession. One thing that can't be faulted in this film, is the sharp and disorientating directing. The camerawork is so visceral and flexible that it can make the audience feel sickened by the events around the mother or by her side. Aronofsky's decision to stick by Jennifer Lawrence throughout the film means that there's more meaning in the portrayal - perhaps she is the only window into this strange world. Moments such as when she sometime steps outside and can only hear silence, coupled with whenever she touches the house, she can see a heart beating, gradually transforming into a blackened heart as the story goes on. The writer and director has clearly thought out everything, but perhaps in making the film he has forgotten to take us along with him. Unfortunately, due to the lack of explanation for all the small references, and some strange decisions made by the characters, we're left blindsided by the onslaught of story. Equally, the screenwriting doesn't provide enough detail to explain the different reasons for all the people who turn up at her house, especially during the maniacal raids. Lastly, this is an incredibly violent film. From the beginning, it may not seem as though anything is coming to fruition, but as the strange events move forward, you start to feel uncomfortable for the mother as she is subjected to all sorts of psychological torture, sometimes unwittingly by her husband. The scenes involving her newborn baby are some of the most horrific scenes I've seen in my lifetime, and it underlines the heavy thematic subjects that Aronofsky wanted to question. Obsession is an incredibly dangerous emotion to have, and it can sometimes lead to the most devastating of conclusions. The one main concept I fully understood about this movie is that home is where the heart is. The perfect loop that Aronofsky creates inside the story at the beginning and denouement is well explained, and the significance of the jewel precious to him is also given clarity. In that respect, the symbolism is incredibly poignant and transcends the role of a mother as someone who provides warmth and comfort to a house that might as well be a skeleton of its former self. But, it's just a shame that this simple concept is bogged down in many other themes that Aronofsky wanted to raise. Nevertheless, the combination of powerful directing and performances, plus the complete lack of soundtrack, makes this a film you won't forget quickly. 7.5/10 I do not aim with my hand. He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye. I do not shoot with my hand. He who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind. I do not kill with my gun. He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart." Before I begin the review, I'd just like to point out that I have not read the Stephen King novels on which this film is based. I have read up on some of the overall context of the novels, but have not delved deep enough to know the characters or locations at all well. Thus, I am entering this fantasy world completely blind. In this respect, the approach has both pros and cons. The pros being I have no standard to base the movie on, and the cons being that it has the heavy duty of introducing me to his primary characters and guiding me and many other viewers into a new lore - something that can never be considered lightly. Indeed, the question remained how this was to be attempted successfully when the film is only an hour and a half.
The story, the characters and the spectacle are all cohesive, that's fair enough, and the world is easily accessible. However, there are a few detractions. The fast nature of the film, whilst it does get a chance to establish characters, the audience never gets a chance to appreciate most of them, apart from Roland and Jake. Even, Walter, the big bad of the film, is so one-dimensional, that it's hard to feel anything emotions at all towards him. The supporting characters are equally cast aside, and barely acknowledge, which means that this world doesn't seem tangible enough or empathetic enough to be believed. Roland is a great character, with a well-defined past and purpose, and Jake is given heroic and emotional stature in the film, even allowing us a moment of grief as he realises Walter killed his mother. But, other than that, even the main characters falter, as most of the film concentrates on their journey rather than their choices and actions. Speaking of action, the film has lots of it - well-directed and exciting, the final battle between Roland, the Skins and Walter was a superb set-piece and gave the ending the impact that it needed, but, generally-speaking, it's not so different from most action flicks - a few cool flips and tricks, followed by the hero saving the day - it was too predictable and unimaginative to seem in any way powerful. Again, the attack on the camp on Mid-world was well-executed and the Gunslinger trick that Roland used to save Jake was a brilliant moment, but it had already been spoiled by the trailer. Meaning that everything amazing that happens in the film has already been pre-conceived by the audience before it has even begun. The directing, in contrast, was well done, and I particularly enjoyed the landscape shots in the desert and across Mid-world, it gave the sense of an alien planet. The special effects were not overwhelming as well, although the guardian at the Keystone Earth portal was a bit disorientating as there was not much explanation for all the monsters and beings that dwelt in this new lore. The script was a bit lacklustre and amateurish, although I did enjoy the Gunslinger Creed, which was most-probably lifted from King's novel. It has a potent ring and