joshteggert Reviews

The Rhythm Section (2020)

'The Rhythm Section' ultimately fails to find its own rhythm in amongst all the chaos and confusion.

[3/10 · 12 February 2020]

Revenge stories are the archetypal foundation of the over-saturated "celebrity-with-a-gun-and-a-mission" brand of cinema. 'The Rhythm Section', which features Mark Burnell who wrote the book this film is based on as its screenwriter, sees Blake Lively as the distraught and downtrodden Stephanie Patrick, seeking vengeance for the death of her family in an airline crash which isn't what it seems. Director Reed Morano tries to convince us that this film is something more, something deeper than just the typical personal journey towards retribution. Yet 'The Rhythm Section' ultimately fails to find its own rhythm in amongst all the chaos and confusion.

The film's first act is slow but grounded, laying the foundations of the story adequately enough to propel the narrative forward. We open with Stephanie, who has resorted to drugs and prostitution in the years succeeding the crash. But after a journalist comes to her with information suggesting it wasn't an accident, she seeks the help of a man known only as B (Jude Law) to exact revenge on those responsible for her family's death.

Lively does a sound job of portraying this tortured soul but isn't allocated half as much time as necessary to really get to know the character. Superficiality and convenience take precedence instead; Stephanie's backstory is reduced to a series of what seem to be phone-camera montages of her late family, plonked carelessly into the narrative as flashbacks. To make matters more artificial, she manages to transform from a heroin addict into a trained - if heavily flawed - assassin in just 8 months, which demands significant suspense of disbelief (and not in the fun way that the 'John Wick' franchise requires with all its brilliant, hyperbolised killing-sprees).

'The Rhythm Section' also lacks any sort of style or finesse. Admittedly, it's well shot - there is a stimulating car chase scene executed in one take - but for a revenge film such as this to be so brief with its action, it must make up for in character development and flair. Morano can't quite tune the film with enough precision to elevate a derivative and predictable plot structure and doesn't deliver on the hinted psychological impacts this lifestyle might have on someone who is clearly hanging on by a thread.

The film, therefore, is as muddled and out of its depth as its central character - a serious story which is difficult to take seriously. Despite the author of the book penning the screenplay, 'The Rhythm Section' is a protracted ride which plods awkwardly towards an obvious conclusion, rarely swaying from the confounds of its self-imposed cliché-fest.

The Lighthouse (I) (2019)

Eggers' latest is immersive, transfixing and enchanting from the offset, a must-see film of this year for its sheer quirkiness, beguiling setting, and outstanding leads.

[10/10 · 4 February 2020]

Robert Eggers is a relatively new face on the film scene, known for his divisive if utterly enthralling first directional feature, the supernatural period horror 'The Witch'. The release of his second film, 'The Lighthouse', solidifies Eggers' prominence as a contemporary pioneer of the modern horror genre, a film that blends its technical intricacies remarkably to create a tantalising viewing experience which progressively consumes itself and the viewer in a dark and haunting uncovering of the human condition.

'The Lighthouse' is set in the late 19th century and follows two lighthouse keepers on a remote island who start to lose their sanity when a storm leaves them stranded. Shot in 35mm black and white film with a 1.19:1 aspect ratio, the film stars Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson as the two leads, an ingenious coupling with a tremendous end product. 'The Lighthouse' is a uniquely unsettling, thoroughly mesmerising cinema experience, one which manages to not only call into question the sanity of the characters involved but strains the mind of the viewer in precisely the same way.

By far the greatest achievement of Eggers' film is its technical aspects. It's shot in a way that makes it look and feel like it's come straight from the 1910s, the aspect ratio and monochrome palette intending to induce a similar sense of claustrophobia as endured by its characters. Yet the inclusion of Mark Koven's score along with some stunning composition from cinematographer Jarin Blaschke implements a notably modern aesthetic and aura, generating a disconcerting intermingling of old and new, reflecting the conflict between its two leads. A lot of 'The Lighthouse''s resonance stems from the allure of its composition; despite its absence of colour, the exactitude of the cinematography means there is never a dull moment.

As with 'The Witch', the dialogue is fascinating. Penned by Eggers and his brother Max Eggers, the screenplay floats along seamlessly, like a sailor out at sea. Yet at every corner, a new storm erupts as a plateau of fresh and challenging new developments emerge progressively, allowing the dialogue to shift wondrously between tranquillity and electrifying intensity.

The true impact of 'The Lighthouse', however, would be unattainable without the flawless execution of both Dafoe and Pattinson. Given such exquisite material to work with, Dafoe and Pattinson stretch the bounds of their acting abilities to extraordinary lengths. Dafoe is a bewitching consistent, the true on-screen tour de force delivering some of the most hypnotic monologues ever to grace cinema with enrapturing conviction. All the while, Pattinson is an absorbing presence operating as the bridge between characters and audience with his gradual descent into madness. The slow-burning nature of the film is channelled through the equivocality of Pattinson's character; Eggers chooses not to explicitly define the temperament of the pair's insanity until very late on, which makes the more supernatural facets of the film even more spellbinding.

Nerve-wracking to devastating effects, and far from any sort of convention, 'The Lighthouse' is unlike any other film. Robert Eggers' latest is immersive, transfixing and enchanting from the offset, a must-see film of this year for its sheer quirkiness, beguiling setting, and outstanding lead performances.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

The antithesis of everything Star Wars has come to represent; The Rise of Skywalker isn't just thematically misjudged, it's also a bad film.

[3/10 · 19 December 2019]

'Star Wars'. The name itself signifies the very definition of a cross-generational symbol of hope. But recently, sentiments have become more binary; amongst fans, 'Star Wars' films either provoke a tremendous, post-Battle of Endor-esque sense of jubilation or cause an outburst of hatred and dismay comparable to the destruction of Alderaan. To reflect on this final instalment, we must look back to the very beginning of this epic journey.

The original trilogy, initiated by 1977's ground-breaking 'Star Wars: A New Hope', saw an unlikely figure 'rise' to become the galaxy's greatest hero. The triumph of the Light Side. The subsequent prequel trilogy, concluding with 'Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith' in 2005 (creator George Lucas' final film in the franchise), outlined the downfall of a prophesied beau idéal to the temptations of evil. The triumph of the Dark Side. Two binaries, manifested in the iconic Binary Sunset scene in 'A New Hope', but together futile without an ultimate balance.

Enter, the sequel trilogy. The films that were meant to bring definitive balance to the force; to its dedicated fan base still divided over the quality of the films outside of the originals; and balance between all things, regardless of any positive or negative traits. Say what you will about 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi', but it made monumental steps towards fulfilling this notion, emphasising - as 'A New Hope' did all those years ago - that heroes can come from anywhere, and familial accomplishments are irrelevant on the path to becoming a true hero. 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' is not this hero; it is the antithesis of everything 'Star Wars' has come to represent, and what's more, it is also a bad film.

The script is preposterously spasmodic. Written by director J.J. Abrams and Chris Terrio, this is unquestionably Abrams finishing what J.J. started. It's uneven, incoherent with its predecessors - especially with Emperor Palpatine's (Ian McDiarmid) sudden and contrived return - and far too hasty to get off the mark, barely stopping thereafter to catch a breath. There is no balance here, only a monstrosity of a plot based entirely around convenience.

Characters and their subsequent arcs are therefore decimated by the narrative's lack of fine-tuning; The struggle between the Light and the Dark Side within Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) - the personification of this omnipresent moral entanglement - is reduced to superficiality; he's no longer that lost, conflicted young man audiences instantly connected with in 2015's 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. Instead, he's either one or the other. Light or Dark. Binary.

There are some saving graces, however, and not the ones you might have expected. C-3PO is one of the strongest aspects of this film (yes, seriously). The irritating, loquacious, odds-obsessed buzzkill is used to perfection here and receives a surprisingly gratifying redemption for all those times he's been an exasperating dead-weight. Furthermore, 'The Rise of Skywalker' certainly looks spectacular, and it's impossible not to be energised by the resilience of the protagonists, coupled with John Williams' marvellous score. It's moving at times, yet not to the degree we've come to expect.

Thematically, the final instalment of the "Skywalker Saga" shoots for the stars but hits a Palpatine-shaped asteroid just out of orbit. It was never the destiny of 'Star Wars' to continue this Light versus Dark skirmish because good and bad coexist within everyone - a message that this trilogy has done so well of accentuating. 'The Rise of Skywalker' tackles this idea in the most negligent way possible, and never escapes the self-inflicted tractor beam of its misjudged principals.

