halsall-07142 Reviews

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Not as good as the previous two films, but entertaining.

[6/10 · 24 May 2016]

When X -Men first came out in the year 2000 comic book movies were still finding their feet as we didn't yet have the MCU, The Dark Knight trilogy or even Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy. Now 16 years later the X-Men Universe has been joined by Marvel and DC in the superhero movie universe brigade/thing. Having helmed three of the previous X-Men films, including Days of Future Past, Bryan Singer has again been trusted in bringing the mutants to the big screen.

It's now the 1980's and the first mutant Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) has awoken and displeased by the culture he has awoken within (perhaps if he had awoken in the 60's he would have been more chill) decides to eliminate humans from the planet so that mutants can truly rule supreme. He recruits the orphan girl Storm (Alexandra Shripp), Psylocke (Olivia Munn), cage fighter Angel (Ben Hardy) and everyone's favourite metal detector Magneto (Michael Fassbender). Elsewhere Professor X (James McAvoy) is running his institute for the gifted with Hank (Nicholas Hoult) and new student Scott/Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) arrives alongside current student Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) also stops by with Nightcrawler (Kodi-Smit Mcphee) as she is worried about Magneto's well being following a traumatic event. Quicksilver (Evan Peters) is also alerted to this as he feels he needs to bond with Magneto who is his father. Whilst Professor X looks into Magneto's disappearance he comes across Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) again, as there were not enough sub-plots apparently.

Basically there's a lot going on, and it's mostly entertaining but doesn't really feel weighted in anything because there isn't enough time for the film to fit everything in. Apocalypse was one of my favourite villains from the old cartoon series and I didn't feel his more 'subtle' design was effective. Oscar Isaac is a terrific actor but his performance felt very repetitive and stifling, not because of his lack of ability, but there wasn't enough time or nuance devoted in the film's run time to keep him interesting. All of the returning players perform ably; Fassbender delivers a fine mix of gaunt expressions and passionate vengeance of a man going over the edge. Whilst the newcomers all perform promisingly in their roles they don't get enough material to truly flourish and end up simply being promising additions. Whereas in Captain America Civil War Tom Holland was a great Peter Parker/Spiderman in Apocalypse Sophie Turner seems that she could be a good Jean Grey, and Tye Sheridan could be a good Cyclops etc. but they hover on the periphery battling for screen time with all the other characters. Having stolen the show in Days of Future of Past with a breath-taking slow motion (or fast motion I suppose?) sequence Quicksilver returns with a similar scene here. It isn't as good, going for a bigger is better approach, it is funny in parts but lacks the surprise and intricate detail it had in Days of Future Past. Then we get lots of worldwide destruction that makes Man of Steel look conservative by comparison, say what you will about DC's attitude to city wide destruction at least in Batman vs Superman they showed the destruction from a personal perspective to add dramatic weight. In Apocalypse we watch as cities are sucked into the sky and feel simply that the animators did a stylish job with it, but no empathy whatsoever.

Despite my hang ups X-Men: Apocalypse has enough impressive action beats to be entertaining without being immersive. There are some funny gags, and impressive special effects but very little dramatic stakes. It's definitely the weakest film of the "New class" trilogy (First Class and Days of Future Past being superior) but with an impressive cast to sell it does the job.

The Angry Birds Movie (2016)

A fun animated film

[6/10 · 17 May 2016]

When Finland based Rovio Entertainment, the group behind the Angry Birds videogames, announced a film adaptation of its headline series it probably made sense at the time. Angry Birds had become a cultural flashpoint of the mobile gaming industry and following the successful development of a cartoon show based on the rage fuelled birds their decision to take a leap into the cinematic arena seemed plausible when you consider the incredible success of titles such as The Lego Movie. However since work on the film had begun the popularity of Angry Birds has declined resulting in Rovio Entertainment laying-off (no bird- based pun intended) forty percent of its employees. Interestingly this venture to further illustrate the multi-media potential of the Angry Bird franchise may now be saddled with the responsibility of saving it. Having invested at least $80 million in producing the film, and another $100 million in marketing, it is by far the most expensive Finnish film ever produced and a box office bomb could lead to the capitulation of the entire company.

