⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg, Tzi Ma
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 116 mins

‘Arrival’ is the latest effort by Denis Villeneuve, one of the most exciting directors working in the film industry today who has been behind two astonishing films – 2013’s ‘Prisoners’ and 2015’s ‘Sicario‘. ‘Arrival’ is his first venture into sci-fi and is an adaptation of Ted Chiang’s short story, ‘Story of Your Life’. Villeneuve has been selected to direct next year’s sequel to ‘Blade Runner’, a very prestigious gig, so ‘Arrival’ is an important milestone so he can demonstrate what he can do with this genre. ‘Arrival’ tells the story of leading linguist, Dr Louise Banks who is played by Amy Adams who is brought in to assist translating alien communication when twelve extra-terrestrial spacecrafts land in random locations across the planet. This is the second of two Amy Adams projects released a week apart to try and get her considered for Awards attention, the other being ‘Nocturnal Animals‘ and Adams seems to be promoting this film more as it’s received the better reviews out of the two and arguably is more accessible. Can Villeneuve continue to excite audiences with his originality and craft yet another memorable, masterfully executed film?

‘Arrival’ is masterfully constructed by Villeneuve and for its first two thirds  is particularly gripping. The performances are strong here too and yet again, Villeneuve’s team behind-the-camera do some good work. However, the film bites off a bit more than it can chew in its last third and although the film is still very interesting and original, it does begin to derail and struggle through towards its ending. I’m not going to go into spoilers as this is a film that needs to be watched blindly but I felt the film did leave a lot of questions unanswered and the ending does have a few plot holes to it. This is a film that warrants multiple rewatches so perhaps things will become clearer on subsequent viewings It’s a film that for a sci-fi is very low on action and big set-pieces – this is very much a thinking person’s sci-fi and is not too dissimilar thematically from films such as ‘Contact’ or ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ for example.

The cast that Villeneuve has assembled for ‘Arrival’ is strong and Amy Adams makes for a great lead as Dr Banks who we follow throughout the film and we feel her frustration and determination to try and communicate with these extra terrestrial beings. She is joined by Ian Donnelly, played by Jeremy Renner, a physician and the pair try and find methods to try and find out what the aliens purpose is and to try and find out more about them. The vessel opens up once every 18 hours which is a window of opportunity for them to meet with the two aliens, nicknamed Abbott and Costello (after the famous 1940’s/50’s comedy duo) separated by a screen and try and decipher their writing and eerie sounds. I’ve been critical of Renner in the past but here he’s pretty good and is able to hold his own against Adams. Forest Whitaker is also very good strong here as a Colonel who brings these two individuals in to help make contact with the aliens and Michael Stuhlbarg is excellent here too but frustratingly is underused – I would happily watch him reading from a phone book, he is that talented.

The narrative is very original here too and as mentioned, for the first two thirds this film is gripping. Rather than settle for big-budget set-pieces or action sequences, ‘Arrival’ is instead more thoughtful and delves into the intricacies of language and what it means to be human and investigates humanities triumphs by being able to work together but also its flaws with violence and aggression. This perhaps is more effective than simply being an alien film as it resonates with the audience on an emotional level. I have already said that the film does derail in its third act and it does, rather flatly, strain towards its ending which offers a very interesting twist albeit one with some holes to pick. I will have to watch this film a few more times to make more sense of it and see how the whole film connects up now I know what its climax is but regardless, the film is very intelligent and I hope that this intelligence flows through to Villeneuve’s ‘Blade Runner’ sequel.

A Denis Villeneuve film wouldn’t be a Denis Villeneuve film without having a score by Jóhann Jóhannsson and once again, it is a very original soundtrack and is both atmospheric and subdued yet also utterly bombastic in parts. This is however his weakest score for me thus far as it isn’t quite as layered as ‘Sicario’ or as atmospheric as ‘Prisoners’ but it’s still very strong and original. Villeneuve hasn’t reunited with Roger Deakins for this film for its cinematography which is a bit of shame as Deakins is one of the very best in his profession but instead uses Bradford Young, another cinematographer who is slowly growing to become more and more talented and here is no exception. There are some shots which are simply awe-inspiring, particularly the first time we see the spacecraft and Young implores a tracking shot that slowly pans around the craft, demonstrating the sheer size and scale of this thing and is simply one of the very best uses of camera work this year. Young’s work is extremely promising here and hopefully he will continue to demonstrate his talent behind the camera in future films. Villenueve will however be reuniting with regular Roger Deakins for ‘Blade Runner 2049’ which should be exciting.

