⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Liam Neeson, Ciaran Hinds, Tadanobu Asano, Issey Ogata, Shinya Tsukamoto, Yōsuke Kubozuka
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 161 mins

‘Silence’ has been Martin Scorsese’s passion project for 25 years and is an adaption of Shūsaku Endō’s 1966 novel of the same name. It details the story of two 17th Century Portuguese Jesuit priests who travel to Japan to preach Christianity and also to find their missing mentor, Father Ferreira, who they fear may have renounced his faith after being tortured. It stars Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver as the two priests, two both very prominent actors who have been elevating up the ranks over the years and the cast is rounded out by Liam Neeson, who plays the small role of Ferreira. A lot of people have been quick to point out that ‘Silence’ marks a departure from a lot of Scorsese’s other work but I would disagree. Take a look at ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ or ‘Kundun’ for example, two other religious epics that he has made and this falls into that category. In fact, in many ways, ‘Silence’ completes a trilogy of religious epics. The film had been expected to go on to be nominated for many Awards but other than a Best Cinematography award for DOP Rodrigo Prieto, the film has been completely shut out despite garnering very strong reviews from both critics and audiences alike. So has ‘Silence’ been worth the wait and is it the careful, meticulously crafted work that we have been led to believe?

‘Silence’ is a beautifully crafted film that features some knock-out performances and is frequently emotionally wrenching. Scorsese directs this film with precision and develops these characters extremely well hence the rather intimidating 161 minute run time. The cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is stunning and the film poses lots of philosophical questions and is a brutal test that questions a lot of characters’ religious beliefs. That said, ‘Silence’ is not quite a perfect film. I have problems with the score (more soundscape) and I also think the film does lose its footing in its ending which tonally shifts a little and it threatens to undo the superb work the rest of the film has tried to craft. It might be that it just requires a rewatch but I did come out feeling underwhelmed as a film that had taken this long to set up its narrative doesn’t exactly reward the viewer’s patience. But despite this, it is a work of art.

‘Silence’ hinges on some truly standout performances not only by its lead actors but also its supporting ones too. Andrew Garfield delivers a career-best performance, demonstrating a great maturity as the Priest, Sebastião Rodrigues, and it is refreshing to see him choose some interesting roles post-‘Spider-Man’. Garfield has been nominated for an Oscar for his lead performance in another Awards film this year, Mel Gibson’s ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ which will be hard to top from this film. Rodrigues’ faith is tested time and time again and Scorsese portrays the extent to which he feels he is of benefit in his mission to spread Catholicism with a sequence mid-way through the film where he looks at his reflection in a puddle of water and sees a Christ-like figure. Adam Driver, who is also a notable rising star over the years is also very good here but he can’t quite match Garfield and is oddly sidelined as the film progresses. Garfield and Driver’s chemistry is very strong but as their characters begin to break away, this does very much become Garfield’s film. Liam Neeson’s role is small but pivotal to this narrative. Besides Garfield, the other standout performance in this film are by the Japanese cast. Tadanobu Asano chews the scenery as the nameless Interpreter and Issey Ogata as the Machiavellian-like Inquisitor who is responsible for the persecution of the Christians. Ogata is fabulous in this role and is very menacing and sinister and is easily able to match Garfield’s performance through repeated conversations over religion and religious torture.

Scorsese manages to craft a very grim picture of Japan, a world at first that these two priests don’t really know and an extended sequence in a secret Christian village manages to perfectly encapsulate the scarcity of this religion and the horrors of being discovered and subsequently tortured. The majority of the second half of the film deals with Garfield’s suffering for his religion and the attempts by the Japanese for him to apostatise. Scorsese chooses to explicitly portray the prolonged, violent torture methods that were used and this really does test our empathy with a lot of the characters that are so well developed. Unlike a lot of his other works, violence and gore is used sparingly to create a sense of shock and isn’t just used for the sake of it. One can tell that this is a deeply personal work and he clearly has a lot of respect for this material and in terms of direction, ‘Silence’ is one of his most maturely directed films yet.

Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography, of whom it looks as if Scorsese is forming a partnership after he shot his last film, ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ too is jaw-dropping and thoroughly deserving of the Oscar nomination it received. Although the film is shot in Taiwan, Taiwan stands in superbly for Japan and we get a real sense of what it is like to live in this world that is completely different to the Priest’s normality in Portugal. The torture sequences have a certain grandeur about them and unlike a lot of Scorsese’s works where the camera work is quite kinetic, Prieto certainly knows when to hold or explore a shot that is a little longer than is comfortable. He truly does a superb job.