Red (Jason Sudeikis) is a bird with an anger issue. Following yet another rage-fuelled incident he is sentenced to undertake an anger management class ran by Matilda (Maya Rudolph). At first Red doesn't get along with the other members of the class which include the Speedy Chuck (Josh Gad), Self-conscious Bomb (Danny McBride) and terrifyingly huge Terrence (Sean Penn). However when some pigs arrive on the Island, led by Leonard (Bill Hader), Red believes they are up to no good and with the help of his fellow birds attempts to find out what the pigs are after.

Angry Birds throws a lot of jokes at you, and their quality is very mixed, from a frankly exhaustive amount of bird and pig based puns (Seriously, if you enjoy poultry based puns you will love this film) to a range of visual and sight gags that some of the younger viewers won't understand, and some of the older viewers won't find amusing. Having said that there are plenty of jokes that do hit the mark, and the frenetic pace of the film keeps you engaged with the action. Sudeikis is charming enough as Red to be likable and is ably supported through the incessant energy of Gad and the, surprisingly lovable, Danny McBride. The story is kept very simple, and moves along with such speed that it never really allows any of the emotional moments the film does have time to breathe. Therefore Angry Birds does not offer as much pathos as films like Zootropolis, or the best work of Pixar, or even The Lego Movie but is still serviceable enough as an entertaining experience. Sony Pictures Imageworks have done a great job animating the film with a lush colourful atmosphere and nicely designed characters even if the world in which they inhabit seems a big rigid.

Overall I feel this is a pleasantly engaging movie with enough comic weight to yield a few laughs from even the staunchest objectors. Though not a masterpiece, or close to overcoming the better animated features of recent years, it is certainly not the cringe inducing film some had expected it to be when it was first announced. In fact, with little true competition, Angry Birds may be the best video game to film adaptation of all time, though with Warcraft and Assassins Creed out later this year it may not hold the title for long.

For more reviews check out my site thebeestheysting.wordpress.com

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016)

Some funny moments, but nowhere near as good as the first film.

[4/10 · 15 May 2016]

Following the success of Bad Neighbours, which grossed $270 million worldwide on just an $18 million budget, a sequel was something of an inevitability. When a film performs so well at the box office and is also as entertaining as Bad Neighbours managed to be the only question would be could the cast and crew create a sequel of superior or equal quality?

We re-join Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne), pregnant with their second child, a couple of years after the events of the first film. They have just agreed a deal to sell their house, under the obligation that the new buyers have a 30 day period to back out of the purchase should anything go array. At the same time Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) and a group of her friends move into the house next door to form a hard-partying sorority, Kappa Nu. Things are complicated further when Teddy (Zac Efron), leader of the fraternity from the first film, returns to assist Shelby in forming a successful sorority as retribution for his past grievances with Mac and Kelly.

Whilst it is pleasant to see a film attempt to challenge the male- centric domination of certain establishments across the educational system, it is repeatedly brought up that fraternities are allowed to host parties whilst sororities cannot, the attempts to highlight sexism and prejudices within the collegial system are undermined by the limited scope of the movie. Bad Neighbours 2 can't help but feel like a re-tread of the first film, only this time attempting to highlight certain unfair and unwarranted treatment that women can still face. This isn't a negative but there isn't enough new material to keep the action fresh. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are a pair of the most charming actors working today and I wish Byrne had been given more content with which to showcase her talents. As much as I enjoy Rogen's energetic displays one of my favourite aspects of the first film was Byrne's performance and I felt that with so many different characters now in the sequel she was given the short end of the stick whilst others got a more prominent focus. Zac Efron had something of a breakout role with the first film, establishing himself as a talented comedic actor, this time round having seen what he can do his performance is a little bit underwhelming though it may be that the material he is working with is somewhat limited. Whist the previous film felt very fluid this sequel feels like a series of sequences that were written first, with a connecting line constructed as an afterthought. The two writers from the previous feature (Andrew J. Cohen & Brendan O'Brien) are again credited, but with three other writers also receiving credit (Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg & director Nicholas Stoller) which may explain the sense of in-coordination the movie has at times. The newcomers of the sorority are somewhat of a mixed bag humour wise. Moretz doesn't really get much comedic material with her actions carrying the drama of the film, her constant battle to maintain a sorority without having to resort to conforming to male expectancy of what a sorority should be is admirable, but It would have been nice for her to have a few more comic moments that maybe defined her character a little more beyond her battle for individualism.

