So this week was CinemaCon in Las Vegas, which is one of the many conventions through the year where the various Hollywood studios try to be the coolest kid in the playground and show off their various projects coming up through the year. What does that mean for us? Well, lots of trailers! Good and bad, but still lots of trailers! First off, I'm not going to be talking about Justice League here, despite my superhero movie love. The reason? Because it's an oversaturated topic and, even though all I do is talk about oversaturated topics, I don't like to feed that idea. So, there were 4 main trails to stem from this convention so far, so let's jump right in!
Ferdinand
Bet you didn't know this movie was coming out? Me neither, but apparently it is. There's honestly not much to say here. This is the latest effort from Blue Sky, the company behind the awful Rio movies and the in my opinion not great (although this may prove controversial) Ice Age 5-movie series. From what we've come to expect from this company, it just looks like more of the same. The animation is nice, but there is something incredibly off about the voice work being provided here and the story looks like it is going to be incredibly clichéd, and somehow entirely nonsensical at the same time. Not in the way that animals can talk, but in the sense that I guarantee this character goes from not wanting to be a fighting bull to being all for it in the space of 3 scenes. This is also perhaps the worst music editing for a trailer I've ever come across, and I mean ever. The trailer is cut incredibly sloppily around Ed Sheeran's "Castle on the Hill", and it cut incredibly awkwardly, not to mention that the song choice makes no sense. Ultimately, not a lot of good comes from this trailer for me except the laugh I got when John Cena's name popped up on the voice case. Obvious stunt casting, but funny stunt casting nonetheless. Not to mention, this movie is coming out in December, 3 days before a little independent project called "Star Wars: The Last Jedi". Sure this one will do swimmingly at the box office then.
Release Date: 15th of December, 2017
Starring John Cena (yes, really), Kate McKinnon, David Tennant, Bobby Cannavale, and Gina Rodriguez
It
The trailer game now steps up quite a bit as we turn to 20th Century Fox's trailer for the week, the remake of Stephen King's "It", made iconic in the 1990s by the original TV mini-series and Tim Curry's performance as the creepy (but hilarious) Pennywise the Dancing Clown. I had my worries for this remake before seeing this trailer. Would newcomer Bill Skarsgård's performance live up to Curry's? Would it be scary? How much would be changed? Well, after seeing this trailer, I think we all had one thought: this looks scary as all hell! Ultimately, this looks very different to the original, with a much more bleak colour palette, and the extension of Pennywise's wrath to the adults of Derry, not just the children. Pennywise himself also seems to be much deadlier and more physical in this version. Whereas Curry's version seemed content to play mind games with the children for a while before striking, this Pennywise seems constantly hands on, striking at the minds of the kids with their worst fears, and that, along with his intimidating physical appearance, promises to make this remake a more tense and scarier version than before. The only thing I didn't like about the trailer was the predictable jump scare ending it had. This seems far more clichéd than the rest of the trailer, which built atmosphere and tension. I have my prediction that will not go as the trailer might make it appear, and Pennywise will have some trick up his sleeve, but we'll see. All in all, an encouraging first teaser for the movie.
Release Date: 8th of September, 2017
Starring Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher, Sophia Lillis, Steven Williams, Finn Wolfhard, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Wyatt Oleff, and Lack Dylan Grazer
Spider-Man: Homecoming
OK, I'm not talking about Justice League here, but I'm not going to get through this set without one superhero movie, much less my most anticipated Marvel movie of this year. There are no two ways about it: this looks like the best Spider-Man movie we could have asked for. This is exactly what the character needed: an overhaul on the high school elements of the character's backstory, with more emphasis on the hour of the character. Tom Holland is perfect for this character, and the rest of the cast looks spot on as well. Michael Keaton as the Vulture looks like a suitably intimidating villain compared to how some have portrayed the character in recent comics, and he seems to have a genuine motivation in this movie. His hatred for Tony Stark seems like it will have some emotional resonance to it, allowing us to connect with this character, hopefully along with the rest of his junkyard crew, on a deeper level than any other Marvel villain before. Pretty much every other aspect of the movie from a filmmaking perspective seems on point as well, from the effects (just look at Vulture, again) to the cinematography to the set and costume design. Probably the big problem with the trailer is that it perhaps shows too much, almost like it shows the movie from start to finish, including the action sequences in chronological order. Hopefully this isn't a similar case to "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" where we've seen the movie going in, but, overall, I'm very excited to see this one.
Release Date: 7th of July, 2017
Starring Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Laura Harrier, Jacob Batalon, Zendaya, Marisa Tomei, Donald Glover, Jon Favreau, and Robert Downey Jr.
War for the Planet of the Apes
Now we come to the best trailer of the week, and honestly of the entire year so far. The rebooted Planet of the Apes series has been a prime example of how to do a rebooted franchise right, and this new movie looks to be continuing the trend. From this trailer, this is an angrier, more brutal Caeaer than we've ever seen before, but equally the character is backed up with the same emotion than Andy Serkis has always brought to the character. On the opposite side, Woody Harrelson is a perfect human counterpart to Caesar, once again bringing an interesting moral and philosophical argument into the mix of the plot, but without the possibility of peace that we always felt with James Franco and Jason Isaacs in the previous movies respectively. The action also looks incredible as always, with the Caesar's group now facing both Harrelson's regiments and the fragments of Koba's followers from the last movie. The setting is incredible, with the snow draped mountain providing a different, artistic setting to the franchise. All in all, I cannot express how excited this trailer makes me. It makes none of the mistakes a trailer, such as those above, might make. We don't see the whole movie, the cast and plot are spot on, and it seems to avoiding stereotypes throughout the whole movie. Roll on July!
