Bangell153 Reviews

Ad Astra (2019)

Beautiful cinematography, appalling writing

[3/10 · 29 September 2019]

What a waste this film is. Some of the shots are mesmerising, and the acting is fantastic. But that's where the positives end.

We spend most of the film with our protagonist - one of the worst in cinematic history. Not only is the entire point of his character that he struggles to feel - not an ideal trait for the guy that's going to hold the whole film together with very little human interaction - the writing is so cliched, dull and basic that it could be a 13-year-old's Interstellar fan faction.

The story is badly paced, with no surprises, twists, or points of interest. When it does touch on science fiction elements, these are executed so badly, with such a complete lack of logic, that they feel ridiculous.

This film wants so desperately to be Solaris. It wants desperately to be Interstellar. But it's nothing other than a gaping chasm where there should be more than its threadbare story.

The Favourite (2018)

Not half as clever as it thinks it is

[2/10 · 8 January 2019]

This movie is appallingly pretentious. Every elongated shot with a fisheye lens feels like a gratuitous round of self-applause by this dreadful director, who undercuts his visual achievements by parading them in such a self-congratulatory manner.

This movie is interminable, propelled along by its own self-importance. Do not go and see it in the cinema: watch it at home so you can switch it off if you realise that it's pretentious rubbish. What a waste of some great performances and visual design.

Mortal Engines (2018)

Slow down!

[6/10 · 22 December 2018]

This film suffers from the same problem as the book: too much happens, too quickly.

There's a lot to like about this film: the world is fairly well realised, the performances are decent, and the action is well directed. The issue is that from start to finish, the action is unrelenting, and no time is given to character development or world building. This film needed to take some time to make us care about its world, but instead it's a constant stream of action and explosions and special effects - by the end, I just felt exhausted!

This series has a big problem: I doubt any viewers, no matter how impressed with the spectacle, were particularly invested in these characters or their world. Not a great set-up for a franchise, unfortunately.

Apostle (2018)

A mess of a film with a few nice visuals

[3/10 · 17 October 2018]

I imagine the pitch for this movie to have been something like: 'How many gruesome images can we stick into one film?'

This film sets out to be an atmospheric, tense descent into the life of a violent cult, but the pacing and execution are wrong every step of the way. Tension is not allowed to build up, pointless story aspects are shoehorned in, and none of the characters are developed. This could have been shown entirely through the eyes of the protagonist, a stranger to the island; or it could have been about the fortunes of the cult's leader. But there are no well-defined characters, and there is hardly a storyline to speak of.

I watched the trailer and the imagery looked brilliant. Add to that the always-spellbinding Michael Sheen, and I thought for sure that this would be something special. I was wrong.

Watch the trailer, spot some of those nice visuals, but don't bother with this disappointing film.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Not perfect, but we need more films like this

[8/10 · 21 March 2018]

I've seen very polarised opinions about this film, so I had to come and stand up for it. From the trailers, this film looked like trash - but it turned out to be so much more than I expected.

Like the recent film Arrival, this is a relatively slow-moving film, which avoids typical Hollywood cliches, and actually made me nervous and intrigued about what the characters were going to encounter. In its visual creativity, too, this film represents extraordinary things in arresting and interesting ways.

I will simply say that if you are intrigued by films which evoke a real sense of awe, wonder, fascination and dread, representing the unearthly in truly thoughtful and interesting ways, check this film out. It's not perfect, it's not as profound as some make out; but it's certainly not your average film.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Oh, what's the point?

[3/10 · 24 December 2017]

I will make this short and spoiler-free. This film is an absolute mess. If someone wrote this script and it didn't take place within the established Star Wars universe, it would be immediately rejected as a mad collection of worthless sub-plots.

This is a series which has become completely engrossed with itself. The original trilogy was so fantastic because it told a simple story very well, with characters that we genuinely connected with. Now, I think the creators have taken their audience for granted (and hey, why wouldn't they, given the ridiculously excessive screaming nature of Star Wars fandom?), and reckon they can serve up the most convoluted, unfocused nonsense so long as there's plenty of explosions and nods to the original trilogy.

This franchise has gone precisely the way the Marvel/DC franchises have: annually pumping out pretty much the same big screen fare because legions of fans, especially kids, will definitely go and watch it. At least The Force Awakens was a pretty tightly made film - The Last Jedi is just stuffed full of head-scratching creative decisions.

Given that this series is nothing special any more, and given that we've had 3 recent films, none of which have been impressive, plus the prequels (at least The Last Jedi didn't reach those lows), I don't see why people still wet their pants in excitement for this series, which is now just a cash cow. But equally, I don't see why people are raging that this film has 'ruined Star Wars'. The series had already been turned to trash. Yes, it's sad every time we see beloved old characters and imagery milked for everything they've got on a soulless movie production line - but hasn't everyone realised by now that the Star Wars franchise is nothing but a money-making machine now?

