Back in 2015, Matthew Vaughn graced the spy genre for the first time with Kingsman; The Secret Service, and it took the world by storm. Brilliantly stylish, outrageously funny, and with some memorable characters, the first Kingsman still stands as one of my favourite spy films of all time. It was natural, given the success then, that a sequel would be placed into the works, and now we have been delivered Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Does it live up to the naturally high expectations after the fantastic original then? Unfortunately, it falls short of that bar in my mind, and it is sadly one of the most disappointing movies of the year for me. The story this time round involves the Kingsman, including the returning Eggsy (Taron Egerton), Roxy (Sophie Cookson) and Merlin (Mark Strong), being put on the tail of a drug cartel and crime syndicate known only as the Golden Circle. However, finding their organisation attacked and decimated during their investigation and the world being held hostage, the surviving Kingsman make their way to America, there continuing not only their work but also discovering the existence of a sister organisation, the Statesmen, including Agents Tequila (Channing Tatum), Whiskey (Pedro Pascal), and Ginger (Halle Berry). Despite their differences, the two organisations agree to work together to face their greatest threat yet, the head of the Golden Circle, Poppy (Julianne Moore). Unfortunately, for all the promise that plot might seem to show, the story suffers from some serious pacing issues immediately. The movie opens with a bold action beat involving a taxi chase, and set up for the rest of the movie continues from there. The amount of time spent on preparations for the rest of the story seems overdone at some points in this film, and a number of scenes feel entirely pointless in the grand scheme of things, especially when reflected on after the film has ended. The movie runs at 141 minutes, and it certainly feels like at least 30 minutes of the movie could have been cut to make the story a considerably more concise one. Further than that, the story becomes so overly convoluted throughout to the point that it becomes difficult to understand exactly what is happening at some points. The screenwriters on this movie were clearly struggling to think of reasons for characters to go to certain places for the purposes of the plot and for that of a certain action sequence. There were clearly more natural reasons available for characters to go to certain locations, especially when it feels like entire portions of the movie could have been removed in favour of an alternate possibility (take the entire Glastonbury sequence for example and don't worry, I'll get into that in a lot more detail later). Possibly the biggest problem I have is that the villain, Poppy, has made her hideout an entire fake town in the middle of a jungle temple called Poppyland, and she isn't exactly hiding. Honestly, it seems so implausible that nobody, not even the government of that particular country, would be aware that she was there, and manufacturing her..."products" from that location. Oh, and the reveal about Colin Firth's Harry Hart that we say very definitely killed in the first film? There's no spoilers to be found here, but it's unlikely to be the satisfying answer you're looking for, that much I will say. It's typical spy movie nonsense to be found here, and it certainly lives up to the tagline "A Proper Spy Movie". The problem I have is that the first film is so grounded in the real world with a mature tone that it almost feels like this movie is set in an entirely different universe, and it's a real shame that it falls short of the standards of the original.
Let's talk about the rest of the writing in the movie outside of the plot. The first film was renowned not only for the originality of the plot, and for some fun and ultra-violent action sequences (we'll talk about what this film has to offer in the letter department later), but also for the great character dynamics and the humour of the movie which was derived from that. Thankfully, character dynamics are still the bread and butter of this movie. Characters are written incredibly well, and all of the humour which flows between their interactions feel natural. This is helped in large part by the great chemistry between actors which I'll talk about in the next segment, but the relationships and the fun interactions between the people we are watching in the movie are the easy highlight of the entire film. However, while this works, the rest of the humour in the film is incredibly hit and miss. There are some visual gags that work during the film, if only for the absurdity of them and the insanity of watching them unfold (watch out for one in particular with Channing Tatum around halfway through the film if you choose to see it). That said, most of the humour here simply is not as effective as the first film. A lot of the jokes simply are not funny and failed to resonate with me at least. I Heard some laughs in the cinema was in, admittedly some from myself, but I don't think anyone was really laughing consistently throughout the film. It felt like it was more a series of one-off jokes which worked, with 5 other attempts thrown in for each one that worked. Here's the real problem with the humour, however, and that comes with the style and tone that director and writer Matthew Vaughn has unfortunately chosen to adopt this time around. You may remember the first Kingsman film ended on a quite...ahem...bum note (I am so so sorry, I couldn't resist), and that joke received a fair deal of controversy upon release. Exactly why then, the writers have chosen to expand on that type of crude, secular humour, is a real mystery to me. These jokes did not just fail to land, but they felt awkward and generally uncomfortable. There's a few moments throughout the film where there are jokes like these, but the main example is in one particularly sequence set at Glastonbury, which I briefly hinted at before. Of course, I am not going to spoil the exact context of the scene, how we got to this point, or how it is resolved, but this is an extremely drawn out and extended sequence. The writers attempted to add some consequences to the scene as if to justify it's inclusion, but it's clear that the entire point of the scene is to lead up to this particular "joke" at the end. The moment is genuinely awful, and feels entirely misguided. It feels especially unnecessary when you begin to consider the reason for the scene and why the characters were there. I can think of a few possible script changes to remove this entire portion entirely and still have the same result for the film, so there is clearly only one reason for the inclusion of this moment in the final cut. It's a real shame that the writing team felt the need to resort to moments like these. Like I said before hand, the character dynamics in the movie are excellent! The humour is great when it relies on established character dynamics, and it's clear that the writers were in their elements with these segments. It's just more of a tragedy then that the rest of the humour simply does not stick the landing. Even more so when the brilliance of the first film is again considered.
A returning Taron Egerton alongside his thought dead mentor, Colin Firth's Harry Hart
To match the dynamics and writing between the characters, the performances themselves are mostly solid across the board throughout the film, and characters themselves are interesting and engaging as well. There is one exception to all of this, and that comes in the form of one unfortunately drawn out cameo. Initially, I thought it was a one-off joke for the film. Then this particular pop start kept coming back, and back...and back. Honestly, it's simply another example of when the humour for this movie simply fails to work. In the context of the first film, when you see it, this might have worked, but it unfortunately feels extremely out of place here, cringeworthy, and the actor is generally bad throughout. Everyone else, however, succeeds in their roles. The returning Kingsman agents are excellent once again. Taron Egerton remains as liable and charismatic a lead as ever as Eggsy AKA Agent Galahad, delivering his lines with a slight charm that makes him trustworthy but mischievous, and certainly a reflection of James Bond, almost a younger mix of Daniel Craig and Sean Connery. Mark Strong's Merlin has an elevated role this time around, with much more opportunity to become involved in the action, and he has some of the funnier moments in the film. The character also gets some surprising emotional depth that makes his character arc interesting to watch throughout the film. Colin Firth rounds out the group as a returning Harry Hart, the former Agent Galahad and Eggsy's mentor. Although more subdued and removed from the action for a great deal of the film, Firth gives as admirable a performance as ever throughout, and certainly allows for much deeper empathy with the situation of the character, particularly when he first appears, and he receives hints into his backstory. Just hits, mind you, but enough to make him all the more relatable. All of the Kingsman are just as brilliant as you remember from the first film, and their chemistry has not faded in the slightest this time around. That said, as has been heavily advertised, the Kingsman are also joined on this outing by the newly designed Statesmen, who naturally work out of a distillery rather than a tailors, and have alcohol codenames rather than Knights of the Round Table, and thankfully all of these characters are great fun to watch. Channing Tatum makes a great impression as Agent Tequila, the first Statesmen agent we meet on screen, and is a fun presence throughout his surprisingly limited screen time, something a sequel would be wise to rectify. Halle Berry is also fun as tech support Ginger (Ale), and provides a great foil to Merlin throughout the film. Those two characters in particular have a great dynamic, and Berry manages to give the character a personality thanks to some extra depths the script thankfully allows for. Jeff Bridges also appears to essentially give little more than an extended cameo as Statesmen head Champ, but The Dude of course makes an impression in his short time on screen. That said, the main Statesmen agent we spend time with is Agent Whiskey, played by Pedro Pascal, whose credit was criminally excluded from the marketing. Pascal's character has motivation for his actions and joining Statesmen, emotional depth to allow the audience to connect with him on a deeper level, and Pascal simply imbues the character with a great charm and charisma that makes him a joy to watch on screen. It also helps that he can knock out action sequences as if they are nothing but we'll get onto that later. Julianne Moore rounds out the main cast as the villainous Poppy. Julianne Moore is a truly excellent actress, and she brings all of her quirks and skill as an actress to this role, turning what could have been an extremely tired and simple drug dealer into a motivated and intimidating, and at times extremely unsettling given her constantly optimistic demeanour, villain for the Kingsman and Statesmen to face off against. The main problem with her character here is that, although she comes across as very sinister for her time on screen, that time is far too short. She often disappears for large portions of the film, and is generally entirely removed from the action, completely limiting any interactions she may have with the heroes. It feels like a real missed opportunity to make the character that little bit more terrifying, because there was plenty of potential for it in my mind. Where her character does succeed, however, is in the political subtext her character allows. The film chooses to explore the USA's failed War on Drugs through Poppy's scheming throughout the plot, and, for all the contrivances it holds, her plan and monologues do allow for some somewhat deeper exploration of drug use, the lives it affects, and the difficulties of its regulation. Yet another surprising element in what could have been a run of the mill character.
