Review: The Wall

Director Doug Liman has had his moments with me in terms of high-quality film-making. Most of them being in the action genre in the form of The Bourne Identity and the brilliant Edge Of Tomorrow.
It is also easy to forget that he helped direct the late 90's cult hit Swingers.

I remember seeing the trailer for this quite a while ago, and I saw potential in the concept of this war thriller. Not even the casting of WWE wrestler John Cena could detract my interest.

I must say that the scope is incredibly small, and the premise is super simple. I think for some people, it may help if you know what type of film it is going to be. If you like films like Phone Booth and Buried, then you will have a blast with this.
I really like those films, and it is a concept that would win me over any time.

But to be honest, while I liked most of the film, it was only the very final scene that elevated its score to almost the same status as Phone Booth and Buried. Without spoiling it, what I think made me give it the exceptional rating is the moment where we find out more about the antagonists agenda, which gives it a much more intriguing story that you can discuss at length.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson is great throughout. He is basically carrying the film, and for anyone to be able to pull that off is enough credit to applaud the performance. The development of his character was really personal, and felt well fleshed out by the end of it.
I did not think John Cena will play a likable character. He managed to pull it off rather well, and he might have a promising acting career once he is done with wrestling.

I know some won't like these types of films. But I felt this to be a very rewarding film. There are some nice twists and turns. At times, there are moments that are tough to watch. It's a great cat-and-mouse game from the first minute that you get involved with. You also really feel the isolation in the desert environment.

I like it that Liman and his team never felt forced to up the pacing of the film for the sake of it. The real-time pacing felt essential to the tension for me. While like in Buried you would probably need situations to keep the film going. In 'The Wall' it uses its environment to its fullest. The brutality of a desert environment, the mind games  used by our main characters and the stories you hear during the character development moments.

However, I must admit that there are moments where nothing happens and it took me out of it. But it was only for fleeting moments. I think that along with the tension not being as strong as films similar to it, will fractionally downgrade it.

But on the whole, I really enjoyed this. The concept is used really well, the tension ramps up rather well, especially in the final act and the performances are great. It is great to see films like this, because you don't always need an end of the world scenario. Films like this that work and can have a much more emotional impact at times, and I think this is one of them. Its 90 minute duration is certainly the right amount for this type of premise.

I also really liked the piece of music used in the end credits. Sadly, I am struggling to find a copy. But I will make sure to find one in the end.

Rating: 8/10

Review: The Big Sick

When I decide to go and see a romantic comedy on the big screen, then it must be good. This sub-genre is certainly one I have found tough to find films that I highly enjoy, would happily see again and own a copy of.

After hearing the crowd-pleasing success of its release in various film festivals at the start of the year, I instantly put a pin in this one and kept an eager eye on when the release date would be. Then to hear it was produced by Judd Apatow made it clear as to why it has done rather well.

It starts off with a pleasant and expected beginning. It had me smiling and chuckling a few times. But what I think won me over to giving it an exceptional rating was the highly original second act. The relationship between the characters involved in said act was interesting to watch and added the type of depth you just don't see in rom-coms.

If you read the full plot synopsis, it doesn't exactly sound like comedy gold. But what the director and his team do, is go down a route that keeps the light-hearted and witty comedy ball rolling.

The main characters played by Kumail Nanjiani and Zoe Kazan did a great job. Their relationship felt very believable and almost documentary-like.
But I think the couple that manage to steal it for me, is Ray Romano and Holly Hunter. It was not only great to see Ray Romano. But also in a really good film. I haven't seen him in like forever, and he was very entertaining to watch.
Also, there is a lot of great back-and-forth banter comedy from most of the supporting cast.

While the performances were very enjoyable, I think it is mainly thanks to the writing department. The script is most certainly the films strongest aspect. It is smart, witty and just plain funny. Even during some of the shifts in tone, the writers still manage to find a laugh in there.

I also liked that none of it fell into the over-the-top cliched moments that most films within this genre do. It manages to stick to its light-hearted tone throughout.
It's like this generations 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?'. But it also could be seen as a less quirky version of 'Me And Earl And The Dying Girl'.