After all is said Bad Neighbours 2 has a few funny gags, and some charming characters, but is not as entertaining or prolific as its predecessor. As a passable 90 minute romp you could do worse, or if you haven't seen the first Bad Neighbours just watch that instead as it's a lot funnier.

For more of my film reviews check out thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

A decent effort, but not the great film I wanted.

[5/10 · 9 May 2016]

*Warning – Mild spoiler alert (Nothing that wasn't in the trailer though)

Having sat back and watched this film get savaged upon release by critics, and succeed exponentially at the box office, I finally had the opportunity to see one of this year's most anticipated releases. Directed by Man of Steel helmsman Zack Snyder the film chronicles the ideological battle between two of the most famous superheroes in the world, Batman and Superman.

It's been 18 months since the events of Man of Steel when Superman (Henry Cavill) pretty much totalled Metropolis in his fight against General Zod. Turns out Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) was there that day, and horrified by the destruction of Superman's altercation with his fellow alien Batman has made it his mission to find and "immobolize" this threat.

Superman has always been a difficult character to translate to screen. His earnest morality makes him troublesome to adapt to complex story lines, especially in a realistic setting such as Snyder's Metropolis. Cavill does his best to create a compelling character but I don't feel the script gives him much to work with and his arc seems repetitive and dull. He never seems to develop, and his characterisation is caught between his morality and Snyder's attempts to create a grittier Superman, resulting in an unclear blandness. On the other hand Affleck's portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a paranoid, grief stricken man on the edge is much more decisive and interesting. Snyder's tenacious, visceral; imagery seems to mesh better with Batman's naturally darker inclinations. This moulded with Affleck's Batman, who seems like he has worn the mask for so long it has clouded his morality and corrupted his judgement, is one of the films strongest aspects. I wouldn't call him the definitive Batman, yet, as Keaton, Bale and Conroy have all delivered interesting portrayals of the character in the past, but it's a very strong start. Jeremy Irons is effortlessly brilliant as Alfred, however his screen time is unjustly limited, while Jesse Eisenberg's in full scenery feasting mode as a megalomaniacal Lex Luthor. Unlike some I wasn't as irritated by Eisenberg's performance and I felt his motivations were one of the clearer threads in an otherwise tangled narrative. Amy Adam's doesn't have an opportunity to do much as Lois Lane, again not her fault, whilst Gal Gadot's small role as Wonder Woman was understandably enigmatic, but I am interested in seeing her in a starring role next year.

The film's opening two acts are quite strong, with the occasional foible, but things start to unravel following a rather underwhelming brawl between the two eponymous superheroes. The last act is a bloated mess, rather than a satisfying resolution. Superman's ultimate weakness in the film isn't kryptonite but just being boring. The film has to cobble together some giant creature (Yes I know he's Doomsday) for Superman to have an opponent who can match him, whilst Batman stands behind a wall shooting an occasional grenade like a renegade member of the Gotham SWAT team. The films best action sequence? It's not Batman v Superman, or the Doomsday fight. It's when Batman takes on a group of about thirty men in a warehouse. It's visceral, brilliantly choreographed, and one of the best directed sequences of the film. The character feels vulnerable, the hits feel real, and if Superman took on thirty guys in a warehouse it would be incredibly boring because he could do it without trying.

The film has an impressive style, and I think there are some promising signs in the future for the DC cinematic universe, but Batman v Superman does lack clarity and vision. The ideological battle of the two leads is discarded in favour of shoe horning in a CGI knock off of a LOTR cave troll for Superman, and Wonder Woman to duke it out with, whilst Batman occasionally swoops by on a grappling hook. The final act is a let-down, and may be why the film has received a generally negative reception, but the work up to that point was nicely constructed and investing enough to keep me interested for the future of the Justice League.

Review by Alex Halsall.

Bastille Day (2016)

Okay, but not as good as similar films.

[4/10 · 7 May 2016]

From director James Watkins is a foray into the action genre with Bastille Day. His past work has been primarily in horror, with acclaimed hits Eden Lake and Woman in Black.

Set in Paris a con man, Michael (Richard Madden), steals a bag belonging to Zoe (Charlotte Le Bon) which unknowingly to him contains a bomb. When the device detonates in the city centre CIA agent Sean Briar (Idris Elba) is put in charge of tracking Michael down.

