⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, Judy Greer, Jenna Fischer, Ray Corasani 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 94 mins

The 15:17 To Paris is the latest by Clint Eastwood, who continues to churn out film after film despite being almost ninety. Will Eastwood ever take a break? For the most part, Eastwood’s films have been great and he has proven to be just as capable behind the camera as he is in front of it. I really enjoyed Eastwood’s last two directorial efforts – American Sniper and Sully, both making it into my Top Twenty list of their respective years. The 15:17 To Paris is a retelling of the 2015 Thalys train attack, in which a handful of brave men took on a gunman, who had plans of killing everyone on-board but due to these men’s bravery, just four people were injured. What allows Eastwood’s latest to stand out is his decision to have the three men (Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone) play themselves, not be played by famous actors. This is a risky decision and the first of its kind – a lot hinges on a good performance from these men because if they’re not convincing, the credibility of the film will be lost.

Whilst Sadler, Skarlatos and Stone’s performances are serviceable, The 15:17 To Paris is a major disappointment and low point in Eastwood’s career. Unlike Sully where Eastwood managed to craft a riveting film out of a single event, other than the main event of the terrorist attack, the rest of the film is just needless and aimless padding. The film doesn’t do itself any favours by being saddled with a terrible script by Dorothy Blyskal. The script lacks direction and largely fails to develop the characters of these three men. There are even some moments that are just cringeworthy to watch – an early scene in the film as we watch the childhoods of these boys is downright painful to watch. A schoolteacher unprofessionally and dimissively diagnoses two of the boys with a disability to two single mothers.

There is a section of the film which is solely concerned with the men travelling around Europe which is almost equally misjudged – constantly taking selfies and behaving like stereotypical, annoying tourists. This goes on for a good half an hour or so, which is a fair amount of the 94 minute run time. Whilst it is perhaps important to portray how these men got on the ill-fated train, this sequence does nothing to advance the narrative and has no depth or gravitas. When the actual event itself arrives, Eastwood does a serviceable job in portraying the horror on-board but the film never earned this sequence as I wasn’t emotionally invested in it.

Surprisingly, the three men do have good chemistry together and whilst there isn’t all that much depth to their characters, they are serviceable. This is the same of the rest of the cast, although Judy Greer sticks out like a sore thumb in a terribly over-the-top performance as Spencer’s mother.

Unfortunately, The 15:17 To Paris is a rare unsatisfactory work by Clint Eastwood and never compelling when it should be. These normally talented filmmakers have failed to crack a gripping narrative that the event is interwoven into. Eastwood has demonstrated multiple times he can do this – just look at Sully for example. It’s a real shame this film hasn’t worked out and I really hope that this film doesn’t lessen or cheapen the heroic nature of these three men, when the film shouldn’t do this. People should look back to this event and appreciate the courage of these three men, not look back at a dramatisation. Perhaps the film would have worked better as a documentary?

⭐⭐ (Poor)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lesley Manville, Vicky Krieps
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 130 mins

Phantom Thread is the latest film by director Paul Thomas Anderson and supposedly Daniel Day-Lewis’ final performance before he retires. Whether or not this actually happens or not, we shall have to see. But if it is, Phantom Thread is a fantastic note to end on.

Phantom Thread, for the majority of its run time, is engrossing and a masterclass in filmmaking. It is a fascinating character study of fictional fashion designer, Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis), who lives with his influential sister, Cyril (Lesley Manville), and he creates dresses for higher society members. Reynolds develops an interest in a countryside hotel waitress, Alma (Vicky Krieps) and they soon begin a relationship but Reynolds’ domineering personality begins and persists to clash with Alma’s.

Just like Anderson’s other films such as There Will Be Blood and The Master, Phantom Thread is thematically rich, interrogating themes of duality and what it means to be in a relationship. It manages to balance its realism with fantasy and the film at times, evokes a Brothers Grimm tale. On one side of the spectrum, there are equisiste scenes of women being dressed up to impress their Princes and on the other, seemingly innocent women mushroom-picking in the forest. This Brothers Grimm quality to the film is juxtaposed by a Hitchockian / Kubrickian tone of voyeurism, mystery and intrigue.

The duality of every character makes Anderson’s film all the more satisfying and engaging. I sympathised and loathed them at the same time and that is testament to the quality of the writing and the performances. Day-Lewis is sensational and surprisingly funny at times with the witty, sharp script he has to work with. Manville has, as well as Day-Lewis, been Oscar-nominated for her performance here and the chemistry she shares with him is perfect and I really bought them as on-screen siblings.

