GaF Blog

Review - "Wonder Woman" (IMAX 3D)

2017-06-01T22:04:00.002+12:00

Wonder Woman - directed by Patty Jenkins

Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen, Lucy Davis, Ewen Bremner, David Thewlis, Eugene Brave Rock, Danny Huston, Saïd Taghmaoui, Elena Anaya, James Cosmo, Wolf Kahler, Doutzen Kroes

Screenplay: Allan Heinberg

Music Score by: Rupert Gregson-Williams

Cinematography: Matthew Jensen

Edited by: Martin Walsh
Running Time: 141 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence, some pretty intense war scenes (not Saving private Ryan but still grim)

If this movie isn't embraced by the DC naysayers then there is simply no hope for the current slate of DC movies in terms of turning their dislike around.
I don't buy into the hate that "Man Of Steel", "Suicide Squad" and particularly "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" got - I liked all of them - specially the two Superman ones.
But I understand the complaints and the DC movies don't bear up next to the best Marvel movies - I would be the first to admit.
Until now.
"Wonder Woman" stands tall not only amongst those previous DC movies but it easily goes boot to boot and Shield to S.H.I.E.L.D against anything that Marvel has produced.
For the record I still think that "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is the high point of the comic book superhero movie genre but Patty Jenkins "Wonder Woman" absolutely deserves to be uttered in the same sentence.

The signs are good early on with this one.
The film zips along at a merry pace without once feeling rushed.
It is an origin story of sorts for sure but given that we have already met Wonder Woman / Diana Prince previously in "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" the amount of time spent on the young Diana on the hidden island of Themyscira is justifiably quite brief.
But while there everything we are shown is terrific.
Connie Nielsen as Diana's Mother Hippolyta and Robin Wright as her combat mentor and Aunty Antiope make the most of their screen time and deliver strong performances.
They certainly look the part as fierce, disciplined Amazonian warriors.
The training scenes here serve as action scenes very well and further aid in keeping things zipping along.
Soon enough though the outside world intrudes with the arrival of World War 1 super spy Steve Trevor closely followed by a whole mess of German soldiers.
We have had hints at director Jenkins prowess with action thanks to those training scenes that precede the ensuing battle but it is during the beach dust-up between the Amazon warriors and the German Army that she first really shows what a fine choice she was for this film.
And it is merely the start.

So "Wonder Woman" is a marvellously well written and directed comic book flick for sure but it brings something else along that honestly caught me completely by surprise.
Emotion.
This film packs a wallop.
By the time the final scene arrived I was pleasantly exhausted as one tends to be when you have been taken on a wild ride with characters you care about and stakes that feel important but there was an extra element.
I want to be careful what I say here because you need to see this film cold - spoiler free- but I will say that thanks to the natural chemistry of Gadot and Pine and the very steady hand of Jenkins this film stays just the right side of melodrama and it will get to you - I promise.

It is impossible to write about "Wonder Woman" without at least touching on the screen presence of Gal Gadot.
Yes, obviously she is a stunningly lovely woman - we've seen that in the previous DC movies and in the likes of Fast and Furious 5 and 6.
But here she has found another gear.
Not just in her physical appeal which frankly probably counts as the most beautiful thing or person I have seen projected on a screen but in the amazing work she does in bringing the title character to life.
Diana is a young woman learning about the world and her place in it and Gadot does wonders with the role.
She will learn that much of what she had assumed is not necessarily true and Gadot brilliantly shows a character whose entire beliefs are being shaken up.
The stunning scene in which Wonder Woman emerges from the World War 1 trenches revealing the incredible costume for the first time is a jaw dropper in every way as she advances towards a hail of German bullets but the impact is all the greater for the beautiful work Gadot does leading up to it as she witnesses the harsh and horrific realities of war.
This is the very definition of a star-making performance.

I can't find anything bad to say about "Wonder Woman".
Gadot's performance stands very, very tall and I am now very definitely a Wonder Woman fan.
She is truly an amazing creation in this iteration.
The efficient script - very definitely NOT a backhanded compliment - subtly packs in a host of themes none of which are used to whack the viewer over the head.
They are there if you want them.
Credit also to Danny Huston as nasty German tyrant Ludendorff who deftly avoids every stereotypical trap in playing a villain of this ilk and also to the beautifully expressive work from Spanish actress Elena Anaya as his sidekick Dr Maru (aka Dr Poison) who finds humanity despite wearing half a face worth of makeup.
This is also a very funny film largely courtesy of that Gadot / Pine chemistry and the wonderful Lucy Davis as Pine's secretary.
Some cute little nods to previous iterations (most obviously the Lynda Carter tv show) are slipped in too... glasses!
The action climax has been pinged for being a little bit too standard - a bit samey, a bit been there done that.
I don't disagree but given that the big punch up finale does so much in the service of the big emotional tug that the film delivers in its final moments it is clearly working regardless of any cookie cutter-ness to it.
I honestly loved this film and although I am booked in to see it again on another huge screen on Saturday there is the distinct possibility that I will still sneak in another look on Friday night also.
I want to revel in the performances, the action and the pure skill of all involved in making this amazing, hugely entertaining film.

RATING: 90 / 100

CONCLUSION: As terrific as this movie is as a pure piece of comic book entertainment it proves to be every bit as adept as the finest of Marvel's flicks at showing how much more there can be to the kapow, blammy comic book film. Gadot is incredible, Pine perfect and their work is suitably showcased in a movie that I could not have liked more.

Review - "Alien: Covenant"

2017-05-10T22:59:00.002+12:00

Alien Covenant - directed by Ridley Scott

Starring: Katherine Waterston, Michael Fassbender, James Franco, Noomi Rapace, Guy Pearce, Billy Crudup, Carmen Ejogo, Danny McBride, Callie Hernandez, Demian Bichir, Tess Haubrich, Amy Seimetz

Screenplay: John Logan & Dante Harper

Music Score by: Jed Kurzel

Cinematography: Dariusz Wolski

Edited by: Pietro Scalia
Running Time: 125 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R16 - Violence, Profanity & Brief Nudity

Remember Prometheus?
The 2012 Ridley Scott helmed Science Fiction flick that was oh so coy about whether it was an alien movie or not?
Of course we all hoped that it was because what could be better than the creator himself stepping up to the right the ship that had gone so far of course with "Alien: Resurrection" and those two pretty horrible Alien vs Predator movies. (yeah, yeah- he didn't write the script but the look and feel of "Alien" is all Sir Ridley)
Well here we go again because even though this movie is again helmed by Scott and it does indeed contain the word 'Alien' in the title this time it still isn't really exactly the alien movie that many people will be looking for.

From the start we are firmly in Prometheus territory with Michael Fassbender and Guy Pierce reprising their roles from that movie.
Fassbender's David and Pierce's Weyland have a conversation about creation and existence before we shoot off aboard the giant colony ship "Covenant" where Fassbender plays Walter - a new model of the synthetic David.
He is monitoring things and takes action when a freak accident causes the crew to be awakened early.
Before you can say distress signal most of the crew are in a dropship headed down to the planet from which the signal originated.
Now that will be enough plot from me because this movie is best enjoyed with as little knowledge going in.
At least I think it would be.
I don't actually know because the trailers, clips and tv spots that Fox released prior to today have shown altogether too much already and several times throughout the movie I could see exactly what was coming.
Given that this is basically the same Ten Little Indians / Friday the 13th who dies next kind of deal that the very first film employed this is a problem!

Yes- there is an alien in this film but it isn't exactly the good old shiny black acid bleeder that we all know and love.
Clearly we are heading towards it but I am rapidly getting the feeling that all of this stalling had better pay off in a huge way because it all makes me want to slip the blu-ray director's cut of "Aliens" in the player.
And that might be the real problem here.
It isn't so much that Scott has his head more in the "Prometheus" universe than the "Alien" one but more that James Cameron's 1986 film still stands as far and away the best film yet made in the series and each film that followed including this one does enough Alien-y stuff to remind you how good they can be before missing the target by some margin.
And with repeated shots of steam filled corridors with flashing lights, cargo bays with familiar looking machinery, weapons that look very close to Colonial Marine gear and of course a central female warrior figure it is hard not to think of Ripley, Hicks, Bishop, the bark of pulse rifles and phrases like 'Get away from her you bitch!'
As I said - kind of an alien movie but just not quite ready to fully embrace it.

So what we have here is something pretty much smack dab in the middle of "Prometheus" and "Alien".
Once again it seems reluctant to fully commit to being an Alien movie and when your poster (that one right there at the top of the page) screams 'I am an Alien movie!!' I fear that many people will roll their eyes as the Xenomorph bug hunt that they were expecting just isn't there.
It kind of is.... there is definitely a greater move to bring what "Prometheus" presented closer towards the original Alien movie but I wonder what the big plan is here.
Scott has already said that a further movie is planned and that there is a path towards linking the two strands together (source)
I fear that the road ahead will be a rocky one because even though I enjoyed "Prometheus" and "Alien: Covenant" maybe even a little more there was still the same 'is that all?' feeling as I got up out of my seat at the end.
It's a tad too predictable too often and at pretty major points (if you can't see the final 15 minutes comin a mile away you clearly don't go to the movies much)
There is one key action scene that is pretty much worth the ticket price and Scott sure knows how to make a tasty looking science fiction movie.
The visual effects and set design are amazingly good here.
Also the Milford Sounds in the South Island of New Zealand are wonderfully other-worldly and provide a great setting.

There is enough to like about "Alien: Covenant" to make it easily worth a look and if nothing else it definitely earns it's R rating.
There is plenty of the red stuff splashed around, loads of F Bombs, some smutty talk and even a sex scene with nudity.
Crudup, Fassbender and Waterston do fine work and even Danny McBride - best known for low brow comedy roles- does a terrific job in a very serious role as pilot Tennessee.
There are at least two action scenes of note and some staggeringly effective visual effects shot.
One scene shows the dropship landing and it is terrifically well done.
The ship interiors, computers and even Mother's voice (Lorelei King but damn does it sound like Sigourney Weaver) are beautifully done.
I like much of what this film does to stitch the two franchise strands together but enough with the teasing already.... give us the balls-out Alien flick that we all want.

RATING: 80 / 100

CONCLUSION: Wonderfully well made it may be but the predictability and the feeling that the franchise is being milked for all its worth on the way to a 'real' Alien film may ironically put under threat the film that this one and "Prometheus" before it seem to be leading to.

Review - "John Wick: Chapter 2"

2017-05-07T22:23:00.002+12:00

John Wick: Chapter 2 - directed by Chad Stahelski

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Ruby Rose, Ian McShane, Riccardo Scamarcio, Common, Lance Reddick, Franco Nero, John Leguizamo, Bridget Moynahan, David Patrick Kelly, Peter Serafinowicz, Tobias Segal, Thomas Sadoski, Claudia Gerini

Screenplay: Jamie Moss

Music Score by: Joel J. Richard & Tyler Bates

Cinematography: Dan Laustsen

Edited by: Evan Schiff
Running Time: 122 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R16 - Violence & profanity

This movie is what you get when your $30,000,000 predecessor makes $88,000,000.
It is bigger in every way apart from one.
This sequel cost $40,000,000 and has to date made more than four times that in box office revenue.
It has a much higher body count and more elaborate sets and action set pieces.
But what it doesn't have is the sense that it needs to happen for story reasons.
The first film was pretty much a complete story with the titular anti-hero serving up a suitable revenge on those who had dared to kill his dog, steal his car and dishonour the memory of his beloved late wife.
But of course a sequel needs some sort of reason to exist and even if I don't find the plot particularly effective in doing so the mere fact that this film like the one before it is a huge amount of fun seems like reason enough.

"John Wick: Chapter 2" begins at a run with a car chase and a high body count fist leading to gun fight.
Seemingly whatever loose ends from the last film are tidied up before a new twist is introduced in the form of Santino D'Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio) who forces Wick to take a job to assassinate his Sister who is occupying a seat on the High Table that he wants.
There is talk of a marker - a sort of blood oath- that John has with Santino so he doesn't have much choice.
Besides- Santino blows up John's nice new house with a grenade launcher.
He doesn't kill the dog though with the huge explosion however.... a concession to the audience rather than logic I would venture.
These events allow for two things.
Firstly John relocates to Italy for the hit job and secondly it puts an awful lot of fresh bodies in the way for him to 'off' in ever balletic ways.

The driving, fighting, guns, suits and dog return for more of the same. But bigger!

One of the features of the John Wick movies are the highly choreographed gun and fist fights.
Keanu Reeves is superb pulling these off and his grace and dedication combined with some slick camera work and equally deft editing mean that the action is every bit as good as it was last time.
I feel that these films are almost single handedly carrying on a genre that has succumbed to the stupidity and excess of the likes of the Transformers and Fast and the Furious movies.
They are frequently over edited and lack a basic geography in the action scenes.
No such issues here - everything that Wick does makes perfect sense and is never confusing even when there are a dozen figures on screen involved in the action and it is set in a house of mirrors!
Common and Reeves get two terrific standoffs with the second one producing a wonderfully comic moment.
Special credit to the lighting and set design too. The colour palette utilises nicely contrasting blues and oranges in many scenes and bright whites in others.
This is a great looking movie.
So yes- this is a really, really well made action film and that really is a rare thing these days.
And wait until you see what can be achieved with a pencil....

Common, Franco Nero, Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Riccardo Scamarcio and Amber Rose

On the negative side of the ledger I still find John's refusal to kill female opponent's baffling given that he is frequently referred to as The Boogeyman - a legendarily intimidating and ruthless killer.
Last time it was Adrienne Palicki's Ms Perkins who benefited from Wick's lady-mercy.
This time it is Amber Rose- a mute bodyguard assigned to protect Santino.
Wick seems very reluctant to kill these women even as they are trying their damnedest to kill him!
It seems that John Wick is allowed to be a bad-ass... just not actually really bad.
Also the inclusion of Laurence Fishburne- Reeves old chum from the Matrix movies seems like stunt casting.
There is also the tendency for the film to bog down with non-action scenes that often threaten to stall the great momentum that has been built up.
But these are not huge complaints and all of the superbly realised action from the last film is back with an even higher body count.
John Wick is a terrific character and when the inevitable John Wick: Chapter 3 arrives I will be one of the first in line to check it out.
This is a damned fine action flick - bloody, cool as all hell and a whole heap of fun.
And for some reason the operators at The Continental use a VIC-20 computer so if you're looking for yet another reason to see this flick there you go!

RATING: 82 / 100

CONCLUSION: Great fun in the way that action flicks used to be. This franchise continues to be the torch bearer for a genre that used to be filled with Die Hards, Commandos and Predators but of late seems more preoccupied with over the top car stunts and conspiracy theories rather than good old fashioned shoot-outs.

Review - "Colossal"

2017-05-07T11:08:00.003+12:00

Colossal - directed by Nacho Vigalondo

Starring: Anne Hathaway, Jason Sudeikis, Dan Stevens, Tim Blake Nelson, Austin Stowell, Melissa Montgomery, Christine Lee, Charles Singh, Agam Darshi

Screenplay: Nacho Vigalondo

Music Score by: Bear McCreary

Cinematography: Eric Kress

Edited by: Ben Baudhuin & Luke Doolan
Running Time: 109 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M -Violence & profanity

When you look at the credentials of the filmmakers behind "Colossal" you may get the impression that it is something that it is not.
Spanish director Nacho Vigalondo directed "Timecrimes" the Elijah Wood thriller "Open Windows" and a segment in "The ABC's of Death".
Editors Ben Baudhuin and Luke Doolan worked on "Animal Kingdom" and "The Gift" with Joel Edgerton and "Krampus" and "Oculus"
And of course Bear McCreary is probably best known for his scoring on "The Walking Dead".
Pretty good thriller/horror credentials there.
And "Colossal" isn't a thriller and it certainly isn't a horror film.
This story about a rampaging monster that wreaks havoc as it thrashes its way across Seoul isn't even a monster flick.
Hell, despite the poster and the trailer it isn't really a comedy either and honestly- that is what I was expecting.

