Yet Another Review Update - Nearly Completely Up To Date!
Review of The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016)
Best thing: Father and son talking about the autopsy process (which makes up most of first half) is quite interesting, with great on screen chemistry between the two actors.
Worst thing: The entire second half turns into a cheesy jump scare fest. While this isn't technically a ghost story it still has that old ridiculous ghost movie trope: Being dead gives you superpowers!
I absolutely loved “Troll Hunter” so, despite all indications being that “The Autopsy of Jane Doe” would not be the sort of film I'd enjoy, I found myself excited anyway. For me this wasn't going to be a film about a 'haunted' autopsy room. This was the latest film from André Øvredal and anything could happen...
The first half set up a lot of clues and I was really excited to see how the mystery would be resolved. With the father emphasising the need to be scientific and methodical, I wondered how they'd handle this seemingly supernatural phenomena.
Sadly, when answers come in the third act, it turns out that there wasn't really much mystery to unfold. The dead body is supernatural. Why does the body have damage inside while being unblemished on the outside (the mystery set up right at the beginning)? Well, not to be too specific, the answer is basically magic.
The turning point in the film at the mid point involves all the lights in the autopsy room shattering. I hate when there aren't proper rules for a supernatural entity. If the 'ghost' can make the lights smash with no explanation, it potentially could pretty much do anything and that means that it could kill off the protagonists whenever it wants. (Yes, I know it's NOT a ghost, but these are clear ghost story tropes).
I'll note that in Evil Dead 2, the deadites can do whatever they want because they are clearly toying with the protagonist.
It's actually ridiculous how lazy the film becomes in the second half. All the typical creepy noises are put into effect, we get that typical generic horror movie score and we have quick cuts so that we aren't sure exactly what is attacking our protagonists. The film goes from being an interesting introduction to a father and son working in a morgue, to a boring ten-a-penny straight off the assembly line, disposable horror flick. What a disappointment!
E
Review of The Girl On The Train (2016)
Best thing: Emily Blunt is excellent in the lead role and keeps you on her side in spite of some quite shameless behaviour from her at times. The central premise of the film is that she is essentially stalking a couple, albeit from her train window, but Blunt’s performance somehow pulled me into that story.
Worst thing: The mystery unfolds pretty slowly and it's not always clear why we should care. 'The girl I'm stalking is cheating on her boyfriend. That's terrible.' Yeah, okay psycho. In the movie "Julia", Tilda Swinton similarly played an alcoholic anti-hero, but she had a much more interesting story to go with her performance.
Watching this film I struggled to see why it had received such a lacklustre response, but as the story unfolded the issue became rather clearer.
The Girl On The Train is well directed, it's well acted and the way it gradually unfolds is mysterious. Nevertheless, it's actually a pretty dull story.
Serious credit should be given to the filmmaker who milks every dramatic and tense moment. Unfortunately it's not enough to make up for the content. I'm inclined to blame it on the book. I think its possible that this novel simply isn't suited to the screen.
I think comparisons to Gone Girl are reasonable. It's a slowly unfolding dark story about relationships. But while Gone Girl had an intense and unexpected final act. The third act of The Girl On The Train does not really feature much of a payoff and the 'twist' isn't that much of a revelation.
Also, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I found the focus on the desire to have children didn't ring true to me. All three central women in the film seem fixated on their attitude towards having children. Sure, it's possible, but at some points that fixation seems to be expected to be a source of tension in the film. I guess if you are adapting this story, you get your dramatic tension wherever you can.
The Girl On The Train is well structured and perfectly adequate film. The story didn't really interest me that much, but I can't say I had a bad time watching it. I probably wouldn't ever watch this again but, for what it is, I'd say it was good. Not great, just good.
Watch for Emily Blunt, but don't expect much payoff at the end of the story. It all wraps up very neatly but the revelations won't blow you away.
B-
Review of Beasts Of No Nation (2015)
Best thing: Naturally Idris Elba is the best thing, but what I especially liked about his performance is the way he often comes across like a father to the child soldiers. This made clear why our protagonist would want to join this group and would actually become a loyal child soldier committed to the cause.
Worst thing: Beasts of No Nation is way too long. There are a lot of lingering moments that dwell on the misery and frankly it didn't need to dwell so much. I can tell the situation is horrible and what I really needed was an engaging story. I have no problem with long films, so long as the pacing of the story makes it less obvious while you are watching. Here, the extreme length was painfully obvious.
I think anyone could have guessed that this would be a well-shot film with great performances (particularly from Idris but also from the child actors), but that it would also be miserable and ponderously slow-paced.
Well done. You were right. Now give this movie a miss and watch Johnny Mad Dog instead....
C-
Review of Rings (2017)
Note: Not to be confused with the 2005 promotional short film released just before the American “The Ring Two”.
Best thing: Doesn't the 'ring' of people watching the tape and passing it on, parallel the typical cycle of life and death? Might someone try to defend against being shown Sadako's killer visions by blinding themselves? In such a maligned film it was a surprise to see these subtle new ideas raised, even if they aren't actually explored properly in the end.
Worst thing: The ending of a movie matters a lot. While you can accept some common themes across a movie series, sequels need to either start with something new or build to something new. Rings essentially builds to: “We're rebooting the movie series guys!” Promising a follow-up that most likely won’t be coming any time soon. If you saw the trailer, you know how this movie ends. You won't understand why unless you watch because, heck, how could THAT be the final reveal? - The ending is really THAT disappointing.
I'd heard bad things about this film, but in a movie series where I have now seen nearly every single entry, including the Sadako 3D movies, it's easier to be a bit more forgiving.
Basically, Rings becomes less interesting the more it progresses. It starts with a professor experimenting with his own students' lives to study the connection between the effect of the video clip (not a video tape any more).
Quite early on we get a full on reveal of Samara with a really cool version of the Samara-attack effects with water flooding out of a television screen.
Eventually we are promised a real change in this series. The video clip belonging to the female protagonist has corrupted. The file can't be copied and it has extra visions included in it.
Sadly what follows is basically a redo of the original The Ring, only with the payoff where Sadako shows just how horrifying she is having already been done (which perhaps made it inevitable that the ending would disappoint).
It perhaps shouldn't be surprising to hear that a review of a sequel may involve discussion of plot details from the first film in the series. But, in any case, SPOILER WARNING FOR "THE RING"....
The extra visions in the new distorted video give a whole new line of enquiry for a mystery to unfold. While there are differences between the Japanese and American versions of the first film, the basic structure is pretty much identical. So we can see that what then unfolds follows that structure quite closely.
The visions provide different clues. The protagonists follow those clues to uncover the story of Samara (or Sadako in Japan). Samara seems to have been mistreated and the protagonists try to find a way to resolve that for her. And here is where the real spoiler comes in: Samara doesn't care about having her issues resolved. She is projecting her hatred from the well where she was trapped and all she wants is for you to die. If you can pass the curse onto someone else that's fine, but failing that, Samara has no reason or mercy.
