Mini review: Deadpool
Year: 2016
Certificate: 15
Director: Tim Miller
Screenwriters: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, TJ Miller, Gina Carano, Karan Soni, Brianna Hildebrand, Stefan Kapicic
Ryan Reynolds finally finds his metier as Wade Wilson, a smart-mouthed thug for hire turned superhuman on the hunt for revenge against the man who tortured and disfigured him. Fast-paced, sharp and hyperbolically violent, Deadpool explodes out of the gate with a slow-mo car-crash fight sequence set to the strains of Juice Newton’s Angel of the Morning, and proceeds to flash back, forwards and sideways to fill in the recent history of its vengeful protagonist. Reynolds- who, despite his considerable aptitude as an actor, has heretofore been pushed from pillar to post in Hollywood- is a revelation here, his physicality and voice acting adding up to a magnetic performance underneath Deadpool’s bright red and black mask. Director Tim Miller does an admirable job of keeping a firm hand on the tiller while driving the action forward at such a pace that it’s easy not to notice until afterwards how generic the story actually is. Disappointingly, despite Deadpool’s eagerness to poke fun at the foibles of superhero movies (quips about green spandex and the straight-lacedness of the X-Men abound), it makes little effort to subvert that genre’s underlying tropes. A case in point is Wade’s girlfriend Vanessa (Morenna Baccarin), whose ‘dream girl/ damsel in distress/ prize for the hero’ story arc couldn’t be more clichéd, a fact not quite remedied by her sharp tongue and Baccarin’s admittedly strong performance.
Verdict: 4/5
Image credit: foxmovies.com
Triple 9 Review
Natural Born Robbers
Released : February 19th 2016
Certificate : 15
Director : John Hillcoat
Cast : Kate Winslet, Aaron Paul, Norman Reedus, Casey Affleck, Woody Harrelson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Anthony Mackie
Plot : A ex military crew paired with some dirty cops pull a bank robbery to gain information from a security box for the Russian mob. Forced into another job after payments withheld by the mob, the crew lead by Michael Atwood (Ejiofor) must figure out a way to rob a highly secure federal building. The crew relaises that they need a distraction, and decide on a triple 9, police code for killing a cop.
John Hillcoat returns after making moderate success with Lawless, another violent and big cast fuelled crime film. Now he takes on modern crime with one of the best cast assembles this year (due to early release) in the thriller genre, with a cat and mouse cops and robbers film about betrayal, desperateness and neighbourhood violence. Hillcoat general vibe set after Lawless was that he was a big fan of the blood and guts and had the ability to develop solid character drama to make an entertaining enough thriller, but many reviewers found that there was something holding it back narrative wise, a slight lack of originality that kept it in the realms of seen before violent cops and robber’s thrillers. Triple 9 script has some similarities to Lawless with the robbers having a strong team dynamic, but now we have goodies on the robber’s side to and a heightened dealing with morality within the story. But does Triple 9 have the suspense, thrills and acting quality able to make another modern robber squad thriller stand out alike The Town in recent years. Acting talent is certainly present within the film and the trailer alone boasted large scale uses of the city (no quiet at Heat level) there is promise.
Firstly, the films story will be one that was bound to come under fire from highbrow critics due to obvious decisions within the narrative. There are cheap shots that can be made at obvious features, such as the racial profiling that occurs in the film, with great amount of crime and hatred for the police residing within the Mexicans depicted in the film. There is the lack of female representation that is of a positive light, either sexualised or negative characters. But more than many others are the teasing nature of which it deals with the violence in the film, having clear reference to violence and crimes effect on a bigger scale than just the cops and robbers. For example, there is the child and his uncle (Harrelson) playing with a toy gun, and the brief scene showing parallel action between the Russian mob mother and child reading a book and the police mother and child reading together, while the father prepares his gun for work out of sight of the child. This final point teases the idea that the film will address the violence occurring in a profound or conclusive way, but the film never does, and in the minds of many critics this means it can’t justify its use.
Directorial work from Hillcoat had one opening issue, the film opens with a big bank robbery which is polluted by the presence of some credits on screen, distracting from a poignant bit of thrilling, reduced from the moment. From an overview of Hillcoat’s work it is much like the writing of the film, as in it doesn’t give you much extra in the way of poignant shoot choice or particular inventiveness, but this doesn’t mean that his work doesn’t function. The majority of the film could fit into this pattern of giving you high quality rehash of past crime thrillers conventions, with little added to it to make it more memorable, but that doesn’t make it thrilling while it last, simple doesn’t get it into any halls of fame. Following this line of argument Hillcoat does prove himself as before capable to use a combination of brutal violence and tense construct to keep you enthralled in the scenes. The actions sequences are more frequent and better constructed than in his previous work, as he deals with a script dealing with less character driven drama. The ending act, as it should be in a film of this type is particularly well built together for genuine adrenalin.