Here's my advice: The Last Jedi isn't the worst movie ever made, but please don't give Disney your money by going to see it at the cinema.

Bloodline (2015–2017)

One season of brilliance; two of utter pointlessness

[6/10 · 10 September 2017]

I won't review this in detail, as it's been well-covered. What I want to do is thoroughly recommend season 1 of Bloodline to every fan of good TV, and warn everyone who enjoyed it not to bother with seasons 2 and 3.

The first season is perfectly paced, the story is very tightly constructed, and the acting is excellent. The following two seasons do not tell a story which needed to be told, none of the new characters are interesting (and some are downright annoying), and the episodes move at a snail's pace, and stuffed with the worst kind of boring filler. Think you'll be rewarded with a satisfying conclusion that ties the drudgery together? Think again.

Watch season 1; watch it three times over if you like. But as tempted as you'll be to continue, you'll be bored and irritated if you do.

Dunkirk (2017)

A remarkable spectacle but lacks an emotional connection

[7/10 · 27 July 2017]

There's a reason why Christopher Nolan is one of today's foremost directors - he manages to fuse genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle with an emotional core. Take Interstellar: a flawed masterpiece, probably too flawed to be a masterpiece - but Nolan leaves the viewer in a maelstrom of emotions. Dunkirk, while masterfully sewn together, surprisingly lacks an emotional punch.

Let's begin with the brilliant part: the spectacle. The film is relentlessly paced, immersing the viewer in the chaos of war for its entire duration. This is visual film-making at its best, combining the marshalling of vast crowds of people and real sets which characterised the great war films of old, with the close-up, fast-paced excitement at which Nolan has always excelled. Particularly notable is the use of sound - the music is very minimal, the soundscape instead filled with shrieking engines, groaning ships, and starling cracks of bullets which shock the audience every bit as much as the characters. The effect is to create an omnipresent sense of threat - though Nolan never shows the face of a German soldier, instead turning the situation into a pulse-pounding race against time. Sticklers for historical realism will, as usual, find plenty of little things to nitpick - as well as the occasional glaringly improbable detail, such as super-effective bombers and ships sinking unbelievably quickly. But in terms of the general feel, I appreciate that Nolan has not served up a bombastic myth: we see soldiers acting cynically to save their own lives, a sense of quiet duty rather than patriotic fanaticism on the part of the rescuers, and a general feeling on the beaches that ranges from gloom to utter despair, rather than perfect stoicism or unremitting hope.

To immerse oneself in this extraordinary historical episode, look no further than this film. But of course, every historical film needs to zoom in and follow particular narratives about individual characters. The problem is that the characters in Dunkirk are all entirely undeveloped - and of course, this is not a mistake by Nolan, rather than attempt to put the focus on the episode as a whole, showing the plight of the entire army. The individual narratives we follow are merely microcosms of the different aspects of the battle. A movie without stories, or without characters whose paths we are invested in following, will always struggle to resonate with an audience, and makes the whole event feel more like some brilliantly-produced virtual tour of Dunkirk than a piece of visual storytelling.

I suspect every individual viewer will differ in the extent to which they agree with my conclusion that the movie does not connect, and does not grip its audience beyond with anything other than its sheer spectacle. I would recommend this film to any interested viewer - I do not regret my viewing at all, and I am sure that many readers of this review will enjoy the film even more than I did. But - although I'm a history buff (PhD) who's always delighted to see a historical episode so brilliantly recreated - I do feel that Nolan has missed a chance to really weave a human drama into this grand spectacle, and create a classic.

Arrival (II) (2016)

Brilliantly made; emotionally, but not intellectually satisfying

[8/10 · 16 November 2016]

I was incredibly excited to see this movie from the moment I saw the trailer - it promised to be a return to intelligent, intellectual sci-fi. And while the film delivered on that promise for most of its run-time, a sloppy ending to the sci-fi plot(no spoilers ahead) required and received partial redemption from the emotional punch of the film's finale.

The ever-brilliant Amy Adams plays a linguist tasked with communicating with strange alien craft which land in 12 locations across Earth. I always love watching glamorous Hollywood stars attempt to play academics - but Adams succeeds in being convincing. Her acting really holds this film together, and from the beginning to the end her subtle performance was spellbinding and occasionally tear-jerking. Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker play their supporting roles ably.

The visual design of Arrival is one of its strongest aspects, because it's hit upon the fact that in the modern age of special effects, sometimes less is more. The 'ships' themselves are huge but featureless, and their strange nature is established not through a visually overwhelming special effects sequence, but by a simple cinematic trick where gravity is 'flipped'. By keeping the visuals simple and straightforward, Arrival in fact enhances, rather than diminishes, the 'alien' nature of its subject.