'The Rise of Skywalker' is a bitter disappointment. But you were the chosen one, Abrams. It was said that you would destroy the haters, not provoke them. Bring balance to the franchise, not leave it in darkness.

There is no balance. Only the inevitable feud that this finale is going to incite online.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

It is Tarantino's slowest film, but in this pacing, an exquisite, immersive setting flourishes in the limelight - a true love letter to the indulgence of late-60s Hollywood.

[9/10 · 16 August 2019]

Some viewers may be unfamiliar with the Tate Murders of 8-9 August 1969. The Manson family cult brutally murdered rising star Sharon Tate (portrayed by a captivating Margot Robbie) at her home, along with her unborn baby and four other adults. The ninth film by Quentin Tarantino, 'Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood', is set to the backdrop of the months leading up to this.

But it is by no means a standard biographical retelling. Instead, Tarantino creates a fictitious Los Angeles story which follows ageing TV actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his long-time stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) as they venture round a Hollywood they barely recognise anymore. Tarantino's ninth is a sublime, character-heavy exposé of celebrity culture and movie industry myths in Hollywood's golden age, which tonally is a radical shift from his previous films.

If you were expecting another Tarantino feature bursting with stylized violence and witty dialogue, though, then you may be disappointed. 'Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood' substitutes the bloodlust and sharp spoken word for a commanding, tense linear narrative which engrosses itself in the development of its central characters and cultural messages. There is still violence, and plenty of excellent one-liners reserved for some outstanding delivery by DiCaprio and Pitt, but this is the work of a truly mature filmmaker who is comfortable in his artistic vision behind the camera - a masterful presence within Hollywood exploring the era which inspired his work. It is Tarantino's slowest film to date, but in this pacing, an exquisite, immersive setting flourishes in the limelight - a true love letter to the indulgent climate of late-1960's Hollywood.

From the start, Rick Dalton is established as a character that audiences can associate with, and viewers are thrown into his world as he comes to realise that he's no longer a relevant presence. Tarantino crafts such a compelling narrative around Dalton's battle with his insecurities that shelving the impending Manson murders feels oddly appropriate. The glamorously meticulous detail in the recreation of late-60s Hollywood makes this film a pure delight to experience; Tarantino's virtuosity here is some of his best.

Many scenes conclude with an overhanging shot, as if to allow the audience a moment to reflect. There's a message or two to be learned here. Tarantino once again uses flashbacks, but frequently they operate to highlight Rick and Cliff's psychology, serving as some of the craftiest scene-cuts in the whole film. Robbie may not have many lines as the alluring up-and-coming actress, but this lets the true thematic element to thrive. One can look into the horrors of the fateful evening 'Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood' is based around, but by focussing on the minds of these fictional characters in a world riven with its own long-term embedded repulsions, Tarantino challenges viewers to form their own interpretations of the wider society it is presenting, and it works magnificently.

He doesn't over-fantasise, nor does he simply recreate the idealised world of Hollywood. Instead, Tarantino gives audiences an exceptionally provocative story which allows for the most elegant escapism this year in film may see.

The Lion King (2019)

Jon Favreau's 'The Lion King' strips the original of all its heart and soul to the point where each and every shot - no matter how aesthetically appealing - feels hollow.

[4/10 · 12 August 2019]

Twenty-five years since Pride Rock first graced the big screen, the timeless story of The Lion King makes a strangely perfunctory return in Jon Favreau's (The Jungle Book, Iron Man) reconceptualization of the 1994 classic. Once again, the narrative follows Simba (Donald Glover/JD McCrary) through his early years under the tuition of his father, King Mufasa (voiced by a welcome return from James Earl Jones), right up to his adult life living in isolation with Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), as he learns to "take his place in the circle of life".

Yet remove the unquestionably stunning visuals from the equation, and what's left is a shameless re-skin of the original masterpiece, executing everything with a bizarre sense of confident mediocrity. It never wavers in its vision to provide constant photo-realistic spectacles, and it is undeniable that The Lion King is an incredible display of masterful CGI filmmaking. However, for a film which is possibly the greatest achievement in visual effects this year, it is rather curiously one of the least satisfying in general.

This new iteration strips the original of all its heart and soul to the point where each and every shot in this remake - no matter how aesthetically appealing - feels hollow. Favreau's version also adds nothing new to The Lion King story besides unnecessary, time-filling exposition, resulting in a dull, oft-times boring viewing experience. Indeed, Hans Zimmer's score is just as spine-tinglingly epic, though he's barely had to change a thing, since The Lion King is more of a shot-for-shot, word-for-word copy than a reimagining. It's therefore easy to feel slightly cheated by the shoddy façade of this visually striking retelling.

Emerging coincidingly is the inescapable truth that 2019's The Lion King proves Disney is in full 'cruise-control' mode with its re-released material, and the magic so commonly associated with animated Disney films is dwindling as a result. What's more, unlike the distinctly 'live-action' format of remakes such as Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin separating them from the original, The Lion King is not 'live-action', yet nor does it feel animated; instead, the blank-faced, high-definition CGI talking animals replace the relatable humanlike expressions of the original. Consequently, the ability to convey emotions from these characters is fundamentally weakened. Coupled with the largely unconvincing voice-acting from this new cast (bar a couple of stellar performances from Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen) and the outcome is a bitter pill to swallow.

Never before has such an expensive nostalgia-instilled blockbuster felt so nauseatingly cheap; what Jon Favreau's The Lion King lacks in heart, emotion and integrity, it attempts to make up for in photo-realism and cinematic spectacle. In this ambition, The Lion King loses its focus on the aspects that made the source material so downright brilliant; the dynamism of the characters, the challenges of morality and duty, and - most importantly for an animated family film - its sheer fun.

This interpretation of The Lion King quite simply isn't as exhilarating, funny, or as headily enjoyable. Thus, the 1994 original masterwork continues to reign supreme. Long live the King.

Yesterday (III) (2019)

This is essentially a 2-hour "what if" gag which progressively wears off on the audience, as Curtis' screenplay never wavers far from the ordinarily known rom-com framework.

[4/10 · 12 August 2019]

Forge Media logo Home Review: Yesterday By Josh Teggert - July 4, 2019

Yesterday, on paper, spells a recipe for delight. It joins two established filmmakers with distinct styles and structures, Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire) and Richard Curtis (Love Actually, Four Weddings and a Funeral), and is set to the revolutionising music of The Beatles. But that's not all; the songs of John, Paul, George and Ringo are rediscovered and explored in a modern setting through Jack Malik (Himesh Patel), who is seemingly the only person to remember The Beatles after a worldwide blackout wipes their existence from the face of the Earth.

Despite its moments of pleasure and emotion evoked by the ever-astonishing music of The Beatles, Yesterday is nothing more than a barebone romantic comedy in keeping with the standard fundamentals of a Richard Curtis flick.

Curtis' structure here is a simple one; after Jack quickly spirals into a life of fame and fortune as a result of him modelling the Liverpudlian band's music as his own, he begins to lose touch with his closest friend Ellie (Lily James), who was Jack's manager through all his years of hardship as a struggling local performer. The pair's displacement raises questions within Jack on what he really wants from life.

There's a strange parallel here between this premise and the flow of the film; Yesterday, much like its young protagonist, loses track of itself towards the middle, loosely entwining side-plots in a haze of emotional exuberance. One sub-plot of particular significance is pushed aside to the point where its barely memorable before suddenly returning, making the overall integrity of the film somewhat shaky. It may be easy for Curtis to have focussed so much on the relationship between the two friends in a 'will-they won't-they' romantic entanglement, but Boyle's often sharp visionary filmmaking skills seem to have taken a back seat here in favour of Curtis' conventional structure, which is a shame.

Thus, Yesterday is very much a 'Long and Winding Road' towards a predictable outcome. What's more, Curtis' general dumbing-down of the overall message of The Beatles further highlights just how plain and normative the narrative is. The Beatles were edgy, experimental and often controversial, but there is nothing new in Yesterday to mirror this legacy.

It's essentially a 2-hour long "what if?" gag, which wears out halfway through the film. But to say Yesterday completely turns the viewer off as it progresses would be unfair. It can be heart-warming and uplifting, especially so when listening to the awe-inspiring repertoire of the Fab Four. Patel and James' on-screen chemistry is undeniable, however it's not enough to save from the fact that Yesterday by no means manages to encapsulate the magic of The Beatles' life and music throughout its course (all this without even mentioning the downright cringeworthy acting - if you can even call it that - from Ed Sheeran. Kudos to him though for being game).