Idris Elba and Richard Madden play off against each other very well, Elba as the super serious Briar and Madden as the immature conman have great chemistry together. Elba is blessed with a natural charisma that makes him easy to watch even when armed with the most underwritten of characters. Whilst Richard Madden holds his own as an entertaining pickpocket, with a few humorous moments. Neither of the pair completely master the American accents, but we're also not in Dick Van Dyke territory so it doesn't become too off putting. The action is suitably slick and steadily directed, though there are a lot of rapid cuts which threaten to break the cohesion of the action. The camera does remain steady though allowing most of the fight scenes to remain coherent. The style seems evocative of the Bourne Ultimatum and Taken, without ever excelling beyond either of these modern action favourites. The pickpocketing scenes are presented stylishly and are entertaining, especially compared to something like Focus from last year that made Will Smith's thief seem somehow super-powered. However despite being superior in these circumstances Bastille Day constantly seems to be an imitation of other popular features released in the past few years without ever developing into something more unique. Setting the movie in Paris against the backdrop of the current tensions following the terrorist attacks is a weird choice for a film that seemingly doesn't want to delve into such a highly divisive issue. The conflicted atmosphere of the cities multicultural classes is extorted by the films plot, but is never explored beyond the simplistic. Kelly Reilly is wasted as one of Briar's co-workers; in a part that could have been portrayed by a box with the words "unimportant character" written on it. To have such a talented performer like Kelly Reilly in such a pointless role is mind boggling. Whilst Anatol Yusef (of Boardwalk Empire fame) is Briar's superior, the one who likes to do things by the book and hates Briar for being such a loose cannon. Yusef is little more than a cliché obstacle whose main service to the narrative is to recite expositional backstory on other characters.

As a whole Bastille Day is little more than a run of the mill actioner, with nods to Taken, Focus and even Die Hard it struggles to find its own path. Elba and Madden do a fine job together, but there isn't much too either of their characters worth thinking about. If you're a fan of action then this may be something worth checking out, but be aware that there isn't anything revolutionary about this Bastille Day.

The Jungle Book (2016)

A fantastic re-telling of a classic story

[8/10 · 7 May 2016]

The classic Rudyard Kipling Jungle Book stories have had a long, rippling, effect on literature and on screen. A lot of people, like me, have happy memories of sitting down and watching an old VHS tape of the 1967 Disney classic animation. Remakes and reboots have been a controversial issue, over the last decade especially, however I've always believed that with the right approach and methodology no filmic concept should be dismissed out of hand, and there is always potential in rediscovery.

Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is a man-cub raised by Raksha (Lupita N'yongo) among a wolf-pack led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito). He was brought to the wolves as a baby by the Black Panther Bagheera (Sir Ben Kingsley) who has since served as a guardian to the boy. During a water truce between the animals of the jungle the fierce tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) threatens Mowgli's life. To keep him safe Bagheera agrees to escort Mowgli to a nearby man village. Along the way Mowgli must deal with a multitude of other jungle creatures such as the snake Kaa (Scarlet Johansen), Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken) and the free loving bear Baloo (Bill Murray).

Director Jon Favreau, DOP Bill Pope and the numerous talented visual artists responsible for the design of the film should be applauded for the fantastic world they have managed to create. Crafting a completely digital living jungle is breath taking enough but populating it with the amount of fantastically detailed environments and animals they have done is truly astounding. Neel Sethi is the only live action actor to appear in the film; however you immediately forget this thanks to the brilliant CGI The Jungle Book uses to conjure these creatures to being. Their lips sync perfectly with their speech and the movement whether crawling, walking, running or leaping is phenomenally realistic. The best work is that of the villainous Shere Khan, portrayed with brilliant menace by Idris Elba, whose beautiful design juxtaposes with his aggression and ruthlessness. Neel Sethi, in his first ever acting role, does an excellent job as Mowgli. Considering he spent the entire film shoot on a green screen reacting to pretend animals he delivers a touching and heartfelt performance that matches up to the prolific ensemble. Everybody in the cast delivers, but Bill Murray's Baloo steals every scene he's in. One of the most popular and beloved Disney creations of all time the role of Baloo was always going to be a difficult task but Murray's combination of humour and heartfelt, and his relaxed, yet somehow powerful, line delivery have succeeded in bringing the character out of his animated 'hibernation' and back on the big screen to be loved all over again by young and old. The music is both nostalgically pleasing and impossibly triumphant, and how can anyone not like Christopher Walken as a giant monkey singing one of the jazziest songs of all time. There are a few narrative issues, problems with making the structure of the film work to be a successful collaboration of both Kipling's story and the previous animated feature. But I'm not sure too many people are going to care thanks to the joyous romp that the film manages to be.