Most of the film concerns Adams' attempts to communicate with the aliens and understand their language, while tensions around the world build as different populations and governments take different attitudes toward the aliens. The process by which the humans and aliens begin to be able to communicate feels realistic, without any glaring Hollywood 'aha!' moments, and seems to take an appropriate amount of time. The political ramifications of the situation, while frequently alluded to, are not really explored in great depth, and some may feel that the film misses an opportunity to really have something to say on this topic.

Unfortunately, the way the sci-fi plot is resolved feels incredibly rushed, unsatisfying, and unrealistic. Sadly, people were even laughing during my screening at how conveniently things are wrapped up. Because so much of the preceding run-time had been dedicated to a very detailed, patient exploration of how communication could begin to be attempted, it felt jarring for the resolution to be so rushed. Ultimately, the film is concerned less with these matters, or with the geopolitical situation, and more with the emotions of its main character, and the window onto the wider human condition which she provides. In this respect, the ending is a triumph, so bursting with pathos that one struggles not to feel profoundly moved. Like all great sci-fi, Arrival takes a fantastical concept and uses it to reveal something very real and very human.

Arrival is not a perfect movie. The political aspects of its plot are too insufficiently explored for it to make a real statement. The personal, emotional storyline is extremely moving, but perhaps should have been more tightly focused on throughout the whole movie rather than the technicalities of inter-species communication. But Arrival is a bold movie, fantastically made, which packs an emotional punch and treats its audience with respect. May this ambitious film usher in a renewed interest in thoughtful sci-fi; and may Denis Villeneuve continue to go from strength to strength.

ARQ (2016)

Unspectacular and unsatisfying

[3/10 · 20 September 2016]

After all the excellent original content which Netflix has been producing, I was really looking forward to what I hoped to be an exciting and intelligent sci-fi movie. Unfortunately, ARQ feels more like a mediocre episode of an average sci-fi TV series than a polished film.

The film's action kicks off immediately, with characterisation slowly doled out as the day repeats itself. Neither character gets fleshed out enough for us to be really invested in them - which is acceptable in a movie where the plot and action are constantly driving forward. However, the film could certainly have benefited from better main performances - both lead actors turn in performances worthy of a poor B-movie; a feeling only enhanced by the utterly mediocre dialogue in the script, filled with clichéd lines.

Neither aspect of the premise - the home invasion or the time loop - is original, and that would be fine if the movie was exceptionally well-executed or introduced innovative twists. ARQ, however, plays out fairly straightforwardly, and after the initial rush of excitement, the frenetic action of the film becomes increasingly tedious before the end.

As far as world-building goes, the film provides snippets of information about the outside world in a respectably restrained manner, never resorting to forced exposition. But the amount of information we are given is insufficient to make the film's world interesting to the viewer, and nor does the near-future setting of the film provide any interesting aesthetic or technological curiosities more interesting than an alarm clock with the time holographically projected above it.

I won't spoil the end of this film, but I will state that I found it entirely unsatisfying. It does not provide proper resolution to the story, but nor does it deliver an interesting twist or a memorable ambiguity. In conclusion, I cannot recommend this film, as it fails even to wrap up the mediocre plot in a satisfying way; it's not absolutely awful, but it's so uninspiring that it's not worth the time to watch.

Anthropoid (2016)

Doesn't deliver enough for a 2hr run time

[5/10 · 19 September 2016]

Anthropoid, while initially plodding and unexciting, redeems itself with a final act that truly had my heart thumping - but without either proper exploration of the characters or discussion of the moral issues at stake, this film is a straightforward action/thriller which should have been kept to 90 mins.

The film depicts the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - a nasty piece of work and a high-ranking one too, although no-one I discussed this film with knew anything about him beforehand. The film barely shows Heydrich, and could perhaps have benefited from giving the audience details about the man our protagonists are staking their lives to kill. The film centres on two Czechs parachuted back into the occupied country to take out Heydrich, played by Cillian Murphy and Jamie Dornan. Both deliver solid performances, but their characters remain undeveloped throughout the film. This is a shame, as the almost fraternal dynamic between Murphy's unwavering, stern portrayal of Gabcik and Dornan's more hesitant Kubis is interesting insofar as it is explored.

For most of its run time, Anthropoid is disappointingly devoid of tension. Although the characters are clearly terrified about their attack being thwarted, very little is done to impart a sense of paranoia to the audience - even during the assassination scene! There are no suspicious possible enemies lurking, nor are there any Nazis in the vicinity as Gabcik assembles a Sten under his coat without raising our pulses at all. This was exceptionally disappointing - I was reminded of how Valkyrie, a mediocre film in many ways, nevertheless managed to keep the audience tense despite the fact that everyone knows Hitler wasn't successfully assassinated. That this film failed to maintain any sort of tension up to and including the assassination scene was unacceptable. But my pulse was raised dramatically in the final act.