With a bit more attention paid to the quirkiness of the context, Yesterday could have been a mesmerising hit. Instead, Danny Boyle's latest will sadly fizzle out into obscurity when it ought to have been as celebrated as the band members themselves.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)

Simon Kinberg closes Fox's X-Men franchise with one of the least engaging, forgettable and feeble films in the series. An 'uncanny' film, indeed.

[3/10 · 12 August 2019]

X-Men: Dark Phoenix is not only the final instalment of the near-two decade-long superhero franchise, but it is also the second attempt by 20th Century Fox to adapt the classic Dark Phoenix storyline from the comics, last attempted in 2006's calamitous X-Men: The Last Stand. Expectations for this should therefore be rather high, yet it appears that there are very few concerned that the film exists, seemingly the filmmakers too.

The story is set in the 1990s, and follows the now matured X-Men team as they fight their greatest challenge yet: conflict with one of their own. A young and volatile Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) gains extraordinary powers after she is hit by a solar storm on a mission to rescue a crew of stranded astronauts. She becomes increasingly frustrated at Charles Xavier (James McAvoy)'s efforts to keep her "safe", while a mysterious threat in the form of Vuk (Jessica Chastain) threatens to unhinge Jean's powers and release a terrible wrath upon the world.

What should feel like a cinematic milestone for the X-Men franchise is rather just another flimsy adaption of the epic Dark Phoenix saga. Admittedly the opening 20 minutes-to-half an hour are brilliant; it is a delight to see the X-Men - in this instance led by Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) - acting as a fully-fledged unit like the original films of the 2000s. Yet beyond the first act, it is hard to invest oneself in the narrative when it becomes apparent that no-one is really interested enough to develop most of the main characters' arcs for audiences.

This is because too much happens off-screen, especially so in between this film and X-Men: Apocalypse (the previous instalment set in the 1980s). Resultantly, viewers are simply expected to accept the misguided direction of Dark Phoenix at face value, a mistake no film should ever allow itself to make. To paraphrase Yoda, lazy writing leads to poor acting, poor acting leads to uncomfortable viewing, and uncomfortable viewing... leads to suffering. Okay certain liberties were taken with that passage, but dwell on the past, we will not.

However, one can't help but think that Dark Phoenix should have considered its past a little more here. Audiences are very familiar with these characters, and after the incredible heights reached with 2014's Days of Future Past, it's bizarre that this final instalment in Fox's X-Men saga feels so personally inconsequential to everyone involved. Nevertheless, director Simon Kinberg hasn't been dealt the best of hands with this film. Dark Phoenix is essentially the 'lame duck' of the franchise; already bought by Disney, Fox simply doesn't care what happens with this project. The characters will be rebooted regardless, profits aren't important for the sold-out company, so there's little incentive for producers to make this the last blast it ought to have been. For a $200 million budget though, it's still reasonable to say fans expected a LOT more.

Another franchise succumbs to the 'Mouse House' and once again audiences can only hope they end up doing a better job than Fox generally have over the years. Dark Phoenix concludes the X-Men franchise disappointingly, but it's difficult to imagine many people are bothered that the series is over at this stage.

Hellboy (2019)

There's a special place reserved in hell for this demonic abomination of a reboot.

[2/10 · 12 August 2019]

In the 11 years that have passed since Hellboy II: The Golden Army, a lot has changed in the world of comic book films. Superhero powerhouse Marvel Studios have released 21 films from its extensive repertoire, with the biggest and most ambitious comic book movie to date - Avengers: Endgame - just around the corner. Likewise, there's a far greater platform for more 'adult' superhero films too (e.g. Deadpool and Logan). But being 'more adult' does not necessarily mean 'more mature', as this reboot - now boasting a 15 rating for strong violence, gore and language - is a categorically dumbfounding monstrosity.

Hellboy tells the tale of the titular Cambion, this time portrayed by David Harbour (Stranger Things), who works for the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defence (B.P.R.D) under the guidance of Ian McShane (American Gods) as his adopted father Trevor Bruttenholm. Hellboy is needed more than ever when 5th century enchantress Nimue, The Fifth Element's Milla Jovovich, returns from the grave seeking to exact her revenge upon the world.

There is precious little to praise about Hellboy; Harbour takes the mantle (or the horns, one may say) from the legendary Ron Perlman rather pleasingly, bringing a natural charm to the role that many had anticipated he would.

But yeah, that's essentially it. What goes on around him is an unbearable concoction of exaggerated gore, lacklustre CGI, abysmal dialogue and clumsy narrative focus which culminates to form a truly agonising movie experience. Director Neil Marshall takes all the unfavourable and overstated characteristics of modern blockbusters and heaps them into this two-hour mess, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the audience until it has produced a monster reminiscent of Hellboy himself. The astonishing and downright cringeworthy overuse of the F-bomb in Andrew Cosby's screenplay further makes the film more uncomfortable to sit through (seriously, there are likely more in this than in two whole seasons of Game of Thrones).

Yet Mike Mignola, the creator of the original Hellboy comic series, commented that this film translates his original material more faithfully than previous instalments. This may be true in the sense that, like a typical comic book series, the film is driven by several side-plot missions with the overarching narrative of Jovovich's Blood Queen tying it all together. But this just doesn't work for the big screen. Instead what is produced is a clunky structure which gets increasingly frustrating over time; it's near impossible to get a hold of what's going on in Hellboy before something else comes to the immediate forefront.

The reliance on CGI takes a heavy toll too. It's been demonstrated that Hellboy can feel authentic in Guillermo del Toro's two frightening yet alluring films back in the 2000s; his filmmaking style seemed the perfect fit for these characters, but losing that natural wonder in favour of this horrid new fabrication leaves an even more bitter taste on the tongue than the film alone. It's a painful viewing experience, not only because it's a dreadful film, but because as you leave the cinema, the heart-breaking reality sets in that del Toro's vision for a Hellboy trilogy will never be realised.

There's a special place reserved in hell for this demonic abomination of a reboot. For a summer that is packed with popcorn spectacles and cinematic milestones alike, giving this one a miss wouldn't be unwise.

Shazam! (2019)

The future of the DCEU is electric; Shazam! sparks some youthful fun into this otherwise brooding and bleak franchise.

[8/10 · 12 August 2019]

Following the unexpectedly immense success of 2018's Aquaman (currently grossing $1.1 billion worldwide), and 2017's fantastic Wonder Woman (boasting the highest Rotten Tomatoes score for a DC Extended Universe film), it appears the DCEU is on somewhat of a roll with its solo projects. Shazam! promises to be another huge hit for Warner Bros. who have struggled thus far to really get this epic franchise effectively going.

Shazam! opens with enough context for any viewer to comprehend the skeleton of the story; the dying Wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsou) is seeking a "champion" to inherit his powers in order to prevent the seven deadly evils from unleashing their wrath upon the world. The opening half an hour is admittedly rather slow, but once fourteen-year-old Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is chosen to champion these powers, transforming into adult hero (Zachary Levi) by simply uttering the word 'Shazam!', the film provides delights at every turn.

In its effortless blend of humour, story and action, Shazam! provides consistent laughs, CGI spectacles, weighty character development and gratifying cross-franchise nods as if the studio at the helm has been doing it efficaciously for years (note: it really hasn't). This is one of the most fulfilling DCEU movies to date; director David F. Sandberg nails everything you'd expect from a modern superhero flick, whilst also injecting a uniquely fresh spin on the genre.

This owes considerable thanks to Levi's incredible lead outing. He makes it seem believable that his teenage alter ego is indeed trapped inside this muscular thirty-or-so-year-old man. That said, Shazam! is Freddy Freeman's (Jack Dylan Grazer) show; stealing every scene, Grazer's hilarious performance as Batson's best friend embellishes amazing on-screen chemistry with both the younger and older iteration of Batson. As a result, the film flows superbly through the script's excellent use of Grazer's character, who manages to tie the two opposing identities of the lead hero together seamlessly.

Shazam! is not without flaws, however. For the most part, the story is rather predictable, and sadly it suffers from the notorious 'villain curse' overshadowing most modern superhero films. The motivations behind antagonist Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong) are flimsy, despite writers Harry Gayden and Darren Lemke's attempts to make them relatable on some level. Indeed, Mark Strong's third crack at comic book villainy is by no means as intriguing as his brilliant display in Kick-Ass, though it is far less contrived than his other DC role in Green Lantern.

