⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Taika Waititi
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins 
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 130 mins

Thor: Ragnarok is the latest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe canon and the third solo outing for the God of Thunder. The previous films (Thor and Thor: The Dark World) have generally been regarded as lesser entries in the collection but I moderately enjoyed both of them. Kiwi director Taika Waititi is in the director’s chair, having previously directed What We Do In The Shadows and Hunt For The Wilderpeople, two films that I love. Waititi is a genuine and growing talent and Thor: Ragnarok is his first big-budget film. It is quite surprising in itself that Marvel were even able to sign such a talented director up for a film after famously losing key figures such as Edgar Wright from Ant-Man and Patty Jenkins from Thor: The Dark World to avoid compromising their vision. Waititi has a daunting task on his hands – firstly, to elevate himself up to a behemoth of a project as this and secondly, to make a universally appealing Thor film to overturn the notion of them being lesser films around. There is always the danger of these smaller directors having their visions corrupted by the studio (or worse destroyed like Josh Trank on Fantastic Four for example) so it will be interesting to see how much of Waititi’s style seeps its way into the film.

Waititi decides to make multiple changes to the format of the narrative the first two films took. Firstly, by ditching Earth. The first two films were heavily set on our planet, mostly to perform the function of serving Thor’s love interest, Jane, capably played by Natalie Portman. This is truly a film set in the cosmic realms, where Chris Hemsworth’s Nordic God must prevent the titular Ragnarok (end of the worlds in essence) after his evil half sister, Hela, the Goddess of Death played by Aussie Cate Blanchett wreaks havoc. Thor finds himself on Planet Sakaar, a garbage-filled yet colourful location where it is being run in a dictatorship by Jeff Goldblum’s zanily tyrannical Grandmaster. Thor finds himself quickly becoming a “contender” where he’ll have to battle to claim his victory against an unknown entity but unless he makes a mutinous escape, he’s pretty much locked in the Grandmaster’s clutches. You can probably see how this all comes together. Tom Hiddleston’s fan favourite Loki also returns and Waititi introduces new characters alongside Blanchett and Goldblum’s villains with Karl Urban as Skurge and Tessa Thompson as a Valkyrie, a warrior who had previously battled Blanchett’s unstoppable villain but is now a deflated, moody drunkard working for the Grandmaster.

Thor: Ragnarok is a Taika Waititi film through and through – it retains his signature humour and really inverts expectations on what a Thor film should be. This feels refreshingly different from the first two films, more vibrantly coloured and more comical. The film is extremely entertaining and puts the characters that we have grown to like over the course of the films in rather vulnerable positions throughout the film and there is a real sense of danger prevalent. Unlike recent comic book films which have a great, big (and boring) action climax at the end of the film to save the world, Thor: Ragnarok actually earns its finale. The marketing for this film has also been extremely impressive upon viewing the final product – there’s a lot that Marvel have managed to withold from its audiences which is very satisfying.

The cast are expectedly great, with Chris Hemsworth, Jeff Goldblum and director Taika Waititi himself making the biggest impressions. When not given the right material, Hemsworth’s performances dangerously verge on wooden but Waititi’s switch to a more comical film is a task that Hemsworth leaps up to and he proves a very deft hand at comedy (in addition to a well-needed haircut). Goldblum essentially plays himself as the Grandmaster and has many great lines and scenes with the characters. Waititi appears himself as Korg, a rock monster of sorts who trains the Grandmaster’s contenders before they fight and Waititi’s performance, based on Polynesian club bouncers, is extraordinary, managing to balance both rib-tickling humour and required heart. The rest of the cast all generally fare well but Blanchett’s villain isn’t given all that much to do sadly but when she is on-screen, she’s good enough. There is one exception though. Bizzarely, Mark Ruffalo’s performance as Bruce Banner / Hulk. Whilst Ruffalo is great as Hulk who Waititi really develops as a character, Ruffalo is terrible in this film as Bruce Banner. Following the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Banner has been permanently living in his Hulk guise. When he becomes Banner, Ruffalo’s performance feels oddly dejected from the film – it’s very strange and is the first time Ruffalo has ever underperformed in my book.

Waititi’s tone is frequently brilliant throughout the film and Thor: Ragnarok takes itself much less seriously than Thor’s previous outings. If there’s an issue with the film, it’s with the opening (although not the very first scene which is brilliant) before Thor finds himself on Sakaar. Waitit’s influence isn’t felt quite as much here and the film feels a bit choppily edited in a brief escapade back to Earth. Once Thor reaches Sakaar, the film never really lets go of its grip and it doesn’t let its foot off the gas until the credits roll.

