How important is filmmaking quality in comparison to compelling storytelling. I get the sense that’s the question lots of people will be asking whilst watching Godless, a seven episode, 7 and a half hours miniseries that was one of the key originals released by Netflix in the final few months of 2017. Written and directed by prolific screenwriter Scott Frank the miniseries is very much a love letter to classic westerns of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I’m going to give you as a reader the plot summary for the series in my own words. I want those of you that haven’t seen it to think about was on this plot could potentially sustainin 7 and a half hours of watching time.
An outlaw name Frank Griffin (Jeff Daniels) is terrorising the 1880s american West. He had a former protege named Roy Goode (Jack O’Connell.) Roy eventually escapes Frank and managers to betray him during a battle. After this battle Roy finds refuge in a barn this is on the property of the widowed Alice Fletcher (Michelle Dockery.) The property is within the town of Le Belee. Two years before the events of the series the town fell victim to a mining accident that was responsible for killing off over 90% of the male population. This now means the town is run in large part by women. Meanwhile the town Sheriff (scoot Mcnairy) is also looking for Frank as well as facing the possibility that he could be going blind. The rest of the series is about Roy building a relationship with Alice as well as several other members of the town as Frank and his army of one hundred men attempt to hunt him down and make roy pay for his betrayal.
The plot I just described sounds like basic Western 101. In a lot of ways it is . This mini series has NO surprises whatsoever in it’s running time. What makes the series so special though is that it’s the first thing where I feel like you can sit someone down in front of a section of it and use it as an example of the fact premium level TV can now compete with the best of Hollywood films. Westworld and Stranger Things S1 got close to achieving this (I don’t watch Game of Thrones so I can’t comment on it) but I really feel that this it’s the first time I can say it definitively. The filmmaking on display despite still technically being a “TV series” is absolutely incredible. Shot in incredibly cinematic 2.35:1 (as opposed to 2:00, the ratio of Netflix normally uses for it premium original content) incredibly wide shots of dusty landscapes, panning shorts across wide areas 8 shots following the characters as they ride on horses through the landscape look simply STUNNING. i’m not sure what the budget per episode was for this but my first thoughts what’s that it had to be within the tens of millions per episode range. There are occasions throughout some of the episodes (5 of which are between 70-80 minutes long) when nothing would be happening on screen with the exception of the makers of the series flexing their muscles in terms of what impressive shot they can show you next. Often this can come across as pretentious and time wasting but when something looks this good it’s hard to complain. To say the filmmaking within the series merits 10/10 is an understatement. It’s more likely to merit 100/10.
It’s worth saying that outside of the series shear beauty it does also have solid performances and a few decent characters (despite all the characters being your standard western archetypes.) the series also uses its beauty to frame some very strong action sequences and the series ends with an absolutely glorious 20-minute gun battle along with your standard western showdown between hero and villain. These factors probably elevate the series from a narrative perspective to an extremely light 6/10. However as I hope has been established you hopefully aren’t going to be watching this for the narrative.
Godless is an amazing technical achievement. It really doesn’t matter that over the course of the miniseries the plot and scripting hits every western beet you can imagine. The strong performances and incredible film making on display are enough to make the series worthwhile. Part of me thinks that a good amount of footage from this series will be used in Netflix show reals for quite some time to come.
7.5/10
I Tonya. Quick Review.
There are basically three types of award contender. You have your dominants, mid-level contenders and fluke nominations. This review is going to look at a film that is firmly lodged in the middle of the park for the 2018 Awards season. This is I Tonya, a dramatization of the inside story behind former Olympic ice skater Tonya Harding and her career, scandal and the domestic violence she suffered at the hands of her husband (Sebastian Stan.) this is all framed as a broad black comedy and the trailers have very much sold the film correctly. Going into a UK preview screening of the film I was expecting something solid but not necessarily spectacular. I knew Allison Janney was winning every Supporting Actress award going for her performance as Hardings hard edged and very foul-mouthed mother. How does the film hold up based on this knowledge.
