As you've seen for the past few reviews, I've been begging and praying for another truly great movie to come out this year. The only few that stand out are "John Wick" and "Wonder Woman", and of course "Logan". Two of those are superhero movies ("Logan" is debatable on that but we'll throw it in there for the sake of argument) and the other is your basic (but highly enjoyable) action romp. I was losing hope after the garbage we've been getting fed for the past few months. Would it ever happen this summer? That time has come, and our saviour is Edgar Wright's "Baby Driver". I have not always been the biggest fan of Wright's work (I'm just going to say it, "Shaun of the Dead" isn't that good), but this movie blew me away. The movie centers around getaway driver Baby (played by Downton Abbey's Alsel Elgort), who seeks to escape from his life of crime under kingpin Doc (a brilliantly menacing Kevin Spacey) and the other sociopaths he finds himself in with, after meeting waitress Deborah (Lily James). At first glance, a seemingly typical story of someone forced into a situation they don't want to be in. However, the "gimmick" of the movie is that Baby, who has tinnitus - a ringing in his ears from a past accident, is always playing music to drown out the ringing, and the rest of the movie and the events are edited and shown with his music playing. The fantastic variety of tracks on the soundtrack keeps the movie constantly fresh and engaging throughout. Music is the lifeblood of this movie, and it turns what might have seemed generic under any other director into a unique and constantly fun experience.
However, as you might have guessed, it's not just the plot that is on point in this movie, but the script also does a good job of crafting entertaining and engaging characters. The movie is very funny thanks to this writing. Whenever there is a joke, it feels natural and always in line with the character that has been created. The humour never feels out of place or forced for a cheap laugh. Director Wright understands when scenes need to be serious and when scenes can have light-hearted humour, and the mix between the two is brilliantly executed. Thankfully, the writing is also backed up by some brilliant performances. Ansel Elgort is a surprisingly charismatic lead as Baby, who is extremely relatable and sympathetic throughout, even when pushed to the absolute limit later on in the film. Lily James also delivers solid work as the lead love interest Deborah, and she and Elgort have great chemistry while on screen. It's a believable dynamic, which is necessary to make the character motivations as strong as they are later on. Eiza González is also great as crook Darling, giving the character an engaging edge. However, there are 3 main stand-out performances in the movie which still stand-out in my mind after thinking about the movie as a whole. First of all, Jamie Foxx as the psychopathic Bats. Foxx gives the role his all and is a terrifying part of the film. Yet, despite the terror associated with him, he remains strangely charismatic. That is the great accomplishment of Wright with this gang of criminal misfits. Despite everything they do throughout the movie, they are likable for the entirety. Next up is Jon Hamm as another one of the crew, Buddy. Edgar Wright has said that from the very first script read-through to the finished product, Hamm is the only actor who made it all the way. After seeing the movie, it is clear to see why. Hamm imbues the character with a strange charm and likability to him despite his character, which allows the audience to warm to him despite his actions throughout. It's a menacing but equally intriguing performance, and Hamm is a brilliant presence throughout. Finally, as you might have seen in the trailer, there is one big name actor I've yet to mention: Kevin Spacey, who plays the leader of gang, aptly codenamed Doc. As he is obviously a villain and fans of "House of Cards" might expect, despite delivering every line with his same dry tone, Spacey still manages to be extremely emotive, has perfect comic timing, and is mostly criminal in the amount of scenes that he steals. Which is to say, every one he is in. Ultimately, however, all of these actors do a great job with the great material they have been graced with here
Crooks, sociopaths, psychopaths and, of course, "young Mozart in a Go Kart over here"
As this is a driving movie revolving around getaways and crime, you might have guessed that there would be some intense action sequences involved in this movie. Well, you would be right, and these are insane to put it mildly. I won't spoil anything involved in these sequences because they are much more enjoyable when they are being watched with no idea what is going to come next, but, to give you an idea of what I mean, in the trailers, many of the stunts you see involving the red car which has been the centerpiece of much of the marketing, occur in the first 10 minutes. Now, consider how early on this is, and then I tell you that the movie only continues to escalate from there. It is truly some of the most bonkers action I've ever had the absolute pleasure of watching on the big screen, and is perfectly paced so that it never lasts too long and the scenes are appropriately spread out throughout. The stunt work in the movie is fantastic and never looks fake at any point, a true testament to the behind the crew on these scenes and the stuntmen involved in the filming itself. The production design on the film is also excellent on all fronts. It's a seemingly small part for a film with no heavy reliance on CGI and is set in a realistic environment, but production design is in fact a crucial element for the entire film. Take, for example, make-up and costume design, which are all excellent. One of the key character is on Jamie Foxx's Bats, who you can instantly tell from his tattoos and design what he is all about. The gun tattoo on his hand which can be seen on the poster, as he pretends to wield it. A murderous and possibly deranged psychopath much? Small details like these can be found on all of the characters. Set design is also on point and is key to immersion. It's all of these extra factors which do not tend to get paid a lot of attention to but are secretly key to the art of filmmaking that deserve much more appreciation, particularly when they are executed as well as they are in this movie.