It is Vicky Krieps however, who perhaps impresses the most – Alma is a character who is effectively the audience gateway into the House of Woodcock, someone who is initially naive and shy but then develops. She is in many respects, the audience’s eyes into this rich world underpinned by a duality.

The film is shot beautifully. Phantom Thread doesn’t have a designated DP, many have speculated Anderson has shot the film. There are multiple breathtaking shots, my favourite a recurring riff of Reynolds driving his vintage car around the country, in which the way it it is shot echoes an Alfred Hitchock film. The score by Jonny Greenwood is rather frenetic but it has its moments.

Unfortunately, I didn’t buy the film’s final act. It would be a spoiler to disclose what happens but the film’s narrative heads in a particular direction that I couldn’t really get on board with and I began to feel a little uncomfortable at where the film was going.

Overall, Phantom Thread is one of the strongest entries in this years Best Picture line-up. It represents yet another high for director Paul Thomas Anderson and is a fantastic note for Daniel Day-Lewis to go out on, should this in fact be his swansong. It makes for a masterful character study and a real treat for cinephiles. I’m just a little unsure on the direction the film heads in its final act, as it doesn’t quite conform to the neatness the first two have. I suspect on further rewatching, this film will continue to unpack itself and there is a lot more to gain from it.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Michael & Peter Spierig
Starring: Helen Mirren, Jason Clarke, Sarah Snook
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 99 mins

Winchester may not be the best horror film to be released in recent memory, but it really is nowhere near as bad as critics and audiences are suggesting. Based on the fascinating premise of the Winchester mansion in San Jose, California, the film follows heiress Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren), who is haunted by spirits in the mansion. She is constantly extending or removing parts of the house, even going to the extent of installing staircases that lead to nowhere in an effort to confuse said spirits. Eric Price (Jason Clarke), a doctor who is hired to assess whether or not the elderly Sarah Winchester is fit to continue running her father’s company which she inherited, a gun manufacturing company.

This fascinating premise, coupled with the strong cast of Helen Mirren, Jason Clarke and Sarah Snook and The Spierig Brothers directing is a worthy collection of talent and bodes well for the film. The Spierig Brothers are interesting directors, consistently picking thoughtful projects and always inject some of their own ideas into their films. Predestination, in particular, is an original and twist-filled sci-fi that demonstrates their talent. This is why it was all the more surprising to see just how bad the reviews were.

Winchester gets off to a very shaky start with a terrible and unflattering introduction to Clarke’s character, who we first see dependent on laudanum and drink. It’s not exactly a great way to build sympathy for the character, particularly as Clarke is in fact, the main character in this film. Although Mirren is top-billed, Clarke is our eyes into this world, as we and him discover the Winchester mansion and the secrets it holds through the course of the film. Mirren isn’t in the film all that much but she does the best with what she’s given.

Luckily, the film picks itself up about half an hour in and the rest of the film is always entertaining. I actually think the film has some depth, which many people seem to have missed. The film questions the use of guns and has an anti-gun message, which is quite interesting and the ways in which it questions life after death and the act of death itself has some gravitas.  Without getting into spoiler territory, the ending is quite satisfying and neatly ties up some of the loose ends of the film, without being heavy-handed.

The main problem with Winchester is its reliance on jump scares, which are not scary in the slightest. Dead people constantly appear on-screen and The Spierig Brothers use all of the poor tropes associated with this aspect of the genre that have plagued horror films in the past. It’s simply not enough to whet a horror fan’s appetite anymore and means that the more heady ideas have less weight as they are cheapened by the jump scares.

But, Winchester does offer some chills in alternative methods. There is one quite powerful scene mid-way into the film involving a dead character which is executed quite well. I also question whether or not this film is even meant to be a horror film. I found it to be more of a psychological thriller, which just happens to have a horror element of the supernatural within it.

Ultimately, the sheer entertainment value of Winchester and its exploration of some key themes mean that the film is just about passable. The film does have a myriad of problems, chiefly that the film isn’t scary and its negative, awkwardly handled characterisations at the beginning of the film. If you can look past these elements and dig a little deeper into the film, there is enough in it to enjoy.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Alexander Payne
Starring: Matt Damon, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, Jason Sudeikis, Kristen Wiig, Maribeth Monroe, Udo Kier
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 135 mins

Downsizing, director Alexander Payne’s latest, is an interesting beast in a strong body of work. Set in a near future, the narrative utilises the lofty concept of ‘downsizing’, the irreversible process pioneered by Norwegian doctors of shrinking humans down to approximately five inches tall as a means of combatting overpopulation. Opening in a world where both normal and ‘downsized’ people co-exist, the film follows strapped-for-cash occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) who lives with his wife, Audrey (Kristen Wiig). They ponder ‘downsizing’ after meeting a friend at a reunion party, who reveals other benefits – chiefly, financial security. 