The plot of this not a thriller, not a horror, not a monster flick, not a comedy film goes like this...
Gloria (Hathaway) gets drunks and loses control one time too many and is kicked out of her boyfriend Tim's (Stevens) apartment so she goes back to the small town in which she grew up (or didn't according to Tim)
She meets up with childhood friend Oscar (Sudeikis) who has taken over the running of his deceased Father's bar.
Gloria gets a job there which is like giving a nymphomaniac a job at a brothel of course.
After another bender she wakes up to the news that a giant reptilian creature has stomped its way around Seoul, South Korea.
Courtesy of her tendency to tap the top of her head she soon discovers that when she sleeps off her boozing on a park bench at a specific time in the morning she invokes the creature that mirrors her movements thousands of miles away.
Not a big deal if the mirror was the same size as her but given that it is the height of a thirty storey building - not so much.

Anne Hathaway as Gloria

You could do anything with this plot.
Any of the genres that I mentioned in the opening could be done a fine service to with it.
What Vigalondo chooses to do instead is to make the creature a metaphor for the damage of alcoholism.
When Gloria drinks she is definitely hurting herself but also those around her and specially those who care about her.
She goes through some stages with the realisation that she is causing the creature to appear.
At first she struggles to believe it but then it starts amuse her as she tries out dance moves watching the result live using a tablet to watch news reports.
Incredibly Oscar and bar friends Joel (Austin Stowell) and Garth (Tim Blake Nelson) know her secret but keep it to themselves.
The idea that Gloria goes through stages and her friends keep her dark secret further cements the metaphorical alcoholism that the creature adds.
Of course surrounding yourself with bad influences is never a great idea and when Gloria realise that her actions are having real effects -ie: killing people - she finds that the battle to overcome the problems are even harder when she has no one that is genuinely interested in (or capable of ) helping.

Jason Sudeikis as Oscar, Tim Blake Nelson as Garth and Austin Stowell as Joel

It's all pretty dark stuff but there are lighter moments here and there.
Sudeikis is well known for his comedy roles but in this case it is Hathaway that provides whatever humour there is.
Watching her goof off doing dance moves and strange gestures to see the creature mimic her is fun.
The news media responses and the baffled expressions on the locals in Seoul count as the lightest moments in the film.
Sudeikis as Oscar however soon brings the darkness.
If there is a true monster in "Colossal" it is this guy.
Whatever damage Gloria has that makes her drink is matched equally by the character flaws inherent in Oscar.
All will be revealed but suffice to say that this may be a very different Sudeikis from what fans (and I count myself one) are used to seeing.
With excellent support from Tim Blake Nelson and Dan Stevens as the long suffering but still kind of dickheady Tim there is a lot to like from these performances.
It's Hathaway's show here and she pulls of a performance that seems a mix of her "Rachel Getting Married", "Havoc" and "Love and Other Drugs" characters.
Gloria is a screwup but thanks to the sympathy that Hathaway generates she is never less than likeable.
There is a hard to watch scene in which she is treated very badly that was hard to watch largely thanks to Hathaway's terrific work.

Sure it seems like fun at the time but what damage is it really doing?

"Colossal" is an odd movie but if you buy into its central premise I recommend you give it a look.
The visual effects won't cause any stress to the makers of "Godzilla" or "Transformers" but they do exactly what is required of them.
If you go into this film with the right expectations you should enjoy it.
Be warned though - it is pretty dark on occasions.
The nifty premise, Hathaway's performance and an ending that feels just right ensure that there is a good time to be had amidst the alcoholic angst.
I would imagine that people who suffer with alcoholism might find that it resonates even more than it did with me.
I would be interested to know.
Regardless there is much to admire here.

RATING: 77 / 100

CONCLUSION: Anne Hathaway's brilliant work is the main reason to see this film but the central premise is fascinating too. Grim but smart and not devoid of laughs this is well worth a look if you aren't expecting a comedy or a monster movie.

Review - "Get Out"

2017-05-05T23:16:00.002+12:00

Get Out - directed by Jordan Peele

Starring: Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Catherine Keener, Bradley Whitford, Caleb Landry Jones, Marcus Henderson, Betty Gabriel, Lakeith Stanfield, Stephen Root, Lil Rel Howery, Ashley LeConte Campbell, John Wilmot

Screenplay: Jordan Peele

Music Score by: Michael Abels

Cinematography: Toby Oliver

Edited by: Gregory Plotkin
Running Time: 104 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R16 -Violence, profanity

This movie arrives already a smash hit in its home country the United States.
It is the first debut film from a black director to make over $100,000,000 - a strange record and one that I thought was no longer a criteria but apparently is!
The director in question is Jordan Peele - most famous (prior to this film at least) as one half of the comedy duo Key & Peele (Keegan-Michael Key of course being the other half)
He deserves credit for his achievement with his first film not as a black filmmaker but as a plain damned good one.

"Get Out" is a tough beast to put a label on.
It is part horror film, part comedy, part social satire and part science fiction.
It tells the story of a young woman named Rose (Allison Williams) takes her boyfriend Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) home to meet her wealthy parents.
Not an unusual event and in this day and age neither is the fact that she is white and he is black.
She tells him that she hasn't told her parents that he is black which causes him some concern.
When they arrive at the estate Rose's parents (Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener) go out of their way to reassure Chris that they are okay with the relationship.
Several times Whitford's Dean claims that he would have voted for Obama a third time if he could have!
It is cringe inducing sequence where the audience is placed right there alongside Chris as the feeling of 'what the hell?!' grows.
Awkward social interaction in pressure situations soon gives way to out and out weirdness as Chris meets the hired help - a gardener and a housekeeper - both black.
Something is not quite right with them.
They seem distant and almost in a trance.

It marks the point where the film largely leaves it's comedy element behind and dives full on into the others.
There is a lot of mystery to the film.
We are shown things and told things by characters that constantly leave us wondering what the hell is going on and why are people behaving this way.
The cast is terrific with Whitford and Keener so familiar from projects like "The West Wing", "Cabin In the Woods", "Capote" and "The 40-Year Old Virgin" particularly effective as the way too keen to reassure parents.
It all builds and builds until everything is revealed and if the reveal isn't as 'holy shit!' amazing as the lead up may have been suggesting the fact that we have spent so much time getting to know Chris makes up for it.

"Get Out" is a film that relies heavily on the mystery of its central plot and the fun in watching it play out but it isn't the only trick that it has up its sleeve.
The comedy element is unsurprisingly strong given that Jordan Peele is at the helm.
Chris has a friend named Rod (Lil Rel Howery) who works for the TSA and is in constant phone contact with Chris making funny comments.
There is a lot of humour derived from the awful tendency of Rose's parents to go way too far in making sure that Chris knows that they like black people.
But what impressed me most about Peele as director was his ability to frame his shots and his patience in building the mystery and the tension.
There is an opening scene in which a man walking down a night time street is abducted and it contains a terrific tracking shot that is as good as any tension building equivalent in any horror film I've seen in the last five years.

This is a film that is best seen before anyone spoils anything for you.
The fun is in watching the mysteries that it contains slowly revealed.
The performances are spot on, the script super effective at subtly laying on the social satire but Peele's direction is the real star.
This is a great debut for sure and the assuredness and confidence on display from the man in the big chair would be impressive were it from a seasoned director.
I would like to have a second look at this film to see how many clues there are in along the way that point to what is coming.
It isn't at all hard to see how this small budget film trawled in the bucks - it is a lot of fun.

RATING: 82 / 100

CONCLUSION: A brilliant debut for Peele. Equal parts social satire, comedy and horror it brings to mind genre flicks like "Society", "They Live" and "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" but remains uniquely effective in its own right.

Review - "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2"

2017-04-25T00:37:00.002+12:00

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 - directed by James Gunn
*** spoiler free ***

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Bradley Cooper, Dave Bautista, Kurt Russell, Karen Gillan, Michael Rooker, Sean Gunn, Sylvester Stallone, Vin Diesel, Tommy Flanagan, Elizabeth Debicki, Ving Rhames, Michelle Yeoh

Screenplay: James Gunn

Music Score by: Tyler Bates

Cinematography: Henry Braham

Edited by: Fred Raskin & Craig Wood
Running Time: 136 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence, Profanity

The first Guardians movie was a shot out of the blue and a brilliant, refreshing surprise.

The Marvel films before it had been getting progressively darker and even with a barrage of quips from Tony Stark and some light hearted biffo between Thor and the Hulk it was all pretty serious stuff.

Good stuff for sure but still.... dark and threatening was the direction the Avengers and co were heading.

Then along came a walking tree, a talking raccoon, a sexy alien, a loveable thug and a laconic, cock-sure Han Solo type to lighten the mood in the best way possible.

I loved the first film and saw it a bunch of times.

It was purely and simply enormous fun.

Which adds a boatload of pressure to the follow up film.

Now, I have only seen "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2" once and I do like to see the Marvel films a couple of times before I feel comfortable assessing them because expectation needs to dissipate so that I can get a feel for how much I like them (or not) on their own terms but at this very early stage I am very comfortable in saying that at the very least this film is funnier than the first one by some margin.
Whether it is overall better than "Guardians of the Galaxy" I cannot say but the fact that I am not saying that it isn't should speak quite loudly as to how much I liked this second film.

There was a lot of talk as to the identity of Peter "Star Lord" Quill's Father at the end of the first film and it is clear pretty early on in the sequel that the question and its answer will feature very prominently.

Actually it is pretty much the entire plot.

Without the need to bring the 'team' together this time this movie hits the ground running (literally) with an opening scene that introduces Peter's parents on Earth before we shoot off into space and the future to witness a visually impressive dust up between the Guardians and a tentacled beast.

With ELO's jaunty 'Mr Blue Sky' playing we see Baby Groot drifting amongst the carnage with barely discernible madness occurring all around him.

It is a terrific opening that points to two of the things that this sequel does so well.

Firstly it is driven purely by character.

We know each and every one of the Guardians well enough to know what they desire, what they fear and how they relate to the others.

So the sexual tension between Peter and Gamora is back - 'that unspoken thing' he calls it in a scene loaded with eighties references.

Rocket is still devious and antagonistic, Drax is still loveable but literal to the point of appearing dense and Groot is of course still the teeny tiny version of his former self that we saw at the end of the last film.

And every single one of them is funny as hell.

There is an early exchange between Peter and Rocket in which the former throws an insulting nickname at the latter and it had me in stitches.

Character is the key to the success of the films and this is even more apparent in part two

The second aspect of this film that works really well is the sense that these characters have history together.

The Fast and Furious movies rattle on and on about 'family' all while tossing allegiances around to suit whatever nutty plot each new installment comes up with.

In the case of Guardians there is a similar problem to get around as Fate of the Furious in that one character with a history of doing bad stuff is required to switch sides.

Guardians Vol 2 does it so much better and by sticking true to the characters and what we know about them it is believable and it works really well.

In fact nothing that happens in this film feels forced or wrong.

I am not going to go into detail but there are a bunch of revelations and at least a couple of major events that will shake things up for the third film.

Each character (not just the Guardians but everyone) changes due to the events of the film and it makes me super excited for the already announced third film.

The soundtrack from the first film was stunning with its great roster of seventies hits and this time we get more of the same.

On a track for track basis I would argue that the first films soundtrack is stronger but director James Gunn uses the songs even better this time.

He is a master at using a song that seems contradictory to the action on screen in a way that somehow works.

Tarantino is very good at this too of course but Gunn could take his crown very soon.

The ELO track is a beauty but there is also killer use of Fleetwood Mac, George Harrison and Cheap Trick.

The songs fit the action perfectly.

And on that note.... the action scenes are terrific.

They are spread out nicely across the film and even though the standard big finish was always going to be there there are a bunch of smaller, no less entertaining smatterings of action leading up to it.

And the film looks amazing too.

The first film injected a much needed dose of colour and brightness into the MCU but this film cranks it up to eleven making even the psychedelic stylings of "Doctor Strange" seem muted by comparison.

The new characters are all great but Mantis emerges as the real surprise

I loved every second of this film and even if the trailers spoil far too much of what happens even scenes that I have seen almost in their entirety in the trailers still seem fresh and new in context.

In particular the 'do you have any tape?' scene from the last trailer is bigger and much funnier when seen in the final film.

Rocket is incredible in this scene and it is clear that he is viewed as something of the breakout character.

He gets a lot more time on screen and much more action and dialogue.

And why not when he is as fun and funny as he is?

There was a lot of potential for this film to feel rushed and odd but Gunn has carefully steered these character through a second adventure that feels completely like we are seeing the same crew that we loved last time.

The new additions from Kurt Russell's Ego to Stallone's Stakar all fit in perfectly. Great to see Stallone and Rooker share a scene too - it was way back in 1993 that they starred in Renny Harlin's super fun "Cliffhanger" together.
And the one character that I was worried would not work is damned near the highlight of the film.

Mantis.

This character is a delight with her naive innocence. Her interactions with Drax are wonderfully funny and the film milks them at every turn.

Any doubt that Baby Groot would be a cutesy misfire disappear fast too.

One scene in which he is required to retrieve something for a couple of other characters is about as funny a scene as I have seen on screen this year.

Even the real world references that threaten to break the fourth wall pretty much all hit the mark.

There is one notable guest appearance that had my audience clapping and chuckling with glee and a host of videogame, technology and pop culture jokes that are always just on the right side of going too far.

Gunn has yet again proved a more than steady hand here and is clearly totally in tune with his characters and their stories.

His brother Sean gets a beefed up role too and often it appears he is channelling Kirk from "The Gilmore Girls".

No bad thing obviously - he is very, very funny.

Everything that could have gone wrong here from beefed up roles, romantic entanglements, cutesy changes like Baby Groot and Peter's Dad revealed instead become absolute strengths.

There is more scale, more colour and more humour this time

So "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2" is every bit as good as you would hope it would be.

I suspect that the second viewing tomorrow will confirm my sneaking suspicion that it is in fact the stronger of the two films.

If it isn't it will be damned close.

I am really excited to have another look.

There is the chance that I will find it disappointing with none of its secrets left to be revealed but I really don't think it is a worry.

I laughed a lot and I laughed hard regularly through this film.

It's in the writing of course but mainly the success of this film is mainly down to one one thing.

These are great characters performed by a perfectly selected cast under the guidance of a writer/director who clearly loves them every bit as much as the millions of fans who will line up to see this film twice, three times.... maybe more.

Cast aside your sequel doubts.... this one more than delivers.

Note: It hardly needs saying but stay for the entire end credits - there really are five extra scenes to see!

RATING: 88 / 100

CONCLUSION: This is how you make a sequel. A brilliant second swing and a hit from Gunn. This film is even funnier than the first one. The action delivers but it is the characters that make thes films work - something that a lot of other franchises would be smart to learn.

Review - "Rules Don't Apply"

2017-04-22T21:13:00.003+12:00

Rules Don't Apply - directed by Warren Beatty

Starring: Alden Ehrenreich, Matthew Broderick, Warren Beatty, Candice Bergen Lily Collins, Martin Sheen, Paul Sorvino, Peter MacKenzie, Amy Madigan, Hart Bochner, Annette Bening, Haley Bennett, Paul Schneider, Ed Harris, Eileen Ryan, Taissa Farmiga, Oliver Platt, Alec Baldwin, Dabney Coleman, Steve Coogan

Screenplay: Warren Beatty

Music Score by: N/A

Cinematography: Caleb Deschanel

Edited by: Robin Gonsalves, Leslie Jones, Brian Scofield & Billy Weber
Running Time: 127 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Sexual References

One of the best things about films about Howard Hughes is that by default you get a movie about filmmaking as a bonus.
Hughes was as well known as a filmmaker as he was a businessman or an aviator.
I have always been fascinated with Hughes so of course writer-director Warren Beatty's "Rules Don't Apply" which is about the famous billionaire and those around him is a must see.
This film performed poorly with a dismal $3,700,000 for all of its US domestic run.
Still- a quick scan of the people involved show that this is worth a look.