The mystery unfolded more clearly here than in the American version of "The Ring". The clues are a bit more specific. In "The Ring" there's a vision of a ladder because there was a long ladder up to the place where Samara slept. A horse becomes very distressed possibly in connection with large numbers of horses living near where she lives. In "Rings" pretty much every vision seems to be a necessary clue.
The attempt to resolve issues for Samara in "Rings" is actually pretty solid, but it's not terribly exciting in the way it is portrayed. I actually wonder whether this isn't the part of the film cut and/or re-shot. In the trailer, Vincent D'Onofrio helps to explain the mark that Samara leaves on the female protagonist's arm, suggesting that he might have indicated where the filmmakers were planning to take the series next. I suspect the problem is that nobody wants to try to use the follow up novels to the original source material. I've seen Spiral (Rasen) and, however well it works as a novel, it just came off as ridiculous nonsense.
It's from the Spiral storyline, however, that all the sequels (barring perhaps Sadako 3D) take their theme of Sadako/Samara attempting to be reborn. It's just that the novels wanted to characterise this as Sadako transferring her genetic code and somehow becoming a fully grown adult super quick so she can seduce someone. (It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I think Sadako was also trying to have an evil baby.)
In any case, if there were any daring forays into the more wacky elements from this source material, then it must have all been rejected since the final result is a very humdrum ending that feels more like a tease for a further sequel that is unlikely to ever be released.
But in spite of all the negative feedback I think this had potential and I actually preferred it to the first American remake that has always struck me as a dull jump scare fest.
(I am never going to stop harping on about this because it is my go-to example of 'dumbest jump scare ever' but The Ring features the 'milipede in an envelope' jump scare. Whenever you write a review saying that the American version of Ring is better than the original, an angel loses its wings. Stop doing it, okay!)
D+
Review of The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
Best thing: It's great going back to films like Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There, where the humour originally felt out of place. Now that I can see that all Coen Brothers movies are black comedies, this dark nihilistic tragedy is hilarious. My favourite bit? Probably: "We're not late. We're-on-time Ed!"
Worst thing: This isn't necessarily a big problem, but I've never really understood the significance of the UFO towards the end.Just a wonderful black comedy (and nobody does black comedy like the Coens). Billy Bob Thornton knocks it out of the park as a quiet empty man whose attempts to make something of his life cause all hell to break loose.
Like with the Coen Brothers' later film "A Serious Man", there's a sense that the world is absurd and unfair. Yet while the protagonist of "A Serious Man" was distressed by the way his life is out of control, Billy Bob Thornton remains cold and stoic no matter what is thrown at him.
I suppose Billy Bob Thornton is expressing the same cold stoicism of a noir movie detective, only as someone who already knows the case better than anyone else rather than as someone trying to solve the case.
Definitely one of my many favourites in the Coen Brothers' filmography.
A+
Review of Blow Out (1981)
Best thing: The way the film returns again and again to its main set of clues: the recording made by our sound technician protagonist, played by John Travolta. It's very stylish and creative, the way the film explores that aspect.
Worst thing: The scene where they show Travolta working with recording apparatus for undercover police, the setup felt unconvincing to me. If someone is working undercover, running in to meet then is going to be the worst thing you can do. If you blow their cover, the criminals may well kill the both of you.
Such a fantastic thriller and definitely a major highlight in John Travolta's career.
Blow out has a neat premise. A sound technician recording sounds for a horror movie goes out late at night to record sound effects to use on the film. While still recording, he sees a car accident where a car goes off the road and into the water. After saving a woman from the wreckage, he is asked not to talk to the press, but when the incident makes the news anyway, Travolta's character realises something is very wrong.
The theme of the film seems to be that the powerful step on the weak. This is a story about exploitation and corruption. Which makes it all the more annoying when the film seems to try to excuse the conspirators.
We're told that the conspirators are somehow shocked by what is happening as much as we are, which seems inconsistent to me. Perhaps it's a realistic inconsistency for powerful men to want terrible things but don't want to hear about the blood on their hands, but nevertheless the film seemed to be trying to let the conspirators off the hook and that's an annoying compromise in an otherwise uncompromisingly dark thriller.
The downer ending is powerful and i absolutely love it, even if it's a bit of a drag. This is a film that has always stuck with me and it was a real pleasure to revisit.
A+
Review of Before I Go To Sleep (2014)
Best thing: Colin Firth is always great and the way he seems both a little sinister and yet also utterly charming and harmless at the same time works really well. Mark Strong has a similar ambiguity in his performance.
Worst thing: Not everything makes sense by the end. Whether you enjoy the film or not, it must be admitted that the plot is a little preposterous.
I guess 14 years was enough time to justify a new take on the amnesiac condition explored in Nolan's "Memento". A woman wakes up to be told that she cannot make new memories and that she is married. She then gets a call from a doctor, of whom her husband is unaware, who reveals that she has a camera with a series of self-dictated videos stored on it.
As the story unfolds the question is, which of these men can she trust? She doesn't remember the doctor, but she doesn't remember the husband either. It's actually quite difficult to fully be convinced by this set up.
If she was married before the attack surely she should remember her husband. If she couldn't make new memories when she was married, wouldn't she be too vulnerable for a commitment like that? After all, by the day of the wedding she wouldn't remember any of their wedding plans.
Actually we do have an explanation for this but, like I say, the film doesn't do a great job convincing the audience with its dialogue. What really helps pull the audience in is the awesome performances. Colin Firth in particular, absolutely knocks it out of the park.
Overall this is pretty straightforward solid drama. I had a lot of fun. And the performances definitely elevate the material.
B+
Review of Judgment Night (1993)
Best thing: The extent to which the protagonists seem trapped in a crime-ridden underworld is almost surreal at times. At one point they are on a late night bus route and the bus absolutely refuses to stop for them. It's like they are locked out of the world they come from and trapped in a nightmarish lower class world of dark streets, abandoned buildings, council flats and street gangs. Michael Leary seems less like a gang leader and more like a monster that preys on the weak.
Worst thing: The decision to try to sell us on Emilio Estevez as some kind of badass.
A kind of horror film that practically turns into urban fantasy. A group of friends find themselves in the wrong part of town and help a man they believe they hit with they hit with the car. When it turns out that he is running away from some creepy figures from some kind of powerful organised crime gang things start to get seriously hairy for our band of unfortunate bystanders.
The protagonists find themselves seemingly trapped in the dingy under-belly of the city and when their lives are on the line it tests their friendships and their personal integrity.
Much better first half than second half, but the main two figures of the gang are seriously creepy. Overall I found this to be fun, but I remembered it being better.
B-
Review of Blood Simple (1984)
Best thing: M. Emmet Walsh as the cynical tactless private eye is really great and must be my favourite character here.
Worst thing: While wonderfully put together, this lacks the humour of later Coen Brothers. It's a little irritating that I can see how the misunderstandings between the characters COULD have been played for comedy, whereas here I'm just frustratedly shouting at the characters to, please, communicate with one another.