‘Arrival’ is ultimately a satisfying film that for its first two thirds is particularly gripping and although the film cannot sustain this in its final act, it does offer a satisfying, intelligent ending that is better in terms of ideas than execution. Villeneuve continues to prove that he is a masterclass director and is one of the very best talents working in the film industry today. Although ‘Arrival’ isn’t quite as good as some of his other efforts, the fact that he has consistency cements this status. I have full hope he can pull off a great ‘Blade Runner’ sequel, particularly with the talent that he has assembled both in front and behind-the-camera. As for Amy Adams, she’s had a very good year and has put in two great performances but I personally feel that ‘Nocturnal Animals’ is the better film, by quite some distance and it is a bit of a shame that she is going to campaign for this instead but this is ultimately the more accessible film and the one that has received better reviews. As for this film getting Awards attention, I don’t think it’s as strong as Villeneuve’s other work which was underappreciated by the Academy so it would be a little unfair if this film suddenly got a slew of nominations and other films that are better didn’t but in some technical categories, this film is worthy. If this film manages to creep in to the Best Picture category, it would be quite disappointing and it would be a undeserving winner if it did go on to win. But we’ll see what happens. Ultimately, ‘Arrival’ is not quite the knock-out from Villeneuve that I was anticipating and it does have its fair share of problems, but it is still extremely intelligent and I was totally immersed in this world for the first two thirds, just about earning a 4-star rating.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Tom Ford
Starring: Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher, Armie Hammer, Laura Linney, Andrea Riseborough, Michael Sheen, Ellie Bamber, Jena Malone
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 116 mins

‘Nocturnal Animals’ heralds the return of fashion designer / occasional director Tom Ford after 2009’s ‘A Single Man’ which received stellar reviews and got lead star Colin Firth an Oscar nomination. ‘Nocturnal Animals’ is a neo-noir crime thriller that tells the story of Amy Adams who plays a rich yet emotionally troubled art gallery owner who out-of-the-blue, is sent the manuscript of her ex-husband’s novel titled ‘Nocturnal Animals’ that is dark and violent and she begins to notices parallels with the events being portrayed in the book and of her marriage. The film has opened to positive reviews and Adams has received stellar reviews for her performance both here and in Denis Villeneuve’s sci-fi ‘Arrival’, both of which opened in the UK a week apart. After what has been a lengthy 7 year wait, here’s hoping that Ford is able to craft yet another intricately crafted and exciting film.

‘Nocturnal Animals’ is a suitably dark, poetic and meticulously crafted film by Tom Ford and features some utterly spellbinding sequences. It features brilliant performances across the board but the standouts are Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon and surprisingly Aaron Taylor-Johnson. The stories are intricately woven together and the cinematography and score are absolutely stunning. It is a near-perfect film but where perhaps the film is a little flawed is in Ford’s precise attention to detail and the film can feel a little removed from its material as it sometimes doesn’t get a chance to breathe. Jake Gyllenhaal’s characters novel which becomes a central focus in the story and slowly begins to drip into Amy Adams’ reality is by far the strongest link in the film and it is perfectly crafted but Adams’ arc is also carefully constructed and the juxtapositions between these different arcs and stories are endlessly poetic.

The performances in ‘Nocturnal Animals’ are absolutely stunning, perhaps the strongest of the year so far. Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon and Aaron Taylor-Johnson are the standouts here. Gyllenhaal cements himself as one of the best actors of his generation and gives an absolute knock-out performance as the fragile husband of Adams and the devastated main protagonist of his novel. This is not the first time he has played a dual role – he did a great job in Denis Villeneuve’s ‘Enemy’ and alongside ‘Prisoners’ and ‘Nightcrawler’, this is one of his best performances. Michael Shannon gives a career-best performance here as the unorthodox, cancer-ridden Detective who assists Gyllenhaal’s character in the novel sequence when all hell breaks loose. Shannon has always been an actor that always gives great performances but the films he plays in are often lacking, particularly the filmography of Jeff Nichols, but here he is perfectly cast for a role that is very much suited to his demeanour. I owe Aaron Taylor-Johnson an apology. I have written in the past how I find him bland and he pretty much single-handedly ruined the latest adaptation of ‘Godzilla’ but here he is frightening, menacing and unpredictable. He is more than able to keep his own against the strengths of Gyllenhaal and Shannon. Surprisingly, Amy Adams is the weakest link out of the main four here, despite being heralded for her performance. She is still very competent here but her character is given the lesser character arc out of these actors and doesn’t really get a chance to electrify the audiences with a three dimensional performance, she is very much a narrative device. The film also features multiple cameo’s from established actors and Isla Fisher (who bears many resemblances to Amy Adams in her scenes which surely is on purpose) is very strong here as well as Laura Linney who makes a lasting impression as the mother of Adams’ character that comments that we all turn into our mothers one day. It is a haunting sequence, powerfully acted by both Linney and Adams and justifies why we feel cold around Adams’ character.

