⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Taylor Sheridan
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Gil Birmingham, Jon Bernthal, Graham Greene
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 111 mins

‘Wind River’ is Taylor Sheridan’s directorial debut (if you discount the critically mauled torture porn horror, ‘Vile’ in 2011) after writing ‘Sicario‘ and ‘Hell or High Water‘, both films that I really love. Sheridan regards ‘Wind River’  as a third part of a trilogy which began with the aforementioned two films on the modern American frontier, certainly helping ‘Wind River’ gain weight.

Set in Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation, tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner) discovers the raped and murdered body of Natalie Hanson who has just turned 18 years old. She is barefoot, without proper Winter clothing and miles away from civilisation. FBI Agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) is brought in to solve the case who enlists the help of Lambert for his tracking expertise and the local Police headed by its Chief, Ben (Graham Greene). Banner is clearly out of her depth in this chilling climate, a fish-out-of-water character whom the Tribal Police are critical of due to her gender and lack of experience. But Sheridan is deeply respectful as always, he doesn’t explore gender in a derogatory manner.

This narrative is familiar ground for Sheridan but as the film progresses in solving this mystery, we learn about some of the other area’s inhabitants and characters who battle their own demons. The town in ‘Wind River’ is just as important a character as its living ones, its personification of it being a predator to the Indian prey is deeply elegiac. One of the very first scenes we see in the film is a deeply haunting and mournful shot of a herd of sheep being stalked by wolves. This is an environment where one lives to survive or be killed.

‘Wind River’ is another cracker by Sheridan who ably steps up to the task of directing as well as writing. Like his previous projects, it is very poetic in parts and deeply haunting and melancholic and his script intelligently written with memorable lines. The unpredictable outbursts violence are extremely raw and brutal, portraying the utter nastiness that this conflict between cultures has resorted to.

There are clear juxtapositions between the cold, harsh lanscape surrounding this civilization and the warmth of the inside. There is a constant presence of the cold wind breathing on the necks of these characters which makes ‘Wind River’ deeply sensory for its audiences. At times, I got tingles from the cold, piercing feeling of walking barefoot on snow – Sheridan really has succeeded in crafting a believable world for this narrative to inhabit within.

The film is also surprisingly important as it has a lot to say on Native Americans and their mistreatment – a title card at the very end of the film really hits this story home. This mistreatment of Native Americans on a macro scale ties very cleverly into the theme of family on a micro one. We briefly meet the parents of this murdered teenager, the father played by Gil Birmingham who puts in a sombre and reflective performance in the two very powerful scenes in the film that he features in. Even more brief is our insight into how her mother has taken this shocking news. But it is not just Natalie’s death that has caused the Hanson family to descend into turmoil, it is the detachment of their son, Chip, to drugs – again the film is insightfully investigative into how the landscape and town can split our characters up from each other and leave them only clinging on for survival.

Both Jeremy Renner’s and Elizabeth Olsen’s performances as Lambert and Banner are also wonderfully intertwined into the film. Renner, in a career best performance, gives a more subtle and quiet performance as Lambert’s tracker who also secretly battles his own demons. Elizabeth Olsen also excels as the FBI Agent who struggles to get a grip of controlling the volatile situation, a character who is both naive and out of her depth, but academically intelligent and has her heart in the right place.

Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’ score is particularly atmospheric and moody and really lends itself well to the film’s harsh and brutal lanscape. Cave and Ellis continue to prove why they are one of the finest composing duo’s of recent memory and also did an outstanding job on ‘Hell or High Water’ last year. They revisit some of the familiar themes implored in that film and their other body of work and Cave lends his soothing voice in multiple moments to further describe the barren and feral environment these characters are living in.

Although overall melancholic and sorrowful, ‘Wind River’ faulters in its third act. The big reveal is quite jarring in its pacing and disrupts the pace of the film. Its conclusion feels a little too neat and the film could have really propelled from another twist – as far as murder mysteries go, this one is fairly simplistic for its audience to solve. It also doesn’t quite boast the same amount of energy ‘Sicario’ or ‘Hell or High Water’ had with their breakneck pace and tension. ‘Wind River’ is a more sensory film about discovery and cruelty and the theme of isolation.

