⭐⭐ (Poor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (Poor)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 96 mins

‘Sully’ (also known as ‘Sully: Miracle on the Hudson’) is the latest film by Clint Eastwood who has proved quite the career with both a great track record of great performances and assured directorial works and his most recent film, 2015’s ‘American Sniper’ almost made my best films list of that respective year. ‘Sully’ details the story of a pilot, Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger and the 2009 emergency landing of  his plane in the Hudson River in which all 155 passengers and crew survived. The film explores the repercussions and publicity this event had in its aftermath with the subsequent investigation by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). The film stars Tom Hanks as the titular character who has also been on a roll lately with hits such as ‘Captain Phillips’ and ‘Bridge of Spies’ and Aaron Eckhart plays his co-pilot, Jeffrey Skiles with Laura Linney rounding out the cast as Sully’s wife.

‘Sully’ is quite workmanlike in its execution but it’s a fascinating subject matter that Eastwood is able to spin a riveting narrative out of and it features some fantastic performances, particularly from Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart. It features an efficient blend of awe-inspiring plane crash sequences that play out in Sully’s mind throughout the film and some gripping investigatory work from the NTSB. Although a lot of this  is rather fictionalised, it still makes for great cinematic viewing. However Eastwood’s workmanlike execution is his downfall as he doesn’t particularly do too much out of his comfort zone and this is very alike to some of his other films in its direction – you pretty much get what you expect.

This event that Eastwood has decided to adapt for film perfectly suits him and the deconstructing of the event by the NTSB who investigate what happened is enthralling and Eastwood fires on all cylinders – he clearly has a knack for this with a lot of his other films like ‘Changeling’. The plane crash sequence that repeatedly plays out in Sully’s mind is stunning and is one of the most intense 208 seconds you will see in a film this year – it is expertly staged and really ramps up the tension. The fact that we get to see this from different angles multiple times throughout the film adds further gravitas and depth and is a meticulous re-staging of an event that could have ended in disaster.

The performances in this film are what really propel the source material and Tom Hanks as Sully is fantastic and deserving of an Academy Award nomination. His character is completely empathetic and his PTSD-ridden state after the crash is particularly convincing as his character is deconstructed and we get to see how this ordeal has taken its toll on him. Aaron Eckhart is just as good as his co-pilot giving his best performance since ‘The Dark Knight’ and he offers solid support for Hanks and he too is both empathetic and rational. It’s good to see Eckhart finally redeem himself after a stream of flops and poor decisions and this film showcases the great actor that he can be when he’s in the right film. Laura Linney’s role is quite small but she provides adequate support for Hanks’ character as his wife but her character never really gets developed.

The score by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band isn’t particularly memorable but features a few solid cues that help to drive the narrative along. Tom Stern, a regular on Clint Eastwood films, shoots this film perfectly and there are some awe-inspiring shots particularly in the plane-crash sequences that really get to showcase his cinematographic skills.

Ultimately, ‘Sully’ is another winner for Eastwood and is a gripping retelling of this extraordinary event anchored by winning performances by Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart. It is rather workmanlike and doesn’t particularly propel Eastwood to new heights but it’s still a great watch and I was totally enamoured with it for the full 96-minute run time. In terms of Awards prospects, I wouldn’t be surprised if Eastwood manages to sneak into the Best Picture race like he did with ‘American Sniper’ and although it deserves a nod for Hanks and Eckhart, I don’t think it will get it. But as a film, ‘Sully’ is great work by Eastwood and is definitely an enthralling cinematic experience.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: David Yates
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton, Jon Voight, Carmen Ejogo, Ron Perlman, Colin Farrell, Johnny Depp
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 133 mins

(POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD)

