Jurassic World Dominion (2022) Review

Jurassic World Dominion (there really is no colon in the title) is the third installment in the Jurassic World franchise, or sixth in the Jurassic franchise, however you want to look at it. Does anyone really care? Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard remain as the leads, with Jurassic World (2015) director Colin Trevorrow returning to the franchise after J. A. Bayona took over for 2018’s Fallen Kingdom, with Sam Neill and Laura Dern reprising their roles after a long hiatus.

Four years after Isla Nublar was destroyed, dinosaurs now live- and hunt- alongside humans all over the world. This fragile balance will reshape the future and determine, once and for all, whether human beings are to remain the apex predators on a planet they now share with history’s most fearsome creatures.

There’s really not much point in me comparing this to Jurassic Park (1993), one of my favourite films of all time, as at this point the Jurassic World films are so far removed from what the original Jurassic Park was about. There’s no themes about humans playing God or life finding a way, no great characters who you care about, and no memorable dinosaur set pieces, and Jurassic World Dominion is no different. I can’t really believe they’ve largely kept the same writers for these films, as the screenwriting is the main problem. Dominion has likeable actors, especially now that there’s Jeff Goldblum, Sam Neill and Laura Dern, but none of the characters are written to be fleshed out people, especially Owen (Chris Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard). They are just generic pawns to move the story from one location to the next, allowing a new opportunity to throw meaningless special effects at the wall. There’s so many dinosaurs in these films at this point that none of them feel special, they are just empty pieces of CGI that burst onto the screen to make as big a noise as possible, without any value or motive. Amazingly though, despite there being so many dinosaurs, they actually aren’t an integral part of this movie. The main plot is about genetically modified locusts destroying crops. I’m not sure who thought the crux of the story of this supposed finale should be giant locusts eating the world’s crops, or more importantly who heard this idea and thought it was good, but here we are.

In terms of minor positives, I enjoyed seeing the original cast and their chemistry, and they manage to rise above the paper thin script in the scenes they have with each other. Also, I did think this was better than the previous film, Fallen Kingdom. Where that was almost aggressively bad, this was more just completely forgettable, so that’s a marginal improvement I guess?

So yeah, the writing of the characters in Dominion is terrible, the logic behind pretty much everything is non existent, the dinosaur action is messy, boring and meaningless, and the story is just about as paint by numbers as it gets, with of course some stupid locusts thrown in. Basically, If you’re wanting to go to the cinema this weekend, just go and see Top Gun: Maverick again.

4/10

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Review

36 years after the original, a sequel to Top Gun (1986) is finally here, with Oblivion (2013) director Joseph Kosinski taking over from the great Tony Scott, who always wanted to make a sequel, but just never managed to get it off the ground before his tragic death in 2012. Tom Cruise of course reprises his role as Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell, who, after over 30 years of service has purposely dodged an advancement in rank to continue being a test pilot. One day, Maverick is put in charge of training a group of Top Gun graduates for a specialised mission under the orders of his friend and former rival, Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky, the commander of the US Pacific Fleet. Among the graduates is Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (Miles Teller), the son of Maverick’s late best friend Nick “Goose” Bradshaw.

I’m a massive fan of the original film, its a cheesy 80’s classic like no other, and I would have been more than satisfied if the second one was just a big fun cheese fest or even a worthy progression of the original, but this film goes far beyond anything I could have imagined. I’ve always been of the belief that sequels are so rarely better than the original film, in fact I could probably count on one hand the amount of times I believe its happened, but Top Gun: Maverick can certainly be added to that list. It is the perfect blend of everything a blockbuster is meant to be.

The practical effects are just incredible. Through every training session, every dogfight, and especially the final mission, you are made to feel like you are in the cockpit, creating a visceral thrill ride from start to finish, and one of the most pulse pounding finales I’ve seen in a long long time. However, all this wouldn’t have hit if this film didn’t have any heart, but it has it in abundance. Tom Cruise turns in possibly the most vulnerable performance of his illustrious career, and Maverick’s relationship with Rooster, Goose’s son, is where the film truly soars. A fairly predictable arc perhaps, but these two characters in particular are written so well that that doesn’t matter in the slightest. What a performance Miles Teller gives as Rooster, alongside Cruise, and the drama between them had me tearing up on more than one occasion. In a day and age where so many big budget sequels now are just soulless, empty spectacle, this couldn’t be more different. The entire supporting cast are great too, John Hamm, Jennifer Connelly, they all play their parts more than well. Yes, it still has cheese, it still has people playing beach sports in jeans, it still has Maverick on his motorbike and it still has Danger Zone. But, perhaps my favourite element of this film was that nods to the original aren’t there to trick us into thinking what we are watching is better than it really is, or as cheap fan service, but to support the thematic centre of THIS film. A truly perfect balance of understanding that you need call-backs, without using them as a crutch.