While I really liked it, I cannot see it being up there in my best of the year list. That is mainly due to that this genre just does not compete with other films strong films from other genres that I prefer. So it's negatives are only due to my personal taste.
The strong aspects in a rom-com would be far inferior to say the positives from a sci-fi for example.

But forgetting all that, this is definitely the type of film that will feel very relatable these days, and to have such a well written script makes this even more of an important film to watch.

I probably wouldn't rave about it as much as some people did from the film festivals. But I found it be a very smart and consistently funny rom-com, and that is coming from someone who very rarely pays money to see those types of films on the big-screen.

It is great to find a great modern rom-com as most of my favourites are from the 50's and 60's.

Rating: 8/10

Review: Dunkirk

Another Christopher Nolan film is like getting another chance to re-live the best day of your life.

Since his breakthrough in 2000 with Memento, Nolan has quickly been billed as the best director of the 21st century.
Five years later saw the British director become a mainstream hit with the beginning of The Dark Knight trilogy with Batman Begins.

After that, it has been hit after hit. Now, he is going into new territory with something based on a true event.

The story of the Dunkirk evacuation has been one that I am glad is getting re-made. I remember seeing the 1958 version a few years ago and enjoying it. But I think it is a good time to tell the story with modern filming technology.
As usual, I avoided any trailers. Nolan films for me, are something to treasure and first see on the big screen as he is big believer in cinema and the future of it in the form of IMAX, rather than 3D.

The opening sets you up nicely for how Nolan is going to execute his portrayal. Then the rest of the film just builds and builds ever so slowly to quite an emotional and uplifting finale.
The whole experience was very impactful and visceral. You can feel the brutality the men faced at that time and what lengths people would go to just get back home.
By the end of it, you just feel so proud to be British and have ancestors that did so much for our freedom.

Not only is a great War film, but it is a great survival tale. Every section of the story makes you feel you are actually there, experiencing it and right in the thick of it. It never lets you give time to breathe.
From the fantastic sound of the piercing and screechiness of the German Stuka's to the glorious cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema, this is something you need really experience on the biggest screen with the best sound system.

Like with many Nolan films, Hans Zimmer returns as the composer. This is another wonderful score that should be up there with some of Zimmer's most iconic pieces. The use of a ticking watch is quite a common theme throughout, and eventually becomes an integral part of the story. But his romping orchestral pieces that he is well known for are still there and in all the big set-pieces.

There isn't much dialogue, so I can't really comment about the script. This film is purely about the event. So therefore, the action is front and centre.

There was no real lead for his film, it was more about the story. However, it is quite an ensemble cast, and they all did a great job.
If I had to pick one for the lead, it would be unknown youngster Fionn Whitehead. The young English actor did a great job and had a great look of your stereotypical British soldier from that era.
As for the big names in this feature, they all did a great job. Despite not dominating the screen, Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, James D'Arcy and Jack Lowden were all very captivating.
Even Harry Styles surprised me. If you did not know who he was, he just felt like he had been acting for quite a while. I hope he can get more roles from this, and see what else he can do, or if this performance was thanks to the direction he was given.

I must mention how much I really liked how they showed the enemy. The way they delivered their presence really added to the tension, and it has been proven in many other films using a similar formula.

As much as I would consider myself a Nolan fanboy, I would not quite rank it up there with Inception, The Dark Knight or The Prestige. But it is not far off. The main reasons for that is I did not feel the scale of this event. When you hear about the amount of people that were on those beaches and ended up being rescued, the film just did not quite reflect that in my opinion.
While I liked the route Nolan and his team took, it did not quite feel that pivotal of a moment during World War II except during the final act.
Also, I think the lack of characterisation effected my level of investment. Having more connection with the characters might have elevated my original rating.

Thankfully, it is only a few minor gripes. It is a great viewing experience and another welcomed addition to Nolan's high-quality back catalogue. It is one of those War films that make you realize why our grandparents and great grandparents never really spoke of those times to us.