Thor: Ragnarok is a big success for Marvel and a seamless leap to big budget fare from Taika Waititi. I was constantly entertained by it and its ending reminded me of the magic Marvel can pull off which makes Avengers: Infinity War look a very promising prospect next year, particularly with how the film surprisingly ends. Along with Spider-Man: Homecoming this year, Marvel have had 2/3 successes in my book – it’s just a shame Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was a disappointment. Otherwise, I can’t wait for where the characters are taken from here and what Taika Waititi goes on to direct next.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Armando Iannucci
Starring: Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Paddy Considine, Rupert Friend, Jason Isaacs, Michael Palin, Andrea Riseborough, Jeffrey Tambor 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 106 mins

After a rather long hiatus from last directing In The Loop, Armando Iannucci is back with a film about Soviet Russia about the titular death of Stalin and the power battle between his confidante’s that ensues. Iannucci has great flair for coming up with sweary, sophisticated insults with his larger-than-life characters and certainly, the connection between him and Soviet Russia is one that is ripe for invention, strengthened by an A-list cast.

The Death of Stalin begins in barnstorming fashion with a brilliant extended sequence set in a radio station where Paddy Considine’s character is asked by Stalin to hand him a recording of the Mozart concert currently being performed – which bemusingly, he hasn’t been recording it and has to find alternative methods to escape not only humiliation, but more importantly his life. Although nothing can match this superb sequence, there are still some other fairly memorably amusing sequences between its buffoonish characters. The film is really quite dark at times and offers a particularly bleak view of Soviet history. This squanders the overall tone and Iannucci’s film suffers from never being quite mean-spirited or funny enough.

Fortunately, the cast more than make up for Iannucci’s shortcomings. Jeffrey Tambor perhaps gives the best performance as Georgy Malenkov, Stalin’s deputy who clearly seems to be having fun in the role and has some great lines. Simon Russell Beale’s repulsively nasty but humorous head who is in charge of eliminating Stalin’s threats is an equal pleasure of the film, as is Jason Isaac’s sweary Yorkshire-accented Army Chief.

The Death of Stalin is certainly an enjoyable experience which is sophisticatedly funny in parts but suffers from an unbalanced tone and not pushing the boundaries more than what the film could and should have been, based off Iannucci’s past works.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Tomas Alfredson
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Toby Jones, Val Kilmer, J.K. Simmons
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 119 mins

Based on Norwegian crime writer Jo Nesbø’s hit novel and bolstered by a strong director and all-star cast, I found a lot to like in The Snowman despite universally poor reviews. It requires one to totally suspend all manner of disbelief –  plot holes and plot threads that end up being frustratingly redundant are aplenty and the killer’s (unfortunately easy to guess) motives are laughable. It also requires one to overlook a couple of terrible performances from Charlotte Gainsbourg (in particular a laughable sex scene where she merely gyrates on a character momentarily), Val Kilmer and Chloë Sevigny in a dual role. What is entertaining is watching how Michael Fassbender’s alcoholic and unorthodox Detective Harry Hole and his colleagues, including Rebecca Ferguson’s new recruit with a troubled past, attempt to solve a ludicrous case with the film’s overripe premise of a murderer who constructs snowmen as his calling card. The film is also laden with enticing Nordic imagery and some sweeping, atmospheric landscape shots by cinematographer Dion Beebe and an occasionally thoughtful score by Marco Beltrami.

There’s no questioning Tomas Alfredson’s credibility as a director, responsible for Let The Right One In and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Once the first wave of negative reviews began to surface, Alfredson claimed that approximately 10-15% wasn’t shot – this would account for some of the plot holes and it’s clear he’s tried to the best job he can with the resources he’s had. The film sets itself up for a sequel rather explicitly in its final scene which I’m sure will nark people off who have suffered through the film but I’d happily watch another film with Fassbender’s Detective again. There’s a hell of a lot wrong with The Snowman but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the sheer absurdity of it all.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Dorota Kobiela & Hugh Welchman
Starring: Douglas Booth, Jerome Flynn, Saoirse Ronan, Helen McCrory, Chris O’Dowd, John Sessions, Eleanor Tomlinson, Aidan Turner 
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 97 mins

Loving Vincent is the first of its kind – a fully painted animated feature film, about the life of famous painter, Vincent Van Gogh. Every frame (approximately 65,000 of them in the film) has been handpainted on oil canvas by a team of 115 artists, using the same technique as Van Gogh’s art. It’s certainly a bold experiment and a wholly original concept, furthering the parameters of the creative process.