message to it. Other than that, characters lack empathy and depth, meaning that when most of them died, the audience had no recollection to the importance of their role in the story - they were effectively dispensable anyway. Because of the short screen time, the script did not provide any exposition to Gunslinger history, Walter's sorcery, the Dark Tower or Jake's life with his father. Overall, it felt rushed and resulted in an incomplete story that had captured my interest, but not my heart. On an incredibly positive note, the acting was top notch. All the cast involved gave admirable performances, the three main characters in particular. Tom Taylor shows great promise as an actor, giving us a heartfelt performance and one that is full of flare and versatility. I can see him taking on more roles of this calibre. Idris Elba is a safe option for an action hero, and his prominent presence in all his scenes owes to his charismatic ability to capture the audience in his emotional expressions. Unfortunately, he didn't get much to work with. Matthew McConaughey, despite having been written as a villain with barely any features whatsoever, gave his performance his all - balancing between psychotic demon and cunning genius. His scene with Jake's mother was particularly terrifying, and McConaughey never fails to add his own touch of menace into the mix. Whether Stephen King appreciates this adaption of his beloved novel series is by the by. Seriously, it has a lot of potential, but it seems the filmmakers weren't brave enough to steer away from the Hollywood formula, and resulted in a rehash of pretty much most fantasy films that have been produced in the lifetime of entertainment. The ideas are all there, but it needs substance and at least an ounce of emotion to make it seem real or captivating. Because everything seems half-hearted and unfulfilling, you can't help but feel this was just a regular moneymaker, where the edges were disregarded in order to make it durable. A risk needed to be taken, and unfortunately, despite the actors' best efforts, the film falls back into a recycling formula that has been regurgitated more times than Friends has been broadcast on E4. 6.5/10 Rules are rules and this is a place where we make love, not war." Seeing as the Fifth Element is an old favourite science-fiction of mine with its obscure storyline and wacky pace. From the trailers, Valerian seemed to be in the same vain, but with an extra quality - the visuals looked breathtaking. And that's what they are - breathtaking. From early on you start to explore the Universe that Luc Besson has lifted from the comic books. Every detail is colourful, beautiful and awesome. Action sequences are especially mesmerising in this film as the landscapes, environments and spaceships coalesce elegantly for every frame. It's not too detailed that it causes a brain seizure, but it's just enough to make you see the scale. Each environment has it's own style, so to speak, and that style is instantly recognisable as unique. City of a Thousand Planets indeed.
There's a vast mix of previous films and influences in this, however it's difficult discern whether one is original or inspired by another science-fiction world without knowing what was in the comic book. Suffice to say, the plot and storyline is quite similar to Star Wars, but when it comes to the fine details, the two converge quite significantly. Valerian concentrates a lot on the philosophical themes, with love standing as the primary motivation for the plot. Certain decisions made by characters either follow a code or procedure that has negative impacts on their feelings - this is the concise overall story. What transpires, however, is far more detailed and rich potential. The story itself is the driving force of the entire film and gives the writers ample opportunity to hit a lot of notes along the way. The opening sequences introducing Humanity's evolution in space travel alongside David Bowie's Space Oddity, on the planet Mül and the mission to retrieve a 'converter' are the best parts of the movie, giving us an exciting, relentless, fascinating series of action and exposition scenes. Cinematography should be commended for its skill at showing the small and the large with equal detail. Kudos to Luc Besson as well for the use of dimension-changing, by having the agents surf between the two. Science-fiction success is always based on the inventive use of cool ideas - there's nothing cooler than having a character be two places at once. The latter half of the film, in which we return to Alpha and discover a possible threat at the heart of the city, is perhaps lessened by the fact that it is returning to more familiar science-fiction tropes, but the visual and audio aid does not cease. The military aspect is perhaps something that should have been reconsidered or further developed, but we do get to meet some other interesting characters, including the Doghan-Dagui trio who have great knowledge and Bubble, a shape-shifter. The conclusion does seem relatively simple, but everything leading up to the payoff is so good that it is almost negligible in the long term. The villain is captured and the heroes get married seems like a typical cliche, which is a shame considering the astonishing originality of this film. Apart from Valerian and Laureline, the characters are generally fascinating and help to depict a more vibrant Universe. Clive Owen plays a surprisingly villainous evil in Commander Arun Filitt, which is hard to find in most good vs evil films these days. Rihanna's tenure as Bubble may have been short-lived, but her brief appearance was surprisingly enigmatic and gave the writers a chance