⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Jing Tian, Toby Kebbell, John Ortiz, Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Shea Wingham, Thomas Mann, Terry Notary, John C. Reilly
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 118 mins

‘Kong: Skull Island’ is the latest iteration of this classic monster character, a staple of cinema since 1933. The character was last seen in Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake which I generally really liked but it was very self-indulgent clocking in at a minute shy of 3 hours when it really didn’t need to be. Over the years, with the introduction of cinematic universes such as Marvel and DC, Warner Bros are having a go at creating what has been dubbed a ‘MonsterVerse’, films centering on classical monsters such as King Kong, Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah. ‘Kong: Skull Island’ is the second entry in this franchise after Gareth Edwards’ 2014 film ‘Godzilla’ which I had mixed feelings about – it had a great first half but completely fell apart in its second. ‘Kong: Skull Island’ is directed by up-and-coming director Jordan Vogt-Roberts who made his directorial debut with 2013’s ‘The Kings of Summer’. This is not a new thing in Hollywood hiring younger directors and throwing them straight in the deep end – sometimes this has worked, sometimes it hasn’t. Vogt-Roberts has assembled what is perhaps the best cast for any film this year containing Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson and John C. Reilly to name a few. This isn’t just a remake of the typical King Kong narrative again for the sake of setting up a context in the MonsterVerse – Vogt-Roberts has been inspired by the Vietnam War and uses this as a backdrop for the film as a team of scientists and Vietnam War veterans set foot on Skull Island. Initial trailers have looked very promising for this film, particularly the cinematography by one of my favourite DOP’s, Larry Fong, who did such an excellent job on last year’s ‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice‘ and with a cast this good, it’s very hard for this behemoth to fail.

‘Kong: Skull Island’ is rather simplistic and very creaky in the script department but it is an entertaining, unashamed film that is visually mesmerising. Vogt-Roberts has proved himself here and really puts his own stamp on the material. There are so many memorable visual shots in this film and it looks as if he has really spent a long time trying to put the film together considering every frame what works and what doesn’t. What is also impressive is that although the film manages to set itself up in a wider universe, it doesn’t drill this message in throughout the entirety of the film and the film works very well as a standlone piece as it does in a franchise. This does mean however that the film is a bit style over substance as it is very simplistic story-wise and the human characters do get sidelined from the fantastical creatures and character development is a problem in this film.

The cast are generally sound and all put in a good effort with the material they have been given, but character development is paper-thin. The cast members who make the biggest impression are Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly who are probably the two characters who get developed the most. Samuel L. Jackson plays himself which is always entertaining and he gets a couple of good lines in the film and John C. Reilly provides comic relief and gets quite a nice character arc. Of the rest of the cast, Tom Hiddleston makes a good lead and he pretty much plays himself which is both a good and bad thing. Brie Larson isn’t given particularly much to do other than wince, grimace and act as a plot device. John Goodman is a great actor but his character is difficult to empathise with and we don’t really get to learn anything about him other than being a plot device.

The story is unfortunately paper-thin and the whole film is very predictable not leaving a lot to imagination. Watching this film was a bit of a strange experience because I would normally start to get annoyed with a film that does this but on the strength of the visuals and the fun factor, I was able to get on board with it and accept it for what it is. The script which is by Dan Gilroy (who directed the exemplary ‘Nightcrawler’), Max Borenstein and Derek Connolly is another kettle of fish and at times is pretty ear-gratingly bad. It’s a bit of a surprise particularly coming from Gilroy but it is in desperate need of a rewrite. Once the action begins to kick in however, it’s not too much of a problem but future screenwriters for these films need to do a better job as it’s just about excusable here.

The score by Henry Jackman is generally sound, memorable at times but a little annoying at others. The cinematography though by Larry Fong is simply outstanding and there are certain images that really stayed with me. Fong has been going from strength to strength and I think this is his best work. A lot of action films resort to quick cuts to obscure the action and this often makes what is happening on-screen quite toothless and redundant but this was most certainly not the case with ‘Kong: Skull Island’. Fong knows when to hang onto a shot and also typical camera angles that you would expect to be implemented do not happen. There is a scene early on in the film when Kong attacks a helicopter and the way that it has been shot is absolutely mesmerising as Fong chooses to shoot the action from some very creative angles and locations. It is pure eye candy and Fong continues the good work throughout the film and all of the action sequences are shot with clarity and creativity.