Blood Simple is an odd duck in the Coen Brothers filmography. There are plenty of films in their filmography where the comedy is harder to recognise. After all, even in their dark-as-hell Oscar winner No Country For Old Men there are still some comedy moments such as when a potential victim is simply confused while the villain explains that he is deciding his fate in a coin toss. But in no Coen Brothers film is the comedy so difficult to recognise as in Blood Simple.
There's almost a farcical aspect in the way some characters make assumptions about the other characters' intentions. But the film never plays this for laughs. It seems more like this aspect is supposed to be creepy. Almost like we are being encouraged to second guess even elements that have been clearly spelled out. The Coen Brothers always love playing with their audience's perception and they would only get better at this.
Frankly "Blood Simple" is an interesting debut, but it's not as much of a must-watch as most Coen Brothers movies. It's a bit slow and arguably a bit dull. But it's also very well put together with some great performances. It's jusy unusual to have a Coen Brothers film that is solid rather than brilliant.
B-
Review of Ghost In The Shell (2017)
Best thing: While pointing to the gorgeous visuals might seem like a bad sign, I could easily point to Scarlett Johansson's performance or even how badass Takeshi Kitano is as Daisuke Aramaki. But yes, the way the director brings these scenes from the original movie to life is absolutely wonderful. This film works as both a prequel and an homage, which might make it difficult of they were deciding what original visuals to put into a sequel (so I guess it's a relief to the filmmakers that, from what I hear, they won't have to make that decision). Even some new visuals, like Major sending her consciousness into a hacked mind for clues, are really impressive.
Worst thing: The central mystery isn't really all that complex, particularly by comparison to the slow build of the movies. (Then again Ghost In The Shell movies and tv series have that anime tendency of making everything confusing almost for the sake of it. Perhaps a version that's easy to follow isn't such a bad thing.) Part of me feels this should be more complex.
More of an homage to Ghost In The Shell than either an adaptation or a separate story in its own right. Still, as an homage it's really not bad.
It's not as smart as it could be, but I'd question whether the original Ghost In The Shell movies are really as smart as they like to think they are anyway.
Scarlett Johansson is actually a pretty great fit for what has always been quite a cold character and I really feel I was misled by claims that her expressions were “robotic” in this movie.
And yeah, Major's robot body has arguably always been white. In a film with a far wider range of races than the original Japanese cartoons ever had, I think criticising this American homage for whitewashing is more than a little daft. (If they just set it in America with all white actors, like they did with "The Ring", are we saying that would have been better?)
Compelling visuals that pull you into a living breathing portrayal of the world from Mamoru Oshii's anime films. A solid central performance from Scarlett Johansson. Some neat links between this and the original movie make this a cool little prequel to the beloved classic, even while it brings memorable moments from that same film to life.
B+
Review of Commando (1985)
Best thing: When I first saw this, Arnie had just become Governor and I think I had Arnie fatigue. It's difficult to say what it was about this viewing that made me so much more engaged. I think the best thing is always Arnie's charisma and comic timing. Arnie clearly has so much fun with this role and that joy is not infectious.
Worst thing: Dan Hedaya pretending to be the dethroned dictator of a non-existent country is kind of painful.
Arnold Schwarzenegger never could have achieved his incredible film career simply by being big. Apart from in Hercules In New York and possibly Conan the Barbarian, Arnie has always had a great charm and sense of humour.
Apart from a line towards the beginning of the film where Arnie seems to be saying, "Perhaps the Stasi were right about pop music," which I found a little awkward, Arnie otherwise remains a likeable ex-soldier with unparalleled skills in pretty much everything other than remaining inconspicuous.
Actually he also turns out not to be able to fly a plane so what luck that he happens to meet a trainee pilot, who oddly seems to decide to stick with him on his mission before either.realise how vital she will be.
Sure, when Arnie growls, "I lied," at one of the villains, it's one of the many points in the film where things get a little unintentionally comical (though there's a tongue-in-cheek feel to the whole film). But Arnie's charm is such as to make those moments not only enjoyable, but actually highlights of the film.
I must have completely lost interest when this was playing in the living room that one time and I have no idea why. I think this may actually be one of Schwarzenegger's best films.
A+
Review of Death Note (2017)
Best thing: While the obvious choice would be Willem Dafoe going full Green Goblin as the death god Riuk, my favourite aspect would be Lakeith Stanfield as the mysterious L. He captured the bizarre intelligent awkwardness of the character very well.
Worst thing: Not sure why L has special glowing sci-fi sleep glasses. Is that in the manga?
You know how it is. You wait with baited breath for the latest film from one of your favourite directors. After so many disappointments from cherished directors (including, say, Joon-Ho Bong's ridiculous "Okja" movie already appearing on Netflix), you are a little apprehensive.
But then you find, against all expectations, the film is fast-paced, fun, visually dynamic, and a very satisfying experience in general. Perhaps not the very best thing the director has ever done, but a strong entry nonetheless.
Then you read the reviews and it turns out everyone hates it.
I'd seen the first two Japanese live action films. The first didn't finish and the second became convoluted. Frankly it was a bit of a slog. I must admit that I preferred the more sweet and cartoonish appearance of Riuk the death god in the Japanese movies. Willem Dafoe unsurprisingly plays a demon by reprising his Green Goblin performance from Spider-Man, but one creepy aspect of Riuk is how he acts like a friend. However, I think the actor playing L in this new version completely nails it. (Following on from his great performance in a supporting role in Get Out.)
I've heard some purists arguing that the protagonist anti-hero Light is not enough of a megalomaniac in this version. Frankly he is, he just does a better job of lying to himself about it. This is dealt with in more depth by placing our protagonist in opposition to another character similarly keen to play god right from the start, leading to quite a cool little power play between them.
I personally feel that Adam Wingard has managed to create a deeper live action adaptation than the Japanese managed, even while ramping up the pacing.
Awesome!
A+
Review of Wonder Woman (2017)
Best thing: Wonder Woman crossing no man's land. It's a spectacular action sequence.
Worst thing: I don't even begin to understand Wonder Woman's personality. She loves fighting but hates war. She knows that mustard gas is normally sulfur based, but doesn't understand the idea of a war having 'fronts'. She can produce a powerful blast by throwing her wrists together but doesn't use this technique very often. Why?
Is this actually any better than Man of Steel? In that movie Superman was written to seem remarkably bland (particularly considering how much character Henry Cavill had in The Man From UNCLE) and similarly Wonder Woman here seems incredibly bland.
Chris Pine is alright as the male love interest, not least because he seems to have been given an actual plot. Wonder Woman spends most of the film hunting for a villain who might not even exist and, once that side of that story unfolds, she doesn't end up having to work out anything for herself. Everything is spelled out for her and the stakes in her final action sequence and completely unclear.
The only point where I really felt we could cheer for Wonder Woman is where she crosses No Man's Land. For someone who says the whole conflict is unnecessary and solely due to the interference of a god of war, she seems remarkably happy to fight Germans. Still, we can at least recognise that to cut the gordian knot she needs to cause some real damage. No one ia going to be able to cross No Man's Land while the opposing force are still defending their trenches.