I had to say the I Tonya was an interesting film in a few different ways. There is no question whatsoever that despite the fact this is a story where abuse and domestic violence are part of the narrative the films black comedy and sense of humour are generally very entertaining. Within this praise however is also the core problem with the film. It doesn’t really know how to juxtapose it’s two very distinct tonal styles successfully. This is one of those films where the tone can change in a matter of seconds and it was a somewhat jarring experience for me as a viewer. The film also suffers comparatively in my estimation from the fact the UK release comes after the breakout success of The End of the F***ing World from Channel 4 and Netflix This is also a jet black comedy trying to fuse in elements involving some deadly serious topics (two of the episodes have the central characters encounter a potential paedophile add a rapist professor) but these deadly series elements are integrated a lot better into the flow of the overall narrative and the series benefit greatly as a result. To make the comparison even more prevalent both have seen short in 1:33 1 to signify a different time period compared to the main narrative. This is where the comparison is pretty unavoidable in my viev if you’ve seen both.
As much as the previous paragraph may have come across a little bit negative I want to stress that I Tonya is still quite an enjoyable film. Allison Janney will indee win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress and gives one of the most scene stealing performances of recent years. Margo Robbie is also great in the title role and continues to prove she is an actress of considerable talent who has a long future ahead of her (beyond simply resurrecting and redefining the Harley Quinn character for the millennial generation.) it’s also great to see McKenna Grace the little girl from the supremely underrated Gifted have a small role as one of the younger versions of Tonya as she grows up. The film mostly nails the black humour it is going for (despite the jarring some of scenes.) However, beyond the performances I can see the film fading into relative obscurity after this year’s award cycle because as entertaining as it is it lacks that knockout punch that would lift it up from “above average” into the realm of greatness.
7/10
The Shape Of Water. Quick Review.
If you have ever seen a Guillermo del Toro film you know what he does well. Dark,dream like fairy tales with a sinister adult edge. From the first trailer it looked like The Shape of Water was very much heading in this direction. As a result, I had been looking forward to it since late last year when the first trailer doped. The film opened to a decent level of critical acclaim (particularly for a film about an infatuation between a mute woman and a fish like creature in 50s America. ) However, it was the films Oscar season run that really surprised me. To say it looks like the kind of style and story that is not made to be a front runner in Oscar season is an understatement. I felt like I was living in bizarro world see a Del Tero film up for 13 Oscars. However this along with the amazing ad campaign meant I had to see the film at the earliest possible opportunity. Having seen it, does it live up to the hype.
The answer to that question very much has to do with what audiences expect from it. On the one hand (as I hope has been established by the opening paragraph) it’s Del Toro playing with a set of toys that he loves and is clearly very comfortable with. On the other hand he does it so well this it’s hard to complain. The film is excellently performed (particularly Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins and Michael Shannon.) The film also boasts exquisite production design that makes the whole thing look like a Gothic pop up book, excellent motion capture work from Del Toro and general motion capture veteran Doug Jones (he can also currently be seen doing added vocals along with motion capture work on Star Trek: Discovery) and an absolutely mind blowing score that might just be the best film score from 2017. The film will not be for everyone (as should be obvious by the plot) but I think the marketing has done a good job of giving a good idea for the tone and feel of the film) so that even with the Oscar nominations and ward wins the audience for the film will very much know that they’re going to watch something with a plot this bizarre It’s clear that Del Toro would not have the marketing for his film any other way. In terms of the awards campaign I think the content of the film definitely helps it in the aftermath of Harvey Weinstein and his ilk but unlike with Moonlight last year I don’t feel the film would need a huge amount of explanation and backstory in terms of the political and potential backlash factors the resulted in it winning Best Picture (in the unlikely event that Shape of Water won best picture in 2018.