Incensed by the attack, the Nazis seek out the perpetrators. They locate the family which was housing the assassins, and breaks into their house in a scene which is utterly brutal and set my heart pounding. The subsequent torture scene, though brief, is even more horrific. There then follows an extensive action scene, in which the Nazis attempt to capture or kill the remaining Czech resistance members, and the tension did not let up until the end of the movie. Halfway through the action, I realised my blood was hot and my heart was absolutely racing and that this had been the case for quite a while! Although I had been disappointed overall with the film, you can't argue with a visceral reaction like that, and I was impressed that the film had managed to have such an effect on me. I don't usually think depictions of brutality and torture are necessary in films, but the brief scene in this works perfectly: firstly it raises your pulse at the beginning of a final act which doesn't let it subside, and secondly it makes the audience absolutely desperate for the Czech resistance members not to be taken alive during the subsequent action. One character, struggling to see without his glasses, scrabbles to find his dropped cyanide pill while Nazi officers kick down his door - the demonstration of Nazi brutality immediately beforehand makes this a stomach-churningly tense scene. I also have massive praise for the sound design - bullets and explosions had a real sense of impact and were a major part of the assault on the senses in the final act.

So as an action/thriller film - well, the film (eventually) delivers thrills. But with a 2-hour run time, I would have liked either greater characterisation, or moral discussion of the assassination. As the end credits note, 5000 Czechs were killed in reprisals - would it not be fascinating to see the assassins debate in detail whether what they were doing was the right thing to do? Even today, in hindsight, it's an interesting question, and this film could have been incredibly powerful and thoughtful if it had flagged up the issue.

In conclusion: stick with the film for that gripping final act, but don't expect this one to go down as a classic.

Stranger Things (2016–2025)

Well done, but promises more than it delivers

[8/10 · 15 August 2016]

A homage to every 80s movie you could possibly think of, Stranger Things nevertheless stands up as an enjoyable and satisfying piece of work in its own right.

Most of the characters in the show are interesting and well-acted. Central to the story is a group of somewhat nerdy young friends, who behave and interact like real kids. It's absolutely delightful watching them navigating their way through the bizarre story.

The episodes are shot extremely well, and the directors keep an excellent grip on the tone throughout, which manages to intermingle tension, creepiness and light-heartedness seamlessly.

However, this show has received somewhat over-exuberant praise. The show does not simply nod towards previous horror/sci-fi works - it actively recycles elements to such an extent that very little here can be claimed as original. Furthermore (without wishing to spoil the plot), the mystery which is revealed to underpin the plot is somewhat shallow. The 'bad guys', such as they are, are neither nuanced or fleshed-out and the viewers are left with absolutely no interest in them. Although the show successfully reaches a satisfying narrative conclusion within its eight episodes, ultimately there's nothing very complex here.

This is well-made sci-fi/horror which is absolutely delightful and charming to watch, whilst also being creepy, tense and gripping. It can be appreciated by people without any interest in the 80s nostalgia indulgence with which the show is associated (most of all, it reminded me of the more recent series Fringe). Lovers of good film and TV will enjoy watching this, but a 'masterpiece' it is not.

The Revenant (I) (2015)

Beauty and brilliance, tedium and toil

[6/10 · 21 January 2016]

The Revenant is in many ways absolutely masterful; to criticise such a stunning piece of film-making almost feels inappropriate. But the film highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of its talented director, and lacks a few key ingredients which could have made this a masterpiece in cinematic history.

I doubt I need to comment on the fantastic visuals: the locations are breath-taking, and the landscape shots repeatedly made me sit back and marvel throughout the film. The actions scenes are some of the best-directed I've ever seen - the Native American attack which opens the film has the camera following events down low, on horseback, underwater; it picks up a moment of action and moves onto the next. The effect is to have the viewer feel involved in the scene, as if it were unfolding right before your eyes, and it really drives home the sense of chaos and confusion felt by the characters. The final fight of the film (no spoilers) is one of the best of its kind ever recorded. I'm tired of seeing perfectly choreographed, dirt-free finales. What you get in The Revenant is so tense and visceral that everyone around me in the cinema - many of whom were bored and restless with the film by this point - were suddenly transfixed, gripping the arms of their chairs. The scene combines the tension of the knife-fight towards the end of Saving Private Ryan with uncompromising, unflinching brutality that looks more like a bar fight than a movie duel.

Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent; over the last few years he's grown from one of my most disliked to one of my favourite actors. However, I enjoyed Tom Hardy's performance even more. Partly this is because his role in the film allows him to do much more than mostly express physical pain; but what I love about Hardy is that he always makes his characters believable as well as mesmerising to watch. Time and again he steals the show and becomes the actor you can't wait for the camera to pan back to in his recent films; another top-notch performance here. Credit also to Domhnall Gleeson, who impressed me here as he did in Ex Machina and The Force Awakens - a new star, for sure.