Alden Ehrenreich and Warren Beatty

Beginning in 1964 before shooting back to 1958 the film initially focuses on young Frank Forbes (Alden Ehrenreich) who is a driver working for Hughes.
Frank is charged with driving a young starlet around town for interviews and the like.
He is not alone- there is a host of such drivers each with a matching young lady to chaffeur.
All are told that they must keep their hands to themselves or they will be fired.
Tricky given the obvious instant attraction that Frank feels for Marla - his passenger.
Marla is played by Lily Collins - a young woman reminiscent of "The Rocketeer" era Jennifer Connelly.
So very, very appealing then.
Both complain that they are yet to meet Hughes and both are desperate to but for different reasons.
Frank has a business proposition for him, Marla wants to advance her career as fast as possible.

Lily Collins and Annette Bening as the puritanical Marla Mabry and her Mother

The anticipation extends to the audience too and there is no doubt that Beatty the director is teasing the appearance of Beatty the actor playing Hughes.
When he arrives he doesn't disappoint.
This is Hughes just as the mental illness that would plague his later life was kicking in.
There have been many films and tv shows dedicated to the man and the issues with the best remaining Scorsese's "The Aviator".
This film is considerably lighter in tone and the illness is utilised more for comic effect than for the tragedy of a great mind going south.
There is still much respect for the man and I like Beatty's work as actor and writer in this regard.
Alden Ehrenreich who has just finished shooting the Han Solo movie shows yet again that he is something of a universal leading man.
It doesn't seem to matter which leading lady he is placed against - he generates considerable chemistry.
He and Collins are very, very good together.
Again the tone is light and fluffy with some good old fashioned Hollywood moments such as a terrific scene in which Collins sings the song that gives the film its title.
Interestingly that title refers not only to the couple at the centre of the blossoming romance but to Hughes himself.
It is sweet stuff even though there is a strong undertone of religious puritism and Hollywood corrupting it.
Again this is all in the service of humour and it really works.

Rules Don't Apply is a mish-mash of a movie- part biopic, part rom-com and part Hollywood satire.. but it works

I liked this film a lot.
The only really negative thing that I can say about it is that there just isn't enough space for the stellar cast to get much of a look in.
Broderick is best served after the three leads Collins, Ehrenreich and Beatty and he gets a bunch of good scenes as he slowly slips in his resolve not to 'screw with the crew'.
The scene in which his last semblance of patience with Hughes dissolves is great.
Ed Harris and real life wife Amy Madigan get one brief scene and Annette Bening, Oliver Platt and Alec Baldwin fare only a little better.
I was also upset that Haley Bennett didn't get more screen time but that is my own personal bias in effect!
But there is a lot to get through here with plenty of historical stuff for the Hughes fan.
We get the XF-11, Hercules (Spruce Goose), Senate Hearings and a whole heap of other stuff too.
A long take in which Hughes and Frank stroll down a dock chatting before they sit to eat burgers ends with a fantastic payoff shot that will delight Hughes fans (at least it did me)
It's a tough thing to make a funny film about a tragic historical figure and not only make the comedy work but retain the dignity of the character.
Beatty has done really well here and while this isn't up to the standard of some of his other films - notably "Bulworth" and "Bugsy" there is plenty to entertain.
Caleb Deschanel does typically excellent work behind the camera and the period songs in lieu of a score work really well.
This film deserved to do much, much better than it did.
I can only hope that it gets a second chance of Netflix, Blu-ray and tv showings.

RATING: 82 / 100

CONCLUSION: A great bit of work from Beatty in all three of his roles - actor, director and writer. Gonzo work from Ehrenreich and the lovely Collins with superb support from a great cast of actors. Funny, delightful stuff that has much to say about the way Hollywood used to be and by definition how it is now.

Review - "Going In Style"

2017-04-22T11:52:00.003+12:00

Going In Style - directed by Zach Braff

Starring: Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Alan Arkin, Ann-Margret, Joey King, Christopher lloyd, Peter Serafinowicz, Matt Dillon, Maria Dizzia, John Ortiz, Kenan Thompson, Katlyn Carlson, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Gina Diaz, Josh Pais

Screenplay: Theodore Melfi

Music Score by: Rob Simonsen

Cinematography: Rodney Charters

Edited by: Myron I. Kerstein
Running Time: 96 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Profanity

Michael Caine's career is an endless source of fascination for me.
After impressing in the excellent 1964 movie "Zulu" he followed up with "The Ipcress File" and "Alfie" and hey presto - he is the great white hope of British cinema.
Then the seventies and eighties arrived and Caine is making utter dross like "The Island", "The Hand", "Blame it on Rio" and "Jaws: The Revenge".
Eventually he started making really good movies again but it is amazing to me that someone so well known and so talented made so many bad choices for so long.
It is however what I think he has done with this film.

Directed by Zach Braff (JD from the tv show "Scrubs") this is effectively a remake of the 1979 George Burns film of the same name.
Three aging men angry that their bank and their employer are ripping them off out of their pensions and their homes decide to seek revenge by way of a good old fashioned bank heist.
It's been done many times because it is a great premise allowing for suspense, humour and lighthearted fun.
Toss in three much loved, veteran performers in the forms of Caine, Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin and you should be onto a winner.
Well, this is not a terrible movie but it is nowhere near as good as you would hope it is given those lead actors.

Caine, Freeman, Arkin, Lloyd and Ann-Margret

There is something off about this film that prevents it from being recommendable as anything more than bit of fun if you have nothing else to see or do.
There is an oft used line that is intended to be endearing but just doesn't work.
'Young man' is used as a nickname for and by each of the three 80+ year old leads several times throughout the movie.
Also by Joey King - Caine's on-screen Granddaughter.
This character has absolutely no bearing on the plot and simply doesn't need to exist.
It is a common problem that stems not only from the thin premise but the manner in which the story is told.
This kind of movie is all about the heist.
Whether it is an Ocean's 11 movie, "Entrapment", "Inside Man" or even Caine's own "The Italian Job" the core of the fun should always be in the pulling off of the job at the centre of the plot.
In the case of "Going Out In Style" the writers seem to have forgotten this.
I wonder if the casting was done before the final script because the end result feels like the filmmakers figured they could just coast and let the amazing trio of lead actors get their movie where it needed to go.
Every time I watch any of the Nolan Batman movies in which Freeman and Caine both star I wish that someone would give the pair a movie to do together- they seem like a great match up.
But as much as I love Caine, Freeman and Arkin they cannot do everything on their own.
Good lines, characters and an interesting plot are still required.

Going In Style is a Heist Comedy without much of either

In truth this movie didn't need to do too much too well to work at least enough to be a fun diversion.
The main issue for me is that the script blows all of the strengths it had going for it.
The bank job preparation is over in mere minutes.
Bad enough that the fun in seeing how the plan comes together is not shown but add in that this is the section in which the great John Ortiz appears most and it is a squandered opportunity.
Then the heist itself happens and is pretty damned flat too.
Instead of using this as the action/suspense centrepiece director Braff gets it over with as fast as he can and then focuses on the rather inept FBI agents trying to nab the suspects.
Everything feels rushed and a lot of the fun is sacrificed as a result.
Even the romance between Arkin and Ann-Margret which looked to be a Grumpy Old Men level bit of suggestiveness doesn't really work.
Ultimately what you have is a comedy devoid of laughs and a heist movie that treats the central job as an afterthought.
Every appearance from Christopher Lloyd as an aging probably Alzheimer's ridden character made me cringe.
It really is a one-joke flick based on the idea that old guys who forget stuff and can't move very fast are hilarious.
Even with the expectation that this might be a throwaway bit of fun I was disappointed.

RATING: 71 / 100

CONCLUSION: A no-brainer given the premise and the great cast this one is flat and unfunny. The actors look like they enjoyed making the film much more than I enjoyed watching it.

Review - "Raw"

2017-04-21T00:16:00.001+12:00

Raw - directed by Julia Ducournau

Starring: Garance Marillier, Ella Rumpf, Rabah Nait Oufella, Laurent Lucas, Joana Preiss, Bouli Lanners, Marion Vernoux, Thomas Mustin, Marouan Iddoub, Jean-Louis Sbille, Benjamin Boutboul, Virgil Leclaire

Screenplay: Julia Ducournau

Music Score by: Jim Williams

Cinematography: Ruben Impens

Edited by: Jean-Christophe Bouzy
Running Time: 99 minutes
Language: French
Rated: R18 - Violence, nudity

This film disappointed me hugely and it may be at least partly my fault that it did so.
As I was walking into the screening tonight I scooped up a flyer for the film and quickly skimmed the blurb on the back.
'...some of the most powerful and beautiful on-screen imagery since Gaspar Noe's IRREVERISBLE' it read.
'A gift of a scary movie, one that's rooted in character and story...' said another piece.
I was already hyped for this film based on a slew of positive stories, reviews and awards but comparing it to "Irreversible" a film that I vividly remember watching at a film festival years ago in almost stunned silence boded well for this film.
But as the movie ended a couple of hours later I sat in my seat with a 'Is that it?' feeling.

"Raw" concerns 16 year old Justine who is starting her first year at a prestigious veterinary college.
Her older sister Alexia is ahead of her at the same school.
Justine is a vegetarian and is reluctant to eat a raw rabbit liver (or kidney?) when it is presented to her as part of new student hazing.
Alexia tells her to grow up and pushes her into eating the organ.
Soon after Justine finds herself craving more meat.
Later while attempting to perform a Brazilian wax on her younger sister Alexia loses a finger and faints.
With the older woman lying out cold and a freshly severed finger sitting there next to her it is not hard to pick what will happen next.
I don't know if it was this scene or later ones that caused the alleged distress of audience members at screenings overseas but honestly I am baffled by the reaction.
To anyone who has seen even a few horror films there is nothing here that should cause too much discomfort let alone nausea.
There is a bit of nudity and some minor gore and sure- the violence is easier to relate to given that there is nothing fantastical or unrealistic - everything could happen.
(think of the scalpel to thumb bit in John Carpenter's "The Thing")
But fainting and medical attention for people at Toronto screenings?!
Really?

Garance Marillier as Justine and Ella Rumpf as Alexia

With a lack of anything overtly boundary pushing or particularly shocking I started to watch the film with an eye to subtext.
I wondered what director Julia Ducournau's point was.
With a focus on two female characters the film can be read as a sort of role reversal with the women eyeing up male classmates as literal pieces of meat.
Something that many women can no doubt relate to every day.... in a sexual way as opposed to a culinary one of course.
But this angle seems to slide by the wayside as the film progresses.
If there is a commentary on the eating of meat I missed that too.
The sexual angle also seemed half explored at best to me.
Justine is a virgin and spends a lot of time with a gay classmate who finally has sex with her.
She spends most of the encounter trying to bite pieces of flesh from him and when he resists she settles for a nibble of herself.
Another scene sees Justine covered in blue paint and locked in a room with a young man drenched in yellow paint.
They are told not to come out until they are green.
This scene and several others are striking for their visual inventiveness but for me it is all for nothing.
I have no idea what the point of this film is and frankly I don't much care.

"Raw" occasionally recalls genre flicks such as DePalma's "Carrie"

I found this film ponderous and often pretentious.
Occasionally I get an Emperor's new clothes vibe from a film and this one is a case in point.
It seems to have had rapturous praise from all quarters but I can't find too much good to say about it at all other than it is well enough made and passes quickly enough.
I was really looking forward to a genre pushing film but for me this film represents that most annoying of trends - a filmmaker trying to reshape a genre that they don't particularly care for into something else.
Horror movies can be intelligent and they can redefine the genre when done well.
Look no further than the excellent and superbly harrowing French film "Martyrs" or Guillermo Del Toro's chilling and emotionally satisfying "The Devil's Backbone".
For me "Raw" isn't nearly as smart as it seems to think it is or half as original as its reputation suggests.
There is a somewhat interesting finale that I would hazard a guess was the first scene written but everything before promises far more than is ever delivered.
I would rather watch the far more interesting and similarly themed werewolf flick "Ginger Snaps" any day.
Now that is a film about two sisters with issues that packs real bite!

RATING: 70 / 100

CONCLUSION: Maybe I'm missing something in this critically lauded film but I expected great things. I found it flat and uninteresting. It promises a lot but ends suddenly and flatly. Disappointing.

Review - "Denial"

2017-04-18T20:37:00.005+12:00

Denial - directed by Mick Jackson

Starring: Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall, Tom Wilkinson, Andrew Scott, Jack Lowden, Alex Jennings, Caren Pistorius, Mark Gatiss, John Sessions, Harriet Walter, Pip Carter, Nikki Amuka-Bird

Screenplay: David Hare

Music Score by: Howard Shore

Cinematography: Haris Zambarloukos

Edited by: Justine Wright
Running Time: 110 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Themes relating to the Holocaust

The entire time that I was watching "Denial" I assumed that the film's antagonist David Irving must have died some time between the year that the film is set (2000) and the making of it.
But no - he is in fact still alive.
My incorrect assumption was based on the fact that he does not come off at all well in this film and given that the entire plot concerns him suing someone for saying less than complimentary things about him I would have thought that the movie itself would have drawn his legal ire should he still be alive.
In fact I don't know that it hasn't.... time will tell I guess.

"Denial" concerns American writer Deborah Lipstadt defending herself against a case of defamation.
She wrote in her book 'Denying the Holocaust' that British Historian David Irving distorted history to back up his incorrect view that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Under British Libel Law she has to prove that her statements were correct.
In the United States it is the accuser who must prove that the statements made by the defendant are incorrect.
In the early scenes of the film we see a heated encounter between Lipstadt and Irving when he shows up to a lecture she is giving.
He talks her down and grandstands offering $1000 to anyone who can show a document that supports the claim that Adolf Hitler authorised the mass extermination of Jews during World War 2.
In reality the case which was against Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books took four years to arrive in a courtroom.
The film didn't make this passage of time particularly clear aside from a few meetings to assemble legal assistance and a visit to Auschwitz by Lipstadt and said legal team.
Regardless the expedience with which we arrive in the courtroom is probably a good move.

Action is mostly in the courtroom but there are some rather good scenes either side of these

The stakes here are pretty big - this is more than a he-said / she-said case of mean things being said.
At stake is the historical recognition of a major and very ghastly piece of human history.
Should Lipstadt and her team lose the case there could follow a barrage of similar writing expressing doubt over what became of millions of Jews between 1941 and 1945.
Accordingly Lipstadt chooses pedigree representation in the form of Anthony Julius who represented Princess Diana during her divorce proceedings.
Julius is solicitor who prepares a case and can show up in court but cannot present arguments and cross examine witnesses.
This is down to a barrister - in this case Richard Rampton.
Playing the three main parts are Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt, Andrew Scott as Julius Anthony and Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton.
They could scarcely be better.
Wilkinson and Scott are terrific and the only reason that they outshine the always wonderful Weisz is that she is simply not given as much to do.
Suffering almost as much is Timothy Spall as David Irving.
The decision to accept this role must have produced much debate for Spall and his representation.
As written the character is a very unpleasant chap.
There is a scene in which he cannot see how a rhyme he taught his infant daughter is racist.
As the child is wheeled past children of mixed race she recites it....

'I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.'

Yep.
That pretty much sums up the character that we are shown.
The timing of this movie cannot be an accident.
There is enough going on the world right now to resist truth and present instead half baked lies in support of very worrying ideology that it therefore seems very timely.