But on all other fronts, Shazam! shines. The CGI is pristine - which is rare for a DC film of this scale (read: Justice League) - and the script really is hysterical. Though there will be those (with nothing better to do) who will complain that this feels more like a 'Marvel' film, it is nonetheless pleasing to see that DC is willing to take itself a little less seriously from time to time and produce what is undoubtedly a genuinely entertaining film to experience.

Vice (I) (2018)

Adam McKay's bash at Bush and Cheney is a clunky film which is distracted in its attempt to prove it can be as intelligent and manipulative as the starring administration.

[5/10 · 12 August 2019]

Adam McKay has had quite the career; from his early days with Will Ferrell and co. in Anchorman to the Oscar-winning political biopic The Big Short, McKay's flare for both comedy and drama sets the standards high for his latest film, Vice.

Christian Bale stars as the alarmingly ruthless bureaucratic Washington insider, Dick Cheney. His unassuming personality may otherwise never warrant a second glance, but behind the scenes Cheney schemes his way up the political ladder to wield enormous power, eventually as Vice-President to George W. Bush's administration, becoming what most assert to be the most influential 'vice' the world has ever seen. Yet, while this film never fails to provoke, the tone often makes it a rather tedious watch.

Vice opens by stating that the quietest person in the room is often the smartest. McKay then continues to scream at the audience how intelligent this film is, and it just doesn't work. His directing style here, though successful in creating an incredibly unnerving atmosphere, doesn't fit securely with the overarching narrative. The consistent sub-story fourth wall breaking seems rather engaging at the start, but proceeds to only distract from the main plot, confusing the tone throughout the whole film until a last-minute twist ties it all together rather unsatisfyingly. The awkward style makes it extremely difficult for McKay to make an actual point besides the blatant emotional force against the actions of this ignominious administration, which is a true let-down for the stellar cast of this feature.

Once again, Christian Bale provides a brilliant all-out performance as the film's lead. Convincingly characterising the cold bureaucrat, Bale is chillingly good in this position amongst some of Washington's most despicable schemers. McKay invests a lot of time trying to get close to Cheney, and Bale makes this, for the most part, possible.

However, Vice attempts to make Cheney a much more complicated character than necessary in order to stretch its appeal to the masses. Bale attacks this head-on though, and makes up for over-dramatization with a persuasive display, making the character believable and at times, dare it be said, compelling.

He is supported by superb performances by the ever-consistent Amy Adams, another hit outing from Steve Carrell, and a disturbingly concise portrayal of George W. Bush by Sam Rockwell. Regardless of the aforementioned issues with the tone, it is true that Vice always feels committed to telling this story with integrity.

And it is indeed a very interesting story. Though it may be hard to connect with at times as a result of the film's clunky vibe, it can be very witty in its approach. Sharp with its humour yet bleak in its message, the collision between these two means it's never unclear what the film is trying to achieve; its unsettling, it's disturbing, much like the atmosphere of the time in the country's history.

Yet, overall, Vice is as disturbing as it is confusing. McKay provides another provoking political biopic but fails to accomplish the benchmarks of filmmaking he has demonstrated he is capable of in the past.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

An extraordinary story indeed, but told only adequately; 'Bohemian Rhapsody' is ultimately a muddled yet magnificent showcase.

[6/10 · 6 August 2019]

After 10 years of production hell, the Freddie Mercury biopic finally struts onto the big screen. Dissecting the fascinating yet heartbreaking life of Queen's front man - played astonishingly well by the brilliant Rami Malek - Bohemian Rhapsody looks at the decade-or-so leading up to the band's breathtaking performance at Live Aid in 1985. Though the way in which this extraordinary story is told is not as satisfying as one could have hoped.

Initial concerns for the film concentrated around the idea that the story was to focus more on the other band members, as if to steal the spotlight from Freddie's infamous struggle. This is not entirely the case with the finished film. What we see rather is a fairly loose attempt to get close to Freddie, one that always feels a little distracted.

For example, the band's vexations with Freddie's exuberant lifestyle are shoehorned into the film through changing the time that Queen released material. This is just frustratingly silly; there are several ways writers Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan could have illustrated this, but it seems as if the need to represent the other bandmates took unnecessary precedence in parts.

Yet despite issues with storytelling, Rami Malek single-handedly elevates Bo Rhap to a level worthy of a Freddie Mercury biopic. He puts on a simply flawless performance as 'The Great Pretender' (credit to Jan Sewell and her team in make-up for such a convincing transformation), providing us with that "touch of the heavens" that Freddie promised.

His co-stars all support him fantastically; Lucy Boynton works well as Freddie's life-long friend Mary Austin. Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joseph Mazzello as Brian, Roger and John respectively provide spot on portrayals of their roles in the band. But it is Malek who ties the film together. Whatever is happening, Malek makes it endearing; every positive emotion the film bestows on the viewer, Malek's performance plays a huge part implementing them.

Bohemian Rhapsody's pace, though, is patchy. At one point it's hurtling through the early years of Queen at a 'Don't Stop Me Now' pace, then slows down completely in an effort to try and understand Freddie's daily conflicts. Sadly, the points where natural emotions are trying to be conveyed is where the film is at its weakest. It never feels as if the filmmakers are giving it their everything to really connect with the story at hand; it's like the stage fright of filmmaking.

And that truly is a massive disappointment, because everything else is spectacular. Yes, it's overcooked in parts, admittedly it over-dramatises certain events in an attempt to provoke a stronger response, but isn't that what Queen were all about? The fancy lights, the flamboyant displays, organised chaos left, right and centre; it is what it is, and what it is, is Queen.

The mind-blowing recreation of Queen's Live Aid performance alone is enough reason to see this film on the big screen. It really will send shivers down spines. The film isn't as emotionally stimulating as the 2016 documentary The Freddie Mercury Story: Who Wants to Live Forever?, but that's not to say it doesn't pack a punch as powerful as Freddie's iconic stance.

An extraordinary story indeed, but told only adequately; Bohemian Rhapsody is ultimately a muddled yet magnificent showcase.

The Spy Who Dumped Me (2018)

'The Spy Who Dumped Me' bites off more than it can chew, ultimately failing in its mission to produce an engaging espionage rib-tickler.

[3/10 · 6 August 2019]

The Spy Who Dumped Me follows the story of two best friends, Audrey (Mila Kunis) and Morgan (Kate McKinnon) who are inadvertently dragged into a chaotic international conspiracy after discovering that the former's ex-boyfriend Drew (Justin Theroux) is a spy.

As with most contemporary spy comedies, the stakes are set outlandishly high; their mission - though there was no option of 'choosing to accept it' - is to save the world from a mysterious threat which has already compromised Drew's cover. In doing so, the two women race around Europe, facing off assassins at every corner with the help of the attractive-yet-shady British agent, Sebastian (Sam Heughan).

This is already quite a tenuous storyline, but the ultimate narrative adds twists that are strangely predictable yet never explained. Director and co-writer Susanna Fogel creates an absurd plot from the outset and attempts to portray it as having the potential to pose a serious threat. She then tries to balance this with continuous light-hearted comedy (as well as some powerful feminist themes) but nothing ever quite clicks.

The outcome is a confusing tone that manages to only partially fulfil its many ambitions. What's more, the humour here is passable at best. Kunis and McKinnon are the real driving force behind the film, and they use their chemistry to elevate poor gags to a tolerable standard. The greatest chuckles admittedly come when Saturday Night Live star McKinnon uses her improvisational skills to provide some killer one-liners alongside an otherwise mediocre script. Both Kunis and McKinnon succeed in making their friendship extremely convincing, as if they've been friends for years; their charisma manages to make some unbelievable circumstances significantly more personal, possibly the greatest achievement of the feature.

Yet sadly, it does not compensate for the absent magnetism in Kunis and Theroux's on-screen relationship, on which the entire premise of the film is built. It is unfortunate that the couple's background is shown through a series of rather dull flashbacks, thus giving their rapport very little time to truly flesh out. The fundamental failure to persuade the viewer that they were in an intimate relationship gives the story a rather dreary conviction throughout.

It's all quite frustrating, as nothing feels as if it were done to its full potential. The Spy Who Dumped Me is essentially a less intelligent version of 2015's dazzlingly funny Spy (directed by Paul Feig), which saw Melissa McCarthy as the unwitting hero thrust into a shadowy worldwide scheme. In every way that Feig's film was sharp and streamlined, The Spy Who Dumped Me is tremendously bleak, epitomised by its careless emphasis on expletives, as if to cover up the incoherency of the plot.