The film follows protagonist, Armand Roulin (Douglas Booth), the son of a Postman (Chris O’Dowd) who delivered and distributed Van Gogh’s famous letters. Ironically, Armand is tasked to deliver Vincent’s final letter to his brother, Theo who famously corresponded via this format. Armand’s journey takes him to Auvers-sur-Oise, a rural town just outside of Paris where Van Gogh had spent his final days.

I must confess I didn’t really know all that much about Van Gogh other than the obvious going in to the film and was unsure if this film was going to be a big gimmick or if it could balance both the technical aspects whilst also working as a film in its own right.

Loving Vincent is quite extraordinary – it is a haunting, elegiac and mournful account of this late artist’s life and the struggles he faced. The film is profoundly humane in the way it portrays him and at times, inhumane in his treatment by other characters in the film. Once Armand arrives in Auvers, the film transforms into a detective-thriller as Armand learns from the citizens what kind of character the artist was and the particulars leading to his suicide. The film also works as a morality tale and has knowing odes to Citizen Kane with the notion of people’s experiences and perceptions of others. There are many scenes that are just perfectly judged and on a technical level, the paintings are spellbinding. The ever-dependable Clint Mansell’s score is also worthy of commendation – it is the glue that holds this film together and features many memorable cues and themes.

The film was originally meant to be live-action before the switch to animation and I think it is to the film’s benefit it originally tried to pursue itself in live-action. The costume design and performances by the film’s cast are superb and in the credits, we get to see what the actors were meant to originally look like and the way this has been realised through the paintings is just magnificent. Douglas Booth, who also appeared earlier last month in The Limehouse Golem, I think gives a career-best performance. He is totally committed to the character and none of Booth’s mannerisms are lost in the paintings. Eleanor Tomlinson and Aidan Turner also standout as two figures of the town as does Jerome Flynn in a pivotal role.

If there’s a problem with the film, the script occasionally feels rather mechanical  and doesn’t particularly feel realistic in terms of what characters say. It’s a minor problem that is not a detriment to the overall film and perhaps another edit would have ironed out this problem.

Loving Vincent is pretty much flawless in all other respects and it is generally a wonderful experience to have. It’s a film that feels so lovingly put together and well-judged and the ghost of Vincent Van Gogh looms over the entire film. We’ll never know exactly what happened but the film offers many plausible opinions but it always has the utmost respect for this artist. Loving Vincent is one of the very best films of the year and has made up for a generally middling Summer.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: David Bruckner
Starring: Rafe Spall, Arsher Ali, Robert James-Collier, Sam Troughton, Paul Reid
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 94 mins

2017 has so far been a strong year for horror films. There’s been the widescale success of both Jordan Peele’s directorial debut, Get Out and Andres Muschiett’s It. I found a lot to like in Annabelle: Creation and although not appreciated by audiences, I really enjoyed It Comes At Night. I’d argue that these aren’t horror films as such but  mother! and Split have some excellent horror elements to them in addition.

The Ritual tries to join this elite group and is a horror film adaptation based on Adam Nevill’s 2011 novel. It’s directed by David Bruckner of whom this is his first feature length film. He has previously co-directed or directed segments of films before such as V/H/S and Southbound. The Ritual tells the story of a group of friends, who following the unfortunate death of one of their core members, go on a hiking holiday in the Swedish woods in memory of his death. After a sequence of events occur, they decide to take a shortcut through a forest which, you guessed, is home to a malevolent presence that wreaks havoc on our unsuspecting protagonists.

The Ritual features a largely unknown cast and crew save for Rafe Spall who is always watchable in whatever he’s in. This could be an ideal film to showcase some new talent and at the same time, work well as a standalone horror film. Can The Ritual deliver?

In some aspects, yes. The Ritual has its fair share of problems such as stupid character decisions, some conventional horror tropes and a cliched ending. That said, I really liked the craft and was always entertained by it. Ultimately, it’s a case of the talent here being better than the narrative. The biggest thing to take away from the film is the new talent that has emerged for the future. Director David Bruckner clearly has a firm grasp of the horror genre and has a strong voice, as do the strong cast and superb cinematography and score.