So when Wonder Woman is shielding herself from machine gun bullets with her shield and knocking down armoured vehicles with her bare hands it's admittedly pretty cool. Then again, I'm not sure why she doesn't just use her special move where she causes an explosive blast by putting her bracelets together. It looks like enough to knock down an German aircraft if necessary. If she just kept using that, it doesn't look like she'd need much else.
Wonder Woman isn't one of the worst superhero movies, but I'm not accepting the suggestion that it is one of the best. Mediocre and bland. Pretty to look at but with nothing terribly gripping actually happening. If you thought Man of Steel was bad (as I did), I’m not quite sure why you’d find this to be preferable...
D+
Review of Spider-Man Homecoming (2017)
Best thing: Spider-Man interrogating Donald Glover (an actor/comedian who had a whole sketch around enthusiasm on the Internet for him to take the Spider-Man role). Loved it!
Worst thing: So is Spider-Man completely invulnerable now? For all his superpowers, I'd always thought that Spider-Man would be genuinely at risk if his spider-sense didn't help him avoid most attacks. I thought stopping a train with his body in the second Raimi film was going a bit far and there's a similar test of Spider-Man's strength here, but one scene really seems to go too far. I won't spoil how this film pushes Spider-Man's powers beyond the limit, but Spider-Man has a big fight scene straight afterwards and doesn't seem to struggle with any injuries while fighting.
Any review of this novie inevitably has to make reference to the previous attempts at Spider-Man movies. The old tv movie that kick-started the live action tv series didn't really have the same character as the comics, but it did get us excited about a guy who climbs up walls in a cool costume.
I have never understood the praise given to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies. I liked aspects of them. Some of the slapstick style Raimi brings to it works very well, but Tobey Maguire's awkward super-nerd take on the character felt way too on the nose. While the action became more kinetic and there was some decent humour at points in Raimi's Spider-Man 2, but some of the sickly sentimentality became worse than ever. When Peter Parker starts randomly quoting poetry to the girl he dumped who has already happily moved on, it was just so painful.
But enough of me bitching about Raimi's films. His vision of Spider-Man for the big screen had a strong influence on the way we understand Spider-Man but, as a reader of Spider-Man comics during the 90s, I found Mark Webb's Amazing Spider-Man movies were much closer to the comics and much better at pulling on the heart strings. The greatest strength of Webb's Spider-Man movies would have to be the way it portrays the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey. But Webb seemed to be struggling to provide the best product in spite of controlling producers and problems with the writing and I feel that what killed off this series more than anything else may have been the decision to rush into the death of Gwen Stacey. Emma Stone was one of the strongest elements of these films and I can't help but feel that when they were deciding what to do next with the series, the loss of Emma Stone cannot have helped.
So now we have the introduction of Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It definitely can't be accused of being a repeat of what has been done before. Finally Spider-Man has a sense of humour. Tom Holland definitely takes a lot of cues from Andrew Garfield's performance, only he has lots of jokes in the script.
While I think giving Spider-Man a computerised suit is an odd choice, Marvel have pulled their usual trick of making their film very funny, highly entertaining and they've bunged the tried and tested favourite, Iron Man, into the mix to keep the punters happy. But there's no doubt that Tom Holland is the star here and he gives one hell of a performance.
A+
Review of Freejack (1992)
Best thing: The future world with its satirical elements is a lot of fun.
Worst thing: The attempt at a twist at the end was a bit lame.
Freejack is a sci-fi movie that looks a bit cheap and the villains are a bit too cartoonish. In spite of this I found this to be a highly entertaining and surprisingly compelling dystopian sci-fi action film.
The filmmakers don't seem sure on how to end the film, but they definitely know how to make it a fun ride.
B+
Review of The Take (aka Bastille Day) (2016)
Best thing: Even I could tell that Idris Elba's American accent didn't work here (and I was completely convinced that he was American in The Wire). But, despite this, Idris Elba is still a really strong screen presence and a strong central focus for the action and story.
Worst thing: The scenes where Paris is overtaken by rioting show a masked ringleader consistently encouraging the violence. These scenes didn't work for me, partly because they are presented in a way that I found contrived, but also because we saw in the London riots how the violence took on a life of its own. Expecting that rioters are going to follow one lead figure and be united in their spontaneous reactionary violence seemed to expect a high level of suspension of disbelief. Particularly since the filmmakers wanted me to take this seriously.
Idris Elba is great and there are some action moments that work really well. Nevertheless overall this film is just way too dumb.
I don't want to be overly harsh. I didn't have a terrible time. But there is no way I would ever recommend this film.
Idris Elba isn't technically the protagonist. There's a suspect that he ends up teaming up with who doesn't have anything like Elba's charisma, but who we seem to be expected to empathise with for some unclear reason.
The Take is a mediocre action film, but you could definitely do worse.
C-
Review of Okja (2017)
Best thing: The relationship between the little girl and her genetically engineered super-pig is very emotionally powerful.
Worst thing: While it's clear from the extreme swearing that this isn't a children's film, I thought the (*trigger warning dammit!*) savage animal-on-animal rape was going too far. The darker elements and wackier elements don't blend as well as they normally do in Joon-Ho Bong films. However, nowhere is this clash more jarring than in Jake Gyllenhaal's character, a foul-mouthed washed-up children's television personality. His squeaky voice irritated the hell out of me. Gyllenhaal's character here is unbelievable, unbearable and I found him a bit confusing really.
I've always loved Joon-Ho Bong as a director, particularly for his skill in matching clashing tones of humour and dark themes.
In "The Host" he balanced the theme of a savage monster and a viral outbreak against a comic relief family where each family member had their own unique quirks (and yet each has their own emotional moments too).
In Snowpiercer, Tilda Swinton is involved in oppressing and ordering the slaughter of the rear passengers of the train, but in many scenes she's almost child-like. She has a look of innocent joy on her face as she enjoys a piece of on-train propaganda with a class of schoolchildren.
In Okja, Joon-Ho Bong once again combines dark themes with wacky comedy, but these elements do not seem to blend very well.
The opening scene of Okja, telling us about the creepy company run by Tilda Swinton's character, was irritating as hell. It's a big piece of marketing but I can't really imagine anyone getting very excited about it.
It's also hard to understand why it is presented the way it is. Does the audience within the film not understand that the Super-Pigs the corporation is rearing must be genetically engineered? The presentation insists it is not genetically modified and I'm left wondering why the audience are dumb enough to believe it.
And when Tilda Swinton says, "They need to taste f**king good," the use of swearing seems unnecessary, jarring and completely unsuitable for the context. This continues to be the case as the film goes on. Okja often feels like a film for children and the sequences with the little girl protagonist and her cute Super-Pig friend fit that tone and are the parts of the film that works best.
Okja is a big disappointment but it is also a very interesting film. I guess not all of Joon-Ho Bong's films can be perfect. Still there's so much unmet potential due to the way the clash between dark themes and humour falls uncharacteristically flat for Joon-Ho Bong this time.