Pedro Pascal is one of the new faces of the Statesmen, among others
Let's talk about the action in the movie, especially after alluding to it a few times already. Let's get this main point out of the way quickly: no single action beat in this film lives up to the outstanding church scene from the fist Kingsman. No scene in this movie matches the style, hyper-violence, and outright surprise that accompanies this scene and the feeling that (at least I got) from watching it for the first time. The action almost seems slightly underwhelming, and even less imaginative to the first film this time round, and you'll almost certainly recognise clichés from other films, while some elements (particularly with Poppy's technology) that feel overly silly for the film. Yes, it's a spy film, but regardless it was still at one point grounded in reality to a (albeit small) extent. With all that said, the action in this movie is still an enormous amount of fun. Although recognisable in some of its format, the incredible stunt work and choreography keeps action happening on screen always feel fun and engaging to watch. That word, "fun", is the key word to sum up the action on show here, particularly when watching the gadgets of both the Kingsman and also the Statesmen come into play. Agent Whiskey gets one highly enjoyable action beat in the snow, while the finale in Poppy's lair is of course a joy to behold for all it doesn't make a wink of sense. Unfortunately, there is one element which weighs down the action again, and that is an overabundance of highly noticeable CGI. One of the highly regarded elements of the church scene in the first film was how the entire sequence looked like a single shot. Clearly aiming to edit and make this movie's action look similar, director Vaughn has sadly taken the root of trying to make this happen through the magic of CGI. Unfortunately, it's all not very well implemented, making it highly noticeable and the action feel almost entirely artificial. One the action begins to feel like that, there's an immediate decline in the heart-racing and immersive feeling an audience is meant to be having, and this is certainly felt here. The cinematography in these scenes is also often questionable. Although thankfully not throughout the entire film, the team for some strange reason often chose to spin the camera very quickly, which not only made it difficult to see what is happening on occasion, but also was actually quite nauseating and disconcerting. That's even more of a shame when the rest of the cinematography is fantastic! This is an absolutely beautiful looking film, with locations and vistas being perfectly captured, and atmosphere truly being felt no matter where the characters visit throughout. Another aspect of the movie which I have to give credit to is Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson's soundtrack for the film. The film does incorporate a few real songs which work incredibly well (including one which I've been noticing in a surprising number of films this year), but the score itself is perfect for the actual film. The original film also had a great score, so it's good to see that brilliance replicated here, with some added Americanisms of course this time around. The theme of the Golden Circle and Poppy herself is haunting and insidious, bringing a real menace to their scenes, while the returning Kingsman theme is still as chilling and effective as it was the first time around. However, the real triumph here is in the blend of the original themes and British styles of music with the vibrance of the American south, with elements of excitement and line dancing thrown in just in case you forget that they've added Americans for the sequel. The blend of the music really works here, bringing a fun mix of the Kingsman elegance and class from the first film, and fusing it with the stubborn swagger of the Statesmen. It's an absolute joy to listen to and is consistently enjoyable throughout the film.
Julianne Moore as the engaging and often unsettling villain, Poppy
In short, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is unfortunately far more of a mixed bag than the original movie. Where the first one took it's time and was ingeniously self-aware, this one overcomplicates itself to an unfortunate extent, creating an absurd amount of plot contrivances and unnecessary scenarios for itself throughout. While the first movie's action sequences had some real weight and intensity, this one's feel strangely artificial, weighed down by a strange amount of CGI which, rather than adding the flair director Vaughn was clearly hoping for, only serve to weaken the sequences themselves. Most unfortunately, while the original film's sense of humour was strong and based on genuine character dynamics and actor chemistry, this movie takes a more crude option, with a number of jokes failing to stick their landing and instead coming across as cringeworthy, forced, sexist, or, in one particular case, all three. That said, it isn't all bad. While not the main source of humour this time round, the character dynamics are still the highlight of the movie, supported in large part by strong acting from the all-star cast here. The action is bolstered by some underwhelming visual effects but the stunt work, and sequences themselves are still wildly fun and entertaining. The couple of Statesman sequences and the finale set in Poppyland stand in my mind as particular highlights. The soundtrack is also great and the movie is beautifully shot at least when the camera isn't spinning during action sequences as if they have asked a professional American football player to throw the camera with some spin on it and see what happens. This is a disappointing movie for me, without a shadow of a doubt, and with regards to everything I said above I think the main reason for this is that it is coming off of the back of it's predecessor. I liken the situation to the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. The first came out with no expectations and took the world by storm. With the sequel, expectations were naturally much higher but praise was a little more muted, generally due to the disappointment that it failed to live up to it. That is where I feel a great number of people are coming from when delivering criticisms of this movie. Make no mistake, as I've said, it's flawed (deeply flawed in all honesty), but, if I was to sum up this movie in a statement it would be this: it is a victim of the first film's success. With expectations so high, it only made the failings of the film more apparent to us all and it is completely understandable why it has received such harsh reception, and rightly so to an extent. That said, despite the shortcomings of this film, I really would like to see a third movie. Director Matthew Vaughn has created some great movies in his time, including the first film of this franchise, so a redemption feels possible. This film, in the meantime, is fun, but regardless of that flawed and feels capable of offering so much more.
Pros
Great character dynamics
Some surprising political undertones
Strong acting across the board
The fun action beats
Some great cinematography
Brilliant soundtrack
Cons
An overly convoluted plot
Poor pacing
A more unfortunately crude sense of humour
An overuse of CGI throughout
Rating: 6/10
Original Release Date: 20th of September, 2017
Starring Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Julianne Moore, Mark Strong, Pedro Pascal, Halle Berry, Channing Tatum, Sophie Cookson, Elton John, and Jeff Bridges
Everyone loves Pixar. Unlike a lot of my openings, there's no question mark there or a rhetorical "right?", because that is essentially taken these days as cold, hard fact. Pretty much everyone has a favourite Pixar film and there is more than enough room for debate on this topic. With that said, that's what inspired me to create this list, ranking Pixar's currently released 18 films, a few months before the new film Coco comes out (which looks magical by the way). Now, as I just said, everyone has a favourite, so I am well aware I am treading into some dangerous waters here. I beg everyone leading to bare in mind then that this is my opinion then. I of course am not setting out to annoy or argue with anyone here, but I thought this would be a great opportunity to give my thoughts on every Pixar film, and have some fun with it at the same time. So this is nothing more than my own personal thoughts and rankings of Pixar films, breaking down the films themselves with some personal anecdotes thrown in as well (particularly the number one slot and how it inspired me as I got older but we'll get to that). With that out of the way, let's jump in!
18) Cars 2
Let's get this out of the way: Cars 2 is the only film on this list which I will regard as straight up bad. This is one of the most misguided sequels I have ever come across in my entire life of watching and analysing films. I do not have a clue what would possibly drive the usually reliable John Lasseter to turn what was a somewhat enjoyable first film into a spy action flick. Probably what drove him to make the first film in the first place: his love of cars and seeing them do insane things. That's a heavily publicised fact which is a fairly common explanation for the weakness of the Cars franchise as a whole. The elevation of comedy hillbilly sidekick Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) to film lead is one of the worst directions the series could have made (and one which was thankfully quickly rectified come the sequel), and the addition of big names such as Michael Caine to the cast comes across as inherently forgettable as they are given no material to work with, while original lead Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) gets strangely sidelined as well. The plot is riddled with contrivances and is generally unenjoyable, with a fairly predictable and unsatisfying reveal at the ending. The action set pieces are pointless, bloated, and boring as well, and the film crucially lacks the great soundtrack that at the very least the other two films have. What's good about the film? The animation is great, the returning characters are fun for the very little time that is devoted to them, and the variety of locations around the world is great this time round. It's a shame that this movie exists to be a black spot on Pixar's name, but I suppose every studio needs one. At least it's all up from here. Literally in this article.