For the points I've made so far, the film is worth seeing. It's an astounding cinematic experience, especially in an age when over-use of CGI predominates. Unfortunately, the film has its shortcomings too. To say it felt 'bloated' would be unfair, considering the meticulous attention to detail; but undeniably, this movie makes its length felt. The key problem is the lack of an emotional core; the main character's physical suffering and feats of endurance can only sustain our interest for so long without any character development. An attempt to flesh out the character is made with the clumsy inclusion of flashbacks and hallucinations - these segments were tedious, though thankfully short. Ultimately, we never really get to know our protagonist. Now, this need not be too much of a problem - one of my favourite films, Apocalypto, also indulges in minimal character development for its survival story. Apocalypto did two things differently, however: firstly, the pace never slackened; the main character is constantly chased and the action is non-stop. The Revenant stops and starts and pans up to a tree canopy a few too many times. Secondly, Apocalypto had a 'ticking clock' element, lacking here. Apocalypto, then, was full of tension; The Revenant really misses a narrative drive and ended up feeling too long. It's similar to Werner Herzog's Aguirre: lots of stunning landscape shots, lots of great cinematography, lots of admirable on-location work by the actors and crew - but it's patience-testing. The ponderous nature of The Revenant made it disappointing for me that Inarritu misses a couple of great opportunities to ratchet up the tension: the opening attack could have had a tense prelude before the action kicks off, and there's a scene where the main character is discovered by Native Americans and has to flee, which doesn't take its time and create some fear.

It's difficult to create a strong narrative core to a film that's essentially about the survival feats of one man, granted. But the stop-start pace doesn't work well with the lack of character depth or development, and leaves the audience questioning why they're watching the gruesome spectacles on-screen; as we sit through another long scene and reflect - there's certainly enough time to stop 'experiencing' the film and start reflecting as a movie-goer - we wonder what all the spectacle is in service of. And the answer is, well, a very shallow story. Not that I think Inarritu aimed for a particularly deep story - but his visual masterpiece struggles to fully hold the viewer's attention. There is one opportunity for moral complication which is declined (very non-specific to avoid spoilers): one of the men who leaves the protagonist for dead doesn't simply leave him because thinks he's going to die anyway and is worried about his own survival - he also does *something else* which gives the main character reason to hate him and want revenge. The *something else* is a non-historical detail and could have been omitted - wouldn't it be more interesting if, rather than a straightforward revenge plot, we have to question our protagonist's right to seek revenge? If we the audience had to question whether we would leave the man to die - if the protagonist himself had to question this?

If you're an impatient person, don't watch this film. To most people, however, I'd recommend a watch. Go book yourself a good seat at a cinema with a big screen and marvel at the visuals, the acting, and the action.

There's certainly enough that's great about this film to make me excited to see what Inarritu does next.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Not a masterpiece, not original, but it's authentic and exciting

[6/10 · 22 December 2015]

You know what you're going to get with J.J. Abrams: an effective and entertaining blockbuster, never short on excitement and rarely failing to succeed in its goals - because it never strays far from a pretty basic formula.

The most crucial thing that Abrams had to get right was creating likable new characters, and he's succeeded. Daisy Ridley's Rey makes for a great protagonist - competent, headstrong and wilful whilst being sufficiently youthful and uncertain to give plenty of scope for growth over the trilogy. John Boyega's Finn sums up everything I found refreshing about Abram's approach to Star Wars compared with the prequels: he's fantastically fun and energetic, and not afraid to be humorous. Although the plot of this particular film was derivative, the introduction of characters we enjoy watching bodes well for the new trilogy.

I really enjoyed some of the sets and settings in this film. As he did with Star Trek, Ambrams has tried to use real sets as much as possible, and it pays off - there's a grit that keeps the action gripping. The action is excellent throughout, with classic space-battles and lightsabre fights. Nothing is too drawn-out, and every action sequence advances the plot in a clear way; there's always something at stake. There's a clear sense that the best is yet to come, however - I anticipate bigger and more innovative battle sequences in the sequels. I also enjoyed how the protagonists felt vulnerable - there was a proper sense of threat and danger.

The film integrates itself pretty well into the Star Wars universe. All the old characters seem to have developed realistically and are doing things that seem plausible. None of the references were obnoxious, but some were unnecessary. Inside the Millennium Falcon, it's enough for us to see the holographic games console from Episode IV; we don't need a character accidentally leaning on it and turning it on. Other little things - like a visit to a cantina - also felt like creative choices that were too obvious (although I'll forgive the cantina because it was so well-realised, unlike the forgettable sterility of similar sets in the prequels). My favourite call-backs were the more subtle ones, particularly the use of iconic edits and camera shots from the original films. I, and I think most viewers, prefer authenticity to blatant call-backs.