As interesting as the subject matter is it isn't explored as thoroughly as I had hoped it would be.
The trailer for this film makes it look like a very tense, very serious film filled with courtroom arguments and out of court controversies and even dangers.
Julius points out to Deborah that she follows the same route every night for her daily jog and suggests that she vary it.
A couple of times Deborah has anti-semitic verbal abuse tossed at her as she enters the court buildings.
But any suggestion that she is in danger never amounts to anything probably because this was the case in reality.
It all comes off as trying to load in much more drama than really existed.
This is also true of the courtroom scenes which quite fascinating are very lopsided and lacking in any real tension aside for one or two moments.
I am caught therefore between praising the film for not fudging the truth for the sake of more drama and deriding it for being a little flat and pedestrian.
I kept thinking of another Rachel Weisz film "The Whistleblower" which treads similar ground and is infinitely more harrowing and tense than "Denial".

Actor vs reality - Weisz/Lipstadt, Scott/Anthony, Spall/Irving and Wilkinson/Rampton

Director Mick Jackson is a versatile and talented filmmaker.
His tv film "Threads" is extraordinary and you will not find a bigger fan of his Steve Martin movie "LA Story" than me.
And of course there is that little Kevin Costner flick "The Bodyguard".
Much less of the grimness of "Threads" and the flash of the two features I mentioned is required here but he still manages to inject a flourish here and there.
I liked the shot of the Judge walking out to the courtroom to deliver his final verdict shot from behind and ending up above the mans shoulder looking down on the assembled masses.
There are a couple of flashes of gas chamber victims and some very effective cold, grey shots of Auschwitz in the present time but all in all this is a film that feels more like a made for tv production than a feature.
I don't mean that as too harsh a criticism as too much flash and grandeur would certainly threaten to misrepresent the real events and clearly accuracy is the aim.
But still I cannot praise this film as much as I would like because it does feel very slight.
The acting is exemplary across the board and this combined with the subject matter which remains very, very important makes this well worth seeing.
It isn't quite of the pedigree that I had hoped however.

RATING: 80 / 100

CONCLUSION: Terrific performance from a perfectly cast group of actors and compelling subject matter go a long way towards making up for the lack of tension or real drama. Still well worth a look but regardless "Denial" is very good rather than great.

Review- "Their Finest"

2017-04-16T21:42:00.002+12:00

Their Finest - directed by Lone Scherfig

Starring: Gemma Arterton, Sam Claflin, Bill Nighy, Sam Huston, Richard E Grant, Jeremy Irons, Rachael Stirling, Paul Ritter, Jake Lacy, Henry Goodman, Eddie Marsan, Helen McCrory, Claudia Jessie, Patrick Gibson, Hubert Burton

Screenplay: Gaby Chiappe

Music Score by: Rachel Portman

Cinematography: Sebastian Blenkov

Edited by: Lucia Zucchetti
Running Time: 117 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M -Sex Scene (with toplessness) & Profanity

I am a sucker for movies about movies.
Everything from "Sunset Boulevard" to "The Artist" and "La La Land".
Here comes one with double appeal for me because I also like anything to do with World War Two history.
During World War Two Hitler (and also notably Goebbels) was quick to realise how important propaganda was and in particular its delivery via the medium of motion pictures.
The recently released and very good Netflix Documentary "Five Came Back" covers the American effort to catch up.
"Their Finest" explores the British attempts to produce films that would build support for the war effort amongst the civilian population and in particular the female members of it.
My first advice with this film is to ignore the misleading quote on the poster that reads 'A top notch British comedy'
One of the three aspects of that quote is incorrect.

Gemma Arterton and Sam Claflin

This film concerns a small department of the British Ministry of Information in war torn 1940's Britain.
America was yet to enter the war and the massive evacuation from Dunkirk had left the British battered but still at least in the war.
The Ministry was finding that their attempts at inspiring the public through short films dropped before major features wasn't working.
They recruit a new writer name Catrin Cole who has shown promise with cartoon writing.
She joins two males writers as they start work on a film based on the real story of two sisters who 'borrowed' their Father's small boat to take part in the rescue of British and French forces stranded on the beach at Dunkirk.
A formerly famous actor is recruited to star, locations are chosen and the pressure is on.
I mentioned that one of the statements on the poster quote was incorrect because while this is indeed a British movie and while it is certainly top notch this is no comedy.
Yes- there are funny moments for sure but the humour springs from the drama.
This is no drama-comedy (in movie wank-speak 'dramedy'... ugh) and that makes it an entirely more difficult beast to get right.

The great Bill Nighy and far right panels- Rachael Stirling and Richard E Grant

I am pleased to say that all involved do get this film very, very right and it is a complete delight.
I use that word cautiously because at heart this is still very much a film about war.
There are deaths and they are felt strongly by both the characters and the audience.
This isn't to say that tonally this is a dark movie but rather that it correctly does not shy away from the harsh realities of armed conflict.
"Dad's Army" this is not!
Of the many things that work here the casting is perhaps the strongest.
Bill Nighy is a no-brainer as the vain actor Ambrose Hilliard.
We are used to him stealing scenes in pretty much every movie that he appears.
When paired up with the great Helen McCrory every scene in which they appear counts as high points.
Even actors who don't get a lot of screen time like Jeremy Irons, Richard E Grant and the versatile Eddie Marsan shine (Marsan is equally at home in Mike Leigh films as he is in Michael Mann's or Edgar Wright's).
But there is one actor who for my money makes this her calling card for greater things.
Gemma Arterton who to date as far as I can tell has only been used for her remarkable beauty in movies like "Quantum of Solace", "Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time" and "Tamara Drewe" is brilliant here.
She does a decent Welsh accent and while there is no hiding the fact that she is a lovely woman it is not the important part of her role.
Her character Catrin gets buffeted around a fair but here.
Not only is there romantic issues and moments of loss and despair but she is also struggling to have her voice heard as a woman in a society and an industry where men are the holders of the power.
(Catrin nods with acceptance when she is told that of course she won't be paid as much as a male counterpart)
I really hope that Arterton's career gets the boost that it deserves here because she has gone from being someone who I quite liked to an actor who I am a firm fan of.

This film is a treat for fans of films and how they are (and were) made

Huge praise also to director Lone Scherfig who paces this film perfectly and intersperses some footage from the movie being made by the characters to give a nice visual kick here and there.
The movie in a movie bits are displayed in a way to give the feel for the colour stock that was used in the forties and they look amazing.
There is a bunch of tricks of the trade stuff shown like matte paintings used in live shooting, models and stock footage.
As a movie fan there is plenty to soak up.
Of course the main appeal is that this is a superb film its own right and a wonderfully entertaining one.
The performances are spot on, the tone just right and the score is as good as I have heard this year.
It never feels layered on but augments what is on screen be it the lighter moments or the several pretty dark one.
There is no doubt in my mind that this movie is destined to be a huge success in the way that the likes of "Shirley Valentine", "The Full Monty", "Billy Elliot" and "The King's Speech" were.
Highly recommended.

RATING: 86 / 100

CONCLUSION: A great central performance, a superb supporting cast made up of some of the finest Brit actors around, a terrific score, great direction and a very important story well told. A really fine film.

Review - "Personal Shopper"

2017-04-14T00:19:00.001+12:00

Personal Shopper - directed by Olivier Assayas

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Sigrid Bouaziz, Lars Eidinger, Anders Danielsen Lie, Ty Olwin, Nora von Waldstätten, Hammou Graïa, Benjamin Biolay, Leo Haidar, Audrey Bonnet

Screenplay: Olivier Assayas

Music Score by: N/A

Cinematography: Yorick Le Saux

Edited by: Marion Monnier
Running Time: 105 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M -Violence, nudity, profanity (pushes the M pretty hard)

Kristen Stewart seems to get some flak on occasion and I don't know why.
There are many YouTube videos dedicated to showing how talentless she is and how unattractive she is (how dare she not smile!)
Well there can be no greater counter-argument to the naysayers than this film.
Stewart dominates this film and is exceptional.
Her performance is very, very strong and she looks stunningly beautiful.
And even more importantly - the movie itself is a genre spanning little treat.
I guess you could call it a ghost story but there is a pretty decent dollop of Hitchcock about it too.
There is suspense and some scares but the real joy in this film is skillfully posed questions it raises in the viewer's mind about the lead character - Kristen Stewart's 'Maureen'.

Maureen is mourning the loss of her twin brother Lewis.
The young man died as the result of a congenital heart disorder of the same kind that Maureen is also inflicted with.
Her grief is amplified by a vow that the pair made that whoever dies first would try to find a way to communicate from the afterlife if such a thing existed.
So Maureen spends time in Lewis's French mansion trying to make contact with him.
Now the movie doesn't waste any time in letting us know that ghosts do exist.
There are are two scenes early on- one subtle, the other absolutely the opposite- that make it clear that ghosts are a thing that could happen here.
The question is is Lewis one of them?
This is a hard movie to pin down then because almost as soon as the presence of a ghost or ghosts is confirmed the film loses interest in them for quite some time.
Maureen is a personal assistant to a famous model and spends most of her time picking up clothes and running errands for her and we will see much of her doing these things.
At one point she tries to obtain a moment of her employers time to ask a question but is unable to as the woman is involved in a three way conversation with a speaker phone and a lawyer trying to sort out some minor crisis involving gorillas!
It is clear very quickly that Maureen doesn't like her job much.

Maureen is forbidden from trying on any of Kyra's clothes but on a few occasions does so.
In normal attire she is tomboyish - plain - the girl next door at best.
She is far from the glamour of her employer.
But when we see her try on one of Kyra's dresses she becomes someone else entirely.
She becomes confident, sensual... beautiful.
When she starts receiving mysterious text messages from an unknown person she confides in him/her that the clothes make her feel like someone else.
She also confides that it scares her trying them on.
And this crisis of identity seems to be Maureen's defining characteristic.
She is a twin - one half of a set - but she has lost the other half.
She is unglamorous and yet works for and around glamourous people.
There is no doubt that she is good at it but as she says at one point the job prevents her from doing the things that she really wants to do.
I got the impression that she doesn't know what these other things are anyway.

This dichotomy and the ambiguity of the character requires a very specific kind of actress and Stewart is perfect in the role.
I have always been fascinated by her and this movie cements my admiration for her work.
I can't recall more than one or two scenes in which she doesn't appear so dominant is her character and her performance.
Whether she is involved in some otherworldly spookiness, collecting some expensive clothes, shoes or jewelry or travelling to London on a train Stewart is fascinating to watch.
The text message exchange goes on for something like 30 minutes of running time but they ever so slowly peel back more and more layers of Maureen's character and indeed of the films intention.
"Personal Shopper" seems like it could head in several directions.
There is a ghost story, a murder mystery and character struggling to find herself.
Writer-director Assayas who worked with Stewart on "The Clouds of Sils Maria" positions the early narrative for a Conjuring like spookfest but then veers away from it.
In many ways this feels like three movies playing out at the same time and it is very fitting for a movie whose protagonist is seemingly unsure of who she is.

Watching Stewart transform from a leather jacket and beanie clad everygirl to a glamourous beauty reminiscent of a Grace Kelly Hitchcock character is quite fascinating.
She is nude on two occasions and the effect is very different each time.
The first time she is very vulnerable and shot in strong light giving her an aura of almost virginal purity and vulnerability.
The second time she is powerful, sexual, confident and it pushes the limits of the M rating.
Figuring out which persona is truly her is not only the point for the character but also for the audience.
I had a great time doing it and am very keen to have another look at this film.
Unlike "The Sixth Sense" which has at least some common ground with "Personal Shopper" there isn't a trick or a gimmick here that can be knowingly enjoyed on second viewing.
Whatever unrevealed layers that there are will no doubt require careful picking and scraping to expose.
It is a rare film that can bear such scrutiny but this is very definitely one.
Really terrific stuff.

RATING: 85 / 100

CONCLUSION: A unique film that owes more to Hitchcock and Antonioni than it does to Stephen King or The Conjuring. It's still spooky when it wants to be but it is its thought provoking ambiguity that proves to be the most rewarding aspect and the ironically the most haunting.

Review - "The Fate of the Furious"

2017-04-12T13:01:00.000+12:00

The Fate of the Furious - directed by F. Gary Gray

Starring: Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Charlize Theron, Kurt Russell, Jason Statham, Scott Eastwood, Nathalie Emmanuel, Jordana Brewster, Helen Mirren, Michelle Rodriguez, Elsa Pataky, Tyrese Gibson, Lucas Black, Ludacris

Screenplay: Chris Morgan

Music Score by: Bryan Tyler

Cinematography: Stephen F. Windon

Edited by: Paul Rubell & Christian Wagner
Running Time: 136 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence, Profanity

I have a love / hate relationship with the Fast & Furious franchise.
Or more accurately a sliding shades of grey scale of love-hate

Love 5, don't care much for 6, 7 or 2 and the others are just fine.

Part 7 was of course a juggernaut taking in over a billion and a half dollars.

Star Paul Walker died during production and the re-writes and re-shoots required to bang the movie into shape appear only to have helped its box office fortunes.

But for me it is the worst offender for the sort of unnecessary dumbness that pervades many of the films in the series and that prevents me from getting too excited for each new part.

Note that I said 'unnecessary' dumbness because I realise that being big, dumb action flicks is central to the success of the series.

But I go back to part 5 which is a smartly constructed, brilliantly directed action movie.

There is nothing too over the top and everything makes sense at least in the context of the universe that the movies exist.

Now we come to the eighth installment which makes the Furious movies the Friday the 13th of the action genre.
Like it's hockey-mask sporting cousin (also a Paramount franchise) the Fast and Furious movies basically ran out of ideas before the first film faded to black so they just remade the same film over and over again with plots of ever decreasing believability.
This one really pushes it though.
Family has always been a thing for these movies and allowing the villain from the previous film to be positioned as a new member of said family this time despite his having murdered one of the family members previously is akin to telling viewers of a magic trick to pretend that the visible wires are not there.
So as expected the 'who gives a shit about reason or believability?' credo is alive and well in this film.
I have just about made my peace with it so that is fine enough.
I give credit to F Gary Gray's film in the action stakes though.
He directs "The Fate of the Furious" always with an eye to the geography and the stakes and that is not always the case with this series.
The shots, the editing and the pacing are very, very good.

There are effectively only three action scenes in this film but each one is pretty big in scale.
The trailers might lead you to believe that shootouts are going to be making a return but other than a couple of brief flourishes of assault rifle the action is all vehicular.
That is a broad use of the word though as vehicles here count as everything from stripped down cars to hotted up supercars to tanks, jeeps and nuclear submarines.
The vehicles are afforded far more character than their human counterparts so we must just accept that Jason Statham's Deckard can flip-flop from hard nosed villain to big sook goodie and that Charlize Theron's techno-mastermind Cypher is just that good at everything and anything with a chip in it.
It does allow for a very nicely shot scene in which she 'hacks' a bunch of self drive cars however.
Cypher is basically a Bond villain complete with high-tech lair (in this case an AWACS aircraft that she flies precisely to avoid satellite eyes)
To me Theron is completely wasted as a talent here - she isn't given nearly enough to do.

Vin Diesel's Dominic Toretto ('Dom') gets what is perhaps the least believable and the most predictable character arc. He is pitched as the bad guy this time as he turns his back not only on the love of his life Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) but on his entire team (actually really his 'family' of course)

Of course there is a reason for it and of course he is doing it under duress but replaying exactly the same storyline that Letty had from the fourth movie is lazy in the extreme.

Will anyone care though?

Aren't we just here for big, dumb action?

I guess so and accordingly what is delivered does just fine.

This movie is never dull and has enough humour in it to make it pretty entertaining.

Scott Eastwood gets to play a weird sort of mini-me to Kurt Russell's Mr Nobody and has a host of back and forth insult gags with Tyrese Gibson's Roman.

