Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 2049

Now before you read further, Denis Villenueve sent a personalised note to all film critics that they don't put the slightest bit of a synopsis in their review. It's apparently so everyone can go and watch this film with a clean slate and not know what to expect. Well, I'm going to honour that request because any kind of information can and will ruin this experience. Keep in mind I used the word 'experience'. So unfortunately I am going to have to be very vague because I don't want to ruin one of the best films of 2017.

The Story - 9/10

Despite the fact a synopsis won't be given, you still need a bit of a refresher from the last film. In the future, a new kind of slave labour has been made, replicants. They are faster, stronger and smarter than humans and are essentially seen as hardware. But they are illegal on earth and in this film are outlawed all together. Any replicant that goes haywire is 'retired' by a special task force member known as a Blade Runner. Ryan Gosling is a blade runner and has to fulfil his job requirements. One of the things that made Blade Runner so influential was the question it asked and how it presented them. Essentially "what does it means to be human"? Replicants are embodiments of Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" philosophy. Similar motifs from the first film also appear in this, such as the importance of memories, eyes (through which they determine images and justify their memories) and freedom. But the main problem with having these motifs and questions appear in this film, is that we have already seen them before. But unlike other sequels, this one does what good sequels do. Blade Runner 2049 expands on the predecessor and explores the themes and mythos. This is all done in a meaningful way that feels organic and necessary. The world-building as well is done seamlessly and immerses you into the experience. But keep in mind that it is three hours long and the pacing is purposefully long and sometimes when it doesn't need to be.

The Characters - 9.5/10

Ryan Gosling plays Agent K. He is essentially the lens through which we experience this world and the people that live in it. He is also the target for the aforementioned motifs and philosophies. Like the problems I mentioned before, it also affects his character. He essentially has the similar existential crisis that Deckard has from the first film. But it is done in a very different way because while Deckard's crisis was personal, K's is pivotal to the whole entire story. This comes into the concept of expanding ideas from the original.

Harrison Ford returns as Deckard. The first thing I will address is that they still don't reveal his true identity. If you have watched the first film then you know what I mean. He thankfully isn't reliant to carry the story and the best thing about is he doesn't feel forced. Because the only reason you would ever want to keep Harrison Ford is if you were going to bank on nostalgia. Which is a legitimate worry. But that doesn't happen as he serves the story and has a purpose. There were even times when I didn't see Harrison Ford but Deckard. So I do have to give credit for that.

The only main problem I have with the cast is Jared Leto. He is essentially the replacement Tyrell. But I find him pointless to the grand narrative. But he did serve a particular purpose, he had his threatening and dominating moments, like showing disregard for a newly made replicant despite the fact it is living and breathing. But he only appears for around ten minutes of screen-time and is completely forgotten afterwards.

The Drama - 10/10

Just like the first Blade Runner, this film relies on tension and suspense. This accomplished with the EDM soundtrack and the cinematography by Roger Deakins. The pacing is what keeps the tension at focus and fresh in our minds. But this can also be a problem if it isn't handled correctly. Part of the reason why the film is nearly three hours long is because it is filled with scenes that draw out the tension and suspense. This can be a double edged sword because the tension can last forever and the audience wants it all to be over. But thankfully the scenes that are long and drawn out do serve a particular purpose to the story and you want to see it through to the end.

Conculsion

Blade Runner 2049 is the best sequel that the original film could get. If you loved the original, you are objectively going to love this. But if you didn't like the original, you are still going to like this. Give this a watch but make sure to use the bathroom before hand and pack plenty of snacks.

I am giving Blade Runner 2049 a 9.5/10

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

After the success of the last film, it only makes sense to make a sequel. After it has the replacement Guy Ritchie directing (Matthew Vaughn) and expanding the premise, it should be perfect right? Well...

The Story - 6.5/10

To be fair on this film, the story was never going to be the biggest focus. Basically the main premise is a drug dealer named Poppy has poisoned her supply and it's making people more sick than they normally would taking drugs. She ends up destroying the Kingsmen and the survivors have to look to their American counterparts, the Statesmen. It sounds simple enough but that doesn't excuse this film for being boring. This film is around 2 hours but I felt like I went to a marathon of bad Ridley Scott films. The scenes that involved exposition in the first film worked because they were short and to the point. These ones are drawn out, not very useful and they weren't even that funny. In between the action, there are these exposition and pointless character building scenes. We don't need these characters to be expanded because they are fine the way they are. But the one thing I will give this movie credit for, is that there is technically a surprise villain at the end of the film. I'm pretty sure it's meant to be a commentary on Trump but this movie would be banned if it was. 