It’s worth saying that the film does have a few minor negatives to prevent me from giving it a perfect 10. The film has this very strange Singing In The Rain style musical interlude that may only last a few minutes but also very much interrupts the flow of the film. The film also doesn’t really “get going” so to speak until the central creature of the narrative is introduced 15 minutes in (something that can very easily happen in these types of films that are reliant on a very specific element of the plot from an overall narrative perspective.) It’s worth saying it’s somewhat remarkable that I enjoyed the film so much considering the UK preview screening I saw was projected in the wrong aspect ratio. This cut off the tops of characters heads in certain shots (annoying but tolerable.) The incorrect aspect ratio really stood out however when some Russian villains are introduced that want to capture the film central creature. These scenes are in Russian with English subtitles. This is normally no problem for me as I do not mind watching foreign films. However the incorrect aspect ratio the film was projected in meant to the subtitles for the scenes were cut off by the bottom of the screen and were barely legible as a result. I plan to go and see the film again hopefully projected in the correct aspect ratio. Well this didn’t necessarily hugely detract from my enjoyment of the film it was definitely noticeable and distracting in some scenes. This is not the films fault but I figured it was something that might be worth mentioning in this review.
In the end The Shape Of Water mostly lives up to the hype. It’s beautifully made and incredibly well performed with strong characters and an engaging story. The story might be a bit too weird for some but the marketing has not mis-sold the film in any way. For as much as there are definitely minor net pics (the musical interlude,the someone slow opening 15 minutes) the film still kept me engaged as a viewer from start to finish. It slots in nicely behind Call Me By Your Name as my personal second favourite of all the Oscar Best Picture contenders for 2018 (having seen eight of the nine.) Both or films that very much deal with the central theme of infatuation bringing out a sense of raw humanity in people and do it absolutely spectacularly. It just so happens that in the case of Shape of Water it’s an amphibious fish creature bringing out the raw humanity in a mute women. As much as I don’t consider Shape of Water particularly romantic (like I said it’s more about infatuation) the fact it home will be competing for screen space what’s the final 50 shades film when it releases in the UK on Valentine’s Day just makes me laugh. If you could find a film that is thematically the complete opposite it would be Fifty Shades of Grey.
9/10
12 Strong. Quick Review
Ever since Clint Eastwood American Sniper was a breakout American hit during it’s wide release in January 2015 there has proven to be a market for very militaristic,pro american military based action dramas. Michael Bays 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi joined the fray in 2016 and after a very brief setup period was basically Call of Duty : The Movie. 12 Strong has come into the equation in January 2018. Starring Chris Hemsworth, Michael Shannon and Michael Pena the film tells the story of 12 American soldiers who were the first to fight back on horseback against the Taleban in Afghanistan immediately following 9/11. I had seen one trailer for the film before going to see it. The question is how does it compare to the other films in this sub genre that has very much appeared since the breakout success of American Sniper.
Honestly, all three of these films are roughly in the same area quality wise. I probably say 13 Hours is the worst purely because well it’s not as atrocious has the worst of the Transformers films it very much is a Michael Bay film with some of his filmmaking tendencies and I simply did not care when it turned into Call of Duty The Movie in its second and third act. I thought American Sniper was fine but not worthy of it 6 Oscar nominations and mostly very forgettable outside of Bradley Cooper and Sienna Millers performances. Honestly, 12 Strong is not going to get nominated for Oscars but I very much feel the same way about it as I do about American Sniper. It’s fine with some good action sequences but even as you’re watching it you are unlikely have a grasp on the characters names or anything that resembles a real motivation beyond the fact that 9/11 has just happened and they want to go and get revenge on the Taliban. Despite the lack of character the performances of, Hemsworth, Shannon and Pena are actually pretty decent. The film makes the smart choice to break-up the gun fights and action scenes which character moments and quiet scenes. For as much as these mostly don’t work they do a good job of breaking up the action scenes so that each action scene and gun battle are relatively distinct. The action scenes and gun battles themselves are very solid with a good level of intensity and tension. The film is also incredibly well shot it’s a lot of picturesque wide shots. You could argue that the film entirely succeeds on these merits alone purely because that’s what 99% of the audience will be watching it for. You could certainly do a lot worse in terms of Friday night bear and pizza type action films but from a critical perspective the lack of anything stand out beyond above-average action sequences and good cinematography really does drag the film down. The film is definitely slightly too long at 130 minutes but whilst I was watching it I was never desperate for it to end as can be the case with some films of that length that don’t entirely earn it it. I think this is because as much as anything doesn’t really stand out in the film be on the action sequences it’s still a very watchable time waster.
6/10
All The Money In The World. Quick Review.