‘Wind River’ is definitely a film worthy of your time and attention and Sheridan manages to deliver another satisfying rural Western that is very thematic. It boasts some terrific performances and an intelligent script that has a lot to say on its subject matter. Although on first viewing ‘Wind River’ doesn’t feel quite as strong as Sheridan’s other work, it’s still an excellent piece of work and hopefully a film that will further improve the more it is unpacked and rewatched.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Juan Carlos Medina
Starring: Bill Nighy, Olivia Cooke, Douglas Booth, Daniel Mays, Sam Reid, Maria Valverde, Eddie Marsan
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 109 mins

“Let us begin, my friends, at the end”, a theatrical actor states in the film’s first frame before enticing audiences into a thrilling murder mystery blend of fact and fiction. Bill Nighy’s Inspector Kildare, “a man not of the marrying kind”, is thrown straight in the deep end, assigned to a seemingly unsolvable case against the titular Limehouse Golem serial killer. Intertwined to this narrative is the poisoning of John Cree (Sam Reid), who Kildare soon investigates as a suspect to the murders by linking him to a library where the Golem has attended. His actress wife, Elizabeth (Olivia Cooke) is also suspected and brought to trial and Kildare, convinced of her innocence, tries to save her but also use her recounting of events to try and catch the killer.

‘The Limehouse Golem’ is an adaptation by screenwriter Jane Goldman of Peter Ackroyd’s 1994 novel. This material suits Goldman to a tee, previously writing similarly Gothic material such as the excellent ‘The Woman in Black’. The film is directed by Juan Carlos Medina, who previously directed a film called ‘Painless’ which similarly intertwined two stories in the horror genre. An all-star cast round out the film with the ever-reliable Bill Nighy in the lead, replacing Alan Rickman after his sad death. Rising stars Olivia Cooke and Douglas Booth also star as does an almost unrecognisable Eddie Marsan who can always be relied on to elevate the quality of a film.

‘The Limehouse Golem’ is generally a solid film and thematically rich, knowingly investigating themes of duality, the theatre and performance, gender and blame. It boasts some very assured performances and particularly in its second half, has some well-executed twists and turns. However, the film is a little cluttered and severely lacks tension. There are many graphic blood splatterings and images of murdered bodies but the intended shock is never earned due to this lack of tension – there never really are any stakes. But when the film finds its footing in its second half and its narrative develops, it’s very solid and I did generally have a good time watching this film.

Elevating the material are the impressive performances by its cast and they don’t disappoint. I can’t remember the last time Bill Nighy has had a lead role in a film, but he is fantastic here as Inspector Kildare and proves why he is one of Britain’s finest actors. Olivia Cooke continues to impress after impressive turns in ‘The Quiet Ones’ and ‘Me and Earl and the Dying Girl’ and proves which she is one of Britain’s rising stars. She suits this film to a tee and really seems to revel in the horror-thriller genre. Douglas Booth’s theatre owner Dan Leno manages to pull off multiple performances that the character plays in productions. Daniel Mays as a policeman, George Flood, shares great chemistry with Nighy’s Inspector and Sam Reid also has good chemistry with Cooke’s suspected murdering wife. The ever-reliable Eddie Marsan, who is almost unrecognisable in this film, plays a very multi-dimensional character who walks a fine line between comedy and sternness.

The script by Jane Goldman is another fine one to add to her resume, who seemingly revels in the material. The film moves at quite a fast pace but not without neglecting to thoroughly investigate its characters and more importantly, its suspects. As the film progresses to its explosive finale, I started to really care for quite a few of its unpredictable characters. Both Medina and Goldman throughly delve into the film’s thematic elements, particularly through metatheatre. The stage is a big presence in the film and it is here that we see multiple sides to these different characters and their duality. It is also a place where both genders are portrayed in ways that challenge convention in their context.

A shortcoming, largely of Medina’s direction more than Goldman’s script is the film’s depriving of tension. There are many instances where the film could have implored more of this particularly prior to each of the grisly murders that are explicitly detailed on-screen, fully earning the film’s 15 rating. Medina, bizarrely, seems to just gloss over these and prioritises gore over what the audience cannot see. Perhaps if he had managed to carve a more nerve-wracking atmosphere prior to showing the murders, this would have been more thrilling but there really isn’t much horror in this film other than some bloody images. There was certainly scope for a more suspense-fuelled film in Goldman’s script but Medina seems to have overlooked this. It’s a testament to the quality of the characters and narrative that the film still manages to succeed.