to point out the darkness of slavery. Also, the Pearl race are depicted as a pacifistic, humble race, which makes their history even more tragic in retrospect. Laureline is a character played brilliantly by Cara Delevingne, with a decidedly stubborn overview on life. Unfortunately, it's the other main character, Valerian that falters. As he's written as a major, Dane DeHaan seems too young for the role, and the actor's portrayal doesn't seem fierce or strong enough to be authoritative. This was my only gripe towards the acting, but it is perhaps more of a blame towards the casting. Luckily it doesn't ruin the flow of the film. My main negative is the script. Despite a multitude of talent and extravaganza behind the making of this film, the endearing quality of the directing and visual richness is let down by a contrastingly lacklustre script. It suffers the old fantasy cliches and relies too much on the characters' actions rather than the intelligence of their decisions. Especially when it comes the military side, the script can become a bit comedic. Whilst romance isn't a common recurrence in the film, when it does crop up, it can be a bit jarring amid a mountain of action and excitement. It forces the movie to stall for a moment to explain the relationship between Valerian and Laureline before moving on again to the next plot development. All in all, this is far from a bad film - the visual aspects alone are almost enough to put into icon territory as a symbol of quality filmmaking. However, a bad casting choice and an unconvincing script leave me to believe that it won't remain a cult classic like The Fifth Element. However, there's enough excitement here for an enjoyable night at the cinema, and the imagination that has been injected into the visual aspects are enough to call it a film of high potential. Unfortunately, the director and producers may not get the chance to improve with a sequel, but this is a strong adaption, nonetheless. 7.5/10 Men my age dictate this war. Why should we be allowed to send our children to fight it?" Claustrophobic, thunderous and profound are the three words that crop up after watching Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk. Suffice to say, watching this film in iMax is your best option to receive the full compliment of cinema experience. The film sets out to absorb you into its hostile environment and join its characters, and it very nearly succeeds. The care taken to every practical shot is breathtaking and the story is conceived in a way that allows you to follow a multitude of characters and witness their harrowing time in hell as they just strive to survive.
Already, by the beginning of the movie, Christopher Nolan has shown that this will be an unconventional film, by splitting it into three factions (The Mole, The Sea and the Air). This gives us the full perspective of war we can possibly get for this frightening event. The Mole introduces us to Tommy and a group of soldiers he teams up with as they attempt to use any means necessary to cross the channel. The Sea follows a fisherman and two of his sons as they answer the call for help over in France to help bring soldiers home. The Air covers three spitfire pilots who are the last hope for the military on the beach as they attempt to pick off any German planes attempting to sink escaping vessels. This disjointed storytelling was a clever way to compile the overall plot and ensured that we understood the full extension of the evacuation whilst not being too sidetracked by separate events. In some cases, certain occurrences happened three times just to reassure us of the linearity. The production is perhaps the most important asset of this film - pertaining to the sound, imagery, music and scale. All these components have been so painstakingly put together that it is impossible to criticise the final product. For the sound, you will experience ear-splitting bouts of gunfire that was incredibly uncomfortable to hear in the cinema - plus the extra sounds of planes, boats and rushing water to add to the compendium of unnerving noises. Nolan demonstrates his skill with a camera as he seriously considers each shot to be necessary for portraying the horrific events. The first scenes are some of the finest examples of this as you see Tommy find himself on the beach of Dunkirk overlooking his comrades lined up to escape France. This landscape shot will go down as an iconic representation of one of the darkest days of man as 400,000 men attempt to just survive. Hans Zimmer's music as with many of his recent soundtracks for Nolan, including Interstellar and Inception, is a relentless, haunting toll in the background. The fact that it plays constantly throughout the movie makes sure we're always watching the unfolding action, but it's the masterstroke at the end as the music suddenly kicks out to silence that really hits home the power of this disastrous event. The music was symbolic of the soldiers' presence at death's door until the very end when they are finally safe. Last, but not least, the scale of the movie is unprecedented, with Nolan relying on practical effects to portray the evacuation instead of the usual CGI that filmmakers rely on these days. In consequence, the film seems very pure in its depiction - nothing seems out of place and everything is big, big, big. From the size of the warships to the real-life spitfires, everything is genuinely awe-inspiring. If it wasn't for the acting and the final emotional injection into the script, the film would not be complete. Fortunately, neither is a problem. They are both wholly present and are examples that transform this picture into a masterpiece, and will hopefully be a stronghold for Dunkirk in the Oscars. Fionn Whitehead may be a newcomer, but his contribution in the film is absolute - he carries the emotion as a lone survivor who is as desperate and instinctive as his comrades - any means necessary to escape death. He is joined by Aneurin Barnard and Harry Styles who are just as passionate in their portrayal. The conditions of their filmmaking helps to mould their characterisation even more. Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy are both inspirational leaders who are the driving force of the evacuation and the constantly keep up morale simply be being in the presence of their men. The morality of the Commander's decision to stay behind and help the French soldiers is heartfelt and very moving. Tom Hardy's role may be minimal, but he has an heroic turn as the spitfire pilot, Farrier. The soldier's contribution to the evacuation is pivotal in the army's survival. The final shot of his plane on fire is a monument for the movie and his capture by the Germans shows that some soldiers sacrificed a lot in the effort. Finally, you have Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy, Tom Glynn-Carney and Barry Keoghan on the small fishing boat heading south. The drama around Murphy's character and his question of either cowardice or trauma is perhaps the most emotional in the film. The death of Mr. Dawson's son George, is an example of how war can be dangerous for more than just the bullets and explosions, but for the psychological transformations that occur in a soldier's mind. When Peter lies about George's condition to the soldier afterwards, it is the defining moment that decides whether the soldier will carry on fighting or be so caught in grief for the death that he caused that he would be completely incapacitated or even worse, suicidal. As the film juxtaposes from the French coast and back to Britain, the location may have changed, but the overall dejection in the soldiers' hearts is ever present as they believe wholeheartedly that they have failed the nation. But, the final message is as clear as it should be. In Chruchill's speech, Britain's leader saw the Dunkirk evacuation as a resounding success and the determination and accomplishment achieved in the event was carried forward as inspiration for the next step in the war. Nolan ends on a bittersweet moment in which the surviving soldiers are relieved in their survival, but sorrowful for their losses. It doesn't matter what comes next in the war according to this film, as this is portrayal of how men can overcome the gaping jaws of hell - not just Britain - but any resilient person on the planet. The only questions remain - why was it necessary in the first place? Why is war a part of Human nature? Was it all worth it? 10/10 The rich, the powerful, like Stark, they don't care about us! The world's changed boys, time we change too!" A superhero movie that competently balances the vastly expanding superhero world, while also showing a different side to the genre. Tom Holland's version of Spider-Man is hilarious, quick-thinking and packed with entertainment. There's no let-up to the jokes, it has to be said, the script rattles them off in quick succession, but they are no detriment to the flow and development of the overall story. Whilst there are missteps as in most movies, the tone and charisma of every character on screen will keep you interested.
The continuity references within the Marvel Universe are extensive, with appearances from some fan favourites and a few cool references to those not in the limelight this time around. Having Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts was a great decision, giving fans a chance to catch-up with those characters that have perhaps fallen out of view. Plus, there were some hilarious cameos of Captain America as he narrates pre-recorded school videos for the benefit of school discipline. New cast members were brilliant additions as well, with the collection of Peter's school friends giving us a flavour of high school drama in the middle of an action movie. Standouts included Ned and Michelle of course. Ned may seem like the stereotypical nerd sidekick, but his presence seems far more thanks to an inspired performance from Jacob Balaton. Zendaya was equally commendable for a quirky and eclectic performance - there are hints of a future relationship kindling for her and Parker. For the villain, Michael Keaton doesn't fail to scare us with the elusive and technologically adept Vulture. The story itself is simplistic - an impoverished man stumbles across alien technology and decides to use it to make a fortune whilst disrupting the rich. Peter Parker discovers the danger he poses by selling powerful weapons to criminals and vows to stop him, by disobeying Stark and Hogan's orders of course. The success of the story is based on how the writers were able to balance between Peter's real school life and his good samaritan lifestyle. The transformations were brilliant, and the significance of the suit that he wears at different points throughout the movie was used in a thoughtful way. It strays from a powerful statement Tony Stark made about Peter's misuse of the suit. Also, Spider-Man's final decision to not get publicity for his role was a humanely powerful decision to make and will hopefully resonate within viewers minds as a life lesson - especially the younger audience. The big twist around Vulture and his identity as Adrian Toomes was unexpected. The fact that we never see him and Liz together in the same scene until that fateful night when Peter finds him answering the door to her house is a big surprise. The element of family and its