At the time of writing this film needs little introduction. It is important to state however that this was not always the case. I remember seeing the original Kevin Spacey trailer for Ridley Scott’s dramatisation of the 1973 kidnapping of John Paul Getty III not even knowing it was being made (what with the fact this is such a famous story.) There’s also the fact that it was the second Ridley Scott film he made in 2017 after the collection of studio notes that was Alien Covenant. I may not hate that film as much as some but the scene in which the film basically stops and there’s an extended sequence of Michael Fassbender’s David playing the flute (yes, seriously) is without question one of the most cringe worthy moments in 2017 cinema.
From that first trailer I had no expectation either way regarding this film. Then the Kevin Spacey allegations broke (interestingly the first victim known to the public can currently be seen on Star Trek: Discovery playing Lieutenant Stamets.) The rest of the story it’s public knowledge. Spacey’s lightning fast replacement by Christopher Plummer (apparently Ridley Scott’s initial choice anyway) and the re-shooting of all of Spacey’s initial scenes in 8 days. When you watch the final product it’s easy to explain how this could be achieved. With the exception of a first act that largely takes place in flashback most of Plumber’s scenes take place within the Getty mansion. However it’s still an enormously impressive achievement. Plumber then got nominated for an Oscar to add to the media narrative around this film. Lest we forget the pay gap between Mark Walllberg and Michelle Williams that became public knowledge (which we will be getting to in then next paragraph ) for the re-shoots. The insanity of this media narrative is what persuaded me to check the film out and one of the last screenings at my local cinema . How does the actual film hold up outside of the media narrative around it?.
The honest answer is very well. I’m under no illusions that the film will be remembered mostly for the media narrative around it upon release but All The Money In The World is a terrific film in its own right. The story is very well worn but Scott and the team that worked on the initial production and the Plumber re-shoots have managed to put together a very engaging and intense character based thriller that I think anyone who enjoys films in the genre will get a kick out of. There’s no denying how superb Plumber is in the role of John Paul Getty II. I didn’t see the trailer they released containing some of Plumbers footage but I will say the makeup used to age Kevin Spacey in the initial trailer that was released looked very unconvincing.
If you look at that makeup vs the performance Plumber delivers in the final product it really is the difference between ageing up a middle aged man to play an older person and actually hiring an older person. The film is also aided by an excellent script and an award worthy central performance from Michelle Williams as the grieving mother just looking to get her son back. This brings us on nicely to the very widely reported pay gap. Granted, Mark Wahlberg probably had the most to re-shoot of any member of the cast but the amount he was paid in comparison to William’s is frankly insane. This is particularly because well he’s performance is decent he’s very much just playing a variation of Mark Wahlberg elevated by the good material. I went into the film thinking that he was going to be second lead when in fact he is probably a distant third lead behind Williams and Plumber (his character does not even get introduced until the end of the first act.) Even though the dispute was resolved in the end through a donation I think this whole debacle may well have shown the world that Mark Wahlberg for as charisma as he can have is a massive diva who will likely wood come back for the right amount of money.
If the film has one legitimate problem however it’s definitely the flashback heavy opening act a lot of which is used to establish the multi-generational relationship between members of the Getty family before the kidnapping. These scenes did a decent job of engaging me as a viewer but they would definitely the first thing I’d cut down significantly if I was editing the film down from it perhaps slightly over long 130 minute running time.
In the end, however for as much as the media narrative is probably what mainstream culture will remember about this film it deserves to be remembered as a very good thriller in its own right. Excellently written and performed I found the film engaging from start to finish despite story being relatively well worn. If the form is still showing at your local cinema i’d recommend giving it’s a watch regardless of the various stories that’s come out of the production.
8.25/10
Darkest Hour. Quick Review.