Top Gun: Maverick really is firing on all cylinders, from the writing and cinematography, to the score and the acting, everything combined creates a true cinematic experience, one that I’d implore you to see on the big screen. An incredible achievement by everyone involved, especially director Joseph Kosinski, in just his 4th feature film. He had big shoes to fill, making a sequel nearly 4 decades later, but what he has made far surpassed anything I hoped for. Tony Scott would have been proud.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) Review

The second film directed by Joe Gormican stars Nicolas Cage as a fictionalised version of himself, who must accept an offer to attend the birthday party of crazed super fan Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal). But, when the CIA get involved and reveal Javi is part of a dangerous drug cartel, Cage must channel his most iconic characters in order to save himself and his loved ones.

This is certainly a film where the more familiar you are with/ more you like Cage’s filmography, the more you’ll get from it. There are countless references throughout to his most iconic roles and films, (with Con Air, Face/ Off, The Rock and National Treasure just to name a few that I was most happy were in there). While not all the jokes land, the majority do, and it was so refreshing to see Cage play with some of the choices made in his career, both good and bad, in a self aware, self deprecating way.

Despite being an homage to some of Cage’s zaniest characters, I was really glad to see this movie work in and of itself as an action/buddy comedy. Given it is a self proclaimed “character driven adult drama”, it is heavily reliant on the chemistry between the leads, but Cage and Pascal delivered in spades, with their dynamic being comfortably the best element of the film. Despite some of the CIA/ cartel subplots around them feeling a bit generic and convoluted, a really well written, meta script gives the two leads free reign to create an instantly memorable duo.

Also, even though I found the CIA/ cartel related subplot a bit messy at times, I thought the family element with Nick, his daughter and his ex wife was very engaging and genuinely affecting, and the self aware way it was approached was legitimately moving. For a film that could have just coasted on its bizarre premise, it doesn’t just play it safe and puts more care into its characters and themes than expected, which can only be commended.

Overall, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is a charming breath of fresh air, a nostalgic throwback to Cage’s 90’s heyday and most of all is a fun and fitting tribute to the whacky brilliance of an often misunderstood actor.

Morbius (2022) Review

Morbius stars Jared Leto as biochemist Michael Morbius, who tries to cure himself of a rare blood disease, but instead inadvertently infects himself with a form of vampirism. Adria Arjona and Matt Smith also star, with the screenplay by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, and is directed by Swedish director Daniel Espinosa. It is the third film in Sony’s Spiderman Universe (SSU), after Venom (2018) and Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021), both of which I thought were pretty mediocre overall. Despite this though, I was hoping this would be an improvement, and I’m always at least a little bit excited to see a member of Spiderman’s rogues gallery on screen, especially for the first time in live action.

Sadly, there wasn’t any improvement on the SSU’s previous two instalments. In fact, it is probably worse than both. Morbius is a by the numbers, cookie cutter origin story, and ultimately just feels like a superhero film from a bygone era, especially in terms of the action sequences. There is far too much reliance on CGI and slow motion in all these scenes, resulting in a bland and cluttered muddle with no grittiness or coherence.

My biggest flaw with the film though is the pacing. It just feels so rushed, which in turn leads thin motivations given and therefore not caring about the characters. If they’d allowed us to get to know the biochemist human side to Leto’s Morbius character a bit more there could have been something good, but the film has such a fixation on rushing those moments so that they can get to him being the big computerised vampire. Coupled to this is the bizarre editing. Scenes just seem to abruptly end in favour of getting to the next lacklustre action sequence, especially a couple of ones with Jared Hess that had the potential to add some more impact to the story and humanise the characters.