The story is split into three sections – Adams’ in the present and how she is suffering a failing marriage to Armie Hammer’s cheating husband who reads this manuscript, Adams’ past with Gyllenhaal’s character and how she betrays him and Gyllenhaal’s novel.  As mentioned, the most gripping of the three is the novel and is one of the best revenge thrillers I have ever seen put to screen combining the grit of the Coen Brothers, the brooding atmosphere by the filmography of Denis Villeneuve and hints of Cormac McCarthy  – it is violent, harrowing and incredibly intense – there are multiple sequences that are just nerve-racking to watch unfold on-screen and solidifies why cinema is a medium that can reach anyone. The other stories too are very engaging and intricately crafted by Ford’s mise-en-scene. If the film has a flaw, it’s in the fact that the story can be a little cold at times due to Ford’s meticulous direction whose fashion roots have clearly inspired this film and this can clash with the characters on-screen a little and not give the film a chance to play out on its own terms – he has total control here and every single frame is precisely what Ford envisioned.  The film is extremely intelligent and methodical in what it chooses to reveal and when. This is a film that will challenge audiences and offer many different interpretations over the meanings this film might have.

The score by Abel Korzeniowski is stunning and very Bernard Hermann-esque and fits the film perfectly – one of the best scores of the year and I hope it gets attention at the Academy Awards. The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey, who is on an impressive streak lately, has clearly been under the rein of Ford’s direction and is able to bring this imaging to life. Every single shot in this film is extremely precise and there are many different images that clash and contrast with each other, offering multiple meanings and interpretations.

‘Nocturnal Animals’ is quite simply, a remarkable film that boasts many layers and interpretations to it – quite simply it is one of the best films of the year. The performances here are incredible and will be hard to top for Gyllenhaal, Shannon and Taylor-Johnson. It combines the best traits of the revenge thriller genre juxtaposed with Ford’s fashion-heavy world that Amy Adams’ character exhibits and although perhaps Gyllenhaal’s novel is the most resonating arc of the three, the film manages to blend these stories together. The film ends on a particularly bleak yet beautifully crafted note and when it had finished, it was clear that this film was a near-masterpiece. Although I feel that this film will be short-changed when it comes to Award Season (it will not work for everyone) and I am a little disappointed that Adams has chosen to put her efforts into ‘Arrival’ as this won’t do anything in this film’s favour, ‘Nocturnal Animals’ serves as a great reminder about why we go to the cinema and consume films. This film is challenging, endlessly sophisticated and takes a lot of risks. It is definitely worth your attention.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Derek Cianfrance
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Alicia Vikander, Rachel Weisz, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson, Caren Pistorius, Anthony Hayes
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 133 mins

‘The Light Between Oceans’ is an adaptation of the novel of the same film and is the new film by Derek Cianfrance who is most famous for directing Ryan Gosling in ‘Blue Valentine’ and ‘The Place Between The Pines’. It tells the story of Tom Sherbourne, a traumatised and out-of-place World War I hero who decides to become a lighthouse keeper at Janus Rock, an island off the coast of West Australia which has a brooding, separate from civilisation feel to it and as time, he befriends and ultimately marries a local girl, Isabel Graysmark who subsequently moves over to Janus Rock with him. Unfortunately over the course of a few years, she suffers miscarriages and is wracked with guilt and depression but one day, a boat with a deceased man and a baby washes up onto shore and Tom wants to report it but Isabel wants to keep it for them and the rest of the film details the upbringing of this little girl and the consequences this has on the close-knit society.