Every few years there’s a film in contention for award seasons that the British press like to showcase as an example of the fact that “the British are coming.” The big example of this in recent years that resulted in Oscar triumph is obviously The King Spech. However,there are other examples such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Theory of Everything. In 2018 the owner of this label is Darkest Hour, the story of Winston Churchill’s early days in power and how he dealt with the Dunkirk evacuation. The film features a performance by Gary Oldman as Churchill that is almost guaranteed at this point to win the Oscar for Best Actor. Outside of his performance though the film has had solid enough but not spectacular reviews. I went into the film very much with this mindset, expecting Oldman’s performance to be standout. The film is also competing with the fact that (although it takes place historically well after the events of this film John Lithgow’s performance as second victory Churchill in the first season of Peter Morgan’s excellent The Crown may well be on some viewers mines.) Did the film managed to carve out it’s only niche and distance itself from John Lithgow’s performance (a strong contender for the best performance I’ve seen in any type of media over the past two years.)
To give you a simple one word answer,no. Don’t get me wrong I would not say Darkest Hour is necessarily a terrible film. However,it is decidedly unremarkable and as much as the film is not maybe as targeted at a certain middlebrow and middle-aged audience as some in that subgenre (say hello Victoria and Abdul),that audience is definitely the one that’s going to get the most out of it. Oldman is good and certain scenes in which he has to deliver really rousing speeches really give him the chance to shine. You can tell that certain scenes from this film will be going on his Oscar highlight reel. However,he’s backed up by an below average screenplay (unfortunately from the writer of the rather excellently written Theory of Everything) that comes across as “Churchill for dummies.” It’s obvious watching the film that it was made with a super mainstream audience in mind as every little element of historical detail has to be explained in the most basic way possible. This goes down as far as the origin of the V for Victory sign. The film has a supporting cast but none of them are giving anything interesting to do and are not developed as characters. Praise For as good as Oldman’s performance it’s not strong enough to carry the film on its own (unlike the performance/relationship between Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks in Spielberg The Post.) The film does have very solid production and set design but you expect that for this sort of historical story and the film clearly had the budget to manage it.
At times the dialogue does have a certain level of wit but this does not forgive the previously mentioned “Churchill for dummies” approach of the screenplay. Despite all the previously mentioned problems however Oldman’s performances certainly good enough to make the film very watchable and inoffensive even if he can’t carry it on his own. That being said for as much as Oldman’s performance is not necessarily comparable to the Lithgows the film did make me yearn for the more character focused stories that Peter Morgan excelled at in The Crown (I’ve yet to see season 2 but I’m looking forward to it.) His scripts for that series are well written, focused and do not pander to audience expectations as to what to expect. Only one of these elements is true regarding Darkest Hour.
In the end Darkest Hour was something of a disappointment for me. It’s not terrible and you are more likely to get something out of it if you’re interested in this type of historical story. However, beyond Oldman’s performance (which might not be his career defining as some will have you believe),good production design and some wit in the dialogue the film has nothing that’s that interesting to offer. Recommended for Oldman/historical drama fans only.
5/10
Downsizing. Movie Review
NOTE. This review was written based on a UK preview screening a few weeks ago. The film is now in UK cinemas at the time of publishing but all of this review still stands. All
Have you ever gone into a piece of media thinking it could very easily go either way in terms of quality. This was me going in for an early screening (if you go by UK release date) of Alexander Payne’s, Downsizing. I have seen a few of Payne’s films in the past and I’ve found them not necessarily bad but decidedly unremarkable. The Descendants was the most overrated Oscar film of the Year it came out (despite having one really funny line in it where George Clooney tells the audience “paradise can go f@@k itself” and winning Dean Pelton from Community and Oscar (aka Jim Rash) for co writing the screenplay. Nebraska was very similar. It wasn’t bad but the only thing that is sticks in my memory about it several years later is the performance of June Squibb (who was Oscar nominated herself.) Payne is one of those filmmakers who’s work always tends to be up for awards consideration of some variety. My general indifference towards him as a filmmaker looked like it might be changing with Downsizing. The initial reviews that came out of its festival premiere were very strong and when the first trailer dropped I found the premise very engaging (despite it basically being “honey we shrunk Matt Damon. ” The trailer also hinted at a wider mythology among the world of tiny people they gained my interest.
However, the film had been pretty much forgotten about (outside of ancillary Awards nominations) by the time it finally got around the being screened for a more general audience and it’s reviews on IMDb got a lot more mixed to negative. That being said I still went into the screaming with some hope based on the huge promise of the initial trailer. Was I right I think this might be good and be the first Alexander Payne film I can truly recommend to people.