Overall, ‘Kong: Skull Island’ is not quite the slam-dunk that I wanted it to be but once you look past the flaws and get on board with the film, it’s great fun and is never boring. The visual effects are simply outstanding and there are many moments of pure spectacle. It’s a shame that the human characters are generally paper-thin and the script is creaky but its sheer entertainment manage to make this a worthwhile watch and I’m very impressed to see Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ fingerprints all over it and how cine-literate it was. It’s a much more well-rounded film than ‘Godzilla’ which was a film of two halves and the quality of the cast alone despite the quality of the script manage to pull this film up. Compared to Peter Jackson’s vision, it’s a tricky one as that film had a lot more substance and better character development but Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ vision is a lot more efficient and visually pleasing. It’s overall a good film but some basic problems hold it back from being excellent. I’m interested to see the direction that this ‘MonsterVerse’ will go in and on the strength of Vogt-Roberts’ direction, I’d be very happy for him to get the gig for another film in this franchise or another big-budget blockbuster.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Ti West
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Taissa Farmiga, James Ransone, Karen Gillan, John Travolta 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 99 mins

‘In A Valley Of Violence’ is another entry in the Western genre which has been going from strength to strength as of late. Last year, there were four excellent Westerns which all featured in my Best of 2016 list – ‘The Hateful Eight‘, ‘The Revenant‘, ‘Bone Tomahawk’ and ‘Hell Or High Water’. ‘The Magnificent Seven’ didn’t really do much for me and although in the UK, ‘In A Valley Of Violence’ has recived a direct-to-DVD release, it was released in America theatrically last year. This film is directed by Ti West who is both an actor and director who has previously directed horror films such as ‘The Inkeepers’ and ‘The Sacrament’ who suddenly revealed his love for Westerns when he came along with this script to Ethan Hawke, who he wrote in the screenplay with the actor in mind for the character. Fortunately, it has all worked out and Ti West has been able to assemble a very impressive cast comprising of Hawke, but also James Ransone, Karen Gillan, Taissa Farmiga but perhaps most impressively, John Travolta who I haven’t seen in a film in quite a long time. Reviews for this film have been positive from both critics and audiences alike but it will take a lot for this film to reach the heights of other films I have been utterly transfixed by recently.

‘In A Valley Of Violence’ may be a little simplistic in the plot department but it is a supremely entertaining romp that features some great performances and is suitably graphic at times. It is competently directed by Ti West who has written a memorable script and everyone who is in this film both in front of and behind the camera seems to be having a really great time. Although it doesn’t try and reinvent the genre, from the opening moments when I got on board with it, I had a big smile on my face the whole way through and it’s one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen this year so far.

The performances are of course, great. I will watch Ethan Hawke in anything and here he doesn’t disappoint. The standouts here though are James Ransone who has been steadily building his career over the past couple of years from being a bit of a bit-part player to now getting meatier roles who has collaborated with Hawke a few times. Secondly, John Travolta who really chews the scenery here but he makes for a menacing foil to Hawke who is quite well developed.

Although the film more than makes up for it in the entertainment factor, the story is rather on the simplistic side. The film plays out pretty much the way you expect it to although it does take a few moments to take a breather and explore some of its themes in a little more detail. Compared to the other Westerns I have cited as fantastic from last year, this film doesn’t have as much meat-on-the-bone as they do but in terms of sheer enjoyment, it’s up there.

The score by Jeff Grace, who I am a big fan of, does not disappoint and he manages to craft many memorable cues here. The cinematography by Eric Robbins is serviceable and the film has a very authentic feel from past Westerns.

Although ‘In A Valley Of Violence’ doesn’t tread particularly new ground, it is always extremely entertaining and at times, enthralling and it is on the strength of the performances and script that the film succeeds in the way it does. I genuinely think this film could have done well enough on a theatrical release. Hawke and Travolta are box-office draws enough for it to make more money. Maybe it’s for the best however as Ti West can continue to make smaller budget films with great scripts. But I do hope enough people will be able to access it and watch it as it’s far better than a lot of the stuff that’s playing in cinemas at the moment. I really liked it and had a big grin on my face throughout the entirety of the film. This is another Western to add to the growing list of good one’s in the recent resurgence of this genre.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: James Mangold
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Richard E. Grant, Boyd Holbrook, Stephen Merchant, Dafne Keen
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 137 mins

‘Logan’ is the much-anticipated swansong to this iconic character that Hugh Jackman has made his own since the beginning of the ‘X-Men’ franchise. I am generally a big fan of this franchise and other than last year’s ‘X-Men: Apocalypse‘, have been entertained at the least by all of them and a couple of them, I have been well and truly wowed by. This is the third attempt Hugh Jackman has made with this character in a standalone film – Gavin Hood’s 2009 ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ is generally regarded as the worst entry in the franchise. Conversely, I really liked it. Then, James Magnold directed 2013’s ‘The Wolverine’ which until its last 15/20 minutes is a near-perfect film and is my favourite comic-book film behind Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight’. My excitement when Mangold was revealed to be back in the director’s chair for ‘Logan’ was at an all-time high – he managed to craft a near-perfect iteration of this character before and has made some other great films such as the 2007 remake of Western ‘3:10 to Yuma’. After the success of ‘Deadpool‘, ‘Logan’ was revealed to be filming with a 15 / R rating in mind so for James Mangold who not only is a great director, but also being given the opportunity to make a film he really wants to make without the confines of certification is a dream come true. This is coupled with the fact that Jackman has vowed for this to be his last performance as the character and in the strong marketing leading up to the release of this film, it genuinely looks like Jackman and Mangold want to make the very best film they can. ‘Logan’ tells the story of a battered and ageing Wolverine having to care for Professor Xavier who then has to lend assistance to the protection of a young mutant, who seemingly bears many similarities to him whilst being pursued by sinister forces.