‘Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them’ has been greatly anticipated ever since it was announced and is a spin-off on the Harry Potter series. Although the film shares the same name as the textbook J.K. Rowling wrote and features the wizard Newt Scamander, the pen name Rowling wrote under, this is a completely different story to Harry Potter. This deals with Scamander (played by Eddie Redmayne) who arrives into New York City with a suitcase of these beasts which unfortunately escape and he has to retrieve them all with the help of Porpentina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a former Auror of MACUSA (the American equivalent to the Ministry of Magic), her telepathic sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) who is a non-wizard, a No-Maj (American term for a Muggle) who is the audience’s port of call into this world and who we can empathise with. At the same time, MACUSA are trying to protect wizards from humans as there are several circumstances where non-wizard territories are attacked by a strange presence with Percival Graves (Colin Farrell) heading up this investigation and also a character called Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton) is the leader of the New Salem Philanthropic Society, an organisation tasked with exposing and killing witches and wizards. In the director’s chair again is David Yates who was behind the last four Harry Potter films and also directed this Summer’s ‘The Legend of Tarzan‘ which I really liked. Yates is an accomplished director and knows this world very well so I’m confident he’ll do a good job. The cast assembled is also very strong and features some big names who hopefully will be able to do this content justice. J.K. Rowling herself has penned the screenplay for this film so we can be confident for another original story and also as this isn’t an adaptation of a novel, there aren’t any storylines for the director to cut out or change which I think will work in the film’s favour. Has the wait been worth it or is this just a cash grab to milk more money out of this lucrative franchise?

‘Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them’ is an extremely well-directed film which features some great performances and superb character development. The story is exceptionally well-crafted (did we ever not have faith in Rowling in this department?) and I’m especially impressed that the film that we got is a very different one compared to what the trailers suggested – the film has a lot of surprises and twists and storylines that were not shown in the trailers and this is a very strong move. Yates continues to impress me with his direction and again, is a great match for this material and there are numerous sequences that are perfectly crafted which he is able to conjure a very atmospheric tone. Yates may well have his naysayers but I strongly disagree. The tone Yates goes for is very well judged and the film is very dark for a 12A, perhaps more so than the Harry Potter series and he manages to blend darkness, spectacle and humour perfectly. The film however is a little heavy-handed when it comes to romance. Another flaw the film battles is due to the amount of content it has to set up, the first hour is a little uneven compared to the second half when the film fully lets rip but the film is always very engaging and entertaining. This film is the first of what is envisaged to be a 5-film franchise which I would be really interested in but I do think there are some problems that this film sets up for the second film.

J.K. Rowling’s story is generally really well thought out and is surprisingly fairly low on exposition which I was expecting seeing as there is a lot of material to set out. It does have some ties to Harry Potter but this is a proper standalone series which goes for its own unique tone and an engaging set of characters. As mentioned, why this film works particularly well on the story front is because this isn’t an adaptation of a novel so there aren’t any storylines to cut out or change so the film feels a lot more refined and well-rounded. Moving into spoiler territory, it has been announced that this series will culminate in the battle between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald which should be a spectacle to behold and this film does begin to set up Grindelwald as a presence in this series so it’ll be interesting to see how this develops. The film has a fair amount of surprises and twist that the marketing has held back which is very reassuring and seeing this story unfold on-screen was a wonder to behold. Rowling’s decision to set this story in New York is an interesting one as we get to see how the wizarding world differs across the Atlantic and Rowling does this with ease. The film is surprisingly very coherent with the amount of content it has to juggle and I never got confused or lost in the narrative which has not been the case with certain superhero films that have been released this year for instance.

The performances in this film are very strong and characters are well-developed and by the end of the film, we really do care for a lot of these characters. Eddie Redmayne makes for a strong lead and is very charismatic and off-beat as Scamander and is someone that I would be happy to spend 5 films with. Out of Waterston, Fogler and Sudol who accompany Redmayne, it is Fogler who makes the biggest impression as the loveable, innocent Jacob Kowalski who dreams of owning a bakery and is a character who the audience can really resonate with as he not only works in this imaginary narrative but is also someone we can relate to in real life. The supporting cast are all really strong too but it is Colin Farrell and Ezra Miller who make the biggest impression, particularly Farrell who gives a very nuanced, sinister performance. I also really liked Jon Voight’s character who plays the father of a US Senator and his character is clearly channeling Donald Trump which resonated very well too. Samantha Morton, Carmen Ejogo and Ron Perlman round up the supporting cast and all are sound in their roles. The film also features a cameo by Johnny Depp which was announced a few weeks prior to the release of this film as the villain of this franchise, Gellert Grindelwald and although it is just a cameo, I am a little nervous. I don’t think Depp is a match for this material and where we do see him in the film, he again puts in a very theatrical performance as opposed to a nuanced one which could be problematic for this franchise in future. Don’t get me wrong, I think Johnny Depp is one of the strongest leading actors alive today and has done some excellent work but I just cannot picture him in this role with this material. Hopefully a fleshed-out rule in future sequels will tell but for now, I am trepidatious.