Jared Leto and Matt Smith do their best with what material they are given, especially Smith, whose performance as the villain is deliciously cunning and charismatic, but the constant rushing of the script lets them down so much. Neither character is fleshed out with any deep motivation, especially Smith’s villain, who takes the serum and is just suddenly completely evil? And then the very ending, to me felt like it was partway through a scene, and then the credits abruptly rolled.

Overall, despite the lead actors fighting to keep the film afloat, Morbius ultimately sinks due to very overhasty pacing, editing and writing, and a poor handle on the clarity of the action. While there are some good concepts of plot points and characters at moments, the film is never allowed to breathe and develop those concepts, thus resulting in a forgettable, toothless mess.

My thoughts on Fences (2016)

I only recently got round to watching Fences. Its been on my watchlist for a while, with Denzel Washington being comfortably one of my favourite actors, but now that I know just how brilliant this film is, I can’t believe its taken me 6 years to make time for. The plot concerns a working class American father (Denzel) trying to raise his family in the 1950s, while fighting racism, money struggles and his own inner demons. Viola Davis stars as his wife, with Denzel also stepping into the director’s chair, and screenplay by August Wilson.

Not that I know what 1950s Pittsburgh was like, but everything about this film felt so genuine and lived in, from the clothing design of the characters to the visuals of the handful of streets you see throughout. A truly beautiful aesthetic experience, and a world I really believed was real. Also, despite being set in a specific time period, Fences is a story that has a timeless feel, with themes of race, economic hardships and familial love and responsibility that will be topical forever, making it all the more emotional.

The main element that holds this film though is undoubtedly the performances. Firstly, Denzel gives perhaps the greatest performance of his illustrious career as Troy Maxson, a flawed and tormented man, who doesn’t know where to direct his frustrations except at those he loves. The film doesn’t excuse his actions, merely telling us why these actions happened, and despite making error after error, Denzel makes it very difficult to not at least empathize with Troy. He makes you resent him, love him, can make you laugh, and can make you scared. It is a fully fleshed out character, that Denzel injects so much power and energy into with every second he’s on screen. Viola Davis as Rose Maxson is simply incredible as well, and fully deserving of her Oscar win. She feeds off the energy that Denzel provides, even outshining him at times, especially during her monologue about her hopes and dreams. It could be argued Rose is the real heart of the film, since she is the much less flawed of the two main characters, but either way the chemistry between the two is electric, and Denzel and Viola seem as if they have lived in the skins of Troy and Rose for a long time. Finally in terms of performances, I feel I need to give a mention to the supporting cast. Stephen Henderson as Jim Bono, Jovan Adepo as Cory Maxson, Russel Hornsby as Lyons Maxson and Mykelti Williamson as Gabriel Maxson all do great jobs. They have small roles but are all very different types of characters, allowing you to see all sides of Troy and Rose, and acting as very effective foils for the powerhouse performances of the two leads.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on 2016’s Fences, a gem of a film. A dialogue driven piece of cinema that requires your patience, but if you give it that, it develops into beautifully raw human drama with themes and characters that will resonate for years to come, brought to life by a true acting clinic from the whole cast.

My thoughts on Petite Maman (2021)

French director Céline Sciamma’s latest film is about eight-year old Nelly, who has just lost her grandmother and is helping her parents clean out her mother’s childhood home. She explores the surrounding woods and the treehouse where her mother used to play, and meets a girl of her own age in the woods, building a treehouse.

I realise I’m a bit late to the party with this one, given it came out in France almost a year ago, but I recently watched it and just wanted to give my thoughts. Admittedly, I wasn’t a huge fan of Céline Sciamma’s previous film, Portrait of a Lady on Fire (which is blasphemous I know), but I do really love 2007’s Water Lilies. Petite Maman though is on a whole new level in my book. In just 72 minutes, with just a handful of actors and a couple of locations, Sciamma creates an incredible meditation on the everlasting themes of love, loss, grief and familial bonds. It is a truly moving tale, that moves at a beautiful pace. The shortness of it could trick you into thinking that it may get rushed in parts, but each plot point unfolds perfectly, with its sweetness lasting the whole runtime.

The tender, soft storytelling is welded together by the incredibly delicate performances of Joséphine and Gabrielle Sanz, some of the best child acting I am likely to ever see I’m sure. Neither performance is big or loud, they are very quiet, but portray the innocence of youth, especially surrounding death and growing up, in a beautifully authentic manner.