For the performances to build the film, there is a diversity in quality of talent. Winslet plays a rather two dimensional villains, but perhaps the dialogue of a Russian mobster didn’t have the design of character development. Paul plays as always with great conviction and realism, unfortunately there are striking similarities between this role and his most famous. The same to an extent can be said for Harrelson role, and while such a character with charisma and sarcasm may not be taken overly seriously, it still is achieved with great talent, with one of the most captivating performances of the film. Ejiofor being to many the heavy weight on the set still having the aura of 12 Years a Slave lingering about him, in this less serious role he plays the head of the robber gang, much alike its disciplining father, who also happens to be desperately attempting to claim a life back with his own son from the Russian mob. Unfortunately, he doesn’t spread his wings as much as his best work, nor is he expected to for this type of film, with a driven more by the interaction of the characters than any specific set piece of acting, which the actors achieve to keeping the films world believable and engaging, rather than create memorable performances.
The standards of Hillcoat second outing as a director create a film with standards to matching quality of his first outing, but maybe Lawless wins due to the added entertainment of period piece setting. Much of the same pros and cons come with Triple 9 as Lawless, which can be summarise into the fact that there is high quality enjoyment here, but to pack such a big cast into a famous genre there is always the hope that a new classic will be born. Let it not be forgotten the huge amounts of skill involved to create a new gem within an old genre, it is not an everyday occurrence. So with Triple 9 do not expect to be blown away, but you have a skilful rehash of conventions and codes from the greats, in particular it took its inspiration from The French Connection and Heat claims Hillcoat. Well it’s definitely more Heat than French Connection, but its lacking the directorial and acting excellence to place it in the same league as its inspiration. It’s got great action, and surprisingly hooking story, adequate acting and satisfactory directing to generate a fast burner full of twists and turns and bullets, but it’s over in a flash.
Verdict : Falling just short of the over the top fun of Lawless, Triple 9 has a the same mood and ingredients. Definitely more thrilling that Hillcoats previous work, but the thrills and the mostly unpredictable character interaction does quiet pack enough punch for an as memorable experience as Lawless. Lacking in originality within story and execution, meaning people will be quick to critic its violent, political incorrect nature, unfairly so.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “Out monster the monster.”
Review: The Hateful Eight
Year: 2015
Certificate: 18
Director: Quentin Tarentino
Screenwriter: Quentin Tarentino
Cast: Samuel L Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Tim Roth, Demian Bichir, Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern
Tarentino returns for his (arguably) eighth feature with a frost-bitten tale of treachery in the outback of post-civil war Wyoming. Bounty hunter John ‘the hangman’ Ruth (Kurt Russell) is on the way to deliver captive outlaw Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to Red Rock for the pleasure of watching her hang when the arrival of a blizzard forces his stagecoach to spend the night at Minnie’s Haberdashery en route. Cooped up together under trying circumstances, suspicions begin to run rife between the Haberdashery’s incumbents. Is Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins) really the new sheriff of Red Rock? Why is Domergue so blasé about her situation? And- since this is Minnie’s Haberdashery- just where, exactly, is Minnie?
Tarentino’s trademark fondness for loquacious exuberance shines through, and the dramatis personae is littered with raconteurs who, by and large, feel well-realised and (although they are indeed as hateful as the title suggests) are entertaining to watch. This character-based drama drives the narrative until the splashy final half when everything goes to hell in a tainted coffee tin and the bullets (and viscera) begin to fly in typically hyperbolic style. The cast go all-in, with Samuel L Jackson putting in a commanding performance as Major Marquis Warren, a Union soldier turned bounty hunter who, facing a room partially populated by ex-confederate racists, is determined to give as good as he gets. Jennifer Jason Leigh is also mesmerising as the delightfully despicable Daisy Domergue, her scenery-chewing antics contrasting well with Kurt Russel’s perennially wry John Ruth, to whom she spends most of the film handcuffed.
Although the language and violence is unarguably gratuitous and the film is perhaps a little baggy at just under 3 hours, The Hateful Eight is a surprisingly coherent and entertaining piece featuring a well-told story and exciting performances.
Verdict: 4/5
Image credit: facebook.com/thehatefuleightmovie
Spectre Review
Moderate Royale
Released : October 26th 2015
Certificate : 12
Director : Sam Mendes
Cast : Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott, Christoph Waltz, Rory Kinnear, Monica Bellucci, Dave Bautista
Plot : Bond (Craig) goes rough, leading his own investigation and assault on an olden organisation known as SPECTRE. As he follows them across the global he slowly realises the mass scale SPECTRE has had not only on the world, but on his own life as well.