‘The Light Between Oceans’ is a well-acted, well-intentioned film that is always fairly engaging but the film has a whole host of problems with its irrational characters despite how convincing the performances are. I’m not going to spoil the film at all but you will hopefully understand if you watch it then read this review – surely this would never happen in reality or if it did, it wouldn’t be dealt with in the same way. Despite an extremely problematic narrative, the crew are generally fairly impressive here and the film is beautifully shot by rising talent Adam Arkapaw and has a competent score by the always reliable Alexandre Desplat.

Cianfrance has to thank the film’s impressive cast otherwise this film would potentially have been very, very bad. Michael Fassbender has slowly been crafting a very impressive resume of performances over the years and peaked with the trio of ‘Slow West’, ‘Macbeth’ and ‘Steve Jobs’ last year. This year, he already hit a bump with ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ and whilst this film is by no means bad, this is just standard fare for him. His performance is fairly nuanced and we do feel empathy for him with the events that happen in the film and the film is very lucky to have him because with a lesser actor in the film’s final act, the film could have been laughably bad. The two other standouts here are Jack Thompson and Caren Pistorius, Thompson at times managing to emotionally connect with the audience and although Pistorius only shows up in one scene, she manages to blend subtlety and emotion and I hope she manages to find a big break soon as the roles she chooses are very promising so far.  Both Alicia Vikander and Rachel Weisz are good here too and their performance just about manages to mask some of her characters incredibly irrational decisions, particularly Weisz.

The story is the biggest problem and it is only on the strength of the talent involved here that just about manage to carry this film over into the ‘Good’ category. As mentioned, the film is an adaptation of a novel penned by M. L. Stedman and whilst I have not read it, I’m surprised it has been adapted for a film if this adaptation is faithful to the novel. There are multiple instances in this film where you question characters decisions and apparent personality that it really, really threw me out of the film and got me quite annoyed. However when this isn’t the case, the film manages to plod along through its lengthy 133 minute run time just about fine, never particularly impressing in its story but being competent enough. Luckily, the film’s closing scene manages to save the film as it is subtle and nuanced and offers good closure to the audience. If the film ended a scene prior, it would have left a very sour taste and got me out of the cinema feeling very annoyed.

Adam Arkapaw’s cinematography is absolutely stunning and the film looks incredible. He has proven himself already with his work on ‘Macbeth’ last year and this further cements his talent and I hope he does a good job on the upcoming ‘Assassin’s Creed’ too but judging from the trailers, it would seem he has. Arkapaw’s cinematography does a terrific job of demonstrating the scope of the ocean that is surrounding Janus Rock and the balance of the whites and blues that he shows us give this film a really clean look, it’s just a shame that inside this wonderful world that is crafted a middling film exists in it. The always reliable Alexandre Desplat’s score supplements the film very well and gives the audience many opportunities to emotionally connect with the events being portrayed on-screen.

Overall, ‘The Light Between Oceans’ is a frustratingly middling adaptation – by no means a bad film but not a terribly good one either. It just about crosses the boundary for a ‘Good’ rating due to the strengths of the performances in the film and the assured direction by Derek Cianfrance and Adam Arkapaw’s stunning cinematography. If the book is the same as the film, I don’t know why this was picked to be adapted as let’s face it, the frankly stupid characters in this film really challenge the intelligence of the viewer. It’s an oddly old-fashioned drama which really isn’t in line with Cianfrance’s more gritty, real previous efforts but this does demonstrate that Cianfrance can handle this type of material but unfortunately, the characters are just too irrational to care for and spend 133 minutes with.

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Gavin O’Connor
Starring: Ben Affleck, Anna Kendrick, J.K. Simmons, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Tambor, John Lithgow, Cynthia Addai-Robinson
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 128 mins

‘The Accountant’ is the second of Gavin O’Connor’s directorial efforts this year after ‘Jane Got A Gun’ earlier in the year which received mixed reviews. It details the story of Christian Wolff, played by Ben Affleck who works as a freelance accountant as the title would suggest for dangerous criminal organisations. As he is starting to be investigated by the Treasury Department, he becomes a legitimate client of a company which he audits and finds discrepancies. However, Wolff also suffers from autism and when he was a child,  was diagnosed by an institute and offered the chance to live there but his father decides that he needs to learn the hard way by overcoming his condition rather than being accepted by society for what he is. Wolff is also an extremely skilled marksman who is able to take out swarms of hitmen at once. It’s an odd mix for a film but it’s certainly original and the film boasts an impressive cast but can it synthesise these themes together into an engaging film?