‘Logan’ is not just a fantastic superhero film, it is also a fantastic Western film that just happens to have a superhero starring in it. The Western genre is a genre that is close to my heart so not only is it refreshing to be given another ace Western but for it to be in the shape of ‘Logan’ is extremely impressive. The film is gritty, swearytastic and deliciously violent, fully earning the film a 15 / R rating. The performances by the cast all-round are great and Mangold directs this film with real flair. The film has a lot of emotional beats and really develops these characters that we have come to empathise with over the course of this franchise. The story, also manages to surprise with a couple of great twists and turns. I’m not sure if it’s better than ‘The Wolverine’ but it is definitely equal to it and both of Mangold’s efforts are the best comic-book films since ‘The Dark Knight’.

The performances really are superb and you can really sense the conviction in both Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart and that they aren’t in it just for the cash. These are two individuals who genuinely seem to really want to pay respect to these characters. Jackman, with the elevated age rating is finally allowed to swear which helps establish a sense of realism in the film and when the action arrives, detail certainly is dwelled upon. This is truly nasty violence and isn’t just toothless violence that has a lack of purpose in a 12A / PG-13 film. ‘Logan’ is also Patrick Stewart’s best performance who really gets to display his acting chops as a dying Professor X who relies on Logan to live. His character is the lynchpin in harmony in Logan’s life and it’s in the films quieter moments, of which there a lot of, that really allow these characters a space to breathe. I must admit initially I was a little hesistant that both Stephen Merchant and Richard E. Grant had been cast and was worried they would be hammy and lack seriousness but both of them are fantastic. Merchant’s Caliban gets some great character moments early on in the film and although he’s not really a character that has played a big impact in these films beforehand (Caliban featured in ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ played by Tómas Lemarquis) but it feels as if we have known him for a long time. Richard E. Grant doesn’t show up until late on into the film but his character is cold and calculated and when allowed to, sinister. Boyd Holbrook, as the main villain, is decent and is menacing enough at times but this film isn’t his to showcase his talent. Mangold took a big risk casting Dafne Keen as Laura / X-23 who Logan has to take under his wing but she is excellent and is a great physical actress, not getting a lot of lines in the script. One of the small problems I have with the film is a plot device in the final act where her character changes and it was quite a jarring scene initially but it was something that I managed to settle with. 

One of the most significant reasons as to why this film has had the wild success it has is beacuse of the decision for it to be rated 15 / R. This is something that ‘Deadpool’, although the film was lacking, managed to demonstrate and this has translated seamlessly to ‘Logan’. Violence and strong language are not just used for the sake of it, they are used to establish a more coherent realism and this helps to create a stronger versimilitude. It’s refreshing to see that these films have provided examples to others that you don’t just need to appeal to the widest common denominator to succeed and rake in as much cash as you can, the quality and integrity of the actual film itself is bigger at stake.

The score by Marco Beltrami is simply superb, Beltrami did a sterling job on ‘The Wolverine’ but here he experiments a little more, for example infusing elements of jazz or piano into its eclectic score. Originally when the film was announced, Cliff Martinez was meant to assume scoring duties which I feel would have been interesting and we’ll never know what he had up his sleeve but Beltrami is a reliable composer who collaborates with Mangold a lot and it’s impressive that he’s managed to craft a score this good whilst being hired very late into the game. The cinematography by John Mathieson is also superb and he doesn’t just settle for the quick-cuts so commonly used in these types of films – he knows when to hold onto a shot a little longer than is comfortable and the slow pace of editing helps create this Western feel.

I loved ‘Logan’ and I really felt a great sense of relief when the credits started to roll and the film was pretty much as great as I expected it to be. It’s too often where you get a film that really plays its card right with its marketing material only for the actual film to be underwhelming and I was also initially worried at the univeral acclaim that this film has recieved as my critical opinion can quite often wildly differ from the consensus if you a regular reader of this website. The entire cast and crew have done a beautiful job with this film and Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine recieves a wonderful send-off – please don’t be tempted to be drawn back to this world, Hugh, you’ve ended it perfectly! ‘Logan’ is one of the best films of the year and one of the best comic-book films of all time – it is so nearly perfect.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Peter Berg
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Kevin Bacon, John Goodman, J.K. Simmons, Michelle Monaghan
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 133 mins