Without spoiling by saying anything specific, I think the old characters should have ushered in the new generation of stars in this first film, and then be strongly sidelined for the rest of the franchise so that this can really be its own series of movies. Unfortunately, it seems that certain old characters will be central to the overarching plot of the coming sequels, which I'm worried will prohibit the new generation from taking centre stage.

One of the few other flaws of this movie which I'm worried about going forward is the ambiguous position of the Republic vis-a-vis the First Order. Even though the Empire was supposedly destroyed in Episode 6, in this film their First Order successors still seem to be marauding around the galaxy like they own the place, and there's a Rebellion/Resistance faction. Not exactly rebels if the Republic rules the galaxy - and surely no longer underdogs. The fact that I was confused about the relative power of the different factions detracted from the tension, and I hope the threat is clearer in future films.

Now here's the interesting question - could this have possibly been more than a 7 or 8 out of 10? I don't actually think so. This was a fun action/adventure film which had the primary goal of setting up a new franchise. There isn't the room for the emotional depth which makes a masterpiece; furthermore, the plot meandered slightly even though it was driven along well by the sheer energy of the film. The sequels, and this trilogy as a whole, have the potential to be something grander. For now let's celebrate that J.J. Ambrams did a great job creating a movie that was enjoyable without being overly reliant on references, and made something that was fun and exciting - unlike those bloody prequels.

Legend (I) (2015)

A Succession of Entertaining Scenes

[5/10 · 14 September 2015]

If asked what this film is "about", you can respond that it's about the Krays - and you can't be much more specific than that.

The possibilities were immense - it could have been about the politics of the Kray empire, or a character study into what made the Krays tick, or (probably what the film should have gone for) a focused story of the Krays' downfall. Instead, the film lacks any real coherence or a strong narrative arc; it essentially consists of a series of scenes which could have been played in almost any order.

Now, a film which deals with real events always has to strike a balance between authenticity and arranging events into a satisfyingly cohesive narrative. This can be a problem for films striving for strict accuracy, but Legend's larger-than-life, often tongue-in-cheek approach left plenty of room for fashioning a narrative. Yet the closest Legend comes to telling a story concerns the relationship between Reggie and his wife Frances. This was an odd choice of perspective (Frances functions as the movie's narrator), not least because the film doesn't really explore the relationship in any real depth - for instance, five minutes into their first date, Reggie and Frances kiss and that's all that's done to establish that they're "in love". Although Emily Browning performed well enough as Frances, the writing for her character was so bad it was jarring - she speaks in horrible movie clichés, in a way that no-one ever speaks in real life.

The writing is otherwise excellent, and brought to life by fantastic performances from the whole cast - but especially, of course, Tom Hardy. His portrait of Ronnie, though it constantly borders on being absolutely preposterous, is impossible to tear your eyes away from. In every scene, I was waiting for the camera to cut back to Ronnie so I could savour the performance.

Does Hardy's double-performance redeem the film's shortcomings? Well, yes - enough for me to say that this film is worth a watch. You will be entertained, even if the film drags towards the end.

But ultimately, Hardy's incredible performance is wasted on a film which failed to tell a story. Legend provides no sort of insight into Reggie and Frances' relationship, or the downfall of the Krays, or the workings of their empire, or, most crucially of all, into the motivations and characters of the Krays.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

Wasted Potential

[3/10 · 18 August 2015]

In The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Russian Ryan Gosling and German Jennifer Lawrence team up with Superman to save the world or something.

I struggled to phrase that because the plot is never established properly. There are Neo-Nazis building a bomb? Okay, I suppose that's self-evidently threatening, but we're never told exactly what their plan is. Nor is there a clear villain, which goes a long way to explaining why the ending to this film felt so devoid of tension or significance.

Not that the villains are the only ones to suffer from inadequate characterisation - we're given the "suave" American spy and his ultra-serious, literal-minded Russian partner in a reluctant marriage of convenience. The characters lack any depth - it's as if the audience is served up this partnership and told "You know how this dynamic works, just go with it - it's a recipe for great action and comedy gold, right?"

Well, I can accept paper-thin characters operating within a paper-thin dynamic to serve the purposes of a movie solely focused on action, sure. But despite the promise of its brilliant opening, very little of U.N.C.L.E. is actually taken up with action. I get the feeling this was intended to be a real character piece - after all, this is the first of a new franchise, so subordinating action to character establishment would be perfectly reasonable. But as a character movie, this fails; it's not simply that the characters and their relationships lack depth - they're not particularly likable either.