Release Date: 14th of July, 2017
Starring Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval, Terry Notary, Judy Greer, and Amiah Miller
I told people that I was going to see this movie this weekend. I told people I had booked to see it and was going to be seeing this before I saw the new "Beauty and the Beast" movie. Somewhat expectedly, a few people questioned this decision to put it mildly. Why would I choose to see something that looked so decidedly average over the latest live-action Disney movie, or even another movie like "Life" which looks pretty interesting actually? My answer? Honestly, nostalgia is my primary reason. I sincerely enjoyed the old Power Rangers series. I remember them fondly from my childhood, and was actually quite excited by the prospect of the Rangers being brought into the modern day. Another reason might have been because I sometimes like to see bad movies and the trailers were not the best but who knows? Well, I saw the movie on Saturday. My thoughts? Well, this movie was absolutely, no word of a lie...actually quite good. The movie is a lot of fun for the entirety of its runtime, and does a lot of things rights, subverting expectations from the often dreadful marketing campaign. That said, there are still some stupid things about this movie as you might have predicted, and I'll mainly be getting those out of the way briefly to kick things off. With all that said, let's all get nostalgic and jump into "Power Rangers"!
There's no kind way of starting this review off so I'll just put it plain: the story of the Power Rangers has become bland and clichéd. Stop me if you've heard this one before (or move onto the next paragraph in this case, I suppose). 5 teenage misfits are struggling with their stereotypically teenage lifestyles: sports, friends, relationship, and family troubles plague all of them. Suddenly, they discover that they were destined for something greater, eventually coming across a crashed spaceship and becoming the newest iteration of a team of warriors known as the Power Rangers. Struggling to learn how to control their new abilities and learn to stand as one efficient unit, the Rangers must now unite to fight against the evil Rita Repulsa (played with delightful menace by Elizabeth Banks) before she can destroy the world with her generic, bland monster henchmen, the Putties. Standard stuff, all things considered. Unfortunately with this movie, it's business as usual with this particular story, there are not a great deal of twists and turns to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. There is one scene in particular which did not end in the way I had predicted it would, and actually shocked me a little bit that they had dared to shake up the status quo like this scene did. However, the resolution and aftermath of it are still relatively predictable and it doesn't take long for the diversion to come to an end and the story to get back on the road to the feel-good conclusion. Be sure, it's not that the script doesn't have fun sometimes. There is plenty of humour scattered throughout the movie, plenty of which actually lands and is effective given the chemistry between the actors on screen. Unfortunately, it's just the curse of the reboot and the plague of the original story rolled into one again. The movie simply comes to a grinding halt in the second act with an overabundance of training sequences, and there isn't nearly enough Ranger action before the third act for the likings of many children who will see this movie I would predict. In fact, there is so much focus on the human side of the characters with very little action for the first half (which is not necessarily a problem) that you might question whether or not you are actually watching a certain John Hughes classic set in a high school detention area with a gang of misfits. I'm nearly done with the story but one other thing I just have to mention is the abysmal, often hilarious product placement in this movie. Why am I mentioning it here? Because I just have to wonder how much a certain doughnut brand had to give to Lionsgate to have their stores incorporated into the script in the most self-glorifying way possible. Executives of this movie, if you are reading this, I would like a look at your original script, because I am genuinely interested to see if it reads "[insert product placement here]" at quite a few points. You'll know them when you see them.
The Rangers ready up in their state-of-the-art Iron Man suits
So it's true, the writing does not serve the plot particularly well, but what about the characters? Somewhat surprisingly, they all come across remarkably well-rounded and likeable for the most part. Each of the Rangers is given a reason to care about them on an emotional level, and are given relatable, understandable backstories and motives for their behaviour throughout the movie. The acting on the part of each of the Rangers is also solid for the most part. Probably the most troublesome performance in the entire movie is Dacre Montgomery as Jason, the Red Ranger. Unfortunately, his performance comes across as considerably more generic and wooden than the rest of the cast, especially when acting alongside his cohorts. Thankfully, the rest of the Rangers do not suffer from similar problems. RJ Cyler is the heart and soul of the movie as Blue Ranger Billy, now re-worked to include a maturely handled autism element to the character. Naomi Scott is great fun as Pink Ranger Kimberly, who goes through an unexpected but satisfying character arc. Becky G is great as outsider Trini, the Yellow Ranger, and her story of learning to fit in with the Rangers is an enjoyable if slightly familiar story (although her character is also re-worked to include a current issue in movies). Ludi Lin gives possibly the most well-rounded performance of the Rangers as Black Ranger Zack, initially a stereotypical bad boy but a much more emotionally relatable character as his backstory is revealed. The main five are also supported by Bryan Cranston as mentor Zordon and Bill Hader as resident eyesore Alpha-5. Honestly, neither of them give terrible performance, and are only weakened by their underwritten characters. Hader gets some funny lines as Alpha and is intended to be comic relief of course, and Cranston's Zordon is given some interesting background details throughout the movie, including some that actually bring him into conflict with one of the Rangers, an interesting proposition that hasn't really been explored by any Rangers movie or series before that I can think of.