‘Patriots Day’ is the third collaboration between director Peter Berg and actor Mark Wahlberg after ‘The Lone Survivor’ and ‘Deepwater Horizon’. What these three films have in common is that they are retellings of true events, ‘The Lone Survivor’ that of  and ‘Deepwater Horizon’ a retelling of the the BP Oil Spill. ‘Patriots Day’ recounts the events of the Boston Marathon Bombings in 2013 and its immediate aftermath in tracking down the perpetrators through the eyes of a fictionalised policeman played by Mark Wahlberg. Until Peter Berg teamed up with Mark Wahlberg, I haven’t really been a fan of his filmography and have found him to be a slightly less offensive version of Michael Bay – ‘Battleship’ particularly annoyed me with its sheer stupidity and loudness. Mark Wahlberg can be a fine actor when he wants to be but he can also really play in some terrible films and I genuinely feel that this partnership is in the same level as that of Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese for example, as they have both created their best work with these films. ‘Patriots Day’ has assembled a fine cast comprising of Wahlberg but also J.K. Simmons, Kevin Bacon and John Goodman for example. It has similarly received strong critical and audience reception, a third success for both Berg and Wahlberg.

‘Patriots Day’ is a fantastic film and in some aspects is even Peter Berg’s most accomplished film. It is a fascinating retelling of these tragic events and has several simply staggering action sequences and is gripping right from the start. It features some fine performances by the majority of its cast and I’m really impressed with the amount of respect the entire cast and crew seem to have for this material. I do think Berg lays it on a little bit thick at the end of the film in an epilogue which is interesting in learning about the fate of these characters but I think Berg’s intentions are a little too patriotic. But other than this, for the most part Berg remains fairly agnostic and even delves into the back story of the criminals as well.

The performances in this film are generally very respectful although some characters do get a little short-changed in terms of development as Berg tries to tell this story from many different perspectives. The standouts of the film are Mark Wahlberg, J. K. Simmons, Kevin Bacon, Alex Wolff and Themo Melikidze. Mark Wahlberg’s performance fictional policeman, Sergeant Tommy Saunders, is very good here and he is the character we see most of these events unfold with and his character is a good mediator as a story device. J. K. Simmons provides a lot of the comic relief but the role was practically written for him and he is brilliant in one action sequence late on into the film. Kevin Bacon manages to successfully ramps up the urgency of the situation and Alex Wolff and Themo Melikidze as the criminals are particularly nasty. Unfortunately, although fairly high billed in the cast, John Goodman isn’t given a lot to do which is a shame because he is always brilliant in whatever he’s in and all Michelle Monaghan’s character needs to do is give marital support to Wahlberg. However, there are a lot of characters this film needs to juggle and the ones that Berg chooses to focus on are particularly appropriate.

The action sequences that Berg creates are simply mesmerising. Whilst we all know that the Boston Bombing sequence is coming, Berg holds off for a fair while before this happens in exchange of character development and this makes the film all the more gripping as we all know that this will happen and impact on these characters at some point or later. There are also some brilliant action sequences towards the last act of the film, a car shoot-out particularly worthy of mention which is absolutely brutal.

The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is as expected, great and particularly memorable in places and really ramps up the tension throughout the entire film. Just as impressive is the cinematography by Tobias Schliessler who manages to combine archival and dramatised footage near seamlessly throughout the entire film, almost giving the film a documentary-like quality and I thought it worked really well.

Overall, ‘Patriots Day’ is another gripping spin on true events and the partnership between Berg and Wahlberg evidently only grows stronger and stronger. Berg takes his time in establishing the context and characters before the action begins to sink in and when the film kicks into gear on the manhunt for the criminals, it is stunning. The performances are all very respectful and everyone is convincing and Berg manages to craft some mesmerising action sequences, a far cry from his older films which were firmly in Michael Bay territory. ‘Patriots Day’ is one of the very best films of the year so far and further cements how good Peter Berg can be when given the right material.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Chad Stahelski
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Common, Laurence Fishburne, Riccardo Scamarcio, Ruby Rose, John Leguizamo, Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, Peter Stormare, Franco Nero
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 122 mins

‘John Wick: Chapter 2’ is, as you guessed, the sequel to ‘John Wick’, a film that completely took me by surprise in how entertaining and thrilling it was, so much so that it was one of my favourite films of that year. It was a return to form for Keanu Reeves, who like Liam Neeson has recently, reinvigorated his career as an action star. It was witty, featured plenty of utterly bonkers action sequences and managed to do some pretty impressive world-building, introducing key concepts of mythology into this setting. What also elevated it above the average action film was how slickly and competently directed it was by former stunt co-ordinators Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, the latter being uncredited. ‘John Wick: Chapter 2’ picks up almost immediately after the events of the first film and sees the titular character again not being allowed to sit back and retire, instead having to repay a debt to a crime lord he dealt with in the past. This time, Stahelski is solely directing but he has managed to recruit quite an impressive cast list with Common and Laurence Fishburne being the main highlights, Fishburne reuniting with his former ‘Matrix’ star. The film has garnered very impressive reviews, many stating it to be an improvement over the original and that it successfully builds upon the events of the first film.