The short answer to this question is unfortunately, no. Downsizing is an incredibly frustrating film . It’s a great example of something that has a few great moments but at the end of the day swaps any mainstream appeal it might have had for basic easy to decode symbolism and metaphors that won’t stick long in the mind of the type of viewers that would be looking for this style of entertainment. The film is at its best when it’s showing all the nuts and bolts of the process of downsizing someone and this extended sequence is genuinely excellent. It’s just a shame that the sequence takes place a good 40 minutes into the overlong 135 minutes film. It’s surrounded by roughly 35 minutes of running time hammering home the same point to the audience (Matt Damon and Kristen Wig are a husband and wife struggling financially and prospective downsizing seems like a good idea.) After Matt Damon gets downsized he realises that his wife did not go through with the procedure and there’s an incredibly on the nose scene in which Damon’s character is in his new mansion and it has been set up for two people. The metaphors and symbolism are so easy to decode but they are not even worth discussing. In general this is a film that thinks it’s a lot smarter than it actually is.
Adding do the films problems is Hong Chow. Playing a Vietnamese freedom fighter who was shrunk down against her will and now is one of the key figures in this community of immigrant downsized people the Damon’s character becomes involved with once his wife leaves him. Chow’s performance has been nominated for some awards but it was hard to ignore from my perspective that her vocal cadence and the dialogue she has to deliver plays to every Vietnamese stereotypes possible within American culture. For this review I looked up interviews with Chow and it appears but she has a typical american accent when not acting. This makes the fact her performance and character are playing into the stereotypes worse because this was very clearly a deliberate choice by Alexander Payne and the filmmakers to try and provide some sort of commentary on immigrant populations (which obviously doesn’t work.) It’s a bad sign that whilst watching the second and third act I was not sure if the involvement within the immigrant community was satirising or playing into the “white saviour” stereotype. This is particularly ironic because in 2017 Matt Damon made The Great Wall, a film that very much played into the ” white saviour” stereotype (as well as basically being an advert for the Chinese film industry.) Maybe something about these types of stories appeals to Matt Damon. You have to ask his agent.
Downsizing is not irredeemable. Christoph Waltz has a very funny supporting role as a quirky neighbour He pretty much steels every scene he is in. The film has a few other good /funny moments but often sacrifices these for the basics symbolism /metaphors previously mentioned. This film has real potential to build a really interesting mythology with it’s premise but it became very clear early on that the film is simply not interested in that at that and this is a large reason why it is so disappointing.
In the end despite some promise Downsizing is pretty much everything I felled it might be going in. Pretentious and nowhere near as smart as it thinks it is. Moments in the film that range from good to excellent can’t redeem the metaphors and symbolism that are far too basic for their own good. There’s also the problem of how this film deals with immigrant populations. Downsizing boomed in the US and although it has not opened in the UK yet at the time of this writing, I feel a similar fate awaits it in the UK. If you go into the film having watched the very promising trailer you eventually realise that the trailer is not only mis-selling the film, what the films actual content is executed very badly. The film is not without some merit but it is overall a massive disappointment.
Pitch Perfect 3 Movie Review.
I will never forget seeing the first Pitch Perfect film in the cinema. I went into it with no expectations whatsoever. All that I knew about it was that Anna Kendrick was in it and it involved singing. That being said from the opening vomit gang was the indication that this film wasn’t going to be as bland and forgettable as a lot of the films in this sort of genre tend To be. About an hour in I realised I had started to laugh so hard but it actually physically began to hurt. The first film established an extremely likeable ensemble and gave them dialogue with a really sharp edge to it. I instantly connected with it as a viewer. I became a fan instantly during that first screening and I’ve watched the film several times since and it holds up rather well. Pitch Perfect 2 is an interesting case. As a massive fan of the first film I went to see it on the opening Saturday of release and found a film that’s had more then enough of the sharp dialogue, energetic musical performances and funny characters that I had grown to love about the first film. However it was also a case of an obvious squeal being made purely because the first film was discovered by so many on DVD / Blu-ray/ streaming It didn’t really know where to take the characters beyond their exploits in the first film. This takes us into to Pitch Perfect 3. Even as a fan of the series it would be wrong if I didn’t acknowledge the sheer amount of bad press the newest entery has received. It has been called a slap in the face to the fans of the first two films by many. All the negative buzz made me absolutely terrified to see the film. I was scared that just as reported the film was going to destroy the legacy of these characters that I’ve grown to really enjoy over the course of the first two films. However, 5 weeks after its initial release date I finally caved In and took in a screening of Pitch Perfect 3. How was it?