The film hits the perfect notes throughout tonally, and the performances help so much in achieving what Sciamma wants thematically. She never shies away from the deeply sad things, but also presents such a kind and positive outlook on the acceptance of these things, with the idea that the memories we have will last forever. Sometimes when films are stripped down to the fundamentals you remember just how powerful cinema can be, and that’s exactly what Sciamma’s latest film did for me. A simple and very human take on such complex issues of life, with an amazing poignance and lasting message of everything will be okay.

Those are my thoughts and feelings on Petite Maman anyway. I wanted to be quite vague throughout this as to not give away any spoilers, as I’d implore you to watch this knowing as little as possible about the story. If you haven’t seen it, I couldn’t recommend it enough.

The Batman (2022) Spoiler Review

So the Caped Crusader is finally back in a standalone film, with an all new cast and vision, coming from Matt Reeves and starring Robert Pattinson, Zoe Kravitz, Paul Dano and Colin Farrell (yes it really is him as the Penguin). The Batman is just 2 years into fighting crime at the start of this one, and when sadistic serial killer the Riddler starts murdering key political figures in Gotham, aiming to expose just how deep corruption in the city runs, Batman must fight to stop him.

Probably my biggest compliment of this film is Gotham City itself. It is comfortably for me the best depiction of Gotham City ever put on screen, feeling truly grimy and gritty, with its corrupt criminal underbelly. The dark shadows and corners felt , especially when Batman isn’t even hiding in them, like they were to be feared by all, making Gotham for the first time on film feel like a living, breathing character of its own to me. Even the Gotham in the pretty untouchable Nolan trilogy just felt like any bog standard American city, when there’s the potential to do a lot more with it, and that’s exactly what Reeves achieved. Tying into this, I loved the bold decision Reeves made that no other Batman director ever has, to not portray Bruce’s parents, particularly Thomas Wayne, as gleaming white knights. While not saying he was a bad man, it was clear he wasn’t perfect either and did make mistakes, causing Batman to question everything that he is doing and adding a great layer to his motivations.

Cast wise, everything was near perfect. Pattinson and Reeves together brilliantly depict a young Batman, who’s still figuring out how to fight crime and is a bit rough around the edges. He’s like a nocturnal animal, intent on striking fear into all Gotham’s criminals, and the “World’s greatest detective” nickname has never been more applicable on film, capturing perfectly how Batman is always the smartest one in the room. Also, how is this the first Batman film to give him eye make up? A brilliant idea. Zoe Kravitz gives probably the best performance as Catwoman and Selina Kyle we’ve seen since Michelle Pfieffer’s classic in 1992’s Batman Returns. The connection her and Batman have is done so well, relating to each other while also ultimately knowing they are both on different paths. Paul Dano, as expected given how well he did in Prisoners, was quite terrifying as the Riddler. While I’ll always have a soft spot for Jim Carrey’s cheesy over the top portrayal, there’s no doubt that Dano’s Riddler is more sinister, creepy and a better foe for the Dark Knight. His motivations made perfect sense, and his desire to uproot the true scale of corruption on Gotham made the whole tone of the film feel even more murky. But most of all, shout out to Colin Farrell, who admittedly I was a bit sceptical of knowing he’s not using his natural accent, which wasn’t unfounded. His American accent was all over the place in Widows (I love you Colin but come on, it was mate.) However, he was absolutely superb, the big Irish dreamboat, had a great blend of humour and threat, and just nailed being the greasy mobster that Penguin is. I love when Collin Farrell is great, but now he’s been great in a Batman film, life feels just that bit more complete.

I’ve seen some other reviews saying its too dark and moody, which I can’t really understand as a criticism for two reasons. One: obviously its dark and moody? He’s Batman! His whole story is about a man who is still deeply scarred by the loss of his parents, who wants to fight for his city and his family’s legacy, while also not going too far by just trying to get revenge. And two: this Batman movie *might* end on the most hopeful note of any in history? Bruce realises that scaring criminals and being desperate for vengeance isn’t enough, he needs to be a symbol of hope for the people of Gotham, captured beautifully when Batman leads survivors out of the water with a red flare, and when an injured person is being airlifted to safety and doesn’t want to let go of Batman. This ultimately is the arc that Reeves gets so right, The Batman inspires fear in the bad but hope in the good.