‘John Wick: Chapter 2’ is a thoroughly entertaining sequel that turns the dial up to eleven and cements Stahelski’s craft at directing action – all the fight scenes are exceptionally well-choreographed. The film successfully builds on and expands the mythology that was introduced in the first installment and the film also has an absolute killer of an ending. That said, this sequel doesn’t feel quite as fresh as its predecessor and it does follow the same beats in places. What made the first film so revelatory was how much it managed to do whilst being fairly simplistic and I don’t think this film has quite managed to accomplish that in the same vein. But it’s still very entertaining and features plenty of high-octane action sequences.

The acting is as expected very witty by the cast again who all seem to be having an absolute ball of a time and aren’t particularly taking themselves seriously. Keanu Reeves continues to solidify this character as his own and I’m very excited to see where he will take this in another sequel and surprisingly, Common is very competent here as well. Maybe these are the films for him too…? Laurence Fishburne doesn’t get given that much to do but the majority of the cast from the first film return and it is very welcome to see their characters again, if only for a few very short cameos.

Stahelski really seems to know how to direct action and I would argue that along with Gareth Evans, director of ‘The Raid’ films, they’re probably the ones to beat at the moment, reinventing the genre. The film has plenty of action sequences to enjoy but I did feel that quite a few of them outstayed their welcome a little bit compared to the first film. I think the problem is there isn’t all that much variety in the way that Wick dispatches his opponents and there were a couple of instances where I did get a little bored which never happened in the first film. However when there is variety, the film is extremely entertaining and there is one sequence in particular which the entire crowd were revelling at.

The score, once again by Tyler Bates and Joel J. Richards is generally sound and boasts a few memorable themes to help aid the action. Danish cinemtographer Dan Laustsen takes over duties from Jonathan Sela and generally does a pretty good job but the film isn’t quite as dark as the first film in terms of lighting and at times, it did feel like the film was almost a performance due to the bright neon colours shining across the screen. But coupled with Stahelski, he shoots the action with gusto and there are a few interesting angles he decides to capture the action on.

Overall, ‘John Wick: Chapter 2’ isn’t quite as fresh as its predecessor and the film does lack some of the simplicity and finesse that allowed that film to be as successful as it was. However, Stahelski cranks things up to eleven (especially the body count) and does it with gleeful results as the film is mostly extremely entertaining and for the most part, gorgeous to look at. It’s a good job the film ends with the storyline it does which I really wasn’t expecting and inevitably another sequel will be commissioned and it will be very interesting where the mythology and journey of this now iconic character will take us. I, for one, will be just as eager to witness the results.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Chris McKay
Starring: (voices of) Will Arnett, Zach Galifianakis, Michael Cera, Rosario Dawson, Ralph Fiennes
Certificate: U
Run Time: 104 mins

‘The Lego Batman Movie’ is a spin-off focussing on the iconic, titular character that featured in a supporting role in 2014’s surprise hit, ‘The Lego Movie’. That film recieved near universal acclaim and I was very much looking forward to seeing it but when I did, I found the humour too meta, annoying and unengaging. I’m very pleased that as a spin-off, the producers have chosen to focus on this character which should be more appealing to all. The narrative follows Will Arnett reprise his role as Batman in his quest to stop The Joker from wreaking havoc on Gotham City whilst at the same time trying to work with newly-elected Barbara Gordon. The trailers for this film have looked as if this has reverted and I laughed all the way throughout the promotional material for this film which features some intelligent gags and is very genre-literate.

‘The Lego Batman Movie’ is a film of two halves – its first act is particularly impressive and constantly cracks jokes left, right and centre and is surprisingly very cine-literate. The opening sequence which is a fight between Batman and the Joker is particularly well-crafted and the gags keep coming at a rapid pace and there is so much to absorb on-screen, little references to the character and previous incarnations scattered across the screen – it is pure eye-candy. The voice cast are generally pretty strong and Lorne Balfe’s score is generally competent and there are a couple of memorable, dark and brooding themes that elevate the narrative, particularly in the opening fight sequence. Unfortunately, the film completely tanks in its second half. The reason why it tanks, primarily is because it chooses to go down a specific narrative which I won’t spoil but it really doesn’t do the film any favours. Part of why the first act works really well is because the filmmakers are clearly respectful of the source material but all that respect goes out of the window in the second half and this very much becomes a film centered for children.

When the film is firing on full cylinders, the script constantly cracks jokes that appeal to both fans of the character and children. This is something that all the best comedies do and for it to have the ability to juggle both of these characteristics is impressive. I particularly enjoyed all the references to all the previous Batman films and the film smartly pokes fun at some of the less successful ones without being narcissistic.

The major factor as to why this film falls off the rails in its second act is due to its story which is misjudged.  Rather than go down a route where it thoroughly explores Batman and his supporting characters, McKay chooses to shake things up and try and mix in popular culture with this iconic superhero. This does not work at all and as the film progressed, really started to get on my nerves. By the time the credits started to roll and I was being lectured on the subject of working together, I was seething. This is an insult to fans of the character and completely undoes all the good work the film managed to do in its first act.