The chemistry between the group is brilliant and characters that one can emotionally invest in always elevates a film. Rafe Spall is as expected, always strong  and Sam Troughton is also probably the other strongest performance out of the group, particularly the differences Spall and Troughton’s characters face between each other. Robert James-Collier’s character acts as the driving force of the group and the voice of reason (or not?) and Arsher Ali’s performance is more subdued and thoughtful.

Bruckner manages to establish a proficient tone for the film and there are moments where the film is genuinely creepy and tastefully gory. Hats off to him for not revealing what is stalking these likeable characters until as late as possible in the film. Coupled with cinematography Andrew Shulkind’s slow zooms and dark imagery and Ben Lovett’s deeply unsettling and moody score, the film feels as though it’s a bit of a mash-up between fimls such as The Witch, The Blair Witch Project, Severance and The Wicker Man. It sounds like it shouldn’t work, but it does. The film also has genuine heart, particularly due to the development of its characters and their back stories. All of this would seem as if the film shouldn’t work but weirdly enough, it does and I was consistently entertained.

The juxtaposition though between the typically British lads and inner city drinking culture and the  dark and gloomy Swedish forest feels a little off. This is especially due to the fact that the film starts off in England and then moves over to Sweden which I think is a misstep – far more effective and maintaining consistency would have been to embed the opening partially into the film to explain why the characters are where they are in the forest in order to establish the stakes better.

It is also a bit of a shame that Bruckner can’t quite avoid genre cliches – characters make stupid decisions, even acknowledging that what they are doing isn’t a good idea but they do it anyway. We have also seen the ending done many a time before but the film is still entertaining enough to not let it hinder it too negatively.

The Ritual overall is a bit of an odd concoction of setting, themes and characters but it all surprisingly sticks and I had a lot of fun with the film. Granted, Bruckner does fall into the trap of cliches and poor character decisions but the way the film is crafted and the quality of the characters outweigh the negatives. It’s going to be interesting to see how this film is generally recieved given the limited release it has seen so far. It’s definitely a film where I had poor expectations walking in and being pleasantly surprised and it can stand up as being another successful horror film of 2017.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, Jared Leto 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 163 mins

Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most highly anticipated films of the year, for many different reasons. Firstly and most importantly, it is the sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1982 original, a film that has a turbulent history of its own of underappreciation and misunderstanding. It took a long time for the film to reach the stature it now resides, with different cuts releasing in the process. A sequel has been pondered many a time over the years with Ridley Scott frequently discussing such prospects.

Things took a turn for the better in 2015 when it was announced that Denis Villeneuve would be in the director’s chair, thus leading to  the second reason why this film is so highly anticipated. Blade Runner 2049 feels as though it’s a cumulation of Villeneuve’s previous work, consistently proving multiple times in the past that he is one of the most exciting directors working today. Both Prisoners and Sicario are outstanding pieces of work, Enemy a very interesting piece and although I didn’t love Arrival, there were many who did, garnering Villeneuve a Best Director Oscar nomination and the film a Best Picture nomination. With Villeneuve at the helm, this also means he reunites with cinematographer Roger Deakins. Regular composer Jóhann Jóhannsson was also set to return but his score was unfortunately unused. Thrown in a star-studded cast for good measure and you’re onto a winner. Any normal groans that a sequel was being planned to a film 35 years later would muster were put to rest when everyone noticed the talent involved.

Without divulging any plot spoilers as there are plenty of reveals in the film, it would be fitting to say that this film follows Ryan Gosling’s Officer K and an investigation that he embarks on and that the film is set 30 years later (the clue is in the title) but a lot has happened in this world since the conclusion of Ridley Scott’s original.

My initial reaction to Blade Runner 2049 is the same as it was for Blade Runner in that it wasn’t quite the triumphant feat I expected it to be. There is a lot to admire, particularly on a visual level and there are many moments in the film which are mesmerising to behold on-screen. Roger Deakins’ transfixing cinematography should surely now have earnt him his long overdue Oscar and there are multiple sequences that are destined to be studied by future film students. However, I also have my reservations with it. Bearing in mind the overall history of reception with the original Blade Runner, this is a film that warrants multiple rewatches to truly appreciate it and hopefully then, I will have a higher opinion of the film.

What was really satisfying to observe was Villeneuve’s attitude towards the material. He clearly has a love for the original and the film never felt cynical towards its predecessor at all – it is very much in the same vein. Villeneuve toys with the philosophy and ideas behind the first film and further develops some plot threads but also still manages to keep the enigma sustained in other areas of debate. This is coupled with strong thematic elements such as memory, age and identity and the juxtapositions between what it means to be human or a replicant. There is an excellent exchange in the script that has allusions to Pinnochio which is really fulfilling.