17) Cars 3
Well, at the very least we're getting the Cars movies out of the way early in the proceedings. Cars 3 suffers mostly from how bland the film as a whole is. The animation in the film is again beautiful, but the entire world is strangely uninteresting to behold and examine. It lacks the small details and enjoyable Easter eggs or references that are included throughout their other films. The plot is also a somewhat generic one by Pixar standards, focusing on a character who was once at the top of their game being challenged by advances in technology and younger competitors. It's not as if we've seen that before. The characters also remain uninteresting. The movie tries it's best to make new characters Cruz Ramirez (Cristela Alonzo) and Jackson Storm (Armie Hammer) as interesting as possible but these characters lack the fun quirks and personality traits that lie with practically all other Pixar films, while lead character Lightning McQueen (a returning Owen Wilson) undergoes the same bland, unimaginative journey that we have already seen him undergo in the first film. That said, the animation, as I said, is still heavily detailed. The soundtrack is great this time round after lacking in the second film, and there are at least some fun action beats and a decent resolution to the franchise as a whole in this entry. It's not very good, but it's not dreadful. Well, doesn't that practically sum up the Cars franchise as a whole?
16) The Good Dinosaur
Alright, there's nothing inherently wrong with The Good Dinosaur as a whole. The animation is gorgeous (as has come to be expected from Pixar), the voice acting is solid, the characters are liable and fun, and everything in the film is competently executed. The problem with this film comes in it's marketing and also the script and it's execution. The marketing, or it would probably be better to say the lack of in this case, is likely the reason this was Pixar's only bomb at the box office to date, and it did not take advantage of the inherently Pixar concept at it's heart. What I mean by that is that the idea of dinosaurs not being wiped out and humans essentially evolving as animals, with no real intelligence, is brilliantly unique. That said, the script takes a strangely generic route in telling it's story. Each emotional beat is very simple and easy to relate to, and no uniquely mature message that Pixar has become known for has been placed into the film. The film isn't bad, not by any means, but the entire film comes across as strangely lazy by Pixar's standards. This might come across as a shorter entry than others on this list, but that simply comes down to the fact that the film is just fine, it's good but by Pixar standards, it's just fine. There's very little else for me to delve into here: everything is executed competently and enjoyably, but it simply does not match the standards of the other 15 films I had to rank on the list. It's a shame when considering the concept, but don't take this low ranking as meaning The Good Dinosaur as bad. That's the difficulty of this list. No film (from this point up at least), is bad. I don't need to find reasons why the film was bad. I just have to find reason to place films above each other, and unfortunately I struggled to do that here.
15) Monsters University
Well, this film is the definition of the word "pointless". We'll get to the genius of the original Monsters, Inc. later on in the article, but just briefly that film feels perfectly standalone. We understand exactly where those characters come from just from their natural dialogue and interactions with each other, and it feels like we know exactly what we need to know. Part of the writing's brilliance is that is chooses to hint and not directly show the audience - it allows us to work it out ourselves. This film removes that. The film also removes one of the original's best qualities by placing one single character at the heart of the story, in this case Billy Crystal's Mike, rather than having the centre attraction be the double act between Mike and Sully (John Goodman). It almost feels like the writers didn't understand what made the film so brilliant, and that's a point even more clearly emphasised in the removal of a great deal of character moments which make the first film so fun. Instead, we are treated with a slew of zany action beats which seem to pad out the film but do little to develop character and add any real depth to the story at hand. That said, these sequences are still fun and have the Pixar spark of creativity to make them enjoyable. The animation throughout is still fantastic, and the variation in character designs and traits is brilliant to behold. The characters themselves are still loveable, and the new characters fare well as well, although practically all of them undergo the same journey with little variation. The story does provide a solid emotional anchor via Mike, and the messages are effective for the story in question, although some are quite obviously put across. All in all, for all the magic of the original that's missing in this film, it is still a solid romp and fun family entertainment. It lacks the charm and sheer brilliance of a lot of Pixar's other films (as you can tell in my mind by the placement it has received here), and it is rather pointless in the grand scheme of things, but nonetheless has enough fun moments to justify watching it at least once or twice.
14) Cars
You might have been wondering when this one was coming but here we are finally, the first Cars film after examining the other two movies in the series. Unlike the first two films, this movie actually had some charm to it. It's clear that producer John Lasseter's passion for cars was the drive for this film and indeed the series as previously mentioned, and that's really the main reason this film works considerably better than the other two entries. This was where the passion was it it's highest, and this instalment is a tad more enjoyable because of the sheer number of references to cars, racing and Easter eggs as a whole. The humour in the film is on point, largely down to the great interactions between the characters and chemistry between the actors, but this is one of the only Pixar films with some truly exhilarating action beats, particularly the opening and final races. The emotional beats in the film are also well executed, particularly in relation to the character of Doc (Paul Newman), with a slightly subtle examination of the consequences of fame, and the eventual fade away from the limelight celebrities will inevitably face to younger stars and competition. The problem here of course lies in the rest of the script. The story as a whole is rather generic, as the character arc of Lightning (Owen Wilson) is one which we have seen countless times in other films. Full of himself character undergoes a journey to discover everything is not about him and he does need friends courtesy of a small town community. You know the drill here. The main character is also incredibly unlikable for the most part, even after he undergoes the typical character arc you can predict from the outset. An unlikable main character in any movie is a recipe for disaster. That said, it is the animation, charm and honestly my nostalgia for the initial novelty of the concept that has brought this film up in the list for me. It is absolutely nowhere near perfect (clearly), but it nonetheless a fun, passionate and ultimately harmless movie. It's innocent, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.
13) Finding Dory
Alright, this is where ht list begins to get difficult, because every single movie from this point up is rated between 8 and 10 in my mind. These are all excellent films which come next, and if you were to put any of these higher on the list, I would completely understand why. That said, I cannot have 13 slots joint for number one, and so I need to find reasons to rank some films higher than others. That's what the next entries are about: not why these are bad films, but finding reasons to put the others higher. It's a shame then that the belated sequel to Finding Nemo, somewhat appropriately called Finding Dory, finds itself at the bottom of these rankings. The animation of this entire film is absolutely gorgeous, and it has some of the best water animation I have ever seen in a film. The environments are different from the original film and beautifully rendered for the film by the animation team. The characters are funny, engaging and interesting to watch. Even the elevation of Ellen DeGeneres' Dory to film lead which concerned me up until release works surprisingly well, especially as she is given much more emotional and sympathetic potential this time round. The story is focused on Dory finding her family and that is of course a relatable and enjoyable journey to watch, although the themes of family here feel somewhat obvious. The theme of course had to be in a film like this, especially with that particular story, but the problem is that they feel almost like they are being shoved in the face of the audience in this instance. They are not as subtle or mature as some of the other Pixar films on this list perhaps. However, the rest of the script excels, and is constantly funny and well paced. Like I said at the beginning, it's not a bad film in any way. It's simply one of the more predictable movies that the company could have made without any major steps up from the original film, and, unfortunately, it feels somewhat unnecessary. Has your view on the story of Nemo and company have changed in any way after watching it? It's a matter of taste, but I know mine hasn't.
12) A Bug's Life
A Bug's Life is a film which takes the edge just above Finding Dory because of pure creativity. The story is a great twist on a common story of a colony under threat from an outside clan. There are a number of moments in this film which mirror a real life setting, including the city of garbage and rubbish which is almost a reflection of Las Vegas or New York. The creativity which was involved in crafting this world, particularly with the limited technologies of 1998, is truly something to behold and, whether you enjoy this film or not, is nonetheless extremely respectable. The cast of characters in this film is fantastically creative and features a great deal of memorable characters, from Mike Doley's lead Flik, to Kevin Spacey's (yes, Kevin Spacey) villainous Hopper, to the entire (literal) circus of insects Flik comes across to help Ant Island combat the insidious grasshoppers. The conflicts between them feel genuine and are believable (helped in large part by Kevin Spacey's intimidating performance), and the emotional beats are also effective. Flik's journey from creative outcast to accepted member of the colony is a somewhat stereotypical concept considering the creativity and imagination of the rest of the film, but it is an emphatic and sympathetic story regardless. It's standard Pixar business as usual with this film, and it does little to stand above the films which follow it in this piece, but for the purposes of imagination, the skill of the time, and, perhaps most importantly, nostalgia, it deserves a respectable place on this list, just below the halfway point. For a list about Pixar films and the track record of that particular company, and the difficulty I had composing this order, I promise that's a respectable place.