The Characters - 6.5/10

Taron Edgerton returns as Eggsy. He was the focal point of the first film and the lens through how we experienced the world of the Kingsmen. Now he's a more likeable and fun character since he has the charm from before, but now he can do flips, kicks and espionage. He is easily the best character of this ensemble.

Colin Firth comes back as agent Gallahad. Now his return initially is really stupid. He was shot in the head in the last film and when he was shown to be alive, this confused and annoyed many people. The way he gets revived is equally stupid and I should be annoyed about it, but I'm not. So now I don't know what to do. However he still has his charm and eloquence but less of the kickassery. 

As for the Statesmen, the only thing that can be said is three quarters of them are as dull as an old Bowie knife. The only remotely interesting one is Pedro Pascal (or Oberyn Martell from Game of Thrones). He is the most involved of the Statesmen and has the best fight scenes of all of them. He also has a particular character arc that (despite coming out of left field) makes sense. 

Julianne Moore plays the main villain, Poppy. She is a drug cartel leader and poisons her supply which affects millions of people. She essentially surrounds herself in 1950's nostalgia and does disgusting things to her goons. Unlike Samuel L Jackson in the first film, she isn't given enough time to really seem that threatening or funny. As I said before, the film does a clever thing by having her not the main problem in the climax. She might be the one who caused all of these problems but she is in a position to fix it all and is prevented in doing so by the surprise villain. This flips our expectations on their heads and you have to appreciate that. 

The Action - 7.5/10

As with most sequels, what they do is take what worked in the first and crank it up to 11. The only thing is they took the cool shaky camera shorts and dropped it into every single action scene. The best way I can describe the problem that I have is this. The first film used this sparingly and its like having a chocolate bar. You eat it and you enjoy it, it tastes nice but you need to get some nutrients into you before having another one. This film's use of the shaky camera is like getting one of those bags filled with hundreds of chocolate bars. Now you don't know what to do and the thought of eating them all makes you sick. But that doesn't mean the action scenes are bad, not at all. The best one by far is at the end, when a certain captured musician who made a song that is perfect for a wild Saturday night plays over everything. The characters are kicking, jumping and shooting and in sync with the music, it does get your blood pumping.

Conclusion

All in all, Kingsman the Golden Circle is not as good as the first one, but it's still pretty damn good. The story isn't as fun or interesting as it could be, the characters aren't given any opportunity to show off their full potential but the action is still heart pumping. If you want a good time, go and watch it.

I am giving it a 7/10

IT

IT

So here is the long awaited Stephen King adaptation of easily his best book. There's also a miniseries that exists but it is not exactly the best representative of King's talent. But with this film, this is a different thing entirely.

The Story - 9/10

In many respects, the story is very similar to the book but also doesn't have the same problems that it has. For example, in the book it cuts to the kids from when they were adults, to when they were kids then back to when they were adults. It ditches this disjointed nature and follows the main characters as kids. The basic premise is that a killer clown is terrorising a small town in Maine (I mean come on, it's a Stephen King story, it needs to be set in Maine or else there is no order to the world) and a group of middle school children band together to stop it. While also dealing with bullies, moronic grown ups, alcoholism and pedophilia. The story is completely reliant on these characters and it would all fall apart if they were not strong enough, but I'll get to that later. Since I have read the book, I have gotten used to it's disjointed nature. But even I have to admit, keeping it set in one period of time is helpful for getting acquainted with the surroundings and the characters. The only main issue that I have with the film is the pacing. It feels like it follows too much on trying to build up this monster with scary scenes and it's history instead of the characters. That's not to say they don't have enough time dedicated to them and their problems, but they could have done with a bit more for us to love them more. 