The bond film that has carried much hype around it after the rumoured that it could be Daniel Craig’s last outing as the British spy. Whether this is true or not will depend on who you ask, but the character stepping down is that of Mendes, who originally said that Skyfall would be his only instalment, but now is quiet insistent to leave Bond behind. These factors and the huge popularity of Skyfall, as the film which wasn’t a book that provided to be better than most, built up much anticipation for the 24th Bond film. Much excitement was also rallied when it was announced that Christoph Waltz would be the villain to do battle against Bond, the double Oscar winning actor who seems as if most of his career was building to being a bond villain.
Following the story of Skyfall, which story and script wise proved to be the best bond film for Craig and some labelled ever, left Spectre with a ‘return’ to the loosely book based material. Spectre was very much built like a fare well to Craig, due to the way that the film’s plot linked to all of Craig past films to create what felt like an extravagant finale, like an end to a franchise or horror trilogy. The way that the film went about this felt very purpose built, which was intensified by being followed by Skyfall. Skyfall’s use of a villain with connection to the other main characters past wasn’t a new idea to Bond but a rare one and not overly dramatics. But to follow it straight after with a villain of the same nature seemed unoriginal. It was much ruined by the huge build up that was present for this villain, maybe due to the connection with Bond or maybe because of it being Waltz or both. The build up was immense, only to result in a villain whose presence in the film is briefer than any other villain in a Craig Bond film, or ever. Resembling that of an old horror film where you see the monster at the end.
Other aspects of the plot of the film didn’t fly as they should, particularly the aspect of the film trying to interlink with every past villain by claiming that they are part of SPECTRE. Some could argue that this approach is new and original and attempts to bring Bond to modern standards instead of generic good guy versus bad. But when on screen it didn’t feel genuine, as with the link between Bond and the villain. Having had no inclination to the existence of SPECTRE existence or a link of any kind between the past villains, the same with that of the Waltz character relation to Bond, it gave the film a forced reality. In order to make this Bond more dramatic, dark and compelling, it built a story to tick all of those boxes, but didn’t really gel with the Bond universe, feeling less like a Bond film than Skyfall did. Despite the story aspects there were Bond classical trade marks that where more noticeable and enjoyable than in any Craig Bond film, such as the car full of gadgets, the villain with the unusual weapon, and the over the top method of killing Bond. These were fun warm additions to a story that was attempting to be overly dark and concluding in a clichéd way.
Not every aspect of the film fell apart along with the story, most noticeable being that of the directing of Mendes, who as out done himself, as if nothing else Spectre is one of the best shot Bond film ever. This is made clear from the outset of the film with an action scene in a Mexican Festival of Death, the camera panning through the crowd following Bonds movements is stunning and unlike anything the franchise has given us before. The actions scenes pitched by Mendes were also a special in the clean and orchestrated nature, however did fall short on the believability and the memorability of the works of Casino Royal and Skyfall. But Mendes other aspects where sound such as the music title sequence and the presentation of the vast different landscapes that Bond travels to on his journey. Mendes feel of the story was sound, despite the story itself being the fail, hence doing the best with what he had, constructing the dark suspense of the organisation to a tee. With a particularity memorable scene of the introduction of Waltz and Bautista in a SPECTRE meeting, using the shadowy effect that can be seen in the trailer to keep the audience enthralled and on edge, only to then let these two beautiful character have limited appearance.
The acting from Craig was up to the same high standard as usual, despite this film having the lacking nature of the character development from Bond as previously meaning that for some his performance may prove to be too subtle. But without a doubt with this performance amounting to the fact that Craig is the best actor for Bond since Connery and surpassing him. The Bond girl played by Lea Seydoux was impressive but unfortunately again one of the more passive girls to grace the screen during Craigs reign. Waltz was generic Waltz, enjoyable in his brief but maniacal cunning way.
Spectre is likely to have crowds divided due to it being so different from past Bonds, just as Skyfall did. But unfortunately it thought it was packing a bigger punch than it actually was. A global villains organisation could have been enough on its own to have taken the drama of Bond up, as this is a plot point had not been expanded on before in the time of Craig, but it lacked the direction. The film succeed on the following, performances, directing and build up (as you do go along with the Bonds hunt throughout the film, only to be left hungry). Failing with story, style and action.
Verdict : Not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale by some way, but still a hell of a lot better than Quantum of Solace.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.”
Mini review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2
Year: 2015
Certificate: 12A
Director: Francis Lawrence
Screenwriters: Peter Craig, Danny Strong, Suzanne Collins
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Donald Sutherland, Mahershala Ali, Sam Clafin
After surviving the Hunger Games and the Quarter Quell and becoming the figurehead of a nascent rebellion in the districts, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and the other rebels must face one final push into the Capitol if they are to overthrow the despotic President Snow and bring peace to Panem.