11) Brave
2012's Brave is a somewhat more formulaic Disney movie on the surface of things, with the concept focusing on a young, strong, independent princess on a magical journey. It almost feels lazy considering the imagination which has been injected into all of the films which came before it. It's a testament then to the skill of Pixar's screenwriters that they manage to ensure that this film is everything but generic. Kelly McDonald's Merida is an extremely endearing character, and her journey is an enjoyable one throughout the film, anchored by her determination to change her destiny and the obvious themes of family rooted throughout the film. The location of Scotland is a decidedly more realistic location than a number of other Pixar films, but, assisted by the company's own creativity as well as the natural beauty of the landscape they are drawing from, the animation still manages to draw out the magic of the venue of the film and ensures that it is as equally memorable as any other location Pixar has chosen to put on the big screen. The animation is gorgeous (you'll be beginning to notice a pattern here and it will of course continue throughout), and the voice acting is also stellar, boasting a fantastic cast of British, and largely Scottish, actors and actresses. The plot is enjoyable throughout, although some elements feel slightly forced into the story, particularly the recurring appearances of the villainous bear which Merida encounters on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, at some points, these appearances felt predictable and tiring in comparison to the rest of the action the film offered. On that note, the action in the film is excellent and supremely enjoyable, while the score is also an area of note in this particular film. Patrick Doyle's work on the music is severely underrated, while the few lyrical songs injected into the film also help to add something to the atmosphere of the film, not take away from it. All in all, Brave is a solid but much more predictable Pixar movie than a number of others on the list of their work. Despite that, however, it's still a great movie overall and the journey of the main character is what makes the film meet the standards of Pixar.
10) Toy Story 3
You might have been wondering when the Toy Story franchise was going to begin to make an appearance on here, and finally we start on the series with the final part of the trilogy (for now, unfortunately). This is probably a slightly controversial option to put at the bottom of the series, especially considering it is one of the only animated features ever to be nominated for the prestigious Best Picture Academy Award, but I'll quickly explain why it falls short of the other two. Firstly, the main theme of abandonment is completely rehashed from the second movie. Admittedly, it's presentation here is much more intense and hard-hitting, but it lacks the sombre emotion of Jessie's song from the second film, and it comes across as slightly less effective when you compare the two. One works as a song and conveys emotion entirely without dialogue, the other with lines and told as a flashback. It's emotional, but falls a bit shorter considering it essentially repeats the theme. The other reason is that this is a movie which introduces far too many new characters for it's own good. They are all interesting to look at and are great recreations of toys, but lack any real personality, motivation or traits which made all of the characters in the first two films so endearing. I'll compare this again to Toy Story 2 later. Anyway, let me stop justifying why it's on the bottom of the Toy Story series, because it absolutely isn't at the bottom of Pixar's record, and it is a fantastic film. The animation in the film is excellent, and this is one of the few Pixar films where lighting plays such a pivotal role in creating atmosphere, and the animation team nails this. The voice actors, both old and new, are excellent and bring personality to the roles as much as possible. The story is engaging and and the character dynamics are fantastic. There's also a few action sequences throughout the film, which are all surprisingly tense, while the finale in particular also carries some real emotional weight to it. In my mind, yes, it's lower than the other movies in this series, but Toy Story 3 is still a phenomenal movie which will be remembered along with all of these movies for years to come.
09) Toy Story
Waiting for Toy Story movies on the list and along come two at once. This is the movie which started in all for Pixar, way back in 1995 if you can believe it, and it really is the movie which still sets the standard for Pixar movies to meet or (hopefully) surpass. The animation in the movie still holds up today, containing as much detail and passion as any other Pixar film and far surpassing anything else that was being offered at the time. The story initially presented here is unique, fun, and full on interesting characters. Although they are toys, they are still presented as three-dimensional characters with human character flaws, such as envy and jealousy (especially Tom Hanks' Woody), and have engaging conflicts with each other. Character dynamics are the bread and butter of this film, and they are executed perfectly, and you can understand the history of characters (particularly near the start of the film) simply by their dialogue and actions towards each other at the start of the film. The mature exploration of themes such as jealousy and being forgotten were the start of Pixar's trend of exploring deeper themes despite these being "kids films". There's so much to love in this film, but of course there was always room for improvement, which allowed it to be surpassed by the other 8 films I 'm going to be talking about after it. A few characters might be slightly underserved and Woody comes dangerously close to unlikable at a few points throughout the film. I understand that that is how he was written, and we are meant to be able to sympathise with his journey, but some moments are nonetheless still make him near unforgivable, to the extent that it is clear that the character was initially imagined as a straight-up villain for this film before that was wisely changed. That said, these are small issues in the grand scheme of things considering the amount of things the movie does right. A brilliant script, stellar voice work, excellent animation, and with room for deeper insight and analysis into the film, Pixar's first film also set a high bar for the years to come.
08) Up
Alright, alright, pitchforks and torches down everyone! Let me explain why Up hasn't made it up higher in the list than most might have expected it to. In large part, I think it is because a lot of people confuse the first 10 minutes of Up, which the movie has become famous (and to an extent infamous) for, with the rest of the film. The opening is a devastatingly realistic, heartbreaking and realistic portrayal of marriage, life and death, following a couple who alway swore to divert from the stereotypes of life and do things their own way, before falling into routine and never carrying it out. It's a tragic and deeply affecting examination of the subject, and is perhaps the most mature moment in any Pixar film. A pretty intense opening right? The rest of the movie? Not so much. Don't get me wrong, Up is a truly excellent film, as are a number of the movies below it. The voice acting is incredible, the writing hilarious, the characters and their development excellent, and the animation consistently gorgeous to look at in every pixel of detail. On the face of it, the movie is flawless, and that is how many regard it. That's a fair statement, besides the intense tonal shift which occurs alarmingly quickly when the film begins to introduce talking dogs (again, pitchforks down, I adore Dug, it's just an example), and the villain as a whole. It feels like the main character from the first 10 minutes was plucked from the harsh and mature world he was living in and dropped into a more fun and kooky world to make the film more light-hearted. I know it sounds as if I am being far more critical and harsh on this particular film than a lot of others on this list, but this is movie I am always most concerned to defend my opinion of. Pixar films, even some such as Toy Story, have always been mature, and that's what makes Pixar so remarkable in this field. The difference is that Toy Story at least feels like the same movie throughout. That's why Up isn't higher on the list. That said, I still do love this film in spite of that for all the reason above and more. It's yet another Pixar gem that will be remembered for years.
07) WALL•E
This is one quite a few people have called out to me and being far too high on my list, and it's one which I have honestly debated putting higher, so let me explain the main reasons why WALL•E is as remarkable a film as it is. Firstly, the animation. This isn't a hard thing to explain: simple look at it, and in particular the environments captured on screen. Every single piece dirt is beautifully realised as Earth is transformed into a junkyard, while the magic only continues growing as the characters travel into space. The scene where WALL•E run's his robotic arm through the stardust stands as a particular highlight. The entire scene carries such a sense of wonder and magic without any words that it is difficult to ignore how well crafted the entire film is. One big reason I also love this film is because of how much of the story and emotion is conveyed without language. WALL•E and EVE of course do not speak throughout the film, and so we have to rely on little more than character interactions and small eye movements (from WALL•E in particular) to understand what they are saying when they communicate to each other. What we get from this is a genuinely beautiful friendship and one of the better love stories Pixar has ever put to screen. So much emotion and adoration is conveyed without the characters speaking to each other that it is difficult to ignore the pure skill involved in their generation. The story is also extremely engaging and intimate, not so much focusing on Earth and the humans (the villain is almost like an after thought in this movie honestly), but rather focusing on the all too sympathetic and relatable love story between WALL•E and EVE. Undoubtedly, WALL•E's desperation for affection and a response from this new robot who crash lands on the planet is a deeply emotional and uplifting one, but is equally rooted in the genres of science fiction and comedy. The jokes in the film are, again because of the lack of dialogue, mostly visual, and it's yet another testimony to Pixar's brilliance that they can manage to make an entire film work on these alone, without the jokes becoming repetitive or tiresome. The characters are three dimensional, interesting and relatable, a remarkable feat considering we're talking about a trash compactor here. In short, WALL•E is a remarkable film to witness. Beautiful in it's realisation, astounding in it's development of character and method of storytelling, and fantastically emotional, it accomplishes everything a good movie should and more. It's pure Pixar magic.