James Newton Howard’s score is an interesting one. I gave the score a listen before I watched the film and really didn’t like it and thought it was extremely lazy but when I finally saw the film, his score compliments the film very well in places and is very memorable. It’s still a little lazy in places but there are enough original themes to balance it out. The cinematography by Philippe Rousselot is well-judged and Rousselot manages to balance the dark themes and colourful surroundings of New York to a tee. He has had a very strong year so far and also did great work with Shane Black’s ‘The Nice Guys’.

Ultimately, ‘Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them’ is a brilliant film that again is carefully directed by David Yates and works as a great standalone film with a strong narrative and well-developed multi-dimensional characters. I was utterly enthralled with this film from start-to-finish and cannot wait to see how this narrative develops into future sequels. That said, I am a little concerned with how Johnny Depp’s performance will influence future films and the decision to expand this to five films does seem to be a late one as this standalone film is so well-rounded in its arc and you can tell that some storylines have been bolted on late into the film to allow this franchise to emerge. But as for this film, Yates can be very proud of himself that he has managed to deliver not one, but two great films this year that you can clearly see his stamp on them and both cast and crew can be happy that this film manages to not only live up to the legacy of the Harry Potter series but also shift this brand into a new direction.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Amma Asante
Starring: David Oyelowo, Rosamund Pike, Jack Davenport, Tom Felton
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 111 mins

‘A United Kingdom’ is the latest film by the talented Amma Asante after 2014’s ‘Belle’ and this film tells the true story of Seretse Khama, the Prince of Bechuanaland (now more commonly known as Botswana) who falls in love with a London office worker and marries her. He is also destined to be King over his land where his Uncle currently rules as regent and the film deals with their struggle to be recognised in their own country due to apartheid, the British Empire’s control of this land and the disapproval of Khama marrying a white British woman. Asante has assembled a strong cast with David Oyelowo as the lead who is always endlessly charismatic and authentic and Rosamund Pike as his wife who has been moving from strength to strength in the film industry particularly with her Oscar-nominated performance in David Fincher’s 2014 film, ‘Gone Girl’. ‘A United Kingdom’ has received strong reviews for its depiction of this true story and Asante seems to be further cementing herself as a key player in the rise of strong female directors.

‘A United Kingdom’ is a very easy film to like – it’s a great blend of being informative on this little-known subject matter which is quite shocking at times, funny at times and always profoundly humane. It’s got a collection of strong performances and it is very well-paced and never outstays its welcome. That said, it does race through its beginning before Oyelowo and Pike reach Bechuanaland and perhaps another ten minutes or so to explore their relationship would have been more realistic because they very quickly get married in the space of 15 minutes. It also doesn’t particularly push the envelope in terms of innovation which is why it doesn’t receive full marks but the film is a very easy watch and is endlessly engaging.

I had no prior knowledge of this portion of history and I suspect this will also be the same for many viewers that choose to watch this film but the history really is shocking at times and Asante manages to perfectly convey these emotions in her direction of the film. It is gruelling and uncomfortable to see the amount of limitations and the racist opinions put on Khama and his struggle for equality and the right to rule his own land that he has been promised.

‘A United Kingdom’ has a wealth of strong performances particularly both Oyelowo and Pike as the central couple. This is normal territory for Oyelowo who has played a pretty similar role as Martin Luther King, of which he was the only redeeming feature in Ava DuVernay’s atrocious, pretentious 2015 biopic ‘Selma‘. He is again, great in this and manages to portray a full humanity in Khama’s character and is a character that is well-developed and who we constantly empathise with. Pike is also great as the humble, kind-natured yet misunderstood wife of Khama. Jack Davenport is very good here as Alistair Canning, a fictional civil servant who is a very slimy character and wants what is best for the British Empire which does clash with the ideals of the inhabitants of the Bechuanaland and Tom Felton continues to improve his post-Harry Potter career with a thoughtful performance as Rufus Lancaster who is equally as slippery and slimy as Davenport. I just wish the film would have developed Pike’s family more so that we could get a viewpoint from both sides and get a chance to understand them as they are very one-dimensional.