In the end it is a delight to report that The Jungle Book is a visual masterpiece, a fond nostalgia trip and one of the best films of the year so far rolled into one. Knowing that Warner Brothers also have a live action adaptation planned for release in 2018, directed by Andy Serkis, they're going to have their work cut out as the bar has been set pretty darn high, and I highly recommend a trip to the jungle as an (undeserved smirk) 'Bear-necessity'.

Review by Alexander Halsall. For more of my film reviews follow my blog thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/

The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016)

Sorry to say I didn't like it, but some nice visuals.

[2/10 · 7 May 2016]

I don't believe sequels/prequels in and of themselves are bad things. If there is a worthwhile story to be told and the motivation behind a film's creation is driven primarily from a desire to create something of value rather than simply using a recognisable property to make some easy money then why should a film be devalued because it is a continuation, or a re-imagining. However when a film does feel unwarranted, and offers a minimal appropriation for its own existence, it is rather natural to become somewhat frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude of film making on display. With that in mind let's take a look at The Huntsmen: Winter's War.

Taking place before the events of Snow White and The Huntsmen Freya (Emily Blunt), sister of Ravenna (Charlize Theron), has given birth to a child. When the baby is killed by its father Freya's dormant ice powers burst forth and she kidnaps children from their families in order to build an army. Two of these children, Eric (Chris Hemsworth) and Sara (Jessica Chastain), fall in love (Which Freya has forbidden) which leads them to rebel against her rule.

The films overly convoluted narrative structure makes it a strenuous and confusing viewing. It serves as both a prequel, and a sequel, to Snow White and the Huntsmen but feels unimpressively stitched together. It never finds a unique voice of its own, whilst being riddled with cliché, and incoherent storytelling. The addition of Emily Blunt as Freya seems like an attempt to appeal to the massive Frozen fan base to see a grittier live action interpretation of the character of Elsa, one whose motivations seem ridiculous and implausible. I've never seen Emily Blunt seem so lethargic and lifeless. As a fantastic actress it has taken some truly exhaustively dour writing to dull her remarkable talents, but dulled she is. Charlize Theron doesn't chew the scenery, but delves into a three course meal of performance excess, whilst Jessica Chastain is wasted completely as the shallowly characterised Sara. Hemsworth has a lot of charm and charisma, but even he wears thin as the film concludes. The comical support of Nick Frost, Rob Brydon and Sheridan Smith as a group of dwarfs are pretty hit and miss, though Smith is unarguably the stand out ensemble performer. Winter's War is the directorial debut of visual effects artist Cedric Nicolas- Troyan (Who worked on the previous film) and unsurprisingly some of the interesting visual designs are the films strongest aspect, such as Ravenna's magic mirror and Freya's ice owl.

Winter's War is a poorly constructed time sink. A handful of nicely assorted special effects and a couple of astutely choreographed fight scenes aside there isn't anything of merit or substance. If you were a fan of the first film and are searching for more detail and back-story regarding the characters then this may have some interest for you, however the incoherence of the narrative and the competency of the execution may leave you in want. Again sequels/prequels are not negative things in of themselves, and there are numerous examples to prove this. The Huntsmen: Winters War is not one of these though, and hopefully we will see the talented cast and crew of this feature embark on a project more deserving of their time in the future.

Review by Alexander Halsall. For more of my film reviews please follow my blog thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/

Ratchet & Clank (2016)

Passable, but not worth seeking out.

[3/10 · 7 May 2016]

Based on the popular video game series of the same name, revolving around a 'somewhat fox like creature' and his partnership with a robot. Ratchet and Clank is brought to the big screen by Rainmaker Entertainment, responsible for a lot of the straight to DVD/on demand Barbie films of the last decade. Having made the jump to cinematic releases in 2013's Escape to Planet Earth, with reasonable financial success, their follow up is an attempt to adapt one of gaming's most successful pairings of the 21st Century.