06) Finding Nemo
Finding Nemo takes what should be a decidedly simple premise of a father searching for his son and puts an ingenious twist on it, and that's why I love it. The concept of an overprotective fish father searching for his son after he is taken by divers, and making his way all the way to Sydney, Australia, is such an engaging premise simply in terms of creative possibilities that it is no wonder the film turned out to be as strong and fun to watch as it still is today. The animation in this film is absolutely stunning (bet you're getting tired of hearing me say that in a bunch of different ways), and the water animation in particular ensures that the film would still be able to make jaws drop today. The characters are unique and engaging, each with their own personality traits and quirks that makes them individuals and fun to watch. From the loveable amnesiac Dory to the gentle but mysterious Gil to the brilliant creation that is the hippie turtle Crush and his entourage of life loving turtles. Quite a few of these characters are slightly underserved, but they are still enjoyable and memorable in the small moments they are given. The emotional beats of the film work throughout, but it is separated out with a lot of great humour and funny visual gags. The messages and themes of the film venture outside of the obvious possibilities of love and family, and instead venture into more mature themes of growing up, and parents allowing their children to come into their own. Both are rare messages to be found in a film, and the way the writers chose to convey these are subtly and creatively expressed. All in all, the film is absolutely excellent, and deserves it's place among the greats of Pixar. Sure, a few characters are somewhat undeserved although still enjoyable in their small moments, but every other aspect of the film makes for pure magic. The script of this movie is what makes it, just like so many Pixar films. With that said, the animation, the story, and the creativity - they all help as well.
05) Toy Story 2
So this is of course the final instalment of the Toy Story franchise to feature on this list, and you'll of course noticed that this sequel is considerably higher on the list that the predecessors. There for a few good reasons for this. Firstly, Toy Story 2 takes a dramatic step up in scale and stakes from the first film, and now has the characters exploring the entire outside world, including by foot, not just in cars as in the first film also. The story is engaging and is told from two different but equally enjoyable perspective: the first from Buzz and his expedition to rescue Woody from Al the Chicken Man from the TV; and the second from Woody as he becomes accustomed to his situation and is introduced to the other members of the Round-Up Gang, including Jessie, the Prospector, and the loveable Bullseye. Each story is excellent, but Woody and his story certainly is the more mature section of the film, and these are the segments which have certainly raised the placement of this movie. The movie takes a surprisingly deep insight into the theme of abandonment, and essentially heartbreak and love. Jessie's song remembering her previous owner is one of Pixar's most iconic tearjerker moments, and Woody's inner turmoil about whether to return home is an extremely interesting and surprising conflict. Toy Story 2 also avoids the Toy Story 3 issue of adding far too many new characters for it's own good, and instead adds a few including the aforementioned Round-Up Gang, and ensures that they are sufficiently developed and interesting to watch on screen. The animation is of course gorgeous, and the action sequences scattered throughout the movie are incredibly creative and fun, especially the Al's Toy Barn scenes and the climatic airport confrontation. Toy Story 2 is one of the only sequels to completely surpass the original in every way, and there are a number of reasons for it, but it is the maturity of the script and it's themes that puts this sequel leaps and bounds above the original in my opinion. It's not to say the others in this series aren't, understand, but it is the subtle approach to putting across it's ideas and themes makes Toy Story 2 a more emotionally affecting and interesting movie to watch.
04) Monsters, Inc.
Just look at the image above. Creativity in that image alone, and in this entire concept, is enough to bring Monsters, Inc. into the top 5 slot. It's one of Pixar's most visually arresting films if only because of the sheer number of different designs and environments on display here, and all of that animation is beautifully captured on screen. The plot is also brilliantly creative, drawing slightly from real life with a story about an energy and fuel crisis, albeit with the clear twist of showing it in a monsters' world, where the energy is the screams of human children gathered by the monsters travelling through doors into the real world. It's an engaging plot, and one with some great emotional depth when the human girl Boo is introduced into the story, and her relationship with furry goofball Sully is fun to watch throughout. The music by Randy Newman is also excellent and the main theme itself has become iconic in recent years. One of the things which truly makes the film though, is it's two leads. John Goodman and Billy Crystal as Sully and Mike are a match made in heaven, and their interactions and chemistry is electric throughout. At it's heart, this is a movie crucially about friendship and sticking together through difficult times. It is their relationship, especially when Boo is introduced into the mix, which serves as the anchor for the film as a whole, and it is (in my mind at least) a fair statement to say that they are quite possibly the greatest lead double act Pixar has graced the screen with. Need proof?
03) Ratatouille
This is yet another film where the music plays such a crucial role in my love of the film. Composed by Michael Giacchino, music plays as crucial a role in Ratatouille as it does. The score is beautifully emotive and is essential to capturing the mood of the environment of Paris, the city the characters inhabit. If you need a true example of where music works hand in hand with the animation to develop the scene, and create a vibrant and exciting atmosphere.
That leads quite perfectly onto the animation, which is again a triumph for Pixar. Every single rat hair and every single glisten on a kitchen surface is beautifully realised, and this is a film where lighting also plays a key role. Editing is also a brilliant area of note in this movie. Just watch the gorgeous fade in/fade out animation as Remy makes the soup for the first time in the restaurant just after the clip above. It's surely an incredibly difficult to achieve in animation where scenes filmed in real life cannot just have a fade transition inserted in post, and it's all the more admirable to see it's use here to show the swiftness with which the soup is made. The voice acting in the movie is all excellent as well, with Patton Oswalt bringing a great passion and energy to Remy throughout the film. It's one of the more generic messages Pixar has ever chosen to put across, as it largely focuses on individuality and the consequences of stereotypes, but it's an effective one regardless, especially from the unique perspective of the main character. In short, Ratatouille is one of Pixar most energetic and vibrant films, and it continues Pixar's record of mature messages, with the fun and beauty they are known for.
02) Inside Out
Inside Out is pure genius and one of the only Pixar films to make me shed a tear. The writing throughout the entirety of the film is absolutely stellar and one of their most remarkable scripts. Not only is the plot an engaging twist on the "kid moves to a new town and struggles" storyline, instead coming from the perspective of the emotions in her head, and incredibly funny, but it is also perhaps the most mature message ever to feature in one of their films. Whereas a number of films focus on the need to stay positive and not let yourself get put down too low, despite the situation, Inside Out ingeniously turns this around, instead taking the unique view that, rather than build up, it's alright to be sad sometimes. People need to vent, they need to cry, need to be comforted, and happiness can never be the single predominant emotion in a child or any person indeed. The film showcases the need for sadness as well as other emotions, no matter how much you might want to not feel it. The films shows that to feel it, to feel sad, is nothing more than human. We can't fight it, but it needs to be there. This is one of the most mature stances a Pixar film has ever taken in my mind and it is one of the primary reasons the film is this high on the list. Not only that, but the animation in the film is once again phenomenal, showcasing one of the most creative worlds Pixar have ever built: the inside of a child's mind. The characters are emotions and so could easily have been quite one note, but they are crafted so that, despite having one main trait, they are still interesting and flawed characters who are engaging to watch. Oh, and anyone who tells you that Michael Giacchino's score is not pure brilliance is lying to you.
I rest my case - this film is magic.
01) The Incredibles
So, here we are at the number one spot, and my choice for this is The Incredibles. One of my favourite animated and one of my favourite superhero movies of all time, The Incredibles does everything right. The story is an engaging one, focusing on a family hiding their powers and the conflicts that debate brings rather than a superhero discovering their powers in the formula usually adopted by the genre. The acting in the film is excellent across the board and the, and the animation is (of course) beautiful. There's also a lot of intense and fun action sequences, nothing which not a lot of other Pixar films showcase, and the balance of comedy and emotion is perfectly achieved. Oh, and it spawned the "where is my super suit?" meme so there's always that to appreciate. So The Incredibles does all of this right, but why does that make it different to me than any of the other Pixar films above? After all, WALL•E has heart, Inside Out emotion, Monsters, Inc. great comedy and creativity, and Toy Story fun action. What makes this one stand out? That, for me, runs not only on my nostalgia for this film, but how it affecting my love of film to this day. The Incredibles is the first superhero film I can remember really loving. You'll remember that this was before the MCU days, and I was too young to have been exposed to the DC films of the 1980s, so this was my best option. It was the wonder and fun of the film that helped to give me that love of the superhero and science fiction genre that I have today. Not only that, but as I grew older, this was a film which I began to appreciate had some hidden depths. When examined closely, this is a deep exploration of family, and what it means for families to stick together, through tough times in particular, in this instance when the family is trying to hide from the public domain. The film brilliantly explores the conflicts between the different family members, not only between brother and sister, but throughout concerning hiding their powers. These are engaging conflicts, and the action and powers are fun, but the film takes time to show the consequences of the fights. What happens when families don't stick together and go behind each other's backs. It's not a blatant message, but it is one of Pixar's more affecting and relatable to I imagine a number of people who watch this with their children. That attention to detail that I began to notice was what, along with a few other inspirations of mine and most notable of those The Dark Knight, essentially caused me to become involved with film. This, as one of my favourite animated films was my gateway into the world of animation and being to appreciate the maturity that a cartoon could truly put across. That's what The Incredibles is for me. It's not just an incredible film, but it helped me to love film as much as I do now, and appreciate the possibilities in filmmaking to tell not only a great story, but to put across a mature message. Yes, it is up here partially for nostalgia, but this is my list and it helped spawn my love for film, a large part of who I am today, and to an extent I suppose also then was part of creating this blog of mine. Whether that makes you like it more or less, I'll leave up to you.