Director Francis Lawrence valiantly wrestles a well-paced action thriller from what is arguably one of the weaker books in the series, ably wrangling improbable setpieces as Katniss and co. make their way through the booby-trapped streets of the Capitol. The emotional beats work well, with Jennifer Lawrence doing most of the heavy lifting to inject credible human drama into the fantasy scenarios. However, it all feels a little paint-by-numbers at this point, and the demands of the plot leave little time for the sharp political allegory that was an attractive element in the second and third instalment, although the discussions around precisely how much violence is a justifiable price for peace are certainly topical. The impressive supporting cast (including a gloriously scene-stealing and all too brief reprisal from a shaven-headed Jena Malone as former tribute Johanna) get their moments to shine, and Josh Hutcherson gives his best performance of the series charting Peeta’s erratic recovery from torture and indoctrination at the hands of Snow.
While not the best of the franchise, Mockingjay part 2 rounds off the story well and provides an entertaining few hours of action with just enough political intrigue to bring some depth.
Verdict: 3/5
Image credit: lionsgate.com
Sicario Review
No Country For Americans
Released : September 8th 2015
Certificate : 15
Director : Denis Villeneuve
Cast : Emily Blunt, Benicio Del Toro, Josh Brolin, Daniel Kaluuya
Plot : After a career full of successful bust FBI agent Kate Macer (Blunt) and her main co-worker, less qualified Reggie (Kaluuya) come across a unique crime scene that is linked to the very top of the Mexican cartel. Kate is offered a shot to assist further deep across the Mexican border by laid back government officer Matt Graver (Brolin). Assisted by Alejandro (Del Toro) whose title is unknown to Kate, they lead an investigation into the head of Mexican cartel.
Denis Villeneuve returns to our screen with another dark thriller, with a cast to match his best work, Prisoners, a film which established him as a craftier of a unique brand of moral thriller, with more style than had been seen in the genre since The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The aspects of Prisoner which made it effective as a thriller was, a top cast working on top form, of course Villeneuve handy work and an unpredictable edge. All of which resulted in a thriller a cut above the rest. Here again Villeneuve returns with a cast to match Prisoners skill, but from outset appearing to be lacking in a storyline as initially new and chilling as that of Prisoners. The frequently explored topic of films for his new film is the war of drug trafficking, where Villeneuve has attempted to add uniqueness to the topic is by exploring the morality behind the fight, an area not new to cinema either, as well as a very personal character driven perspective of the fight. Neither of these quite as darkly unique as the topics tackled in Prisoners, but instead, Villeneuve has traded in for bullets, body count and scale while still in keeping with a murky winding road of a story of his previous work.
One of the main bases of this film are a characters, of which there are few, who are used as main point to draw the drama from the film, when it isn’t the intense action sequences. The film carries with it what could be considered by many to be a duel protagonist story, of a much high calibre than an average buddy cop film. But for the most part the film focuses around Emily Blunt’s Kate, a top of her class rule follower who not only has a burning desire for the end of the cartel, but also a strong moral compass. From just this information is can be easily predicted how she will react when she is thrown deep behind enemy lines in the pursuit of the cartel, the film teases this invertible drama brilliantly. The second main figure is that of Benicio Del Toro’s Alejandro, who is just a mysterious and unknown as the fight that Kate finds her self in. The enigma behind Alejandro might gain the most original teaser to a film it is well executed and adds to the film attempts to keep the audience in the same position as Kate, which is in the dark.
Despite the strong character and drama that steams from this, the sell out act for this film is Villeneuve work, as due to him the film stands as a model answer for how to build tension in a film. Sicario stands as a type of film that is a directorial joy to watch, due to the fact that, for the observant cinema goer, it can be easily noticed which this a film where every shot and camera movement is for a complex purpose. For those unaware of the finer detail, the effect will still be as riveting, but the meaningful crafted nature of the film demonstrates the care the thought put into the film on Villeneuve part. The specific effects themselves were fairly simplistic in nature, but proved for brilliantly effective results, for example sequence to break up the narrative of the film were mostly consistent of huge wide aerial moving shots of the desert as well as Mexico, coupled with the sound score that was progressively sinister despite being slow in tempo (reminiscent of films such as Nightcrawler). The effect on the audience was to unsettle them as well as demonstrate the mass scale of the issue faced by the team, conveying the hugely corrupted land. This being one of the most basic and noticeable ways in which Villeneuve parts the tension in the film as well as the meaning of the film, with camera shots holding no action codes or dialogue. This is not a radical concept to cinema, but to see it carried out beautifully and with precision never fails to be entertaining, as an example of well crafted cinema. Other proofs of Villeneuve understanding of the thriller genre was the effect and frequent effect of lighting codes, not only for effect by as well as meaning, the orchestration of the action sequences, and the way he made the audience feel much the same way as our main character Kate, which was a blend of scared, tense and confused.