Can't tell which Ranger is which? Look at the colours of their clothes, that always helps
However, with all that said and done, the true star of the show is Elizabeth Banks as the villainous Rita Repulsa, a name which is undeniably silly by even Power Rangers standards. Don't let the name fool you though, this Repulsa is a force to be reckoned with. This is not the old Rita with her absurd costume screaming orders from the moon; Banks gives this character an intimidating, and even I dare say terrifying, edge for a great deal of the movie. To start, she is possibly one of the best written characters in the movie, being given an intriguing backstory right out of the gate, and a revamped design which may or may not tie into a certain fan theory that's been doing the rounds. I'm saying nothing. Repulsa makes a full appearance in the present day as you might expect at the start of the second act after the Ranger set-up, and it is her short appearances through this part of the movie that really kept me invested and interested to see where the writers would go with the character. However, it is in her confrontations with the Rangers that Banks really shines. Her bedroom fight with Trini glimpsed in the trailers really sells the willingness of the character to take the fight to the Rangers on a personal level, while her power level is shown in it's entirety in the finale. Admittedly, some aspects of the direction of the performance and the delivery might come across as a bit over-the-top on occasion, but, for me at least, this just added to the fun of this character. The original Rita was always ridiculous and off the wall, and it's great to see this character retain that brilliance in this iteration. That said, it is the fear, conniving nature, and straight-up nastiness that Banks brings to this character that makes her such an engaging part of this movie.
Elizabeth Banks plays the creepy (and often scary) Rita Repulsa
The action sequences of the movie are where the heart of this movie is, and these are a lot of fun. As I said, there are surprisingly few set pieces in the movie where the Rangers actually wear their suits (now given a modern overhaul to look more like Iron Man than the old-fashioned morphsuits), but there are still small scenes pieced throughout the movie to keep the action fans in the audience entertained for the entirety of the runtime. The stunt work in these sequences is excellent, and the performers do a solid job of convincing the audience that they are actually fighting real beings, even though they are unfortunately only being faced down by disappointing CGI monsters the majority of the time. The fights involving Repulsa are also a joy to watch on screen, particularly when the Rangers are not in their suits. It is at these moments where the stakes feel real for the team. They are not protected by their suits and can barely work as a functioning unit for the first two thirds of the movie, so the weight of their every action is felt as they face the trained and considerably more experienced Rita as is the pain of each injury they suffer as a result. The movie surprisingly (but gratefully) does not shy away from the impact the fights have on these characters as teenagers. They are not trained fighters or durable people. They are young, and so the injuries are going to have much more of an effect on them. They are even shown to take serious physical damage from the training sequences, making the real action against Repulsa and her forces more intense and enjoyable as a result.
Meet the Breakfast Clu...I mean, the Power Rangers
The effects work in the movie is on point thankfully. The Zords in particular look excellent while on the movie and in battle with the monsters and Rita's primary giant force, which is to say the gold monstrosity glimpsed in the trailer. I call this a monstrosity if only because it is an incredibly poor rendition of one of the monsters from the show known as Goldar. Although the new monster looks good enough, look up the two versions on Google and honestly tell me which version you would rather see on the big screen. Of course, the Megazord (in typing this I am getting sick of the apparent spelling errors that keep popping up with this review because of these names) also makes an appearance and looks great on the movie and when the Rangers are practically at war with Rita and Goldar in the finale. I have seen many different reviews complaining about the look of the Megazord in this movie, but my response is the same that I have when I hear complaints about the new suits. This is a reboot and so the designs have to match up with this new technological, alien aesthetic that the writers have chosen to commit to with this version of the characters and the source material. These designs are considerably more modern than the old versions that simply would not have worked as well on the big screen. The Megazord in particular looks more realistic and efficient than the old toy robot used in the TV show (let's be totally honest though, that's a budget issue). The main point I'm making here though is that these effects are always effective and realistic enough to never break the immersion of the audiences in what is happening on screen. The cinematography of the movie is also well done, and luckily refrains from cutting too much between shots unnecessarily. Consistently clear and steady, the camera work throughout the movie is handled as well as the effects work, and the two work in perfect harmony throughout.
Apparently the Rangers walked onto the set of "Man of Steel"
Honestly, there is one factor which I cannot deny might have played a big part in me enjoying this movie to the extent that I did, and that is the nostalgia that I experienced watching this movie. The Power Rangers were a massive part of my childhood, from the original Mighty Morphin' to some of the later shows (personally, I still remember "Dino Thunder" and "Mystic Force" fond but that's just my opinion). The references scattered throughout the movie make it clear that the writers and crew of the movie have the utmost respect for the legacy that this show has built and the place it holds in the hearts of so millions of people worldwide. These references range from the original Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers to even some of the later shows which I didn't pick up on on first viewing but gathered after doing some reading online about the movie and was impressed by how the writers have put these in. For readers and audiences too afraid that the crew of this move had completely lost touch with the fun and meaning of the show: rest assured, they haven't. A few classic lines in particular are uttered, you can hear the iconic "It's Morphin' Time" in the trailer above, and there might be a few others throughout the movie. Maybe, maybe not. As I said, I'm not saying anything. The only other crazy piece of nostalgia which sticks out in mind as myself and my two friends almost cheered when it came on was a particular song began to play at the most opportune and perfect moment in the movie. The original, unedited version of this song from 1995, no problems like the "Ghostbusters" movie had last year with the theme. This song (I'm sure you've guessed what it is by now but for spoilers sake I'll refrain from mentioning it by name) created one of the best images of the movie and is sure to get the nostalgia of any Power Rangers fan, long-term or short-term, going. There is a mid-credits scene as well, so be sure to wait a couple of minutes for that.