All this being said, I didn’t think it was perfection. Firstly, I definitely think it was around 20/25 mins too long. Since the plot and motivations are so interwoven together, its hard for me to say which specific parts I feel should have been cut, but I just feel it could have been tighter. Once the Riddler is captured it feels like the film has hit a crescendo, and then it just kind of goes on for a bit longer, slightly ponderously so, before the very ending. Also, got to say I wasn’t a fan of the Joker cameo scene. It felt a little bit like a TV outro to me and didn’t really feel like it needed to be there. Obviously the Joker is Batman’s most iconic villain, but if we were going to have a cameo I’d rather it have been a different villain, one that we haven’t seen as much or at all.

Despite this, Reeves got the character, the tone and the message of the Batman, and the other characters, so spot on, and this is a Batman world I can’t wait to see more of.

Why is the ending to Bonnie and Clyde so important?

1967’s ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ is directed by Arthur Penn and stars Warren Beaty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons and Michael J. Pollard. It tells the true story of Bonnie Parker, a bored waitress that falls in love with a crook named Clyde Barrow, and together they start a violent and deadly crime spree, while being pursued by the police. The ending to ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ is undoubtedly one of the most famous and influential endings in the history of cinema, but why?

Well, despite Penn’s classic being a violent film in general, with the deaths of other gang members being bloody and drawn out, ‘Bonnie & Clyde’s’ ending specifically revolutionised the way violence would be portrayed in films forevermore, even as early as in Sam Peckinpah’s ‘The Wild Bunch’, just a couple of years later. The deaths of Bonnie and Clyde were incredibly shocking to viewers in 1967 for multiple reasons. Firstly, this was one of the earliest times in American cinema that deaths on screen had shown puffs of smoke appearing and pieces of clothing being ripped off. Prior to this scene, fatalities in films were generally a clean cut, tidy event. It was described at the time by Pauline Kael of New Yorker Magazine, a critic whose love of the film propelled her to become a leading authority on film at the time, as a “ragdoll dance of death” , which I think is a quote that perfectly typifies the brutality of the ending, with the bodies of the two central figures flailing around aimlessly with no control over their limbs and no chance of survival. There was a stark contrast in what Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, the most established critic in the U.S. at the time, said about the ending, believing that the brutality of these killings “is as pointless as it is lacking in taste”, but I personally completely disagree with this statement. I think that the brutality of the killings at the end, combined with other factors, makes the death of the two main characters far more heart-breaking and impactful to the viewer as we have grown to care for these anti-heroes so much throughout. Also, the sheer mass of bullets in the ending scene adds massively to the shock of the viewer in this ending, especially back in 1967. In Stanley Cavell’s ‘The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film’, he said that the film “persists in an elegy of bullets long after the pair are dead”, which is a key moment in the scene, as the eradication of the couple is all that is on the minds of the police, and so they show no remorse, increasing the endings shock and sadness. Cavell’s use of “elegy” is particularly apt as an elegy is typically a lament for the dead, therefore suggesting that Dunaway and Beaty’s characters had no hope of staying alive.

But it is not just the sheer violence of the ending that was so innovative, as the camerawork and direction of  would also be copied endlessly, as this enhanced the speed of this speed of the scene so much, making it infintely more shocking. Even though the couple are killing people and partaking in many acts of violence, we identify with Bonnie and Clyde as the police that are chasing them throughout the film are not three dimensional characters, and so we do not care for them, whereas there are moments that make us sympathise with the couple, such as when they do not make love till late on, showing Clyde’s unexpected insecurity, adding another layer to his character, and these characterisations keep in touch with the romantic anti-hero American gangster tradition that we see in Scarface (1932) and Little Caesar (1930), which audiences love to see and root for. Because we care for them so much, Penn’s brilliant use of close ups to build tension and speed in the brutality of the final scene is only more impactful. His takes are incredibly short, with the close ups of the characters swiftly swapping between Ivan Moss, Bonnie, and Clyde, before eventually having an extreme close up of Bonnie & Clyde staring hopelessly into each other’s eyes for the final time, building up the romanticism of the story and their journey throughout the film, before ripping it away from us.