Kevin Spacey rules the roost as crime kingpin Doc, stealing the show at every turn
The technical aspects of the film are also on point. Very rarely is CGI used in the movie, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was implemented to some of the stunts.That said, even if it was, the effects work was so stellar that I am finding it difficult to recall any moment in particular where the effects were noticeable or the action happening on screen looked at all fake, and so my immersion at least was never broken and not one eyebrow was raised. where I briefly mentioned it earlier but I again have to praise the editing of the movie. Director Edgar Wright actually started his career in filmmaking as an editor and that really shines through in his visual of the film. The cinematography is also great, with a large number of tracking shots being used throughout the movie as Baby dances his way through his songs. This of course all again comes back to the music, which I must again praise. The movie blazes through over 25 songs, with genres ranging from pop to rock to swing to relaxing jazz. It's no real secret that Edgar Wright's inspiration for making this movie over the past 3 years was from having made a music video about a getaway driver when he was much younger. It's clear that his love and passion for all of these different genres of music is what has driven him to incorporate all of them into the film in a meaningful way without making any of them seem forced, a problem a lot of recent movies using soundtracks like these suffer from. In mixing his passion in this area with his usual directorial flair, the whole movie becomes an experience which will have you smiling from the first 30 seconds to the very final frame of the finished product.
Ansel Elgort and Lily James show off a surprisingly believable romance
What else is there to say about "Baby Driver"? It is not only a great film but is, in my mind at least, one of the best films of the years; quite possibly THE best. Edgar Wright pumps the movie full of his trademark humour and stylish wit, making music the true lifeblood of this movie, ingeniously wrapping the cinematography and editing around the soundtrack. The acting in the movie is phenomenal, and is backed up by a brilliant script which excels in creating an engaging plot and interesting characters. That's without even mentioning the mind-blowing and often insane action sequences, with Wright having crafted car chases quite unlike any I've ever (seriously, EVER) seen in a movie. I managed to see this one at a preview screening on Saturday night before general release so please spread the word of how good this is as fast as possible! Stylish, funny, exhilarating, and head rocking, "Baby Driver" is the perfect marriage of summer blockbuster action and Oscar-worthy filmmaking skill. It is Edgar Wright's perfect symphony. See this movie. I promise you that you will not regret it.
Pros
Stylishly directed
Brilliant music
Consistently entertaining and funny
Great characters and acting all around
Bonkers action
Editing
Cinematography and tracking shots in particular
Stellar production design
Cons
Nothing comes to mind easily
Rating: 10/10
Original Release Date: 28th of June, 2017
Starring Ansel Elgort, Kevin Spacey, Lily James, Eiza González, Jamie Foxx, Jon Bernthal, and Jon Hamm
I would love, simply love, to see more than one good movie this summer. "Wonder Woman" was an absolute delight, there's no denying that. However, besides that, all I've seen are the decidedly average "King Arthur" and "Alien" movies, and the horrific "Baywatch". Is it so much too ask that I see more than one at least competently put together movie, with decent characters and story, and, where necessary, good action? Universal seems to think so with the arrival of their latest effort "The Mummy", meant to be the third (yes, the THIRD) attempt to kick off a cinematic universe for their classic monster franchises. Now boringly titled the "Dark Universe", "The Mummy" was clearly intended to be a new vehicle for Tom Cruise as the leading man of the franchise and therefore needed to be successful. However, the movie is a drab affair that accomplishes very little other than making it very difficult for me to get past the notion that this is yet another series (ironically) dead on arrival.
The movie sets the tone for what you are about to watch quite definitively right off the bat. It opens with an insane amount of exposition from Russell Crowe (I won't tell you who he plays as some reviews have because it might be considered a spoiler), as he explains the history of our villain, Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). In any other movie, that wouldn't be too much of a problem as we do need to know this information. However, they constantly flashback to the same scenes (literally unchanged in anyway) throughout the movie as Tom Cruise's Nick Morton discover her backstory for himself. Discovering her story along with Cruise would have been a much more interesting way to find out this information, rather than receive a colossal information dump immediately. So we're three minutes in and I'm already annoyed. Perfect. The action of course kicks off when Boutella's Ahmanet reawakens in the present day, set on carrying out her mission to rule the world, leaving it up to Cruise, his comedy sidekick, his generic love interest, and Crowe's mystery organisation to take her down. It's an inherently bland and predictable story, and nothing we haven't seen before. However, not only this, but the movie follows in the vein of movies like "Iron Man 2" and "Batman v Superman" in terms of story structure. The movie feels like a series of set-up scenes for future movies or events (which don't happen here), with a few action set pieces in the middle. Unfortunately, that only serves to disrupt the proper flow and pacing of the movie we are watching right now. A writer should never sacrifice the movie they are writing in favour of the next steps in a franchise. Never.