The Characters - 9.5/10

As I said before, if the main characters weren't strong enough, the film would fail. Thankfully they are. Each of these kids are memorable and loveable in their own ways. As to be expected though, they are favourites like Bill, Beverly and Ben. The favouritism with Bill and Bev is to be expected though because Bill's character arc is his brother dying which drives the story. Bev's story is shown in more detail because it's the most disturbing one. With all the girls mocking her and especially moments with her father, they are particularly unnerving. But Ben takes an unfair amount of screen time as he replaces Mike as the historian of the town. I know people on the internet have taken a high horse stance and saying that it's bad for racist reasons, but it is also bad for story reasons. Later on, he gets the gang back together because he is the only one who stays in Derry. This kind of move disempowers his character and leaves him to the side. Ben doesn't need this kind of empowerment because we would sympathise with him enough as it is. Also the kid from Stranger Things I didn't find that particularly funny. But as a whole, despite this kind of favouritism, the kids are still loveable and act fantastically.

For the real star of the show, Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. I really loved him, he was the perfect mix of terrifying and humorous. In comparison to the Tim Curry performance, I feel like Skarsgard is a more appropriate Pennywise. Tim Curry went for a more comical approach and it is an absolute riot. This clown was not, he was a monster that everyone was horrified and stressed out by. He is especially a physical kind of monster, despite the fact there are moments where it's obviously CGI. He jumps and dances about to add to the comic aspect of the role but it comes off as frightening.

The Horror - 9/10

As for the scares, it doesn't just come from Pennywise. It comes out of the struggles that the kids have to deal with. With the bullies, (since it's the 80s instead of the 50s) instead of looking like the chorus from Grease like in the miniseries. They look like they want to audition as Patrick Swayze's stunt double. They are particularly threatening and Henry is more fleshed out with a terrible home life and dealing with it in a horrific fashion. The adults are also overbearing towards the children in how they apathetically refuse to help them. Especially with Beverly's dad, that was just disturbing. As for Pennywise, he isn't just a clown. The best way to describe him without revealing his true form (it isn't shown in the film, but it is in the book), he is basically a Boggart from Harry Potter. For each kid he appears as something else like a Leper, a mummy or a zombie. But he doesn't have a riddiculus spell you can just cast. The camera angles as well as the lighting add to the atmosphere of particular scenes and leave you feeling unnerved.

Conclusion

IT is a fantastic horror film and an adaptation that the book deserves. It's scary, funny, has an excellent cast and monster and fantastic scares. Also make sure you watch this film sitting next to jumpy people, it's way more fun that way.

I am giving it a 9.5/10.

Speed

Speed

Well, I haven't done that many reviews in a while, so I might as well do a review of a film everyone goes nuts for. Speed is generally considered one of the best action films of the nineties, but I don't really see why. 

One thing that I will give the film credit for is the scenario, a bus needs to go above a general speed otherwise it will explode. That scenario should create a lot of tension and suspense (and before you say anything, tension is not the same as suspense). But I find that it lasts way too long and gets rather boring after a while. The ways that it tries to maintain the tension all just come out in ridiculous fashion. Like going over an unfinished bridge that has a 50ft gap. I know that action films are meant to be high octane and unrealistic like that but I feel that the film took great lengths to be as realistic as possible. For example, a passenger tries to get off the bus and explodes and gets crushed under the wheel. They even say it in the news reports to try and hammer that fact into you. Also the performances are not that memorable, Keanu Reeves is still more wooden than a tree and Sandra Bullock didn't stand out for me. The only one who did was Dennis Hopper as the mad bomber. He is just so persistent and motivated that you end up slightly rooting for him. 

In conclusion, this is a case of a film that I don't like but everyone else does. I did find it enjoyable in parts but when it comes to action films, I tend to find the whole film memorable. Like Independence Day, Die Hard and John Wick, those are memorable films with quotable lines. This one only has "Pop quiz, hotshot". 

I am giving this a 5.5/10

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

If you know anything about Luc Besson, then you know that he is a fantastic genre director. He is well versed in the spy thriller, science fiction and drama genre and can pull them off brilliantly. Now, since he grew up with the comic series that this is based on; you would think it would be his magnum opus right? Well....