As with any Nolan feature, it is masterly crafted. Nolan has always been interested with the concept of time. He always seems to use non-linear structure and such interesting ways. From the ground-breaking work of Memento, to the unbelievably cleverness of Inception. I was interested to see how he would incorporate that into Dunkirk. While at times it might look unnecessary, it also reminds you that you are watching a Nolan feature.
I also like that he always respects the audience intelligence. Unlike some blockbuster directors that spoon-feed a lot of the plot to us, Nolan makes you think and the reward is watching a cinematic treat. This is another one.

I was really cautious about the short duration of 1hr 46mins, because Nolan is usually associated with film that are around 2hrs 30mins. But I think keeping under 2hrs was a great idea. For what Nolan was going for, I think it got out at the right time.

I hope this gets us talking and finding out more about this event, as I don't recall getting taught about in History class. We mainly concentrated on the Holocaust and the Battle Of Britain. So I hope this film changes the curriculum to some degree.

There are so many aspects to this film that deserve recognition in the major awards, and I can see it winning a fair few, especially in the cinematography, sound design and score. Bring on the next venture Nolan picks.

Rating: 8/10

Review: The Beguiled

I have only seen two previous films from Sofia Coppola, and they're quite polarizing. While I really liked her most critically acclaimed film in Lost In Translation, The Bling Ring was a bit disappointing, despite having an intriguing concept.

The trailers for this definitely had me interested. I also never knew that this could be seen as a re-make, as there was a version from 1971 with Clint Eastwood. I would normally plan on seeing the original in the build-up. But due to a busy schedule at this moment in time, I was going in cold.

While I liked most of it, I still had that feeling of disappointing whilst leaving the screening. The pacing is slow throughout, and I did not mind that. I am always up for a slow-burner. But I think what got me into that feeling of disappointment, was the final act just being pretty ordinary.

The imagery and cinematography is probably its strongest suit. It is gorgeous to look at, they really make the most of the location and the colour palette is wonderfully bleak. It almost felt like a David Fincher picture.

Everyone did a good job in their performance. But I didn't feel any stand-outs. I always like Colin Farrell. His presence always seems to keep me interested, and this was no different. Nicole Kidman was perfectly fine. Unlike Farrell, Kidman never really gets me captivated. However, I've never seen her do a bad performance. She just seems to be in that void of someone who is a big name, but never seems to give a remarkable performance in my eyes.
Kirsten Dunst was better then I expected. It is not the type of film you would normally see her in. But she managed to fit in well. Elle Fanning was really good and continues to show how great of a talent she is.
The only other performances worth mentioning are Oona Laurence and Angourie Rice. I was really happy to see them be part of this. After seeing them in Southpaw and The Nice Guys respectively, it is great to see them be part of another major studio project.

So while I was disappointed, there is still some good stuff in there to make this a decent watch on the whole. It looks great both in its imagery and in its costumes, that may be in contention for major awards nominations. The performances just about keep the film moving along. But I think the lack of memorable pay-off will make this rather forgettable.
There was enough good stuff in here to give a pass. But don't expect this to be heard from again.

Rating: 7/10

Review: War For The Planet Of The Apes

The Planet Of The Apes franchise has been in many guises. Everyone knows the iconic original version from 1968. Then its four sequels were interesting on their concepts. But apart from maybe Escape, the majority of them did not quite fulfill their potential. That was mainly due to the lack of budget they were given.

Then 2001 saw Tim Burton release his own version of the original events. It ended up being quite a box office flop and probably Burton's biggest miss of his career.

It was not until ten years later that we saw us going back to the world run by monkeys. But unlike Burton's version, it was going to be a prequel trilogy before the events of Planet Of The Apes. 2011 saw Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes be quite successful with myself, fans and critics.
Three years later saw Cloverfield director Matt Reeves take the helm with Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes. This second installment was the one that had everyone taking this trilogy seriously, and it was becoming one of the best trilogies of recent times.

The hype for the final part was pretty big, as that is thanks to how great Dawn was. I was also interested to see how much they were going to link with 1960's classic.

I did not think I would be so moved by this by the end of it. It starts with potential of showing grand scope of where we are heading. Then as the film moves along, you can see everything coming to a head. Then the final act is a great mix of tense action and emotional character drama. By the end of it, I got close to being tearful, which really surprised me.

