396 replies to this topic

[thecasinoroyale]

Totally agree on all points there tdalton! Great film.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Criminal' (2016)

The cast look good, and the idea is interesting BUT the execution and story is pretty lazy, which results in a wasted opportunity to make this Kevin Costner’s ‘Taken’. It’s predictable, violent and ends up being something you’ve already seen before, but not pulled of as good.

I like Costner, I always have, and have most of his films, but sadly his recent offerings haven’t done him any favours. With the right material, he can deliver. He was fine as Jonathan Kent in the new ‘Man Of Steel’, but look at him in ‘3 Days To Kill’ and now ‘Criminal’, he’s being cast as broken men who have demons to battle as well as the baddies.

Playing a man who is fighting with his own violent nature against a more caring and emotional one, it’s like a strange blend of ‘Face/Off’ meets ‘Total Recall’, but not as good. The film is very slow once the story starts and, to be honest, Costner is portrayed as a man too damn violent and cruel to really care for at all. I found myself not liking him, even when I probably SHOULD have been trying to like him. The violence he commits is, and I’m shocked to say this, un-necessary for his character and the plot.

Gary Oldman is just playing Commissioner Gordon on a bad day. Tommy Lee Jones is always on point, but here he just looks troubled and miserable. Gal Gadot shows she can act better against CGI monsters in suits of armor, because here she’s just the crying, love-lorn but resilient widow/mother who ends up being the obvious damsel in distress. It’s a shame, because this is a good cast, but the material is too routine, too normal and too lazy for them to actually test their own ability and give us something memorable. Even watching Ryan Reynolds get the S*** beaten out of him is very run-of-the-mill, but still enjoyable for those of us who hate him and ‘Deadpool’.

And the story? I don't know why it was relevant to be the basis of film. We have a villain who I don't know what he was trying to do, and a sub-villain who doesn't know if he wants to be a villain or not. Also, the fact everything said villain does is done via a laptop is boring - he can control weapons, hack into CIA databases, watch London CCTV...I mean, this is just cheap, using technology as a plot device to enable someone to do anything. And the fact the laptop is never plugged in? Must have good battery and network connection to do all this government hacking and missile launching.

In the final stages of the long, drawn out cat-and-mouse game across London (getting very boring as a city to film in with the same old places used in films over and over again – ‘London Has Fallen’ did it all before), the film does pick up into tacky but fun actioner and lets Costner enjoy himself a bit, but it’s soon brought back down quickly and full of, on the whole, lots of people shouting and being confused at who is working for who and why.

So, yeah. On the whole it’s another disappointing outing for Kevin Costner who deserves better. He deserves a solid action film without him having a cold, or being a psychotic with a head-ache or anything like that. Just let him be Kevin Costner going after bad guys, because he does that very well. Everything else around him and the cast in this just brings the enjoyment down and adds to the already bloated feel of the 110min run-time.

[Professor Pi]

Creed

 

I thought it would be a cash-grab and only exist in order to piggyback off of the Stallone/Rocky legacy.  Wrong.  An excellent film.  While part of me still thinks they should have ended it with Rocky Balboa, Creed is a wonderful addition to the franchise.  Stallone has never been better, delivering such a terrific performance that it makes you wonder about films like Judge Dredd.  For my money, Stallone should have gotten the Oscar for supporting actor.  I actually teared up a bit during his little speech to Adonis towards the end of the film.  I'd also say that, since they only got 8 nominated films for Best Picture this year, that perhaps room could have been made for Creed.  Truly one of the best films from 2015.

 

Best acting performance I've ever seen Stallone do.  Really fascinating to watch the character age with the actor.  Rocky III-V have jokes about them, and rightfully so to an extent, but Rocky Balboa and Creed especially. are a return to the small film magic of the first movie.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Bastille Day' (2016)

You’ve seen this sort of film before many times. It could be a 2010 Liam Neeson outing, or even a Jean Claude Van-Damme straight to DVD effort. It’s not groundbreaking or game-changing, but it’s not the worst of these sort of by-the-numbers action films.

Yes it’s set in Paris (as all these action films seem to be of a certain ilk) and it features the American secret service taking on a European problem. We have roof-top chases, car chases, tight fist-fights in limited space, shoot-outs, a few twists and some non-watered down violence and language. All in all, it gives us a 90min excuse to turn the brain off and have some fun.

Idris Elba needed a transition to the big screen being the man of the moment. Blending his characters from ‘The Wire’ and ‘Luther’, he makes the leap to the big screen to show he’s not got what it takes to be the next James Bond, but for being the next Jason Statham – churning out the action films with basic plots but enough testosterone to keep you happy if you’re into that sort of thing.

He’s a tank of a man – thundering across roof-tops and hallways to take out the bad guys minus the one-liners. He’s not a man to mess with, and Elbra isn’t a bad actor at all, dishing out the pain here in a very likeable way that makes this look like a walk in the park for him. With the usual comedy sidekick, who’s actually not that annoying as side-kicks go, in Richard Madden who can do anything because “he’s a top pick-pocket”, which makes acquiring things so easy in this film, the two form a good enough partnership to enjoy without it being irritating.

The shaky-cam is back, the editing is a little sloppy and the bloke in charge of the sound production was enjoying himself too much – every punch and kick is accentuated by the same OTT noise of fabric moving and fists hitting faces and walls that makes it sound like a nasty over-dubbed kung-fu films in places. They try a little TOO hard to make Elba out to be the total badass.

But we’ve got a good story, pretty dark in places with some mature levels of violence to boot, so it’s not a watered down action film for sure, and there are a couple of nice twists in there that I didn’t expect once the cards are on the table.

Like I say, 90mins for a loud and well-acted action film isn’t a chore to sit through at all, and while it’s not very memorable, you get what you expect and can’t really complain once the credits roll.

[Professor Pi]

Man from U.N.C.L.E.

 

Had trouble staying awake through this.  Henry Cavil gives an incredibly wooden performance.  Armie Hammer is only a little better as his Russian counterpart, but only because the story focuses more on him than Napolean Solo.  Alicia Vikander, so riveting in Ex Machina, can't save this either.  Fell asleep during whatever the final climactic scene was supposed to be.  Yes, there are stunts and car chases, but nothing memorable.  Guy Ritchie, whatever happpened to the Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrel days?  Please stay away from Bond.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Captain America: Civil War' (2016)

I will try to keep this bite-size, as I’ve learnt I can prattle on an awful lot about certain films that either blow me out the water or leave me very under-whelmed, and I don’t want to write ‘War & Peace’. This blew me out of the water; and, the testament to knowing it was superb, was that is made me want to go and re-visit all existing MCU films from the start which is something I’ve not cared much about until now. And I didn’t find Tony Stark annoying. That’s an achievement for me.

I’ve seen most of them, skipped a few, not given all my full attention, but on the whole I know what’s going on. I’m not a die-hard Marvel fan, or even DC fan. I know basics. I know the obvious heroes and villains. I can sit on the fence while fan-boys blast each other on either side. And this makes me enjoy the films more because I take what is given as an audience member and process it as a film fan. ‘Captain America: Civil War’ may well be the greatest modern superhero film for me, easily surpassing ‘The Dark Knight’.

(Come on then DC fanboys, waste your arguments on me. I’m immune. I’m loyal to no studio exclusively!)

At just under 2.5hrs, the film never drags. While it takes it’s time to set up the second-half, the first is a steady pace of character development and relationship exploration. These are character’s we’ve invested in for over 8 years now, and that is an achievement you can’t fault for Marvel. This finale for the Captain America trilogy doesn’t feel at all like a 13th film in an overall series – it deals with the past, present and future of a world we are following with characters we love and/or hate. It’s important as a Marvel film and a superhero on, and feels as fresh as ever.

With a clear understanding of the source material from the Russo brothers directing, this deals out some breath-taking comic-book style action as well as calmer, more emotive sequences that all play a part in fuelling the growing “civil war” between the Avengers. There are brilliant links to previous films and events that make so much sense to the story and very clever indeed without feeling shoe-horned in.

The cast, too big to mention each by name, is perfect. They continue to flesh out their characters, give them new sides and new motives and all as important as the other, regardless of screentime. From the faultless lead stars Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr who give you just what you’ve come to expect, the supporting Avengers are crucial to making this whole thing work and the conflict that ensures comes off far better than you could imagine thanks to their portrayals. Each hit is reluctant, and each action comes with consequences for all and you can’t wait to see where they go. From Paul Rudd to Paul Bettany, from Chadwick Boseman to William Hurt – heroes or villains, they are perfect and you know them already; you care for them and feel torn with them. And the good thing here is that each Avenger gets their own moment; not just to “shine”, but to remind us who they are and what important part they play in all of this. It’s why we can invest in them, right?