The Story - 5.5/10

The story follows Valerian and Laureline, who are two secret agents sent out for missions around the galaxy. In this particular instance, a huge space station known as Alpha is under threat from an unknown source. This is most troubling due to the fact that it holds hundreds upon hundreds of secrets, from hundreds upon hundreds of species. Now this should be a very simple premise to work with, but the film has pacing issues and needless twists and turns that it overcomplicates things. The progression of events doesn't make any sense and we aren't given that much reason to care. We aren't able to grasp the severity of the situation, because there are no reasons to do; aside from the fact hundreds of thousands of species live there. It also hops from planet to planet exactly like Rogue One and this presents pacing and time progression issues. The types of issues that you will always be bugged about throughout the film. But to give credit where credit is due, the film did try to portray a nice message. The fact that we can coexist, it is done through the beginning and meeting all the aliens and also the USSR. But this is brushed over and forgotten rather quickly so that is where it falters. 

The Characters - 4/10

Dane Dehaan plays the titular character of Valerian and he is terrible. His acting is so deadpan and lifeless that you are bored throughout the entirety of the film. It doesn't help that many of his lines are cheesy and poorly written. Him and Cara Delevingne are meant to be the ones to carry the film, and they fail miserably. There is also an annoying plot point of him always trying to marry Laureline and it is completely pointless. He is extremely bland, shares little chemistry with his counterpart and we have no reason to care. 

Cara Delevingne plays Laureline, Valerian's partner. She is just as bad as Dehaan, in that her acting is deadpan and lifeless. She has such a vacant expression and vocal tone that you start to care as little she does. Also another thing that I found disturbing (though it's more than likely just me), I originally thought that they were brother and sister. I mean they behave the same and have similar facial features. This was quite daunting when Valerian makes all of these advances. She essentially is as invested in the situation as Valerian is.

The Action - 6/10

One thing that I will comment on is the visual style of the film. It is unbelievably beautiful to look at, extremely creative and was admirable. But when the action of the film is concerned, it's decent. It's nothing spectacular but you also won't rant about how bad it is. That is essentially all that needs to be said about the action, it's fast paced, provides some thrills but won't leave you gasping for air.

Conclusion

This is an utter disappointment from Luc Besson. This is something you will want to skip this movie season. If you want a really riveting film experience, go and watch Dunkirk.

I am giving this a 5.5/10

Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast

Not many people know this, but my favourite Disney film is Fantasia. But if I had to choose a film that told a flowing story, with the fairy tale and princess aspect, it would be Beauty and the Beast. Because everything is done perfectly. Belle as a character is perfect, the romance is perfect, the songs are perfect, the pacing is perfect, the animation is perfect and the tone is perfect. So does this new Disney remake make lightning strike twice like The Jungle Book or is Twilight a better love story?

The Story - 4.5/10

If you don't know the original story then let me elaborate. It follows Belle, an outcast in a small, rural village in France. She's a bookworm and behaves like a millennial to the village folk. Her father goes to a festival, gets lost and winds up being a prisoner of the Beast. Belle offers her life in return and the romance blossoms on after that. If you love the original animated classic, then one thing you will notice is this film's pacing. It is poorly done and way too quick. 

For example, Belle's father Maurice goes to the castle, gets spooked and captured, the horse comes back and Belle finds him. That was in the span of five minutes! The romance also isn't shown enough to make us believe it. There is also a new plot line with Maurice and Gaston and doesn't go in a way that has any common sense. There are also plot lines that don't go anywhere, like a flashback with the Beast as a child standing over his dead mother and being dragged away by his father. That goes nowhere. Going to Belle's home and seeing what happened to her mother goes nowhere and doesn't add anything to the story either. 

Another thing you will notice as well is that there is an over abundance of black crowd members. This must have had good intentions, but it comes off as anachronistic and pointless. I say anachronistic because there is a black clergyman. In the 1700's when the story was set, this would not have happened. But to give credit where credit is due, it did have an invigorating battle sequence. Unlike the original where just the males go with Gaston to fight the castle, 'everyone' goes. I immediately thought they would just show the men wiping the floor with the furniture. But no, the women take serious punches. So good job movie.