Ratchet (James Arnold Taylor), a Lombax, is a mechanic with dreams of achieving big things by joining the Galactic Rangers, led by his hero Captain Qwark (Jim Ward). However Chairmen Drek (Paul Giamatti), the leader of the Blarg, is destroying planets whilst building an unstoppable robot army led by his henchman Victor Von Ion (Slyvester Stallone), but due to a system error one of the robots created is Clank (David Kaye) a diminutive being who wishes to seek out and warn the Galactic Rangers of what is about to happen.

Immediately it becomes apparent that, despite some great efforts on the part of the design team, the budget impacts on the overall quality of the films aesthetic. Rather than feeling like a big screen adaptation of a video game it feels like a high cost cut- scene, impressive on an XBOX one but not in a cinema. The film's eponymous pair are likable with the enthusiastic Ratchet contrasting charmingly with the robotic Clank, but they feel less like individualistic characters and come across as poor imitations of what we have seen before. As "cute" as Clank is he is not as funny or well designed as Baymax, or as emotive and endearing as Wall-e and he holds nothing like the depth and complexity of a character like The Iron Giant. With some marquee names in the cast, combined with veteran voice actors from the video game series, the performances are large, enthusiastic and energetic, doing the maximum amount possible with the limited quality of the script and story. Co-written by Kevin Munroe, T.J Fixman and Gerry Swallow they attempt to draw humour through breaking the fourth wall but Sadly despite a few admittedly well written gags, the best of which younger children won't enjoy anyway, Ratchet and Clank is a rather drab replay of better films.

In the age of animated brilliance we currently find ourselves within you can't simply turn up with a few decent gags and an unoriginal plot and expect to get a return. The excuse of being "Just for Kids" doesn't apply anymore when you consider how successful animation has been at appealing to all ages, something it should always aim to do. As proof the fantastic Zootropolis is currently the highest grossing film of 2016, sitting just shy of $1,000,000,000 worldwide gross. Should we expect an inexperienced studio, with a limited budget, to match the work of Disney? No, But is it wrong to want Ratchet and Clank to not take the easy options with its storytelling, to try and reach a little higher? The movie doesn't completely lack humour; it's got a colourful design, an inoffensive tone and charming lead characters to make it a passable experience. But in a world of Disney, Laika, Pixar, Dreamworks, Ghibli, Aardman, Illumination and countless other talented animation studios passable just isn't enough.

Review by Alexander Halsall. Find more of my film reviews at thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

One of the best films of this summer, a real delight.

[8/10 · 7 May 2016]

Following upon from the success of Captain America: Winter Soldier is a sequel, once again directed by the Russo brothers, adapting Mark Millar's famous Civil War series to the big screen. The thirteenth feature in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, backed by Disney, will this turn out to be the unlucky entry in the highly successful franchise?

Following on from the events of Age of Ultron, after another incident involving the Avengers ends in some high profile collateral damage, the UN demand a form of accountability in the form of the 'Sokovia Accords'. This would mean the Avengers would only be allowed to intercede in international matters when called upon by a supervising committee. The Avengers are left split by this with one side agreeing with Captain America, siding against the accords, and one group siding with Iron Man, who wishes to follow the demands of the U.N. The issue is complicated further when the signing of the bill is seemingly bombed by The Winter Soldier, Captain America's brainwashed best friend, resulting in numerous deaths, including the killing of T'Chaka the King of Wakanda.