Honestly, I can see why the film has gotten as much bad press as it has. I was incredibly worried after the opening sequence which juxtapozes the opening musical performance with a big explosion on a boat. I was then put to rest somewhat when the film quickly establishes more of the character interactions that I like to see in these films. The dialogue is not a sharp as the best of the previous films (particularly John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks who were absolute scene sealers in the first two films as sharp tonged acapella commentators who are now making a documentary about the Bella’s fall from grace) but I still enjoyed this characters enough for much of the opening half hour or so that well not being as good as the first two films the new entry was still a pleasant enough watch. An extended musical performance including one of the series trademark “riff offs” has one of the biggest laughs in the entire series (that I will not spoil.) However, very quickly after this musical performance the real plot starts kicking in and the film is almost unrecognisable in places. What started off as a fairly standard plot for one of these films goes in downright bizarre directions involving John Lithgow as Fat Amy’s Australian drug dealing father, cocaine inside cuddly toys, extended action sequences, burning down hotel rooms, DJ Khaled (yes,seriously) and being held hostage. The extended supporting role for DJ Khaled is especially bizarre for two reasons. The first is the I’m willing to bet no one will remember who DJ Khaled is in 10 years time so re watching this film will be strange for potential future generations. Secondly, DJ Khaled only says one of his catchphrases “bless up” and the others are conspicuously absent. If you’re going to get someone like DJ Khaled for this bizarre role at least have the writing acknowledge that he’s more famous as a catchphrase machine then anything he has done in the world of music. At least when Ed Sheeran cameoed in Bridget Jones’s Baby his joke had a funny punchline and he was on screen for about 30 seconds (he was probably the most memorable thing about that very forgettable film.) As weird as the second and third act of the film are there is still the occasional laugh, even if much of it is a complete betrayal of the first two films. As a fan of the franchise I did not hate this direction as much as some will but there’s no denying it’s not very good.
When I got out of the cinema the first question that was on my mind was whether or not the incredibly negative reviews and the toxic word of mouth was truly deserved. My answer to this question is both yes and no. The second half of the film cannot be ignored for how badly it betrays what makes the first two films good but at the same time when you look at the film as a whole there’s just enough of the funny character interactions for me to say that I think this would be a worthwhile one watch film for fans of the previous films. The film ends with a black and white celebratory photo montage from all three films, very much as an ending to the series. As much as I don’t hate the supposed final instalment as much as some I get the feeling a potential Pitch Perfect 4 might go even further in the more action oriented direction add as a fan I don’t want to see that. The series should go out while it’s still have some semblance of the what it once was (even with the second and third act of this film being as they are )
5.5/10
Batman VS Two Face. Review.