Also, the social context of the film and its ending make it even more important and impactful, with Bonnie & Clyde being released in 1967, during the latter stages of the Vietnam war (1955-1975). Many American’s were not sold on going to Vietnam in the first place, but by 1967, public opinion was heavily against the United States having soldiers in Vietnam. Penn uses the devastation wrought by Bonnie and Clyde to convey the senseless violence that American youth was walking into with the Vietnam War, which is what the brutality in the violence in the final scene eludes to, with many of the young American men who were being gunned down in Vietnam and many audience members being the same age as Parker and Barrow, meaning that the film very much resonated with audiences, bringing into “the almost frighteningly public world of movies things that people have been feeling, saying and writing about”, as Pauline Kael said in her review. This also meant that public opinion turned further against troops being in Vietnam, with Stephen Prince stating in “The Hemorrhaging of American Cinema: Bonnie and Clyde’s Legacy of Cinematic Violence” that “The Vietnam War and disintegration of civil society that accompanied it helped put the subject of violence on the national agenda in an urgent and ominous way”.

For me, ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ has one of the best and most influential endings of all time without question, and for so many different reasons. The social context and message Penn was conveying in regards to the Vietnam War, the sheer innovation of the brutality, and the direction and characterisations that enhanced this brutality, making for such a heartbreaking ending, are all elements that will make “Bonnie and Clyde” stand as a timeless classic.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) Review

The much anticipated War for the Planet of the Apes, like Dawn, is directed by Matt Reaves, and stars Woody Harrelson, as well as Andy Serkis once again reprising his role as Caesar. I think the previous two films in this gritty reboot of the ‘Planet of the Apes’ franchise are both brilliant, standing individually but also linking together very well.  Now, after the events of Rise and Dawn, a new threat emerges in the form of a brutal Colonel (Woody Harrelson), who leads an army of humans into a conflict with the apes, and the outcome of this epic battle will determine the fate of both species and the planet.

Firstly, this film is technologically and technically incredible . The apes look more amazing than ever before, and the cinematography and editing in general compliments the apes so perfectly as it gives them such breath-taking backdrops and environments to interact with. Pretty much every frame in this film is picturesque in some way. From the claustrophobia of the muddy caves to the vastness of the snowy mountains, War is a clinic in how to create beautiful shots and present incredible visual imagery. And of course, the motion capture work must be praised. As expected, all actors involved in this did a brilliant job, including Steve Zahn as the comedic relief Bad Ape, but Andy Serkis’ Caesar was unsurprisingly the stand out, taking the character to much darker, conflicting places than we’ve ever seen before. We can see the pain and suffering on his face in every movement and expression, and it is a truly magnificent performance, that could certainly warrant an Oscar nomination in my opinion (something which I recently talked more in depth about here- Should Andy Serkis get an Oscar nomination for his motion capture performances?).

Furthermore, a word has to be said for Michael Giachinno’s haunting score, that was used at exactly the right moments, to sometimes say more words than any amount of dialogue ever could have, and it was more pivotal than you may expect, as a lot of scenes in the film are silent, and involve the apes just signing to one another, and Giachinno’s score beautifully compliments these moments and increases the tension.

I certainly did like the approach the film took, by being much more of a character study rather than an action bonanza. However, while doing so very successfully in parts, on the whole I just feel that it did not delve deep enough into the psyche of Caesar and the pain and confliction he was feeling. Also, although some of the best scenes of the film were the more subdued, dramatic scenes, such as the Colonel and Caesar facing off, I did feel that quite a few scenes slowed the momentum down quite a bit. When I say this, I don’t mean it was because there was a lack of action, as the best scenes were the tense, dramatic, character based ones, but certain scenes felt like they were prolonged for no reason at all, and did not advance the characters or the story in any way. Unfortunately, while there is of course some epic and moving moments, I felt that the story as a whole was surprisingly thin and was stretched out a lot, and that a scenario that a huge chunk of the story is based around, could have been told much more rapidly.

Also, since the film was based so much around Caesar’s quest for revenge, I would have liked an actor of Woody Harrelson’s calibre to have been utilised more. He and Caesar have some amazing scenes where they face off, but since Caesar’s journey of vengeance is solely about actions Woody Harrelson’s character previously took, it would have made more sense I think to give more layers to his character and give him a bit more to do/say, as they were some of the best parts.

Overall, while personally being somewhat disappointed by War for the Planet of the Apes, with it having a much thinner story than I was hoping for, leading to repetition in some plot points, it is still certainly a very solid entry into the franchise. It connects well with the previous films, with some truly amazing moments, beautiful aesthetics, and a sensational central performance from Andy Serkis.