Our generic hero and bland love interest everyone
The plot is not the only severe problem with the writing, as the characters suffer as well. The unfortunate fact of this is that these are all generic stereotypes, none of which undergo any development throughout. Tom Cruise plays a stock hero, but he is strangely made unlikable for the most part as he is shown to be a dishonourable soldier. Annabelle Wallis delivers a terrible performance as the standard love interest for Cruise's Nick Morton. The character is unfortunately reduced to a damsel in distress-type character fairly quickly, despite an intriguing entrance into the proceedings. She is only in the movie to deliver exposition on the odd occasion, before Cruise has to save her once again. The less said about Jake Johnson in this film the better, honestly, because not only is his character incredibly cringeworthy and annoying, but his performance is without a doubt one of the worst I've seen in a long time. The only two good characters in the film are Sofia Boutella's Ahmanet, who actually has an interesting backstory; and Russell Crowe, who, as I've said, I won't' be spoiling but he is easily the most engaging presence throughout. The worst part about the entire issue of characterisation is that the performances throughout are equally terrible for the most part. With the exceptions of the aforementioned Boutella and Crowe, and to an extent Cruise (though he is simply playing a less liable version of himself here), the cast are largely terrible. These are two issues which go hand in hand in my mind. Without strong writing and characterisation, the actors cannot be expected to deliver truly memorable performance. However, that is not going to stop me from identifying the performances as one of the worst and most annoying parts of the entire production.
Sofia Boutella gives another admirable performance despite the script
So it's practically all bad news so far. However, there are a few areas where the movie is actually relatively successful. For the most part, the effects work in the movie is solid. Admittedly, there are some extremely questionable moments, particularly the sandstorm attack glimpsed in the trailer. The effect of Ahmanet's face appearing for some reason appears far less convincing than it did 18 years ago in the Brendan Fraser led version of "The Mummy". That said, the majority of the effects are very well executed. In particular, the much advertised moment of Ahmanet's pupil splitting into two is effective and haunting when seen in the context of the actual film. Additionally, the stunt work in the movie is great and the action set pieces (while slightly uninspired on occasion) are extremely entertaining for the most part. As well as these, the make-up is excellent, particularly on the mummies as you might have guessed, and the production and set design as a whole is phenomenal. Every set is perfectly designed, from Ancient Egypt to present day Iraq to a secret organisation's base in London (which is crammed full of Easter eggs and references for the eagle-eyed). The cinematography is also solid. If one point of the production design is slightly underwhelming it is the soundtrack, however. It's not bad by any means, but Brian Tyler's soundtrack is fairly generic and leaves a lot to be desired. For the most part, however, it is these aesthetic and behind the scenes aspects where the movie really shines.
The best performance and most interesting part of this movie - of course it's the one point I can't talk about
I'm just about done talking about this film. I've simply got no where else to go. The production designs and visual effects are admittedly very good. However, these are all aesthetic factors, and don't matter if everything surrounding it is bad. Three fine performances, that's all else that I had to entertain me through this nearly 2-hour long mess. The rest of the movie is plagued by problems, not least the apparent primary purpose of this project to set up the future movies of this universe. The story is paper thin at best, and can be easily dismantled without overly detailed scrutiny, and the script as a whole is terrible. However, the biggest issue I have is that, if I had to pick one word to describe this movie, it would be this - dull. The whole thing feels much longer than it actually is, and that is because you will constantly find yourself wondering when this..."experience" will come to an end. With all that said, I don't recommend this movie particularly highly unless maybe you're devoted to and love Universal's monsters. In case you couldn't guess, this whole movie did not instil me with hope for the future. We'll see how this universe progresses, with "Bride of Frankenstein" coming next in 2019 (I have no idea why they chose THAT movie), but, unfortunately, I doubt that "The Mummy" is the foundation Universal were hoping to be building upon.
Pros
Some good performances
Some great effects
Solid production design
Cons
Dreadful characters
"Batman v Superman" Syndrome
Uninspired action set pieces
The awful screenplay
The movie is BORING
Rating: 4/10
Original Release Date: 9th of June, 2017
Starring Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis, Sofia Boutella, Jake Johnson, Courtney B. Vance, Marwan Kenzari and Russell Crowe
Movies are, in my view, a two-sided coin. On one side, they are relatively simple things, and are meant to entertain audiences solely through telling an engaging story, often with some flashy visuals and interesting characters. It is no secret that not every movie achieves this but that's besides the point right now. With that said, the other side is that some filmmakers will aim to go deeper with their stories and ideas to put across some thought-provoking concepts though their movies. This is why I find it interesting to go deeper into movies sometimes and be more analytical in talking about the movies I watch. Since I'm cutting down on my standard review length, this new idea for a series ("Deep Dive" is a kind of prototype pilot name; I'm not sure if I'll keep it yet) is my way to talk more in depth about whatever movies I want. This is going to be far more journalistic in style and substance that my normal content, and is absolutely going to be longer. That might not appeal to everyone, but hopefully you'll be able to enjoy the ideas I've got in here. With that out of the way, the first thing I'll be talking about is one of the most recent trends in movies: live-action remakes, specifically those made by Disney. Is there a company as beloved in the film-making industry as Walt Disney Pictures? Adored by children and adults alike globally, Disney are undeniably a giant in the market, and have a number of unquestionable classics across their nearly 100 years of producing movies for the big screen. The story of Disney's fame starts in the 1930s, with the first big hit for the company being "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" in 1937. From there, the company has produced countless animated wonders, ranging from their own stories to renditions of classic fairy tales, whether in their classic forms, or with a modern twist (see "Tangled"). However, as you'll undoubtedly have noticed, these classic animations are being heavily remade in live-action these days, but when do these remakes work? Some people might burn an effigy of me for saying this but they are not always successful, and there are a number of factors which I think play into whether or not these work. I'm splitting these into 4 main headings, and breaking these down: the heroes; the villains; the visuals; and the imagery and symbolism. Of course, these are not the only things that matter in making the movie great: acting, writing in general, cinematography, these things are all still very important. These 4 things are just a few things I have identified that can be compared to the animation to decide whether it has lived up to the original version (you might think of others, but I'm not going to make you read a dissertation no matter how much it may seem like it sometimes). With that said, after just over a month of watching these and getting ready, let's jump in!