The cast expectedly deliver and Ryan Gosling manages to take the baton from Harrison Ford in the leading role seamlessly. The role suits Gosling perfectly, not too dissimilar from his leading role in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive. Gosling is our main point of view into this filmic world and he’s pretty much in every scene and the rest of the cast feature around his character’s journey. The two standout performances though are surprisingly from Dave Bautista and Ana de Armas. Bautista, who has steadily been on the rise in recent years in films such as Guardians of the Galaxy (and its sequel) and Spectre, only really appears in one major scene but his character is extremely committed, vulnerable and tranquil. Apparently Villeneuve originally was against casting Bautista until he proved himself in his third interview. I frankly can’t imagine anyone else in that role. Ana de Armas is also surprisingly brilliant and her character is instrumental to the theme of reality and self-awareness in the film. The rest of the cast are all sound although I don’t really understand why people think Harrison Ford’s performance is one of his best – I thought his performance was more in vein with his return to similarly lately revived franchise pieces such as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

The quality of the action sequences and Roger Deakins’ cinematography truly elevate the film and distinguish between the macro and micro elements of the world created. Villeneuve continues his trend of strong opening scenes, a scene that manages to both be particularly raw and blunt whilst also situating itself in the grander scheme of things within the film. A fight sequence in a theatre is also wonderfully staged as is a three-way sex scene which has many textual layers to it. Every single shot by Deakins feels meticulously crafted throughout the film and there are many instances in the film where my jaw dropped in amazement. It’s just a little bit of a shame that the final action sequence can’t quite live up to the others as it begins to touch a little too closely to the first film and loses a considerable amount of the spark the film had before.

This is just one of the issues I have on first viewing of the film. Whilst I praise Villeneuve’s stance towards the film, it is also his downfall. There is always the threat in a big budget blockbuster that you lose some of the director’s oeuvre compared to their previous work. Whilst there are some moments where Villeneuve’s input is clear, for example from some of the black imagery of greed and class, a staple of some of his previous works. Whilst this is not because of the fact that the film was made by studio executives (it’s certainly not) like many other blockbusters, perhaps part of the reason why Villeneuve’s input isn’t as apparent is because he channels Ridley Scott’s direction of the first film too much. The film feels like an exact continuation of the first film in the same vein resulting in this loss of authorship. Some may think this is a good thing but I think the film would be a lot more impressive if more of his director’s voice had seeped its way into the film as it certainly suits the material.

Linking to this lack of voice and the self-admiration from the crew of the original film, Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch’s score feels very safe. I covered the departure of original composer and regular Villeneuve collaborator, Johann Jóhannsson in a previous post and this is to the film’s detriment. Zimmer and Wallfisch’s score is too close to home with Vangelis’ original. This isn’t particularly unexpected considering how late they signed onto the project, late into the Summer this year. There are a handful of moments of greatness and I am sure that Jóhannsson’s score hasn’t entirely been removed as there is a moment set in the city early on in the film where Gosling’s character meets Mackenzie Davis which could only have been scored by him. It’s a cue that growls and wails and perfectly meshes with what is being portrayed on-screen.

The film is also overlong. I’m all for a film that is willing to take its time to explore its heady themes and tackle a well-woven plot. It is about twenty minutes too long in an intimidating 163 minute run time and whilst I’m all for gaping at Roger Deakins’ stunning cinematography, there are some moments which come to a standstill which could have been improved by a slightly quicker pace. The film also made me feel quite empty – I didn’t really emotionally resonate with it. There are scenes in its plot line which are designed for a reaction but like the numerous replicants that inhabit the film, it left me quite cold.