The Characters - 4/10

Emma Watson is a disaster as Belle. She couldn't act nice and sincere even if she was at someone's deathbed. She goes around with smug contempt, harsh facial expressions and has singing that Lawrence D Cohen could refuse. She also reacts extremely cavalier to the Beast's torment and the discovery of antiques coming to life. She essentially acts like someone who is not worthy of community theatre and has an apathy towards life around her. Her chemistry with Dan Stevens is aso a failed reaction. All I can say is that I'm pleased she dropped La La Land for this, she would have ruined it otherwise.

Dan Stevens as the Beast is also atrocious. His facial expressions and body movements are nothing like an animalistic monstrosity or someone opening his heart. The CGI as well is not enchanting as the tone will want you to think, when they put so much detail in his design you just feel uncomfortable. His chemistry with Emma Watson is as bad as her's.

Luke Evans as Gaston and Josh Gad as Lefou, I originally thought was a very bad idea. But was I mistaken. Luke Evans acts believably with charm, he sings amazingly and is enjoyable every single second. Josh Gad as well acts with humour and campy infatuation, also with the controversy of him being the first gay Disney character, that is nonsense. Lefou in the original was campy and infatuated, and I never thought of him as straight to being with. These two are the only enjoyable and or believable members of the cast.

Ewan McGregor as Lumiere and Ian McKellen as Cogsworth are terrible. Ewan McGregor is especially bad since he can't do a convincing accent or sing, it is just as bad as his role in Moulin Rouge. The CGI as well has the same problem with the Beast, he is too detailed that it is uncomfortable and not enchanting. But Ian McKellen is the least terrible of the pair, he is at least trying the hardest and has a natural charisma to him. Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts is not anything special and she doesn't have good diction when she sings the main number of the whole movie! Angela Lansbury would definitely not approve.

The most insulting thing about this cast is that they have Audra McDonald as Madame Garderobe. She is one of the most amazing singers on Broadway and has a role that is meant to sleep all the time and has under ten lines in the whole movie! She is the only one who can sing and doesn't sing!

The Songs - 3.5/10

This is the second most important aspect that this film had to do, and they mucked up big time. The way that they did the songs in terms of choreography is not bad but the people they have to perform them are atrocious. They either don't have good voices, sound bored the whole time, can't hold a note or have terrible diction. The only two songs that are tolerable and even fun are Gaston and the Mob Song. Notice something, they both have Luke Evans and Josh Gad as mains. As stated before being the only good singers with charm. The main numbers that people hold so dear to their hearts are Belle, Be our Guest and Beauty and the Beast. They are performed terribly and will more than certainly bore you and not leave you joining in.

Conclusion

This film is a terrible remake of an animation classic. There is no reason for this film to exist because one the thing remakes will have to achieve, is to either be it's own thing or be better than the original. The Jungle Book became it's own thing, and True Grit captured the spirit of the original and became the better film. This did neither of those things. The acting is atrocious, the chemistry is non-existent, the CGI is ugly and uncomfortable and the songs fail to impress and entertain.

I am giving this film a 4/10

T2 Trainspotting

T2 Trainspotting

For those who don't know, Trainspotting is one of my all time favourite British films. It deals with a very disgusting topic, drug addiction, and shows it in a light that was very refreshing but still taking it very seriously. The characters (despite the fact they're junkies) are likeable and funny, the humour is so black it makes the Coen brothers jealous and the soundtrack is amazing. Now that T2 Trainspotting is out after 20 years from the first film, is it good in comparison? Is it a good follow up to the first or just a cash in?

The Story - 9/10

The story starts off 20 years after the events of the first film and I'm not going to give away what happens to anyone who hasn't seen it. Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) has left Britain after angering his friends and has been living in Holland. After a health scare, he goes back to Scotland to see everyone he left behind. Meanwhile, Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller ) has been running a pub out in the middle of nowhere, Begbie (Robert Carlyle) has just escaped from prison and Spud (Ewen Bremner) is going in a downward spiral after losing his wife and son. The film takes the perfect amount of time as it needs to introduce us back to the characters and what they grew into. But they still act the same way, Renton still has his smarts about him, Sick Boy is selling drugs and doing other get rich quick schemes (some of which are either shocking or downright hilarious), Begbie causes trouble with his anger and Spud's life just gets worse and worse. The focus of the film though is primarily on the relationship between Renton and Sick Boy, since they were best mates in the first film and what adventures they go on to make more and more money. But this is unfortunately a drawback to the film because while all of this is going on, there are two more plot points that are going on at the same time. So you need to have full concentration while watching this film, fan of the first or otherwise (though if it was otherwise, why didn't you watch the first one?). Another one is that it seems like they wanted to take things from the first film and modernise it. For example, the cynical monologue that Renton had in the first film comes back, but it fits in today's society. This wasn't a bad thing, I was all for it (being the cynic I can be) but they did the same for the soundtrack. I could hear some of the songs from the first film but coming back as remixes. That just felt pointless and also could be infuriating for other fans. Coming back to the story, each storyline that happens in this film is entertaining and engaging to watch and comes to a good conclusion. One thing you will also notice is that the celluloid from the first film will play as characters watch the past unfold in-front of them.