I do have some reservations on the ending. After 140-minutes or so of the film, the film suddenly switches focus to another character that we have not been introduced to yet and I think this is to the film’s detriment as we have been following Garfield the whole way through and have endured in his suffering and his principles only for this to suddenly be taken away and told through a third person narrative. This is especially after Scorsese’s fantastic development of these characters through some prolonged sequences where one really gets a sense of this barren world and the ideals within and this is quite a jarring way to end the film. Perhaps the film just needs a rewatch to see how this all fits in but first impressions, the film left me rather cold in its ending and rather short-changed.

I also have some reservations on the score. The score is by Kim Allen Kluge and Kathryn Kluge of whom this is their first foray into film scoring but there are only slight murmurs of music throughout the film at times and the film uses more of a soundscape as opposed to a soundtrack. Perhaps I’m being a little short-sighted but why bother crediting them with this accolade if there is virtually none of it?!

Overall, ‘Silence’ is a fantastic film that explores religion in a very perceptive and personal manner and one can clearly note the effort that Scorsese has put into this project. This is complimented by some superb performances and character development. Faith, of all proportions is tested repeatedly in these characters throughout this film and it really is refreshing to notice these different perspectives from different characters who have led their own unique lives. This is clearly one of Scorsese’s most personal works and it has been worth the wait. This is a film that definitely requires multiple rewatches to work out its ending which I currently do have my reservations about but ‘Silence’ demonstrates that Scorsese is still a masterclass of his own in his direction and it is a real shame that this film hasn’t received the appropriate amount of Awards attention. As a film however, this is one of the best films of the year so far and if you stick with it, it is highly rewarding for the most part.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Justin Kurzel
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling, Michael K. Williams, Ariane Labed, Denis Ménochet
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 115 mins

‘Assassin’s Creed’ is a live-action adaptation of the hit video game of the same name and the latest bid to undo the past failures of video games not translating well into respectable films. Although this is the view shared by much of the film industry, I did quite like Duncan Jones’ 2015 adaptation of ‘Warcraft‘ and Mike Newell’s ‘Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time’ is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. The film is directed by Justin Kurzel who I am a fan of who was behind 2015’s ‘Macbeth‘ and also directed ‘Snowtown’. Whilst I had my reservations on the screenplay for ‘Macbeth’, Kurzel has a flair for directing action so this should be right up his alley especially armed with a healthy $125 million budget. The film details the journey of Callum Lynch who is rescued from execution by a mysterious company called Abstergo who then learns he is a descendant of Aguilar during the Spanish Inquisition. Lynch must use the Animus, a program that allows him to relive Aguilar’s genetic memories in order to learn the location of the coveted Apple of Eden which Abstergo are desperate to source. Kurzel reunites with ‘Macbeth’ stars Michael Fassbender as Callum and Marion Cotillard and has also assembled an impressive cast comprising of Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson and Charlotte Rampling which fixes an issue that ‘Warcraft’ had in the sense that the cast it had were nothing particularly special. Kurzel also reunites with his brother, Jed Kurzel who composes the score and cinematographer Adam Arkapaw. Unfortunately, the film has been plagued by terrible reviews with many citing it as a hollow exercise that muddles itself in its incoherent narrative which is a shame considering the talent.

Contrary to the overwhelmingly negative reviews, I found ‘Assassin’s Creed’ to be extremely entertaining with top-notch action sequences. It is a little silly in places, lacks some character development and muddles up its rather anti-climactic ending but there is a lot of promise here and Kurzel has made for a sterling choice in terms of directorial duties. The action sequences, particularly in the Spanish sequences are masterfully crafted and in conjunction with Adam Arkapaw’s stunning cinematography make for a spectacle to behold on-screen. The modern day action sequences are not as good but I don’t agree with all the negative reviews criticising them as they are fundamental to the narrative of the film. Other than the ending, the narrative was never incoherent and Kurzel manages to create suspense throughout this unravelling narrative.