effect on Adrian's decisions was a big factor, I suppose, in his decision to initially keep clear of Pete once he'd learnt of his true identity as Spider-Man. But, that was quickly negated anyway thanks to Peter's lack of control. Regardless, there's a lot of morality and characters making brave decision in the movie that will really make you think, and that's a bi positive. Visually, as usual, Marvel is at the top of its game in terms of budget and detail. Scenes at the Washington monument and the final confrontation on the plane in the sky are two fine examples of the incredible power of CGI these days. Everything looks crisp and genuine, and the visual mastery makes everything seem ten times more exciting. Even though, at times, Spider-Man long-shots do lose his integrity, they hinder the movie whatsoever, it's just slightly distracting. Above all though, Spider-Man is a very funny blockbuster with a lot of heart and a confident cast. Superhero films continue to surprise me with their grandeur and visual capabilities. Stories have sometimes been a problem, but Marvel are especially demonstrating that there's an improvement in progress. and they are concentrating more on the thematic value of a movie, instead of just getting from the beginning to the end. Throughout Spider-Man: Homecoming, there are a lot of little scenes to take in, with numerous references to the real world, physics, pop culture and a stylish collection of music for the soundtrack. Highly recommended for the family. 8/10 Whatever it cost my cousin in pain and suffering before he died I will return with full measure upon the woman that caused it." With its alluring dialogue and dark concept, My Cousin Rachel promises to be one of the year's more eccentric movies with a quiet take on the gothic mystery. In some cases, it has the capacity and potential to be successful in its endeavour to attract the viewer, but it mostly fails to appeal. This is due to a long, drawn-out plot that stretches its wafer-thin story to an extreme. In absolute, the film covers the basis of a thriving relationship between a man and his cousin's widow, which culminates in his infatuation with her and eventually trying to woe her. This, in essence, is the crux of the story. There are supporting roles involved, but they predominantly fall to the wayside of a very central double-led cast.
I would, without hesitation, put Rachel Weisz at the centre of my praise. Her eccentric performance and sinister manner play brilliantly with the already-gothic atmosphere. She steals ever scene with her melancholy glances and surprisingly subtle attitude. Her characters is a fascinating one, but without Weisz, it wouldn't have been distinctive enough to attract my attention. Unfortunately, Claifin, whilst charming in his own way, can't match her. Perhaps it may have something to do with his character's personality traits, but his overall demeanour is off-putting and unattractive. Also possibly ruined by character flaws, he always seems to be too preoccupied with the present rather than looking ahead, and that is ultimately his downfall in the end. There were some shocking moments in the film. The foreshadowing of the cliff fall was a great addition to the story, and setup the final conclusion brilliantly as Rachel fell to her death. The conclusion also settled Philip's realisation that everything that Rachel did was purely innocent and that he was just pushing her too much. The story itself had substance and a neat ending, but it was overstretched in terms of how long set pieces were prepared and capitalised. Certainly, the diversion involving Wellington was frustrating. And the payoff definitely wasn't enough to account for the time it took to get there. I think, personally, the lack of enjoyment was a side-effect of the tragic nature of the story and the darker elements of love and its consequences. Of the supporting cast, Iain Glen and Holliday Grainger were both great, but their characters felt sincerely lacking in importance. Whilst enough time was spent on Rachel and Philip, Louise and Nick Kendall received barely any character development apart from when necessary to feed Philip's concurrent events. The main problem was that they appeared intermittently to support the story rather be a part of it. Despite some convincing direction from Roger Michell, with some landscape shots to die for, the structure of the film was incredibly choppy and disrespectful to the story. Especially at the beginning of the film, the story seemed to rapidly transfer between scenes just to lay the groundworks for the rest of the film. This consequently gave the film an unsatisfactory tempo where characters seem to breeze through life with only minor interactions and conversations to reassert their personalities. One scene involving Philip's mourning of his cousin was so short, that I was desperate for it to take a breather and begin contemplation. The greatest movies are the ones that pause and consider the past to better the future. A mixed bag, with a stunning performance from Rachel Weisz balancing out a sloppy plot development and disregarded characters. For those who enjoy a surreal love story, in which nothing is as it seems, this could be your kind of movie, but don't expect too much investment in their relationship. The story around Philip believing Rachel to be the cause of his cousin's death is also quickly sidelined when he first meets her. This is perhaps a little unexplained, seeing as how convinced he was of her hand in the death, but that's one flaw of many in an unsatisfactory portrayal of the trials of love. 6/10 |
AuthorA very passionate Welsh nerd... Archives
October 2017
Categories
All
|