Like Dawn, the majority of the screen-time is given to the apes. I also loved the lack of exposition. The film hardly ever needs to stop to explain what is going on. It just gets busy telling a story.

The performances are great. Andy Serkis delivers once again with such a strong leading performance. He seriously deserves some recognition in the major awards next year. Even an Honoary Oscar would do for his achievements in motion-capture work. From Gollum, to King Kong and now Caesar. The amount of work he has given to this technology is unprecedented. He realistically won't get one. But something needs to happen for him to get something.
Woody Harrelson was so badass in this. His entrance is haunting and terrifying, and his overall involvement was highly memorable.
The introduction of Steve Zahn's character could have been a disaster. However, he added something different and refreshing to the tone of the film. It did not quite work all the time. But on the whole, it was a nice change.
Other performances I have to praise Karin Konoval, Amiah Miller, Terry Notary and Ty Olsson.

The visual effects are phenomenal. The design of the apes are flawless. The team that pulled this off most certainly should get an Oscar nomination at the very least.
The editing is on point, and Michael Giacchino's is so strong and influential throughout this film. These two aspects play a vital in many scenes when it involves the apes doing their sign language. It keeps the pace of the film going, and just adds to the overall enjoyment.

One thing I was interested in seeing, is how they would link this to the events that we have already seen. I had great fun spotting all the clues and hints that link to the characters and events of the original. What I liked the most was the execution of them. It never felt shoe-horned or a wink to the crowd. It was more like a tip of the hat to the one that has inspired many sequels, prequels and re-boots.

The only negative that I wanted to mention is the duration. It does get slow just before the final act, and cutting it to about 2 hours might have been better.

But huge credit has to go to director Matt Reeves and his team. While each film has been released as a major tent-pole summer blockbuster. The structure of it is unconventional to most summer films of recent years. It was like watching those summer films of yesteryear that gave us a highly entertaining, well though-out and strongly written story, whilst also having some gripping action.

I am so glad that like many big films, I avoided any trailers. I knew nothing about where they were going with this, and doing this had added my enjoyment to so many films.

I really liked this. I never thought I would be so moved once it ended.
It goes down routes that I was not expecting in the film that has 'War' in the title. While their is action, there is great emotional drama and character studies.
It is not often that the third part of a trilogy is as strong as its predecessors. Thankfully, this was the culmination that we have wanted, and it is safe to say that this is one of the best trilogies I have seen for some time. I say that because most franchises go far beyond a trilogy now. But even against other trilogies, this is definitely up there.
This trilogy is like what all great three-parters need to be. For each installment to not only feel like a standalone, but also be part of a bigger story.
I look forward to seeing these three in one viewing.

Rating: 8/10

Review: Cars 3

I think it is safe to say that while the merchandise sales within this Pixar franchise is doing rather well, the film themselves just can't compete with the studios many other instant classics.

Don't get me wrong, the first one is really good. It kept the Pixar ball rolling with all their releases either being really good or instant classics.

Then Cars 2 went down a path that they would quickly regret. They decided to focus more on the character of Mater. Yes he was popular by certain demographics. But it was safer to keep him as a side character, instead of the main vocal point. The film itself is a perfectly passable animation. But for Pixar's high standards, this will just not do.

With Cars 3, we seem to be finally back on track by going with a proper follow-up to the first installment. Now that I've seen it, I felt that is what we got with a few unexpected surprises.

It opens up with some decent racing action, and it has a pretty predictable story line. However, there were surprising amounts of slow and dull scenes that could lose the kids attention spans early on.
Then the second act went into nostalgia mode, which I really liked. It paid great homage to a character that many people have been wanting to see again.
Then the finale gave me something that I think many others will not expect. It was ballsy, risky, and for me I think they pulled it off nicely. I'm not sure if some younger viewers will like it. But I think it is what the franchise may need if it is going to continue.

The animations as usual is great. It is only a matter of time, before Pixar makes something that makes us questioning if we're watching an animation of live-action.
The racing scenes are as thrilling as they've ever been. The way they are executed made it exciting and gripping.