The Heroes
With introductions out of the way, where better to start than with the heroes of our Disney classics! This is a fitting place to start largely because this is one element which is handled well in live-action adaptions. Need Sethi for example is an excellent Mowgli in the newer Jungle Book, perfectly conveying the bravery and stubborn nature of the character from the original. The same can be said for Elle Fanning as Aurora AKA Sleeping Beauty (although let's be honest, she's a boring character anyway at the best of times). The massive issue here is that I can't go into a great amount of detail about these newer versions in where they have advanced on the character and the changes have worked, because wherever they have tried it has, in my opinion, been to little effect or success. As long as they are accompanied by strong writing and a good performance, of course directors could advance on the original versions. That said, since there aren't a lot of (read any) examples of this, it seems right now that these remakes are at their best when the heroes are copied practically line for line from their animated counterparts. This is particularly strange because the villains in the movies have actually gone through some progression to greater success (although equally some failures), but we'll get to that later.
You might have guessed this was coming, so let's talk about where the heroes of these new incarnations are not so interesting and/or engaging. There are two key examples I'm going to talk about. The more obvious one is Mia Wasikowska's Alice, in Tim Burton's 2010 version of "Alice in Wonderland". Unlike the original, where Alice was an inquisitive, curious but also brave child, this version is a dull, period stereotype. In making her a young woman rather than a child, Burton and Co. felt the need to make Alice into a clichéd role model, going against the trends and customs of the times. However, in choosing this path, they have turned this character into a drab and uninteresting husk of a character. Where she should be afraid, she appears disinterested; where she should be amazed by the sights she is seeing, even if she is in a dream, she shrugs it off as if it is standard for the 1920s. She says no lines with any emotion, and while this could be blamed on the actress, I do not honestly think any actress could have made a character this bland into an engaging presence. The rest of the cast in that movie doesn't fare any better. A less obvious issue lies with the second example: Lily James' Cinderella. Right, put down your pitchforks and torches Disney fans, because the movie is fine (I don't think I would go further than fine), but I have serious issues with the main character. In this movie, we see Cinderella leave the house on a number of occasions, socialise and have friends. She has a life outside of the house, seemingly to make her seem more independent. It's a shame then that it does the exact opposite. In the original, we understand her position as basically a slave of her stepmother, as she never leaves the grounds of the house. We are confined to that location with her, and therefore understand her plight. The problem then with letting her leave is that we can immediately question why she chooses to stand for everything her "family" demands of her, particularly when her friends say the same. I do not care what excuse she constantly throws out. "Because it was her parent's house"? The Evil Stepmother is shown to change the decor and layout of the house so drastically that it is practically a different home all together, so that excuse is irrelevant. She therefore comes across as more weak-minded than a strong, young, independent woman, and somehow more naïve than her animated counterpart. Further, we see her have more breakdowns than just the one from the animation when her dress is torn to shreds (although in this version it is more just mildly ripped), as she also breaks down in tears after her stepmother and stepsisters refuse to let them eat with her, clearly not viewing her as part of the family. However, this immediately makes the second breakdown when she is apparently at her lowest moment much less effective, as we have already seen her in this position, and James actually gives a less emotional performance the second time round. Ultimately, this might be controversial but I hope you can see where I am coming from here. There's nothing wrong with adding to the original characters but, if a writer chooses to, the character's actions should at least aline with the characteristics and personality that the character is clearly meant to imbue.
The Villains
Another essential element to Disney is their villains, as the company have created some of the most iconic baddies to grace our screens over the last 80 years. Ranging from the embodiment of all evil, Maleficent, to more sympathetic villains, such as the tiger Shere Khan, it's undeniable that the rogues gallery the company has devised is perhaps the greatest collection of villainy across all of cinema. However, that also makes them crucial to creating an ideal live-action Disney remake. However, an unfortunate fact is that, with some movies, writers have been rather lazy and simply copied the characters straight from the animated versions. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, these are still excellent characters. Glenn Close is an excellent Cruela De Vil, but there is nothing in her version of the character that cannot be found in her animated counterpart. To a lesser extent, Helena Bonham Carter gives a solid performance in Tim Burton's 2010 "Alice in Wonderland", but it is the exact same as the character that can be found in the cartoon classic. This is perhaps what I would consider one of the 3 types of live-action Disney villain, which can probably be best summed up by calling it the middle ground between the good and the bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with these characters, but following this trend certainly contributes to making a remake seem somewhat unremarkable.