The performances are fairly strong with Michael Fassbender being able to convincingly play both Callum and his descendant, Aguilar with flair. Marion Cotillard also fares well and Jeremy Irons is suitably hammy as the villain. Unfortunately Charlotte Rampling and Brendan Gleeson aren’t given much to do but when they are on-screen, they are able to capture the screen and the film also features some strong performances by Michael K. Williams and Ariane Labed. Character development does tend to take a backseat in this film which Duncan Jones attempted to inject with some success in ‘Warcraft’ but this film is more about the set pieces and the pulse-racing action brought to the screen.

Unlike a lot of viewers who have complained that the film’s narrative is incoherent, I didn’t find this to be the case. I was always aware of what was happening in the film and although I am not a player of the game that this film is an adaption of, I was never lost by it. As mentioned, the Spanish sequences really are a work of art and the action scenes are some of the most heart-racing I have seen in a while – they are simply jaw-dropping and extremely well orchestrated. Whilst I felt that Kurzel’s decision to keep the Shakespearean language in ‘Macbeth’ was a poor decision as it detracted from the filmic elements, Kurzel’s decision to keep the Spanish sequences in Spanish is a great decision and is really helps in the in-keeping of the raw, kinetic energy that these scenes provide. Unfortunately, Kurzel half-bakes the ending which falls a little flat and loses a lot of the exhiliration and thrill that were demonstrated in the earlier sequences of the film but there’s more than enough of a good film to compensate for this.

It wouldn’t be a Justin Kurzel film without a complimentary score by Jed Kurzel and cinematogaphy by Adam Arkapaw and once again, these two men are sheer geniuses. Jed Kurzel’s score is fantastic – it is crazy at times and really fits in well with the film and there are many memorable riffs that he manages to create. He is currently tapped to score the upcoming sequel, Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien: Covenant’ and I really do think he is a wonderful choice. He hasn’t disappointed yet at all and he manages to differentiate each and every score that he does and really has his own unique sound, something which a lot of composers lack in this day and age. Similarly, Adam Arkapaw also does not put a single foot wrong with this film – the action sequences are visceral in the way that they are shot and there are many sweeping point-of-view shots of the carnage and destruction that is inflicted in Inquisition-era Spain. He really does do a remarkable job.

‘Assassin’s Creed’ is a competently crafted film with some enthralling action sequences and is always entertaining for the most part until its ending which has a whole host of problems. It features some fine performances and creatively has a strong vision behind it. Justin Kurzel has clearly learned and developed himself as a director with this and it’s a real shame that this film has been largely rejected in the way that it has. I genuinely don’t understand all the hate this film has recieved and it’s a real shame to even see this consigned to ‘Worst of the Year’ lists. Compared to ‘Warcraft’, I did find this film to be a lot more entertaining and awe-inspiring but Jones’ film has a lot more character development to it but I overall would rather watch this. Ignore the reviews, go and see this and you will be enthralled at times. Take it for what it is.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good) 

⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Damien Chazelle
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, John Legend, Rosemarie DeWitt, J. K. Simmons
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 128 mins

After winning three Oscar’s for his 2015 film, ‘Whiplash’,my favourite film of that year, writer/director Damien Chazelle is back with romantic musical ‘La La Land’ that so far took the Golden Globes by storm winning all seven of its awards it was nominated for and will undoubtedly go onto to receive many Oscar nominations. I’m a big fan of Chazelle and I think he is one of the most exciting people working in the film industry, always writing memorable scripts with empathetic, three-dimensional characters with assured direction. The reason why I loved ‘Whiplash’ was because it managed to synthesise these traits and featured some fantastic performances by both Miles Teller and J. K. Simmons, the latter winning an Oscar for his work. I strongly believe that ‘Whiplash’ is in fact a musical in itself – the music played a pivotal role in the film and its subject matter and acted as its own entity. Although he didn’t direct the film, I was enthralled with Chazelle’s work on the screenplay for ‘10 Cloverfield Lane‘, again managing to be gripping and full of twists and turns. I really do admire this guy and was really pleased to see that his latest film is getting lots of attention. ‘La La Land’ looks to be in the same vein as ‘Whiplash’ in its appreciation of music and it reunites both Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as two individuals who cross paths and try to pursue their dreams, Gosling’s character, Sebastian wants to open up a Jazz club to appreciate the dying art and Stone’s character, Mia who wants to be a successful actress. The film has received rave reviews from both critics and audiences alike, many citing the film as a “love letter” to classic Hollywood musicals and it very much looks the way that this film is going to be the top contender at the upcoming Academy Awards.