So I was away for a while recently, in terms of blog work on here. I didn't post anything for a while, despite having seen a lot of movies and I am not really sure why to be totally honest. Anyway, this entire post is going to be a catch-up of a set of 5 reviews of movies i saw over the course of the summer just to give you my opinions on them before my workload properly begins to build again. Before that though, I'd like to give a thank you. The IT review was my first post in a while and, to be honest, I don't put these out there expecting them to do well. 20-40 views is typical for me and I consider that a success. That said, the last review broke over 100 views in the first night and over 200 by the next day. I made a stupid joke on Twitter about thinking I'd been hacked but it means a lot of you guys are clicking on it in the first place. It also got a pretty positive reaction where I shared it and that means a lot. Basically, thank you to everyone who actually bothers to take a read at this little project, and if you enjoy it. It means a lot that you take the time to read these, especially since initial exposure is the biggest problem on the Internet these days, particularly in such a saturated market. Thanks for giving this one a chance and even bothering to click on it in the first place. Anyway, with that said, let's jump into these 5 new reviews!
Dunkirk - Heartless War
It feels like so long ago that I actually watched this movie, which is a testament then that I can still remember it so vividly. This was the newest movie from Christopher Nolan (coincidentally also my favourite director), and he certainly did not disappoint. The big success of the movie for me was the creativity and intrigue in the plot structure. Rather than having a singular main character or group of characters, the writers have opted to tell this story from three separate perspectives: from land on the beach of Dunkirk, from the sea, and from the air. It's an engaging three-part narrative which keeps the audience engaged throughout the entirety of the runtime, and the true brilliance of this is indicated later on when the three begin to cross over. It also has some fantastic emotional moments. The acting is also excellent. Christopher Nolan regulars Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy are excellent as always, while Mark Rylance also stands out from the rest of the cast as the owner of the main boat in the sea storyline. The big surprise was Harry Styles in this movie for me, who actually gives a shocking deep, engaging and relatable performance despite his seeming stunt casting in the months prior to release. The action and set pieces of the movie are also breathtaking and almost unbearably intense, perfectly showcasing the horrors of war. Hans Zimmer delivers a predictably excellent score as you might have imagined, and the sets and make-up work shown off in the movie is also on point. If I have one complaint, it would come down to the amount of time devoted to character. The portions of the movie set at sea certainly do have more time dedicated to advancing on those particular elements, the land and air have considerably less. There's one very easy test for anyone who has seen this movie and may be disagreeing with me: name three characters. I'll be generous as well, you can watch this movie again and then try and name them afterwards. The point I am attempting to drive home is that these characters do not undergo any significant development and even seem to lack names to qualify them as...well, characters in the first place. I understand as well that the point of this might well have been to symbolically show the scale of death in war, in a way highlighting that soldiers might have been considered numbers more than names, as not everyone would have known every name. That works well from a symbolic stand point and is actually quite admirable if this was the case. From a movie stand point? Not so much in my opinion. That said, that does not take away from the incredible writing in terms of plot, the acting, the intense and breathtaking action set pieces, and the all round success accomplished by Nolan in practically every other area of the movie. It might not be considered the best war movie of all time in the years to come, but it certainly is one of the most memorable.
Rating: 9/10
Original Release Date: 21st of July 2017
Starring Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance, Harry Styles, Tom Glynn-Carney, Barry Keoghan, Jack Lowden, Cillian Murphy, and Kenneth Branagh
Atomic Blonde - All Style, No Substance
Of these five movies I'm reviewing in this post, and quite possibly indeed of the entire year, it's safe to say this was one of the most painful to sit through. At the very least, it's certainly one of the most disappointing. This Charlize Theron starring and produced action thriller clearly did not know exactly what it wanted to be. I'm unclear on whether the writers were aiming to create a straight-up action movie, or a smart and sophisticated spy thriller. On either front, it failed in my mind. The writers evidently thought that the story being presented here (resolving around Theron's MI6 agent hunting a double agent in 1980s Berlin prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall) was much smarter than it actually was, feeling the need to layer the story with an absurd number of betrayals, reveals and plot twists, practically all of which occur in the last 15 minutes. Until that point, the story was not simple, but was generic. The final 15 minutes overcomplicates the entire film to the extent that my friends and I struggled to comprehend what had actually happened and work out exactly what the final twist in the film was meant to be. Ultimately, we were left largely confused by the entire affair, and that comes down to the dreadful pacing and the insanely quick sequence of reveals rather than spreading these out. Even then I doubt it would make sense but it would have been slightly better at least. On the converse, the action thriller possibility, it also does not work because the entire film is surprisingly boring. There are too few action sequences spread out throughout the movie, only one of which truly stands out after seeing the movie. Again, the problem comes down to the rest of the action being incredibly generic, and the pacing of these throughout the film. Some of this starting to sound familiar? Other elements in the film are also dreadful. The word 'character' should not be used in relation to this film, because any development or interesting personality traits are nonexistent. The supporting cast are all terrible as well, wasting great names like John Goodman and the up and coming Sofia Boutella. To be fair, however, the script does not give them much to work with. The cinematography is awful and only helped to give me a headache, and the editors attempts to be stylish all fall flat, ultimately coming across as more over-the-top. There is also an overabundance of pop music from the era. Rather than adding to the period however, the amount of times this is used causes some of the more shocking or emotional moments of the film to be greatly lessened. This is a modern trend which needs to stop and only be used where it actually adds to the film! It's not all bad though, believe it or not. The two main leads in the film are consistently great, with Charlize Theron and James McAvoy both doing the best they can with what they had to work with. They can't create interesting and layered performances with that material, but they at least ensure that they are enjoyable to watch throughout. There is also one stand-out action sequence in a stairway. The entire scene is about 10 minutes or just over that in length, and is spectacularly choreographed. It is the only time where I really felt the weight of each hit and blow in the action, and it is also edited very well to give the illusion that it is actually filmed in one take. There are cuts, but they are cleverly hidden. It's a shame successes in these areas here could not be carried over to the entire product. Finally, the period setting, despite the overuse of music as previously mentioned, is fairly well recreated here, and 1980s Berlin could actually prove an interesting setting for a spy movie in the hands of a more capable writer and director. These points are not enough to save the movie, however, and Atomic Blonde ultimately proves itself to be little more than a dire and exasperating movie to have to sit through.
Rating: 3/10
Original Release Date: 28th of July, 2017
Starring Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Sofia Boutella, Eddie Marsan, Til Schweiger, Bill Skarsgård, and Toby Jones
The Hitman's Bodyguard - Bro-mantic Comedy
The buddy cop (or just buddy movie) genre is one which has been severely lacking from modern cinema in recent years. The film Chips from earlier this year makes me happy about that fact to an extent. Despite that, however, some of my favourite comedies growing up were from that genre, and I'm eager to see it make a return to form. Although it's just a step, The Hitman's Bodyguard is certainly a step in the right direction. Just without the cops. The film revolves around hitman Darius Kincaid (played by Samuel L. Jackson) being given a deal in his imprisonment to testify against an Eastern European former dictator (Gary Oldman) for his crimes. However, due to the various attempts on his life, Interpol agent Amelia Roussel (Dardevil's Élodie Yung) brings in Ryan Reynolds' bodyguard Michael Bryce to see him safely to the court in Europe to deliver his testimony. This type of movie lives and dies on the chemistry of its two leads, and thankfully this is an area in which the movie excels. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson make for a highly enjoyable on screen duo, and their interactions with each other are ultimately where the majority of the film's humour comes from. Both men give excellent performances and bounce off each other throughout the film, and it's an act that thankfully never gets boring. The rest of the humour in the movie is also excellent, and there are very few jokes in the movie that do not land, delivering a mix of traditional humour though character interactions as well as visual gags throughout the movie, achieving a nice balance and variety. Unfortunately, the story does not fare so well. Although it starts off well enough, the story as it progresses becomes increasingly more generic and recognisable, and it's undoubted that you will be able to piece together exact events and the outcomes of various sequences in the movie long before that climax is reached on screen. It's a shame because the premise is so unique and original, and perfectly lends itself to a plot very different from other movies, so I find myself questioning why the writers were content to fall into stereotypes and clichés. The supporting cast in the movie is also fairly weak. To give credit where credit is due, Élodie Yung gives a credible performance throughout the movie, and Salma Hayek in particular is outstanding in her various short scenes as Kincaid's wife. Jackson and Hayek have excellent chemistry and perfectly sell the relationship between the two characters. However, besides them, the cast is largely unremarkable. Gary Oldman is a massive disappointment as ex-dictator Dukhovich, and it ultimately comes across as if he took this role solely for the pay cheque that he was being offered. He seems content to deliver a very phoned-in performance and put on a stereotypical Eastern European accent, as if that is enough to craft an interesting character. A colossal let down. The rest of the cast is incredibly unremarkable and no other actor stands out as having delivered a necessarily dreadful or enjoyable performance. Other aspects of the movie the movie succeeds in are the action, with every set piece in the movie (especially the Amsterdam chase) being extremely enjoyable and riveting to watch. The effects where implemented by CGI are also convincing, but it is the practical stunt work that is especially admirable. In the end, The Hitman's Bodyguard is, in my mind, a mixed bag to be sure. It's weighed down in large part by a weak supporting cast and generic story but it is brought up brilliantly by some fantastic leads, a lot of excellent humour, and some outstanding action among other things. In a summer of some great highs and some dreadful lows, it's certainly a solid movie.