D+
Best thing: Father and son talking about the autopsy process (which makes up most of first half) is quite interesting, with great on screen chemistry between the two actors.
Worst thing: The entire second half turns into a cheesy jump scare fest. While this isn't technically a ghost story it still has that old ridiculous ghost movie trope: Being dead gives you superpowers!
I absolutely loved “Troll Hunter” so, despite all indications being that “The Autopsy of Jane Doe” would not be the sort of film I'd enjoy, I found myself excited anyway. For me this wasn't going to be a film about a 'haunted' autopsy room. This was the latest film from André Øvredal and anything could happen...
The first half set up a lot of clues and I was really excited to see how the mystery would be resolved. With the father emphasising the need to be scientific and methodical, I wondered how they'd handle this seemingly supernatural phenomena.
Sadly, when answers come in the third act, it turns out that there wasn't really much mystery to unfold. The dead body is supernatural. Why does the body have damage inside while being unblemished on the outside (the mystery set up right at the beginning)? Well, not to be too specific, the answer is basically magic.
The turning point in the film at the mid point involves all the lights in the autopsy room shattering. I hate when there aren't proper rules for a supernatural entity. If the 'ghost' can make the lights smash with no explanation, it potentially could pretty much do anything and that means that it could kill off the protagonists whenever it wants. (Yes, I know it's NOT a ghost, but these are clear ghost story tropes).
I'll note that in Evil Dead 2, the deadites can do whatever they want because they are clearly toying with the protagonist.
It's actually ridiculous how lazy the film becomes in the second half. All the typical creepy noises are put into effect, we get that typical generic horror movie score and we have quick cuts so that we aren't sure exactly what is attacking our protagonists. The film goes from being an interesting introduction to a father and son working in a morgue, to a boring ten-a-penny straight off the assembly line, disposable horror flick. What a disappointment!
E
Review of The Girl On The Train (2016)
Best thing: Emily Blunt is excellent in the lead role and keeps you on her side in spite of some quite shameless behaviour from her at times. The central premise of the film is that she is essentially stalking a couple, albeit from her train window, but Blunt’s performance somehow pulled me into that story.
Worst thing: The mystery unfolds pretty slowly and it's not always clear why we should care. 'The girl I'm stalking is cheating on her boyfriend. That's terrible.' Yeah, okay psycho. In the movie "Julia", Tilda Swinton similarly played an alcoholic anti-hero, but she had a much more interesting story to go with her performance.
Watching this film I struggled to see why it had received such a lacklustre response, but as the story unfolded the issue became rather clearer.
The Girl On The Train is well directed, it's well acted and the way it gradually unfolds is mysterious. Nevertheless, it's actually a pretty dull story.
Serious credit should be given to the filmmaker who milks every dramatic and tense moment. Unfortunately it's not enough to make up for the content. I'm inclined to blame it on the book. I think its possible that this novel simply isn't suited to the screen.
I think comparisons to Gone Girl are reasonable. It's a slowly unfolding dark story about relationships. But while Gone Girl had an intense and unexpected final act. The third act of The Girl On The Train does not really feature much of a payoff and the 'twist' isn't that much of a revelation.
Also, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I found the focus on the desire to have children didn't ring true to me. All three central women in the film seem fixated on their attitude towards having children. Sure, it's possible, but at some points that fixation seems to be expected to be a source of tension in the film. I guess if you are adapting this story, you get your dramatic tension wherever you can.
The Girl On The Train is well structured and perfectly adequate film. The story didn't really interest me that much, but I can't say I had a bad time watching it. I probably wouldn't ever watch this again but, for what it is, I'd say it was good. Not great, just good.
Watch for Emily Blunt, but don't expect much payoff at the end of the story. It all wraps up very neatly but the revelations won't blow you away.
B-
Review of Beasts Of No Nation (2015)
Best thing: Naturally Idris Elba is the best thing, but what I especially liked about his performance is the way he often comes across like a father to the child soldiers. This made clear why our protagonist would want to join this group and would actually become a loyal child soldier committed to the cause.
Worst thing: Beasts of No Nation is way too long. There are a lot of lingering moments that dwell on the misery and frankly it didn't need to dwell so much. I can tell the situation is horrible and what I really needed was an engaging story. I have no problem with long films, so long as the pacing of the story makes it less obvious while you are watching. Here, the extreme length was painfully obvious.
I think anyone could have guessed that this would be a well-shot film with great performances (particularly from Idris but also from the child actors), but that it would also be miserable and ponderously slow-paced.
Well done. You were right. Now give this movie a miss and watch Johnny Mad Dog instead....
C-
Review of Rings (2017)
Note: Not to be confused with the 2005 promotional short film released just before the American “The Ring Two”.
Best thing: Doesn't the 'ring' of people watching the tape and passing it on, parallel the typical cycle of life and death? Might someone try to defend against being shown Sadako's killer visions by blinding themselves? In such a maligned film it was a surprise to see these subtle new ideas raised, even if they aren't actually explored properly in the end.
Worst thing: The ending of a movie matters a lot. While you can accept some common themes across a movie series, sequels need to either start with something new or build to something new. Rings essentially builds to: “We're rebooting the movie series guys!” Promising a follow-up that most likely won’t be coming any time soon. If you saw the trailer, you know how this movie ends. You won't understand why unless you watch because, heck, how could THAT be the final reveal? - The ending is really THAT disappointing.
I'd heard bad things about this film, but in a movie series where I have now seen nearly every single entry, including the Sadako 3D movies, it's easier to be a bit more forgiving.
Basically, Rings becomes less interesting the more it progresses. It starts with a professor experimenting with his own students' lives to study the connection between the effect of the video clip (not a video tape any more).
Quite early on we get a full on reveal of Samara with a really cool version of the Samara-attack effects with water flooding out of a television screen.
Eventually we are promised a real change in this series. The video clip belonging to the female protagonist has corrupted. The file can't be copied and it has extra visions included in it.
Sadly what follows is basically a redo of the original The Ring, only with the payoff where Sadako shows just how horrifying she is having already been done (which perhaps made it inevitable that the ending would disappoint).
It perhaps shouldn't be surprising to hear that a review of a sequel may involve discussion of plot details from the first film in the series. But, in any case, SPOILER WARNING FOR "THE RING"....
The extra visions in the new distorted video give a whole new line of enquiry for a mystery to unfold. While there are differences between the Japanese and American versions of the first film, the basic structure is pretty much identical. So we can see that what then unfolds follows that structure quite closely.
The visions provide different clues. The protagonists follow those clues to uncover the story of Samara (or Sadako in Japan). Samara seems to have been mistreated and the protagonists try to find a way to resolve that for her. And here is where the real spoiler comes in: Samara doesn't care about having her issues resolved. She is projecting her hatred from the well where she was trapped and all she wants is for you to die. If you can pass the curse onto someone else that's fine, but failing that, Samara has no reason or mercy.