It is with heavy heart that I found ‘La La Land’ to be an incredibly disappointing film that is totally undeserving of all the praise it is getting. I really wanted to like this film and I kept trying to make excuses for Chazelle but there’s just too many mis-steps to ignore and the film feels very disjointed in its pacing. The performances are admirable and Gosling and Stone carry the film well but by no means are they awards-worthy and the script in particular, which is normally Chazelle’s main attribute is dismally lacking and doesn’t have any direction to it. The whole plot of the film is by extension, confused and the film doesn’t know what it wants to be and the many elements of the narrative just aggressively don’t come together. Did I miss something in this film? Did I watch a different film to everyone else, not the one that has made such an impression on both critics and audiences and has attracted sterling reviews?

The performances in the film are admirable and Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone do some nice work and have good chemistry together, Gosling in particular carrying on a very good year in terms of his performances as he also impressed in ‘The Big Short‘ and ‘The Nice Guys’. However it is only down to these actors and their willingness and success in being able to portray these characters as  I just couldn’t empathise with them. All they seemed to be concerned with the possibility of a profitable career which they coveted which I think is actually quite a sickly message. I was completely uninvolved with their characters as they try to reach heights that are near-enough unattainable for the amount of work they put in to getting there. Mia is a particularly manipulative character who uses Sebastian as a pawn to get what she wants. Of the supporting cast, it is John Legend and J. K. Simmons, the latter unsurprisingly who fare the best. Simmons as usual is reliable in a small role and John Legend gives a rather subtle and nuanced performance as Keith, a classmate of Sebastian’s who forms a jazz band which allows Sebastian a means of getting onto the financial ladder.

I genuinely don’t understand how ‘La La Land’ is getting recognition for its screenplay. Not only did it manage to get nominated, it actually won the Golden Globe for it and is currently nominated for a BAFTA and most likely an Oscar too. Chazelle’s screenplay lacks any form of subtlety whatsoever and lacks any form of wit or imagination. I found the screenplay to be stodgy, minimalistic and not intelligent in the slightest yet somehow it has managed to appeal to other viewers which genuinely baffles me. How is this above some outstanding screenplays that have been nominated this year like ‘Hell or High Water’, ‘Manchester By The Sea‘ or ‘Nocturnal Animals‘?

Being a musical, this is one area where ‘La La Land’ was expected to flourish and Justin Hurwitz, who reunites with Chazelle, does some nice work here and the musical numbers are good, even fairly memorable in a few places. Bizarrely, the film doesn’t have that many big numbers and uses its musical numbers and extravagant stage pieces sparingly instead choosing to focus on the unfocussed narrative. The songs themselves are staged quite well and many of the iconic moments in the marketing for this moment are where the songs feature which Linus Sandgren does a great job capturing cinematographically but the rest of the film is oddly subdued and devoid of visual flair which amounts to long stretches of nothing all that much happening. Where the film does manage to partly redeem itself and where I suspect the film has managed to be received positively is in its ending in which there is a sequence that is fantastically crafted and offers a new spin on the film that has come beforehand.

‘La La Land’ is possibly the biggest disappointment in recent memory and the most undeserving film of significant Awards attention certainly of this decade but potentially of the century as well. I don’t understand how this film has managed to appeal to such a wide range of audiences and critics. For me, I was emotionally uninvolved, not invested with these characters in the slightest and a constant cloud of disappointment and mediocrity hung over this film. As mentioned, before I totally lost it with this film I did try and make excuses for Chazelle and hoped the film would redeem itself which it never really does and is just a big, empty nothing. I can only hope the film manages to get snubbed in the Academy Awards but I doubt that will happen. Ok, perhaps this film could be one small misstep in Chazelle’s career but if this is going to be celebrated and showered with Awards, I can only fear that Chazelle is going to make more and more films in this vein and not the taut, witty, intelligent pieces of work he has done beforehand – the bigger picture is at stake! How has this film managed to do as well as it has? I honestly don’t think I have seen the same film as everyone else seems to have done.