‘The Accountant’ is an extremely uneven film and has a hard time balancing its themes. It is equal parts drama, action-thriller and mystery and these themes are all carelessly scattered around the film. It lunk-headedly handles its different character arcs and its premise is rather ludicrous. The film just doesn’t know what it wants to be. That said though, the film is thrilling to watch at times and has some admirable performances from its very solid cast, particularly in its lead Ben Affleck and as ludicrous as it all is, there are several good twists in its ending that satisfy all of the dodgy storytelling going on beforehand.

The film wouldn’t be half as entertaining as it is if not for the great cast that has been assembled here. Ben Affleck as the lead character, Christian Wolff is excellent and manages to blend the persona of a socially challenged mathematician and a masterful hitman together very well as ludicrous as that sounds. Anna Kendrick makes for sympathetic support for Affleck’s character and there are some nuanced performances from both John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor. Jon Bernthal is very good here too and is quite menacing and sinister in places and the always-reliable J.K. Simmons manages to put in a good performance in a terribly written role.

The narrative is where the film takes a significant nose-dive and the film’s script by Bill Dubuque who penned the disappointing 2014 film, ‘The Judge’ has an identity crisis in that it cannot handle and mesh together its themes. The film feels very erratic as it constantly chops-and-changes between being a thoughtful but heavy-handed drama to a violent, slick action thriller. Particularly poorly written is J.K. Simmons’ character, the director of Financial Crimes for the Treasury Department,  who is dumped into the film who coerces a young analyst, Marybeth Medina played by Cynthia Addai-Robinson, to help him investigate Affleck’s character. I really hoped that this arc would amount to something but it doesn’t and Simmons’ character has a particularly awful monologue mid-way throughout the film which makes the simple mistake of showing, not telling and it is so cliched and heavy-handed that it really spoils the film and makes his character arc seem all the more pointless. The film’s portrayal of the theme of disability is very heavy-handed  and several critics have pointed out that it gives Affleck’s character a superhero-like quality which is territory that the film does wander into at times which isn’t a particularly effective message to send out. The action sequences are well-written and slickly composed but don’t have much emotional heft.

The score by Mark Isham is solid and compliments the events being portrayed on-screen fairly well and the cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is very assured – the film is suitably bleak and dimly lit and the action sequences in particular are very slick and well orchestrated.

Overall, ‘The Accountant’ is a preposterous film that has an identity crisis in the fact that it cannot juggle its themes consistently. However, it is always entertaining and does offer some good twists along with some fine performances from its talented cast that has been assembled. The actual premise itself is quite original and I think with a tighter and more coherent script, this could have been a lot more subtle and nuanced. There have been calls for a sequel and I would quite happily watch these characters in a different story but serious work needs to go behind the camera to ensure that the film is more subtle in execution and decides on a direction it wants to go in, not just chop-and-change between themes and ideas. But the film is more than entertaining enough and it more than manages to pull itself up in its closing scenes with a couple of good twists hence why it deserves a solid three out of five.

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Ken Loach
Starring: Dave Johns, Hayley Squires
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 100 mins

Veteran director Ken Loach’s latest film, ‘I, Daniel Blake’ electrified audiences at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and took home the coveted Palme D’Or Award, Loach’s second win after ‘The Wind That Shakes The Barley’. ‘I, Daniel Blake’ tackles an issue that is all too prominent in English society – the benefits system and how it fails the titular character who has suffered a major heart attack but is deemed fit for work. Over the course of the film, we witness Daniel’s struggle against the system and his befriending of a single mother, Katie and her two children who have been rehoused in Newcastle away from London, almost 500km away. The film stars Dave Johns as the titular character and Hayley Squires as Katie, Johns normally known for his stand-up comedy so this is a very different ground for him and Squires known for both TV and film.

‘I, Daniel Blake’ is hard-hitting, heart-tugging and at times, invokes feelings of sheer devastation. It is one of the best films of the year and is incredibly well-directed and acted, both Johns and Squires are perfect in their respective roles and their characters are so well-developed that as an audience, we really care for them. There are multiple scenes here which are very hard to watch and the film offers a very realistic take on the benefits system in England. What the film doesn’t do and why it doesn’t earn the full 5-stars is it doesn’t explore the opposite end of the spectrum – people who do take advantage of the benefits system and if the film had done this, it would have been much more well-rounded and justified in its approach.