As for a main characters presentation to us, Blunt nailed it. Her characters fear and anger as she realises the extent of the situations was delivered without flaw, the audience was able to easily relate to her reaction and share in her feeling due to Villeneuve audience positing, and this made Blunts performance all the more tasteful. This is not her best performance to date, as she was able to convey the characters overwhelmed sense as the story develops and realises her helplessness nature, and the way she translated the character strong will for a moral code despite the escalating wrongdoings and misconducts that she is exposed to provides a character performance its hard not to rally behind. The second side of this dual character film, which provide the mysterious edge and more complex character was Del Toro’s performance. He’s Mexican outcast was a stylish as he was enjoyable to watch, and Toro fitted the role perfectly, convincing the audience that this character was both tortured as well as experience with the cartel. Providing a great character contrast to Blunts role as both are placed in the firing line of the drug lords. Maybe the one good result of the 2010 The Wolfman was the ability for Del Toro and Blunt to get a feel of each other acting to provide for riveting, thou be it brief, dramatic character interaction within the film, most notable of which is the end act in which the acting reaches a peak as well as the meaning behind the film.
Overall Sicario is an outstanding thriller which carries with it the uniquely dark aurora that made Villeneuve so enjoyable in Prisoners. Blunt and Del Toro have redeemed their past collaboration with performance which are one of their best to date, and even despite Brolin slightly cartonish persona it manages to work with the film. But this being one of biggest minor flaws in a film that is otherwise well constructed and well delivered, with one the strongest climax’s to any film this year. A thriller that manages to operate on both a character based level as well as a wider meaning and maintains an effect that can be deemed, nail-biting.
Verdict : Sicario is the thriller to see in 2015, adding to Villeneuve history as he establishes himself as a modern master of the thriller genre, with another dark, moral and unpredictable tale which proves to be as thought-provoking as some of the best drug war films.
Verdict : 5/5
Quote : “You should move to a small town, somewhere the rule of law still exists. You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is a land of wolves now.”
Good Kill DVD Review
Black Hawke Down
Released : April 10th 2015
Certificate : 15
Director : Andrew Niccol
Cast : Ethan Hawke, January Jones, Zoe Kravitz, Bruce Greenwood
Plot : Combat pilot Thomas Egan (Hawke) has been forced to give up his day of flying in Iraq after six tours, and instead now man’s a drown control panel stationed in Nevada where his family has always lived. When Egan’s unit are placed under the command of the CIA, the morality of the missions becomes more and more questionable, creating friction both inside the unit and for Egan’s home life.
Ethan Hawke, the now four times Academy Award nominated actor and writer knuckles down for a modern day war drama with a twist, a twist that until now had not been greatly investigated by cinema. For the original project he was joined by an old directorial accomplice Andrew Niccol, famous for the writing and directing of Gattaca, a film which was one of the main stepping stones for Hawke propelling him into mainstream cinema. Good Kill also happens to be written also by Niccol, so we could have the start of a enduring director, actor combo. But Good Kill was more of Hawke’s time to shine again, as the supporting cast being fairly unknown as well as Niccol by average movie goer’s, most of the attention for the film is revolving around Hawke’s ability to portray the damaged war veteran who can no longer peruse his passion.
The initial premise of the story was undoubtedly engaging, its a very modern aspect of warfare and studying the effects it has on the morals of war and the effect on soldiers, if nothing else the film is daring in its attempt to tackle new complex issues of modern warfare. The setting of the film is very restricting from a directorial point of view as it is set mostly in one room and all the combat of the film is one a screen itself, and as far as drama building it was made clear that Niccol struggled. As a viewer it never really seemed like Niccol was able to convey the shock and thrill value of the warfare, unable to overcome the issue of the war being seen through a computer screen. The atmosphere created for the first turn of the film while Hawke is at the controls of the drone where too calm, maybe in an attempt to demonstrate the cold hearted nature of the warfare, but neither this effect nor any sense of thrilling danger was really conveyed in the film as far as the war scenes.