Morgan's character is at one point described as "a little much". Indeed, this phrase is probably truer of the film itself in that The Spy Who Dumped Me bites off more than it can chew, ultimately failing in its mission to produce an engaging espionage rib-tickler.

Terminal (I) (2018)

In his attempt to voguishly blend themes from Alice in Wonderland together with Sin City and Blade Runner, Stein has instead created a monstrously inconsistent mess.

[2/10 · 6 August 2019]

Vaughn Stein has worked for years in the film industry, largely as second or third assistant director in projects ranging from 2013 blockbuster World War Z to award-winning indie flick Pride. Now, he finally releases his first feature-length film, Terminal, to UK cinemas - a project that he's had a rough cut of since 2016, which screened at Toronto International Film Festival that year.

This noir-thriller set in an eerie, unnamed city, follows the lives of the inquisitive waitress Annie (Margot Robbie) who leads a mysterious double life, a suicidal teacher (Simon Pegg), two hitmen (Dexter Fletcher & Max Irons), and a strange janitor (Mike Myers) as their stories intertwine through the works of a mastermind criminal.

This all sounds like it would make for an enticing picture, yet in his attempt to voguishly blend themes from Alice in Wonderland together with Sin City and Blade Runner, Stein has instead created a monstrously inconsistent mess that fails to realise any of its hinted potential.

From the clunky cut-scenes to the categorically cringeworthy dialogue, Terminal is a pain to sit through. Frankly, the only thing more confusing than the desperately shoehorned third-act plot twists is how the likes of Robbie and Pegg got attached to the project in the first place. The script is agonisingly forced, the narrative terribly structured, and ultimately neither of these stars manage to elevate the film to something that is comfortably watchable.

The story is... well, there's practically no story at all. The narrative shifts between several time periods, leaving the viewer in a complete daze as to who's where and what's what. It is extremely difficult to associate with any of the characters, despite Stein - who wrote the screenplay too - sliding in background stories in a way that tries (but fails) to emulate Edgar Wright's unique flair seen in the Cornetto Trilogy.

Yet after all this criticism, a strange sense of guilt arises with it. Upon reflection, Stein's vision for the finished film becomes clear, but unfortunately so does the realisation of the wasted potential that Terminal is. Perhaps with a more cultivated director at the helm and a script rewrite or two Terminal could have been an intensely thrilling experience. Christopher Ross' cinematography harks back to Roger Deakin's fantastic Oscar-winning work on Blade Runner 2049, so the look of the film is impressive, but this only adds to the sad comprehension that this project was such a missed opportunity.

The overall picture presented here leaves behind an immense feeling of dissatisfaction. Not only is it a strain to recall the last time a 90-minute feature has felt so mind-numbingly long, but the plain ridiculousness of the plot twists alone (after an hour-or-so of build-up) are enough to switch the viewer's attention off. It really is eye-rolling stuff.

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Avengers: Endgame is not only a truly engrossing culmination to the 'Infinity Saga', it is also nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece.

[10/10 · 25 April 2019]

"This is going to work, Steve."

"I know it will. Because I don't know what I'm going to do if it doesn't."

So spoke Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) to Captain America (Chris Evans) in the opening act of Avengers: Endgame. Quite poetically, leading into this crossover event, the above interaction no doubt reflects the minds of all Marvel fans flooding to see Endgame in the coming weeks. Naturally, fans are longing to watch their favourite characters together on screen for one last blast, but also desperate that the conclusion to this incredible 11-year journey lives up to expectations.

Endgame's prologue sees our heroes defeated; Thanos' (Josh Brolin) infamous finger-snap at the end of Avengers: Infinity War - coined officially as 'The Decimation' - has wiped out half of all living creatures in the universe. Now, the Avengers must unite one more time to reverse this grave catastrophe, "whatever it takes."

So, has Marvel managed to make this overwhelmingly ambitious project "work"? The short answer: yes. Infinite times over, yes. Avengers: Endgame is not only a truly engrossing culmination to the 'Infinity Saga', it is also nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece.

The journey that began with Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in Iron Man back in 2008 is very intelligently tied up in Endgame. As the film unfolds, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely's meticulous story planning becomes evident and gradually proves to be the most satisfying payoff any Marvel fan could have hoped for. Marvel President Kevin Feige alongside directors Anthony and Joe Russo have completed an impossible feat; Endgame is humorous, heart-breaking and perpetually captivating. It more than exceeds any presupposition laid before it with a swagger more equanimous than Stark's ego, whilst also moulding an open route forward for the inevitable continuation of this formidable franchise. It's one-of-a-kind experience; the perfect milestone to end this gigantic adventure, yet a glorious beginning for the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Endgame's greatest filmic achievement though, lies in its steady pace and indulgent narrative; taking things slow but never wasting time, yet speeding along whilst never rushing, everything fits perfectly into place in this 3-hour work of genius with a sophistication indicative of a Francis Ford Coppola paragon. Sure, it's a high-budget superhero blockbuster featuring spectacular special effects, but as Marvel has proven before, that doesn't mean a superhero film cannot tackle tones and styles not necessarily affiliated with the genre. In the realisation of its ambition, Endgame catapults the superhero genre to an unprecedented spectrum of film accomplishment; it is quite frankly a piece of cinematic art, encapsulating yet conquering all that has come before it with majesty and self-assuredness.

But as noted by Stark, "part of the journey is the end", and now the curtain draws on this dazzling superhero adventure. Though the encore of 'Phase Three' is yet to be seen in Spider-Man: Far From Home (releasing this July), Avengers: Endgame is a magnificent finale which allows The Avengers we so know and love the opportunity to sign off in remarkable fashion, leaving behind a Hulk-sized stamp on Hollywood history which will remain for 'infinity'.

Avengers... Assemble. And take a bow.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Enamouring in its powerful display of what a female superhero film can look like, a thoroughly enjoyable and surprisingly clever blockbuster.

[8/10 · 13 June 2017]

Putting aside the famous cape and cowl, the infamously grumpy Supes', and deterring from the unfittingly grim tone of the DC Extended Universe up to now, 'Wonder Woman' embodies a fresh start for the franchise, underpinned by subtle yet reverberating messages that are likely to inspire future instalments in several, encouraging mannerisms. Patty Jenkins has produced a truly gratifying entry into DCEU, defying all odds and breaking barriers which should now open the floodgates to more much needed positivity in the DCEU.

There was plentiful doubt amongst fans upon hearing the news that 'Wonder Woman' would be set during the First World War. But actually, this change in back drop, not only is it suitable in displaying the film's forceful morals, is a stimulating shift that allows Jenkins to explore the fundamentals of humanity without needing Bruce Wayne to have an existential crisis (a la 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'). The narrative follows Amazonian princess, Diana (Gal Gadot), and her journey with Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), a spy for British intelligence, as they venture into the front-line battlements of World War I, attempting to stop a potentially world threatening force. The 1918 setting allows for a clever guise in the Germans as a resonant opposing force, but as the story unfolds, the horrors of war sparks turmoil within Diana, who painfully begins to understand that she can't save everyone.

Gadot really puts on a magnificent show; perfectly cast as the Amazonian legend, she is now an icon in the industry, a new figurehead for the DCEU going forward. Supported by a fantastic array of individually absorbing characters, with a notably gripping performance from Chris Pine, 'Wonder Woman' is compellingly personal, contrasted with exhilarating action pieces which culminate to present a formidable overall conviction. Diana's initially naïve outlook on humanity adds superb depth to the narrative as she slowly yet reluctantly understands the barbaric nature of the world of man, and this allows it to be the first DC film to have such a convincing moral stance since 2008's 'The Dark Knight'.

It flows much like any other superhero film, and the origin story backdrop leaves a lot to be wished for in the opening third of the film particularly, but its packed with laughter, tears and kicks that make the build up to the unveiling of Wonder Woman in all her glory more than worth the wait (a scene which is wholeheartedly one of the best in the genre's history). Diana also has a much more interesting background, making this a story that is justifiably explored and, moreover, delightfully told.

A long time in the making, even longer in its legacy, 'Wonder Woman' is a modern pioneer for superhero movies. It demonstrates that, not only can a female hero be just as spellbinding, if not more so, than her male counterparts, but that DC is capable of making good films if it stops being so damn gloomy, and adds a dash of positivity in it place.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

The entirely worn-out 'Pirates' franchise stands to prove that that the Dead do in fact continue to Tell Tales.