The mystery unfolded more clearly here than in the American version of "The Ring". The clues are a bit more specific. In "The Ring" there's a vision of a ladder because there was a long ladder up to the place where Samara slept. A horse becomes very distressed possibly in connection with large numbers of horses living near where she lives. In "Rings" pretty much every vision seems to be a necessary clue.
The attempt to resolve issues for Samara in "Rings" is actually pretty solid, but it's not terribly exciting in the way it is portrayed. I actually wonder whether this isn't the part of the film cut and/or re-shot. In the trailer, Vincent D'Onofrio helps to explain the mark that Samara leaves on the female protagonist's arm, suggesting that he might have indicated where the filmmakers were planning to take the series next. I suspect the problem is that nobody wants to try to use the follow up novels to the original source material. I've seen Spiral (Rasen) and, however well it works as a novel, it just came off as ridiculous nonsense.
It's from the Spiral storyline, however, that all the sequels (barring perhaps Sadako 3D) take their theme of Sadako/Samara attempting to be reborn. It's just that the novels wanted to characterise this as Sadako transferring her genetic code and somehow becoming a fully grown adult super quick so she can seduce someone. (It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I think Sadako was also trying to have an evil baby.)
In any case, if there were any daring forays into the more wacky elements from this source material, then it must have all been rejected since the final result is a very humdrum ending that feels more like a tease for a further sequel that is unlikely to ever be released.
But in spite of all the negative feedback I think this had potential and I actually preferred it to the first American remake that has always struck me as a dull jump scare fest.
(I am never going to stop harping on about this because it is my go-to example of 'dumbest jump scare ever' but The Ring features the 'milipede in an envelope' jump scare. Whenever you write a review saying that the American version of Ring is better than the original, an angel loses its wings. Stop doing it, okay!)
D+
Review of The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
Best thing: It's great going back to films like Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There, where the humour originally felt out of place. Now that I can see that all Coen Brothers movies are black comedies, this dark nihilistic tragedy is hilarious. My favourite bit? Probably: "We're not late. We're-on-time Ed!"
Worst thing: This isn't necessarily a big problem, but I've never really understood the significance of the UFO towards the end.Just a wonderful black comedy (and nobody does black comedy like the Coens). Billy Bob Thornton knocks it out of the park as a quiet empty man whose attempts to make something of his life cause all hell to break loose.
Like with the Coen Brothers' later film "A Serious Man", there's a sense that the world is absurd and unfair. Yet while the protagonist of "A Serious Man" was distressed by the way his life is out of control, Billy Bob Thornton remains cold and stoic no matter what is thrown at him.
I suppose Billy Bob Thornton is expressing the same cold stoicism of a noir movie detective, only as someone who already knows the case better than anyone else rather than as someone trying to solve the case.
Definitely one of my many favourites in the Coen Brothers' filmography.
A+
Review of Blow Out (1981)
Best thing: The way the film returns again and again to its main set of clues: the recording made by our sound technician protagonist, played by John Travolta. It's very stylish and creative, the way the film explores that aspect.
Worst thing: The scene where they show Travolta working with recording apparatus for undercover police, the setup felt unconvincing to me. If someone is working undercover, running in to meet then is going to be the worst thing you can do. If you blow their cover, the criminals may well kill the both of you.
Such a fantastic thriller and definitely a major highlight in John Travolta's career.
Blow out has a neat premise. A sound technician recording sounds for a horror movie goes out late at night to record sound effects to use on the film. While still recording, he sees a car accident where a car goes off the road and into the water. After saving a woman from the wreckage, he is asked not to talk to the press, but when the incident makes the news anyway, Travolta's character realises something is very wrong.
The theme of the film seems to be that the powerful step on the weak. This is a story about exploitation and corruption. Which makes it all the more annoying when the film seems to try to excuse the conspirators.
We're told that the conspirators are somehow shocked by what is happening as much as we are, which seems inconsistent to me. Perhaps it's a realistic inconsistency for powerful men to want terrible things but don't want to hear about the blood on their hands, but nevertheless the film seemed to be trying to let the conspirators off the hook and that's an annoying compromise in an otherwise uncompromisingly dark thriller.
The downer ending is powerful and i absolutely love it, even if it's a bit of a drag. This is a film that has always stuck with me and it was a real pleasure to revisit.
A+
Review of Before I Go To Sleep (2014)
Best thing: Colin Firth is always great and the way he seems both a little sinister and yet also utterly charming and harmless at the same time works really well. Mark Strong has a similar ambiguity in his performance.
Worst thing: Not everything makes sense by the end. Whether you enjoy the film or not, it must be admitted that the plot is a little preposterous.
I guess 14 years was enough time to justify a new take on the amnesiac condition explored in Nolan's "Memento". A woman wakes up to be told that she cannot make new memories and that she is married. She then gets a call from a doctor, of whom her husband is unaware, who reveals that she has a camera with a series of self-dictated videos stored on it.
As the story unfolds the question is, which of these men can she trust? She doesn't remember the doctor, but she doesn't remember the husband either. It's actually quite difficult to fully be convinced by this set up.
If she was married before the attack surely she should remember her husband. If she couldn't make new memories when she was married, wouldn't she be too vulnerable for a commitment like that? After all, by the day of the wedding she wouldn't remember any of their wedding plans.
Actually we do have an explanation for this but, like I say, the film doesn't do a great job convincing the audience with its dialogue. What really helps pull the audience in is the awesome performances. Colin Firth in particular, absolutely knocks it out of the park.
Overall this is pretty straightforward solid drama. I had a lot of fun. And the performances definitely elevate the material.
B+
Review of Judgment Night (1993)
Best thing: The extent to which the protagonists seem trapped in a crime-ridden underworld is almost surreal at times. At one point they are on a late night bus route and the bus absolutely refuses to stop for them. It's like they are locked out of the world they come from and trapped in a nightmarish lower class world of dark streets, abandoned buildings, council flats and street gangs. Michael Leary seems less like a gang leader and more like a monster that preys on the weak.
Worst thing: The decision to try to sell us on Emilio Estevez as some kind of badass.
A kind of horror film that practically turns into urban fantasy. A group of friends find themselves in the wrong part of town and help a man they believe they hit with they hit with the car. When it turns out that he is running away from some creepy figures from some kind of powerful organised crime gang things start to get seriously hairy for our band of unfortunate bystanders.
The protagonists find themselves seemingly trapped in the dingy under-belly of the city and when their lives are on the line it tests their friendships and their personal integrity.
Much better first half than second half, but the main two figures of the gang are seriously creepy. Overall I found this to be fun, but I remembered it being better.
B-
Review of Blood Simple (1984)
Best thing: M. Emmet Walsh as the cynical tactless private eye is really great and must be my favourite character here.
Worst thing: While wonderfully put together, this lacks the humour of later Coen Brothers. It's a little irritating that I can see how the misunderstandings between the characters COULD have been played for comedy, whereas here I'm just frustratedly shouting at the characters to, please, communicate with one another.