And then there is Helen Mirren completely stealing the couple of scenes that she is in as a character whose identity and purpose I will not spoil.

She is very, very good indeed.

I feel like the Christmas Grinch criticising these movies for being over the top and dumb when obviously that is the point.

But I cannot help but think that if Vin Diesel surrendered the franchise to Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham it would be all the better for it.
Diesel seems to be all ego but ironically he isn't remotely the reason to see this film (nor I would argue any of the preceding ones) and Johnson and Statham have better chemistry, better lines and are far more fun to watch.

Interesting to note that despite recent attempts to pour cold water on the rumours of tension between Diesel and Johnsons they share the same screen space exactly one time and only for about 3 seconds.

If the dispute is real and results in Johnson's departure it would be a real shame as I enjoyed his character greatly and what I wouldn't give to see a movie just about Deckard and Hobbs!
There is no way to argue that this series doesn't deliver exactly what the box promises and as such this film is perfectly fine for what it is.
I just wish that there was more weight to the danger and the action. When characters can switch from bad to good to bad and back again and even those thought dead can come back to life there is no real sense of characters being at any real risk

"The Fate of the Furious" is a big, dumb action movie that is just about smart enough about the execution to make up for its lack of originality or sense.

NB: There is no end credits scene at all

RATING: 72 / 100

CONCLUSION: Exactly the movie you'd expect based on the previous entries and to be fair the direction is better than on the last two. The cast is great even if the characters are less so. Nowhere near the series' high point fifth entry but it's not boring.

Review - "The LEGO Batman Movie"

2017-04-02T20:29:00.002+12:00

The LEGO Batman Movie - directed by Chris McKay

Starring: Will Arnett, Rosario Dawson, Ralph Fiennes, Siri, Zach Galifianakis, Jenny Slate, Conan O'Brien, Doug Benson, Jason Mantzoukas, Billy Dee Williams, Zoe Kravitz, Kate Micucci, Riki Lindhome, Eddie Izzard, Seth Green, Jemaine Clement, Ellie Kemper, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Adam Devine, Hector Elizondo

Screenplay: Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern & John Whittingham

Music Score by: Lorne Balfe

Cinematography: N/A

Edited by: David Burrows, John Venzon & Matt Villa
Running Time: 104 minutes
Language: English
Rated: PG - Cartoon violence

It was a given that after the massive (and surprise) success of 2014's "The Lego Movie" that there would be a sequel.

It's pretty smart to give centre stage to the breakout character of that film and so the sequel is not "The Lego Movie Part 2" but "The LEGO Batman Movie".

The genius behind this idea stretches further than just plucking out the most popular part of the first film.

It also brings a massive amount of history and in-jokes to the table.

And this film takes full advantage of that.

This film functions more as a sequel to all of the previous live action Batman movies more than a

sequel to the Lego movie.

We find Batman (Arnett) doing his save Gotham thing as always but after his latest adventure we discover that he has some major personal issues.

Namely that he has never properly dealt with the tragic death of his parents years ago.

So he may be the complete, narcissistic, square-jawed loner hero but when he returns to his batcave / mansion he is painfully lonely but in complete denial about it.
A lot of the plot concerns not only Batman's unresolved issues but his relationship (or lack of) with arch nemesis The Joker (Zach Galifianakis)
Upset that Batman will not even acknowledge him as a serious opponent let alone his nemesis The Joker comes up with a scheme to gather together the worst of the worst of Gotham's villains to take control of the city and defeat Batman once and for all.

Batman the hero and Batman the lonely orphan

Of course the plot is really just a necessary evil so that there is a story to hang all of the jokes on and they come thick and fast.
Almost too fast in many cases.
There are often visual jokes going on in the action, in the background and in the dialogue all at the same time.
At one point I was so busy tittering at a movie cinema marquee listing a movie called "Two Shades of Grey" in the background that I missed the dialogue joke going on simultaneously.
It's a good problem to have when the majority of the jokes land in this is just about the case here.
An awful lot of humour is milked out of references to the live action Batman movies going back through "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice", the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, the four movies starring Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney and of course the Adam West 1960's show and movie.
It is with these kinds of jokes that I found "The LEGO Batman Movie" working at its best.
It also uses 'real life' on occasion.

One scene shows Batman relaxing watching "Jerry Maguire" and the famous 'you had me at hello' scene.

It is a hoot seeing a live action movie playing out in the middle of the craziness of the animated Lego movie and it will not be the last time that the device is used.

Batman is joined by Alfred, Robin and Barbara Gordon

The film doesn't fare so well at other times with there being too much of a reliance on Batman's ego to provide the jokes.

I didn't find many funny after the first few.

It felt to me like this angle was already well played out after the character's appearance in "The Lego movie"

If a lot of jokes fall flat it doesn't matter too much because this film movies at a hell of a clip.

The excellent voice cast is given plenty to do.

Obviously Will Arnett gets the bulk of the dialogue and this is totally Will Arnett's show - his voicework is extraordinary and he completely owns this character as much as say Christian Bale owned his Dark Knight character.

I particularly like the work of Michael Cera as Robin.

He introduces himself with 'My name is Richard Grayson but the kids call me Dick'.

'Yeah, kids can be cruel' Batman responds.

Ralph Feinnes as Alfred is also a highlight.

His constant attempts to make Batman form proper relationships work because an actor of the quality of Feinnes delivers them as if he is playing Shakespeare.

Given that the animated Lego characters have very limited emotional range available to them by virtue of their design pretty much everything has to come from the voice and it is a credit to the voice cast that the characters do indeed have a lot of character and when required - emotion.

The many villains include Superman, The Joker, The Riddler, Harley Quinn and Two Face

This movie doesn't require a recommendation.

You already know if you are going to see it based on your opinion of the first Lego film.

I don't think it is quite as good as its predecessor but I still had fun with it.

It's a terrific looking film in which the action, the jokes and the cameos come thick and fast making the 104 minute running time feel more like 90 minutes.

And if you are a Batman fan be it of comics, tv shows, movies, video games or all of the above there is a stack of in-jokes and characters from Bane, Killer Croc. Harley Quinn and on and on it goes.

That means that there are frequent knowing references to previous iterations of the Batman character and his opponents.

If some of these miss (or indeed any of the jokes) there will be another one along shortly that probably won't.

RATING: 75 / 100

CONCLUSION: Not as surprisingly inventive or as funny as The Lego Movie this is still a lot of fun for Batman fans and non-fans alike. The great cast headed by the inimitable Will Arnett seem to have been having fun making it too.

Review - "Beauty and the Beast"

2017-04-01T22:09:00.001+13:00

Beauty and the Beast - directed by Bill Condon

Starring: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Emma Thompson, Ian McKellan, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Hattie Morahan, Audra McDonald, Nathan Mack

Screenplay: Stephen Chbosky & Evan Spiliotopoulos

Music Score by: Alan Menken

Cinematography: Tobias A. Schliessler

Edited by: Virginia Katz
Running Time: 129 minutes
Language: English
Rated: PG - MIld Violence & scariness for younger viewers

Emma Watson famously backed out of "La La Land" in order to take the lead in "Beauty and the Beast" and at this point it is hard to criticise the decision.
Even though "La Land" was a critically lauded, Oscar winning money spinner "Beauty and the Beast" has already far outstripped all other movies released so far this year in terms of bums on seats and the cash that results has come rolling in.
That doesn't say anything about the quality of the film necessarily but still- it does vindicate Watson to a pretty large extent for those who claimed she had made a poor choice.

The story of Beauty and the Beast dates back to the eighteenth century and there have been several filmed versions with the most well known to modern audiences being Disney's own 1991 animated version.
This latest version is the first that I will have seen though.
The story has just not tweaked my interest in any of the previous versions and in truth the only reason that I saw this one was to check out a newly renovated local cinema and the session time worked out.
As a first timer with the story- and I stress that I know almost nothing about it beyond the basic premise- the first thing that struck me was how comfortably a tale set over 200 years ago fits in relation to the current time.
Watson's character Belle is very much a modern character.
She reads voraciously and doesn't fall for the awful 'charms' of Gaston (an excellent Luke Evans).
As a result the residents of the village in which she lives think her an odd girl.
But Belle is strong willed and the taunts don't phase her one little bit.
One other thing occurred to me too.
At about the half hour mark I was pretty sure how the whole thing was going to play out and it turned out that I wasn't even slightly wrong.

Emma Watson and Dan Stevens

Before I continue with that thought I should first say that I enjoyed this movie even though I recognise that I am hardly the target audience.
Regardless I found the movie predictable and almost entirely lacking in suspense.
Sure- it is a fairy tale and they tend to end happily ever after and of course they should but a few unseen bumps in the road would have been nice to keep things hopping.
But no- the whole movie played out exactly as I thought it would.
Thankfully the execution is pretty good and this is an often luscious visual treat of a film.
It is not without humour but these moments are basically down to the great Kevin Kline, Josh Gad and the side characters - Emma Thompson's teapot, Gugu Mbatha-Raw's bird-duster, Ewan McGregor's candelabra and Ian McKellan's mantle clock.
These computer generated creations are wonderfully realised and terrifically voiced.
The castle in which they live is a pretty great creation too filled with interesting rooms and features just ripe for a dance sequence or a song or a romantic moment.
Which brings me to Dan Stevens as the Beast.
Somehow Stevens rises from out of the sea of visual effects applied atop his true form to give an expressive and charismatic performance.
His is perhaps my favourite performance but to be fair each and every one of the superbly cast actors do great work.

Luke Evans, Josh Gad and Kevin Kline

Another caveat before I stick a fork in the review.
I am not a fan of musicals give or take a "La La Land" or a "Singin' In the Rain" here or there.
"Beauty and the Beast" is very guilty of the very thing that I dislike about the genre.
It sings plot developments that would be better shown dramatically.
When it gets it right it works well - the now stupidly infamous Josh Gad 'gay' moment is a case in point.
On that note - I cannot believe that this innocuous, harmless blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment has caused such distress in Russia, Malaysia and other countries (including the US with the State of Alabama but then that was predictable)
About half of the musical moments left me bored and wishing that the plot would just advance already but admittedly the remainder were pretty good.
I would imagine anyone more tolerant of musicals would lap this up then.

Impressive production design and CG created characters are a feature

"Beauty and the Beast" is a lengthy movie at two hours and ten minutes but the time went quickly enough and thanks to some stellar production design and the performances of Watson, Evans and Stevens I was pretty entertained by this film.
I have no desire to see it again but I get why somebody else might.
It's a good movie for young girls too given that it sends a clear message that being yourself and pursuing what you want to pursue are admirable traits.
I can see why Emma Watson - well known for her strong, intelligently reasoned views was drawn to this project.
And with the current nightmare going on in US politics I also understand why the dollars are rolling in as they are.
It is a story of hope where a self obsessed narcissist is defeated by a strong, intelligent person with pure intentions.
Like I said - a relevant story despite being a couple of centuries old.

RATING: 78 / 100

CONCLUSION: Frequently gorgeous to look at and with a superb cast doing great work this is a solidly entertaining movie that nonetheless feels somewhat pedestrian. The story never surprises and presumably its success indicates that people just love the story and will happily revisit it. For me this is a oncer.... a good one but still a oncer.

Review - "CHIPS"

2017-03-30T23:21:00.001+13:00

CHIPS - directed by Dax Shepard

Starring: Dax Shepard, Michael Pena, Jessica McNamee, Adam Brody, Ryan Hansen, Vincent D'Onofrio, Kristen Bell, Rosa Salazar, Maya Rudolph, Richard T Jones, Adam Rodriguez, Jane Kaczmarek, Ben Falcone, Kelly Richardson, Merrin Dungey, Ben Falcone. Vida Guerra, Isiah Whitlock Jr, David Koechner, Josh Duhamel

Screenplay: Dax Shepard

Music Score by: Fil Eisler

Cinematography: Mitchell Amundsen

Edited by: Dan Lebental
Running Time: 101 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R16 - Violence, Profanity, Nudity

Dax Shepard's debut feature as director "Hit & Run" was a decent amount of fun but for me it was ultimately disappointing (review).
It had a solid central premise and a few familiar faces but tonally it was all over the place and sadly so was the story.
With "Chips" I was hoping for a drastically improved second film - a "Desperado" after "El Mariachi" sort of quality bump signalling the arrival of a confident, talented new director.
But "Chips" fall victim to the very same things that stopped "Hit and Run" from working.
It is tonally all over the place with a story that makes no sense and a bunch of jokes that all fall flat.
And I mean ALL.... I don't think one joke produced a laugh from me.
Maybe a smile... perhaps one slight giggle....

Michael Pena and Dax Shepard

I have heard this movie compared to the Ben Stiller / Owen Wilson movie "Starsky and Hutch".
Both look to reinvent much loved seventies era TV shows as straight up comedies.
"Starsky and Hutch" worked because although it had some car chases and action scenes it never forgot that the intention is humour not excitement.
If "Chips" is trying the same thing it is failing in spectacular fashion.
There is a fair amount of action here and some of it is bloody including a decapitation, gunshot wounds and extreme finger trauma.

Where "Starsky and Hutch" was always a comedy that allowed for action "Chips" comes off as an action film that delves into comedy.

To give it credit the action scenes are well done but to paraphrase Ryan Gosling's Sebastian from "La La Land" - 'Pick one - do it right'.

Shepard tries to have it both ways and the net result is that the failure of the comedy side of the film lessens the enjoyment of the action bits.

The great supporting cast are almost entirely wasted

The story also becomes problematic when so much emphasis is put on the action.

Whatever plot there is collapses under a barrage of scenes intended to be funny while still furthering the plot.

Shepard's Jon Baker is granted entry into the California Highway Patrol because he can ride a motorcycle really well.

He can't hit a target ten feet away with an automatic pistol, navigate an obstacle course, gain proficiency in unarmed combat or any of the other requirements.

But he takes up a rookie role courtesy of a remarkably unfunny scene with Maya Rudolph as a CHP sergeant. A joke is made about a cross eyed husband and disabled athletes shooting their girlfriends.

I don't mind tasteless jokes but they'd better be funny otherwise they come of as plain mean spirited.

Also a miserable failure is the idea that Pena's undercover FBI agent character is a sex addict.

Much is made of his reluctance to physically touch an often naked or close to it Shepard.

Pena is giving it his all too as he always does so the failure of the character is even more noticeable.

For his part Baker has a mysterious condition where he is effectively a cripple when it rains!

I don't know the medical veracity of this idea but regardless it is a plain stupid plot device.

There isn't a lot of chemistry between the leads either but in fairness they don't get much help from the script in this regard.

There are some decent action moments

So this film just chugs along being unfunny pausing only long enough to tease us with a moment or two of genuinely interesting action before returning to the barrage of flopping jokes and bizarre character moments.

Shepard's real life wife Kristen Bell appears here and there and looks utterly amazing playing a complete horror of a woman and Vincent D'Onofrio seems to be completely unaware that he is appearing in a comedy.

His performance indicates that he is under the impression that this more of a "Heat" kind of a crime movie and it really, really is not.

You have to dig pretty deep to find something to praise here beyond the occasional inspired action moment or a familiar face in the casting.

Even then it often backfires and we get to see normally very funny people like Jane Kaczmarek floundering under the mediocrity of the writing.

If you want an example of a comedy movie that strikes the right balance between humour and action violence in the way that "Chips" fails to then look at "Pineapple Express" or "21 Jump Street" or its sequel.

These re-imaginings can work and I'm sure that there is a good, very funny movie to be made from the Chips property but this one misses the mark spectacularly.

RATING: 62 / 100

CONCLUSION: Amazing that a film featuring Michael Pena, Maya Rudolph, David Koechner and Adam Brody could be almost completely devoid of jokes that work but here it is. Some decent action scenes, while fun serve only to highlight the contrast in tone. Not good.