To reveal anymore would be a disservice to the film as this is what is sold in the marketing. However, Downsizing has a lot hidden up its sleeve, perhaps accounting for the film’s decidedly mixed reception. Downsizing is actually a lot better than the reviews would suggest and is a marvel in world-building. The little worlds that Payne creates are frequently awe-inspiring and the minutiae admirable, greatly elevating the verisimilitude of the film.

That said, a tonal shift mid-way through the film does feel like a switch-and-bait. There is still enjoyment to be had in the slightly more familiar, ‘finding oneself’ narrative route Payne explores, even though its moral messages are delivered heavy-handedly.

Downsizing balances comedy and emotion rather well and is bolstered by being thematically rich and chock-full of metaphors, right down to the very concept of the film itself that interrogates political and planetary notions. The performances are all generally sound with the highlights being Christoph Waltz and Udo Kier. Waltz deviates from playing a villain and to see both German-speaking stalwarts share the screen is very satisfying.

Downsizing is overall, a commendable effort by Alexander Payne with transfixing world-building but it requires one to have faith in the tonal shift in the second half. The first half is much stronger, but the direction it takes thereafter is probably why many have taken quite sourly to the film: you don’t exactly get what the trailers promised.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 116 mins

The Post depicts the true story of journalists in The Washington Post and their uncovering of the Pentagon Papers, classified documents associated with America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. These damning papers reveal the American cover-up of their progress in the Vietnam War, aware that their efforts were fruitless, yet still sent in more troops. The journalists then have to decide whether to publish or withold this sensitive information, risking prosecution by Nixon should they publish.

Directed by Steven Spielberg, this is a project he reportedly felt very passionate about and fast-tracked it into production, feeling that the story needed to be told now, especially in the current American climate. Spielberg managed to shoot the film very swiftly (basically, he needed to get it done in time for the Oscars…), whilst the same time managing post-production on the upcoming visual effects heavy, Ready Player One. At the same time, Spielberg has assembled a talented cast for this film comprising of Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks and of course, reunites with composer John Williams and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski.

Unfortunately, Spielberg’s rush to get the film has got the better of him as The Post is painfully mediocre. The film tries to make itself more important than it is and whilst the subject material is very compelling in itself, the way in which the film has been constructed is never gripping. Other than a strong scene near the beginning with acquisition of the documents, the first half of the film is very clunky and strangely, almost devoid of any tension. Whilst The Post does manage to find its footing a little more in the second half, the film is never as fascinating as it should be and feels very contrived.

The film isn’t all a shambles. In conjunction with a merely adequate second half, Spielberg clearly seems to love the act of newspaper printing and the film offers an insightful view into the world of journalism. There are numerous sequences of newspapers being printed and distributed and journalists working their socks off to get work done. There are some good performances here too, most notably Bob Odenkirk, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys and Jesse Plemons. All four actors play in supporting roles and all manage to inhibit their characters very convincingly.

Of the two main performances, it’s genuinely surprising to see Meryl Streep getting Awards attention for her performance. Streep is unconvincing in the role of Katharine Graham, the first female publisher of a major American newspaper who inherited the paper after the suicide of her husband. Streep’s performance lacks emotion. Her portrayal of her character never seemed so desperate to publish as the real figure was and she never felt particularly haunted or overwhelmed by her circumstance. Tom Hanks gives the better performance as the executive editor, but this is a role Hanks could play in his sleep.

The Post is ultimately a big disappointment, not just in Spielberg’s catalogue but principally, as a film. In a genre that boasts great films such as Zodiac and Spotlight, The Post pales in comparison and reaches nowhere near the giddy heights of both of those films. Spielberg’s lofty ambitions for Awards success seem to have got the better of him and had he taken more care to refine the finished product and the script, The Post would have been a much better film. Instead, the film we get is never gripping, awkwardly paced and too full of itself. The portrayal of The Washington Post felt like a pompous, pretentious dinner party audience, who believe in their own self-importance and I never really empathised with any of the characters. There can be no doubt of Steven Spielberg’s stature in the film industry, but even the great can fall.