With super set design, some exceptional stunt work and enough plot to make sure you don’t even miss Thor, Hulk or Nick Fury, this is a fitting finale for Captain America’s trilogy as a weak war recruit to modern day super-soldier and the legacy he builds, and destroys, during it. I loved every minute of it and found the balance of comedy, drama, emotion and suspense to be just right. I chuckled when I wanted to, and was gripped when I wanted to be.

Maybe people will question what Daniel Brühl's Xemo is really doing here in the background, plotting and manipulating events quietly as our "villain", but just like the Avengers, he's keeping quiet and pulling strings away from prying eyes and we, just like the heroes, fail to see it because we're so wrapped up in what Captain America and Iron Man are doing, the real motive isn't clear until the end when we see through emotionally battered eyes. It's so refreshing as well not to have a clear cut villain leading to a big CG finale; who needs villains when we have heroes at war? It's a brave and satisfying move.

And yes, guess what, it was so nice to have another superhero film shot during the day where I could actually see the intricate choreography, set detail and CG visuals rather than it all being dark and gloomy and covered with rain. Atmosphere is one thing, but if it takes away everything else? No thanks.

Kudos to our new Spider-Man, Tom Holland, who wipes away all previous Sony efforts with his new Marvel backed outing who I will be happy to see where his solo film goes – he’s smart, strong and uses Star Wars to take down an Avenger. What’s not to like with this debut? My only quarm is Marisa Tomei as Aunty May. After following on from a 74yr old Rosemary Harris and 67yr old Sally Field, this 51 year old May is nothing but a distracting MILF. Come on, you’re all thinking the same. Certainly will take some getting used to!

AND one final thrill for me was the Leipzig/Halle Airport scene. Teased in all the trailers, the seconds we see make it look a little underwhelming, but TRUST me; it’s the most exciting and well-staged action sequences in all the Marvel films and certainly most recent superhero films. It’s fun, exciting, dangerous, painful and giddy when you see these comic book characters acting as if they’ve jumped from page to screen. It’s an assault on the senses and worth the price of a ticket alone for fans of CB movies and entertainment.

[Professor Pi]

That's big for a bite-size, tcr.

 

Here's my fun size version.  Best.  Marvel Movie.  Ever.  Period.

 

Choosing a side starts off as an ideological choice.  By the end, it becomes emotional and you understand each character's side regardless of whether or not it agrees with your team's.  Basically, Cap struggles to maintain his ethics in a world not of his making, while Tony finds himself alone and existential in a world of his own making.  Bucky finds his life determined by external forces, and it's not what he chose, but nonetheless has to accept.  Other characters make some sacrifices and have to live with dramatic consequences.  Every adult can identify with at least some part of each of these characters.

 

There is a villain whose motives are understandable though not over the top, yet driving the story nonetheless.  Everyone is an integral part of the ensemble.  Chris Evans really shines while Downey Jr. tones down the snark for subdued emotional gravitas.  Spidey and Black Panther make impressive debuts.  Paul Rudd does a nice encore as Ant-Man.  ANT-MAN!!!  There are also some logical consequences to the events of Age of Ultron and Winter Soldier.  And yet it's still fun, light, and briskly paced with lots of light comedic moments. 

 

And Marvel, give Scarlett Johansen her own Black Widow movie. Soon!  PLEASE!

 

Stay through the end of all the credits, folks.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Special Correspondents' (2016)

I’m a big fan of Ricky Gervais, and I have been since 2001 watching the original UK series ‘The Office’. Since then I’ve invested in his projects such as further TV works, his animated series, the radio shows, podcasts, stand-up and feature films. It’s clear he’s become America’s favourite comedic import, working across in the US than the UK, so I can say that I’m not a huge fan of the American produced work he writes and directs which primarily caters for the US audience.

Ricky Gervais can write funny material; he can also do emotion very well as he’s proved in the UK sitcom ‘Derek’ and even ‘The Office’ and ‘Extra’s. He also plays his characters as you’d expect from seeing David Brent in 2001 – foot in the mouth, a little cheeky, a buffoon but likeable at heart. He never changes his appearance (facial hair not included) and his accent. You know what you’re getting if Ricky Gervais stars in a film or show, no matter the country it’s made in.

Here, I found him amusing in places but overall the material wasn’t what I may have expected, but it seems he’s adapting his style for, as said before, the American audience. The jokes sometimes are watered down so everyone understands them and the gags are very generic, in fact most things in this are very generic; the bickering leads, the selfish wife, the love-lorn co-worker, the desperate boss, the silly friends. It’s the checklist of basic comedy again, each character having a very specific trait to play on. And Gervais tries to play TOO hard at the down-trodden Brit who has a thing for collecting comics and Marvel figurines and dresses underwhelmingly; is this how he feels best to portray Brits alongside the Ray Ban wearing, slick dressing, confident American portrayed by Bana?

The story is fun enough, working more when we actually get to it and have Bana – a strange arrogance to him that comes across as pathetic to his character rather than charismatic – and Gervais up against it creating a fictional war-torn Ecuador in a dark room using radio equipment and sound effects. From this, it’s a case of them trying to find a way to repair their wrongs when the whole country unites to raise funds to bring them home when they are “kidnapped” and held hostage, just so they don’t have to report back to their boss.

The resolution to all this is a little rushed for me; it’s funny in places, yes, but not Gervais style funny. It’s just…mild comedy funny. It all wraps up in about 15 minutes and just too easy to really buy. It’s as if Gervais finally realised he was running out of time to wrap up the story with a satisfying ending and so knocked out a basic finale where everything comes together quickly and we are supposed to accept it. Done.

Featuring a slew of American comedy talent, Gervais directs them well, but as a fan for 15 years, I don’t feel this is his strength comedy wise. Maybe he’s growing up (finally) and trying to deliver more safe forms of entertainment to the masses, being that this is a Netflix exclusive, and he knows America don’t “get” his David Brent routine. While over here in August we are getting a David Brent movie, full of the gags and quips we are used to seeing form the “British” Gervais.

The “American” Gervais doesn’t amuse me very much, and while I will continue to support his work, it’s not something I look forward too eagerly if this generic comedy is anything to go by.

[SecretAgentFan]

The Hateful Eight

 

I was intrigued and interested when Tarantino first entered the cinematic landscape, like so many others were.  "Reservoir Dogs" was tense and disturbing.  "Pulp Fiction" was so weirdly and funnily different, setting the tone for so much that followed during the 90´s.  Then "Jackie Browne" had many qualities I liked but dragged on for too long, repeating the narrative device of showing things that happened before from another perspective.  Afterwards I enjoyed the first part of "Kill Bill" for its action sequences which really felt dangerous to me, but I was a little disappointed by the second part which, again, felt self-indulgent, as if Tarantino thought he was cleverer then he was.  Oh, and then came the "Death Proof"-fiasco which only had some nice car action but really dragged with dialogue that went on and on and wasn´t really necessary for the story. And before you say (as many critics like to repeat themselves): "It´s character-building!"...  well, I have to say that those characters just were not interesting and no amount of dialogue could build them up to more than they were at the start.

 

Still with me or hating me because I get so critical about Tarantino?  

 

Okay, here comes the real whopper for you: I did not like "Inglourious Basterds" or "Django Unchained" because both, again, felt like overblown and definitely overpraised pieces of B- or C-movies repeating the same tricks Tarantino has built his career on, featuring characters which are razor-thin and always only have one purpose: being "badass" or just "bad".  And since "Jackie Browne" Tarantino seems hellbent on having only one topic: revenge.

 

There´s nothing else, really.  Sure, he covers everything in great cinematography and dialogue that goes on and on and on until it has lulled you in.  It is not, however, clever or funny or poignant - just something someone who loves to hear himself talk would lose himself in, knowing nobody would dare to stop him.

 

Why did I watch "The Hateful Eight" then?  

 

Because the idea of a story taking place mainly in one location, with people trapped in a tense situation in which one of them is not what he seems, intrigued me.  Of course, I was hooked by Tarantino´s interviews referencing John Carpenter´s masterpiece THE THING.  And the cinematography again (at least the snippets from the trailers) was masterful (thanks to Robert Richardson).

 

But... again, it has turned out (for me) to be more of the same, even less so, since "The Hateful Eight" feels even more like Tarantino cannibalizing himself and - what´s worse - not even noticing it.

 

His anger at the script being leaked in an earlier version almost led to him not doing the film.  Now I get the feeling that maybe the Weinstein brothers were behind that leak, hoping that the reaction would be so dismal that Tarantino would acknowledge that this story would not be a good idea for his next film.