You know those toys with the pins you push through to make a shape? Zordon's changed
A movie with it's ups and it's downs to be sure. On the one hand, the writing is not great in the story department on this film, not that time has been particularly kind to the now slightly clichéd story of the Rangers anyway. There isn't nearly enough Ranger action to maybe keep kids entertained for the entirety, and the product placement is simply too hilarious and off-putting to not mention. With that said, the characters and the cast are handled with much better care, particularly the Rangers themselves and villain Rita. The effects are great, the action is unashamedly over-the-top, and the nostalgia I got from the movie was unlike any I have experienced in one of these reboots film studios have become so fond of to date. Like I said, this movie has a legacy to pay respect to, given that the show has been running in it's different iterations for a jaw-dropping 24 years now. The Power Rangers have always had a silliness to them. Make no mistake, with it's returning dinosaur robot vehicles and ridiculous martial arts action, this movie is silly too, and that is it's greatest strength. There are far too many reboots which try to go "darker" with the source material, and in doing so lose whatever it may be that people love about a certain franchise. This movie has a different edge to it, absolutely, but it retains the fun, the craziness, and the humour that we loved from the old series. If you hated those shows, you might be able to find some fun here (although I honestly doubt it). If you loved them or never watched them but you're willing to take a gamble on the Rangers, then chances are you'll find something to enjoy in this, and it'll be well worth you giving it a watch.
Pros
Unashamedly fun, cheesy action
Great effects
Solid acting and characters
Well filmed
A great nostalgia road-trip
Cons
Absolutely senseless, but it tries to have some
A slow second act
More Breakfast Club than Power Rangers most of the time
The worst (but possibly best) product placement ever put to film
Rating: 7/10
Original Release Date: 24th of March, 2017
Starring Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Becky G, Ludi Lin, Elizabeth Banks, Bill Hader, and Bryan Cranston
Could you name a movie monster more iconic and significant in pop culture than King Kong? Since his first appearance in the 1930s, Kong has become an instantly recognisable feature, and has hardly been challenged for the throne of the King of movie monsters for years (the only one which poses any significant threat is Godzilla, and that fight will literally be settled in 2020 when the two cross paths once again). However, the last time we saw the ape on the big screen in 2005 with Peter Jackson's "King Kong", and he hasn't returned since. With movies like "Pacific Rim" and 2014's "Godzilla" having been released since, is it possible that the throne has been toppled, and Kong is no longer the grand figure that he used to be? Well, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts is aiming to put the oversized monkey back on top with "Kong: Skull Island", which promises more monster mayhem featuring the titular Kong, interestingly dropping the royal title this time around. So, does it deliver? While the movie is certainly a visual spectacle and is certainly enjoyable as a standard popcorn flick, the movie is plagued with writing issues that seriously distract from the rest of the movie and put the throne of Kong more at risk than ever before. Let's jump in.
Let's start with the story of the movie, and straight off the bat this is nothing you've not seen before. At the beginning of the movie, John Goodman (I call him John Goodman to emphasise that you will not remember his name at the end of the movie - don't worry, I'll get to the characters later) goes to the government for funding for an expedition. The basis for the expedition is that this island is entirely uncharted, and Goodman's organisation speculates that they may be able to locate new energy sources or fuel on this island. However, they have the hidden agenda, which will be revealed as the plot progresses. Oh, and they are given a military escort. Why? The only reason I can think of is that the plot demands this to provide more lifeless drones to be brutally eliminated when they reach the island. The crew for the island is then assembled: Goodman's scientific crew, a military unit led by Samuel L. Jackson's Colonel Packard, with further additions Conrad (a former SAS agent played by Tom Hiddleston), and pacifist war photojournalist Weaver (played by Brie Larson). Of course, when they reach the island, they discover a slight issue to their operation in the form of a gigantic ape which the locals call Kong, along with a slew of other menacing creatures. The rest of the story then involves their attempt to escape the island, while attempting to avoid death at the hands of the monstrous inhabitants of the somewhat appropriately named Skull Island. Do you think you can predict where the rest of this story goes? There is a very good reason for that. This is no plot that we have not seen before. It's a very familiar structure, particularly in the monster movie arena: nameless grunts go to dangerous place, encounter monster, grunts die, a few characters played by well-known actors survive, rinse and repeat. For those of you reading this and taking that as a spoiler, don't worry, I haven't spoiled the entirety of the movie. It's true that there are some small moments and surprises along the way which were unexpected and enjoyable, but it is the overarching story that is the issue. This is all the more confusing given the unique setting of the movie. Other Kong movies have visited the island briefly, but this is the first movie set almost exclusively on the island, in addition to the 1973 timeline, at the end of the Vietnam War. It almost seems like the writers did not want to take advantage of these factors in the story and were content with relying on a tried and tested formula.
Don't get too attached to the nameless drones - this is a monster movie after all
Now, I briefly mentioned the characters of the movie above. What we are largely faced with here is an onslaught of nameless and utterly forgettable scientists and soldiers. They are here to die for the most part. Plain and simple, and exactly what you'll probably be expecting going in. I actually wouldn't be particularly annoyed by this in normal circumstances, because of course monster movies always need a bit of cannon fodder, but this is such a blatant waste of talent. John Goodman really contributes nothing to the movie except to push the plot forward. Toby Kebbell is actually in the movie for a fair portion, but is never given anything to do, a waste of Kebbell's acting and creative talents. Scattered throughout are plenty of other actors who you may recognise, none of whom are put to good use. There are only 3 main characters in the movie who are somewhat interesting. Samuel L. Jackson who is playing Colonel Packard, a stereotypical army leader. The setting of the end of the Vietnam War make this character arc all the more predictable, but Jackson injects the character with enough personality to make him an enjoyable presence throughout he movie. In fact, all of the acting in the movie is largely on point, making the waste of talent throughout the movie all the more infuriating. The second character is the main focus of the trailers in terms of the human cast, Tom Hiddleston as the tracker, Conrad. This character is given a small bit of depth with regards his personal life throughout the movie, but this is wholly insubstantial for the most part. The character was clearly written to give the film the checklist attractive, currently "in" male lead. This character is most interesting in his interactions with character number 3, Weaver, played by Brie Larson. This is, in my opinion, the best character in the movie because she actually feels like a human being. She is not a blatant stereotype and undergoes an interesting character arc throughout the movie. Her interactions with all the characters are enjoyable to watch (although she always seems to bring out either the best or the worst in whoever she speaks to), and Larson's performance is impressively emotive throughout the movie, even in her interactions with CGI creations such as Kong himself.