⭐⭐ (Poor)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Lee Unkrich
Starring: (voices of) Anthony Gonzalez, Gael García Bernal, Benjamin Bratt, Alanna Ubach, Renée Victor, Ana Ofelia Murguía, Edward James Olmos 
Certificate: PG
Run Time: 109 mins

Coco is another triumph from the geniuses at Pixar, who continue to prove why they are the masters of animation. It is a memorable, captivating and heartfelt film set to the backdrop of the Mexican Day of the Dead festival. We follow Miguel, a sprightly but well-intentioned twelve year old boy who is obsessed with music. He is an avid devotee of Ernesto de la Cruz, the fictional most famous musician in Mexican history and a scene early on in the film reveals him essentially worshipping the musician through a makeshift shrine that he has created. Unfortunately for Miguel, his family have been torn apart by music and prosper in the shoe-making business and completely ban music out from their lives. This is rather problematic for Miguel, who after a series of events, finds himself transported to the land of the dead and must find his way back to reality before sunrise.

The characters in this film are wonderfully developed and Coco skilfully interrogates the themes of fame and family. After an opening that manages to balance exposition and visual storytelling almost perfectly, I felt part of Miguel’s family that had been introduced on-screen. Many of the personalities and traits of the eclectic family bear similarities to most families and the problems that they face. Once the film moves to the Land of the Dead, Miguel’s living family are largely absent in the film but by the time the end came, like Miguel, it felt like an authentic family reunion. The film also questions the importance (and legitimacy) of fame, from the famous to the infamous.

Coco isn’t quite perfect though. The film does feel rather familiar in its plotting and channels the narrative journey of Inside Out a little, but a couple of late twists manage to keep the narrative fresh. Furthermore, despite being one of Pixar’s longest films, the film could have been a little longer, which would have given it a little more time to breathe as it explores its themes. Instead, the film feels like it’s ticking a checklist, albeit a very good one!

Coco is yet another triumph for the animation giant and ranks as one of their strongest works. It is moving, life-affirming and should manage to appeal to both adults and children alike. It also goes without saying that the attention to detail in the animation is second to none, Pixar continuing to elevate animation to photorealist levels. Combined with the excellent narrative and emotional journey this film takes us through, Coco is a film fully deserving of its all praise.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Joe Wright
Starring: Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Stephen Dillane, Ronald Pickup, Ben Mendelsohn
Certificate: PG
Run Time: 125 mins

Much has been made of Darkest Hour for Gary Oldman’s transformative and unrecognisable performance as Winston Churchill in Joe Wright’s new film, Darkest Hour, who completely disappears and inhabits the role. Surely Oldman is a dead cert for the Oscar win after triumphing at the Golden Globes and also winning the SAG Award. Darkest Hour recounts Churchill’s first month in office and his mission to win over those initially sceptical and hostile towards him at a critical moment in the height of the Second World War.

However, in terms of how Darkest Hour functions as a piece of cinema though, it has some serious problems. From a historical viewpoint, the film is codswallop. A train sequence in particular towards the end of the film, pretty much derails the entire film from its tracks and it loses virtually all credibility. I could never get back on board with the film after this sequence threw me out so much and it hurts what is already a fairly mediocre film.

The script is often very expository, assumedly in order to allow people to have more historical context. Characters will often mention their background profile or to an illicit event, which made the delivery of dialogue very wooden and unnatural. Ronald Pickup and Stephen Dillane, who play Neville Chamberlain and Viscount Halifax are particularly bad offenders, who constantly explain their intentions to the audience. This whole film feels very theatrical, in a pantomime fashion which doesn’t do it any favours.

Perhaps the worst offender in this pantomime is Ben Mendelsohn’s performance as King George. Mendelsohn is a fine actor, who consistently puts in brilliant performances in many memorable films but he is simply miscast here. His vision of King George VI has an odd Australian twang and his stutter is utterly unconvincing. Oldman shares many scenes with Mendelsohn and it feels very odd witnessing two performances on different ends of the spectrum.

On the plus side, the film is well shot by Bruno Delbonnel. Darkest Hour has multiple memorable images, Delbonnel painting a suitably dark and gloomy picture of the perilous time this film is set in. A sequence where Churchill delivers a speech over the radio is particularly gripping visually and Delbonnel experiments to great success with lighting, often choosing to focus on Oldman’s figure and shadows.