 (Poor)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Kenneth Lonergan
Starring: Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, Lucas Hedges
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 137 mins

If you’re closely watching the upcoming Awards season, it is very hard to not notice ‘Manchester By The Sea’, the new film by writer and director Kenneth Lonergan which stars Casey Affleck who is hotly tipped to win an Oscar for his performance and has Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler and Lucas Hedges in supporting roles. It follows the narrative of Affleck’s character, Lee Chandler who loses his brother, Joe to a heart attack and when he travels to the titular location to arrange his affairs is shocked to learn that Joe has named him guardian of his teenage son, Patrick. Lonergan is no stranger to this genre and previously directed the very well-recieved ‘Margaret’ in 2011 and ‘You Can Count On Me’ in 2000. ‘Manchester By The Sea’ is distributed by Amazon Studios and although I applaud the fact that those working in the film industry get a lot more creative freedom this way or through Netflix, I have very mixed feelings over this form of cinema distribution and a lot of films that are released hardly ever see the light of day in a cinema. Now as this film is geared up for Awards season, it is only logical to give this film a wide-release but I’m sure if this film hadn’t have been so well-received by both critics and audiences, audiences would find it hard to access this film. For me, this is not the direction that cinema should be heading in and I was ready to really nitpick this film to prove a point before seeing it.

‘Manchester By The Sea’ is a heartfelt, expertly crafted film that features a career-defining performance by Casey Affleck and it takes its time in really developing its characters and allowing its audience to emotionally connect with them. The rest of the cast are also very strong and the narrative really goes to town with these characters who all go through their own equally debilitating experiences. That said, the film does have some flaws in its tone which is a little unbalanced at times and a couple of baffling musical choices also awkwardly impact the film.

The performances in ‘Manchester By The Sea’ are what the film will most likely be remembered for and Casey Affleck is simply brilliant as Lee who is solemn, well-meaning and a little sarcastic and as the film takes its time in trickling his backstory to the audience, he is an easy character to empathise with. I’ve always been a big advocate of Casey Affleck and he has put in some impressive performances over the years and it’s a shame that he isn’t as well regarded as his brother, Ben Affleck as Casey Affleck by far picks the more interesting projects to work on. I would be surprised if he didn’t take the win for Best Actor this year at the upcoming Academy Awards. The rest of the cast are also very strong and Lucas Hedges in particular manages to make a memorable impression as Patrick and this should hopefully lead onto a lot more work for him. Michelle Williams and Kyle Chandler both manage to pull their weight and both have some standout moments in some key sequences.

The narrative that Lonergan puts these characters for is endlessly depressing and there are times where you think there isn’t a lot of hope for these characters futures. It’s a very raw and real representation of death and the film manages to tackle the themes of adolescence and even questions one’s morals at times. It’s a superb screenplay that Lonergan has written and one that I hope is acknowledged as it is equally haunting and emotive but also quite humorous in parts. If anything, I would have wanted to have spent more time with these characters as I really started to care and empathise with them and the film already has a fair 137 minute run time.

The score by Lesley Barber works perfectly at times and really compliments the film but at other times detracts from the experience with some baffling choices that don’t really synchronise well with the events being portrayed on-screen. However when Barber gets it right, the score is very fitting. The cinematography by Jody Lee Lipes manages to encapsulate the rawness of the situation and really gives the audience an impression as to what it’s like to live in this location but I did find some shots a little heavy-handed in its lighting.

Overall, ‘Manchester By The Sea’ is a rewarding and expertly-crafted film in its character development and narrative and I was completely won over the performances. This film is undoubtedly going to make a lot of noise at the upcoming Academy Awards and with good reason too as it deserves the attention it is getting. It’s just a shame that Amazon and Netflix don’t normally choose to exhibit their films widely and I probably would never have got a chance to watch this film if it hadn’t have received a wide release due to the awards buzz. It’s a model that needs to be rethought and reevaluated and if anything, if they can make a mark on the film industry it might teach the oligopoly of film studios to give their filmmakers more creative freedom and allow them to make the film they desire rather than the one that will appeal to the most audiences or make the most revenue at the box office. ‘Manchester By The Sea’ is a very carefully crafted piece of work and is a great film to kick-start the year off.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Gareth Edwards
Starring: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn, Donnie Yen, Mads Mikkelsen, Alan Tudyk, Jiang Wen, Riz Ahmed, Forest Whitaker
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 133 mins

‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ is the first spin-off in this ever lucrative franchise and follows on from the phenomena that was last year’s ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens‘ which successfully revitalised this series in true fashion which I found a lot to like with. This film details the rebellion led by Jyn Erso who attempt to steal the plans from the Death Stars leading into the events of ‘Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope’. In the director’s chair for this instalment is Gareth Edwards who was behind the micro-budget sci-fi monster film ‘Monsters’ and 2014’s ‘Godzilla’. I had a lot of reservations over ‘Godzilla’ and thought he did some good work in the film’s first half only for it to spectacularly fall apart in its second half. However, Disney seem to have confidence in him and signed him up for this instalment. ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ has been much publicised for its reshoots which had been reported over its third act which Disney tried to defend saying that this was not to the detriment to the film. Too often reshoots have harmed a film’s quality – take this Summer’s ‘Suicide Squad‘ for example but what a lot of people fail to understand is that reshoots are first and foremost designed to improve the cohesion of the film and make it a more immersive experience as the editor’s assemble the preliminary cuts of the film. So is the film what Edwards originally set out to make or is it yet another meddling of a director’s work?

‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ begins rather poorly and flatly but manages to find its feet in its second and third act and deliver a very satisfying narrative that ties in very neatly to the events of ‘A New Hope’. The visual effects are very efficient and in particular with the film’s final act is enthralling and a pure spectacle to behold on-screen. The acting and script are rather stodgy in places but Edwards manages to cover up the film’s flaws with a very entertaining narrative and good chemistry between the film’s characters. Luckily, the reshoots have been to the film’s benefit as the revision of the third act has clearly proved a success and if the film had been in a similar vein to its first act which showcases the worst habits of Edwards then the film could have been in very serious trouble.

What allows this film to work on so many levels is that it is a war film first and a Star Wars film second which gives viewers a totally new experience of the world they have grown to care and idolise. The film is very dark in moments where it needs to be and the stakes are always high and the film manages to satisfy on these levels. There are many subtle nods that connect to other films in this franchise and the narrative is very coherent despite audiences who are aware of the events of ‘A New Hope’ knowing the outcome.

The performances in this film do let the side down a little bit as quite a few of the actors phone their performances in due to a weak yet efficient script. Felicity Jones as Jyn Erso is very moody in the lead role and does well in a role that doesn’t particularly require much of her and Diego Luna is very sound as Cassian Andor, a Rebel Alliance Captain and is representative of the diverse brand that the ‘Star Wars’ franchise is trying to create and it is very pleasing to see a Hispanic actor taking centre stage in a commercial work. The highlights of this film are Mads Mikkelsen who can never put a foot wrong as Galen Erso, Jyn’s research scientist father, Ben Mendelsohn as the chief villain who is very sinister but not quite as developed or memorable as Adam Driver’s villain in ‘The Force Awakens’ and Alan Tudyk as the zany but well-natured robot, K-2SO who has some great lines. The characters all generally manage to have good chemistry with each other once they finally meet each other in what is a very contrived and conventional opening but it does feel like some of the actor’s phone their performances in a bit due to a stodgy script.

‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ makes a bold move by including characters who appeared in ‘A New Hope’ by digitally superimposing the actor digitally onto another unseen actor who is doing the performance. Whilst this work is quite convincing, it was easy to tell which characters this had been done to and one has to question the ethics of this. For filmic reasons, this is an interesting development but is it really right to use an actor who is no longer living to try and develop a narrative?

The score is by Michael Giacchino and this film makes a departure from other films in this series to not use a score by John Williams. Giacchino came in extremely late into the game as Alexandre Desplat was supposed to reunite with Edwards after his fantastic score for ‘Godzilla’ but Desplat had to leave due to scheduling conflicts and Giacchino had to quickly compile a score for this film. Giacchino does a good job and manages to craft some memorable new themes but this does also raise questions into the role of a composer as hiring someone so late into post-production undermines the importance music plays into a film and I do not believe it is something that can be just created on the spot. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is very strong and there are some simply awe-inspiring shots that really add to the verisimilitude of this film and make it all the more visually astute.

‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ is ultimately a very entertaining film that takes some bold risks and when the film finds its feet, it is a really riveting piece of work. However, a flat and uneven first act is a chore to get through and showcases Edwards’ bad habits of not having much substance in a film and poor character development. The reshoots have clearly worked in this film’s favour in its revision of the third act which is where the film is by far at its most satisfying and has managed to save Edwards who could have made a really mediocre film. Visually and narratively, I had a great time with this film but when one digs beneath the surface with this film at a base level, the film has its fair share of problems that it fails to conceal. Now time for a year’s wait for Rian Johnson’s follow-up to last year’s ‘The Force Awakens which I am confident he will do a good job!