From a story-telling aspect, I liked most of the new characters, and I liked the route of nostalgia they went down. I am glad to see they went back to their roots, and it felt like a proper direct sequel.
But from telling an actual story, it seemed to lack that strong structure that Pixar is well known for doing. It felt too generic, and in the end became unmemorable. But I will give them credit for their risky pay-off.

They certainly sorted the problems the fans had with Cars 2. Now after seeing this newest addition, you can pretty much skip to the sequel, and head straight to part three.

While the ending now makes me interested to see where this franchise goes next, the film itself is solid. It's fairly entertaining and it gives enough screen-time and story development to the characters the fans wanted to see. But its somewhat generic story line puts this towards the bottom of Pixar's back catalogue, and the most of the gags fell flat. Thankfully, it's better than Cars 2 and as for animation films that have been released this year, it's above average.

I think their main demographic i.e. young kids, will probably find the majority of it fairly slow and boring.

There is a post credits scene. But it doesn't really amount to much. So unless, you want to be ahead of the game, then this is probably not worth waiting for.

Rating: 7/10

Review: It Comes At Night

A film where the critics are praising it highly, and the audience is almost the complete opposite, means that it will lead to a lot of discussion.

I know that the marketing is labeling this as a horror, and many are saying that it was completely misleading. I get what they were saying. But after I saw it, this looks like a tough film to sell to a mass audience. It is certainly not your conventional horror. It is more of a thriller with elements of experimental horror. It is about the tension rather than scares, and that is the type of horror that I prefer.

The main story is not about an entity spooking a group of people as you might expect. It tells you about paranoia and psychology in a possible dystopian environment and who can you trust especially with food and water is at stake. The finale is most certainly going to be the part that will divide audiences. There is no climatic finish. It just simply stops.
I don't mind an open ending. Some of my favourite films has finales that leave it up for discussion afterwards. This abrupt one gave me the same feeling after No Country For Old Men. It had me going "oh, is that it?" because there were many plot points that never got resolved. It gave me that feeling of disappointment after everything else before that was pretty gripping and tense.

The performances were some of the most real I had seen for some time. Joel Edgerton was really subtle in his as the lead. He just felt a regularly guy, and that is something that is tough to pull for a big name such as his.
Kelvin Harrison Jnr. was a big stand-out. His character manages to become quite an integral one, and his performance really makes intrigued by this story-arch. Carmen Ejogo, Christopher Abbott and Riley Keough also contributed nicely.

Lot of the technical aspects were constructed so well. The score by Brian McOmber great. The use of strings and synthesizers, and how they weave between each other was a joy to listen to. It certainly gave me an eerie and chilling atmosphere that just adds to the tension.
The cinematography also becomes a necessary ingredient to the overall mood. It is shot beautifully and some of the tracking shots were executed masterfully.

While this is little dialogue, it felt very real. There is very little exposition, it is like a conversation you would expect to hear in the real world.

As well as the ending, another negative I would like to mention is a trope that horror films have, and that is dream sequences. You think it is something interesting, and yet it only happened in someone's head. In this film, they do a bit too much for my liking. I got the intention of them, as it added to the paranoia from one particular character. But I think taking out a couple of those moments would have been the better choice.

While I was gripped by this grounded story, loving the tension and slow-burning pace and enjoying the performances, the abrupt ending just made me feel conflicted in my enjoyment. I totally get why it was done. But it just became a dampener on my overall view of the film. It was like those episodes in The Walking Dead, where on the face of it, nothing much happens.

I can see this getting that same sort of vibe like The Witch did last year. While I really liked The Witch, It Comes A Night never left me as unsettled. It was good up to a point and could have been really good for me. This could well be the most talked about film this year due to its polarizing views on it.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Spider-Man: Homecoming

I have had mixed feeling with Spider-Man films in the past. I remember the first one coming out in 2002. This was when superhero films were just arriving onto the big screen, and each one was a big event. It also saw Tobey Maguire become a star.

Two years later saw a sequel that is seen by many including myself as the best Spider-Man film. The hype for a third installment was at an all-time high. Then as soon as it came out in 2007, the downward spiral started. The choices made in that film has given us some memorable guffs. From the random dancing and Peter Parker's emo look.