So that is essentially the first category of live-action Disney villain that we see: carbon copies to their animated counterparts. That's all well and good, but, at least in my mind, when a remake is announced, I expect there to be some purpose to that remake, I expect a deeper look at some of the characters or some added story beats the original didn't have. Villains are no exception, and in my mind the two best live-action Disney villains are ones with some added depth. The first of these is the Evil Stepmother from Cinderella. The embodiment of pure hatred in the original animation, Lady Tremaine (played this time round by Cate Blanchett), is given a lot more motivation for her actions. It transpires that she in fact heard Cinderella's father telling her at a young age that he preferred his first wife, and she never felt like a true part of the family since then. We also see her slowly groom Cinderella into a house slave. There is no instantaneous change, and we see her begin by giving her small jobs here and there, before slowly pushing her further into her upsetting situation. I have my own problems with that movie, but some extra insight into the Evil Stepmother was certainly a welcome change. The other villain I have felt worked particularly well was Shere Kahn (voiced by Idris Elba), from 2015's Jungle Book.
Unfortunately, since I am talking about when these movies work and when they don't, that does mean there are some villains which have been poorly translated onto the big screen in comparison to their animated counterparts. This tends to happen most often when the personality of the character is drastically changed or unfortunately not understood by the filmmakers. There are two main cases where the villain has not worked well on the big screen. The first major issue case, as some may have predicted, is Maleficent, portrayed by Angelina Jolie in the movie "Maleficent". In the movie, we learn exactly why the Mistress of All Evil despises the royalty of the fairy tale kingdom of Sleeping Beauty (the now king removed her wings at a young age after gaining her trust to earn respect), and therefore why she becomes the terror we see in the animated version. That's all well and good, and I've just said that I enjoy when villains are given extra details to add to them in live-action. However, this is a different case, as the transformation into the character we recognise (unforgivably, sans green skin) occurs halfway through the movie. The second half focuses on her relationship with a young Aurora and paints her as an anti-hero at worst, a heroine at the best. Her curse almost seems out of character compared to the rest of the movie. This is at complete loss of all that Maleficent embodied through all of our childhoods - the mystical, green-skinned witch, iconic in Disney lore, and generally agreed to be the most despicable, wicked villain the company has ever created. Therefore, the biggest issue of this villain is, somewhat strangely, that she isn't a villain. Changes and additions to a character are fine, as I said above, but this seems incredibly drastic and a complete destruction of the image all fans of Disney have built over the years.
The second problem arises in a more recent Disney movie, and is one you might have been less likely to consider. The character I'm referring to is (don't freak out, let me explain) Gaston from this year's "Beauty and the Beast". Don't get me wrong, Luke Evans gives an enjoyable performance in the role, and it works as a villain. That said, I am not looking at Gaston as a villain, I'm comparing it to the animated version to judge whether it is a strong adaption, and in my humble opinion, it is not. Spoilers ahead for both versions of Beauty and the Beast if you care about either one of these movie's plots remaining unspoilt for you. Let's start with the 1991 animated classic. In this version, Gaston is consistently shown to be a narcissistic, self-centred man who believes that he is God's gift to women, and thus that Belle is unreasonable for refusing to marry him. At the same time, however, he seems to have the best interests of the townspeople at heart. He remains this same character throughout the film, even when he decides to turn the townspeople against the Beast and attempts to have Maurice incarcerated in an asylum. The incarceration seems reasonable in his mind, and best for the townspeople. After all, who would believe an old eccentric ranting about a gigantic Beast? Further, when he decides to kill the Beast, seeing Belle's love for him, this is due to his need for Belle to love him and determination to be loved by her. Equally the element of protection can be brought in once again. He is the same character throughout the whole film, and it is only at the climax that he first comes across as the villain of the piece. Compare that to the live-action version. It starts off the same, with a very similar character but with an added detail suggesting he has served in a war. However, when Maurice initially returns, this character takes a hard right turn. Whereas he has initially been portrayed as a character only seeking Belle's love by persistence, he attempts to leave her father to die in the woods, believing that she will then need someone to take care of her. Notice a difference in these two characters? The new version is more inherently a villain, willing to resort to murder to get what he wants, whereas the old version never comes across as particularly malevolent until the end. Even then, however, he is the same character and they are believable actions. It seems as if the new filmmakers did not understand how to create a three-dimensional character over a paper thin villain. Understanding the villain is crucial to Disney movies. They embody the opposite of the hero, but should also remain strong characters in their own right. The live-action movies are at their best when they take the character seen in the original, but, rather than simply copy them, add to them, making them more believable and relatable. Of course, as we see here, this runs the risk of drastically changing their personalities or even essentially changing their characters all together. Understanding where there is a line and when it is crossed with altering characters - that understanding is key to recognising when live-action Disney movies work and when they do not.