Unfortunately, the film is also rather emotionally cold. Whilst Delbonnel employs these wonderful images, director Joe Wright is unable to instil any emotion to his audience. There are numerous cutaways to war scenes in Calais or Dunkerque which should show the devastation and the casualties of troops, but they never do and again, exaggerated cries in battle make the film feel only more theatrical. Many have compared Darkest Hour as a companion piece to Dunkirk. At least Darkest Hour does one thing right in having a single shot of the magnitude of civillian ships heading towards the shore, something which Dunkirk failed to do.

It’s a shame Darkest Hour isn’t a better film than it ought to be, especially considering the talent involved. Darkest Hour is simply a vehicle for Gary Oldman to give the performance of a lifetime, but other than good cinematography, there is nothing else in terms of substance. Joe Wright’s filmography in general has been a mixed bag. Luckily, Darkest Hour doesn’t stoop to that level of his most recent film, Pan, my least favourite film of 2015 – an atrocious, visually disgusting film that was a complete headache and embarassment for all involved. Instead, Darkest Hour is painfully average and whilst I was never bored by it, largely due to Gary Oldman’s sensational performance, the film’s storytelling is just too creaky to overlook.

⭐⭐ (Poor)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, John Hawkes, Peter Dinklage, Abbie Cornish, Lucas Hedges, Samara Weaving, Caleb Landry Jones, Clarke Peters, Željko Ivanek
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 115 mins

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is the long overdue follow-up from playwright / director Martin McDonagh after he directed both In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, two films that I love. I would even go as far to say that In Bruges is one of my personal favourite films of all time.

Based off McDonagh’s own script, the film tells the story of Mildred (Frances McDormand) whose daughter has been brutally raped and murdered but she feels that the Police don’t want to do anything about it. When she purchases the rent to three unused Billboards close to the titular town and puts up three provocative billboards, things take a dramatic turn in the town.

McDonagh has a wonderful talent when it comes to screenwriting and with a lot of his works, not just on-screen, there are moments which are both darkly comic yet heartfelt. He also has a beautiful quality to writing profanity, always finding artful ways to include it.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri proves McDonagh’s writing talent again and then some. McDonagh has such a great ear for dialogue in this film and there are so many wonderful exchanges of dialogue between characters. It is frequently comic, always entertaining and what I particularly love about this film, is it takes many unexpected diversions in its narrative. The film leads you to believe a certain plot point will go in one direction, but McDonagh in multiple instances, subverts expectations and this makes this film all the more fresh. There are many moments where I was genuinely in awe and shock. It is a biting drama about murder, investigating and how people have multiple sides to their personality.

As always in McDonagh’s films, the performances are great. McDonagh reunites with a lot of his Seven Psychopaths cast and the standouts are Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell, all playing typically larger-than-life characters. McDormand is simply brilliant as Mildred, a mother who just wants some closure who is also trying to sustain her family. Written with McDormand in mind, she is truly deserving of all the Awards attention she is getting. Equally so is Woody Harrelson, who I think gives the better performance between him and Rockwell as Chief Willoughby. Rockwell’s police officer is initially juvenile, racist and rather clueless about the real world but his character arc is so well developed and it’s one of his best performances.

Ben Davis’ cinematography is superb and he manages to capture the minutiae of the town to a tee, along with McDonagh’s script, making the town its own character in the drama. There is a particularly nail-biting sequence mid-way into the film, shot in one extended take, that is very satisfying. Less satisfying is Carter Burwell’s score which is a little forgettable compared to his other work, particularly in McDonagh’s other films, but there are some moments that fit the film very well.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri isn’t McDonagh’s best film however. It could even be the least out of his three feature length films although I would need to rewatch it multiple times to unpack it more. Certainly true though, without a doubt is this film has more baggage to it and isn’t quite as tightly edited, sagging a little in its ending.

Whilst I’m very happy McDonagh is finally being realised for the exceptional filmmaker that he is, it is slightly surprising to see this film clean up at the Golden Globes and at the moment, lead the pack in the Awards race. There is a danger with this narrative of the film being labelled racist and it’s not exactly a crowd pleaser.

Regardless of its Awards status, I loved Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and found it to be a highly satisfying film which plays against expectations and it contains excellent performances and a brilliant script. Time will tell if I rate it as highly as his first two films, but I cannot wait to rewatch it and discover smaller details that this film has to offer. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is a must-see.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)