Patrick Doyle’s score is very serviceable and compliments the film nicely and Sam McCurdy’s cinematography is equally thoughtful and allows the film to flow through very coherently without much of a chance to display his talents.

Overall, ‘A United Kingdom’ is an interesting watch for its interesting true story and its performances. It’s a very easy film to like as mentioned as it is well-paced, save for the beginning and has a lot of light moments of comic relief for the audience which really works and makes the film easy to digest. Whilst it is an excellent film, I just wish it would have been a little more innovative in its execution as it is a little workmanlike in execution. Asante can be proud of another great film and I hope she continues to develop into the promising director that she has already demonstrated she is.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐ (Poor)

Director: Mark Waters
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Kathy Bates, Tony Cox, Christina Hendricks, Brett Kelly, Ryan Hansen, Jenny Zigrino
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 92 mins

Bad Santa is one of my favourite Christmas films, subverting the genre by essentially being a raunchy and shocking anti-Christmas film, with a brilliant central performance by Billy Bob Thornton. This is the latest comedy sequel no one really wanted 13 years later, which more often than not, tend to tarnish the original – take this year’s Zoolander 2 or Dumb and Dumber To as disappointing examples. The one exception to the rule that comes to mind is Anchorman 2 which managed to be better the original but Adam McKay is a top-tier comedy director. ‘Bad Santa 2’ has Mark Waters in the director’s chair, who has made some pretty good films such as Freaky Friday, but he doesn’t scream as the obvious choice for a rude sequel.

It pains me to say that Bad Santa 2 is a lazy, puerile, mean-spirited sequel. It’s not funny at all save for a few one liners that got a faint chuckle and the film really got on my nerves as it progressed. On the narrative front, it’s pretty ropey but at least Billy Bob Thornton gives a good performance again. It’s just an awful shame he’s equipped with such a bad script.

The performances in ‘Bad Santa 2’ are really lacking other than Billy Bob Thornton and Tony Cox, who make the most of their bad lines. It’s such a shame to see Billy Bob Thornton’s career take another hit because he’s such a versatile actor who is always the standout in everything he is in, although I was still invested in his character. Kathy Bates’s casting seemed like a great idea on paper but she is an annoying and hateful character in the film. Of course, Bad Santa 2 needs to be vulgar and mean-spirited but her character is just hateful and I couldn’t empathise with her at all. Christina Hendricks is another casualty  and I found her character’s decisions baffling and stupid – not stupid as in funny, just plain stupid.

Bad Santa 2 is devoid of both story and laughs and has a total lack of heart and emotion – qualities the original film had in abundance. It’s as if the screenwriters have spent 30 minutes crafting a series of sequences before picking up the cheque. The story is so poorly constructed and the ending in particular is rushed and sudden – there are many poor films where an ending has been able to rescue it but here it’s the opposite – but here, I was seething and annoyed with how lazy the story choices are here. The score by Lyle Workman also compliments the film in its laziness and is completely unmemorable and Theo van de Sande’s cinematography detracts from the dirty, grimy look of the first film and the whole film has this made-for-television sheen about it.

Overall, Bad Santa 2 is an extraordinarily lazy sequel. It’s not quite as offensive as some other comedy sequels because it doesn’t try and turn the humour up to 11, but instead  is just painfully flat with no plot. I found myself getting angry during the film and no-one laughed during the performance apart from a couple of one-liners near the beginning. It is Billy Bob Thornton’s performance that just about single-handedly manages to carry this film from a 1 to a 2 and it’s such a shame to see his career take another hit which he doesn’t need. But this puerile, lazy film can be thrown away and burnt on the ever-increasing list of bad comedy sequels – Bad Santa 2 is not the Christmas treat it should have been.

 (Poor)