Much like Batman vs Superman there is a lot of plot to weave through in Civil War, however unlike BvS this film balances its characters with much more success. By no means does everything flow perfectly, but the ideological clash of the characters is kept clear and concise, assisted by us having gotten to know these characters in previous features. Evans and Downey Jnr continue their fine work as the clashing pair, the figureheads of the Marvel Universe, and this feud has been brewing throughout the Avengers series. Recalling so many characters from the MCU could threaten to destabilise the movie, but as we have met so many of the characters before their importance in the story is flexible, with invested characters taking the foreground. For example Ant-Man appears in the film, in little more than an extended cameo, he has little grasp of the larger situation but his fleeting appearance is highly entertaining. Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) is one of the new additions to the gigantic ensemble and although Boseman does have a charismatic presence there is so much going on in Civil War that we never really get to connect with him. Although it must be admitted that getting to see more of the character in his own feature, under the direction of Ryan Coogler, is an intriguing prospect. The much hyped appearance of Spiderman within the MCU has been one of the most talked about aspects of Civil War and it is a pleasure to report that Tom Holland did a fantastic job as everyone's favourite wall crawler, capturing the youthful enthusiasm that makes the character so popular. Credit goes not just to the actor, but also to the writers/directors for funnelling fresh creative life into a character going through his third incarnation in only fourteen years. Having referenced the writing it would be ill of me not to discuss the work of Christopher Markus & Stephen Mcfeely (Yes that is his real name, and it's awesome) on their fourth Marvel project. They have written the screenplays for the entire Captain America trilogy, and their ability to translate a character many would have dismissed as ill-fitting for a modern audience, due to the perception of him being dated, has turned Captain America, alongside Iron Man, into the flagship character of the MCU. Marvel have long been accused of under developing their villains, their film's tend to focus on the protagonists by design, and Daniel Bruhl's performance is a brief one as Helmut Zemo. However I will say I was impressed by what I did see of the character, and his motivations complement the film's themes in the larger context. With a cast so large I will give small mentions of praise to the continued impressive displays of Elisabeth Olson, Anthony Mackie, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson and Emily VanCamp. Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier is more of a plot piece than a character and I hope to see him explored beyond simply being a brainwashed weapon in the future so we can see more range, especially if, as expected, he becomes a larger part of the MCU in the future. With a range of action scenes I was impressed by the Russo Brothers use of variety, the earlier fight scenes being very organic, using a hand-held camera to amplify the 'street level' of the conflict. Later when the two superhero sides showdown the style changes to a much more fixed fluid motion to allow us to enjoy the wide open spectacle of what amounts to an MCU Royal Rumble. Henry Jackman, one of my favourite composers, once again delivers a stirring powerful score and it's no surprise he was called back on board following his fine work on The Winter Soldier.

With such a massively packed movie I have had to disavow my typical word count just to get close to covering most of the parts of Civil War I wished to discuss. Containing such a monumental amount of content and balancing the narrative, character motivations and plot of the film as well as the Russo's have is a great accomplishment. That the film is therefore unable to completely satisfy all components that hold it together is a small criticism for such a well-made feature but one that needs to be recognised. There is another nagging issue that I cannot elaborate on as it would take us into spoiler region, something I am unwilling to do so soon from release. Suffice it to say it revolves around another common complaint levied at Marvel films in the past that with each passing feature becomes a slightly more aggrandising concern. For now though Civil War is a feast of what fans of the genre will love best, definitely worth seeing, whichever side you're on.

Review by Alexander Halsall. For more of my film reviews follow my blog thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/

Demolition (2015)

Everything is a metaphor.

[5/10 · 7 May 2016]

Director Jean-Marc Vallée has built up an impressive filmography in the past twenty years and his last two features, Dallas Buyers Club and Wild, have propelled Vallée forward as one of the most exciting film-makers of this decade. Now collaborating with the equally impressive Jake Gyllenhaal in Demolition, the script for which appeared on the Hollywood Blacklist in 2007, Vallée explores the concept of grieving for lost loved ones, what people mean too each other and metaphors, lots of metaphors.

Davis (Gyllenhaal) is a successful investment banker under the employ of Phil (Chris Cooper), the father of his wife Julia (Heather Lind). When Julia is killed in a car crash Davis struggles to cope with the grief/or lack thereof and, having been unable to purchase some candy the night of his wife's death, begins to write a series of complaints to a vending machine company which develop into a personal exertion of his feelings and moods. Unknown to him the letters are being read by Karen (Naomi Watts) a customer service representative with emotional burdens of her own.