All Hail the King
When I came out of this movie, I told my brother that this movie confused me, something he was immediately puzzled by, given the extremely simple plot and nature of the movie as I've already said. However, this is not something that it going to annoy a lot of people, but this movie is confused tonally. What I mean by this is that, as you might guess, when writing a movie, writers will always have a demographic in mind for the movie and this will determine what they write into the movie. A movie for kids will have more humour and light-hearted moments; a movie for teens will have more action and visuals on the screen to keep them engaged while also keeping humour and light-hearted moments included to make them laugh; movies for adults alone will still have some humour, but are generally able to be much darker, grittier and dramatic without the impact of this being lessened by the use of humour. The list goes on. The underlying problem with Kong is that I am struggling to identify exactly who this movie is made for, and what tone the writers were attempting to achieve throughout the movie. It is a confusing creative choice all together. I understand that they want to appeal to audiences of all ages, but the stark contrast of the humour with the shocking and brutal violence makes the humour feel incredibly out of place, particularly in the case of John C. Reilly's character, who arrives around half way through the story. If I had to guess the root of this problem, I would tie it to the likely studio interference (something DC fans will be well aware Warner Bros have bene guilty of before). When a studio is investing $200 million into a movie with no guarantee that it will be a successful venture, of course they will want to take steps to try and ensure that they will at the least make their money back. However, there should be a limit to this. I guarantee that the various drafts of this movie's script implemented more and more humour, no matter how out of place it may seem, in an attempt to draw in teens and new viewers, as well as the adult audience already familiar with Kong. The problem is, jokes about a creature name (you'll probably have seen the Skull Crawler name joke in the trailers already) are going to feel very out of place when a scene shortly before had a soldier being impaled though his mouth by the leg of a giant arachnid, spider-like creature. Worse still, the humour in the movie is simply not funny! As if we needed more evidence that humour was forcefully implemented into this story, which clearly was much darker in the director's initial vision.
Well, everything looks fine here...
Anyway, about time I stopped taking shots at this movie and talked about what it did right. Believe it or not, I actually did enjoy watching this movie. The effects of the movie are somewhat predictably on point. Of course, Kong, the star of the show (as it should be, Godzilla) looks incredible throughout the movie. Kong is given an incredible amount of detail, with the team taking every opportunity to show off with the injuries and scars of the ape, which beautifully worsen and grow as the action progresses and Kong finds himself in more fight sequences. This is particularly impressive given the amount of screen time where he is interacting with actual human beings and real objects or environments. The other monsters in the movie also look appropriately terrifying and realistic. From the peaceful bison-like creatures which appear in a swamp early on in the proceedings, to the horrific spider creatures which fight the soldiers later (the close-up was not a pleasant one for someone with arachnophobia), to, as the trailers have shown, the vicious Skull Crawlers which essentially serve as the primary antagonists to the titular ape. The latter creatures are of course the stars of the supporting cast of monsters and nasty beings. Every detail on the creatures is perfectly rendered, with every scar, dirt mark, and wound being crystal clear across the board. It is a true credit to the effects crew that they kept the visuals of the movie consistently realistic throughout. Without achieving this, there was every possibility that the peril and fear the audience is meant to feel along with the characters in the movie would have been drastically reduced. Tension is key in several sequences throughout the movie, and thankfully the effects team did not break the atmosphere during the action.
An intimidating sight to say the least
In addition to this, the action of the movie is absolutely phenomenal. Admittedly, it is ridiculous and reaches new heights of absurdity in the finale. That, however, is the greatest strength of this movie. It knows the action we are seeing on screen is crazy and absolutely bonkers, and it takes the greatest pride in showcasing that. Kong rips the environment to shreds, bending it to his will. There is a great image of Tom Hiddleston slashing through toxic green case with a katana to kill some bugs that are attacking. A Skull Crawler swallows a camera and the tension is in the team trying to keep track of it by the flash going off in the fog. Tense, but hilarious to be sure. Heck, there is a scene near the end when Kong uproots a tree, de-branches it, and uses it as a baseball bat. This is how crazy the action becomes over the course of this movie, but it is simply a lot of fun to watch. If you turn off your brain, and go into this movie expecting just this, nothing more than what it has been advertised as, then chances are you are going to have a lot more fun than I did when watching this and thinking back on it. The action is the most memorable part of the movie, certainly, and it is the area where the technical team behind the production were clearly in their element.
"I don't think we're in Kansas anymore"
The cinematography of the movie is also on point, clearly remaining in focus and carrying out many impressive shots. An early sequences which is incredibly well shot is the initial helicopter action sequence Kong is involved in. The intensity of the shots and the camera work of the movie adds to the peril the soldiers are in and allows the audience a real insight into the fear of the soldiers they would understandably be feeling when facing up against this beast. The lighting of the movie and the use of colour is incredibly artistic as well. Watch closely during the night shots of even the trailer, which are all the more impressive in the context of the full movie. The use of the moonlight in particular is excellent (although I can safely say that not much of this will be practical but it is still excellently implemented), and a fight towards the end involving fire. The contrast of the flame, the moon, and the dark blue and green of the environment is truly a sight to behold. Another factor of the movie which is excellent is the music. Now, I'm not talking about Henry Jackman's (admittedly good although unmemorable) score, but rather the use of time appropriate songs and artists, such as Black Sabbath and David Bowie. It's a credit to the editing team to make these songs work within the story and tie in well to the action sequences of the movie, making already impressive scenes all the more enjoyable. These songs work incredibly well in the movie and actually help to build the time and setting at the beginning of the movie rather than feeling like a distraction as they did in, say, "Suicide Squad". As a side note, has anyone noticed how many movies have began to implement this throughout their movie and marketing since "Guardians of the Galaxy" in 2014? This doesn't really matter, it was just a small thought.