Visual Wonder
Right, this is a relatively simple point so this it should not take as long as the other points have. This is particularly easy since the majority of these new adaptions have managed to match the visual flair of their animated flip sides for the most part. Pairing the style of the originals with the enhanced CGI and visual possibilities modern effects work offers, the visuals of the movies have been excellent and at least made most adaptions worthy remakes at least in this department. However, one movie stands out that has missed the point quite significantly. That movie - Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". I'm getting sick of talking about this movie, but it really does make so many mistakes. It is true that both the animated movie and the live-action adaptation show strange visuals and odd sights, but the animated side of this coin has one very important feature: actual colour. Within that version, Wonderland is a colourful...well, wonderland. That's the way it should be, using a whole mix of colours together across the entirety of the movie. It gives us a reason to be drawn into the world that Alice explores, and let's us enjoy what we're seeing on the screen and be dazzled by the whirlwind of colours. Now let's talk about the doom and gloom of Burton's adaptation. Although there are some colours, some purples and (very dark) blues thrown in on occasion, in Burton's seeming determination to show Wonderland (sorry, 'Underland') in a post-apocalyptic fashion, almost every aspect of the world is attacked with a black, red, dark green or some other generically evil colour filter. Failing to match the palette applied way back in 1951, the new version misses the magic of the world of the animation, and contributes fairly heavily to my own distaste of the movie years after I first saw it. That, and the CGI is awful, but that's a point for another time.
Imagery and Symbols
This is likely the deepest point I'm going to make, but also the point I feel the most passionate about making. The best way to start this is by taking a look at two versions of the song "Belle", one from the animated Beauty and the Beast, and one from the more recent 2017 remake. Take a look at the animated version first (sorry for the sing-a-long version, and you won't have to watch the whole video to understand my point; just some of the town sequence):
Alright, keep that video in mind. Now here's some of the live-action version:
Did you notice any particular difference between the two versions in terms of imagery (and no, I'm not talking about that one's animated or that they have different actors)? In the more recent version, we see all colours of the rainbow in the crowds of Belle's town, worn by all different people. However, for all the colours in the animated iteration, while the town wears largely similar colours, there is actually only one character wearing blue: Belle. Although this might seem trivial on the surface, this is, in my mind at least, a very key symbolic difference that has such a powerful contribution to the story. Within the newer version, we are forced to rely almost entirely on the exposition of the townspeople during the song to understand Belle's peculiarity, what makes her stand out from everyone else. Although sexism was a considerable issue in the past (not that it isn't today of course), the only factor about Belle that seems to make her stand out is that she reads and isn't attracted to town muscle, Gaston. Now think about the animated version. Before we even know a great deal about her character, we understand her as a person, and support her fully. In showing her to be the only person wearing blue, she immediately comes across as a fiercely independent, strong young woman in a time when that was largely frowned upon by society. Her colours give the townspeople a reason to notice her in the crowds; to them, her clothes are almost scandalous, shocking to them that a person in their "small, provincial lives" dare to make such a statement. Bear in mind that's without even mentioning her more modern outfit compared to the rest of the women of the town. It is an absolutely ingenious piece of imagery, and one which serves to allow the film to more poetically put it's message of independence and individuality across. It's an incredibly small detail, but one the live-action versions of Disney movies have missed from their respective adaptions. Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is of course once again likely to be the more obvious offender in this regard, with the message of fun and the need for a little bit of madness in our lives being lost beneath Burton's onslaught of CGI and unnecessary battle sequences. However, I had to use "Beauty and the Beast", not only because I believe it is a stronger message, but because I believe that this is so small a detail in the original, but one that contributes greatly towards the actual story. Of course, do not mistake this for me saying I didn't enjoy 2017's Beauty and the Beast; I did, thoroughly in fact. However, it was always the messages and images of Disney's classics that makes them stand out and live on in time and our memories for all our lives. In creating a live-action setting, there is an unfortunate urge to drown the screen in flashy visuals and set pieces, but this is all lacking of the true spirit of Disney. In my honest opinion, to be a truly great Disney live-action re-imagining, the filmmakers, directors, cast and crew all alike need to look far beyond the physical mask and story of the animated feature. When you look at the classics, and look deeper, chances are you will find something mature, something heart-breaking, something thought-provoking, or another message which will stay with you for years. Only Disney movies can do this, and it is something that I hope future adaptions (such as Aladdin, Mulan, and The Lion King) take care to search for and acknowledge. At least that's what I think.
It's no secret that I love Marvel movies and the Marvel brand in general. Therefore, there are a lot of movies and characters which I would like to see enter the MCU and for their talented teams to take on. With that said, when they announced their full slate for "Phase Three" of their movies, one of my most anticipated movies on that list (besides "Avengers: Infinity War", obviously) was Black Panther, originally slated for release in November of this year, but pushed to February 2018 to compensate for Spider-Man's return to the MCU in a few weeks. Black Panther is a brilliant character in the comics, and I was excited to see him on the big screen at last, not least because he's now set to be the first black superhero to take a leading role ("Steel" doesn't count because I'm not convinced that movie was made seriously). After seeing him in action in "Captain America: Civil War", my excitement was only boosted. Now, we have our first trailer for the Panther's (real name T'Challa) standalone film next year. Check it out below!