‘The Limehouse Golem’ is another strong Victorian-set murder mystery film which is elevated by its strong analysis of its core themes. It features some very assured performances and a fine script. I was very satisfied by the film’s climax and where its narrative had developed and the film is generally quite intelligent and thoughtful. What it lacks though is atmosphere and tension which would really have elevated the film and cemented it into more of the horror genre as opposed to the grisly murders feeling quite mechanical and mere plot devices to advance the narrative. Otherwise, a generally solid effort and its plethora of talent do the film proud.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Patrick Hughes
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman, Salma Hayek, Elodie Yung, Joaquim de Almeida, Kirsty Mitchell, Sam Hazeldine, Richard E. Grant
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 118 mins

‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ is frankly, a terrible title for a film but if you look beyond this oversight, what you get here is what seemingly appears to be an old-school throwback 80’s style action film with two wisecracking actors, Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson. The film has looked like an extremely fun film from its trailers with plenty of swearing and violence thrown in for good measure.  The story is rather run-of-the-mill where Reynolds and Jackson’s characters have to put aside their differences to take down a ruthless, merciless Belarussian director played by Gary Oldman. Where the film looks a little less promising is behind the scenes. The film is directed by Patrick Hughes of whom this is his third title to his belt after ‘Red Hill’ and the utterly awful ‘The Expendables 3′. Hughes’ career has been pretty patchy to say the least so far so one has to be weary of this film as a trailer can always look good but the film could be just as incoherent, humourless and overlong as the latter.

‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ doesn’t break any new ground and is quite simplistic on the narrative front. That said though, it is ashamedly enjoyable, the leads have fantastic chemistry and it’s really quite funny in parts. The film is a little wearing in places and overlong but Hughes actually has been able to craft a good-enough film here. He even shows considerably flair for the action sequences which are finely crafted. I was never bored throughout the film and it always managed to grab my attention.

The performances are what really propel this film and without the electric chemistry shared between Reynolds and Jackson, ‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ could have had a very different critical fate. Both Reynolds and Jackson play themselves in effect and both characters are suitably developed so we actually care for them as the film progresses. In particular, Samuel L. Jackson in great in anything he’s in and here is no exception. Out of the rest of the cast, Salma Hayek and Elodie Yung fare the best, the former as Jackson’s wife and the latter, Reynold’s ex. Gary Oldman is suitably ruthless as the over-the-top villain.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film is in conjunction with the strong characters are the action sequences. An extended sequence set in Amsterdam later into the film is particularly impressive and I was really impressed with the camera work by Jules O’Loughlin and playfulness of the action being portrayed on-screen. Compared to ‘The Expendables 3’ which was lazily crafted and its action incoherent due to there being far too many edits, O’Loughlin manages to have a good variety of camera trickery. It’s a brilliant sequence that manages to blend action film tropes, innovation and stakes for the well-developed characters.

‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ is luckily not the disaster it could have been and whilst it holds its badge of pride high and it is a little obnoxious tonally, it is generally really solid and always fun. Reynolds and Jackson really help to anchor this film and combined with some thrilling action sequences elevate the material that these filmmakers had to work with. Had these two aspects not been so good, the film could seriously have suffered. I feel rather ashamed to have liked it as much as I did but ‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ ultimately makes for a dumb but fun Summer action flick with a beaming heart.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: David F. Sandberg
Starring: Stephanie Sigman, Talitha Bateman, Lulu Wilson, Anthony LaPaglia, Miranda Otto 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 109 mins

Annabelle: Creation is a sequel-cum-prequel to 2014’s Annabelle and is the next entry in The Conjuring series. I thought Annabelle was incredibly disappointing after James Wan had done an excellent job on The Conjuring the year before. It is laugh-out-loud funny in parts, boring and has some atrocious performances from its cast. There’s a reason Ward Horton has seemingly vanished off the film scene… Although it would seem as if I aggressively didn’t want a sequel, when news came that in the director’s chair would be David F. Sandberg, I instantly had faith he’d do a good job. Sandberg is an excellent director who did a very efficient job with last year’s Lights Out and he is infinitely more creative than John R. Leonetti who had directed the first film. I also really like both Conjuring films and having Wan’s name on a film mostly indicates to a quality production. Annabelle: Creation is set before Annabelle and we are first introduced to the Mullins family played by Anthony LaPaglia as Samuel, a toymaker and Miranda Otto as Esther and their daughter, Annabelle but nicknamed ‘Bee’. Very quickly into the film, Bee is run over by a car and is killed. 12 years later, a still-grieving Samuel and Esther welcome a nun and several orphans from an orphange to live in their property but as you can probably guess, things don’t turn out so well. The story doesn’t exactly break new ground but if the film is able to craft a creepy atmosphere and narratively advance this wider universe, the film has done its job.