Review - "Ghost In the Shell" (IMAX 3D)

2017-03-30T01:13:00.003+13:00

Ghost In the Shell - directed by Rupert Sanders

Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Rila Fukushima, Juliette Binoche, Pilou Asbæk, Michael Wincott, Takeshi Kitano, Jacqueline Lee Geurts, Chin Han, Lasarus Ratuere, Yutaka Izumihara, Jordan Rivers, Julian Gaertner

Screenplay: Jamie Moss & William Wheeler

Music Score by: Clint Mansell & Lorne Balfe

Cinematography: Jess Hall

Edited by: Neil Smith & Billy Rich
Running Time: 110 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence

For me this is a difficult movie to properly assess so soon after seeing it.
I liked it - I can definitely say that much.
How much and why and despite what faults I find harder to put into words.
It's maybe a lot because I feel a little biased towards it as it was filmed in New Zealand and Weta provided a lot of the costume and effects work for the film.
And then there is the inescapable fact that Scarlett Johansson is all over this films running time and runs the gamut from pretty to gorgeous to beautiful to smokingly sexy and back again and that quite often I found myself just staring at her and not concentrating on much else.

Johansson plays Major - a cyborg with a human brain.
The start of the film shows her being constructed then mere moments after her eyes open being informed that there was a terrorist attack that killed her family and left her body so devastated that the brain was all that they could save.
So Major becomes a key member of Section 9 charged with protecting the world from such terrorist acts.
The prime target in this battle then is Kuze a mysterious figure who has been hacking the minds of and killing a series of people who work for the Hanka Robotics.
The very same company who made Major.
Of course there is more to it than first meets the eye and what transpires will not surprise anyone who has seen any of the trailers for this film which give away far too much of the plot.

Scarlett Johansson as Major... worth every cent of the reported $10,000,000 fee

Very quickly one of the strengths of the film is apparent.
It is quite a looker.
The cityscape seems inspired as much by the game "Mirror's Edge" as it is "Blade Runner".
It is brighter and cleaner than the Ridley Scott's sci-fi masterpiece and filled with holographic, animated advertised that tower up the sides and in between buildings.
Director Sanders frequently has his camera swoop down to street level to follow a car or up the side of a building to its roof to reveal Major perched atop.
And then there is the movement of Major herself.
There is sparing use of slow motion, a little parkour and a lot of controlled falling from great heights.
Johansson wears a skintight suit for much of the film which does absolutely nothing to lessen the visual appeal of the film!
I liked the nods to the anime too with a lot of shots being directly lifted from the animated original/
Music is also suitably electronic and moody making this not only a wonderful visual experience but an audio treat on top.

Takeshi Kitano, Pilou Asbaek and Michael Pitt

The story that plays out under this delicious exterior is not quite as good however.
As much as I like Johansson as Major and her hulking partner Batou played by Danish actor Pilou Asbæk they don't really have much in the way of character.
Major is on the hunt for the truth about who she is and what happened but it is all pretty by the numbers stuff.
There are few twists and no sharply felt losses along the way.
It makes the film cold and almost clinical - a tone that may seem like it fits with the future world of cyborgs and augmented humans but we are supposed to sympathise with Major.
Really all that I wanted was for her to drop off buildings, bounce of walls and punch and shoot a bunch of bad guys.

The visual effects are worth the ticket price alone

She does of course and the action scenes are very nicely done.
There is a spider tank sequence that is quite something and the opening scene in which Major bursts through a huge window wearing a cloaking device is terrific.
Each gunshot sounds impactful and the creepy geisha robot is delightfully horrific in the way that it crawls backwards up a wall clutching a human victim.
So there is a lot to like but I still felt that something was lacking.
Maybe one really killer action scene would have help but really more humanity is what is really missing.
I like Sanders as a director and God knows he can shoot a lovely looking film with superbly fluid camera movements but I wonder what directors like Christopher Nolan, Ridley Scott or specially Denis Villeneuve would have done with this story to make it just that bit more about a real person that we care about rather than merely a ridiculously attractive woman who looks great kicking butt.

RATING: 79 / 100

CONCLUSION: A visual (and often audio) treat it is shame that "Ghost In the Shell" doesn't stimulate the heart and mind as much as it does the eyes and ears. Still, the action is good, Johansson simply stunning and there is enough originality and inventiveness to make this well worth seeing.

Review - "Power Rangers"

2017-03-27T22:11:00.001+13:00

Power Rangers - directed by Dean Israelite

Starring: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Ludi Lin, Becky G., Elizabeth Banks, Bryan Cranston, Bill Hader (voice), David Denman, Cody Kearsley, Robert Moloney, Anjali Jay, Sarah Grey, Morgan Taylor Campbell, Wesley MacInnes, John Stewart, Fiona Fu

Screenplay: John Gatins

Music Score by: Brian Tyler

Cinematography: Matthew J. Lloyd

Edited by: Martin Bernfeld & Dody Dorn
Running Time: 124 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence & very mild profanity

I am not at all familiar with Power Rangers as a property.
I'm aware that there was (is?) a show and that at least parts of it were filmed in my part of the world and even starred some Kiwi actors at various times.
Otherwise I could not tell you the colours of the heroes, what their powers are, the villains or in fact anything at all to do with the universe they reside in.
I can't be sure but after seeing this big budget feature film based on the tv shows I suspect that knowing very little going in is a big plus.
I had no preconceived notions and was actually pretty interested to see what the fuss is about.

What is quickly apparent when "Power Rangers" begins is that a fair amount of money has been spent on this film.
The start is basically a car chase with some vertiginous in-car camera work that seems inspired by the similar (but far better) shot in "Children Of Men".
There is also an off colour joke about an ahem... one teated 'cow' milking that points to one of the failings of the film.
Tone.
The rating indicates that this film is aimed at teenagers and by virtue of the fact that the heroes are in that age bracket and struggle with issues relating to sexuality, mental illness and fitting in in the modern world generally it isn't a bad approach.
But there is a gloominess to the whole film and a lack of levity that is at odds with the property.
No matter what themes you try to lay into it you cannot escape the core of this movie and that is that ancient aliens are fighting an evil woman named Rita Repulsor and have buried some glowing, coloured stones that will find suitable heroes to imbue with special powers.
But you see there are also giant, morphing robots, teenaged rebellion and a team of superheroes.

Dacre Montgomery, RJ Cyler, Naomi Scott, Becky G and Ludi Lin

It sounds like "The Breakfast Club" meets "The Avengers" with a dose of "Transformers" and honestly that is not too far off the mark.
The five heroes who will become the Power Rangers spend a chunk of their lives in the same after school detention for various reasons.
Each will eventually reveal why they are exhibiting 'behavioral problems', one will become the defacto leader and many lessons about teamwork and honour will be learned.
That is a lot to pack into a 2 hour origin movie and the film is not particularly successful at achieving the goal.
It takes a fair bit of time to get the team to discovering the buried, magical stones, a bunch more to bring them up to speed with their powers and why they need them and of course we still need a big finish.
I like that the film takes its time to build character but it doesn't really manage to give each Power Ranger much of a story and the time taken comes at a cost.
This feels like the two hour movie that it is.
It is effectively competing with the likes of "The Fast and the Furious" and "Transformers" and while this film is better edited and shot it delivers considerably less bang for the buck than either of those.

Elizabeth Banks as Rita Repulsor and far right- Bryan Cranston as Zordon

That lack of spectacle is a poor fit for this kind of movie.
It's made worse by characters that I didn't really care about with problems because their defining issues were skimmed over at best.
There is a blink and you'll miss it moment where the yellow Power Ranger Trini explains that her preference for women is at odds with her parents views and Billy the blue Ranger is on the autism spectrum.
Red Ranger Jason has some sort of issue that resulted in a fall from grace as the hero quarterback of the town's football team but for the life of me I don't know what it is.
And Kimberly the Purple Ranger seems to be just a normal teenaged girl prone to frequent bursts of bitchiness!
And so it goes - poorly explored character moments that should have been rolled into the action more so that the movie doesn't feel bogged down for three quarters of its running time and rushed to all hell for the remainder.
It's not all bad though.
The performances are decent (RJ Cyler from "Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is a standout... again) and some of the visual effects are inventive and effective.
I wasn't bored as such and there is just about enough entertainment if you have diminished expectations as I did.
But is this enough for this film to function as the franchise starter that Lionsgate almost certainly need it to be with that hefty budget?
For me that is a no.
It's a decent film and a suitable diversion but these things don't put bums on seats or provide the word of mouth required to get the non-fan along to see it.
"Power Rangers" is much better than it could have been but not nearly as good as it needs to be.

RATING: 70 / 100

CONCLUSION: Some good ideas and the attempts at building character are admirable. If only the execution was not so hit and miss. The tone is what really dooms the long term prospects of "Power Rangers" though- it is not 'fun' enough by some margin.

Review - "Trespass Against Us"

2017-03-26T16:53:00.002+13:00

Trespass Against Us - directed by Adam Smith

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Brendan Gleeson, Lyndsey Marshal, Georgie Smith, Rory Kinnear, Sean Harris, Killian Scott, Tony Way, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Kacie Anderson, Gerard Kearns, Peter Wight, Ezra Khan, George Russeo, Yvonne D'Alpra

Screenplay: Alastair Siddons

Music Score by: The Chemical Brothers

Cinematography: Eduard Grau

Edited by: Kristina Hetherington & Jake Roberts
Running Time: 99 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R13 - Violence, brief nudity & profanity

Michael Fassbender is reason enough for me to see a film but add in Brendan Gleeson and it becomes a must see.
Fassbender seems to me to have the most diverse career of any actor I can think of.
He spreads his roles across first time filmmakers, blockbusters, big name directors and passion projects - sometimes (but sadly rarely) three of the four at once.
For every X-men movie, "Assassin's Creed", "Prometheus" or "The Counselor" he has a "Centurion" a "Slow West" or a "Light Between Oceans".
He seems to pick movies very, very well and even if the end result is less than great you can be sure his work will be.
"Trespass Against Us" is another one of the smaller film and it is a project directed by a first time feature director.

Here Fassbender and Gleeson play Father and Son criminals.
They live in caravans out in the rural English countryside and speak with strong accents that are often very difficult to understand.
In fact the whole set up may remind you of Brad Pitt and his family in Guy Ritchie's excellent film "Snatch".
Fassbender is Chad - a thief married to Kelly ('Kel') and with two young children - Tyson ('Ty') and Mini.
Gleeson plays Colby ('Col') a man who exerts an enormous influence on all around him - specially Chad and Tyson.
He tells his grandchildren to ignore what they learn in school and advises them that the world is flat, always has been and ever shall be.
His thoughts on evolution are similarly unaffected by scientific discovery.
At one point he claims that the Police are responsible for the crucifixion of Christ!
It is clear that the distorted views of this man have been disastrously influential on Chad who is a career criminal well known to the local Police.

Michael Fassbender as Chad and Brendan Gleeson as Col... the sins of the Father

When we first see this motley crew of misfits they are packed into a Subaru wagon in pursuit of a rabbit.
Tyson is seated upon Chad's knee in the driver seat and appears to be driving.
An injured man is in the back of the car demanding that they stop.
It is a fitting introduction to the way things work with these guys.
They do what they want and to hell with the law and the consequences.
For me this is a problem that any movie about criminals either has to overcome early or I lose all sympathy for the protagonist.
After all by definition criminals are outside of society and care little for others.
While this film is only partially successful at doing this the presence of Fassbender and the fact that Chad doesn't do anything too bad in terms of public harm with his crimes goes a decent way towards keeping me on the characters side.
Not so with Gleeson's Col or the very unusual Gordon played by Sean Harris.
Both are the sort of out of control wild cards that you just know are likely to screw up the lives of all around them at any moment.
The stakes then are the future of Chad, his wife and his children.
All really, really need to get away from Col's destructive ignorance and desire to exert control over all around him.

Family and the influences from previous generations are at the heart of the film

The issue that I had then was how long it took Chad to come to this conclusion and how unconvincing his journey towards it was.
The event that finally makes him wise up seems to occur far too far into the running time and makes for a hugely unsatisfying conclusion.
It feel incomplete - as if time and/or money ran out and the finale was wrapped up quickly.
This may be the main thing that prevents "Trespass Against Us" being anything more than a merely decent movie.
The other is the associated symptom that there are far too many setups that go nowhere.
Col twice threatens Kelly by commenting that a dog that plays with a cat too long always gets scratched.
This is in response to her very reasonable refusal to allow the man to give her children shockingly bad life advice.
Both Col and Gordon have the appearance of being positioned for a flashpoint moment - an explosive point where they clash with Chad or Kelly or even the Police.
This just never arrives and left me wondering what the point of all of this is.

There are moments of humour and several action scenes but this is far from the light affair it may appear

Still - there is a lot to like about "Trespass Against Us".
The car chases are very well done with some nicely shot and edited sequences throughout.
I liked the surprisingly (to me at least) moody score from The Chemical Brothers.
There is not one damned thing wrong with the performances.
Fassbender, Gleeson, Rory Kinnear as a cop, Marshall as Kelly and Sean Harris as the out and out weird Gordon are all terrific.
Occasionally the dialogue really sparks too with a highlight being Col's absurdly reached conclusion that 'Hell hath no fury like a caged Super Goat' (don't ask!)
But the performances deserve a better script around them.
The idea that crime is generational deserves better exploration and I was disappointed that this film seems either disinterested in going there or maybe just not terribly good at it.
The characters are just not strongly enough realised and that is all on the script.
"Trespass Against Us" is yet another example of Fassbender's talent but it is ultimately destined to be relegated to the interesting failure section of his resume.

RATING: 76 / 100

CONCLUSION: Great performances cannot compensate for thematic weaknesses and poor pacing in the script. This movie seems to promise a lot with its set up but fizzles out leaving most unresolved.

Review - "Life"

2017-03-23T22:22:00.003+13:00

Life - directed by Daniel Espinosa

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Olga Dihovichnaya, Hiroyuki Sanada, Naoko Mori, Ariyon Bakare, Alexandre Nguyen, Camiel Warren-Taylor, Hiu Woong-Sin

Screenplay: Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick

Music Score by: Jon Ekstrand

Cinematography: Seamus McGarvey

Edited by: Mary Jo Markey & Frances Parker
Running Time: 104 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R13 - Violence, Profanity

Two things surprised me about this movie.
Firstly how did it get an R13 rating rather than an R16?
It is loaded with profanity and a pretty decent amount of blood floats around the zero gravity environs of the International Space Station.
I would say enough to warrant the higher rating.
Secondly I am shocked that even though the pre-release trailers show far too much (as they tend to these days) they still fail to accurately capture the tone of this movie.
Sure- you are shown enough to get the gist of it - a small crew terrorised by an alien lifeform but this film is a pretty damned nifty throwback to the likes of "The Thing", "The Blob", "Lifeforce" and very definitely "Alien".
And that means that it aims to be a good old fashioned crowd pleaser.
Which I am delighted to say it certainly is.
"Life" is a wonderfully simple story of a space station, its crew and the rascally little alien lifeform that gets loose amongst them.
It's science-fiction/horror of the sort that we just don't get enough of these days.

Ryan, Rebecca, Jake, Olga, Hiroyuki and Ariyon... brooding around in space

Movie producers and screenwriters must have been rubbing their hands together when the International Space Station was announced.