Henry Cavill plays Solo, supposed to be like old-school Bond - and I welcome this, especially as the actual Bond films have become very serious and dark lately. But Solo just comes across as a perfect example of what we Brits call a "wanker", with no charm whatsoever. I felt the same way towards Robert Downey Junior's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the films also directed by Ritchie - no charm, just know-it-all American swagger. If you consider the characters portrayed by Jason Statham in Ritchie's Lock Stock and Snatch, or Gerard Butler in RocknRolla, they have the same relentless self-confidence - but their characters are flawed and really quite dumb, which makes them endearing and human. Instead Solo is just a perfect super-agent.

His Russian counterpart Illya is very much a stock character, precisely what you expect as the super-serious counterpoint to Solo's swagger. Aside from a brief mention of his childhood - basically designed to answer the question "Why does Illya like hitting people?" - his character is given little development. I'll reiterate - this would be fine if the film spent most of its time on action, but this isn't the case. Illya is also given a deliberately awkward romance. I'm not sure why this was inserted into the film except to create some combination of comedy and sexual tension. A love-triangle between Solo, Illya and Gaby would have been more interesting; this would have created more tension and also more fully integrated the story lines and characterisations of the three protagonists - as it is, the film features two effectively separate relationships (Solo-Illya and Illya-Gaby).

I feel bad writing this review, because I love Guy Ritchie; Snatch and Lock Stock are two of my favourite films. U.N.C.L.E. did have some typical Guy Ritchie tropes – great stylised action and the integration of the soundtrack is masterful as ever. I was glad to see these elements, as I felt Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films felt too conventionally directed, lacking experimentation or inventiveness. But in U.N.C.L.E., you get the feeling Ritchie hasn't really been let off the leash, and he and the other 3 screenwriters have certainly tried to compromise between his stylised masterpieces and the requirements of the increasingly homogenised blockbuster. That's understandable - but I think the biggest disappointment of this film is its squandered potential. I'll give three examples.

Setting: The opening takes place in East Germany and, along with a fantastic montage documenting the polarisation of world politics, it really sets the Cold War tone. Unfortunately, the film mostly takes place in Italy, and the Cold War is barely referenced. What a waste! If you want a Russian and an American spy in an uneasy working relationship, you could have had it in the modern day. The recent Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy film did an excellent job of exploiting the Cold War setting for tension and tone - if only U.N.C.L.E. remained in Germany.

Action: There's not enough of it. As discussed, the protagonists are too weak to make this a character piece. Nor does the plot contain any sort of mystery or suspense - when the agents briefed, they're told exactly what to do. They don't have to discover anything; basically they've just got to take out the generic movie doomsday device. This is acceptable if it sets up an action romp. Unfortunately, whilst the action is great whenever it does occur, the vast majority of this film is spent in what we Brits call "faffing around".

Characters: Solo is meant to be a former post-war black-market profiteer serving the CIA to escape his prison sentence. Clearly there's great potential here - it would have been interesting to see Solo chafing against his superiors or employing his "maverick" qualities. But he never disobeys orders and once on his mission, his superiors largely leave him to it - and as for his unorthodox past, he never puts to use any of his unique skills or knowledge. This was the whole reason he was recruited, right? I don't see him doing much different to a regular spy. Although I guess Henry Cavill can hide gadgets or weapons or getaway vehicles inside his chin.

Not terrible overall - it's just too slow, too shallow and sometimes too safe - I really think a younger, unencumbered Ritchie could have made a spy film 10 times funnier, cooler and more exciting than this.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Boring, Ridiculous, Devoid of Tension

[1/10 · 30 August 2011]

The final nail is hammered into the coffin of Harry Potter as the series dies in a stupid action-fest. I'm going to list three reasons I dislike this movie and the direction the Harry Potter films have taken, and then I'll let you all lynch me.

1. Tone

Tone is important to a movie. You can make it dark, or light-hearted, or funny, or scary, but if you mix it up too much you'll end up with a film that's hard to take seriously. Harry Potter started off as a charming phenomenon for kids - the peril was mild, we were constantly meeting magical new people and creatures and it was all great. Then we come to this movie, and by now I've got no idea what the tone is meant to be. It's certainly not a light-hearted movie for kids any more. It's not really an adult film either. You've got something close to horror in one scene, and then you've got comedy, and then romance, and it's hard to tell when you're meant to be excited or laughing or scared. The constant humour and the earlier films have established this universe as a very light-hearted one, and so when we're introduced to Voldemort and his big, evil taking-over-the-world plan, there's not really much of a sense of danger. People try to tell me that the series has grown and matured as its audience has grown and matured. Now, I started reading the books when I was very young, so I'm part of that audience. I'd rather appreciate it if people stopped feeding me that crap - you pick a tone and you stick with it, or I won't be able to take anything seriously.