Rating: 7/10
Original Release Date: 18th of August, 2017
Starring Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman, Élodie Yung, Salma Hayek, Yuri Kolokolnikov, Kirsty Mitchell, and Richard E. Grant
American Made - Some Of This Really Happened(?)
Tom Cruise is one of my favourite actors. I used to say he was my favourite, but I don't think that's true anymore given the quality of work of so many other actors these days; regardless, he is consistently enjoyable to watch (except in The Mummy, but we don't talk about that one). His latest role as Barry Seal, however - who famously performed jobs and deliveries as a pilot for the CIA, mercenaries in South America, and famous Colombian drug barons such as Pablo Escobar simultaneously - is a massive return to form after his summer let down, and the movie is all in all excellent. The plot, which I've just briefly described and resolves around Seal's attempts to balance all of his employers and his home life, is an extremely engaging story, and one which is consistently interesting to watch. That largely for me comes down to having very little knowledge of the actual events surrounding Seal in real life, including how the film would end, but I would bet that anyone who did have this knowledge would also find the film's presentation of the events interesting. That's largely due to the suspense that has been masterfully injected into the script throughout, keeping the audience on edge as Cruise's Seal constantly finds himself in situations which are seemingly impossible to escape from. This suspense builds as the movie progresses and comes to a head in the third act in particular. The movie also perfectly achieves a balance between the suspense and a great sense of humour, however, which also ensures that the movie is also fairly light-hearted and you'll be laughing throughout the movie. With all that said, the entire movie, no matter how engaging, is still difficult to become immersed in. The words 'inspired by a true story' (or I may be paraphrasing there but you get the idea) appear at the beginning of the movie, and the clear word here is 'inspired'. The writers clearly (and naturally) have also taken liberties with the events for the sake of the film itself, but ultimately, whether events or scenes have been left out or not, the problem with the film (and it is a small one) is unfortunately that a great deal of the plot comes across as incredibly unbelievable. That said, it still is enjoyable and engaging. The acting in the film is also all excellent. Tom Cruise delivers a redemptive performance as I mentioned above, while Domhnall Gleeson continues to make a name for himself in Hollywood, giving an enjoyable turn as CIA agent and Seal's confidant Schafer. The setting is also brilliantly recreated for the period (thankfully in this instance without the over use of pop songs), and the cinematography is excellent. The movie is filmed almost in the style of a documentary, with an extremely strange camera ratio being used, but it actually works to set the film apart from other biopics and is actually an effectively stylish addition. Ultimately, the whole film, although perhaps questionable in its presentation of events, is an extremely stylish and enjoyable movie to watch. Of all the films that have bombed at the box office this year, the commercial failure of this one might be the one that upsets me the most.
Rating: 9/10
Original Release Date: 25th of August, 2017
Starring Tom Cruise, Sarah Wright, Domhnall Gleeson, Jayma Mays, Caleb Landry Jones, Jesse Plemons, and Lola Kirke
Logan Lucky - Heists and Hillbillies
Now, this one was a pleasant surprise. Marking Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh's return to cinema, Logan Lucky is a heist movie with a twist, focusing on a group stealing from a speedway rather than a casino or bank, and with a band of misfits who don't have access to some of the high technology seen in heist movies, or access to different people or areas like Danny Ocean for example. It's definitely an underdog story, and it really works. Soderbergh films the movie in an incredibly stylish way, which intertwines perfectly with the editing of the movie. The entire film is put together in an incredibly clever way to keep the audience on our toes, and in fact makes the whole movie much more engaging to watch. The use of colour in the movie is also excellent and makes the sets and shots look incredibly lively and vibrant. As I hinted since this is an underdog story, the plot is also quickly engaging since you of course want to see these characters succeed. What surprised me in regards to the plot is that there is actually a surprising amount of emotional resonance to be found in the film. The main character Jimmy (Channing Tatum) and his relationship with his daughter is a strong anchor for the story, and inspires us to support these characters even more in their endeavours than we already do. That said, there are a few story problems in regards to suspension of disbelief. Of course that is needed in most movies, but when the movie attempts to have a grounded plot and even cares to explain some of its more ludicrous concepts with science, some more ridiculous and ludicrous plot points in relation to the heist stand out much more than they perhaps would have in other circumstances. The acting in the movie is also excellent. Channing Tatum and Adam Driver make for a fantastic lead double act as Jimmy and Clyde Logan, while Riley Keough also deserved much higher billing in the marketing due to her excellent performance as their sister Mellie. The stand-out of the cast as you might have guessed from the trailers is Daniel Craig's phenomenal turn as explosives expert Joe Bang. Craig steals every scene that he is in, and the remarkable change of appearance and diversity from his usual type of role makes this all the more impressive. That said, there are a few performances which stand out as especially terrible. Seth McFarlane is a black stain on this movie as what I suppose the writers think is a British stereotype, and is dreadful throughout. Hillary Swank also appears for the final 15 minutes despite her fourth billing in the marketing, and delivers a terrible performance in this time, conveying no emotion and little to no skill in her delivery. Other aspects of the movie are also excellent, such as the music, perfectly capturing the movie's Southern essence, and the sense of humour the movie has throughout feels natural and is incredibly funny. Credit is due to both the writers and the actors for their delivery in that regard. All in all, it's not a perfect movie, but Logan Lucky is certainly a fun ride.
Rating: 8/10
Original Release Date: 25th of August, 2017
Starring Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Riley Keough, Seth McFarlane, Katie Holmes, Dwight Yoakum, Katherine Waterston, Hillary Swank, and Daniel Craig
Everyone loves a remake right? No, of course not, especially when it is a remake of something from their childhoods or something which holds some nostalgia for them! This was the main challenge faced by Warner Bros. when they decided to recreate Stephen King's iconic story IT for the big screen this year, essentially recreating the iconic 1990 TV miniseries starring the great Tim Curry as the monstrous clown of the piece. Not only that, but this movie only tackles the first part of the series featuring the main characters as children, which is the considerably better received portion of the two. These were big shoes to fill indeed. Not only that, but the film had a notoriously...rocky production to say the least. Directors were dropped and changed (including the dropping of director Cary Joji Fukunaga of Season 1 of True Detective unfortunately) before ultimately settling on Andy Muschietti, and the actor for Pennywise has even been switched around. Scripts delivered and rejected an alarming number of times, and other problems included - it's safe to say we had reason to be worried in advance. So did IT deliver? Thankfully (and to an extent shockingly), yes, and it succeeded beyond my highest expectations. The story focuses on the children of Derry, Maine, and in particular the self-entitled Losers' Club, seven children who regard themselves as outcasts, and are all facing problems in their own lives, from bullying to abusive parents to situations even worse than these. However, if that isn't bad enough, the children soon begin to notice an alarming pattern of disappearances through the town which all trace back to a mysterious entity which can take the form of the greatest fears of the children. That said, It is particularly fond of one particular form: that of an old-fashioned clown known as Pennywise the Dancing Clown (Bill Skarsgård). In order to stop the string of horror, the Losers' Club band together to face off against Pennywise and, ultimately, their greatest fears in the process. It's a supremely interesting story, and we are given reason early on to be emotionally engaged to the story at hand and their determination to stop It, particularly to the character of Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) in this regard. There are also a number of different subplots which allow insight into the personal lives of each of the Losers. These different segments allow for all of the different characters to receive development and become likeable characters in the eyes of the audience, ensuring that we are always supporting and wanting them to succeed against Pennywise and his illusions. The story is brilliantly woven together so that these subplots intertwine with the overarching main narrative, and the focus here on them as kids is likely the key reason the story in the feature-length film is more successful in my mind.