 

But he held on to this story.  Even worse: he rambled on how great it was and that he was determined to turn it into a stageplay.  Which, quite frankly, could not be more interesting since the story basically is neither here nor there.  It´s not a western, only set in that period.  It´s not a murder mystery because it is not really interested in building that kind of suspense.  And it´s not a horror film either because it does not generate horror at all.

 

It also is not a character piece because, again, the characters are just cardboard ideas, stereotypes who only have mainly one character trait.

 

Instead, "The Hateful Eight" is a mix of everything, a stew that remains unsatisfying, especially since the almost three hours of running time promise to build up to great revelations... and then they don´t.  The big twist is a major copout, withholding one key information that at least one main character should have had.  And then Tarantino goes on to explain all of that in a painstakingly slowly told flashback.  And then the film still goes on for another half hour in which he piles up splatter effects and sadism just for the shock value.

 

Really, what did Tarantino think he was giving the world with this?  At the end of the film, there is not even the excuse of an overarching theme - except maybe that human beings are basically sadists and there is no justice in the world.  Well, taking almost three hours of this kind of violence to arrive at that conclusion, that´s major self-indulgent.  It would be enough to watch the news.

 

Another major gripe of mine?  The cinematography on 70mm was a great idea - for the short scenes which show the snowy landscapes.  But for the main setting, a big cabin interior?  That´s like giving Woody Allen a huge stunt unit for a scene in which a character gets out of a car.

 

And any comparison with John Carpenter´s THE THING is absolutely ridiculous.  The only similarities: it´s set in a snowed in place, at first one does not know who the killer is, it stars Kurt Russell and it uses some unused soundtrack cues from Morricone´s score for that film.  But while THE THING is a precise, inventive, absolutely tense horror film about paranoia, with believable characters who behave like real human beings, THE HATEFUL EIGHT is just a mix of Tarantino tropes that never rings true for anything it tries, an artificial chaos that invites the comparison to a former rock star who is still delivering albums and selling them as masterpieces, with a few critics along for the ride just because they dig that kind of sameness, but who has lost his mojo.

 

And yes, I feel better now.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Our Kind Of Traitor' (2016)

Following on from ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’ which I failed to connect with, and recently ‘The Night Manager’ which I enjoyed, the adaptations of le Carré's work seem to either hit a high note from the off or remain slow and tepid – this sadly is the slow and tepid kind, and I would have much rather seen ‘TNM’ on the big screen than this Sunday night-esque 100min TV drama.

Certain types of thriller don’t need to be balls to the wall action and Bond-on-a-budget to work, but they need to compensate that with an engaging story, escalating threat and a top notch cast to hook you. I’ll break this down into those areas.

Story – simple enough to follow and one that works; it’s relevant, it’s identifiable and makes more than enough reference to current political hot-spots.

Threat – something that I didn’t find TOO major, in terms of the real story, because I imagine corruption is rife in London and other capital cities so this wasn’t a topic that thrilled me or seemed very different. The threat, however, was more to the characters than the overall final result.
Cast – on the whole they fail to sizzle.

McGregor and Harris are too comfortable in their role to suddenly help a Russian mafia boss and it doesn’t take long before they are in on the game; they didn’t seem to convey anything out of the ordinary about this situation and bar Harris having a few good moments, it sadly was a rather limp pairing which is a shame as McGregor is capable of more.

Damian Lewis is hard to place in 2016, looking and acting more like he should be in ‘TTSS’ with the 70s attitude, glasses and style he conveys and the tight-lipped accent. It’s Stellan Skarsgård who steals the show with a great journey for his character, and one who is a brash and loud and at times brutal enough to suck you in and always make you question his standing right until the end – you care for him and his family and his story more than anything else. A great role, and the crux of the whole film.

The action is sporadic, a few shoot-outs and fights, nothing really exciting and it feels it’s only here to remind you of the “threat” our ordinary couple face. The final 10 minutes prove to be the most thrilling in this thriller, and it’s a shame because it starts to look and feel like a genuine thriller, but then it’s over.

In places the film looks good, at times disorientating which is fine in mirroring that of Perry and Gail’s world, and the locations are used fittingly – Paris, London, Marrakech and the Swiss Alps. It’s not Bond-on-a-budget at all, and really doesn’t have anything memorable to offer or bring you back for another viewing. While the cast do try, it’s not enough to cover an ultimately slow paced story where people give each other suspicious looks, hide, run, give more suspicious looks and plot about who is watching who.

[thecasinoroyale]

'A Hologram For The King' (2016)

This doesn’t need a long review in my opinion; it’s a very simple film, catering to very simple audience requirements. Opening to a quirky 'Once In A Lifetime' number, it tells us right away from our leading man's introduction what sort of films this is - light-hearted.

First, we have Tom Hanks who is always watchable. For me, I can watch him in anything. Here, we are invited to experience a journey into unknown territory with Mr Hanks as Alan Clay, a businessman from America on the edge thanks to health concerns, family trouble and work stress – all heightened to the sweltering and unknown conditions of visiting Saudi Arabia.

Hanks here isn’t playing it as a direct comedy, but more a light-hearted drama. Sure, we have a few funny moments that the charming Hanks pulls off, but more often than not this is simple story telling without the need for gratuitous language, violence or action. Hanks grounds the film around decent co-stars (many unknowns) to give us a character story akin to his work in ‘Larry Crowne’ and, at times, ‘Cast Away’.

The Saudi Arabia cinematography is wonderful in really showing the country for all it’s worth – bustling cities and endless deserts just a car drive apart. We feel the heat as Alan navigates stuffy warm offices in a suit and tie, and relax with him in a dreamy hotel room with no shoes and socks.

The trailer gives away a good idea of the story – it’s rather obvious, with no big surprises or shocks. Man on the edge travels to unknown country, struggles to cope and battles the odds, has a moment where everything changes, finds a possible romance, evaluates his life for better or worse. It’s simple stuff, like I said, but it’s not marketed to be anything more.

It’s gentle, and warm and funny without being stuffed with overt comedy. Hanks, as I say, makes this watchable for me but I’m glad he pulled me in because the story and steady pace is interesting enough itself; experiences the steady rise in tension about sealing a business deal and overcoming a number of obstacles along the way was entertaining for over 90mins, away from the 2hr long action films and CGI epics playing on other cinema screens.

Take a step back from the mainstream blockbusters, and do what Alan Clay does – take a trip into the unknown with familiar company and experience everything that goes with it, because you’ll feel a little refreshed because of it.

[thecasinoroyale]

'X-Men: Apocalypse' (2016)

First and foremost, the overview from critics and the lacklustre trailers made me lower expectations for this installment. While I’ve not read many reviews, it was clear the reception was luke-warm, and add to the fact the trailers I found painted a confusing and messy narrative and style, I felt it was a drastic change in the X-Men film series.

I was wrong, thankfully.

I found this far more entertaining than ‘First Class’ and ‘Days Of Future Past’. While the previous two films in this “new generation” era were probably more character based and focussed on real intricate stories, plot-lines and relationships, ‘Apocalypse’ seems to allow the new era of X-Men have some fun in company of great new actors to the series, faithful support from old faces and a far less complex story to follow.

The trailer depicted this as a film where nuclear missiles would be launched in a ‘Terminator’-esque attack on Earth. It also made out Jennifer Lawrence as Mystigue would be our lead hero, with fleeting appearances from others and a whole host of new faces who pop up and show-case their power amidst loads of destructive CGI.

While ever so partly true in respects to the CGI, the rest is quite mis-leading.

James MacAvoy is clearly still our leader, slipping more and more towards the physical and vocal guise of Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X in perfect style. Michael Fassbender, a stand out performance here more than anyone, returns as Magneto as has a wonderful opening story that makes so much more sense when you see it played out. These two continue their rivalry, but now stand on opposites of new villain – En Sabah Nur, or Apocalypse, played by Oscar Isaac.

Isaac his hidden behind effective prosthetics, make-up and costume to play a wonderfully creepy but tactical mutant hell bent on wiping out man-kind to rebuild civilisation to his vision. He’s merciless, powerful and hypnotically enticing with his softly spoken words of prophecy and effortless power on show. He had me from the start, and he’s certainly been handled well for the big screen, pulling the strings and being the catalyst for old and new X-Men to unite including a not-as-irritating-as-expected Lawrence and ever likeable Nicholas Hoult.

Our new cast playing familiar faces are spot on – Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Alexandra Shipp, Ben Hardy – all playing mutants we will come to know, but do it so well and each have their moment to shine whilst actually playing the character as one to easily like or hate in their situation. They make the future of the series seem fresh and exciting if they continue in this light.