2. No Tension

You can spend as much as you want on amazing visuals and complex action sequences, but they won't be exciting unless you make the audience care. I have to be worried about whether the protagonists will succeed, and the obstacles need to be hard to overcome. In the earlier films, they had interesting obstacles: look at the first film, where they had to get past a series of tests to get to the philosopher's stone. Then in the second, they hatched a plan to transform into other people in order to sneak around. It was tense; they could get caught.

The new films may have cool visual effects, but they're unimaginative. The phrase "deus ex machina" sums up a lot of this movie. For example, they enter the bank. Holy crap, a giant dragon! How will they overcome this?! Oh, don't worry, this goblin guy is just going to ring a bell. Yeah, keep ringing... There we go, problem solved. Wow, how exciting! Now, let's get the thing we came in to get which the audience doesn't care about... Oh no, the room's filling up with gold, but I'll just keep going and... Yeah, there we go, got the thing. Now, let's leave. Oh, no! The place is collapsing! How will we get out?! Oh, a massive flying dragon we can ride on. That's convenient. Off we go!

It just felt like a series of things which happened. Every obstacle had some immediate and convenient resolution. Even when Harry died we all knew that he'd just somehow come back to life. It just sucks out all the tension.

3. Harry Potter is Ruined

Like I was saying earlier, remember how Harry Potter used to be a charming adventure for kids? By the end of this series, that's all gone. They don't spend much time in the magical castle, they spend it in the dull English countryside. Every book used to be a fun adventure at Hogwarts, which was full of mystery as well as familiar, enjoyable people and settings. Now our lovable fictional universe is the setting for some uninteresting conflict which we don't really care about. JK Rowling wants to make a load of points about modern issues and politics. In the end, these turn out to be very shallow, broad, and uninteresting. Here's a hint: your books got popular because we wanted to read about Harry's magical adventures, not the Ministry of Magic getting taken over by Nazis. Oh, no, wait, it's a serious series for adults now, no more childish fun to be had here.

Anyone who watched George Lucas ruin the Star Wars franchise with the prequel films will see that mirrored here: iconic, wonderful, interesting things from the earlier films are shoved into the film in excess. George Lucas had a billion lightsabre duels. In Harry Potter we've got a massive fight with wands. It looks amazing; bolts of red and green stuff flying all over the place, people getting knocked down, things exploding... But that's not the point of wands. Think back to the duel between Harry and Malfoy in the Chamber of Secrets. That looked rubbish. It was small. But it was far more exciting and gripping than hundreds of wands discharging all over the room like they're laser guns. Likewise, remember the duel between Harry and Voldemort at the end of the fourth film. Different coloured streaks of magic stuff came out of the end of each wand and the only real action was in Harry's face going grrrrhnnngrrrr... But that was great - it was the first proper face-off between Harry and his mortal enemy; it was a clash of good and evil, an exciting showdown with the villain. Now all that's been ruined.

There are many more things I could list. The fanboys will hate me in any case. But this simply wasn't a good film, and the magic of Harry Potter is long gone.

Page Eight (2011 TV Movie)

Slick, Intelligent, But Unexciting

[6/10 · 29 August 2011]

Page Eight accumulates a terrific roster of talented actors and sets them to work in a mediocre, unexciting story. The result is simultaneously entertaining and dull - whilst you'll delight in the intelligent, witty, and perfectly-delivered dialogue, you'll not feel at all caught up in the story. The story is at times hard to follow, and overall feels very unimaginative and boring. Tension is never developed; at no point will you be anywhere close to the edge of your seat, because we're never presented with a real threat to the protagonist. The romance story never gets going properly for the duration of the tale, and none of the characters seem particularly motivated, resulting in a film that drives through a boring plot to a boring conclusion.

This is a film that won't entertain you with drama or suspense; this is a film that will show you a wonderfully-executed acting masterclass, where it doesn't feel as if anything is at stake. If the cast had been given a better story, this could have been an absolutely amazing thriller, but the opportunity is squandered.

Under Suspicion (2000)

Grips You, Then Disappoints You

[6/10 · 17 August 2011]

Did Henry Hearst rape and kill two young girls? That's the question occupying the whole of Under Suspicion.

For nearly the entirety of its running time, the film is executed brilliantly. There is no action: it keeps the audience's attention through its intelligence, brilliant construction and the reliably excellent performances of Freeman and Hackman. We are not given definitive evidence, and many strange and suspicious things crop up that we yearn to find out about.

This could well have been one of the greatest mystery films I've seen... Until the ending. The ending leaves the audience without an explanation - and not in a good way that lets the audience ponder. It's an ending that leaves you shouting at the screen for an answer.

Overall, I'd recommend this film because it will keep you entertained and on the edge of your seat for more than an hour and a half. Just prepare yourself for an ending that will leave you wholly unsatisfied and rather annoyed.