Call it - by every cliché, who dies first?
I'm conflicted with this movie, I truly am. On the one hand, I don't want to take this movie overly seriously. After all, it is a KING KONG movie! It is a movie about a giant ape fighting other giant monsters on an island in the Pacific. I'm not expecting Oscar-worthy writing and characters. The action in the movie is great, and is only enhanced by the impressive visuals of the piece, a must for the number of different monsters on display throughout. The acting is also very good, as I've said, although the characters they are portraying on screen are incredibly weak. Make no mistake, this is an extremely enjoyable popcorn flick. If you go to this movie not expecting anything more than what the trailers are showing it to be and nothing more, then I imagine you will enjoy it far more than I maybe did on first viewing. That being said, there is simply no looking past the flaws of this movie. The writing in particular is cause for concern. No character in this movie is particularly interesting, and I can hardly remember any of their names (no, Kong doesn't count). The plot is also nothing original. Perhaps the worst problem of the lot, however, is the clear studio meddling in the movie, and nowhere is this more obvious than it examining the tone of the movie. The gritty and often horrifying violence of some sections of the movie were evidently the sort of movie the director was trying to create, thus making the flat humour of the movie stand out even more than it already would. In fact, it was the jaw-dropping and stomach curdling violence of these segments that impressed me the most, and the small character moments in between, particular between Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson, were the most effective scenes. This franchise (which is all building up to Godzilla vs Kong in 2020 believe it or not) needs to build on this. Without taking advantage of the human elements of these monster movies, it is going to be difficult for Legendary Pictures to continue to make these movies particularly interesting to audience, and maintain Kong's throne as the King, not only of Skull Island, but of movie monsters in general.
Pros
Dumb but very fun action
Solid acting for the most part
Great effects
The soundtrack
Cons
Generally poor characterisation
A cliché plot structure
Confused tonally
Rating: 6/10
Original Release Date: 10th of March, 2017
Starring Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Jing Tian, John Ortiz, Toby Kebbell, and John C. Reilly
Is anyone getting just a little bit bored of your standard superhero movie? I can't believe I just typed that, especially considering a superhero movie tends to be my most anticipated movie of the summer or even year, but I can't deny it any longer: everything's becoming a little bit standard. This is especially the case with MCU movies, which tend to follow a formula, or the DCEU movies, which are all just chaotic messes at this point. Audiences, myself included, are longing for something more, something deeper in their moviegoing experiences. That said, it's never going to stop the endless waves of money we are going to throw at Marvel and Disney, but any deviation from the formula at this point is a welcome change, especially if it is done well. "Logan" is one such change, and, not only is it done well, but it is done to a phenomenal standard. Admittedly, the standalone movies starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine have had a rocky track record to say the least, from the downright dreadful "Origins: Wolverine" to the absurd (but still more enjoyable) "The Wolverine" in 2013. "Logan" is a different beast all together, with a proud 15-rating (R-rating for US readers) allowing for a deeper, more meaningful story than we've seen before. Oh, and of course the heavily advertised violence which is as brutal as the trailers have showcased it to be. In short, this movie is fantastic. It is not only one of the best comic book movies ever made, but rivals some of the best movies of recent years. Let's take a look at why.
The story of the movie takes place in the year 2029, and focuses on an older, world-weary Logan. Stuck working as a chauffeur and struggling to make amends to pay for the medication needed for a now ancient Professor X (played one again by Patrick Stewart), this is Logan in a worse place than we've ever seen him before. Worse still, from the very beginning, we get the impression that his abilities have started to slow him down in age and may even be contributing to damaging him further. However, his broken life is only thrown further into disarray by the appearance of a little girl, Laura (played by newcomer Dafne Keen), who may have more in common with Logan than it may first appear. Now being pursued by the sinister Reavers of an evil corporation, headed up by Boyd Holbrook's Donald Pierce, Logan finds himself forced to rekindle his inner Wolverine one last time for the sake of Laura and himself. It's a considerably more mature story than any X-Men movie, or any other superhero movie for that matter, in recent years. There is maybe not as much action in the movie as fans might initially suspect (or hope for, given the brutality of the trailers to date), but this is not a hinderance on the movie itself. This is very much a character driven piece rather than the usual CGI-fest that has infected the genre. Director James Mangold and the crew have taken this opportunity to forge an emotional story of regret, legacy and coping with the losses of the past. These themes are much more adult and mature than any that have perhaps been explored in past X-Men movies, but they are especially fitting for the character of Logan. This is a character who has lived for at least 150 years. He has fought and been beaten, tried and failed to find peace, and loved only to lose everyone he has cared about. From the very outset of the movie, we know that this is the story this crew have always wanted to tell, chartering the last stand of the Wolverine. It is his attempt to cope with this regret, having turned to alcoholism in his old age, that makes this such as an engaging story and his evolving relationship with Laura that drives it forward. Finally, one bit of symbolism that the writers have ingeniously worked into the story is the subtle of imagery of the internal conflict of Logan. I won't dive too deep into spoilers here, because you should absolutely see this movie, but it does a fantastic job of exploring a conflict that has been hinted at throughout the series, that between Logan and the Wolverine inside him, the man and the beast. This conflict is given a satisfying ending by the end, and, if this truly is Jackman's last outing with the character, it ends on a satisfying high point.