In 2016 something rather wonderful happened. For the 40th anniversary of the Batman 66 TV series they got . Adam West Burt Ward and Julie Newmar to come back and reprise their roles in animated form, for a new film as part of the DC Animated Original Movies line. This film was Return of the Caped Crusaders I saw it when it had a one night theatrical screening and it was absolutely glorious. It was able to respect the source material in such a way that was very loving but was also painfully aware of how of its time and ridiculous the Batman 66 series is, well at the same time understanding that is cheesiness and silliness means so much a lot of people. This combination of factors is why Return of the Caped Crusaders turned out to be one of the best pieces of comedic animation of the past several years. Pretty much immediately as that film was released, they announced a sequel with William Shatner providing the voice of Harvey Dent/Two Face done in very much the same style as the first film. Time went by but as the news of Adam West’s passing came through one of my first thoughts was if he had finished the voice work for the Return of the Caped Crusader sequel. They announced that he had and the film’s release would go ahead as planned on DVD/Blu-ray (unfortunately without the theatrical screenings this time.) I finally got around to watching the Blu-ray last night. The question is does Batman VS Two-Face live up to the comedic greatness of Return of the Caped Crusaders
The honest answer is yes and no. There is no question that the sequel has much of what made the original so great. Hilarious pastiches of the tropes and cheesiness and of the source material, fantastic voice work from West and Ward, the very amusing 66 style scene transitions and a general sense that what you’re watching has been assembled with care and love. However the thing that very much holds Batman Vs Two-Face back in terms of being as great as the original is very much the increased focused on plot as opposed to pastiche. Return of the Caped Crusaders did have a plot of sorts but it was roughly 80% made up of tribute/pastiche material for the original series. The fact the parodying of these tropes were so effective was what made the original film so hilarious. The sequel has a fair amount of this also but is a lot more reliant on having an actual plot with a three act structure this time round rather than a stringing together of jokes and set pieces (the set piece in the first film that takes place on the moon still makes me laugh.) While the focus on plot is fine, the plot is nothing you haven’t seen before and the filmmakers do nothing interesting in terms of any potential curveballs. You could argue that this was intentional as Batman 66 itself went out that way to be as basic and formulaic as possible (that’s part of the joke) but the generic plot and sacrificing of comedic moments means that while the film is still fun it’s nowhere near as instantly memorable as Return of the Caped Crusaders William Shatner may be a huge figure within nerd culture but his Harvey Dent/Two Face is also not especially memorable.
Despite its sacrificing of jokes for extra plot elements Batman VS Two-Face is still an incredibly fun 65 minutes if you enjoyed Return of the Caped Crusaders. The film does end with a very touching tribute message to Adam West and for as much as the film isn’t quite as strong as its predecessor I definitely came out of it thinking that this series could have continued were it not for West’s passing.
7/10
Ferdinand. Quick Review
Welcome to Blue Sky Studios. Home of generic and unchallenging kid’s entertainment for the best part of 15 years. Don’t get me wrong, Blue Sky will always have the legitimate greatness of the first Ice Age film (I even have a soft spot for some of the sequels) as well as the Peanuts movie but other than that all their films are varying degrees of instantly forgettable. I say this as someone who loves animation and sees every major studio animation released every year. This did not look like it was going to change with Ferdinand ,a film in which the vocal casting of John Cena in the title role of a flower loving bull meant the memes wrote themselves I actually quite like Cena as an actor and think he has a fair amount of charisma. That being said I did not go into this expecting anything beyond what you typically see in a Blue Sky production .Was I right?
In short, the answer to this question is yes. Ferdinand is pretty much exactly what you expect from a Blue Sky Studios production. Cena’s above-average voice acting cannot redeem a generic script heavy on below-average physical comedy. The animation is solid enough without setting the world on fire. The film also has the sort of generic “be yourself ” message you typically see in this type of below-average kids entertainment. For all the films generic qualities the thing that irritates me about it most was that it managed to make David Tennant (playing a Scottish bull named Angus) were one of the most annoying animated characters I’ve seen in a 2017 animated films. I absolutely love Tenant as an actor and watching him slog his way through all the generic Scottish jokes was incredibly irritating, when you consider how great it can be at voice acting. It’s also worth noting that the film ends with an incredibly generic pop song (as is typical for Blue Sky. This one is by Nick Jonas and it’s safe to say the only memorable thing about it (beyond how overproduced it is) is the way Jonas shouts “HOME” on the hook.
The generic nature of the film’s theme song is a good metaphor for the film itself. Rather inexplicably the film has ended up with two Golden Globe nominations (one for animated film and one for the song) that in part showcase what a bad year mainstream animation had in 2017. Admittedly I have not seen Coco yet (it doesn’t open in the UK until January 12th) but the fact the same Golden Globe category also includes The Boss Baby tells you everything you need to know. If you’re looking for solid family entertainment this year wait for Coco, go and see the hilarious from start to finish Paddington 2 or take in a screening of the surprisingly excellent Jim and she reboot. There is no need to support Blue Sky and their continuing mediocrity
4/10
Confessions of a media viewer 