And it does. Annabelle: Creation is a marked improvement over its predecessor and is suitably scary, features good character development and is shot beautifully by cinematographer Maxime Alexandre. It also ties itself nicely into the wider universe but not enough to detract from the film – Sandberg still manages to satisfy on a standalone level. One must applaud Sandberg for having a go at crafting many different types of scare and seeing what sticks and there are several sequences which are superbly crafted. Unfortunately, the film does stick to convention at times and there are a few sections bordering on comedy but it is so, so much better than its predecessor in every level.

The performances in the film are great. Both Talitha Bateman and Lulu Wilson as Janice and Linda, two young orphans, the former a sufferer of polio who is confined to crutches excel in this film and have so much charisma and chemistry together. It’s also refreshing to see Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto in a mainstream film and both remind us why they deserve to act more often.

The scares are what Sandberg really nails and it’s good to see him try to stray away from convention. All of the films in The Conjuring series have so far impressed by being 15-rated without strong language, gore or sex. Annabelle: Creation strays from the pack a bit as there are several sequences which are quite bloody and gory but it works in the film as Sandberg tries to shock audiences. One doesn’t really expect much other than a jump scare and Sandberg shakes up this tired routine. It is definitely the most startling entry in the canon so far in this regard.

Unfortunately, the story is rather conventional at times and characters do make some quite frankly stupid decisions. There are some moments which dangerously veer into comedic territory but Sandberg’s innovative scares manage to outweigh this problem. Had Sandberg been equipped with a stronger script, he really could have knocked this film out of the park.

Maxime Alexandre’s cinematography is excellent here and there are multiple moments where the images crafted were just breathtaking. Alexandre’s camera angles also differ from the norm and he knows when to hold onto a shot for dramatic effect. Benjamin Wallfisch’s score is also strong at times and fits in nicely with the film.

Overall, my high hopes for this film proved to be correct and Sandberg continues to cement himself as a strong horror director. Annabelle: Creation is one of those rare sequels that manages to improve on its original in every way, a very poor film and this is a very reasonable one. It’s suitably scary and manages to tie itself nicely into the cinematic universe neatly without feeling forced. It proves the point that spin-off’s aren’t always cash-grabs, if anything it further enrichens the main canon of Conjuring films. With The Nun and The Crooked Man in the pipeline following their introduction in The Conjuring 2, there’s a good possiblity we’re in for a set of more quality films.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D’Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy 
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 106 mins

‘Dunkirk’ is one of my most hotly anticipated films of the year, a war film based on the titular 1940 event directed by one of my favourite directors, Christopher Nolan. Nolan has been behind some of my favourite films of all time such as ‘Inception’, ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘The Prestige’ to name a few and even his weaker films are still excellent in their own right. The man hasn’t put a foot wrong yet and consistently crafts intelligent films for his audiences. ‘Dunkirk’ is another lofty concept by this intelligent director, a retelling of the World War Two event told in the structure of a triptych. We follow front-line soldiers for a week on land, we follow Mark Rylance’s civilian, Mr Dawson take their boat rather than have it commandeered by the Royal Navy out to sea to rescue soldiers over a day. Finally, we follow three RAF Spitfires (one being Tom Hardy) who provide air support to the battle over an hour. As the film progresses, we see how these three stories interlink with each other. It’s refreshing to see filmmakers such as Nolan try and experiment with genre convention. As good as some war films are, by-and-large there are always characters which we can sympathise with who guide the audience’s way through the film – not so much here. Nolan’s script is also reportedly very short with not a lot of dialogue so frequent collaborator Hans Zimmer’s score needs to cut the mustard to give the film its flow as well as cinematography and editing. Initial reviews for this film have been extremely positive, some even citing this film as his best work.