The more world-weary Logan returns, once again forced from his isolation.
The brilliance of the story at display here is equally matched by the quality of the acting on show. Hugh Jackman has given his all to this character for the last 17 years, and it is his acting that has made audiences almost unanimously attached to this character regardless of what they might have thought of the franchise (because they have undoubtedly ranged in quality). However, as this is his swan song performance as Logan, it is only fitting that this is his most impressive outing yet. Jackman delivers his lines with such raw emotion throughout the movie. Logan has always been an angry and short-tempered character, but it is in this movie that we as an audience are really sold that this anger is to compensate for his tragic past. As is hinted at throughout this movie, the events of past movies and more recent off-screen events haunt Logan, and are the reason that he has been driven into this self-sentenced exile and isolation. His chemistry with all of the actors on screen is fantastic as well, particularly with Patrick Stewart (with whom it should be said he has always worked well with) and Dafne Keen. I don't say this lightly, but in my honest opinion, this performance would have landed Jackman a Best Actor nomination (at the very least) at the Oscars, BAFTAs, and other award shows if it had been released earlier and, who knows, maybe it still could next year. Equally, the aforementioned Stewart and Keen are excellent in the movie in their own right. Stewart somewhat surprisingly delivers most of the comic relief of the film, again in how he bounces off of the stoic Logan, but the very condition this character is in in comparison to past appearances makes this another tragic performance, fitting of one of the Shakespearean plays Sir Patrick is known for. Turning to newcomer Keen, she is a phenomenal addition to the movie, despite having to remain largely silent for her screen time. If you want a comparison, think of Eleven from the (amazing) Netflix show, "Stranger Things". In a similar way to Millie Bobbie Brown's performance in that show, Keen does an incredible job emoting almost solely through facial expressions and body actions, a feat that can only be considered all the more impressive when taking into account her young age, and almost empty filmography to date. She works extremely well with Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart, and there's no doubt after her performance we will be seeing plenty more of her in future movies.
Dafne Keen as the young Laura, who shares a very familiar mutation.
Following on from the main heroes of the movie, the main problem critics seem to be pinpointing frequently with this movie is in the villains of the piece, and I can understand where they are coming from, although I don't wholly agree with all of the criticisms. The main villain who the audience sees on screen is Donald Pierce, a robotically enhanced security chief, played, as I said, by Boyd Holbrook (who you may know from Netflix's Narcos). Pierce makes an appearance relatively early on in the movie, and Holbrook immediately does a great job of making the audience despise this character. Holbrook plays the character with a smarmy, and yet subtly intimidating edge. Although he does not get heavily involved in the action, we as the audience understand from his actions earlier in the movie that he is a force to be reckoned with, particularly after viewing his overwhelming forces (known as the Reavers for extra intimidation points), as well as how Pierce continually chooses to stand up to Logan, despite his quick acknowledgement of the Wolverine and his previous actions. In fact, I enjoyed every moment Pierce was on screen and Holbrook's performance. The issue lies in what that screen time is used to do with he character. He never receives any development throughout the movie or get any further insight into his past backstory with other characters, which would have been particularly effective after the introduction of a certain group of characters in the second half of the movie. Another villain who appears in the second half fully after being hinted at throughout the first act is Richard E. Grant playing Dr. Zander Rice, who is about as stereotypically mad scientist-esque as you might be able to think of. The character is mainly in the movie to hand out some helpful exposition towards the end, and does not serve to contribute much else to the story. However, that said, once again, the issue is not in Grant's performance. In fact, for those of you who know Grant's work, you may know that he plays a fantastically sinister villain, and he puts his skills to good effect here. Although the development of these villains is not necessary to the story, and although it never heavily affected by enjoyment of the movie as a whole, some backstory perhaps would have been useful to allow the filmmakers to humanise these characters more, and understand their motivations beyond a hatred of mutant kind (a trope which is in itself becoming a stereotype in this franchise). These are not the only villains, however. There is a much more powerful villain for Logan to tackle who appears towards the end of the second act of the movie. I will not go into details concerning that character here for the sake of spoilers, but this was actually an effective contribution for me. Although you might question that character's actual existence once you see the movie, consider one of the things I've already mentioned in this review. Once you see the movie, you'll be able to see what I mean and the brilliance of the writing involved with this inclusion.
Boyd Holbrook as the despicable but enjoyable Donald Pierce.
With all that said, however, many fans were not sold on this movie based not he character moments of the trailers. What has sold a number of audience members is the promise of finally seeing the true "berserker" Wolverine we know from the comics, with the trailers showcasing brutal, bloody action that could never have been shown if this movie had remained 12-rated (or PG-13). Having seen the movie, I can now happily and with relief report that the action of the movie is on point. The action is appropriately violent, with Logan no longer holding back on killing Reavers and other villains throughout the movie in an wrenching, gory fashion. Limbs are severed, his claws pierce through Reaver skulls, and Laura uses some more gymnastic skills to great effect in their action scenes together. However, what really makes the action of the movie effective is the enhanced weight and stakes that every action scene Logan is involved in now has. As I have mentioned a number of times, this is a much older Logan. He is hurt when his claws come out, while his reactions and his healing is much slower (and in some cases the wounds do not heal at all). The reasoning given by the movie beyond his age for this makes sense but the effect this truly has on the action is for once it feels like this character could easily meet his end against any of his opponents, even the average solider, making it all the more tense when he faces Pierce or the secret character I mentioned earlier. This is something we as an audience have never really felt in one of the standalone Wolverine movies to date. In "Origins: Wolverine", his healing was intact throughout the movie, and so the stakes never felt particularly high. "The Wolverine" is slightly different, because they did take the healing of the character away fro a large portion of the plot, but, largely due to the 12-rating, the action again did not feel as real or as tense as it could have felt given a more mature rating. The action and stakes only cements more that "Logan" was the Wolverine movie that the character deserved to do him justice, the movie that fans have always wanted to see the character in, and the movie that will shock but equally please general viewers and audience members.