All the cast do great here, and special mention to Evan Peters once more in a stand-out role as uber-80s mutant Quicksilver and Oliva Munn as Psylocke, who is the most delicious looking mutant of all and my new wallpaper on my phone.

The characters make the backbone of the series; you have to invest in their story and I think it’s easy to do so. All paths converge with Apocalypse at the centre, and there is less CGI noise than expected. While the ending veers close to nothing but headache inducing chaos, it manages to hit the brakes to allow the characters to take over the drama and action once the initial set-up is made, which I forgive.

Bryan Singer has directed enough X-Men to know what he’s doing, and I have continued faith in him. There is suitable humour from our young stars, and effective drama from our mature stars. The violence is pretty grim at times and hard-hitting, especially the scenes in Poland. Also, a certain Weapon X cameo is pretty bloody, which is rather refreshing to see.

It’s a visual feast for the eyes with super-powers on show both destructive and defensive, and it really feels like an X-Men film that continues to tie up the Prof X/Magneto arc but sets the path for the new generation to continue on. I for one enjoyed this so much more than I thought I would, and at just under 2.5hrs, it certainly didn’t feel like it unlike ‘Days Of Future Past’ did. Bring on the 90s and the next film, please!

[Professor Pi]

X-Men Apocalypse

 

Not the best X-Men movie, but nowhere near the worst.  Probably Brian Singer's weakest entry, but better than The Last Stand and X-Men: Origins Wolverine.  "The third one is always the worst," a meta comment from one of the movie's characters that is not only self-deprecating, but also applies to the "sixth" installment if you think about it.

 

Parts of it are excellent.  Fassbender's performance, for example.  You really understand his characters pull between good and evil in the later movies after this one.  Quicksilver's scenes, and more so his low key ones than the encore to DoFP's "Time in a Bottle" set piece, and even that is a welcome respite from the more derivative aspects of Apocalypse.  And oh, they are derivative.  Learning English (and history) from watching TV.  Is that the best use of Oscar Isaac's talents?  And he's buried under a purple Predator prosthetic that stifles all emotive facial expressions.  Jennifer Lawrence, not a fan of the blue makeup, plays Katnis Everdeen in this installment, replete with not one but two generic inspiration speeches.  McAvoy is good, and how he loses his hair is fascinating.  Nicholas Hoult continues to own the Beast role.  A shame his character will be absent from X-Men and X2, and then portrayed by Fraser.  And while the cameo of a most famous mutant is welcome and utterly awesome, it flies in the face of the new continuity set up by Days of Future Past.  But continuity isn't the strength of X-Men movies, though it's disappointing after the successful retcon of its predecessor.

 

I actually do like this movie, but there's now wow factor to it.  Its climax and villain are too reminiscent of Age of Ultron, and having watched Civil War twice on IMAX before Apocalypse's preview Thursday night didn't help it.  Marvel's Cinematic Universe is much more adept at making and understanding superhero movies than Fox is. 

 

One other note, I was really looking forward to Olivia Munn as Psylocke.  She excels at looking fantastic, especially in that costume, but that's about her limit.  They've saved her character, maybe to reappear or as a spinoff, but I can't see her carrying a movie.  And in an ensemble piece such as this, her acting shortcomings are amplified.  Storm's and Angel's new incarnations fare much better.

 

Can't wait for Wolverine 3!

[thecasinoroyale]

'Money Monster' (2016)

I went into this knowing only what I’d picked up from the trailer, and I left feeling very entertained and quite moved. With the talented efforts of those behind and in front of the camera, this thriller isn’t over-long or over-complex or full of economical trading mumbo-jumbo that forces you to feel stupid for half of the story. It’s to the point, well made and well-acted.

Jodie Foster, here directing, takes cues from her role in ‘Inside Man’, gives us a similar styled thriller that isn’t rushed or overly dramatic, but more character focused and lets you unravel the mystery with our leads. George Clooney and Jack O’Connell are our main pairing for most of the film, battling each other with words, heightened emotion and, at times, violent outbursts. Julia Roberts, in one of her best and most grounded roles for some time, supports them and us with her calm overseeing of the situation from behind her director’s booth as the drama unfolds live on air both in the studio and on the streets of New York.

Clooney is confident and self-assured, but starts to see the failings in his own life and how he fails to see the real people who trust his word as gospel. O'Connell is desperate, dangerous and fragile, acting out of what many people can relate too - seeking answers. Both are from different ends of the economic ladder, but come to meet half-way and are no different from each other as humans towards the end.

While this doesn’t re-invent the wheel for the narrative or character motives (to be honest, what the hell does nowadays), it delivers fresh ideas into the mix like the broadcasting on live TV and the cutting between the action in the studio and the external investigation outside of it which allows both to come together for the finale and chance to experience Dominic West’s ever dependable sly and manipulative anti-villain.

I personally was hooked from the start, investing in the set-up and our characters and following them through to the end. The settings are confined, but never claustrophobic. We can see the action play out without feeling alienated from the growing tension between Gates and Budwell, and also with Fenn and her production team. Each character takes a journey when faced with staring death in the face, and by the end your perceptions on them all will be changed from the initial set-up.

I spent a good portion of the second half picking my nails and holding my holds tight in anticipation of what was going to happen next and how. I didn’t want to be floored with plot twists and turns, I just wanted to be entertained and believe in what I was seeing, and I was, which made it more entertaining than I expected without boring me or losing momentum. It is a relevant film and one I can imagine being very factual over fiction due to the current economic climate and murky world of corrupt traders, investors and businesses.

It’s not over-long and not boring. It has a solid team of experienced cast and crew which you know will deliver something engaging. It’s well shot, cleverly presented and full of tense moments and fine performances. It’s well worth your time and money to invest in.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out Of The Shadows' (2016)

Admittedly more fun than the 2014 original, this effort from producer Michael Bay and director Dave Green taps into all the elements that fans want to see from the ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ cartoon series and starts in a promising way, but it soon loses its fizz and becomes a uneventful offering.

Our lead CGI heroes-in-a-half-shell are more fun, more likeable and more engaging this time, all brought to life authentically to replicate their cartoon counterparts. With truckloads of CGI characters and action on offer to create a dizzying spectacle, you have to remember this is a teen movie, presented by Nickelodeon Movies and aimed at the younger market who probably don’t even care about the original TV show.

We have the turtles. We have all the human leads. We have General Krang. RockSteady and Bebop. Baxter Stockman. The Technodrome. Splinter. The Garbage Truck. The Ooze. Casey Jones. Shredder. We even have a superbly fun closing credits with the classic theme tune that should have been used to open the film. However not all these elements are given the care they deserve and, even though it’s fun to see, doesn’t overly satisfy.

Shredder and Krang are the most useless and pointless villains ever. Krang, a huge CGI pink blob in a huge CGI robot body pops up half-way during the film and then at the end for a less-than-exciting confrontation with a strange Technodrome. He’s wasted. Shredder spends most of the film talking and plotting and acting scary with his blades, and also un-masked. When he DOES finally get the mask on and want to be a villain, it’s minutes later and he’s taken out of the film. He comes across as a very inept and boring and pointless– in fact, the main villains in this film are CGI RockSteady and Bebop who are loud, noisy and at least fun to watch who give the turtles something to do and fight against.

Megan Fox reminds us this is a teen movie minutes into her appearance by turning from undercover reporter in a disguise to undercover reporter in a school-girl outfit with short skirt and high heels and a cropped top. I mean, that’s great if you’re 18 and under and still think Megan Fox is relevant, but for April O’Neil, she doesn’t have anything new to offer during this. The supporting crew are adequate and do their best, and Stephen Amell at least gives us a decent Casey Jones.

The meat of this film is chases; on foot in the air and even water. Chase after chase and dizzying fight after fight in CGI settings with CGI characters. But, this is a cartoon adaptation and it does work for the most part, it’s all good fun with harmless humour and likeable leads, and when elements come together from the classic show, it’s hard not to smile. But don't expect anything TOO amazing, especially towards the end when it all becomes a little underwhelming and boring with lacklustre villains and lots of quick cuts, fast action and lots of noise.

With a few characters now setup for the 3rd film, it will be interesting to see what happens because right now, Krang and Shredder fail to embody the legacy their cartoon characters created and come over as useless. If they are to return, they seriously need a reboot and kick in the pants to be something better.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Hardcore Henry' (2016)

For a two minute trailer, this film works – snap shots of chaotic chase sequences, exciting shoot-outs, dizzying jumps and free falls and quirky characters all presented via a unique 1st person view. It looked a crazy idea, but something that resonated through every 1st person gamer fan who saw it.