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: J. A. Bayona
Starring: Lewis MacDougall, Sigourney Weaver, Felicity Jones, Toby Kebbell, Liam Neeson
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 108 mins

‘A Monster Calls’ is an adaptation of the much-loved novel by Patrick Ness which tells the story of thirteen-year old Conor O’Malley and his struggle to cope with his mother’s terminal cancer. At the same time, he is visited by a fantastical “monster” who tells him three stories which have many obvious parallels with Conor’s life that allows him to come to terms with this situation. This film is directed by J.A. Bayona who made ‘The Orphanage’ and ‘The Impossible’ and is going to tackle the sequel to ‘Jurassic World’ so a lot is riding on this film to perform. I’ve got mixed views on Bayona – his films are generally a visual treat but I do find them to be quite emotionally manipulative and uneven. Prior to watching this film, I wasn’t exactly looking forward to it as it has got to have one of the most annoying trailers of recent memory which seems to indicate that Bayona’s flaws were ever-present in this film.

I found ‘A Monster Calls’ to be an ambitious feature and it showcases both the best and worst in Bayona – it’s a lot better than the god-awful trailer!  The film is supported by a strong cast with Liam Neeson and Sigourney Weaver being particular highlights. The animated sequences are absolutely stunning, unmistakably channelling the aesthetics of Guillermo Del Toro at times and Bayona does try to tackle some heady themes which ultimately exceed his grasp. However Bayona does succumb to his usual flaws as the film is disjointed, narratively jumbled, emotionally manipulative and has numerous tonal shifts.

The cast that Bayona has assembled here are mostly great with Liam Neeson as the titular monster being the standout as well as surprisingly Sigourney Weaver as Conor’s grandmother who tries her hand at an English accent. Although perhaps the accent is a little wobbly at times, you’ve got to admire her effort and she is well-developed as a character. Neeson’s ‘monster’ is also well-developed and he is both menacing and sympathetic at times and has a lot of range. Felicity Jones and Toby Kebbell as Conor’s parents are just ok, Jones who seems to be in everything at the moment overacts  as the terminally ill mother and Kebbell’s character isn’t a particularly likeable one. This is also true of newcomer Lewis MacDougall as Conor, who does his best with the material but his character is very hard to empathise with as he’s just so irrational, abrupt and poorly behaved.

The story is a mixed bag – although I haven’t read the novel from which this was adapted from, I was constantly emotionally invested as the film progressed though and I did think the themes Bayona tried to tackle were ambitious particularly the act of growing up and the theme of death. However as mentioned, the character’s motives are hard to connect with and Bayona constantly tries to get tears from the audience with many scenes that are downright guiltily manipulative – the film doesn’t earn this right but Bayona seems to think it does. The juxtaposition of locations between rural and urban England and the fantastical animation sequences are quite jarring which makes the film rather disjointed and uneven and the tonal shifts between these sequences don’t tie together. As mentioned, the animation scenes with Neeson’s narration are the strongest point of this film – they are extremely thoughtfully crafted and are very reminiscent of the visual aesthetics of Guillermo Del Toro and the life messages the stories try to teach are strong and endlessly metaphorical.

Bayona’s regular composer, Fernando Velazquez’s score fits the film well but isn’t particularly memorable but it is Oscar Faura’s cinematography that shines and there are many scenes that are spectacular to behold – it would be very interesting if he too signed up for the ‘Jurassic World’ sequel as it is very likely he would do a very good job.

‘A Monster Calls’ is ultimately very watchable and at times, mesmerising in its animated sequences but the film’s ambitious themes exceed Bayona’s grasp who makes his usual catalogue of errors as the film is emotionally manipulative and tonally uneven. However, a strong cast and stunning cinematography are able to elevate Bayona’s direction but Bayona still hasn’t convinced me he has what it takes to handle an action film, particularly the stature that the ‘Jurassic Park’ series has. He will need to make sure he can blend narrative with spectacle and at the moment, I just cannot picture the results. Only time will tell if he was the right decision. But as for ‘A Monster Calls’, it has potential and it is generally sound with numerous flaws.

 (Good)