"Someone'll come along..." "Someone has come along."
Throughout those action sequences, the effects on display are also of the highest calibre. Not a great deal of the movie is composed of CGI, but the small parts that do put this to use are incredibly realistic. Probably the most frequent example that we see on screen is Pierce's robotic, prosthetic arm, as well as those of all the other Ravagers. When the movie was finished, I actually had to check whether these arms were practical effects or not, and was slightly let down but equally impressed to find that they were created through the use of CGI. The majority of the movie, however, makes effective use of practical effects, which is honestly the route I prefer that moves take. The use of practical blood spurts and effects adds to the gritty realism of the action in the movie. This is considerably more effective than other modern movies, many of which struggle to resist the urge to use CGI because they can in this instance, often leading to ridiculous and over-the-top beatings and death, often ending with an arm, leg, or head being severed or exploding in a strangely cartoonish manner. We should be incredibly thankful that Mangold and his team have resisted the temptation in this area. What's more, the stunt work and choreography is relentlessly brutal throughout the movie. Again, this is an area where "Logan" deviates from the usual superhero tropes. There are no meaningless flips or martial arts on display in this movie. It is simply brawlers beating on each other to the death, giving every hit much more weight and tension to it. We feel like this is a real fight despite Logan's claws and mutant powers, and therefore can't help but be more affected by every punch, kick, stab and bullet we are forced to see Logan suffer through.
Professor X (Patrick Stewart) in a more vulnerable state than ever before.
There are only a few more points which I want to talk about before wrapping up (I know this has been a longer review, but I needed to talk about all of the detail of this masterpiece). First of all, the cinematography of the movie. This is perhaps not something your general cinema audience will be looking out for while watching the movie, but it is fantastically filmed. In case it wasn't clear, the tone of the movie is very sombre, particularly at the beginning, and the cinematography of the movie reflects this. Slow-moving and elegant, the audience is given the opportunity to take in every detail of every frame we are seeing on screen. When the action gets started in the movie, the camera begins to go faster, but never to the extent that we cannot understand what is happening on screen. Every shot is kept crystal clear, and yet also reflects the brutality of every stab and wound inflicted to every character. The cinematography is a key part to allowing the audience to feel the pain of characters such as Logan and Xavier, and allows a much deeper emotional connection to the characters, even more so than that solely provided by the screenplay. Another filmmaking tool used to great effect throughout the movie to build the atmosphere effectively is the score. Largely composed on the piano, but with some percussion and other instruments used in supplement, Marco Beltrami uses the dark piano chords and dissonance to build a melancholy scene around even the simplest scenes at the beginning of the movie, a sense of dread when focusing on the villains, and a fear within the audience about the possible fate of the lead character during the action scenes. It is an amazing score, although devoid of any main theme that usually accompanies the modern superhero movie. Not that those themes are particularly memorable in their own right (if I had to cite a couple it would be the themes of the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy but even they are quite obscure, and good luck singing any others). I would much rather have a score that was effective within the movie in its own right than an attempt to build a single memorable theme which fails and leaves the rest of the movie without a score to enhance the emotions and weight of what we are seeing on screen.
"This is what life looks like: people who love each other, a home. You should take a moment. Feel it. You still have time"
What more is there to say about "Logan"? As if I can't emphasise it enough, I adore this movie. A few days on and writing this review, I struggle to think of anything which I do not like about this movie. Perhaps a couple of underdeveloped characters, and nothing else comes to mind even after reflecting on the story, characters, action and every other aspect of the movie. The story is hard-hitting, emotional and gritty. The acting is phenomenal and believable from all of the cast. The action is brutal and unforgiving. The music is brilliantly heart-wrenching. The cinematography is both gorgeous and intense where appropriate. These are all undeniable facts about the movie. Yet none of these are the reason I love this movie so much. I love the characters of the comics, and I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing them portrayed on screen for the last 17 years. It's rare that you find casting in a movie that transpires to be so perfect and inspired, especially in a comic book movie where fans will avidly compare the character and portrayal to the source material, often obsessively looking for some slight change to complain about. I can say without a doubt, that Hugh Jackman as Logan has been some of the most perfect casting put to screen, not just in a comic book movie, but across the board. We have fallen in love with this character. We have cheered when he was victorious, been saddened when he fell, and felt the pain from the beginning of his life as the Wolverine to the end of this movie. This movie is fantastic, not only for all of the above reasons, but because of the respect it has for the character of Logan. It understands the ending this character needed, the sorrow and the joy both being shown throughout the movie. If this truly is the end of the road for Hugh Jackman as Logan, it has been an incredible journey, and all credit goes to director James Mangold, and all of the actors and crew involved, for crafting an incredible swan song for this character. This movie is a modern day classic, and should be regarded as such for years to come.
Pros
Oscar-worthy acting, especially from Jackman
An engaging story
The handling of mature themes in a meaningful way
Brutal action
Spectacular effects
Gorgeous cinematography
Great music
The deserving, emotional swan song for this beloved character
Cons
A couple of underdeveloped villains, but even they are still enjoyable when on screen
Rating: 10/10
Original Release Date: 1st of March, 2017
Starring Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Boyd Holbrook, Dafne Keen, Stephen Merchant, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Eriq La Salle and Richard E. Grant