Sadly, for 90mins of what turns out to be the same thing over and over, the novelty quickly wears off and becomes a headache inducing and pretty empty love-letter to present video game shooters.

We, the audience, are playing Henry. We don’t see his face (bar for a few seconds) and can assume his identity to be anyone. Played by over 10 people during the production, but mostly stuntmen Sergey Valyaev and Andrei Dementiev, you see only the hands, chest and feet of our hero as he freefalls, does parkour, shoot a sniper rifle, ride a bike…all the check lists you want in a film entitled “Hardcore”. Without the sex.

Henry sadly doesn’t speak, and so you literally just get fed from one sequence to the next with a few jump-cuts brought about by the “glitchy programme” running inside Henry’s head; he IS a cyborg don’t forget, so it’s not one long, well manipulated take. The other characters narrate and speak for you. You don’t connect with him or really feel for him, so you don’t really care too much about him because he just like a faceless video game character who you use to serve a purpose and then easily turn off once finished.

Sharlto Copley, in a surreal number of roles here which starts to actually make sense towards the end if you stay with it, is our quirky “narrator” and comic relief who takes us from each “level” to the next and gives us our mission. With support from a smouldering and under-used Hayley Bennett and a strange albino-esque mercenary with the ability to use the Force in the guise of Danila Kozlovsky… and a strange shoehorned cameo from Tim Roth… these characters pop up now and then amidst the hordes of gun-toting goons who crop up along the way. They are good, but because there is little interaction with them and they speak for us, it’s hard to connect.

The action is hardcore so the title lives up to expectations. Grizzly stabs and slashes, blood and guts, all the stuff you can imagination happens here in glorious 1st person view to live out your sick enjoyment of video games like ‘Grand Theft Auto’ or ‘Doom’. It’s great fun admittedly, and during exciting chase sequences it’s a decent thrill ride. However when the action cranks up a gear and Henry is thrown around, falling from buildings, rocked by explosions, chasing baddies across streets…it gets a little busy on the old eyes. Shaky-cam to the EXTREME here, so if you’re not a fan of that, give this a miss because a majority of the “hardcore” of the title requires relentless GoPro camera action strapped to the performers head as he runs, falls, fights and jumps.

It’s a daft story, and a daft idea on the whole. It works for about 10mins but obviously the meat of the film is lost in lieu of the sole idea of the mute super-soldier who speaks with violence and little more. It’s not got weight to re-visit, and bar a couple of well-staged sequences, which you have to give credit for, the imagination and staging IS stand-out here and well executed, there’s nothing new on offer and it’s a very empty and slightly disappointing film when you probably expected so much more.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Gods Of Egypt' (2016)

From the opening titles complete with Egyptian-style font, music and hieroglyphics, you just know this is a typical Hollywood spin on myth and legend for the Western audience. I won’t go into the “white-washing casting” controversy about white/European/Australian/Asian actors cast as Egyptian Gods, but you need to turn your brain off from the start because this isn’t even trying to be the ancient Egypt we know – it’s creating an Egypt and universe 15 year olds would make playing ‘Age Of Empires’.

Numerous shiny pyramids and huge palaces, sprawling cities, enormous golden statues and obelisks, giant flying insects, a space worm, a chariot flying through space and human-beast transformations. It’s like ‘X-Men’ meets ‘Flash Gordon’, but not as enjoyable or memorable.

The main issue with this film, and there are many to choose from, is the casting. Near unknowns lead a film with the potential to spawn straight-to-DVD sequels. Gerard Butler is probably the most recognised name and face here, growling and gurning and shouting for all his worth in that inimitable Butler way; a Scottish Egyptian King who is a shadow of what Butler created as Greek King Leonidas in ‘300’ with not nearly enough charm, drive, brutality or material to work with to avoid being a cardboard 2D bad-guy. It’s a shame because the man can do dumb action, we know, and he can sing behind the Phantom mask, but this? It’s pushing him closer to the straight-to-DVD bargain bin.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, known for ‘Game Of Thrones’, seems to be a decent actor but, again, he’s not in the right film to showcase this. Oddly enough, his frame and posture couple with the way the film is shot gives him a permanent artificial look – he looks like a CG character, and it’s quite jarring at times. Regardless of the fact all those playing Gods are CG’d in with mortal characters to be bigger, the whole set up just looks odd and nothing looks natural.

Even the supporting cast of relatively unknowns like budget Orlando Bloom-wannabe Brenton Thwaites, Chadwick Boseman (stick to Marvel), Élodie Yung and a distractingly busty Courtney Eaton try to act their way through CGI locations against stand-ins for their CG enhanced co-stars. It’s like George Lucas came out of retirement to create a new fantasy franchise with awful CGI in all aspects. And Geoffrey Rush? He’s like the Morgan Freeman of the film; his face and voice add some level of quality to the scenes he’s in, but he doesn’t really do much to warrant him being there at all.

The story is fantastical in the respect that we travel to outer-space and the Underworld in a mish-mash of Egyptian myth given a “alternative universe” twist. It doesn’t work really. It makes ‘Clash Of The Titans’ looks far more superior in terms of story and sticking to myth and folklore we all know.

This just has Gods morphing into CGI animals, like a strange Power Ranger homage, and lots of dizzying camera work in the action scenes. And bucket-loads of slo-mo. It’s one big cliché of trying to create a fantasy epic. In fact, the whole thing reminded me of a strange Egyptian-based ‘Lord Of The Rings’. From the small mortal men (Hobbits) travelling with Gods (Humans) after a powerful relic (Eye of Horus), travelling across dangerous and danger ridden lands (Egypt) to confront a villain in a fiery hideout with a CGI army (Set and his Sphinx).

I mean, it sounds enjoyable enough on page, but there is such a lack of energy and charisma from the stars that it soon gets boring as we move from scene to scene dragging out a story that is very under-whelming on the whole. ‘Gods Of Egypt’ offers nothing new to the genre and doesn’t do any favours for any of its stars, and gives us little to be excited about or take away from once the credits roll.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Independence Day: Resurgence' (2016)

What made the 1996 original great was a few things; we had a more mature cast who already had years of credentials behind them. Will Smith. Bill Pullman. Jeff Goldblum. Mary McDonnell. Randy Quaid. Well, ok, nearly all. We also had groundbreaking special effects put to use in a way we hadn't seen before - who can forget the Empire State Building being obliterated, or the iconic shot of the White House being destroyed? It was shocking, exciting and lots of fun.

Now we rope back a few of the original cast - Goldblum and Pullman - to add gravitas to proceedings. While Goldblum does what he does best, keep calm at every hint of danger and throw a few dry quips here and there, he doesn't so much else and I find it hard to see why he's a cult figure. Pullman also manages to play a decent part akin to his original role, but isn't in it for as long as you may want. Brent Spiner returns, actually, and is not as irritating as I remember in his zany role.

Newcomers take the show, and it's populated by faces many will not recognize. Liam Hemsworth is the leading man, who is tolerable in places when he's not shouting, grimacing or yelping whenever he pilots a craft. He's a harmless enough leading man, but one of those you'd rather seen in a teen romance or Gothic horror rather than this sort of blockbuster material. He's just not got the leading man quality that Will Smith had in a mirror role 20 years earlier.

The first half of the film is standard - setting up all the characters, setting up the scenario Earth is in and setting up all the things going to go wrong. While it's standard sci-fi stuff from the start, the feeling of "reality" is gone, whereas it was strong in 1996. We have so much CGI locations here, it doesn't matter too much when things go boom.

But when they first go boom, they go BOOM. The alien landing is lots of fun. It's a visual feast for the eyes and presents lots of carnage, chaos and well produced SFX. And you think 'Man Of Steel' or 'The Avengers' had collateral damage due to mass destruction? Forget it - these aliens know how to destroy cities and countries in the space of seconds. It's loud and fun. But then it wears off.

Once our battle line is drawn, it spirals into generic sci-fi action stuff. Our older heroes spend time chasing down answers and working out weak spots away from danger, and our young heroes spend time talking tough and battling the aliens in their CGI ships in a very evident 'A New Hope' inspired dog-fight.

It's a little boring sadly, because we've seen and heard it all before. Even the mini rallying speech doesn't have the impact of Pullman's original. Nor does the alien v human battle because, well, it's been done and mirrors that most sci-fi alien battles near enough. It drags out, and while it's very fast and flashy, it's just...dumb action. No real new threat, no real new character templates...nothing new at all really.

Yes, its funny in places without being stupid and it's also quite moving with moments you don't expect and we do have a generally decent cast to follow. But, like the mother-ship's shadow, the general feeling of "been there done that" hangs over the second half of the film and awfully sets up a 3rd which, if not careful, will simply be a remake of 'Starship Troopers'.