Whilst there is undoubtedly a lot to admire in ‘Dunkirk’, unfortunately I also have a lot of problems with it. It’s not a bad film by any means but Nolan misses the mark for me in a story that is too ambitious and hard to have any care towards. This was a point that kept cropping up in a lot of the more lukewarm reviews that I read prior to watching the film and I got a little bit annoyed as it seems as if those reviewers want convention. I can’t quite put my finger on it but the actual tone of the film seems off and I didn’t really find myself caring much for not just the characters but the actual event as the approach for me felt too conservative. It’s a very strange approach to take and I applaud Nolan for taking it but along with other reasons which I will discuss, I couldn’t find an emotional response.

The performances and characters in this film aren’t particularly developed as mentioned as Nolan tries to tell the story as it is, not by emotionally manipulating its audience by caring for its characters. That said, Fionn Whitehead certainly makes an impression in the highest-billed role and epitomises the notion of the faceless soldier. Barry Keoghan as a young boy heading off to sea with Mark Rylance’s father is also excellent. Even Harry Styles manages to suprisingly make an impression as a young British Private. Out of the more veteran cast, it is only really Mark Rylance that makes a strong impression whose guilt-ridden self haunts the picture throughout. The rest of the performances are all serviceable but could have been played by anyone – Kenneth Branagh is particularly wasted in a completely expository role only in the film to tell audiences of the wider context and Tom Hardy, again covered by a mask doesn’t have all that much to do.

The visual effects are frequently impressive but I have to say there was nothing mind-blowing about this film compared to other Nolan works. There wasn’t a single moment which particularly captivated me to gaze at the screen in awe unlike pretty much the rest of Nolan’s filmography. This was also why I frequently failed to connect with ‘Dunkirk’ as the battle isn’t visually done justice. The film also fails in establishing a sense of scope – we are only ever told mainly by Branagh’s expository Captain of what is happening in terms of the battle as opposed to being given a visual representation. It’s hard to care for a film that looks smaller than it is.

Hans Zimmer’s score plays an integral part of the film, particularly with Nolan’s lack of dialogue but none of it really managed to stick with me or reach the heights of some of his previous Nolan work. Many have described his score as intensifying with the events being portrayed on-screen but I found it to be quite tonally jumbled and again, as Nolan cannot establish a sense of scope, it all feels a bit for nothing. Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography is also serviceable but again, there was nothing particularly memorable to latch onto compared to what I had expected.

Overall, ‘Dunkirk’ is a disappointment when it comes to Nolan’s previous films and I’m quite frustrated with it. Perhaps my expectations were too high and this is a wildly different film compared to the rest of his back catalogue. There can be no doubt of Nolan’s ambition with this project but ‘Dunkirk’ is frequently hollow and empty. I can appreciate what Nolan was trying to do with this and perhaps a rewatch may iron out some of these negatives but it defintely failed to capture me like the rest of Nolan’s work does the first time. This review may sound negative – don’t get me wrong, it’s a good film but it falls well short of what I have come to expect from this masterful director. I’d still recommend going and seeing it as it is a story that needs to be told and there are quite a few nice moments but ultimately, the film left me rather cold in its depiction of this momentous event.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Matt Reeves
Starring: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval, Terry Notary
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 142 mins

‘War for the Planet of the Apes’ is the third installment in the ‘Planet of the Apes’ reboot series, kicked off by ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ in 2011 and ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ in 2014. ‘Rise’ was one of my favourite films of 2011 and it was very intelligent and boasted superb visual effects. It came as a massive surprise after Tim Burton’s previous reboot had disappointed and it looked like the film was merely a cash grab. ‘Dawn’ received even more positive reviews but whilst I admired the craft behind it, I was disappointed in its surprisingly simplistic narrative.  This film continues to follow Andy Serkis’ motion capture Caesar after the ‘Rise’ and ‘Dawn’ of the previous two films which ‘War’ neatly sums up in its opening to keep new audiences engaged. Caesar battles with a ruthless Colonel, played by Woody Harrelson who tries to secure Earth’s future for humans by eradicating the apes.  The marketing team have been very elusive as to whether or not this is the closing chapter to a trilogy or whether or not this franchise will continue. Matt Reeves is back in the director’s chair after helming ‘War’ and I must say I was a little trepidatious as I have mixed views on him as a director. As mentioned, I found the story in ‘Dawn’ overly simplistic and he has previously directed ‘Cloverfield’ and ‘Let Me In’, the former being a particularly difficult film to engage with. What’s even more surprising is that Reeves has been attached to direct a new reboot of ‘The Batman’ following Ben Affleck’s departure which I am concerned about as I don’t think his style fits with the iconic superhero.  With sterling reviews for ‘War’ again, it’s safe to say I was hesitant again as to what Reeves had done for this film.