Niccol’s writing as well was disappointing as far as the characters who felt purpose built, unrealistic in the way they had been written to serve a certain purpose in the film. The characters this was most apparent in was Bruce Greenwood as the bases captain, his dialogue was stereotypical in the way he was overly sweary when addressing the troops and his manner of disapproval of the quality of the new recruits gave the role a cartoonihs feel. You were reminded of other better film roles of commandos by the performance, which isn’t the fault of Greenwood but rather the recycled dialogue he was forced to wrestle with. Other characters such as the two other members of Hawke’s unit who blindly went along with the commands of the CIA to the point where their attempts to justify their opinions were borderline laughable as they attempted to justify their views with cliché patriotic speeches. There were further aspects that seemed like slightly cliché, such as the fact that the CIA’s role of the ‘bad guy’ was featured by a deep scary voice that came through a phone in the bunker, not an actual character. Because of these aspects which were extremely unoriginal the environment on the army base at least didn’t feel real, nothing surprised you as the film went along at what felt like a slow pace due to the lack of thrills provided by Niccol’s.
The other half of the film rested on the shoulders of Hawke’s performance and the drama provided form his home life. Hawke’s performance may not have been appalling bad, but again it wasn’t good enough to tackle with the script that he had been given, which must have been limited as the character was basically a mute for a large percent of the film, which can prove to be an issue if your the main character. The fact that he was silent mostly and joined with the way that Hawke played him as a cold eyed slow docile man prove for a character which it was difficult to make an emotional connection to, due to a large amount of inactivity. Unfortunately this didn’t make for riveting viewing, and for a film which revolves around a central character this was the main breaking point. On top of this the depiction of his life at home felt rushed, lacking in required depth and investigation, presumable to allow the story to spend more time on base with Hawke flying the drone, but as stated little excitement was found their either. The home environment of the film needed more time and effort, for example the children are never really feature in the film, other than hugging their parents, in the entire film only one scene when Hawke has a scene with multiple lines with one of the children. The effect of this was leaving more of the film to rely on Hawke’s sole performance, which unfortunately wasn’t strong enough to redeem all these poor aspects of the film.
Good Kill unfortunately doesn’t function well as a thriller or as a drama, and for a war film with little action this leaves really little to look at apart from Hawke’s Mustang. The disappointing aspect is that the films premise is good and unexplored until this film, meaning it had the potential free range to introduce us to the knew struggles that the soldiers who fly the drones have to face, but little in the film will provoke an emotional response. The highlight of the film is finally when Hawke’s character rebels against the CIA voice and decided not to carry out the mission, but this stage of the film had been preceded by many of Hawke’s team carrying out complete outrageously unjust mission that it felt as if the rebellion should have taken place much earlier. Due to many of these problems the film is a bit of a disaster wasting the promise it had with a new war film premise.
Verdict : With a slow pace and being dry of both thrills and engaging drama it offers little entertainment outside the interest of discovering how the drone programme is run, and a couple of scenes where Hawke sticks it to the man in the most reserved way possible.
Quote : “Don’t ask me if this is a just war. It’s just war.”
The Man From U.N.C.L.E Review
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Agents
Released : August 15th 2015
Certificate : 12A
Director : Guy Ritchie
Cast : Henry Cavill, Alicia Vikander, Armie Hammer, Hugh Grant
Plot : During the cold war, an american spy (Cavill) with a past as a criminal and a KGB agent (Hammer) with a stained family name are forced to work together against their will by their superiors to stop a bomb plot.
Guy Ritchie moves on from his top class reboot of the classic English story, onto the classic American story, granted Sherlock Holmes being the better known than Napoleon Solo. But again Ritchie takes the story of a dysfunctional duo’s fight against evil from the past to a different setting. For this period action flick Richie has traded in for actors with less experienced than in Sherlock to fit the mould of the stylish comic duo of hero’s. Henry Cavill being the leading man (as Robert Downy Jr was) known for being this generations Superman, and Armie Hammer as the companion known best quirky Disney reboot as The Lone Ranger. With the similarities in both style and structure it is very hard to compare this film to Guy Richie’s Sherlock Holmes.
The film introduces the two spy’s to us with an intro in which they are on the same mission, which set everything up perfectly within minutes. You had a largely unrealistic but also largely enjoyable chase scene across the murky streets of Berlin, with both Napoleon and Illya Kuryakin showing off each of their specific talents in a very playful way. This establishing scene, before you even had time to be introduced to the actors chemistry together, pitched the film as tongue in cheek spy entertainment that was the perfect recreation of the classic espionage films. Shortly after this you are introduced to the chemistry of the two actors together as foe’s turn friends, the chemistry of this was vital as mostly the entire film revolves around it, much like Sherlock Holmes. The approach to the roles by both actors was suited to the films tone of lacking in seriousness, which was brilliant as it avoided overacting the roles which would have turned the film cheesy. With both actors walking the line of the characters being almost cartoonish, it was evident that both actors understood the films purpose and this resulted in thankfully, great entertaining chemistry.