That said, the voice cast here are great and if they were in a better film, the film could be a classic. Will Arnett continues the great work in ‘The Lego Movie’ as the voice of Batman, Ralph Fiennes works as well on the screen as he does on paper as Alfred and Michael Cera is suitably annoying as Robin. Zach Galifiankais as The Joker, in the first act, is suitably menacing and charismatic but the film’s choice of narrative negatively impacts on this iconic character. The only weak link is Rosario Dawson who as an actress is competent but I found the character of Barbara Gordon unnecessary  and annoying.

Overall, ‘The Lego Batman Movie’ is a crushingly disappointing feature whose second half completely negates all the good work done settting up the storyline and the characters in the first half. If this was the other way round, I probably would have given the film the benefit of the doubt as it is always better to finish a film on a high note rather than on a low one but this doesn’t happen and the film continued to get progressively worse until the credits started to roll. It’s such a shame that two-for-two, I’ve been disappointed with these films and I find it baffling how both ‘The Lego Movie’ and ‘The Lego Batman Movie’ have recieved near-perfect acclaim. I suppose at least, there’s plenty to see in the first half. That’s the film I wanted, not the one that followed.

⭐ ⭐ (Poor)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Barry Jenkins
Starring: Trevante Rhodes, André Holland, Janelle Monáe, Ashton Sanders, Jharrel Jerome, Naomie Harris, Mahershala Ali
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 113 mins 

It seems as if ‘Moonlight’ suddenly came out of nowhere late last year and suddenly dominated all Awards talk. It presents three stages in the life of Chiron who as a child who goes by the name of ‘Little’, as a teenager and as an adult nicknamed ‘Black’ and his struggle with his sexuality and identity. This is director Barry Jenkins’ second directorial effort after ‘Medicine for Melancholy’ in 2008 and he also wrote this film, adapting this narrative from an unpublished play, ‘In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue’. The film recieved lots of Awards buzz and ultimately ended up winning the coveted Best Picture Oscar as well as for Jenkins’ screenplay and the supporting performance by Mahershala Ali. This has become the first LGBT film in history to win this award and Ali, the first Muslim. And rightly, it tells an important story that hasn’t been portrayed enough in film.

‘Moonlight’ makes for quite a mixed watch and starts off well enough in its first two segments only to undo itself in its third. It tackles a lot of interesting themes, particularly that of identity which is key to how Chiron develops as a character. I couldn’t really connect with the characters in the third act and found the film quite alienating. That said, the film is not an easy watch and this is a film that warrants rewatching so the rating of this film has the potential of increasing. Aside from my issues with the film, it features some great performances, a superb score  and some interesting cinematography and the film can only be admired for what it is trying to do even if Jenkins doesn’t quite have the experience to fully execute his vision.

The film features some great performances by all the cast, but particularly the three iterations of Chiron, Janelle Monae and of course, Mahershala Ali. Trevante Rhodes, Ashton Sanders and Alex Hibbert, who play the three Chiron’s are all superb and will hopefully all go far in the film industry. For my money, Sanders probably has the meatiest part of the film and there are a couple of sensational sequences with him where everything gets too much for him and he fights back which was mesmersing on the screen to behold. Alex Hibbert’s performance as the youngest iteration is imperative in order for the audience to connect with the character and there are a couple of sequences where he really gets to display his acting chops and whilst Trevante Rhodes in the film’s final section doesn’t fare quite as well, offers a subdued and nuanced performance. Of course, Mahershala Ali is as expected great and deserved his Oscar despite only being in the film in the first section but his absence is sorely felt particularly in the latter half of the film where it begins to fall apart. Janelle Monáe is just as strong as Ali here and makes the most of several opportunities in the film to really display her natural flair as an actress with some heartfelt sequences with Chiron. She also gives a very strong performance in ‘Hidden Figures‘ and equally stands out. Monáe should have been the actress here to get recognition for her performance, not Naomie Harris who I felt a little over-the-top. 

I really admire the respect that Jenkins has for these characters and felt that his screenplay was very cine-literate and has plenty of room left for thought. It was very interesting to note comparisons between the first and last section of the film and seeing how these characters come full-circle, almost in a Shakespearan-like way. It is a shame that the final act seems a little out of place in parts and doesn’t gel as well with the film as its first two sections do and I hope, with a little more experience, Jenkins will be able to deliver that gut-punch needed to better round off his films.

Nicholas Britell’s score wound me up in ‘The Big Short‘ last year and it has been quite annoying that he is getting more and more work as a composer however I owe the man an apology as his score for ‘Moonlight’ is simply superb. It is memorable, melodic and perfectly conveys the emotions of what is being portrayed on-screen and acts as the glue that splices together these three stories. It deservedly earnt its Oscar nomination. The cinematography by James Laxton is a little frenetic at times but he does use some very interesting shots in some parts of the film and his lighting is particularly metaphorical. It is graceful when the film is given a chance to breathe but equally chaotic when chaos ensues for the characters. It’s an interesting piece of work.