‘War for the Planet of the Apes’ is a welcome surprise – it’s grim, heartfelt, revenge-filled and most of all, questions its intelligent audience with multiple morality questions. It is perhaps the strongest of the series but I would need to rewatch ‘Rise’ again to be sure. Dialogue is rather scarce in this film and there are many prolonged sequence where the film is almost like a silent film and it is just stunning to behold. ‘Dunkirk’, another Summer release also tries to do this but this film succeeds better in this respect due to its stronger characters and more powerful overarching message. ‘War’ is at its best when it is uncompromisingly grim, the pain and loss felt by Caesar and the various nods to the Western and War genre.

The performances in this film are brilliant and Andy Serkis once again, makes his case for the benefits of motion capture. Serkis does his best work in this film as Caesar who is now capable of pretty much fluent English and he really conveys the pain and anguish felt by the devastation of his inner world. There are definitely echoes of Clint Eastwood here in his quest for revenge and also echoes of the war hero. Karin Konoval also does her best work here as Maurice, the orange-utan who in many ways reflects Caesar’s conscience. Steve Zahn is also excellent as a new character called ‘Bad Ape’ who provides comic relief and a lot of heart to the film. I had problems with the human characters in ‘Dawn’ who were rather one-note and hard to empathise with. Fully fleshed out human characters are rather scarce in this film but Woody Harrelson is excellent as the Colonel and is well-developed and at some points, even emphatic as we can sense where his point of view is coming from. There is no doubt this character channels the infamous Colonel Kurtz and Reeves even includes a couple of references to ‘Apocalypse Now’ to draw the contrasts. Amiah Miller as Nova (spot the reference?), a mute orphan who the apes pick up on their way to the Colonel is outstanding, managing to convey her emotions simply from body language.

Reeves’ characters certainly make an interesting character study and what allows this film to really succeed is its more intelligent narrative. My main problem with ‘Dawn’ was its obvious and predictable narrative with not all that much substance but there is certainly more meat to chew on here. If there are any flaws in this film, perhaps it is a little overly compassionate at times and it doesn’t quite reach the heights of ‘Rise’ in terms of its commentary on animal cruelty and suffering.

The score by Michael Giacchino is sublime here – it is extremely memorable and really elevates the material. Giacchino doesn’t just rehash his score for the previous installment, instead introducing many new themes to suit the different mood the film conjures and it’s clear that in his plethora of projects this Summer including the critically panned ‘The Book of Henry’ and the excellent ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming‘, it’s clear he’s put the work in here.

The cinematography by Michael Seresin is again brilliant after his work on ‘Dawn’ – the cold, harsh landscape feels so life-like and you can almost sense the wind breathing on the back of these characters. There are numerous shots which are simply awe-inspiring to look at and Seresin also knows when to hang onto a shot that is a little longer than comfortable. The action sequences are also refreshing in that he doesn’t just resort to numerous quick cuts.

Overall, ‘War for the Planet of the Apes’ is a work of art and Reeves has really developed as a director, particularly from an individual in the past whose films I have had some big problems with. The performances and narrative in this film are what really hold it all together and it is very cine-literate but not to the point of parodying. I still don’t think Reeves is a match for ‘The Batman’ but if he manages to evolve like he does with this film, it could be brilliant. It is one of the strongest films of the Summer and shows a lot of promise for the future of this material.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Brian Fee
Starring: (voices of) Owen Wilson, Cristela Alonzo, Armie Hammer, Larry The Cable Guy, Bonnie Hunt, Chris Cooper, Nathan Fillion, Lee DeLaria
Certificate: U
Run Time: 109 mins