Both Dave Johns and Hayley Squires are as mentioned, perfect in their roles. Johns who is most famous for being a stand-up comedian is fully developed as a character and we really feel him as he is constantly let down by the system and we feel his frustration and feel defeated when he is constantly knocked down by the system but always gets up again to fight. Even the simple things such as his inability to use a computer we feel sympathy for and the script always tries to drive his character forward so he can get himself out of this horrific situation. Hayley Squires is equally as effective as Johns as single-mother Katie and there are several scenes which are very hard to watch as she goes to extreme lengths to provide for her children and her wellbeing, one very tough scene to watch in a food bank. Briana Shann and Dylan McKiernan are both perfect as her children who are also very well developed and their innocence and inquisitiveness adds another layer to this rich story. The rest of the cast are all perfect in their roles too and there are many great performances by those working in the benefits system.

The film is scripted by Paul Laverty, a frequent collaborator with Ken Loach who also wrote ‘The Wind That Shakes The Barley’ and the script is near-perfect. It offers a great blend of facts, emotional arcs and the film is even quite funny in parts – I laughed at this film a lot more than I’ve laughed at other ‘comedy’ films this year. However, it is a very cynical take on the benefits system and I would have liked to have seen Laverty include examples of how people take advantage of the benefits system. Arguably that is what has driven the system to be so scrutinous and at times, it does paint a picture that this system fails everyone which it doesn’t – there are many people in the country who unfairly receive benefits which comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket.

The lack of score help to emphasise the plot points to the audience but where frequent collaborator, George Fenton’s score is used is meaningful and helps to elevate the drama but it is very minimalistic. Robbie Ryan’s cinematography is equally raw and unflinching and the lack of colour helps to showcase the bare and deprived lifestyles that these characters have to live.

Overall, ‘I, Daniel Blake’ is a powerhouse of a film and one that took a few hours to digest after it had ended. The brilliant performances complimented by the tight script allow this film a chance to breathe and fully explore this difficult scenario. There are many difficult scenes in this film to watch and the fact that this film earns these scenes is testament to the great work it does behind the camera to develop this story and make us feel the way we do for these characters. I just wish the film was a little less close-minded and came more full-circle by exploring the opposite end of the spectrum and if it had done this, it would earn the full 5-stars. But as it stands, it’s a fantastic piece of work and is one of the best films that 2016 has yet to offer.

 (Excellent)

 (Excellent) (Excellent) (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Scott Derrickson
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Michael Stuhlbarg, Benjamin Bratt, Scott Adkins, Mads Mikkelsen, Tilda Swinton
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 115 mins

‘Doctor Strange’ is the second of two offerings this year in the ever-expanding yet lucrative Marvel Cinematic Universe. The film is an origin story of the titular character who learns the mystic arts in Kamar-Taj in Nepal under the tutelage of the Ancient One after a car accident that destroys the use of his hand and ends his career as an esteemed neurosurgeon. The film is directed by horror director Scott Derrickson who I really like (other than 2009’s abysmal remake, ‘The Day The Earth Stood Still’) and he has repeatedly stated how much of a fan he is of the material. His horror films have generally received a pretty mixed reception (‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’ and ‘Deliver Us From Evil’) but ‘Sinister’ received good reviews and is one of the best horror films of the decade so far. Along with a strong director, the film also has perhaps one of the best casts assembled for a comic-book film ever with Benedict Cumberbatch playing the titular character and being supported by Chiwetel Ejiofor,  Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen and Tilda Swinton.  The film would seem like it should be in pretty safe hands with the circumstances considered and especially as this is the last of six comic book offerings this year, it would be nice if the genre went out on a bang for this year.

‘Doctor Strange’ is a delight from start to finish – it is thoroughly entertaining, extremely well-paced and has perhaps the best visual effects that I have seen in a film for a while. The film is bolstered by its excellent cast who are all wonderful and Scott Derrickson is a clear fit for the material –  you can really tell the passion that has gone into this film behind the camera. It’s a lot more stripped down than this Summer’s ‘Captain America: Civil War‘ which was effectively an ‘Avengers 2.5’ team-up and by having less characters to juggle around, it really means the film can get a chance to breathe and develop these characters.