As terrific as Gyllenhaal continues to be in Demolition the film is weighed down by a frankly outrageously self-aware quirkiness. Dialogue can be a wonderfully expressive and ingenious tool but here it is overladen with self-importance and pretentiousness as some of the lines delivered by the actors, Watts in particular, just made sections of the audience laugh at how self-aggrandising they seemed. None of the characters feel real and for a film obsessed with truth this veneer of characterisation just makes the eccentricity of the characters seem like desperate attempts to create interesting drama. The second act was a particularly weighty sequence of bizarrely quirky dialogue interchanges and a couple of amusingly shallow montage sequences that leave Demolition a sourly disappointing affair. However in the final act there is a sudden surge of development as Davis begins to dismantle his life we start to see past the babbling posturing of the characters and begin to see some of the truth that Demolition seems to be so obsessed with. Vallée explores how objects truly define us within a relationship and how through taking his life apart Davis is able to see through the definitions of marriage, remembrance, forgiveness and grief to learn and experience them beyond the level of expectancy. Chris Cooper is one of the most reliable character actors going and his measured performance as the grieving Phil is an empathic turn from a great performer, Whilst Naomi Watts is left somewhat desolate as a presence thanks to some rather ungraceful dialogue despite her best efforts.

Whilst at times infuriating it was somewhat rewarding to see Demolition manage to construe its ideas into something relatable. Hitting us in the proverbial face with a dazzlingly vast array of metaphorical dialogue didn't provoke thought or feeling, but the actions of the latter part of Demolition do create a satisfying resolution. After you wade through the unimportance of all the philosophical nonsense and discover what the film uncovers about the manufacture, and deconstruction, of our relationships then it's definitely got some qualities that make it worth checking out. Just try not to laugh too hard when Davis announces his realisation that "Everything is a metaphor".

Review by Alexander Halsall. For more of my film reviews follow my blog at thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/

Friend Request (2016)

Well thought out, but not scary.

[5/10 · 7 May 2016]

Cyber based horror has become quite a popular sub-genre in the last couple of years, 2015's Unfriended being the other example that comes to mind. Friend Request is directed by Simon Verhoeven (No relation to Robocop director Paul), and is his first directorial feature that is not a comedy, and in the English language.

Laura (Alycia Debnam-Carey) is a popular college student who is highly active on social media, which includes her Facebook account (totalling over 800 friends). She then receives a friend request from Marina Mills (Liesl Ahlers) a classmate she barely knows who has no Facebook friends. Out of pity she accepts the request. After being messaged constantly by Marina she decides to lie about going out for her birthday in order to avoid her, however photos from the evening end up on Facebook and soon after Marina attacks Laura at school before filming herself committing suicide, which is posted all over Facebook. Following the suicide Laura and her friends come under attack from a demonic force that appears to be Marina out for revenge.

Friend Request is a pleasantly surprising horror feature, which is well-acted by the ensemble. The dialogue between the characters is quite natural and creates a feeling of camaraderie between Laura and her friendship group in the opening scenes of the film. The overarching themes regarding our reliance on social media and how the platforms can manage and manipulate our lives are quite cleverly staged for the most part. Watching Laura's social media being hijacked creates a realistic parallel with stories that are relatable for us watching. Sure maybe when it happens to us it isn't a cyber-demon we went to college with, but having a Facebook Page which serves as an outlet for our thoughts, memories and, well, lives being hacked and seeing spam being sent from a source masquerading under the guise of our identity is an upsetting experience for most. We now see social media accounts as an extension of ourselves, and each other, and Friend Request uses this parallel to make the haunting Laura is experiencing relatable to the audience. However Despite this praise Friend Request suffers from one rather major flaw, it isn't scary. It's certainly jumpy, and had me leaping a couple of times with its scary demons occasionally popping out like demented Whack-a-moles. But it fails to create a sense of dread, or withhold an unsettling atmosphere that makes a great horror movie. The concept of fusing witchcraft with modern technology is quite interesting, but has been covered in previous films to better effect and in the final act Friend Request throws aside any attempt of being a disturbing social commentary in lieu of illogical narrative choices, that I will not disclose to any who wish to see the film. The music in the film is scored by Gary Go and he does a fine job instilling a chilling layer of texture in the latter parts of the movie.

Friend Request is an entertaining, thoughtful, film. But it lacks further detail to make it essential viewing, along with not being unsettling enough to be scary on a baser level. Having left the cinema I, in an absent minded fashion, checked my Facebook page almost immediately without thinking, which merited a chuckle. While there is clearly some observant commentary in the film it doesn't transcend into horror at any point, which is a missed opportunity, but it is still relevant enough to entertain for 90 minutes or so if you're in the mood for a jump-scare or two.

Review by Alexander Halsall, for more reviews of the latest films follow my blog at thebeestheysting.wordpress.com/reviews/