‘Cars 3’ is the latest Pixar film to grace our cinema screens and it is the sequel to, you guessed, ‘Cars’ and ‘Cars 2’. It has often be remarked that the ‘Cars’ franchise is lower-tier Pixar, sub-standard to the rest of their films. ‘Cars’ was famously the first Pixar film to not score above 90% on Rotten Tomatoes on its release and ‘Cars 2’ is the only Pixar film to have been very negatively received. This is quite unfair in my opinion as I found a lot to like in ‘Cars’ – it’s a film about trying to fit in and it has some glorious race sequences and I thought ‘Cars 2’ was actually an improvement. The prospect of a second sequel seems a little bit strange due to the lower reception of these films for general audiences but to me, this has a lot of promise. ‘Cars 3’ reverts to the figurehead Owen Wilson-voiced Lightning McQueen as its main character after many people rejected Larry The Cable Guy’s Mater in ‘Cars 2’ as being annoying. An ageing Lightning McQueen has to face the prospect that he is not at his peak anymore after a crash as he races against a new generation of racers. The film deals with his quest to make himself better so that he can keep up with the new crop and he receives training from a new character, Cruz Ramirez who has always longed to be a racer too but lacks the confidence. John Lasseter doesn’t return to the director’s chair for this film and this is instead directed by Brian Fee who has plenty of experience in Pixar over the years. I was really impressed by the marketing campaign for this film – a trailer detailing McQueen’s crash, a stunning photorealistic image to behold breaking the boundaries of what animation can or can’t do. This seems like a risk for the franchise, to try and win newfound fans after the first two films.

‘Cars 3’ unfortunately, is a step-down from the previous installments and we really don’t get the seemingly genius film that was marketed. Whilst ‘Cars 3’ hints towards a better film multiple times and has some really good moments, it is surprisingly generic. Pixar have always stated that their story is their number-one priority and it needs to be worthy of the Pixar name for it to get made. I’m genuinely surprised of the result in this instance. A strong opening sequence and the heavily marketed crash are all promising but the film meanders along a well-worn road of cliche and I have some big problems with how the film ends. It doesn’t have the same sense of energy the first two films had and even emotionally, the film feels rather cold – Pixar are normally geniuses at pulling the heartstrings, sometimes even manipulatively. Instead, there is no effort whatsoever here.

There are individual sequences that do work in their own right and there are a number of times where it looks as if the film is really going to pick up but it never does. Most promisingly, as soon as McQueen’s crash happens in the film’s opening, the film feels as though it’s going to take a really mature route and explore the inner character of McQueen – I would have been really impressed if it had done this. Shortly after this, there is an extended sequence where McQueen talks with his sponsor and again, what the film could have done was had an interesting critique on sponsorship. The film never decides to be mature and instead it degenerates into a film that is too overly kid-friendly and it doesn’t work.

To Pixar’s credit, the animation is outstanding and McQueen’s crash in particular is one of their best works. As mentioned, there are many stunning photorealistic shots of various landscapes and the attention to detail is mind-blowing. However, as I previously mentioned for ‘The Good Dinosaur‘, another film that suffered similar tonal problems to this film, if all you are looking at is the animation then there must be something seriously not right with the narrative and this is sadly the case. Even Randy Newman’s score isn’t overly memorable and although there are cues of promise, these are never fully realised – it’s all rather slap-dash.

It’s a real shame ‘Cars 3’ isn’t as good as it should be, particularly with the lofty promises of its ambitious trailers. The film is too disconnected between its photorealistic lanscapes and its cartoonish characters and Fee can never find a medium between these two aspects. To the film’s credit, it has generally been positively received and I understand that in my perception of the first two films, my opinion does differ to the norm. This should have made me all the more willing to accept this film but it’s sadly generic and severely lacking in its narrative. Although this review is predominantly negative, this is more in relation to the first two ‘Cars’ films which I would rank a lot higher. ‘Cars 3’ only just misses out on scoring a 3-star – it’s not an outright bad film by any means, it’s just disappointingly average and generic compared to Pixar’s normally lofty standards hence why I couldn’t quite bump it up into the ‘Good’ category.

⭐⭐ (Poor)

The short film that precedes ‘Cars 3’, ‘Lou’ is wonderful and has a fantastic emotional core to it and a powerful message. A shame that the film that followed couldn’t sustain this standard.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Jon Watts
Starring: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Donald Glover, Tyne Daly, Marisa Tomei, Robert Downey Jr.
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 133 mins

‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ is the third reboot of the webslinger in the space of fifteen years. There was the Sam Raimi trilogy with Tobey Maguire in the lead role – all are good fun (yes, even the third in my opinion) and the second one particularly stands out. Marc Webb’s two films with Andrew Garfield then followed which were also solid but the second installment recieved mixed reviews and stopped plans of a cinematic universe which there were plans for. Marvel and Sony then finally reached an agreement to incorporate the character into the profitable Marvel Cinamatic Univese and now here we are. Tom Holland now stars as the eponymous character with ‘Cop Car’ director Jon Watts calling the shots. Holland is a much younger Spider-Man than Maguire and Garfield were when they were in the role and Watts has stated multiple times he takes inspiration from John Hughes films in his direction for this film. I must admit a sense of fatigue had settled in before seeing this film as we have had so many variations of this character over not that long a time. The trailers made the film look a little too sickly sweet and a cash grab. Tom Holland’s character had previously been introduced in last year’s ‘Captain America: Civil War‘ but I found him quite weak and annoying and detracted from what was mostly a perfectly solid film. Add to that the disappointment of Marvel’s first outing of the year, ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2‘ and I was trepidatious to say the least.

‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’, to my surprise, was a breath of fresh air in what has been quite a convoluted genre of late. I thought it struck just the right tone between seriousness and humour and it is a very realistic and grounded film in the Marvel canon. It also features one of the best villains we’ve had in Michael Keaton’s Vulture who is extremely sinister and narcissitic. The whole cast are generally excellent and I was really invested in the narrative that Watts portrays. Watts also does well to not aim too high in terms of visual effects and although there are a couple of impressive action sequences, they never reach the heights of some of the other Marvel films which further helps to keep this film very grounded.

The performances in this film are spot-on – Tom Holland does a complete 180 from his performance in ‘Civil War’ and instead of finding him quite annoying and overly energetic, I found his performance a lot more genuine and heartfelt. Compared to Maguire and Garfield, Holland probably balances both roles of Peter Parker and Spider-Man the best and if Marvel continue to take this approach with the character, it’ll be interesting to see how he develops from now on. The standout in this film is Michael Keaton’s Vulture who is at times, extremely sinister and cynical but because Watts chooses to develop his character on a more human level, this really adds another layer to the character and Keaton’s villain is one that audiences can actually empathise with. It’s definitely one of the strongest Marvel villains to date and is refreshing to see seeing how many villains Marvel have under-delivered on. There is one scene of particular mention towards the third act of the film that is particularly well-acted by both Keaton and Holland together which was electric to watch on-screen. The rest of the cast all fare well too and it’s refreshing to see Watts not include too much Robert Downey Jr as the trailers had suggested. He is used sparingly in the film to advance the narrative. It’s good to see Jon Favreau back and he too is excellent as always. Zendaya also does a surprisingly nice job in a limited role.

The script and narrative is where the film really excels. In the screenplay credits, 6 different inviduals are credited and that would normally be a surefire sign of there being too many cooks in the kitchen but the script is surprisingly pretty much perfect. Narratively, the film is strong and the film’s pace is also perfectly judged and it didn’t feel as if the film was 133 minutes at all.

If there’s one nitpick I have with the film, it is the directing. Although Jon Watts has successfully implemented his John Hughes vision for the film, I don’t feel we get enough of Watts’ characteristics dripped into the film. We don’t really get the gritty, small-scale traits that he used in ‘Cop Car’ and this links back to my overarching argument for the entire Marvel canon that a lot of the film feels as if they don’t have a director’s stamp. This is a big problem I have with Anthony and Joe Russo’s Captain America films for example despite however well received they are, it just feels as if the film was made by a Marvel executive with not a lot of room for a singular vision. At least though, it pays off in this film.

The score by Michael Giacchino is at times, very good if not a little derivative of some of his previous works. It’s a shame it doesn’t soar as it had the potential to do particularly after his great work on ‘Doctor Strange‘ last year. However, looking at his filmography this Summer (of which there is a lot of), he clearly has put the work into ‘War for the Planet of the Apes’ as he does some of his best work there. Here, Giacchino is servicable with a couple of high moments. The cinematography by Salvatore Totino is also serviceable and fairly safe, there’s nothing really overly risque with what he does.

‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ is just the welcome surprise I needed and for a film that perhaps didn’t receive the best marketing, it’s a blessing that the film is as good as it is. It proves why this needed to be made despite there already being an abundance of different Spider-Man films over the past fifteen years. With the exception of ‘Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2’, 2017 has been a very strong year for comic-book films – ‘Logan‘, ‘Wonder Woman‘ and now this and with both ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ and ‘Justice League’ still to come, it shows there is plenty of new life left in the comic-book genre if it is left in the right hands.

(Excellent)