[DaveBond21]

Hangover Part 3

 

It's not as good as the first two, and really is just harking back to previous two. Mind you it does have a memorably crazy final scene!

[sharpshooter]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition.

 

I liked the theatrical cut, but this is much better. It's clearly Zack Snyder's true vision. The 30 minutes of extra content does wonders for Clark Kent/Superman. The extra half hour also fleshes out the plot and strengthens the overall product. Especially in relation to the opening sequence in Africa, and the senate hearing. Scenes also transition more coherently and the film has a better sense of flow. I very much recommend this to people who didn't enjoy the theatrical cut.

[thecasinoroyale]

That's me then - I'll check this out when it arrives in the UK next month and see how it stacks to the theatrical cut I didn't enjoy.

[Matt_13]

I also watched the Ultimate Cut and it absolutely flows better. It's a good, though still entirely too dour, superhero movie.

[thecasinoroyale]

'The Angry Birds Movie' (2016)

For anyone who doesn’t know the concept of the Angry Birds mobile game, it’s simple. You drag your finger across a huge catapult, loaded with a colourful bird with a unique power, aim and let go, launching them towards a quirky fort/castle/hideout populated by green pigs. Hopefully your bird will hit the right part of the building to knock it down, squash all the pigs within 3 lives and get points to eventually save your eggs that have been…egg-napped. Progress to next level and continue

That’s it.

So, to make a 90min movie over a concept that requires two taps of the index finger and is the same idea over and over again is a brave move, but one not unexpected when something generates as much cash and global success as Rovio’s creation. Enter Sony and debut directors Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly with a host of talented voice actors and you have, in my honest opinion, a very amusing, daft, fun, simple and colourful kids caper.

I’ve been on the ‘Angry Birds’ ride for a few years now, playing the original games and even the Star Wars versions and dabbling in the go-kart racing. It’s all harmless and a nice way to waste time; this film is exactly the same and I expected nothing ground-breaking, and for that I really enjoyed it. I did. I admit it. I was chuckling away throughout.

It’s perfect for kiddies – it’s bright and colourful which is always pleasing on the eye and our population of birds and pigs is wonderfully imaginative; lots of characters popping up and things going on in their villages. There’s always something to chuckle at or see going on in the background. Lots of slow-motion prat-falls, slapstick falling, crashing, slapping, bashing, exploding, falling and chasing which, when you think, is the groundwork for the game itself. I’m not ashamed to admit I always find it funny with a slow-motion pratfall towards something dangerous and they cry out in that sloooooow exlcamationnnnnnn voiiiiiiice. As I say, it’s a kids film, not ‘Lawrence Of Arabia’.

None of the cast seemed to stand out more than the rest, and they created their birds/pigs as I would expect. Sudekis is dry and sarcastic as hero Red. Gad is zippy and energetic as Chuck. McBride is oafish and sweet as Bomb. Hader is slimy and sneaky as Leonard. With vibrant animation that leaps from the game to replicate our heroes and villains brilliantly, their personas are instantly recognisable and guaranteed to make you chuckle as they bounce off each other, sometimes literally.

It’s touching in places and very sweet with those baby birds popping up with their huge glassy eyes looking up at you yet there’s plenty of sly jokes for adults too, as is the way with these kids films, and the story is very simple. The first hour is exploring our characters, setting up the goodies and baddies and generally having fun. It’s the final 30mins that veers into real Angry Bird territory when the birds become angry and the catapult is brought out and the chaos begins to reclaim their eggs. We have an onslaught of quick fire comedy, amusing piggy planes v flying birds, mild suspense and more slapstick gags.

As I said before, if you know the Angry Birds game, you will know what to expect, but on a larger, grander and more explosive scale with far more amusing characters thrown into the mix. It’s silly fun, and to be honest, we all need some of that in our lives, so just…have fun and enjoy this bright and amusing romp without trying to make it deeper than it needs to.

[DaveBond21]

Finding Dory (2016)

 

I took the family to see it - we all enjoyed it.

 

While it's not very original and greatly relies on having seen Finding Nemo, it's great fun and full of heart. It has some funny new characters, good music from Thomas Newman, and is beautifully animated. I recommend it for small and big kids!

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[thecasinoroyale]

'Ghostbusters' (2016)

Never has a remake of an 80s classic gained so much fear, scrutiny and doubt than ‘Ghostbusters’. We’ve had ‘The Karate Kid’, ‘RoboCop’, ‘Conan The Barbarian’ and even ‘Annie’ but this is off the chart. It’s not surprising given the cultural significance of the family friendly 1984 original populated with now iconic genre moments, characters and showcasing the talent of actors at the top of their game. Films like the original come along once in a generation, such as ‘Back To The Future’ and even ‘The Terminator’. They are a product that just should not be touched.

And this effort by Paul Feig shows why.

Firstly, to not like this film doesn’t make me racist, sexist or any other –ist you can think of. If anything, I’m a Paul-Feig-Comedy-ist. Populated with actors with little acting experience bar work on ‘Saturday Night Live’ and those who are Paul Feig’s usual suspects, this feels like a film where Feig and crew have a goal to reach, but can be silly and stupid along the way as long as they reach the end credits. It’s that untouchable bond between cast and crew that doesn’t always work in delivering something worthy to stand by its predecessor.

Melissa McCarthy, surprisingly, is probably least irritating out of the 4 leading ladies and she comes across as most humane of them all. Kristen Wiig continues her style of comedy where she narrates and makes overly unnecessary comments and quips about people or situations which gets old very quick. Kate McKinnon, whom I thought would be the best, turns out to be the worst with an annoying amount of over-played “wacky scientist” characterisation that comes across as nothing but childish. And Leslie Jones, while thankfully not as loud and in your face as the trailers made out, has her moments to shine but still plays a very uninspiring character. In fact, all characters are what you get initially on introductions; they don’t change, develop or progress from start to end. You have to take two acceptable characters to follow at the same time as following two irritating ones, which never makes for total satisfaction in viewing.

It’s actually Chris Hemsworth who comes off ok here, granted he’s playing a man who is dense to the point it’s too OTT at times, but I was chuckling along the lines of how absurd his character Kevin was and what his role was even relevant for except more silly gags, a point of lust of Erin and to use in the finale.

And the actors are fuelled by one thing I don’t sit well with – the comedy. Modern comedy, or that comedy that Paul Fieg injected into work like ‘Bridesmaids’ or ‘Spy’ is evident here. The film sucker punches you in the opening spooky 5 minutes where you have some wit in the script and you think you’re on safe ground; we even have the classic opening theme in short bursts; but then the “crude humour” that gained the films certification hits you.

Jokes and gags about wee and poo and sex and parts of the female anatomy. That’s when my expectations crashed and burned. If that sort of thing amuses you, along with characters who throw in racial quips, shout and do silly gurning and pratfalls in what I consider very amateur, lazy comedy, then you’ll be ok. If you prefer more discreet comedy and humour coming from character chemistry, serious delivery and an time when being crude wasn’t needed, then you’ll struggle to find this amusing.

Production wise, it’s decent enough. It delivers a few moments that make you jump but if you’ve seen the trailers, you know when to expect them, and it’s always moments when the music goes quiet and then the sound is cranked up with loud piercing scream and exclamation. It’s not exactly discreet, but it’s there. And we have a wealth of locations across Manhatten to explore and plenty of energy from the leads to carry us through the 2hr story. The Ghostbusters certainly kick ghostly ass with a variety of gadgets and gizmos to add more action and excitement to the demand for bigger and better action scenes.

Nods to the 1984 original come thick and fast, and it shows that even though this is a reboot of the franchise, it can’t help remake the original bar a few character replacements. It shows to me there is no confidence in rebooting a series to be more original and just serves as a silly love-letter to the original from shoe-horning in short but amusing cameos from nearly all the main cast, showing us the firehouse, revamping ECTO-1, introducing Slimer and his girlfriend (ugh), keeping the proton packs and traps, and pretty much doing the same story but tweaked. From the opening pre-titles to the large, white monster in the finale, it’s a checklist of “spot the homage” in a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be.

But where the film most is the CGI. All the ghosts look like something from a computer game or an episode of Scooby-Doo. Colourful, crisp and cartoonish. A few work, most not and there is very little realism to them, if anything. At least the original had effective model work and make-up on actors to give us something that resembled a human or monster, rather than just a colourful CGI creature. And it’s over-used in the finale where again, Feig abuses what he can do with CGI and delivers a tension free, action heavy battle in front of green-screen that goes for excess rather than simplicity. No model/actor-in-costume/camera manipulation here like the iconic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man – we have a CGI Godzilla style creature destroying the CGI city like all modern blockbuster films have their villain doing now. Yawn.