Not only does the big old orbiting bit of tin provide a terrific location for any number of situations but by definition begs for a multi-national, multi-ethnic cast.
"Life" takes advantage of both things.
The ISS may be removed from Earth but it is still close enough that the idea of a hostile lifeform getting loose on it has added gravity (no pun intended)
And then there is the cast made up of two Brits, Two Americans, a Japanese man and a Russian woman.
So that scorecard then - two genders, four nationalities.
All cynicism about casting for broad worldwide appeal aside (perfectly valid anyway) this does allow for some very interesting casting.
Rebecca Ferguson (so good in "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation") is reason enough for me to see a movie alone.
She is such a strong presence that she frequently threatens to outshine her leading men.
Here she has Jake Gyllenhaal and Ryan Reynolds either side of her.
Reynolds is pretty much what you expect - smart-assed and cocksure.
Likewise Gyllenhaal plays the sort of brooding, hard to figure guy that he has done so well in the likes of "Donnie Darko", "Prisoners" and "Nightcrawler".
Also along for the rollercoaster ride is Russian Olga Dihovichnaya, Japans Hiroyuki Sanada ("The Wolverine", "The Last Samurai") and Briton Ariyon Bakare ("The Dark Knight", "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story")

Now, given the set up we know that not everyone is getting out of this alive so much of the fun in the first half of the film is playing a Friday the 13th-esque game of 'who dies next?'.

Once the preliminary set up is out of the way and the alien microbe is aboard the ISS and has grown to a suitably sized and worrying smart level we are off and running.

It is also about now that the film reveals its true inspirations.

This film was probably eased into production thanks to the likes of "The Martian" and "Gravity" but owes far more to 1980's horror flicks directed by John Carpenter, David Cronenberg and Tobe Hooper.

But it is Ridley Scott's 1979 classic "Alien" that will undoubtedly be in most viewers minds as they watch "Life".

There are frequent shots reminiscent of the crew of the Nostromo fleeing down dark spaceship corridors and even the alien itself seems at least in part inspired by the formidable Xenomorph.

In no small way due to its tendency to get right inside a nice warm, human body and tear it apart.

We get loads of blood- both droplets and torrents floating around the screen.

It is all pretty tense stuff and even though the writing duo responsible also wrote "Deadpool", "GI Joe: Retaliation" and "Zombieland" the humour that is present in the first fifteen minutes disappears pretty damned fast!

It may frequently look like "Gravity" or the "Martian" but "Life" is far more "Alien" and "The Thing" at heart

The less that you know about the alien at the centre of the film the better but I will say that it is wonderfully unique and terrifically creepy and intimidating.

The intelligence that it possesses is manifested in frequently devious ways.

It allows the film to play a fun game of guess where it is and how it got there and the location of the film is never better used when this is happening.

Sleep pods, spacesuits, airlocks and zero gravity are all used as the creature gets bigger and smarter and the tension and bodycount escalate.

I had a great time with this film.

It was exactly the film I was hoping it would be and exactly the one that I was in the mood for.

It wears its sci-fi / horror inspiration with pride as it takes us on an exciting, bloody ride that culminates in a very satisfying ending that owes a debt to one of the most effective moments of "The Silence of the Lambs".

(I will not say how but you will know it when you see it)

I hope that word spreads about this film because it really is the kind of honest to God good time flick that is increasingly rare.

Thirty years ago this would have been marketed as a date flick.

It is far more fun than the trailers would have you believe.

See it before someone spoils it for you.

RATING: 80 / 100

CONCLUSION: A rollercoaster ride that owes more to the work of John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper and Ridley Scott than it does Kubrick or Cuaron. Tense, blood soaked fun.

Review - "A Cure For Wellness"

2017-03-17T00:46:00.001+13:00

A Cure For Wellness - directed by Gore Verbinski

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Jason Isaacs, Mia Goth, Ivo Nandi, Celia Imrie, Tomas Norström, Adrian Schiller, Carl Lumbly, Ashok Mandanna, Magnus Krepper, Peter Benedict, Michael Mendl, Maggie Steed

Screenplay: Justin Haythe

Music Score by: Benjamin Wallfisch

Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli

Edited by: Pete Beaudreau & Lance Pereira
Running Time: 146 minutes
Language: English
Rated: R16 - Violence, Sexual Violence & Profanity & frequent nudity

I sincerely hope that Gore Verbinski is better known for great movies like "Rango" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" and decent ones like "Mousehunt" and "The Weather Man" than the diminishing quality of his two Pirates sequels and the out and out awfulness of his last film "The Lone Ranger".
"A Cure For Wellness" will not, I suspect do anything to redress the balance.
Not because it isn't a good movie - it is- but rather because it isn't good enough to wipe the memory clean of his previous flop.

Here we have a movie about cold, single-minded young New York businessman Lockhart (DeHaan) dispatched by his employers to a health resort in Switzerland to fetch his predecessor who they claim has gone quite mad.
Immediately it is apparent that something is off at the establishment.
There is a distinct Castle Dracula vibe to the place for a start.
The huge mansion and grounds are set high atop a mountain overlooking a village populated with folk who care not one little bit for the residents above them.
The nursing staff may have the faces and attire of angels but their demeanour suggests something considerably darker.
In the face of some polite but firm resistance from the head doctor Volmer (Jason Isaacs) the unsuccessful Lockhart retreats back down the winding road to the village.
A collision with a deer forces the car off the road and Lockhart finds himself a patient in the very place he just left.

This is a frequently stunningly beautifally shot movie

Comparisons to Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" are inevitable and unavoidable here.
Not only is the basic set up the same with a young man arriving at a remote and creepy location to investigate a disappearance but DeHaan is attired almost identically to DiCaprio's Teddy with a long coat and loose fitting tie.
Then there is Isaacs doctor Volmer who like Ben Kingsley's Dr Cawley in the Scorsese film all but yells 'I am not to be trusted!!' with every expression and each line delivery.
Verbinski even imbues the film with the same cold pallette inducing a feeling of creeping dampness with every frame.
Both films are undeniably doing a lot of very similar things.
There is a mystery at the heart of them and we spend most of our time as viewers second guessing what is revealed to us.
"Shutter Island" does it better but there is still an awful lot to like about Verbinski's film.

The first and most obvious aspect worthy of praise is the look of the film.
There are some stunning shots all the way through it with an opening montage of New York high rise buildings reminding me of the first Matrix film with its green tinged colour scheme.
Then there is a beautiful shot utilising the reflection in the windows of a train as it snakes its way along the tracks and into a tunnel.
The slow, moody trip up the cobbled road to the grounds of the clinic begins with a sense of dread instilled by the ancient stone walls but gives way to the stunning beauty of the more modern clinic and the lush green lawns of the grounds.
Even the clinic itself provides for some stunningly shot scenes including a gem in a steam room and another in a water isolation tank.
The latter scene also marks the start of the darker, gothic horror aspects of the film.
Anyone with an aversion to water, dentistry or eels should probably avoid this film and if the sight of naked elderly flesh causes you discomfort you definitely should!
Credit too for the score from Benjamin Wallfisch ("Hidden Figures" and "Lights Out") and the sound editing and mixing which adds in lyrical tunes and repeated sound motifs like the sound of Lockhart's crutches on the tiled floors to great effect.

Dane DeHaan as Lockhart.... more than a little Leonardo 'Teddy' DiCaprio to the role

The entire raison d'etre of course is the mystery and as good as this film looks and sounds it is less effective in the manner in which it delivers the story.
For starters it is victim to a frequent issue that I have with Verbinski's movies.
They are simply too long for the story they are telling.
Even the first Pirates of the Caribbean - as great as it is could do with 15-20 minutes sliced out.
"A Cure For Wellness" has entire scenes that add nothing to the story other than (arguably) mood but the film is not ever short of that anyway so these scenes seem extraneous.
Some of the early themes seem to be pointing to a commentary on the state of career at the expense of all else but these ultimately lead nowhere.
Likewise the subplot about Lockhart's past is undercooked.
Both of these things could have (and should have) been stitched into the plot more.
There is still a huge amount of foreshadowing going on here too but the excessive length works against the sense of mystery by giving the viewer far much 'down time' to spend working out theories for themselves.
In my case I pretty much hit on the final answer about an hour in.
There is a big finish and the effectiveness was undoubtedly diminished for me as a result.

The aptly named Mia Goth as Hannah and hello to Jason Isaacs as Dr Volmer

This film is best described as a fascinating near miss.
It is far from a failure but its faults do threaten to overwhelm its considerable strong points.
It is a luscious film drenched in the same sorts of Gothic horror sensibilities that Hammer Studios employed so well and directors like Tim Burton and Guillermo Del Toro are carrying on.
The violence is suitably ugly but lacks any sense of real threat or intensity.
DeHaan, Isaacs and Mia Goth are nicely cast and very watchable and I was not bored but I cannot see myself revisiting this.
Once all of the mystery is revealed I doubt that there is much more to be gained from re-watching to try to pick up the clues one may have missed first time round.
"Shutter Island" begs for a second view whereas "A Cure For Wellness" just isn't as subtle or as clever so as to warrant closer scrutiny.
It is very well made and definitely worth a look but in truth there isn't enough here to make this one a must see.

RATING: 74 / 100

CONCLUSION: Beautifully shot with a wonderfully moody score and some effective use of sound. Sadly the script isn't as good as the artistry in the technical aspects and while entertaining and not without some very effective scenes and ideas this is largely forgettable.

Review - "A Street Cat Named Bob"

2017-03-11T17:25:00.003+13:00

A Street Cat Named Bob - directed by Roger Spottiswoode

Starring: Luke Treadaway, Bob the Cat, Ruta Gedmintas, Joanne Froggatt, Anthony Head, Darren Evans, Beth Goddard, Nina Wadia, Ruth Sheen, Caroline Goodall, Ivana Basic, Lorraine Ashbourne, Akbar Kurtha

Screenplay: Maria Nation & Tim John based on James Bowen's book)

Music Score by: David Hirschfelder

Cinematography: Peter Wunstorf

Edited by: Paul Tothill
Running Time: 103 minutes
Language: English
Rated: PG - Drug Use & associated themes

The cynical viewer may assess this movie deliberately written to pull all of the right strings for an audience susceptible to such things.
Those things being underdog stories, overcoming drug addiction, music, family estrangement, the kindness of strangers and of course animals.
And yes- this film has all of these things but it is worth noting that "A Street Cat Named Bob" is based on the book of the same name that details the real life of James Bowen and his cat Bob and as such can accurately claim to being simply 'telling it like it was'.

James (Treadaway) is a busker in Covent Garden in London.
He is also a heroin addict currently on a methadone programme.
He battles the elements, the pull of a return to drugs, family issues and the general public's disdain for him and his fellow homeless.
It is fair to say that he couldn't really be doing much worse.
He does have some things on his side though.
He is actually pretty good with a guitar and a song and there is at least one person who believes in him - Val his case worker.
The kind but battle weary Val (played very well by Joanne Froggatt) has seen and heard it all before but has the belief that James could be one of the all too few who can beat his addiction.
She convinces a colleague to give James a state owned flat but the condition is that he never misses an appointment with Val, stays off the drugs and on the methadone programme.
When a large ginger tom cat appears in James' new digs one night to tuck into some cornflakes there is an instant connection between the two.
A short time later the cat hurts his leg and James seeks help from Betty (Ruta Gedmintas) who lives in the same complex as he does.
And so the first of many connections to a better life that Bob entering his life enables happens.

Bob and James (Treadaway) and far right Baz - one of many challenges faced

Bob starts accompanying James on his bus trips when he goes out to busk and his very presence attracts more people watching him sing and as a result more money being tossed in the 'hat'.
With a new home, a friendship that is possibly heading towards romance and improved finances James credits Bob with his change of fortunes.
But of course there is still the 'little' matter of that heroin addiction to deal with.
This becomes the main question in the film's plot- can James overcome his addiction and keep the people and the cat that have become so important to him?
For a PG rated movie it is surprising how directly "A Street Cat Named Bob" confronts the drug aspects.
The ugliness of heroin use is shown at least to a degree (I don't pretend to be an expert or even close to one) and it is worrying to see James staring out of his window at the drug dealers on the corner and even more concerning when his 'friend' and fellow addict Baz lurks around his new home asking for money and a place to stay.
At every turn James seems to encounter adversity and it is often not at all his fault.
A job selling magazines starts well but his best intentions and a tendency to be nice to people backfires.
But every time misfortune strikes Bob is there for him and it is amazing the effect one cat can have.

Busking in London

The value of a well utilised animal in a movie cannot be underestimated and Bob is indeed as vital to the plot as you would expect given the title of the film and the animals second billing in it (yes- the real Bob plays the movie Bob)
Much mileage is garnered by planting the idea that Bob is in danger.
There are frequent shots placing Bob right amongst dozens of pedestrian feet and the size of the cat against the sea of legs all hurriedly carrying their owners places makes him appear very vulnerable indeed.
Several people eye the cat with disdain and with what could be the desire to see Bob hurt or killed.
Bob sometimes rides in a basket on the bike that James navigates the busy streets of London and he goes missing at one point.
I wonder what sort of training you have to do to get a performance out of a cat.
I love cats but there is no doubt that they have minds of their own and are unlikely to do any damned thing at all unless they have a mind to.
Bob appears on screen a lot and seems to hit whatever mark that is required.
He earns his second billing for sure.

Maybe my favourite performance however is Joanne Froggatt as the almost angelically kind Val who one hopes received the praise and recognition that she deserves in 'real life'.
I also liked Ruta Gedmintas as the kind, appealing vegan neighbour who has lost a brother to heroin and wants nothing to do with anyone who uses it.
She and Treadaway make a fascinating couple.
Betty is unaware of James' addiction and it remains an additional threat to the lead characters plight.
Val does not approve of the relationship as it is emotion that an addict is not best placed to deal with.
Given les to do but regardless doing a great job is Anthony Head as James' estranged Father.
This is yet another emotionally stressful situation for James as Father and son hardly ever see each other.
I was pleased to see the wonderful actress Caroline Goodall as a character we see a few times before it is revealed who and what she is.

Ruta Gedmintas as Betty and Joanne Froggatt as Val and far right - the real Bob and James

I enjoyed this film immensely.
Treadaway sang the songs and they are very good so on top of the underdog story you get a reasonable chunk of a musical along the lines of John Carney's great "Once".
But as good as Treadaway is (and I suspect he wouldn't mind the assessment) this is going to be viewed as Bob's movie.
I was aware of frequent 'aws' and cutesy murmurs from the audience throughout the movie.
This is not to say that the cat is a cheap way to garner audience approval but that this pivotal character is very well realised.
Bob is positioned very much like a child figure with James rapidly finding himself putting the safety of Bob before his own.
Of course the relationship is very symbiotic so the wellbeing of James is vital to the wellbeing of Bob anyway.
"A Street Cat Named bob" is touchingly effective and does a terrific job layering in the supporting characters seamlessly.
By the time the film ended very satisfyingly and without any over the top emoting it struck me how many people had been kind to James.
This is the very epitome of a feel-good movie and I loved it.
Whether it works better with no knowledge of the book or the real events I don't know.
Regardless it is a fine piece of work from all involved.

RATING: 86 / 100

CONCLUSION: Terrific performances from Treadaway, Froggatt, Gedmintas, Head and of course Bob allow A Street Cat Named Bob to earn its heartwarming moments and satisfying conclusion through character rather than cheap sentimentality and emoting. Loved it.

Review - "Kong: Skull Island" (IMAX 3D)

2017-03-10T00:38:00.002+13:00

Kong: Skull Island - directed Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Starring: Brie Larsen, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L Jackson, John Goodman, Toby Kebbell, John C Reilly, Thomas Mann, Shea Whigham, John Ortiz, Terry Notary, Richard Jenkins, Tian Jing, Marc Evan Jackson

Screenplay: Dan Gilroy &amp & Max Borenstein

Music Score by: Henry Jackman

Cinematography: Larry Fong

Edited by: Bob Murawski, Richard Pearson & Christian Wagner
Running Time: 118 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence that pushes the rating

This is an odd movie in many ways but in no way bad for it.
The poster to the left is perhaps the first clue that this latest KOng flick is going to take a different approach.
If the art style, colours and military angle reminds you of films like "Apocalypse Now" it is no mistake.
This film feels a little bit like the spiritual successor to Peter Jackson's "King Kong" (2005) - a film which referenced Coppola's movie albeit indirectly by way of Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
But "Kong: Skull Island" is still nonetheless deeply in debt to the 1933 original and maybe even a little to the 1976 Dino De Laurentiis attempt.
If that makes you concerned that it seems a little muddled in tone and intention then rest assured that although the fear is founded it is still nothing to worry about.