The Characters - 10/10

If there is one thing that keeps people coming back to the first film, it is the characters. These people lived and live in a world that most of us are glad we are not a part of. But what keeps us engaged with it is these character's humanities and sense of humour. That's why this is a quite personal film series.


















Ewan McGregor comes back as Mark Renton, the star of the first film. He plays Renton as if he had also changed in the 20 years of being away. He still keeps his wits about him constantly and comments on footballers and other things from the past. Danny Boyle (the director of the first film and this one) recently said in an interview "Film is about time and you can cut it, freeze it, compress it and change it." If thats the case then Renton embodies the past of time in this film (also with Sick Boy). We also worry for Renton since he angered his group of friends greatly and until we see it happen, we are always thinking what is going to happen to him.

Jonny Lee Miller comes back as Sick Boy. In the 20 years, he has started owning a pub, having a girlfriend he acquired from a brothel and doing some business in blackmail and drug dealing (which also include his girlfriend's participation). Now this would be detested if it was any other character from a film. The thing that separates them is that Sick Boy has a sense of humour and humanity that we get to see explored in the film and we grow to like him (We already did in the first movie but more here).

Robert Carlyle returns as the easily enraged Begbie. He has been serving 20 years jail time and has not changed a bit. He is practically the only one in the group that never took any drugs and is the only character that we don't necessarily love but we love to hate him. We also find the most laughs out of the antics and violence he inflicts onto others. Since these films are about addiction, Begbie's addiction is violence and causing pain to others. But we are terrified of this maniac and he shows immense hated for what Renton did to the group. But what keeps us from totally being scared of him is the fact that he does some of the best jokes and antics in the film and has a sense of charisma.

Ewen Bremner comes back as Spud and he is possibly the most tragic character in the film and the one I felt the most sorry for. We first meet him in his apartment and we see just how far he has fallen and we feel confused since he had a way to turn his life around at the end of the last film. But he says it himself, he was a junkie and could only go one way. He is a tragic character in general and was always the butt of everyone's joke and got the worst from life. He shows the more life ruining aspects of heroin addiction and what it does to those that you may know around you.

The Drama/Comedy - 10/10

The drama in the film mostly comes out of the interaction and consequences from the characters. When they try and do blackmail to rich clientele or when they see each other after 20 years and let out their joy or anger out on each other. The most emotional and dramatic scene for me was when Renton finds Spud and saves him. He first gets his breath back and is angry at Renton for helping him. This is challenges our perception of how Spud would have reacted to seeing his friend who tried to help him in the end.

The comedy in this movie is (dare I say it) funnier than the first film. Because it takes a dark approach like the first but does more with it. Like for example, one get rich quick scheme involves Renton and Sick Boy going to an Orange Order club and stealing money, but they can't leave until singing a song, which ends up being very offensive and funny. There are moments like that all over the film and are done with perfect comedic timing and scenarios.

Conclusion

This would have been an easy cash grab to one of the most game changing British films ever. To have to compete with what the original film pioneered, it would be impossible. Not for Danny Boyle. Trainspotting couldn't have gotten a better sequel than this, it does new things with the plot and characters, has more comedy than the first and it all fits perfectly together. The camera angles, the editing, lighting and direction all work perfectly. If you love the first film, then this is a must watch.

I am giving this a 10/10

I do not own any of these pictures. T2 Trainspotting is owned by Film4, Creative Scotland, Cloud Eight Films, DNA Films, Decibel Films, Tri Star Pictures and Sony Pictures.