‘Moonlight’ is ultimately an ambitious film that tackles some heady themes and the concept of it is outstanding. Its first two thirds are well-judged and treated with a lot of respect by Jenkins and I really felt for the characters at times. It’s a shame that it can’t quite sustain its grip in its final section which tonally feels a little off and meanders a little into a bit of a mess. However, I appreciate that this film will need rewatching and there is potential for the grading of this film to increase. On first watch, I found the bulk of the first two thirds mesmerising which was bolstered by the strong performances, cinematography and score only to be a little underwhelmed and short-changed in the final act. But it’s a good effort by Jenkins and his cast and crew who attempt and for some part, manage to succeed in their plight to bringing this compelling narrative to the big screen.

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Theodore Melfi
Starring: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monáe, Kevin Costner, Kirsten Dunst, Jim Parsons, Glen Powell, Mahershala Ali
Certificate: PG
Run Time: 127 mins

‘Hidden Figures’ is a biopic detailing the untold stories of three inspirational African-American women who served a vital role in NASA during the early space programs. At the beginning of the film, they are working in a segregated environment where their full talents are being under-utilised despite all being clearly very intelligent. The film details their work for NASA and their plight into getting their desired role in helping the early space missions. The film is directed by Theodore Melfi who directed ‘St Vincent’, a 2014 comedy with Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy which received positive reviews. The film boasts an impressive cast comprised of Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle  Monáe as the titular figures and the cast is rounded out by Kevin Costner, Kirsten Dunst, Jim Parsons and Mahershala Ali to name a few so the performances should be very strong. ‘Hidden Figures’ has received Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress for Octavia Spencer and Adapted Screenplay and although it ultimately didn’t win anything, many anticipated it as a dark horse in the Oscar race.

‘Hidden Figures’ is an extremely easy film to like and barely puts a foot wrong; I was utterly charmed by it the whole way through. It is competently directed by Melfi and has just the right blend of comedy and factual drama in it to prevent it from being too laborious or too comedic. Not only are the performances are great in this film, but the characters are all really well-developed and the screenplay by Melfi and Allison Schroeder is wonderfully written. What stops this film from being perfect is it is fairly conventional in parts and there are a couple of story arcs that are a little underwritten. But these are very small nitpicks in an otherwise near-perfect film.

I really admire the respect that Melfi seems to have for these characters and it’s refreshing to not only see a film that is not only led by women, but women of colour. It sets itself very confidently in time, establishing a well-developed context which helps the audience to further empathise with the film’s characters and their struggle in a racially segregated society. The film manages to earn a lot of its moments that it tries to go for in sympathising with the characters and although I wasn’t aware of anything to do with this true story before seeing the film, I was fascinated with the narrative it portrays, a story of these hidden figures.

The performances of the entire cast in this film are round-the-board very likeable. Taraji P. Henson is very respectful and faithful as Katherine Goble Johnson, a mathematician who becomes the first African-American working in the Space Task Group. Octavia Spencer, who has received an Oscar nomination for her performance as Dorothy Vaughan is wonderful and is equally comedic yet all-knowing, who works the job of a Supervisor without being credited for it. Janelle Monáe plays Mary Jackson who aspires to be an engineer and I’ve been really impressed with Monáe who manages to give a second fantastic performance after her wonderful turn in ‘Moonlight’. The rest of the cast are all very strong too and it’s great to see Jim Parsons in a serious role who proves he isn’t just limited to comedic roles. What propels these performances is the wonderful character development in the script and I really felt and understand for most of these characters by the end of the film. The only exception is Mahershala Ali as Jim Johnson, a military officer who romances with Henson’s character. Ali’s performance is great, as to be expected, but I thought the role was quite underwritten and a bit po-faced and there is a moment late in the film that I don’t think the film manages to earn.

The score which is scored by Hans Zimmer, Pharrell Williams and Benjamin Wallfisch is subtle and fits into the film well whilst being fairly memorable at the same time. The cinematography by Mandy Walker is competent and economical and the film is very well-edited by Peter Teschner.