Likely the big question that many of you will be asking is a natural one when it concerns a horror movie: is the movie actually scary? In relation to IT, the answer is a complicated one. On the face of it, the answer is an unfortunate one: no, it's not particularly scary. What I mean by that is that you will not find your heart racing frequently throughout the film, or breathing heavily, or anything you might associate with a film which you can consider a strong horror film, such as It Follows. There are a few jump scares in the film, and to give director Muschietti credit where credit's due, these are executed effectively. I did find myself jumping a few times throughout the film (not that that should be taken as indication of scariness; I still jump every single time at the snake scare in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part One), and the reason for their effectiveness leads me onto the reason why this movie can still be considered terrifying in spite of that point. This is a film which I would regard as more tense and atmospheric than necessarily scary. Thanks to the lighting and set design of the entire film, the tension builds perfectly up to the reveal of whatever horror is being kept in store for the character or as it may be characters facing the wrath of Pennywise's horrific games. This is an extremely atmospheric film, and Pennywise's presence can be felt stretching throughout the entire film. The soundtrack is often very emotive, but is also one of the most nerve-racking elements of the entire film, as you might expect, it building up as the characters' fears grow and become more apparent until the main attraction himself finally appears. The whole film is not a very stereotypical horror film, and it can't be in all honesty. Although Pennywise can shape shift into whatever he chooses to become and embodies all of the main characters' fears, at the end of the day it has a favourite form, and that form is...a clown. A scary looking clown albeit and nobody could deny that but, ultimately, it is just a clown. It is difficult to make many sequences where he will become instantly intimidating on look alone in that form, and so the choice to focus more on tension and atmosphere is a sensible one which doesn't take away from the overall experience of the movie for me. That said, I certainly would understand your disappointment at reading this section as a fan of horror films, or if you were simply wanting a scarier experience overall.
Well...he seems trustworthy
Let's talk about the performances in the film, because this is one of the areas where the movie is most successful. In a nutshell, the main child actors in the film are truly excellent. Child actors can be incredibly hit and miss in my opinion, and some know I am often (perhaps too) critical of them. That said, these kids are brilliant performers. Jaeden Lieberher gives an incredibly subdued and deep performance as Bill, with the character having the most personal reason to track down Pennywise. Sophia Willis is also great as Beverly, the only girl in the group, and she easily has the most emotional and disturbing subplot, making her one of the most engaging characters in the movie in my opinion. Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things fame is the stand out of the kids as joker Ritchie, who gets most of the often hilarious dialogue in the film, but still comes across as a well developed character in his own right. The success of all of the kids all comes down to their incredible chemistry, and the fact that they feel like real friends and act very realistically for the film's entire runtime. However, even though the kids are the focus of the plot and the film as a whole, and they are excellent, that's not what you want to hear me talk about in this section so let's just get to it. Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and does he live up to the massive shadow of Tim Curry's iconic iteration. To answer that my question, in my mind, the answer is absolutely a resounding yes. Although Tim Curry's Pennywise was creepy and likely could have been considered possibly trustworthy despite his outward appearance, the unpopular opinion that I will raise with that performance is that it is a little too human. Of course this is completely limited by the technologies and abilities of the time, there is no single aspect in the miniseries that would make a person think that Pennywise is anything other than an unsettling man in a clown suit. Skarsgård, on the other hand, gives an incredibly intense performance, completely devoting himself to the character's mannerisms and off-putting personality traits. The actor does not carry himself throughout the film as if he is human, and there is something somewhat otherworldly to his movements that makes him a scarier presence throughout the film. Further, the voice Skarsgård has delivered for this character is on point and is brilliantly off-putting when he engages with the other characters. Other mannerisms, from his horrific laugh to the disconcerted eyes to the small bits of drool which can be seen on Skarsgård's lips as he advances on and gets incredibly close-up to the kids, the devotion of Skarsgård to embodying this character is fiercely admirable and it stands as one of the highlights of the movie. Although Pennywise is used specially and sparingly as the film progresses, in order to allow for more main character development, it allows the audience to savour every single moment he is on screen and enjoy the actor's remarkable turn. It truly has to be seen in all of it's glory to be believed.
The self-christened Losers' Club are all as fun and engaging as each other
Behind the scenes and in other aspects of the production, the movie is also a massive success. The direction of Andy Muschietti is incredibly stylish and it truly shows in the movie's cinematography. Although generally filmed well and with great clarity, the skill in the cinematography can truly be seen in the more tense and terrifying sequences in the movie. These scenes are filmed in a strange and disconcerting manner, and this is something which ultimately also adds to the intense atmosphere which can be felt throughout the movie. With a feeling of unease being put across throughout, every shot in these scenes helps to put the audience on edge, and is another tool for the director to less obviously, but also stylishly, put across the idea that Pennywise has his claws in every area of life in the town of Derry. The editing is also excellent. Although some critics have questioned the decision of the director to put intense horror set pieces side-by-side with the more normal scenes of the kids talking and pending time together, I ultimately found that it didn't take away from the movie as a whole. Although there are elements of humour in these scenes, it doesn't take away from the scenes prior in my mind because the humour feels so natural in the characters themselves, and more often than not they can still be seen to be discussing or recovering from their experiences, either together or individually, with Pennywise. Even then, the humour begin to drop away towards the end of the movie as stake begin to rise and the horror continues to deepen for the main characters, both in their home and personal lives, and in their war against Pennywise. It strikes, in my mind, the perfect balance. Another particular admirable element in the movie are the sets that have been put together. The period of 1988/89 has been perfectly recreated here, with the team wisely choosing not to hammer the point of the period home too much. There are film posters on the wall, and some song choices which hint at it, but it is not a point which is put across an irritating amount of times. That said, there is an awkward "News Kids On The Block" joke in a bedroom which feels somewhat out of place, although that's the only example I can think of. Other sets are a great testament to the skill of the team, and the sets are just as beautiful, as they are often overdone. Just look at the picture of the house below. The make-up is another aspect which deserves to be commended, especially, as you might have guessed, in relation to Pennywise. Although the kid's costumes are well done although are somewhat unremarkable, the work done on Bill Skarsgård to bring Pennywise to life is truly remarkable. Skarsgård's transformation is unreal, especially after seeing side-by-side comparisons of the clown and him in real life, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the work done here receive some love come awards period. As a final points, the CGI work when implemented looks excellent and never breaks audience immersion in the movie, although it is sometimes noticeable (although not all the time); and the aforementioned soundtrack by Benjamin Wallfisch is also great, especially for building tension and atmosphere.
If Tim Burton made an Addams Family movie
In short, IT is about as solid an adaptation of the source material as we could have asked for as an audience, successfully separating itself from the 1990 TV miniseries. Although Skarsgård's performance as Pennywise is unlikely to be as iconic as Tim Curry's, it will undoubtedly stand as the more sinister and unsettling of the two. Not only that, but all of the acting is sublime, and the crew behind the scenes have also done an excellent job. The cinematography and editing in the film are stylishly controlled and put together under the often masterful direction of Andy Muschietti, and the CGI is also put to good use, particularly in making Pennywise seem more unsettling and otherworldly than ever before. However, it is the kids of the Losers' Club who are the anchors of this film, truly brining the humour and likability to the film that separates it from practically every other modern horror film. They transform what could have been a movie about children facing off against a demonic entity into a more poignant examination of modern fears. Make no mistake, Pennywise and his presence is felt throughout, but he is not their main adversary. Their main enemy is their own fears which extend from their personal lives and relationships. By making the true horror of the movie elements of everyday life and having the kids stand up to what scares them the most, director Andy Muschietti has ultimately crafted a more engaging and heart-waring tale than perhaps another director may have opted for. It is this emotional connection and engaging conflict that makes the film as enjoyable as it is. With all of these successes combined, IT doesn't just float - it soars.
Pros
Bill Skarsgård's intense Pennywise
The acting and chemistry of all of the Losers' Club
An engaging and interesting story, with emotional subplots
The often hilarious dialogue
Brilliantly tense and atmospheric throughout
Stylishly directed and edited
Excellent cinematography
The equally emotive and nerve-racking soundtrack
Everything but your stereotypical horror film
Cons
Frequently more funny than scary
Rating: 9/10
Original Release Date: 8th of September, 2017
Starring Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher, Sophia Lillis, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Nicholas Hamilton