In short, the trailer is an excellent first look at the movie. One of the most impressive feats it manages is demonstrating perhaps the most diverse set of locations seen in a single Marvel movie. Now, what I mean by that is that, although movies like "Avengers: Age of Ultron" have travelled from New York to Seoul to the fictional country of Sokovia, they're all fairly similar settings, in that these are all city landscapes (Sokovia was slightly different in that a forest was used to an extent but point stands). Within a single (albeit fictional) country of Wakanda, Marvel have shown off futuristic cities, dense jungle landscapes, tribal canyon camps, royal palaces, and what looks like a snow-topped mountain.
The King meets his people
The cast is also phenomenal. Chadwick Boseman was a phenomenal T'Challa/Black Panther in "Civil War" last year, and it's exciting to see him not only in action set pieces here, but also in a political setting. That political intrigue is what looks to set Black Panther apart from other Marvel movies, as T'Challa looks to be facing a number of threats to his throne as newly crowned King of Wakanda not only from physical threats, but also from rival tribes. Lupita Wyong'o can briefly be seen taking part in the action as part of the country's female-only elite guard, and Michael B. Jordan is also seen a few times with two axes as the villainous Erik Killmonger. Perhaps the most obvious villain name ever. Forest Whitaker, Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman round out the rest of the excellent cast which might possibly be Marvel's best yet.
Who would have thought that a guy called "Killmonger" would be the villain?
The last thing I'll mention is the action in the trailer. This may honestly be some of the action I've been most excited to see in a long time. We see not just shoot outs, but also Killmonger taking on a group of guards solo, Lupita and Danai Gurira (Michonne from "The Walking Dead") fighting off mercenaries in a casino, and a tribal and savage battle in the canyon camp (probably between T'Challa and either Killmonger or the so-called Man-Ape, another villain). Not to mention that Marvel have turned the Black Panther into the Batman with the stealth jungle attack sequence! What's not to love? I'll tell you what: the CGI. Although the production design is largely beautiful, the Panther suit has been enhanced with some strange visual effects, and this is particularly noticeable in the car flip at the end when we can see armour close up. That said, the movie is still eight months away so there is plenty of time to improve on this. Ultimately, however, I'm still extremely excited to check out Black Panther next February, and it has just sky-rocketed through my most anticipated movies all together.
Black Panther will be released on the 16th of February, 2018.
Starring Chadwick Boseman, Lupita Nyong'o, Michael B. Jordan, Danai Gurira, Martin Freeman, Daniel Kaluuya, Angela Bassett, Andy Serkis, and Forest Whitaker
Remember the last time I posted a review? Me neither honestly. I was seriously caught up in the exam season recently, so I just couldn't find the time to post frequently or see any movies during that time. The last movie I saw before then, but so long ago that I don't think it's worth reviewing now, was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, which was a solid sequel, if not quite as good as the original Guardians. I'd give it a score of 8/10. That said, exams have been over for a while, and in the past week and a half I've managed to watch 4 movies. I wanted to give all of them a full review, but my standard format is rather...bloated to put it mildly. Taking that into account, I thought I'd try a new format and give all 4 of those movies a shorter, more concise review in here but I'm of course still trying to maintain the same level of detail. Hopefully you enjoy these reviews then, and I'm going to try to get back to more regular content soon!
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - Stylised Chaos
This movie is simply a dull affair, and therefore commits the worst crime a movie can commit: for the most part, it is incredibly boring. The plot is strangely in the model of a superhero origin story, which only serves to make the whole movie incredibly predictable. The characters also go through some standard stock arcs which can be thrown into any movie. This character is being encouraged to aim for a better life than the one he has; this character is stereotypically evil and has no redeeming qualities; and so forth. When no magic is thrown into the mix, the action is also surprisingly non-inventive, devoid of any interesting qualities, and is also weighed down by some awful CGI. Also, this is something I would not normally pick up on, but the editing in the movie is truly terrible, and is all but guaranteed to give you a headache. It's a shame that the script and effects are so bad, because many of the other parts of the movie are actually fairly solid. The acting is good for the most part, with Jude Law in particular delivering a hilariously over-the-top performance. As I suggested, where magic is included, the action also becomes more interesting and intense, and these are shot in a stylistic and intriguing way. The soundtrack is also great. The movie is a mixed bag then, with plenty of good and bad elements. However, solely because most of the movie is unfortunately bland, I have to recommend that you give this one a miss in the cinema, but it just might be worth a watch later down the line.