Blade Runner 2049 is frequently mesmerising to behold on-screen and Villeneuve’s intention towards the project is impressive. Technically, the film is a marvel to behold bolstered by its strong performances. However, it is not quite the victorious slamdunk I expected it to be on the strengths of Denis Villeneuve’s previous works. A lot of this masterful director’s trademarks aren’t immediately apparent in the film due to Villeneuve emulating Ridley Scott’s direction of the first film a little too closely. The film is also overlong and frequently emotionally lacking. Without trying to sound too critical of the film, it is testament to how strongly I regard Villeneuve as a director and the subsequent expectations I had going into this film. Blade Runner 2049 is generally a very strong sequel but like its predecessor, requires time and repeat viewings to further ascertain its quality and lasting impression.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Mike Flanagan
Starring: Carla Gugino, Bruce Greenwood, Carel Struycken, Henry Thomas, Kate Siegel
Certificate: 18
Run Time: 103 mins

2017 has been quite the year for film adaptations of Stephen King novels, varying in quality and success. The Dark Tower sunk after it was released to terrible reviews back in August and It has been a critical and financial juggernaut. Gerald’s Game is a lot smaller in scale compared to the latter two films, a ‘Netflix Original’ (you can read my rather strong opinion of this format here), an adaptation of King’s 1992 novel.

In case you’re not familiar with the novel, Gerald’s Game is about a sex game gone horrifically wrong between the titular Gerald and his wife, Jessie. Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and suffers a fatal heart attack with Jessie still tied. The film details her struggle to free herself and at the same time, they may have accidentally left the front door open where a hungry stray dog is waiting for its food…

Gerald’s Game is directed by Mike Flanagan who has proven himself multiple times in the horror genre. He did a good job with Oculus, a film that was mostly pretty good other than being overlong Hush, a Netflix Original Film that I really liked and directed Ouija: Origin of Evil and pulling off the incredible feat of U-turning the terrible reception to the first film with his strong second film. The material definitely suits him and if there’s anyone who can do a good job of it, it’s him.

Gerald’s Game is an interesting piece of work – it takes King’s strong concept and implements it pretty well and there are moments where it is thematically enriching. However, for the majority of the film’s runtime, Flanagan’s film resorts to exposition and I found it very challenging to empathise with the film’s characters. Luckily, Flanagan manages to craft a genuinely creepy ending which allows the film to leave on a high note and ties the narrative in beautifully – it’s a shame that the majority of the film is a slog to get through before we are rewarded.

A stronger script would have really worked wonders for Flanagan and could have really elevated the overall quality of the film. It’s a real shame characters tell audiences the information we need to know rather than being shown. King’s novel is quite lengthy and it feels as if Flangan and collaborator Mike Howard’s script has tried to condense a lot of the material into monologues. This makes the film feel oddly like a stage play at times and less cinematic. Flanagan clearly has respect for the material – it’s a faithful adaptation and there are even subtle nods to other Stephen King works. It’s just a shame he didn’t know how to make his script work for the big screen.

At least the cast are up to the task of making the most of the opportunity. Carla Gugino is excellent as Jessie, who excels as she becomes increasingly desperate to be released from her struggle and a character whose past comes back to haunt her. Bruce Greenwood gives a particularly nuanced performance as Gerald, a character who is tired, stuck in a rut but also deeply controlling. Both actors do a great job in portraying the weariness of their characters –  it is clearly a marriage that has reached its end and they are both clutching at straws to try and continue it. Their relationship is awkward and both hide their true feelings from each other.

Unfortunately though, it’s hard to root for unrelatable characters. I found Gerald to be despicable and his death didn’t have any emotional resonance at all. I found it hard to even root for Gugino’s Jessie at times, a character so gullibly ruled by the patriarch and someone who hasn’t done anything with her life except feeling sorry for herself.

It’s a welcome relief that Flanagan manages to make up for the film’s problems with an ending that is genuinely chilling and emotionally resonant. I’m a big believer that it’s always better for a disappointing film to pick up at the end rather than the beginning as audiences will leave on a high note. The ending beautifully allows its narative to come full-circle and is thematically rewarding. Perhaps a rewatch would allow for me to pick up on some of the more subtle aspects that feature in its ending and that would elevate my opinion of the film.

Another high point of the film is Michael Fimognari’s cinematography. Fimognari knows when to hold onto a shot rather than resorting to quick cuts and there are a couple of simply awe-inspiring shots on a beach mid-way into the film. The same can’t be said for The Newton Brother’s score which adds nothing to the film and isn’t memorable in the slightest. A real shame as they have done much better work in the past particularly with Oculus.

Gerald’s Game is ultimately not the slamdunk it should have been and it oddly feels the most distanced from Flanagan’s directorial style compared to his other works. It’s always refreshing to see directors try something new but the film is squandered by a weak script which makes the grave mistake of telling rather than showing. Luckily, the good performances from its cast manage to elevate the film and Flanagan sticks the ending allowing the film to conclude on a high note. It’s a solid effort but Flanagan doesn’t manage to reach the heights of his previous work.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)