[4/10 · 31 May 2017]

It seems that the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' franchise will keep sailing until star Johnny Depp decides to hang up those washed out boots. 'Dead Men Tell No Tales' (or the significantly inferior 'Salazar's Revenge' in the UK, which I refuse to refer to it as,) has some fantastic moments, but its nadirs are so low that it is hard to relate to at points, churning out the same thrills, the same problems, and the same franchise developing plot devices that culminate to form a generally uninspiring sequel, which promises that more of the same is still yet to come.

The so-called "beginning of the end" to the 'Pirates' series sees the return of familiar faces, notably Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley - whose cameos comprise some of the most moving moments in the film - alongside newcomers Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario as Henry Turner and Carina Smyth respectively. The plot follows the latter duo on their journey to find the Trident of Poseidon with Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, who seems somewhat unassured in the role this time round, and Geoffrey Rush's fantastic Captain Barbossa (the best developed character in the entire series). This is all whilst being chased by an undead sea crew, headed by Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar. Oh, and of course, the protagonists also have some altercations with the British Empire along the way (an entirely pointless sub-plot that only adds to the convolution of the narrative).

The motives are identified clearly from the start and founded upon rather basic principles, making it easier to follow than other 'Pirates' films, and it relates back to the beloved trilogy a lot more than the miserable 'On Stranger Tides'. But these aspects are often too plainly reiterated to the viewer that it hollows the plot disproportionately, sacrificing the development of potentially more engaging material. Bardem's antagonist thus feels loosely integrated into the franchise's narrative, which is sad given that he plays the role with natural certitude.

However, during the instances where Disney is showcasing its mastering of the CGI department, or the alcohol-fuelled scenes of Jack escaping near death situations (not to mention Paul McCartney's ingenious cameo), 'Dead Men Tell No Tales' provides some undeniably delightful entertainment. Yet in terms of an original, witty, swashbuckling joy of a ride, it fails to deliver on most fronts, conforming to the structure of the preceding films but also feeling far more conveniently pieced together than ever before.

It is a tale told by a franchise that should've been dead long ago; where it ought to be looking to bring back those wonderfully crafted sword fights of the first 2 films, 'Dead Men Tell No Tales' instead decides to expand its mythology to dismal effects.

Figuratively, no ships are being blown out of the water by this entry.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

There is precious little to praise about this lacklustre, re-hashed bundle of disappointment.

[4/10 · 21 May 2017]

There have been several abysmal entries into the Alien series since Ridley Scott's 1979 film created a horror franchise like no other. Even Scott's return to the director's chair in 2012's Prometheus polarised hard-core fans and casual moviegoers alike. Thus, hopes for Alien: Covenant were naturally high – the impressively intimidating promotional material furthering this – and many expected Covenant to mark a triumphant return to form for the Alien series.

However, rather sadly, there is precious little to praise about this lacklustre, re-hashed bundle of disappointment.

Without a doubt, Michael Fassbender is the best aspect of Covenant, as was the case with his universally praised performance in the otherwise divisive Prometheus. He returns as a twisted version of the android David, as well as newcomer Walter; an upgraded version of David following claims that his model was made to be "too human". He plays each character with enamouring class, with some superbly executed one-to-one scenes with both of his respective androids – arguably the most enticing sections in the entire film.

But he is let down by a generally forgettable supporting cast and plot drive, using virtually identical plot devices as other Alien films. Covenant tries too hard to emulate the previous films' successes – seen especially in Katherine Waterston's flimsy Ripley rip-off – and culminates to form an almost unbearable re-skin of features that have been illustrated sufficiently before. This, added to a narrative with an often confused tone and a considerable momentum inconsistency, ruins the overall enjoyment of the picture. In addition, audiences are forced to trail through extensive passages of mind-numbingly dull dialogue, all in anticipation of witnessing the Xenomorph ruthlessly tear through this fundamentally expendable cast. When these moments finally arrive, there are some reasonably frightening death scenes with some suitably intimidating shots of the titular alien at the climax of the movie, as well as in its evolving forms earlier in the film (which is a fascinating sub-plot I would have loved to see further developed).

The aliens themselves are not quite what they were 40 years ago, though; the very fact that Scott can, and has, used CGI to make the alien more "realistic" sacrifices the elements of subtlety and menace on the most part. What made the beast so scary in the first film was its lack of prominent screen time, which effectuated a significant relationship between the audience and the characters; with both sets of people fearing what they cannot see. This is almost entirely absent in Covenant, as the consistent presence of the alien on screen leaves very little to the imagination, which was one of the greatest achievements of the original(s).

Scott proved with 2015's The Martian that he is still a master of the sci-fi genre, which is why the constant decline in the quality of Alien films is truly disheartening. But with each passing prequel in this arguably decrepit franchise, audiences ultimately care less about it.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

(Review of Black and Chrome Edition)

[9/10 · 8 May 2017]

Let me begin by quoting Director George Miller commenting on this release: "Losing some of the information of colour makes it somehow more iconic."

Nearly 2 years ago to the day, Mad Max: Fury Road exploded ferociously onto the big screen. It now stands as a modern pioneer of the immense success that large franchises can achieve by using practical effects over CGI wherever possible (over 80% of the film is shot in this way). Re-released now in monochrome, this version of Mad Max: Fury Road is just as thrilling to watch as it is in colour; if in radically diverse ways.

Initial stipulations for Fury Road included making the film as colourful as possible. It is unusual, then, that Miller should be calling this desaturated edition "the best version of the movie". In fact, this is the style in which Miller always wanted to release Fury Road, and ultimately, it isn't hard to see why.

The 2015 version is certainly a stylish film; winning Six Academy Awards including Best Production and Costume Design. But the blend between action and monochrome is remarkably tasteful here; it can be strongly argued that Fury Road is the ideal film for this sort of translation. The black and white itself is never flat; it's not just a simple case of putting a filter over the screen. Plenty of extra contrast is added to the image which enriches the movie nicely, creating a chilling atmosphere at points.

Although unfortunately, in black and white it loses a lot of the emphatic impact of the flaming guitars, and the incredible stunt work isn't quite as staggering. For a film based primarily on its visual effects, this does take its toll on the overall product.

In contrast however, the outstanding performances by the cast are wonderfully enhanced, hurling the audience back to the golden age of cinema; where movies were dependent on the principle cast's integrity to be an effective movie, not special effects. In the moments where Fury Road isn't putting the Fast and Furious franchise to shame with its exceptionally filmed car chases through the Australian wastelands, the personal moments are somehow even more forceful than in the original. Miller is indeed right about the absence of colour making a film feel strangely more distinctive, and Fury Road benefits enormously from this added layer.

It was announced recently that James Mangold's gritty, dystopian superhero masterpiece, Logan, will be re-released in monochrome. Thus, it seems cinema's adoration of black and white is sliding back into popular culture again, and by God let it endure. The possibilities for future iconic re-releases of movies in black and white are limitless, and as it does for the use of practical effects in modern times, Mad Max: Fury Road proudly stands as an embodiment of the great achievements that big budget films can accomplish if released in monochrome.

What A Lovely Way (pun intended) to watch this adrenaline-fuelled spectacle.

Get Out (I) (2017)

'Get Out' is a brilliant psychological horror that fittingly exemplifies the revulsions of a supposed "post-racial" society

[9/10 · 28 March 2017]

Set in a "post racial" America, 'Get Out' challenges the complacency of a liberal society, setting the audience with deep unease throughout the film, not just by its chilling horror aspects, but rather the disconcerting social attitudes audaciously identified in the white middle class family. Before the main story, which follows Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) and his weekend away with his girlfriend Rose's (Allison Williams) family, the film opens with an unsettling pre-credits scene of a young black man being jumped to Flanagan and Allen's Run, Rabbit, Run. This establishes the sincerely disturbing tone of the narrative, constantly manipulating the emotions of the viewers in favour of the victims, whilst still expertly retaining elements of subtlety that slowly uncover throughout the film.

'Get Out' incorporates a remarkable array of horror aspects in its 1hr 44min run time – from guts and violence to, most prominently, psych and emotional terror. Each feature is integrated stylistically, culminating to form a smart and consistently tense narrative, although at points flowing just like any other horror movie in terms of set-up, revelation and the sporadic comic relief. Similarly, a significant suspension of disbelief is required to grasp the tenacious premise of the eventual plot drive, which is unveiled in the latter third of the film. Thus, its overarching spread is sometimes too thin and consequently struggles to candidly assemble at the end.