7/10

Men (2022) Review

Alex Garland’s latest directorial feature stars Jessie Buckley as a young woman who goes on a solo vacation to the English countryside following the death of her ex-husband, and Rory Kinnear as the all various townsfolk that she meets, as strange things begin to occur.

Both Garland’s previous films, Ex Machina (2015) and Annihilation (2018), I am a fan of, especially the latter which I only watched recently for the first time, and Men definitely leans closer to that. Where Ex Machina was quite a straightforward sci fi flick, Annihilation delves a lot more into horror/ thriller elements, as does Men.

For about two thirds of the film, I thought Men was very good. Garland does a great job at slowly building the creepy atmosphere, added to by Rob Hardy’s beautiful cinematography, and it works really well as a slow burning folk horror. The shots of lush green forests or darkened train tunnels were striking visually in and of themselves, but then when you spot a figure in the distance of these shots, the beauty turns very ominous, and this gradual build really worked for me.

Jessie Buckley also does a great job as Harper, anchoring the film with someone to root for, as she is just an abused and troubled woman looking for peace in the countryside. Juxtaposed to her, Rory Kinnear exhibits all signs of eerie as the various men in the village, who are all unsettling and untrustworthy in different ways, from a nude stalker to a priest.

Sadly, where I have trouble is the overall arc of the film and its’ characters. I knew the building creepiness had to come to a head at some point, but for me it just didn’t stick the landing. To be honest, it missed the landing quite comfortably. It becomes very interpretive and ambiguous, and where I really enjoyed this about Annihilation, Men just took it too far for me. The repeated births (it’ll make sense when you see it) definitely held the unsettling nature, but added in a lot more confusion than before, leaving the final scenes feeling a bit undercooked. I’m certainly not at all claiming to fully understand the ending, but I’m not sure the attempted allegory is as profound as it seems to think it is, and the final act has a lot of symbolism for something that felt a bit puddle-deep to me.

Overall, Men is really intriguing for the most part, but what was a very solid horror/ thriller comes apart at the seams come the end. Definite points for originality though. Some people are going to love it, probably more are going to hate it, but if nothing else it’ll create good discussion.

6/10

Choose or Die (2022) Review

Choose or Die is a new Netflix horror film, starring Iola Evans, Asa Butterfield Robert Englund and Eddie Marsan, with a feature directorial debut for Toby Meakins. The plot concerns a broke college dropout, who finds and plays an obscure 80’s computer game in hope of claiming the unclaimed prize money, but the game curses her and she is faced with a series of terrifying challenges.

Not that I was shocked given Netflix’s overall track record with original horror films, but this film was an utter mess. While conceptually it sounds interesting, the execution is tedious and nonsensical, and it runs out of steam alarmingly quick. It feels a bit like an extended Black Mirror episode, but without any of the intelligent writing of characters and stories that Black Mirror has. The game and its curse make absolutely no sense as to how it interacts and affects the real world, which would have been forgivable if the wackiness had a consistency, but it tries to be so grounded that the lore of this game becomes a big turn off, with the plot just trundling from one set piece to the next, seemingly completely unconcerned with any story in between.

The acting is not particularly poor, certainly passable, but the writing of the characters is so paper thin that it can’t stay afloat. We know so little about them, thus meaning we don’t care much about them to begin with, but the script makes makes them take some very strange choices as it progresses, which sours you more, as often can be the case in these quirky concept horror films. Completely dumb decisions that nobody else would ever make render this more and more frustrating as it goes along. Horrific things will happen to the protagonist or their loved ones, and then a scene later they’ll be going about their day unaffected.

Finally, I’m not sure why it is how it is but the soundtrack didn’t work at all for me, very jarring. High tempo rap songs thrown in almost completely at random, as if the director is trying to cover up the fact he can’t make a scene tense or gripping, and making the tone more uneven than the storyline itself had managed.

So overall, this is a nonsensical plot headed by paper thin characters, intertwined with lazy human drama subplots that we’ve seen time and time again, with an incompatible soundtrack. Instead of Choose or Die, just choose not to watch this film.