After this point in the film it lost momentum, between the introduction of the pair to the mission, a large part of the film had to account for the spy’s progression into the investigation which was undoubtably slow. The film picks itself up with some comic action sequences, which are not as grand as in some of Richie’s other work but were still entertaining. But still up until a certain point at which the villains and hero’s actually come head to head the film lacked to show anything original outside of the recapturing of the style and mood of the period spy films. Which despite for this feature of recapturing being very well executed as well as the chemistry of the actors, you are left wanting the rest of the films aspects to match these two effects. The film does then let the villains raise their ugly head’s resulting in a cat and mouse game which has enough curve balls to keep you entertained to a more than satisfactory level for the rest of the.
With Richie’s handiwork, it was notable to see in the opening credits effects from Richie which really set the mood of the film. The old fashion camera film showing Napoleon with crackles in the picture and lens flair showed how Richie was keen to recreate the style and mood of not just the original show but also the time period itself. His finger prints were as evident throughout the rest of the film both in script and directing. The comic edge the was brought to the two spy’s relationship via script was effective and required, something you want and expect form a Richie flick. But this aspect was not up to Richie’s best, then wasn’t the same level of banter between characters as with his other films, relying mostly on situation humour to add laughs to film, making it less effective. With directing an effect that Richie continued to employ was a split screen, many different scenes brought together in many sliced together films on the screen. As original and effective as it was in the pursuit of the spy comic book style, when it came to actions scenes and he continued to employ, you are left wishing he had just shot the action sequence, trading in style of thrill creation.
‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E’ so far is one of the biggest disappointments of the mainstream cinema world, not because it is bad, because it isn’t, but because it feels like if more work and effort went into it the film could have done so much better. The film did everything that is was supposed to do, have a entertaining two hour spy thriller that has style and driven by the relationship of the duo. But it can’t escape an air of being unfulfilled, little things such as maintaining the momentum throughout the entire film, having a more engaging and original storyline. Something that was personal missed from Sherlock Holmes was the strong presence of the villains character and the amount of interaction the hero’s have with them. You will enjoy the film, if you resign yourself to the fact that the film offers little more than comic playful redoing of old spy films with a fun duo of actors.
Verdict : Fun, sarcastic and lacking in seriousness, but maybe some seriousness would be required in order to make it something more than a action summer flick that will be forgotten. The annoying thing is it does the basics well enough to amuse and charm you, meaning your left open to idea of a sequel.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “For a special agent, your not having a very special day.”
Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Review
Rouge Franchise?
Released : August 30th 2015
Certificate : 12A
Director : Christopher McQuarrie
Cast : Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames, Alec Baldwin, Rebecca Ferguson, Sean Harris
Plot : Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is on another mission to take down an illusive terrorist group know as the Syndicate, but when the CIA shuts down IMF, Hunt goes rouge. Leading his loyal team against both the Syndicate and the CIA.
We arrive at the fifth film in the franchise started 19 years ago by legendary director Brian De Palma (Scarface, The Untouchables, Carrie) and of course the lead man Tom Cruise. When franchises such as these begin to reach their fifth film, it usually doesn’t prove for great results, or results of any kind. Usually this is due to the fact that there has been as much expansion as possible in both characters or story, or that makers are unable to makes films which connect with the originals magic or motive. A classic example of a franchise killing fifth instalment would be ‘A Good Day To Die Hard’. In the Mission Impossible story no sequel has match the original, but the sequels haven’t been disappointing, resulting in people happy to see Hunt on the screen again. Another pleasing aspect at outset is the return of Rhames who like Crusie has stayed loyal for the most part. And the return of Pegg and Renner who proved for worthy chemistry with Cruise in ‘Ghost Protocol’.
One factor which made this film stand out to the rest, is the usage of material sequels have brought to the franchise since the original, while still keeping in touch with the spirit of the first film, this gave the film the power to capture the whole series style in one film. The echo’s of the sequels can be seen by fans throughout, a classic motorbike chase scene from MI2, and well acted and menacing villain from MI3, and high quality death defying stunts from MI4. Whether this was deliberately done to respect the other films or not, the result is a film which in core essence of the franchise. This aspect of film is very likeable, but this could be fond to be gimmicky by some.
Also a similarity to the original is by bringing in a director who has also made other cult classic films with Christopher McQuarrie. Not a name that many will recognise, but he is the writer of ‘The Usual Suspects’ and well as this film. This was a huge help to the film, as the style of story and complexity is the factor which is most lie the originals standards. As this films story is full of spy drama, double crossing and deceit providing for a true cloak and dagger feel that a spy film should provide. The complexity of the story is surprising as we haven’t seen the likes of it since the original, but the execution of this aspect and the attitude that the film has towards it is perfect, it takes itself a seriously as it should.