This film begins with what must be a swipe at the current US President.
After a very effective opening flashback scene and a montage detailing some recent American history we arrive in Washington DC as the US Forces are finishing their withdrawal from Vietnam.
John Goodman's Bill Randa exits a taxi amidst protesters and police clashes and says something along the lines of 'Mark my words - there'll never be a more messed up time in Washington'.
It is the very first sign that this Kong is aiming for something a little different.
Perhaps it is the second sign because even this short amount of time into the film we have already been given ample evidence that director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has applied a great visual style to the film.
After a wonderfully effective IMAX countdown down in the style of the Kong lettering there are numerous nice touches to the editing and to the shots.
This is a seriously well shot film loaded with visual punch and dynamic shots.
Even titles announcing a new location look amazing.
Another good sign is how much fun the first half hour is.
It's all set-up and character introduction but thanks to some great casting and light and witty dialogue delivered by the likes of Goodman, Jackson and an uncredited Richard Jenkins it races by and bam- we are on an island loaded with savage beasts - including man himself.

Kong himself is an expressive, mighty presence thanks to some incredible effects work

And there's that Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now tie-in again.
In this case instead of Colonel Kurtz losing his mind it is Samuel L Jackson's military tough guy Packard who goes nuts with thoughts of revenge.
After seeing a number of his loyal men plucked out of the sky by an irate, very large ape he is bent on killing the beast.
Packard and his men have been charged with escorting what they are told is a geology team to the remote, well hidden Skull Island.
Tagging along is a British special forces tracker named Conrad (there we go again...) played by Tom Hiddleston, a tough photographer played by Brie Larson and a bunch of company men and scientists who are pretty much there for the killing.
The group is split into three as the seismic bombs they drop causes Kong to attack the helicopters they are in.
Packard's team marches through the jungle looking like the Vietnam veterans that they are while Hiddleston, Larson and the science types encounter John C Reilly's World War 2 pilot who has been stranded on the island for almost 30 years.
They learn that the island is a very carefully balanced environment with Kong the counterpoint to some nasty lizardy creatures that emerge from the earth.
So long as Kong is around the status quo is maintained and everyone can live in relative peace and quiet.
(apart from the giant spiders, insects, water buffalo and so forth of course)

Hiddleston and Larson's characters are the least well formed but both trade on their natural charm to great effect

I like this idea.
It brings a fresh perspective to the Kong story and makes the large ape (and he is really large in this one!) instantly sympathetic.
I love Jackson's 2005 film for many reasons but his elevating of Kong to loveable hero was masterful and here the result is equally effectively achieved.
Larson does well in a role that isn't as fully fleshed out as Watts or Wray and certainly looks stunning in a tank top.
Hiddleston is playing the utter square jawed hero - never more than a wisecrack away from being a cartoon figure.
He gets a cheesily delightful slow motion scene in which he dons a gas mask and wields a katana to battle a vicious flock of bat/bird/pterodactyl creatures.
The tone is wildly inconsistent but somehow Vogt-Roberts gets aways with it.
John C Reilly's mentally compromised WW2 pilot provides much of the humour and it is the perfect counter to Jackson's deadly serious, jingoistic mad man.
Larson and Hiddleston are definitely the leads and as such play the conscience of the audience.
Their decision to side with Kong so soon after he has almost killed them both is not entirely convincing but is again perfectly counter to Jackson's single minded insistence that the beast must die.
I found it oddly ironic that a movie about the balance on the island should utilise the same concept to provide its own weird tone.

Kong: Skull Island is a stunningly shot movie loaded with wonder and excitement in action and non-action scenes alike

Also adding to this is the violence which is darker and a lot bloodier than the rating would suggest.
Kong tears the guts out of more than one adversary and many a human meets a grisly end with a giant spider leg down the throat being the most memorably grisly.
No one is indispensible and characters die suddenly, often with little or no warning.
One character builds up to a real movie cliche heroic moment only to have his sacrifice rendered completely useless in the most darkly funny way imaginable.
It is all shot and edited wonderfully well.
Slow motion shots of Iroquois helicopters, sweeping zoom shots onto Hiddleston on the bridge of a ship and multiple out and out beautiful shots of Kong framed by mist or flame abound.
And there is no shortage of action.
For all of its references to classic novels and films this is still at heart a movie for the big kid in all of us.
For as long as I can remember I have wanted to watch monsters battle and this film absolutely delivers.
Obviously I am recommending this but I do strongly suggest you see it in IMAX and preferably in 3D... both options add much to the experience.
And wait through the credits for an extra scene indicating that more is on the way.
Bring it on I say.

RATING: 80 / 100

CONCLUSION: Beautifully shot and loaded with references to more intellectual works it may be but this is still single mindedly a film about a huge ape punching three colours of poo out of a host of other 'monsters'. So yes- a lot of fun and well worth a look.

Review - "Alone In Berlin"

2017-03-07T23:18:00.003+13:00

Alone In Berlin - directed by Vincent Perez

Starring: Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Daniel Bruhl, Mikael Persbrandt, Louis Hofmann, Godehard Giese, Monique Chaumette, Hildegard Schroedter, Mikael Persbrandt , Katharina Schüttler , Lars Rudolph, Jacob Matschenz

Screenplay: Achim von Borries & Vincent Perez base don Hans Fallada's book 'Every Man Dies Alone'

Music Score by: Alexandre Desplat

Cinematography: Christophe Beaucarne

Edited by: François Gédigier
Running Time: 103 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Violence (mild but intense)

What a surprise this movie is.
My first knowledge of it came via a cinema lobby flyer about two weeks ago and I decided that it looked worth a shot mainly on the strength of the leads Thompson and Gleeson.
I am certainly glad that I did because this is a very, very good film.
One of the signs of a good film is how quickly it zips by as one is watching it and this 103 minute movie felt more like ninety minutes- tops.
And it earns this not with flash and action or sex and violence or spectacle but by offering a well told, terrific (true) story about two people worthy of such a tribute.

Brendan Gleeson and Emma Thompson

In 1940 a young German soldier is killed in action.
Upon hearing the news his distraught parents react by beginning a propaganda campaign against Hitler and Nazi Germany.
They create handwritten postcards and leave them in public places around Berlin to be found and read.
These cards encourage people to stop donating money to the Third Reich and denounce Adolf Hitler as a murderer and a liar.
It may seem an inconsequential act but it is nonetheless a capital offence in 1940 Germany and the couple put themselves at great risk.
It was a disturbing reality of the time that people were so caught up in the hate and the mistrust and the fanaticism born of their moustached maniac leader and his ghastly organisation that the vast majority of the cards were handed in to the Gestapo.
Simply being seen with a card in hand was reason for most to fear being incriminated.
Hitler was not one to take any form of criticism lightly (why does that sound familiar right now?!) and so the Gestapo are very eager to get the postcard propaganda stopped.

As a result a special Police investigator named Escherich (Bruhl) is assigned to the case.
Escherich's investigation creates a profile of the suspect including the assumption that he has lost a

One of the actual postcards

son, lives in a specific vicinity to the dropped cards and that he is an intelligent man probably used to working with his hands.
As much as I didn't want Escherich to succeed in his investigation it is undeniably a fascinating process to watch.
There are no computers, cellphones or security cameras so things like tip-offs, witness sketches, patience, logic and luck are the main weapons for Escherich.
Having Bruhl play this character is a wise choice.
Familiar to International audiences from his roles in "The Bourne Ultimatum", "Inglourious Basterds" and "Rush" he often plays unlikeable characters that he manages to garner sympathy for in the eyes of the audience.
And so despite his goal being so undesirable Bruhl makes the character at least somewhat sympathetic
Specially so when he himself finds his life under threat from the Gestapo.

The main focus here of course is with Anna and Otto Quangel played by Emma Thompson and Brendan Gleeson.
The stakes for this pair are made startlingly clear very quickly.
An elderly Jewish woman who lives in the same building is constantly fearful as the entire city succumbs to the Nazi regime's demands that everyone follow its doctrines without question.
An innocent man is arrested for Otto and Anna's 'crimes' but his innocence seems to be little protection.
Still the couple are staunch in their desire to stand up to Hitler and his goons.
Thompson and Gleeson are really, really terrific here.
Their marriage seems genuine - like a relationship that has found its own rules and boundaries.
They are not all over each other but the love and respect is all there to see.
I am unsure if these actors have worked directly together previously (Harry Potter?) but their matching seems like an omission well remedied.
I thoroughly enjoyed their performances and very much hope that they find another film to do together.

Daniel Bruhl as Escherich - no one is immune from threat in the climate of fear of Berlin in the 1940's

It is a good moment to reiterate that this story is based on real people and real events.
I was unfamiliar with the real history and was glad but in truth I doubt that complete knowledge would diminish the effectiveness of the story - so well told is it.
Director and co-writer Vincent Perez's name might sound familiar and this is likely due to his main career as an actor.
You may have seen him the Crow sequel "The Crow: City of Angels", "Queen of the Damned" or even "Cyrano de Bergerac"
As director he really hits this one out of the park.
There are some strikingly beautiful shots amidst the grim greyness of the film and they are smartly, sparingly used.
Also well employed is the great Alexandre Desplat's score.
The many scenes of tension are heightened by Desplat's subtle work.
Subtlety is a constant with this film.
The wonderful performances, the refusal to be too dramatic and instead let the story work on its own merits without flourishes of grand emotion and even the violence which while shocking is never graphic nor over the top.
"Alone In Berlin" is a highly enjoyable, genuine surprise of a film.

RATING: 85 / 100

CONCLUSION: A great and true story that deserves to be told and thanks to the work of writer-director Perez, the fine performances of Gleeson, Thompson and Bruhl and stellar work from composer Desplat it is indeed told fittingly well.

Review - "Before I Fall"

2017-03-05T16:27:00.005+13:00

Before I Fall - directed by Ry Russo-Young

Starring: Zoey Deutch, Halston Sage, Logan Miller, Kian Lawley, Elena Kampouris, Cynthy Wu, Medalion Rahimi, Erica Tremblay, Liv Hewson, Jennifer Beals, Diego Boneta, David Hardware

Screenplay: Maria Maggenti (based on Lauren Oliver's novel)

Music Score by: Adam Taylor

Cinematography: Michael Fimognari

Edited by: Joe Landauer
Running Time: 99 minutes
Language: English
Rated: M - Mild Profanity

There is no hiding from comparisons with "Groundhog Day" when you begin a story in which the central premise is a character playing the same day over and over again.
"Before I Fall" in many way not only acknowledges the inevitable comparisons but seems to actively embrace it.
Not that there is much else in common beyond the concept and a few shared tropes.
"Groundhog Day" is primarily a comedy whereas "Before I Fall" is essentially an existential drama wrapped up in a teen movie and to the best of my recollection there isn't a single funny moment in it.
In fact the biggest problem that "Before I Fall" has isn't the accusation that it's simply ripping off the likes of "Groundhog Day" but its identity problem in the face of the other seemingly dozens of movies before it that look the same, have titles that sound very similar and are aimed at the same audience.
This is clearly intended for the same young adult audience that the book that it is based on was and that has given it an 'oh, here we go again' vibe for me.

This film does have a one major plus in its favour however.
Its star is Zoey Deutch who has been very good in a host of films of late including "Everybody Wants Some", "Why Him?" and "Beautiful Creatures"
And Deutch is all over this film.
I cannot recall a scene in which she does not appear or is not the focus.
This is by design of course because this film is told from Deutch's character Samantha's perspective via her voiceover.
She has been in a car crash with her three best friends which has apparently killed her but she wakes up again that same morning over and over again to relive the hours leading up to her demise.
The same alarm clock mechanism that jolts Bill Murray into each do-over day in "Groundhog Day" also kicks Samantha's repeat day into life.
Rather than Sonny and Cher on a radio alarm clock though Samantha has an iPhone that chimes in with Dangerous by Big Data (I think) to let her know that she still has at least one more run through of the same day to deal with,
For the first few times this only cements the idea that we are just watching a teen-oriented "Groundhog Day" ripoff.

Zoey Deutch

To its credit though "Before I Fall" does finds its own identity reasonably quickly as it starts to delve into Samantha's ever increasing awareness that maybe she and her friends are simply not as nice as they assumed that they were.
It would have worked even better had Samantha's 'not niceness' not been defined by what is pretty standard behaviour in a movie teen character.
We see her at various moments being blunt, dismissive and rude to her family including her caring Mother (Jennifer Beals) and her cute as all hell little sister Izzy (Erica Tremblay- yes- Jacob's sister)
Then there is the weird girl in school who is a social outcast because she doesn't wear cool clothes or brush her hair and draws images that practically scream 'depressed as hell and about to blow'.
Also Samantha is keen to unburden herself of her virginity and her boyfriend of a year (and hottest guy in school) Rob has been assigned the task.
This will take place that night which also happens to be on Cupid's Day.
This appears to be Valentine's Day as celebrated by a High School and there is a highly organised distribution of roses that is just asking for trouble.
Whoever gets the most roses is the most popular girl in school and by definition the fewest (or none) the least popular.
Scruffy McTustley Julia obviously won't get a rose neither will the gay girl nor will Kent the boy who is obviously madly in love with Samantha but is just too smart and geeky to get a look in.
It is very cliched stuff.

This would all be pretty much unwatchable if not for the presence of Zoey Deutch who does a terrific job with some pretty thankless dialogue.
On several occasions she is required to earnestly express love for friends and family and the character has just not earned these sorts of moments.
We have not seen her do anything so bad that her character requires this sort of redemption.
The one exception perhaps is a crime not of ill intent but of inaction.
Her best friend Lindsay (Halston Sage) is an awful, shallow girl who treats most people outside of the group of four friends (and some within it) with disdain.
She affords special 'attention' to Juliet and doesn't pass up an opportunity to publically abuse her with insults.
Samantha - too caught up in her own life simply allows this.
Julia along with the lovesick Kent becomes the focus of Samantha's repeated day activity after the usual period of anger and acceptance of course.
The realisations she has are poorly executed though.
Kent has a past with Samantha and Julia has one with Lindsay.
They are very cheap devices to provide depth and substance to the plot and to Samantha's redemption.

Bitchy best friend, Douchebag boyfriend, pitiable outsiders, sweet nerdy love interest.... every cliche box ticked

There isn't really anything too much to recommend here besides the work of Deutch and the one or two moments that the film truly earns an emotional connection to its characters.
The tortured Julia garners something of connection and the way her story folds into the main one is quite nicely done to be fair.
However Rob and Lindsay are shallow, cardboard cutout characters whose storylines are never less than highly predictable with deeply incomplete endings.
Samantha's other two friends Ally and Elody function only as 'make up the numbers' ethnic tickbox characters and have not a thing to add to the story.
The relationship between Kent and Samantha is also undercooked and her sudden change of heart is totally unbelievable.
By the time the silly, cheat of an ending arrives none of these peripheral characters matter anyway.
This fault above all is possibly the worst.
I never felt invested enough in any of the characters to really care too much how it all turned out.

RATING: 70 / 100

CONCLUSION: Before I fall is a better movie than it should be mainly thanks to the work of Deutch and a handful of things that it does right but it can't ever rise above the tired cliched characters and often hollow sentiment that it employs without ever earning.