Blood Simple is an odd duck in the Coen Brothers filmography. There are plenty of films in their filmography where the comedy is harder to recognise. After all, even in their dark-as-hell Oscar winner No Country For Old Men there are still some comedy moments such as when a potential victim is simply confused while the villain explains that he is deciding his fate in a coin toss. But in no Coen Brothers film is the comedy so difficult to recognise as in Blood Simple.
There's almost a farcical aspect in the way some characters make assumptions about the other characters' intentions. But the film never plays this for laughs. It seems more like this aspect is supposed to be creepy. Almost like we are being encouraged to second guess even elements that have been clearly spelled out. The Coen Brothers always love playing with their audience's perception and they would only get better at this.
Frankly "Blood Simple" is an interesting debut, but it's not as much of a must-watch as most Coen Brothers movies. It's a bit slow and arguably a bit dull. But it's also very well put together with some great performances. It's jusy unusual to have a Coen Brothers film that is solid rather than brilliant.
B-
Review of Ghost In The Shell (2017)
Best thing: While pointing to the gorgeous visuals might seem like a bad sign, I could easily point to Scarlett Johansson's performance or even how badass Takeshi Kitano is as Daisuke Aramaki. But yes, the way the director brings these scenes from the original movie to life is absolutely wonderful. This film works as both a prequel and an homage, which might make it difficult of they were deciding what original visuals to put into a sequel (so I guess it's a relief to the filmmakers that, from what I hear, they won't have to make that decision). Even some new visuals, like Major sending her consciousness into a hacked mind for clues, are really impressive.
Worst thing: The central mystery isn't really all that complex, particularly by comparison to the slow build of the movies. (Then again Ghost In The Shell movies and tv series have that anime tendency of making everything confusing almost for the sake of it. Perhaps a version that's easy to follow isn't such a bad thing.) Part of me feels this should be more complex.
More of an homage to Ghost In The Shell than either an adaptation or a separate story in its own right. Still, as an homage it's really not bad.
It's not as smart as it could be, but I'd question whether the original Ghost In The Shell movies are really as smart as they like to think they are anyway.
Scarlett Johansson is actually a pretty great fit for what has always been quite a cold character and I really feel I was misled by claims that her expressions were “robotic” in this movie.
And yeah, Major's robot body has arguably always been white. In a film with a far wider range of races than the original Japanese cartoons ever had, I think criticising this American homage for whitewashing is more than a little daft. (If they just set it in America with all white actors, like they did with "The Ring", are we saying that would have been better?)
Compelling visuals that pull you into a living breathing portrayal of the world from Mamoru Oshii's anime films. A solid central performance from Scarlett Johansson. Some neat links between this and the original movie make this a cool little prequel to the beloved classic, even while it brings memorable moments from that same film to life.
B+
Review of Commando (1985)
Best thing: When I first saw this, Arnie had just become Governor and I think I had Arnie fatigue. It's difficult to say what it was about this viewing that made me so much more engaged. I think the best thing is always Arnie's charisma and comic timing. Arnie clearly has so much fun with this role and that joy is not infectious.
Worst thing: Dan Hedaya pretending to be the dethroned dictator of a non-existent country is kind of painful.
Arnold Schwarzenegger never could have achieved his incredible film career simply by being big. Apart from in Hercules In New York and possibly Conan the Barbarian, Arnie has always had a great charm and sense of humour.
Apart from a line towards the beginning of the film where Arnie seems to be saying, "Perhaps the Stasi were right about pop music," which I found a little awkward, Arnie otherwise remains a likeable ex-soldier with unparalleled skills in pretty much everything other than remaining inconspicuous.
Actually he also turns out not to be able to fly a plane so what luck that he happens to meet a trainee pilot, who oddly seems to decide to stick with him on his mission before either.realise how vital she will be.
Sure, when Arnie growls, "I lied," at one of the villains, it's one of the many points in the film where things get a little unintentionally comical (though there's a tongue-in-cheek feel to the whole film). But Arnie's charm is such as to make those moments not only enjoyable, but actually highlights of the film.
I must have completely lost interest when this was playing in the living room that one time and I have no idea why. I think this may actually be one of Schwarzenegger's best films.
A+
Review of Death Note (2017)
Best thing: While the obvious choice would be Willem Dafoe going full Green Goblin as the death god Riuk, my favourite aspect would be Lakeith Stanfield as the mysterious L. He captured the bizarre intelligent awkwardness of the character very well.
Worst thing: Not sure why L has special glowing sci-fi sleep glasses. Is that in the manga?
You know how it is. You wait with baited breath for the latest film from one of your favourite directors. After so many disappointments from cherished directors (including, say, Joon-Ho Bong's ridiculous "Okja" movie already appearing on Netflix), you are a little apprehensive.
But then you find, against all expectations, the film is fast-paced, fun, visually dynamic, and a very satisfying experience in general. Perhaps not the very best thing the director has ever done, but a strong entry nonetheless.
Then you read the reviews and it turns out everyone hates it.
I'd seen the first two Japanese live action films. The first didn't finish and the second became convoluted. Frankly it was a bit of a slog. I must admit that I preferred the more sweet and cartoonish appearance of Riuk the death god in the Japanese movies. Willem Dafoe unsurprisingly plays a demon by reprising his Green Goblin performance from Spider-Man, but one creepy aspect of Riuk is how he acts like a friend. However, I think the actor playing L in this new version completely nails it. (Following on from his great performance in a supporting role in Get Out.)
I've heard some purists arguing that the protagonist anti-hero Light is not enough of a megalomaniac in this version. Frankly he is, he just does a better job of lying to himself about it. This is dealt with in more depth by placing our protagonist in opposition to another character similarly keen to play god right from the start, leading to quite a cool little power play between them.
I personally feel that Adam Wingard has managed to create a deeper live action adaptation than the Japanese managed, even while ramping up the pacing.
Awesome!
A+
Review of Wonder Woman (2017)
Best thing: Wonder Woman crossing no man's land. It's a spectacular action sequence.
Worst thing: I don't even begin to understand Wonder Woman's personality. She loves fighting but hates war. She knows that mustard gas is normally sulfur based, but doesn't understand the idea of a war having 'fronts'. She can produce a powerful blast by throwing her wrists together but doesn't use this technique very often. Why?
Is this actually any better than Man of Steel? In that movie Superman was written to seem remarkably bland (particularly considering how much character Henry Cavill had in The Man From UNCLE) and similarly Wonder Woman here seems incredibly bland.
Chris Pine is alright as the male love interest, not least because he seems to have been given an actual plot. Wonder Woman spends most of the film hunting for a villain who might not even exist and, once that side of that story unfolds, she doesn't end up having to work out anything for herself. Everything is spelled out for her and the stakes in her final action sequence and completely unclear.
The only point where I really felt we could cheer for Wonder Woman is where she crosses No Man's Land. For someone who says the whole conflict is unnecessary and solely due to the interference of a god of war, she seems remarkably happy to fight Germans. Still, we can at least recognise that to cut the gordian knot she needs to cause some real damage. No one ia going to be able to cross No Man's Land while the opposing force are still defending their trenches.