McQuarrie was also able to construct the elaborate complex scenes of Hunts team breaking into impossible places brilliantly, the best since Hunt hung from the ceiling in MI1. These scenes provided tension and thrills that have lacked in the other sequels and been traded in for either explosions or big scale stunts, instead of genuine tension building. But that doesn’t mean that this instalment doesn’t have the big time stunts as well, as it certainly did, to a better quality than ‘Ghost Protocol’ tower scene due to the fact that less of them were computer animated, making for more classical cinematic stunts. So on all accounts McQuarrie has handled the film brilliantly, with writing which is engaging and entertaining and directing which makes the film well orchestrated and thrilling.
The cast again worked well together as they did in the previous instalment, helped along by the needed addition of more screen time by Rhames. Pegg is also very much needed as an effective comedy relief to the film, featuring him in several scenes directly poking fun at the impossibility of the film, effectively not being as serious with itself as needed, making the film more fun and playful. The over acting of Harris was charismatic as Seymour Hoffman in M3, doing the job well of giving Hunt a figure that could be depicted as a nemesis. Cruise continued to do Hunt as cool and sarcastic as he has in the past, unfortunately no return to the feeling of being out of depth as the first film illustrates, but for this film nobody was looking for much acting. Neither were they looking for the best gang of crime fighters to grace the silver screen, but the actors are aware of this and play there parts so that the thrills can be delivered easily without any additional emotion or drama blocking these effects.
Rouge Nation would be a high for the series to end on, all in all being the best sequel since the original. Its no ‘Godfather Part 2’, but many will be surprised as energy and excitement can be rediscovered by a series that was a film away from being just another an unwanted long franchise. So this film is defiantly a ‘Die Hard 4.0’, as it takes a series falling in quality and reminds everyone of where it all began for a surprisingly brilliant film. Hopefully this will be the final bow for the series, only because it would be very easy to make a film that doesn’t match this, and nobody wants to see Mission Impossible end on a low.
Verdict : The best since the first film, plain and simple.
Verdict : 4/5
Quote : “Benji, open the door!”
Review: Spy
Released: 5th June
Certificate: 15
Director: Paul Feig
Screenwriter: Paul Feig
Cast: Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Jason Statham, Miranda Hart, Jude Law, Peter Serafinowicz
The latest from Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, The Heat), stars Melissa McCarthy as Susan Cooper, a brilliant CIA analyst who guides the every move of suave field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law) through his earpiece. When criminal mastermind Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrne) captures Fine while he’s out hunting a stolen nuclear bomb, and reveals that the identities of all active CIA field agents have been compromised, Susan convinces the top brass to send her out on a recon mission.
After playing second fiddle in hits for years, it’s a delight to see McCarthy in a centre-stage role with a satisfying character arc to get her teeth into. Watching Cooper go from retiring Midwestern modesty (baking cakes for colleagues’ birthdays while quietly pining after Fine) to growing confidence to all-out badassery is an absolute thrill. McCarthy is one of those comic actors who make humour look effortless, and the camera gives her space to mine every scene for its full comic potential. Supporting comedy stalwarts Byrne, Miranda Hart as office chum Nancy, and Peter Serafinowicz as amorous Italian agent Aldo all provide solid support, either as foils or co-conspirators. Jason Statham is an unexpected hit, lampooning his hard-man persona as gravel voiced agent Rick Ford, who can’t quite stomach being placed on the bench while rookie Cooper goes into the field. Unfortunately, although Jude Law has many strings to his bow, comedy isn’t particularly one of them, and encumbered by a bizarre American accent (presumably the producers realised that the CIA was becoming overrun with Brits) he fails to shine in this role, leading to a slightly unimpressive opening few scenes.
Although consistently funny (particularly for lovers of slapstick and expletive-laden badinage), Spy’s humour is by and large rather broad, meaning it never quite matches Bridesmaids for acerbic rigour. However, it also places less reliance on pathos and is therefore by some accounts a lot more fun, although those who admired Feig for his hard edge may be disappointed here. This aside, as far as the Hollywood knockabout comedy canon goes it is gratifying to see a film in which a fat, female lead character is shown to be intelligent, competent and physically capable (not to mention desirable), and where the humour never sinks to cheap gags about weight. Unfortunately this achievement is undermined by a repetitive sexual harassment joke which feels a bit old-fashioned (although is almost worth it for Cooper’s incredulous response: “was Pepé le Pew not available!?”). Despite these reservations, Spy quickly recovers from its slightly slow start to deliver a fast-paced and funny two hours with laughs aplenty and some thrilling (and well choreographed) action set-pieces.
Verdict: 4/5
Image credit: foxmovies.com/movies/spy
Stuck in the Cheap Seats 
Recent Comments