Rating: 5/10
Original Release Date: 12th of May, 2017
Starring Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Begrès-Frisbey, Jude Law, Djimon Honsou, Aidan Gillen, Tom Wu and Eric Bana
Alien: Covenant - Paradise Starts in Hell
The Alien franchise has had a rough ride in it's latter years. The only two great movies in the series are the first two entries, with all other films, including "Prometheus", having received mixed-to-negative reviews. "Alien: Covenant" is another mixed bag of a movie unfortunately, no matter how much fans wanted this to be a return to form for Ridley Scott and the crew. The big problem here is pacing. The movie is overly long, and wastes a lot of time on unnecessary set-up at the beginning of the plot. However, somewhat strangely, there is very little time devoted to character development, so little that you're unlikely to remember their names. Therefore, when the bodies start to drop, there's little to no emotional resonance with the audience. Why should we care about a character when they die if we don't know anything about them? The only two exceptions are lead character Daniels (Katherine Waterston), and pilot Tennessee (Danny McBride), who is only memorable because he wears a cowboy hat. The plot also spends little time answering the questions left by predecessor "Prometheus", and in fact raises far more questions than it cares to address. Also thrown in is a strange amount of exposition, which I say is strange in particular due to Scott's status as one of the most visual directors working today. With this being the case, you might have thought that he would have tried to find a way to express his ideas in a more interesting way, without simply explaining them blatantly. However, it's not all bad. The acting in the movie is solid for the most part, with Michael Fassbender in particular delivering a stellar dual performance as androids Walter and the far more sinister David. When the fantastic Neomorphs and later the famous Xenomorphs actually join the action, the movie becomes immediately more enjoyable and tense. The music is also excellent, and the visuals are of course stunning. Yes, "Alien: Covenant" is a mixed bag, but, despite my issues, it is an enjoyable movie. If you can get past the first act, the movie becomes immediately more arresting, and chances are that you'll be abel to have a good time with this one.
Rating: 6/10
Original Release Date: 19th of May, 2017
Starring Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Danny McBride, Billy Crudup, Demián Bichir, and Carmen Ejogo
Baywatch - I Go Insane
I cannot remember the last movie I saw where I left as angry as I did this one. I turned to the friends I was with and proclaimed that I wanted my money back, because this is hands down the worst movie I have seen in a long time. The fact is that the movie does absolutely nothing right. Of course Dwayne Johnson is as entertaining to watch as always, but he isn't playing a character. All he is playing is the stock character he plays in a dozen other movies. The rest of the cast is given nothing to do besides Zac Efron, who comes across as extremely irritating for the entire runtime, plain and simple. The movie is billed as a comedy, but I did not find myself laughing for a lot of the movie. The humour is very downmarket, which is unfortunately the kindest way of putting it, relying on sex, toilet humour, and slapstick to land laughs. It's a sorry sight when characters in the movie have to laugh to signal when the audience is meant to be laughing. Clearly the writers knew that none of the audience would be laughing. The only time I was properly laughing without a cue was during a fire rescue scene, but that was because the CGI was so awful that a first year university student studying film-making could almost undoubtedly do better. Also tacked on is a weak crime-busting plot with a very confusing villain, as well as 2 (possibly 3) forced romances. It's not the best narrative to say the least. However, as I've said, the absolute worst thing a movie can do is bore you, and this bored me. I was never laughing at any of the jokes, the main plot was never engaging, and I was never interested in any of the character side stories. To put it simply, do not see this movie, because it will leave you with nothing more than a headache and unsafely high blood pressure.
Rating: 1/10
Original Release Date: 25th of May, 2017
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, Alexandra Daddario, Kelly Rohrbach, Jon Bass, Hannibal Buress, Priyanka Chopra, and David Hasslehoff
Wonder Woman - World War Wonder
I've been let down so badly by DC in the past, with all 3 of their previous movies set in their cinematic universe failing to live up to expectations, particularly with me being a fan of the source material. How refreshing then, to finally have a movie that has quite rightly been a critical success almost universally so far! Wonder Woman is easily the best film I have seen recently, and one of the best of the year. Gal Gadot proves all of the haters wrong and gives a strong, emotional performance as Diana, cementing her as one of the best parts of the DCEU. In fact, all of the cast does incredibly well. A special mention goes to Chris Pine for his great performance and chemistry with Gal Gadot. It's the smaller moments between these characters, such as an early scene on a boat and a dancing scene, that makes their romance so believable and better than every other superhero movie relationship in recent memory. The 3 villains are also handled remarkably well: Danny Huston's General Ludendorff is used appropriately; Elena Anaya's Doctor Poison is the most interesting and is enjoyable on screen (albeit she is slightly underused); and a third act twist introduces another villain who fits into the story perfectly and does not feel out of place thankfully. The script is impactful, often extremely funny, and presents the setting of World War I in a mature, often harrowing manner. The action is also excellent, although the overuse of slow motion may be slightly overused. The No Man's Land sequence is particularly impressive. If I had one complaint about the movie, I would only say that the third act is much more standard, predictable superhero fare than the rest of the movie, which is only a shame after the refreshing and intriguing first two thirds. This and the sequence is bogged down by some frequently questionable CGI. That said, it doesn't tear down the rest of the movie, and I highly recommend that you give Wonder Woman a watch. You won't regret it.
Rating: 9/10
Original Release Date: 1st of June, 2017
Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Connie Nielson, Danny Huston, Elena Anaya, Ewen Bremner, Saïd Taghmaoui, and David Thewlis