The performances are what really drive the film along and Benedict Cumberbatch as the titular character is wonderful, he’s very arrogant and snarky and will make for a great match when he hopefully meets Robert Downey Jr’s ‘Iron Man’ in the upcoming two-part ‘Avengers: Infinity War’. Tilda Swinton is very nuanced as the Ancient One, Doctor Strange’s mentor and Chiwetel Ejiofor makes for a conflicted Baron Mordor who we will hopefully see be further developed in future films. Rachel McAdams’ love interest is a little underdeveloped but she’s a good match for the material and Benedict Wong handles a lot of the comic relief as Wong who protects many of the relics housed in Kamar-Taj. Mads Mikkelsen makes for a strong villain who is a good match to Strange but it’s a bit of a shame that he isn’t in the film a little more to flesh out his character especially as Mikkelsen being the very talented actor that he is. Michael Stuhlbarg and Benjamin Bratt are both good here too but their roles are very small unfortunately.

The narrative, although a little familiar, works as we are introduced to this world and these characters and although a lot of superhero films often result in an action-packed and derivative third act, ‘Doctor Strange’ has a lot of fun in its action sequences and the film is never a chore to watch. It’s paced pretty much perfectly, slightly under the 2 hour mark and although it would be nice if we had a few more scenes with Mikkelsen, Stuhlbarg and Bratt as mentioned to fully flesh out their characters, the film feels far less than its run time as it is just so entertaining. Derrickson is able to balance the real world and magic very well and this film could have very easily gone straight over the heads of most audiences if he had chosen a story to do with more of the wackier elements of this comic book hero, it’s a pretty safe story that does manage to deviate so it never feels overly familiar although it can’t quite shake off the origin story cliche as it does fall into a few traps here and there.

The visuals in this film are absolutely stunning and the best visuals ever in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film. There have been a lot of complaints that the film’s visual aesthetic mirrors that of Christopher Nolan’s ‘Inception’ which I would say does bear a couple of similarities in a few sequences but this is a completely different film and there are many scenes where the characters explore different dimensions and worlds that have its own signature aesthetic. This is a film to definitely see in IMAX 3D if possible.

Michael Giacchino’s score is also one of the best in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far and crafts a very memorable theme for the characters and is equally as wacky and distant as the material – only Giacchino would think to use a harpsichord! The cinematography by Ben Davis is very assured and the film looks fantastic – this is a career-best for him thus far.

Overall, ‘Doctor Strange’ is a great success that is thoroughly entertaining from start to finish and is one of the best entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The cast are wonderful here and Derrickson’s direction is very assured My only concern with the film is that going forward, the ability to incorporate this new world of magic and mysticism into the other Marvel Cinematic Universe franchises could be a difficult one to pull off. It’s already been confirmed that Benedict Cumberbatch will reprise the role of Doctor Strange in the upcoming two-part ‘Avengers: Infinity War’ so here’s hoping he can seamlessly mesh in with the current line-up of superheroes that inhibit this world. For now though, Derrickson has done a very good job here and it will be interesting to see where this world gets taken in a sequel now that the origin story has happened.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Tate Taylor
Starring: Emily Blunt, Rebecca Ferguson, Haley Bennett, Justin Theroux, Luke Evans, Alison Janney, Édgar Ramírez, Lisa Kudrow
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 112 mins

‘The Girl On The Train’ is the adaptation of the novel of the same name penned by Paula Hawkins that was released last year and held the top spot of the Uk Hardback Book Chart for 20 weeks, breaking records. Rightfully so, it’s a cracking book and it’s extremely well-written and develops its characters really well. Less than 2 years later, a film adaptation has already been made and has a star-studded cast comprising of Emily Blunt, who has always seemed like a perfect fit for Rachel, an alcoholic individual who has divorced from her husband, Tom, after he cheated on her and now has a child with his new wife, Anna. Rachel has lost her job and rides the trains all day to try and find something to do and in the mean time idolises a young couple, Megan and Scott, who she passes by on the train every single day. However, when Megan disappears and Rachel was on the scene and blacked out, a deep mystery and investigation into her disappearance ensues and the narrative is filled with twists and turns. I must say in the run-up to the film’s release, I was a little apprehensive as the film has changed location to America which is a bit of a shame as the book is quintessentially British and I would have loved to have seen this narrative take place in Oxfordshire as opposed to the luxurious houses that these characters now live in and it now taking place in New York City. I also have some reservations on some of the film’s cast, in particular Rebecca Ferguson as Anna and Luke Evans as Scott, both decent actors in their own right but I just can’t see them playing these multi-dimensional, conflicted characters. Finally,  the choice of director Tate Taylor is an unnatural fit to the material but that said, he is very respectable and generally reliable. Many comparisons have been made to the Gillian Flynn novel and the subsequent 2014 film adaptation of ‘Gone Girl’ which was a brilliant film and was directed by David Fincher, an auteur in his own right and judging from the trailers, it seems as if Taylor has tried to emulate Fincher’s style but Tate Taylor is certainly by no means in the same league as David Fincher. So does the film manage to stand out on its own and offer a faithful, thrilling adaptation of the novel or it this just a cheap knock-off off an exemplary novel?