If I’d have known the humour would be this crass and lazy, I’d have not watched it but I did, as many will, out of curiosity on how a classic film is re-imagined for a modern generation. With another final moment after the credits that once more shows a lack of originality in setting up a sequel, I left feeling disappointed. That’s all. I wanted to enjoy it, but it just wasn’t for me. Had I known there would be so much nostalgia over originality, I’d have just watched the original at home and seen it done properly.

[Professor Pi]

Star Trek Beyond 2016

 

Given the trouble behind making this film (losing not one but two directors, having a full script rewrite late in the process, a disappointing teaser trailer, and George Takei not backing one of its bolder developments), this film acquits itself surprisingly well.  It's a throwback to the more episodic installments of its TV series, and not just the original.  Oddly, there are even more explicit references to the Enterprise series (never thought I'd see a Xindi reference in these movies!)  There are also nods to the original series movies (notably The Search for Spock and The Undiscovered Country) without completely going Melania Trump speechwriter mode (looking at you, Into Darkness.)  In fact, Beyond is the most original of the reboot series and is refreshingly light on its feet.  Those concerned that Justin Lin would 'FF' up the legend on its 50th anniversary need not worry.  Its one 20th century vehicle chase scene fits perfectly within the story and is set up with a fitting sci-fi adaptation that pays off better than the out of place vehicular stunts in 2009's Star Trek and 2002's Nemesis.

 

As these movies are best enjoyed without spoilers (my pleasure viewing Into Darkness the first time out no doubt due to the fact that I knew nothing of its villain reveal), I shall not divulge plot details Beyond (sorry, couldn't resist .)   Idris Ilba joins a legion of great actors playing mediocre Star Trek villains--Malcolm McDowell, F. Murray Abrams, Oscar Isaac (oops, wrong franchise.)  But like these latter two, they bury him under prosthetics and pounds of ever changing makeup, when he's most effectively menacing without it.  His motives aren't as clear as Khan's (both Mantalbahn and Cumberbatch versions), or Christopher Lloyd's and Christopher Plummer's Klingons, but they touch ever so unintentionally on the militarization of terrorist madmen in recent headlines.  Yet this is the cross the movies have to bear, whereas the TV shows are afforded the time to explore exploring, the big budget movies require big explosions of ships and cities, if not entire planets.  Spending much of its downtime on a planet book ended by such visually extravagant battles, Star Trek Beyond is reminiscent of the two other crews' third outings--Insurrection and The Search for Spock.  But this is definitely one of the better odd numbered Star Trek movies, and even some even numbered ones.  The 13th Trek follows through on some ideas teased at before in the movie canon--fully abandoning ship, for example--but is pleasantly derivative in others--a poignant homage to the original crew in the denouement and a final time lapse visually answering a question glossed over at the end of The Voyage Home with a satisfying blink--twice-and-you-miss-it Easter egg.  Clearly the filmmakers are fans of the Trek franchise offering new perspectives on scenes familiar to fans.

 

The rebooted cast is what really shines about this movie.  Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto give us some great Spock/Bones banter. Simon Pegg's Scotty is freed from the engineering room (no spoilers, but you've seen the trailer as to why) and yet still gets to be an engineer, as well as befriend the babe without Kirk violating the bro's prime directive (the crude colloquialism being two syllables that rhyme with Spock.)  Chris Pine really wears the James Kirk role like a glove this time out (which the aborted William Shatner cameo would have diminished.)  Zoe Saldana and John Cho aren't given as much to do, though the former is the key to solving the villain's identity and the latter takes a Trek character into new frontiers of Star Trek diversity (which has become oddly controversial with one of the original crew actors.)  Finally, the late Anton Yelchin delivers his final and finest performance as Pavel Chekov.  (It's a sad moment rewatching Into Darkness when Kirk tells Chekov to put on a red shirt.)  And of course, the death of Leonard Nimoy is given an appropriate tribute both onscreen and in end credits.

 

However, Star Trek goes on and based on the people I saw in the theater, appears to be attracting a younger fan base.  Its ongoing 50+ year mission now moving into a seventh TV series to debut next year, and onto a 14th motion picture.  As Star Trek 2.0 Ep. IV is to feature the return of Chris Hemsworth as Kirk's father George, another time travel plot device is more likely than not (and perhaps a Shatner cameo this time, but please leave the whales at home.)  I can't quite figure out the titles of these reboots (why Into Darkness, and Beyond what?), but as 'trek' is used as a verb and not a noun, and numerals appear somewhat phonetically (2 Into, 3 Beyond), I'm betting the next one will be Star Trek Forever.  Indeed, the franchise appears to be back on the rise.

 

Addendum:

 

While our other beloved 50 plus year old franchise is in limbo (come on, Daniel, agree to one more!), I must comment on another Hollywood attempt to reboot a franchise.  As we arrived an hour early for the Star Trek preview, I caught the last fifteen minutes of the rebooted Ghostbusters.  Ugh!  Not one laugh or impressive thing in presumably the most expensive part of of the $146M dollar big budget movie.  I was never into this reboot, even though casting all females was probably the most inventive thing about it.  I like Leslie Jones, and it's a shame what Twitter trolls have done to her.  But man, when the last 20 minutes make you glad you missed the first 90, that's bad.  My biggest complaint about this movie is Cecily Strong wasn't cast as a ghostbuster, but even her casting as mayoral assistant wasn't enough to save it.  She should totally front a movie!  And Chris Hemsworth, dude.  Male bimbo roles are meant for your brother.  Don't besmirch Thor like this. 

 

Look, some reboots you should trust your gut reaction.  Ghostbusters--no.  Poltergeist--no.  Jurassic Park, okay even if Jurassic World has nothing new to offer, because Chris Pratt is the bomb.   But wow, I sat through a dozen previews and went away thinking I only want to see Jason Bourne and Sully.  When's the next Bond movie again?

[LJones41]

'Ghostbusters' (2016)

Never has a remake of an 80s classic gained so much fear, scrutiny and doubt than ‘Ghostbusters’. We’ve had ‘The Karate Kid’, ‘RoboCop’, ‘Conan The Barbarian’ and even ‘Annie’ but this is off the chart. It’s not surprising given the cultural significance of the family friendly 1984 original populated with now iconic genre moments, characters and showcasing the talent of actors at the top of their game. Films like the original come along once in a generation, such as ‘Back To The Future’ and even ‘The Terminator’. They are a product that just should not be touched.

And this effort by Paul Feig shows why.

Firstly, to not like this film doesn’t make me racist, sexist or any other –ist you can think of. If anything, I’m a Paul-Feig-Comedy-ist. Populated with actors with little acting experience bar work on ‘Saturday Night Live’ and those who are Paul Feig’s usual suspects, this feels like a film where Feig and crew have a goal to reach, but can be silly and stupid along the way as long as they reach the end credits. It’s that untouchable bond between cast and crew that doesn’t always work in delivering something worthy to stand by its predecessor.

Melissa McCarthy, surprisingly, is probably least irritating out of the 4 leading ladies and she comes across as most humane of them all. Kristen Wiig continues her style of comedy where she narrates and makes overly unnecessary comments and quips about people or situations which gets old very quick. Kate McKinnon, whom I thought would be the best, turns out to be the worst with an annoying amount of over-played “wacky scientist” characterisation that comes across as nothing but childish. And Leslie Jones, while thankfully not as loud and in your face as the trailers made out, has her moments to shine but still plays a very uninspiring character. In fact, all characters are what you get initially on introductions; they don’t change, develop or progress from start to end. You have to take two acceptable characters to follow at the same time as following two irritating ones, which never makes for total satisfaction in viewing.

It’s actually Chris Hemsworth who comes off ok here, granted he’s playing a man who is dense to the point it’s too OTT at times, but I was chuckling along the lines of how absurd his character Kevin was and what his role was even relevant for except more silly gags, a point of lust of Erin and to use in the finale.

And the actors are fuelled by one thing I don’t sit well with – the comedy. Modern comedy, or that comedy that Paul Fieg injected into work like ‘Bridesmaids’ or ‘Spy’ is evident here. The film sucker punches you in the opening spooky 5 minutes where you have some wit in the script and you think you’re on safe ground; we even have the classic opening theme in short bursts; but then the “crude humour” that gained the films certification hits you.

Jokes and gags about wee and poo and sex and parts of the female anatomy. That’s when my expectations crashed and burned. If that sort of thing amuses you, along with characters who throw in racial quips, shout and do silly gurning and pratfalls in what I consider very amateur, lazy comedy, then you’ll be ok. If you prefer more discreet comedy and humour coming from character chemistry, serious delivery and an time when being crude wasn’t needed, then you’ll struggle to find this amusing.