That said however, there is a great deal more to praise about the way in which director Jordan Peele unravels the story towards this climax. The brilliant intricacy of the family's 'acceptance' of Chris' culture, by being overly pleasant that is, superbly exacerbates the tension in the relationship, not just on screen, but between the audience and the characters. The gradual, relentless extrication of the plot is entrancing during the entire course of the film, leaving many aspects rightfully open to the individual interpretation of the viewer, intuitively hinting at Peele's intentions, to isolate the despicable root nature of racism in our society. And my god, does he do an exceptional job.

The casting of Daniel Kaluuya as the lead character, despite the controversy regarding his nationality (ironically), was an excellent decision by Peele; Kaluuya's steady intensity makes it easy to see why the director eventually chose him for the role, having never intended to cast a black British actor initially. The 'Skins' and 'Sicario' co-star is a captivating lead, with the high forecasts for 'Get Out' hopefully projecting this young talent to step into larger roles that he unequivocally deserves. Lil Rel Howery (as the charming Rod Williams) is without doubt the standout supporting member; the comedic timing of his character and the relatable quality of his personality is exceptionally charismatic, adding a meaningful layer of hilarity to the already fascinating spectacle and appealing to wider audiences who would not instinctively connect with the archetypal horror genre.

A movie that exhibits several fresh prospects in the film industry, 'Get Out' is a terrifically innovative film and potentially a generation defining horror.

The Great Wall (I) (2016)

This messy, mind-numbingly boring Chinese production does not fulfil any expectation

[2/10 · 21 March 2017]

There is no way to decorate this simple statement: 'The Great Wall' is a monstrous disaster. The largest China-Hollywood collaboration yet, and the first blockbuster movie to be filmed entirely in China, it hasn't set the bar very high for future international releases from the East and doesn't deserve to stand as any form of landmark for this type of production.

For a film about a 5,500 mile-long wall with the aforementioned derivements, it is only natural that worldwide audiences were optimistic about 'The Great Wall'. But even the very foundations of the film are flimsy: following the mercenary soldier William (Matt Damon) and his partner Tovar (Pedro Pascal), the "whitewashed" duo encounter an army of Power Rangers protecting a wall from a mass of 'The Lord of the Rings' Wargs Version 2.0 with the overarching "end of the world" threat.

The visuals, one of 'The Great Wall's main selling points, fluctuate consistently from scrappy to clean cut, and this can be very distracting. Some battle scenes are indeed pleasing to watch, notably the bungee jumping warriors who sweep down the wall to kill as many of the monsters below as they can. Yet this in no way makes up for the horrific contrast between the plastic, cheap-looking armour of the army and the unpolished special effects throughout the film, nor the unconvincing surrounding landscapes, that piece together incoherently to form this untidy, chaotic concoction of terrible movie-making.

However, it is the script and the story that is its most catastrophic downfall. Constantly using weak plot devices and action movie clichés that we've seen countless times before (e.g. the reluctant hero earning redemption, a mindless army with a classic vulnerability and communication method etc.), then juxtaposed by stereotypes of Chinese culture that are arguably more controversial than the "whitewashing" scenario. It is unintelligent popcorn fodder, failing to keep, let alone grasp the attention of the viewers.

"You can write this s**t, but you sure as hell can't say it." – Harrison Ford

This statement from Ford is dismally prevalent here; Matt Damon cannot decide on an accent or tone for his monotonous character, delivering lines with cringe-worthy dullness, he barely hides how little he wants to be there. Jing Tian (as the Commander of the army, Lin Mei) is so detached from the film she may as well have been CGI as well, and Willem Dafoe (as Ballard) plays an empty character who serves only to explain why Mei can speak English. The writing is abysmal, and talent is surely wasted here, only adding to the pile of missed opportunities in 'The Great Wall'.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980)

Sadly, the ending makes this greatly superior cut fall short of a masterpiece.

[8/10 · 20 March 2017]

Back in 1978, 'Superman' was a huge success and stands today as a generation defining film. The disputes between the father and son production team, the Salkinds, and director Richard Donner were no secret; filming the two original films back-to-back proved problematic. Following the triumph of the first film, Donner was sacked and the director's chair was handed over to Richard Lester for 'Superman II', who distorted Donner's original idea significantly, producing a camp and hugely flawed Superman sequel that started the franchise's fall to ridicule. 'Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut' is the film that should have been, superior in every way to Lester's theatrical version… until the last few minutes.

Richard Donner's name explodes emphatically onto the screen at the end of the opening credits, establishing Donner's authoritative mark on this film: the closest thing he can get to *his* original vision. It is an entirely different film to Lester's, which is to be expected. Donner had already recorded roughly 80% of the footage before he was fired, which Lester would have to rewrite and reshoot under the rules of the Director's Guild. Thus, everything ludicrous about 'Superman II' is gone: no more Kryptonians with finger pointing levitation beams or the power to erase memories with a kiss (even those giant Superman emblem "nets" are not present). Instead, the story is much more absorbing, the characters are therefore fleshed out incredibly and it truly is a much more enjoyable and worthwhile Superman film.

The character dynamics are of noteworthy interest. The three Kryptonian villains (Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran), for example, are much more integral to the plot and Gene Hackman develops much more in this edition as the evil genius Lex Luthor, supported wonderfully by Miss Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine). But dedicated to Christopher Reeves memory, this definitely is his greatest performance as the titular character. Reeves is ever charming as Clark Kent, yet the contrast between him and Superman is particularly mesmerising here, as Reeves is remarkably more powerful and captivating as the superhero. It really is a shame that general audiences may never see him play the character the way he did here: it is the definitive Superman portrayal.

Yet it is still a flawed film. An excusable downside to the cut is the often choppy editing, making some areas feel rushed, but as the film was never finalised, it is fair to allow this slide as an unfortunate product of circumstance. However, the ending is an utter disappointment. It is difficult to get over the way that the closing moments make the entire film inconsequential. Granted, studio interference played a part here, but Donner could have reached unprecedented heights with Superman in this new cut, should he have chosen to make the logical choice and evict this ending from his cut (disregarding continuity errors that may impose).

'The Richard Donner Cut' is overall undoubtedly the better movie, and yet still could have been even better with a more satisfactory finish.

Logan (2017)

Amazingly gritty, full of gore and shamelessly crude, but at its core 'Logan' is all about the characters

[9/10 · 9 March 2017]

After 17 years in his iconic role as Wolverine, Hugh Jackman's time in the X-Men universe is at an end. The fan favourite receives the perfect send-off in 'Logan', standing as one of the best, if not THE best film of the franchise. It demonstrates further the point made initially by 'Deadpool' that the superhero genre can benefit immensely if they take the risk of a more mature approach to comic book films. Moreover, 'Logan' succeeds in being distanced from the archetypal "city/planet/love interest in danger" monotony of other modern superhero flicks, showcasing a much more personally captivating foundation for the scenario of the film.

Beginning at the Mexican border, Wolverine (going by his original name of James Hewlett) is forced out of retirement to safeguard a young girl, Laura (Dafne Keen) who is the first mutant to emerge in years. Incentivised by his lifelong friend, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), whom he now also cares for in his old age, the three venture north to Canada to save Laura from some dark forces.

Wolverine is finally illustrated in his true colours (yet ironically still excluding his classic yellow and blue suit seen in the original writings); 'Logan' is gritty, full of gore and shamelessly crude, everything that this character should have been from the start. Watching him tear through his enemies with a 15 rating is a wholly fulfilling display, reaching new heights in the franchise with the blend of grounded realism and awesome action sets. Alongside this however, 'Logan' also conveys the Canadian's inner turmoil and self-loathing better than any previous instalment. It never holds back: from a terrifying rampage by the titular character, to poignant moments exploring his alcoholism and unwillingness to be the hero, 'Logan' is unhinged in all aspects. It can only be questioned why he hasn't been seen in this way before.

The setting is mesmerising - the environments mirroring how stripped down the concept of the film is. Plus, certain desert car chases feel like sequences from the 'Mad Max' series, filmed expertly and going full-throttle with the higher age rating. But at its core, 'Logan' is all about the characters. Jackman provides us with a career highlight, absolutely entrancing as the 'Old Man' Logan (reference intended). Stewart is enticing as the deteriorating Professor X, but it is Dafne Keen who is most alluring. Being her first film, it is amazing the amount of conviction she expresses in her mostly speechless (but by no means silent) performance. She herself more than compensates for the expendable villains and the predictable nature of their scheme, which is 'Logan's principal weakness, despite the outcome of it enhancing the emotional impact in the final sequence.

