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.

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.

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.

Should Andy Serkis get an Oscar nomination for his motion capture performances?

With Andy Serkis reprising his role as Caesar in the hugely anticipated War for the Planet of the Apes, in theatres this weekend, talk has once again surfaced suggesting that Serkis should be nominated for an Oscar for his performance. Of course, I will have to wait till I see War for the Planet of the Apes to form an opinion on that particular performance, but his numerous brilliant motion capture performances of the past can certainly be analysed. Although there have been other actors who have produced other really good motion capture performances, such as Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk and Zoe Saldana in Avatar (2009), Serkis is seen as the godfather of this particular kind of acting, being one of the leading reasons it has become as advanced as it has today. Talk for Serkis to be nominated first began with his role as Gollum in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ films, then to a slightly lesser degree for his role as King Kong. It happened again when he first played Caesar in 2011’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and then the loudest noises for Serkis’ exceptional and pioneering work for motion capture to be recognised came in 2014’s summer sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Although Koba was also brilliant in this film, Caesar was certainly the standout. Serkis has said that his work deserves to be judged on a level playing field to all other actors, as motion capture work has reached such a level of quality and sophistication. The technology is truly amazing and the general public have generally been wowed by just how much he brings these characters to life, but some have had trouble accepting it as acting, despite the great visuals.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to know just how much credit is owed to the animators, and which expressions or movements come purely from the actor, and which are just simply added in post-production. However, despite this, what Serkis does has been well documented and I definitely think that his extensive movements, expressions, voices etc are certainly facets of acting, and that he certainly does enough to be allowed to be considered for an Oscar, if the performance is good enough. Also, it can be argued that every Oscar nominated/ Oscar winning performance is down to a team of people, not just the individual. Some of this brilliant performance is surely somewhat down to the writing, the direction etc, and not just the singular actors performance. Because of these reasons, I think that motion capture performances should definitely be considered for Oscars, despite not being traditional acting performances. However, I do of course think that were there to be a motion capture performance nominated for an Oscar, it would have to genuinely be one of the top few performances from that year, and cannot just be awarded because motion capture acting has not been nominated before.

With the ‘Planet of the Apes’ franchise set to reach greater dramatic heights than ever with the new film, there is a good chance that Serkis’ third performance as Caesar could be his best yet, but this of course remains to be seen. But if his performance is as great as we are hoping it will be, I do think that Serkis should be able to be finally nominated for an Oscar for his performance, if it truly is one of the best of the year, and motion capture performances should be judged on a level playing field, it is just a matter of how good the performance and how great the character created is.