Production wise, it’s decent enough. It delivers a few moments that make you jump but if you’ve seen the trailers, you know when to expect them, and it’s always moments when the music goes quiet and then the sound is cranked up with loud piercing scream and exclamation. It’s not exactly discreet, but it’s there. And we have a wealth of locations across Manhatten to explore and plenty of energy from the leads to carry us through the 2hr story. The Ghostbusters certainly kick ghostly ass with a variety of gadgets and gizmos to add more action and excitement to the demand for bigger and better action scenes.

Nods to the 1984 original come thick and fast, and it shows that even though this is a reboot of the franchise, it can’t help remake the original bar a few character replacements. It shows to me there is no confidence in rebooting a series to be more original and just serves as a silly love-letter to the original from shoe-horning in short but amusing cameos from nearly all the main cast, showing us the firehouse, revamping ECTO-1, introducing Slimer and his girlfriend (ugh), keeping the proton packs and traps, and pretty much doing the same story but tweaked. From the opening pre-titles to the large, white monster in the finale, it’s a checklist of “spot the homage” in a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be.

But where the film most is the CGI. All the ghosts look like something from a computer game or an episode of Scooby-Doo. Colourful, crisp and cartoonish. A few work, most not and there is very little realism to them, if anything. At least the original had effective model work and make-up on actors to give us something that resembled a human or monster, rather than just a colourful CGI creature. And it’s over-used in the finale where again, Feig abuses what he can do with CGI and delivers a tension free, action heavy battle in front of green-screen that goes for excess rather than simplicity. No model/actor-in-costume/camera manipulation here like the iconic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man – we have a CGI Godzilla style creature destroying the CGI city like all modern blockbuster films have their villain doing now. Yawn.

If I’d have known the humour would be this crass and lazy, I’d have not watched it but I did, as many will, out of curiosity on how a classic film is re-imagined for a modern generation. With another final moment after the credits that once more shows a lack of originality in setting up a sequel, I left feeling disappointed. That’s all. I wanted to enjoy it, but it just wasn’t for me. Had I known there would be so much nostalgia over originality, I’d have just watched the original at home and seen it done properly.

 

'Ghostbusters' (2016)

Never has a remake of an 80s classic gained so much fear, scrutiny and doubt than ‘Ghostbusters’. We’ve had ‘The Karate Kid’, ‘RoboCop’, ‘Conan The Barbarian’ and even ‘Annie’ but this is off the chart. It’s not surprising given the cultural significance of the family friendly 1984 original populated with now iconic genre moments, characters and showcasing the talent of actors at the top of their game. Films like the original come along once in a generation, such as ‘Back To The Future’ and even ‘The Terminator’. They are a product that just should not be touched.

And this effort by Paul Feig shows why.

Firstly, to not like this film doesn’t make me racist, sexist or any other –ist you can think of. If anything, I’m a Paul-Feig-Comedy-ist. Populated with actors with little acting experience bar work on ‘Saturday Night Live’ and those who are Paul Feig’s usual suspects, this feels like a film where Feig and crew have a goal to reach, but can be silly and stupid along the way as long as they reach the end credits. It’s that untouchable bond between cast and crew that doesn’t always work in delivering something worthy to stand by its predecessor.

Melissa McCarthy, surprisingly, is probably least irritating out of the 4 leading ladies and she comes across as most humane of them all. Kristen Wiig continues her style of comedy where she narrates and makes overly unnecessary comments and quips about people or situations which gets old very quick. Kate McKinnon, whom I thought would be the best, turns out to be the worst with an annoying amount of over-played “wacky scientist” characterisation that comes across as nothing but childish. And Leslie Jones, while thankfully not as loud and in your face as the trailers made out, has her moments to shine but still plays a very uninspiring character. In fact, all characters are what you get initially on introductions; they don’t change, develop or progress from start to end. You have to take two acceptable characters to follow at the same time as following two irritating ones, which never makes for total satisfaction in viewing.

It’s actually Chris Hemsworth who comes off ok here, granted he’s playing a man who is dense to the point it’s too OTT at times, but I was chuckling along the lines of how absurd his character Kevin was and what his role was even relevant for except more silly gags, a point of lust of Erin and to use in the finale.

And the actors are fuelled by one thing I don’t sit well with – the comedy. Modern comedy, or that comedy that Paul Fieg injected into work like ‘Bridesmaids’ or ‘Spy’ is evident here. The film sucker punches you in the opening spooky 5 minutes where you have some wit in the script and you think you’re on safe ground; we even have the classic opening theme in short bursts; but then the “crude humour” that gained the films certification hits you.

Jokes and gags about wee and poo and sex and parts of the female anatomy. That’s when my expectations crashed and burned. If that sort of thing amuses you, along with characters who throw in racial quips, shout and do silly gurning and pratfalls in what I consider very amateur, lazy comedy, then you’ll be ok. If you prefer more discreet comedy and humour coming from character chemistry, serious delivery and an time when being crude wasn’t needed, then you’ll struggle to find this amusing.

Production wise, it’s decent enough. It delivers a few moments that make you jump but if you’ve seen the trailers, you know when to expect them, and it’s always moments when the music goes quiet and then the sound is cranked up with loud piercing scream and exclamation. It’s not exactly discreet, but it’s there. And we have a wealth of locations across Manhatten to explore and plenty of energy from the leads to carry us through the 2hr story. The Ghostbusters certainly kick ghostly ass with a variety of gadgets and gizmos to add more action and excitement to the demand for bigger and better action scenes.

Nods to the 1984 original come thick and fast, and it shows that even though this is a reboot of the franchise, it can’t help remake the original bar a few character replacements. It shows to me there is no confidence in rebooting a series to be more original and just serves as a silly love-letter to the original from shoe-horning in short but amusing cameos from nearly all the main cast, showing us the firehouse, revamping ECTO-1, introducing Slimer and his girlfriend (ugh), keeping the proton packs and traps, and pretty much doing the same story but tweaked. From the opening pre-titles to the large, white monster in the finale, it’s a checklist of “spot the homage” in a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be.

But where the film most is the CGI. All the ghosts look like something from a computer game or an episode of Scooby-Doo. Colourful, crisp and cartoonish. A few work, most not and there is very little realism to them, if anything. At least the original had effective model work and make-up on actors to give us something that resembled a human or monster, rather than just a colourful CGI creature. And it’s over-used in the finale where again, Feig abuses what he can do with CGI and delivers a tension free, action heavy battle in front of green-screen that goes for excess rather than simplicity. No model/actor-in-costume/camera manipulation here like the iconic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man – we have a CGI Godzilla style creature destroying the CGI city like all modern blockbuster films have their villain doing now. Yawn.

If I’d have known the humour would be this crass and lazy, I’d have not watched it but I did, as many will, out of curiosity on how a classic film is re-imagined for a modern generation. With another final moment after the credits that once more shows a lack of originality in setting up a sequel, I left feeling disappointed. That’s all. I wanted to enjoy it, but it just wasn’t for me. Had I known there would be so much nostalgia over originality, I’d have just watched the original at home and seen it done properly.

 

 

I enjoyed "GHOSTBUSTERS" very much.  Much to my surprise.  I didn't think I would, but I did.  I'm so glad that the geek boy sexism was gone from this film.  If there was one thing about the 1984 movie that really turned me off was the handling of the Dana Barrett character.  There were times when I thought that the movie's passing was a bit too fast.  Otherwise, I really enjoyed it.

[SecretAgentFan]

Star Trek Beyond

 

I absolutely enjoyed this.  I feared Justin Lin would overload it with action - but instead it is beautifully balanced with character scenes, honest emotion and well-measured humour.

 

Simon Pegg co-wrote a great script here.

[dtuba]

Star Trek Beyond

 

I really don't have anything to add to the two posts above. I enjoyed it and I too feared that Justin Lin would turn it into ST: Die Another Day. Thankfully, he does not and it is a very entertaining addition to the Trek canon. Got a twinge of sadness every time Anton Yelchin was on screen. Could it be that in the reboot era, the even numbered Trek movies are the good ones?

 

(Confession: the only thing that bugged me was Quinto's ill fitting Spock wig. Really think they could do better and not try to copy Nimoy's hair style exactly.) 

[bill007]

Jason Bourne

 

Way too much shaky cam.  Evolutions in the film did draw me in.  Like putting on an old t-shirt, it felt good.  But, that tag in the back of the neck kept bothering me.

 

I'm left with the feeling that Greengrass/Damon really wanted to put an end to this series.  Despite the ending.  (Which was truly Bourne.)