Then 2012 saw me get pretty angry. After initially planning a fourth installment, the failure of part 3 forced Sony to do a premature reboot. I don't them going for a different look. But to give it a five-year gap was far too soon. I get that the deal Sony had was that they had to make another film to keep the rights to the source material. But with Maguire still fresh in our minds, having Andrew Garfield come in as well as everything else just made me angry for this happening so quickly.

Their re-branding gave us The Amazing Spider-Man. The first film was perfectly fine despite it being another origin story that we have already seen. Then its sequel two years later just saw them do the same mistakes with Spiderman 3. Too many villains, and it was all about setting-up a new universe rather than just giving a standalone story.

Now with Marvel finally securing co-creativity control with Sony, many fans are hopeful that this third birth of Spider-Man could be its most successful one. With youngster Tom Holland now taking the reigns as the web-slinger, the hype was pretty good.

Would you believe it, I had a really fun time with this one. It opens up well, I liked how the story was tieing in with The Avengers and I had already laughed a good amount before the second act. I was surprised at how much of the story was non-generic. It talked about high-school life and growing up, as well as having your typical fun and exciting superhero action. After that, the fun remained there and I still laughed consistently throughout the solid action set-pieces and well executed character moments. There were also some unexpected changes to the dynamic of the film that kept me invested.

Tom Holland I thought did a great job as both Spider-Man and Peter Parker. You could feel that everyday-man persona that makes the character of Spider-Man so popular and relatable. I would be very pleased if he eventually becomes the definitive version of Spider-Man.
Michael Keaton was one of the more solid and memorable villains in Marvel as Vulture. I liked his backstory, he was never over-the-top and they gave the character more than enough screen-time to make us understand him.
I loved the involvement of Robert Downey Jnr. and Jon Favreau. They had great comedic value and the way they linked in with the story was very entertaining. I had my doubts that their screentime could make it into more like an Iron Man film. Thankfully, that was never the case.
A great standout in the supporting roles was Jacob Batalon. He was great with Holland, and created most of the laughs. There was also great work by Zendaya. She might not have had much time on screen. But it was wisely utilized.
Sadly, I thought Laura Harrier was weak as the love interest.

I wasn't too hot on the casting choice of Flash Thompson played by Tony Revolori. I liked him in The Grand Budapest Hotel. But this role just did not feel right for me.
Another one where I'm still a bit unsure on, is the casting Marisa Tomei as Aunt May. It does feel weird seeing someone a lot younger play a role that in the source material is for a much older looking lady. She did not fully win me over. But Tomei's performance is getting me there slowly.

I was not expecting to say this, but I felt that the writing was the films strongest aspect. There is a great amount of comedic moments, cultural references and general sharpness and wit in the script. I don't think I had laughed that hard at a Marvel film since Guardians Of The Galaxy in 2014.

I also liked that fact that a lot it felt like a standalone. They have ignored the origin story and got straight into the action, because they know that we the audience know that particular story like the back of our hand.

I must mention a personal negative of mine. There is a small use of my favourite villain from the animated series that ended up being wasted. It was a real shame for me, and I hope to see it fully used in the future.

While some of the younger audience members may get bored by it, as it lacks constant action and moves at a slightly slower pace. I think on the whole this is a lot of fun and very enjoyable.
I wouldn't call it great though. There is a lot of formulaic moments that you see in any superhero film, and the stakes might not be that high to make my rating an exceptionally high one. But there is a lot to like and it has a good amount of twists and turns and even some clever self-referential moments.
Holland could be the Spider-Man everybody is wanting, and this tone could be the one we have for this particular superhero.
I still think Spider-Man 2 is the best one. But Homecoming comes awfully close.

I must mention that there are two scenes during the credits, one in the middle and one at the end. The first one is just pure set-up for the sequel. But the last one is just for comedic value, and it's brilliant. You may get annoyed by it. But you may also feel that it was very clever and funny at the same time. In my opinion, it could well be the best post credits scene in a Marvel movie ever.

Rating: 7/10