Overall, ‘Hidden Figures’ is one of the stronger entries in the crop of Best Picture nominees for this year. It is a timely and important film and has just the right amount of respect for these individuals without overdoing it and feeling like a history lesson. It deserves all the Awards attention that it has received – Melfi has done a very good job in pacing this film perfectly and a strong, cine-literate script manages to bring out some excellent performances in the well-developed characters played by the cast. I really liked it and the film was completely gripping in its opening moments and never lost me throughout its entire run time.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Denzel Washington
Starring: Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Jovan Adepo, Russell Hornsby, Mykelti Williamson
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 139 mins

‘Fences’ is anadaptation of August Wilson’s Pulitzer-prize winning stage play with Denzel Washington and Viola Davis reprising their roles from the 2010 Broadway revival. It details the story of Troy Maxson, a working-class African-American waste collector who tries to provide for his family in 1950’s Pittsburgh. He has a clear sense of morals and at times, he can be utterly ferocious towards his sons and the first trailer that came out is a brilliant example of this where he tells his younger son that he hasn’t got to like him but still provides for him. Troy used to play baseball after being released from prison and found that he was naturally talented at it but failing to make it to the Major League Baseball due to what he thinks is because of his race, attempts to stop his son from participating in the sport as he fears the same will happen to him. His wife, Rose Lee played by Viola Davis stays at home and is faithful to her husband whilst trying to raise her son at the same time. The film is a character study primarily into Washington’s character who begins to find himself conflicted in events in his life.  I’m quite divided over my opinion of Denzel Washington – sometimes he can be quite good in a role but a lot of the time, I find him extremely obnoxious and quite full of himself. In ‘Fences’, not only is he acting, he also directs it. Listening to interviews and the marketing of ‘Fences’, I feared that this was going to be the case and I got the impression that he only really made the film to honour August Wilson and to hopefully squeeze an Oscar or two out of it too. The film has received considerable Awards attention for Best Picture, Washington and Davis’ performances and Wilson’s script.

The big problems that hinders ‘Fences’ for a considerable amount of its lengthy run time is that it isn’t particularly cinematic. Straight off the bat, the film felt this way and the film made me want to be in a theatre experiencing this narrative on stage. For the first half an hour or so, this is particularly problematic but I began to settle into the film when its narrative kicked in and through its excellent performances. Even when the film settles, it can still never quite shake off this feeling. Funnily enough, it is in the film’s quieter moments where it isn’t so dialogue-laden that it begins to feel more cinematic and it is on the strength of August Wilson’s screenplay which is a terrific piece of work that the film overall just about works.

The performances are of course, universally strong and help to propel the film from its stagey-feel which is testament to August Wilson’s script which develops its characters superbly and is very memorable. All of the characters get moments to shine and they are all paramount in making this story work – there isn’t a character in the film just for the sake of it. . Denzel Washington’s performance, which was considered to be the direct rival to Casey Affleck in ‘Manchester By The Sea‘ in the Best Actor race, is generally very good but I did find that for the first half-an-hour, the film solely focussed on him and I began to get quite annoyed with his character. When Washington chooses to divert the limelight away from himself, he is very nuanced and a little more subtle and despite his character being flawed, I did sympathise with him which is testament to the performance. Viola Davis is the standout here and she gets many opportunities to act Washington off with plenty of tears and snot to convey her emotions.

Although both of these actors have received the most praise for their work here, I found the supporting cast to be equally as powerful and there are some superb performances, particularly from Mykelti Williamson as Troy’s brother who has sustained a head injury when fighting in World War II that has left him mentally challenged. His character is so well-developed and I was really touched by his interactions with other characters in the film and there is a particularly powerful sequence near the end of the film where he requires help eating which really stayed with me after the film ended. It’s a great piece of cinema and is one of the quieter moments in the film and consequently, one of the more cinematic moments. Jovan Adepo as Cory, Troy and Rose’s son is very good here too and is a very conflicted, almost Shakespearean-like character who lacks guidance in his life and constantly clashes with his father and the final scene in the film is also very powerful due to his performance and his feelings on his father. Stephen McKinley Henderson, who has appeared in many August Wilson plays on the stage has some great lines here too.

The score by Marcelo Zarvos doesn’t develop until very late in the film but it has some calming, melodic moments that help resonate with the events being portrayed on-screen. I was really impressed by Charlotte Bruus Christensen’s cinematography who really makes the most of the house as the primary location and she isn’t afraid to hold onto a shot for dramatic effect rather than resorting to quick cuts. The whole film feels quite claustrophobic and confined where characters don’t get a lot of freedom to move around the frame. If there’s anything that helps aid the film becoming more cinematic, her camera work is certainly the most significant factor. You wouldn’t get this sense of perspective whilst watching this on a stage. It’s a big improvement from her work on ‘The Girl on the Train‘ which I had problems with its cinematography.

Overall, I did like ‘Fences’ on the strength of its script and performances but the problem with the film’s intentions of being a film still remain. It feels very conflicted for the most part of its running time and it took me a long time to settle into it and go with it. The film is overlong and I think the film would be harder-hitting if it was perhaps 20 minutes shorter. I also think Washington overcooks the ending which for the most part is a very interesting progression in the story but then its final moments are particularly contrived. But is ‘Fences’ Academy Award material? No, I don’t think it is and it is one of the weaker entries in this year’s Best Picture nominees but I suspect it has been nominated due to Washington’s relationship with the Academy, its acting and as an honour to August Wilson. It’s powerful in places but the biggest problem is its lack of cinematic quality.

 (Good)