Fresh (2022) Review

Fresh is a 2022 comedy/ romance/ thriller starring Sebastian Stan and Daisy Edgar-Jones, written by Lauren Kahn and directed by Mimi Cave, in what is her feature directorial debut. The plot follows Noa, a young woman who is having no luck on the dating scene, but after a charming meet up in a supermarket, gives her number to Steve. From there on, she faces a battle to survive her new boyfriend’s unusual appetites.

For lack of a better word, Fresh is exactly that, by name and by nature. From the very start it has a vibrancy and a polished look to it, which was very impressive for a first time feature director. These visuals combined with the witty, zippy dialogue makes for a very enjoyable ride. It bounces back and forth between black comedy and horror/ thriller throughout, but the tonal shifts don’t come across as messy, they are balanced really well. I got the sense Cave was very aware of what the film was throughout, and it never goes too much into one genre, creating a fun blend.

Cave gives us just enough time with the characters, to figure out who they are, what they are like etc, so that when the twists and turns occur, they do make a genuine impact. Daisy Edgar-Jones is excellent, providing a real relatability and humanness to anchor the story, while Sebastian Stan seems like he’s having so much fun in his role, and while I don’t want to say much about it as to avoid spoilers, their chemistry works brilliantly throughout.

I would definitely recommend going into Fresh knowing as little as possible, as there are audacious twists and turns throughout what I found to be a demented but delightful experience, and I’m certainly excited for whatever may be Mimi Cave’s second feature.

Also- the opening credits don’t come in for 33 minutes, no idea why but I really liked that bold choice, and the title drop was very cool.

Turning Red (2022) Review

Turning Red is Pixar’s 25th and latest film, with a feature directorial debut for Domee Shi, after helming one of Pixar’s best ever shorts in 2018, Bao. It centres on 13 year old Mei, who is experiencing the awkwardness of her teenage years with an added struggle- whenever she gets too excited, she turns into a giant red panda.

It’s no secret that Pixar of recent years aren’t hitting the heights they did in the earlier days, where the quality and originality of ideas was just off the scale, with the likes of the Toy Story trilogy, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles just to name a few. In the recent years though, I was also a big fan of Toy Story 4 and Onward, but the misses are definitely becoming more regular in my view. Cars 3, Soul, and Luca were all pretty lacklustre to me, and I was hoping Turning Red would be a return to form, but sadly it wasn’t the case for me.

Fundamentally, while there are some classic Pixar themes at play, specifically the idea of change and coming of age, they just didn’t really connect with me. That’s not to say that there aren’t relatable elements, there definitely are, such as Mei working hard to please her overprotective mother, Ming, while simultaneously hiding her crushes for boys and her desire to sneak out to see her favourite band, which so much of the movie is focused on. Turning Red definitely does effectively nail down the idea that some childhood things, which seem minor when you look back as an adult, are everything to you at the time. But beside this relatable aspect, I did think the film played it very safe. It dips its toe into the coming of age theme, getting some parts right but ultimately taking very few risks, seemingly very content with just being a pretty by the numbers fluffy creature feature. The conflict with between Mei and her mother Ming started off really well and had potential, but then about half an hour in just gets abandoned almost completely, shying away from any meaningful relationship between the two and relieving a lot of possible tension and consequence. Linking to this, there was never any contrast or character arc with Mei’s group of friends either, the same beats were just repeated over and over. While they started off as quite fun and quirky, as the runtime went on they just became quite annoying and obnoxious. While I liked that they were a very supportive friend group, there really wasn’t much to them other than being loud and shouting, and as far as side characters go I thought they were pretty bland, forgettable and one dimensional.

One obvious positive I do want to quickly mention though is the animation, which shouldn’t be overlooked just because we’ve gotten used to Pixar’s very high standards aesthetically. As always its a beautifully vibrant film, with a great blend of realistic details even in some of the fantastical settings.

Despite the obvious style though, Turning Red just didn’t have enough substance for me overall. While Pixar obviously aren’t in their prime anymore, I still can’t help but get excited for each new film they do, since they made some of my favourite films of all time, animated or otherwise, when in their heyday, but unfortunately this one was a definite disappointment for me. A very paint by numbers and low stakes plot, and ultimately the characters just aren’t endearing or interesting enough to carry a largely mundane narrative. While its heart is definitely in the right place, and I’m glad its getting it positive reviews as I can see it being relatable to younger audiences, it was just a bit too messy and underdeveloped for me. Not one of Pixar’s worst, but not one of their best either.