The previous mishaps of the Wolverine series are ratified in this truly emotional and overall electrifying final chapter, and as 'Logan' is also Stewart's final outing, both him and Jackman end on a series high, a fitting end to their long and commendable run in their respective roles.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)

A bold and adrenaline-fuelled sequel that expands excellently on the first, setting up what could be one of the greatest action trilogies ever.

[8/10 · 2 March 2017]

'John Wick Chapter 2' explodes onto the big screen shamelessly loud and exhilarating, opening with Keanu Reeves' John Wick tracking down his stolen 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1, bombarding it out of the chop shop it was stored in, killing a good many goons along the way. This truly does set the tone for the entire film; bigger, more badass, and leaving a longer line of dead bodies after all the turmoil.

These sorts of action films rarely exemplify such artistic flair, but director Chad Stahelski, who co-directed the original with David Leitch, gives us a fantastic spectacle to behold. The experienced stunt director provides some more immensely choreographed car chases, thrilling fight scenes, contrasting with intense sequences of drama with unique style. The inspiration here is more based on martial arts films from the likes of Hong-Kong, intricate yet fluidly flowing between shots, differentiating the Wick franchise from the likes of 'Bourne' or 'Bond'. Additionally, there's an incredible section in the final showdown in a hall of mirrors, which is just visually spectacular. The tension is masterfully sustained, and while this is an aspect that is present throughout, it is remarkably prevalent there, making it one of the most surprisingly gripping set pieces in the film and an absolute joy to watch.

Extraordinarily for this sort of film, it is a wholly justified sequel that doesn't damage the game-changing legacy of the first. Still as hard-hitting, still as intriguing and still as fresh in its approach, 'John Wick Chapter 2' does what the likes of 'Taken' could not, or rather chose not to; it proudly returns embodying the tone and feel of the previous, flowing naturally between the two instalments (which may be down to the fact that this is set only days after the first). For fans of the original, this film serves sufficiently on every front. 'Chapter 2' develops on the premise of the first, delving deeper into the criminal underworld with intriguing outcomes. It introduces some interesting characters, notably combining 'The Matrix' veterans, Reeves and Lawrence Fishburne (who plays the campy crime lord Bowery King), for the first time since 'Revolutions', along with the familiar faces of the first, Ian McShane (as the owner of the New York Continental hotel, Winston) and Lance Reddick as Charon, both with larger and more captivating parts to play.

Like the original film however, 'Chapter 2' requires a substantial deferral of disbelief. But this does not deter from the brilliance of the gracefully streaming narrative, or the awesome impact of the action sequences on the viewing experience.

But at the essence of it all, John Wick is without a doubt the worst retiree ever. Yet I don't expect anyone to complain about that besides him really, and maybe those who attempt to stop him in future. 'Chapter 2' is fantastic escapism entertainment, establishing a franchise that promises to be enticing to the last. Here's to chapter three being just as breathtaking.

Moonlight (I) (2016)

In reality, "Little" happens (pun intended) but 'Moonlight' shines as a wonderful exposition of the complexity of emotions.

[10/10 · 28 February 2017]

It is difficult to effectively display certain inner conflicts one may experience during the coming of age, but 'Moonlight' stunningly portrays three chapters in the life of a young, black boy and his struggle whilst growing up gay. Starting off with Little (Alex Hibbert); a boy who is taken under the wing of local drug dealer Juan (Mahershala Ali), followed by him as a teen, referred to as Chiron (Ashton Sanders), slowly uncovering and accepting his sexuality, then finally as a man (Trevante Rhodes), living his life begrudgingly with the burden of his troubled past. All this is then juxtaposed by a very difficult relationship with his mother, Paula, (Naomie Harris), falling in love with his best friend, and getting bullied consistently throughout school. The consequences of each prospect are dealt with astonishingly, somehow illustrating issues that have deep and dark implications with serenity and consideration. It simply is wonderful to watch.

Some have referred to this feature as "mundane". However, director Barry Jenkins displays the toughness of this boy's life with appropriate genuineness. Amongst it all, Jenkins' unquestionable artistic talent demonstrates a troubled soul who cannot grasp exactly what it is that makes him different with seamless realism. He does this through the subtle ocean imagery every time Chiron encounters something challenging, which ties the narrative together ingeniously. This, combined with an excellent screenplay by Jenkins, inspired by Tarell Alvin McCraney's play, 'In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue', results in a naturally flowing story that makes 'Moonlight' immensely powerful.

All three actors portray the main character with equal conviction, immersion and entrancing absorption; it certainly feels like an overarching story following one character, a hard task to truly pull off unless, like Richard Linklater's 'Boyhood', you use the same actor over an extended period. Ali's supporting role as the complicated, good-willed drug dealer, Juan, is indeed praiseworthy but it is Harris' performance that is most awe-inspiring. Certainly Oscar worthy, her marvellous display as Chiron's damaged, drug addicted mother is one that particularly stands out, despite the movie in itself being an incredible cinematic experience altogether. The extra layer of Juan being Paula's supplier adds further gravity to the situation, which is, to put it frankly, just one of many factors in the movie that pull delicately at your heartstrings. Jenkins successfully sustains the emotional attachment throughout, and has created an absolute serene picture; it is difficult to resist a rewatch.

Intricately and carefully crafted, 'Moonlight' truly does shine as a masterwork, conveying emotions in their utmost complexity as part of a story where, in reality, 'little' happens (pun intended). Barry Jenkins comes to the forefront as an emerging talent in directing, with the standard set so high, it is now intriguing to anticipate just what his next project, 'A Contract with God' (a three-part directed feature), will be like.

Denial (II) (2016)

'Denial' is extensively confused in tone, constantly peaking and falling throughout its rushed narrative

[4/10 · 28 February 2017]

Rachel Weisz dons an unconvincing American accent to play the accused professor, Deborah Lipstadt, fighting to prove that David Irving (Timothy Spall) is purposefully manipulating historical fact to support his own anti-Semitic views. Clearly, this may be a delicate subject for some, and yet this story is so caught up in the legalities it regularly fails to address this issue. Naturally, it is uplifting in the places where it is supposed to be, but 'Denial' loses its punch by disappointingly being too muddled in its approach, neglecting particular details that could have made it a truly gripping drama.

In an era when the likes of "fake news" and "alternative facts" are looming worryingly pertinent over our polarised society, 'Denial' entails a certain amount of contextual parallels, focussing primarily on, and addressing adequately, the consequences of words. Otherwise, it is a relatively hollow drama, attempting to amplify the puzzling legalities of the situation over-ambitiously. Isolate the context of the Holocaust and the unquestionable relevance of the themes depicted, and 'Denial' falls as yet another juridical drama bogged down in justifying its own existence. It has little substantial impact due to the broadness of the unfolding events and its lacklustre attack at pre-determined consequences, weakening the sharpness of the overarching story.

As well as this, the way the characters are presented truly damages the intended impression, particularly in the behind the scenes moments where the essence of the case is being discussed. Rachel Weisz comes across as a whiny and useless figurehead of the case, desperate to have her voice heard. It doesn't help that she is wearing an awful orange mop for a wig that shifts in texture and colour throughout the film's course, presumably due to re-shoots (I'm having flashbacks to Obi-Wan Kenobi in 'The Phantom Menace'). Andrew Scott portrays the inordinately-determined lawyer Anthony Julius in about ten separate manners, adding to the confusion of the feature's tone; Tom Wilkinson has some great moments in the courtroom as the team's leader Richard Rampton, but these do not come in the required quantity or quality to heighten the interest in the film. It is Irving who is the most compelling character in the end, thanks to Spall's charismatic performance which inflicts the only shred of emotion in this film, that being an appropriate distaste towards Irving's case, yet this is not enough to save 'Denial' from the depressingly unsatisfying end result.

It's one of those movies that might have been more suitable to be presented on the small screen, stretched over a longer time period thus allowing it to explore the tortuous legal fight in greater detail, whilst also allocating more time to handle the nature of the situation with greater prominence. Instead, Lipstadt's book on which the film is based, 'Denial: The Holocaust on Trial', is forced to settle for a fundamentally rushed and disarrayed adaption, that unfortunately showcased its best moments in its exhilarating trailer.