The answer lies somewhere in between and I have to say I am somewhat conflicted on my judgements on ‘The Girl On The Train’. On the one hand, it is very faithful to the novel and always fairly entertaining (but never gripping) and features a couple of great performances, both Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett who manage to just about hold the film together. On the other hand, it is lazily directed and scripted, features some pretty awful performances, has numerous goofs despite being a fairly big film, develops most of its characters pretty poorly and the cinematography isn’t particularly refined. It is a middling adaptation of a great novel – an always watchable film but crushingly disappointing in parts.

What made the novel really work was its carefully constructed and developed characters and how that has translated onto the screen with the performances is as mentioned, a mixed bag. Both Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett are wonderful here – Emily Blunt in particular was in my opinion, always a great pick for Rachel and despite being pregnant during filming, portrays a convincing alcoholic and is a character of multiple layers. Although Bennett’s character, Megan is fairly one-dimensional, she also is brilliant here and is both slimy and seductive and makes an interesting juxtaposition to Blunt’s Rachel. The final unreliable narrator in the novel, Anna, is portrayed here by Rebecca Ferguson and my initial reservations were correct as she is downright unwatchable here – she is not convincing at all and for goodness sake, if you’re going to be in a film, dedicate yourself to it and don’t wear a terrible wig! Ferguson is one-note, has no chemistry with any of the film’s characters and feels aggressively out of place in the film. I also had reservations on Luke Evans’ casting as Scott and initially Jared Leto was supposed to play this role before he dropped out due to scheduling conflicts and although Evans is still not a perfect match, his performance is serviceable. Justin Theroux also is serviceable as Tom and Édgar Ramírez just plays himself as Dr Kamal Abdic which is fine. Allison Janney also gives a very poor performance as the detective in charge of the investigation in an expanded role from the novel and there is a scene where I kid you not, interrogates Rachel in a toilet which is extremely unprofessional and really threw me out momentarily from the film and made me question what I had just seen.

Another big problem the film has is its poor script and lazy direction. The script, penned by Erin Cressida Wilson who was responsible for the atrocity that was ‘Men, Women and Children’, doesn’t gel together and is quite clichéd and overbearing. I mentioned that Tate Taylor was an awkward fit to this material and this has resulted to be the case. At times, it seems he is channeling David Fincher’s seductive, heavily stylised direction of ‘Gone Girl’ and at other times, it does feel like his own work and does have a couple of flashes back to his previous work. It just all feels a bit sloppy and doesn’t feel like he has put his own stamp on the material. The film is never gripping or particularly intelligent and it’s quite short as well for what is quite a meaty book in terms of narrative – the beginning is a bit of a slog and the final reveal comes way too early. Also as a director, surely you check over your film before releasing it – there are numerous goofs here that are blindingly obvious and threw me out of the film.

Danny Elfman’s score is quite interesting and feels very uncharacteristic of him – if I hadn’t have known beforehand he had scored it and I was asked to have a guess, he wouldn’t be someone who comes to mind. The cinematography by Charlotte Bruus Christensen, someone who is normally pretty good, is quite tacky here and the film has quite a cheap look to it in places.

Now although this review may seem rather damning of the film, ‘The Girl On The Train’ is always watchable and I was never bored by it and Blunt and Bennett really do help to carry the film. For a film that has this many issues to it, it is testament to these two actresses performances and the strength of Hawkins’ novel. But this film should have been so much more – it should have been more thoughtfully casted, it needs a better crew and script. These are all issues, particularly the script, that should have been noticed early on but somehow the script got given the ok and it has resulted in a middling adaptation. Although this will almost certainly never happen, wouldn’t it be great if there was a more carefully constructed remake with a different director more suited to the material, a stronger scriptwriter. Keep Blunt, Bennett and even Ramirez but then pick out a better cast for the rest of the characters. That is something I would really like to see and would supplement Paula Hawkins’ gripping novel rather than this mixed bag. Overall, by no means a bad film but not a particularly memorable one either with a whole host of issues.

 (Good)