So when Wonder Woman is shielding herself from machine gun bullets with her shield and knocking down armoured vehicles with her bare hands it's admittedly pretty cool. Then again, I'm not sure why she doesn't just use her special move where she causes an explosive blast by putting her bracelets together. It looks like enough to knock down an German aircraft if necessary. If she just kept using that, it doesn't look like she'd need much else.
Wonder Woman isn't one of the worst superhero movies, but I'm not accepting the suggestion that it is one of the best. Mediocre and bland. Pretty to look at but with nothing terribly gripping actually happening. If you thought Man of Steel was bad (as I did), I’m not quite sure why you’d find this to be preferable...
D+
Review of Spider-Man Homecoming (2017)
Best thing: Spider-Man interrogating Donald Glover (an actor/comedian who had a whole sketch around enthusiasm on the Internet for him to take the Spider-Man role). Loved it!
Worst thing: So is Spider-Man completely invulnerable now? For all his superpowers, I'd always thought that Spider-Man would be genuinely at risk if his spider-sense didn't help him avoid most attacks. I thought stopping a train with his body in the second Raimi film was going a bit far and there's a similar test of Spider-Man's strength here, but one scene really seems to go too far. I won't spoil how this film pushes Spider-Man's powers beyond the limit, but Spider-Man has a big fight scene straight afterwards and doesn't seem to struggle with any injuries while fighting.
Any review of this novie inevitably has to make reference to the previous attempts at Spider-Man movies. The old tv movie that kick-started the live action tv series didn't really have the same character as the comics, but it did get us excited about a guy who climbs up walls in a cool costume.
I have never understood the praise given to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies. I liked aspects of them. Some of the slapstick style Raimi brings to it works very well, but Tobey Maguire's awkward super-nerd take on the character felt way too on the nose. While the action became more kinetic and there was some decent humour at points in Raimi's Spider-Man 2, but some of the sickly sentimentality became worse than ever. When Peter Parker starts randomly quoting poetry to the girl he dumped who has already happily moved on, it was just so painful.
But enough of me bitching about Raimi's films. His vision of Spider-Man for the big screen had a strong influence on the way we understand Spider-Man but, as a reader of Spider-Man comics during the 90s, I found Mark Webb's Amazing Spider-Man movies were much closer to the comics and much better at pulling on the heart strings. The greatest strength of Webb's Spider-Man movies would have to be the way it portrays the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey. But Webb seemed to be struggling to provide the best product in spite of controlling producers and problems with the writing and I feel that what killed off this series more than anything else may have been the decision to rush into the death of Gwen Stacey. Emma Stone was one of the strongest elements of these films and I can't help but feel that when they were deciding what to do next with the series, the loss of Emma Stone cannot have helped.
So now we have the introduction of Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It definitely can't be accused of being a repeat of what has been done before. Finally Spider-Man has a sense of humour. Tom Holland definitely takes a lot of cues from Andrew Garfield's performance, only he has lots of jokes in the script.
While I think giving Spider-Man a computerised suit is an odd choice, Marvel have pulled their usual trick of making their film very funny, highly entertaining and they've bunged the tried and tested favourite, Iron Man, into the mix to keep the punters happy. But there's no doubt that Tom Holland is the star here and he gives one hell of a performance.
A+
Review of Freejack (1992)
Best thing: The future world with its satirical elements is a lot of fun.
Worst thing: The attempt at a twist at the end was a bit lame.
Freejack is a sci-fi movie that looks a bit cheap and the villains are a bit too cartoonish. In spite of this I found this to be a highly entertaining and surprisingly compelling dystopian sci-fi action film.
The filmmakers don't seem sure on how to end the film, but they definitely know how to make it a fun ride.
B+
Review of The Take (aka Bastille Day) (2016)
Best thing: Even I could tell that Idris Elba's American accent didn't work here (and I was completely convinced that he was American in The Wire). But, despite this, Idris Elba is still a really strong screen presence and a strong central focus for the action and story.
Worst thing: The scenes where Paris is overtaken by rioting show a masked ringleader consistently encouraging the violence. These scenes didn't work for me, partly because they are presented in a way that I found contrived, but also because we saw in the London riots how the violence took on a life of its own. Expecting that rioters are going to follow one lead figure and be united in their spontaneous reactionary violence seemed to expect a high level of suspension of disbelief. Particularly since the filmmakers wanted me to take this seriously.
Idris Elba is great and there are some action moments that work really well. Nevertheless overall this film is just way too dumb.
I don't want to be overly harsh. I didn't have a terrible time. But there is no way I would ever recommend this film.
Idris Elba isn't technically the protagonist. There's a suspect that he ends up teaming up with who doesn't have anything like Elba's charisma, but who we seem to be expected to empathise with for some unclear reason.
The Take is a mediocre action film, but you could definitely do worse.
C-
Review of Okja (2017)
Best thing: The relationship between the little girl and her genetically engineered super-pig is very emotionally powerful.
Worst thing: While it's clear from the extreme swearing that this isn't a children's film, I thought the (*trigger warning dammit!*) savage animal-on-animal rape was going too far. The darker elements and wackier elements don't blend as well as they normally do in Joon-Ho Bong films. However, nowhere is this clash more jarring than in Jake Gyllenhaal's character, a foul-mouthed washed-up children's television personality. His squeaky voice irritated the hell out of me. Gyllenhaal's character here is unbelievable, unbearable and I found him a bit confusing really.
I've always loved Joon-Ho Bong as a director, particularly for his skill in matching clashing tones of humour and dark themes.
In "The Host" he balanced the theme of a savage monster and a viral outbreak against a comic relief family where each family member had their own unique quirks (and yet each has their own emotional moments too).
In Snowpiercer, Tilda Swinton is involved in oppressing and ordering the slaughter of the rear passengers of the train, but in many scenes she's almost child-like. She has a look of innocent joy on her face as she enjoys a piece of on-train propaganda with a class of schoolchildren.
In Okja, Joon-Ho Bong once again combines dark themes with wacky comedy, but these elements do not seem to blend very well.
The opening scene of Okja, telling us about the creepy company run by Tilda Swinton's character, was irritating as hell. It's a big piece of marketing but I can't really imagine anyone getting very excited about it.
It's also hard to understand why it is presented the way it is. Does the audience within the film not understand that the Super-Pigs the corporation is rearing must be genetically engineered? The presentation insists it is not genetically modified and I'm left wondering why the audience are dumb enough to believe it.
And when Tilda Swinton says, "They need to taste f**king good," the use of swearing seems unnecessary, jarring and completely unsuitable for the context. This continues to be the case as the film goes on. Okja often feels like a film for children and the sequences with the little girl protagonist and her cute Super-Pig friend fit that tone and are the parts of the film that works best.
Okja is a big disappointment but it is also a very interesting film. I guess not all of Joon-Ho Bong's films can be perfect. Still there's so much unmet potential due to the way the clash between dark themes and humour falls uncharacteristically flat for Joon-Ho Bong this time.
D+