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)

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)

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)

 

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)

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)

Director: Mel Gibson
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer, Hugo Weaving, Rachel Griffiths, Vince Vaughn
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 139 mins

Mel Gibson’s had quite an unstable career in the film industry who has enjoyed a lot of success both behind and in front of the camera. He’s perhaps best remembered on-screen for the lead role in the first three ‘Mad Max’ films and in the ‘Lethal Weapon’ films and in terms of directing, he directed the 1995 epic ‘Braveheart’ which won 5 Academy Awards and then went on to direct the controversial ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and ‘Apocalypto’. Unfortunately, it all ended there and after a string of infamous controversies in his personal life, he hasn’t quite been able to re-integrate back into film. It’s a real shame because the man has a lot of talent and passion for his craft but ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is his first time back in the director’s chair after the utterly bonkers ‘Apocalypto’ that I really enjoyed. Gibson is a great visual storyteller and his films tend to have a lot of depth to them and also he more than indulges in strong bloody violence which always push the age rating of his films up a notch. ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ tells the true story of Desmond Doss, an American Army Medic in World War II who refuses to carry a gun for which he gets outcast by his fellow soldiers. He manages to defy his superiors and ultimately serves at the Battle of Okinawa where he becomes the first man in American history to receive the Medal of Honor without firing a shot. It’s an ambitious story to tell and one that Gibson seems to hold dear to him as he has talked very favourably about this war hero in all of the film’s promotional material and rightly so. Andrew Garfield, after an electrifying turn in Martin Scorsese’s ‘Silence‘ plays Doss and he has received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor for his performance here. The cast also includes Teresa Palmer, Hugo Weaving but also a couple of surprises including Sam Worthington who, with the exception of ‘Everest‘ where he was reduced to a supporting role has never been that great an actor, Vince Vaughn who is most widely recognised for comedy and Luke Bracey who has also been in a fair amount of rubbish such as ‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ and the turgid remake of ‘Point Break’. However if anyone is going to get a good performance out of this cast, it’s Gibson and the film has received rave reviews and has even earned Gibson a Best Director nomination which given his personal circumstances is testament to the quality of the film. Many have described the film as the most ‘violent pacifist film’ you will ever see!

And what a film ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is! ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is one of the best war films I have ever seen and features some stunning performances with Gibson’s signature gory yet visceral battle sequences that really throw these men into hell-and-back. Gibson is able to really portray the hardship that these men endure time and time again and whilst I am ever respectful of those fight for their country, this film elevated my respect even more for them whilst watching this film. The film is extremely well-shot and features many memorable sequences – this film fully deserves the Awards attention it is getting! That said, the film is not without fault and an inconsistency in tone is this film’s biggest problem as the two distinct halves of the film don’t quite gel together. The first half in particular of the film which develops these characters and prepares Doss for the battle that lies ahead often head into conventional territory and it is quite bizarre as it almost feels like Gibson is knowingly do this but to what purpose, I’m not sure. However, when the film is able to go berserk, it does and it is immensely satisfying.

The performances in this film are round-the-board great and it is testament to Gibson that we can get good work from Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey and Vince Vaughn, who actually along with Andrew Garfield give the best performances. Seriously. Sam Worthington actually lends some gravitas and subtlety to the role of Doss’ Captain and the two have a lot of disagreements early on in the film and Luke Bracey’s character also goes through this path of enlightenment and is also quite subdued. However, the standout in the cast is Vince Vaughn who I never thought I would say this but gives a career-best performance. He is perfect as Sergeant Howell, initially Doss’ superior until he doesn’t know how to handle his conscientious objections. I really felt for Vaughn’s character and I thought he managed to perfectly blend a sinister, sympathetic and at times comedic performance. It’s a shame he hasn’t received an Oscar nomination for his work here. Of course,  Andrew Garfield is great here in the lead role but that was always to be expected and he manages to perfectly embody Doss’ modesty and inspiring nature.  I do believe that Garfield gives the better performance in ‘Silence’ as he plays a more complicated character there but at least he’s getting recognised for his work as he is still very strong in ‘Hacksaw Ridge’. Hugo Weaving is as expected, solid in this film too as Garfield’s militant father who is facing his own personal problems from World War I and has never recovered from the experience.

‘Hacksaw Ridge’ has a clear juxtaposition between its two halves which is where the film runs into problems a bit and as mentioned, in particular with the first half it is riddled with cliche. However, I am a little conflicted as I think Gibson has consciously decided to go down this road in order for one to get on-board with this film and to sympathise with the characters as some sequences in particular are quite noticeably over-the-top. The film still tells a compelling story and I was extremely involved with it so it does work but I think if Gibson could have been a little more subtle in execution, it would have elevated the film and made it more original. When the characters do reach the titular ‘Hacksaw Ridge’, the film goes nuts and Gibson directs the battle sequences with flair and fully indulges in all the blood and guts. This film is not for the faint-hearted. I fully empathised and cared for all of the characters and Garfield’s performance is crucial in how much resonance the events have in the film. This is definitely one of the most realistic and visceral depictions of war I have ever seen. What also helps elevate the film into a higher tier is the fact that Gibson does not become overly patriotic. Too many war films do and Clint Eastwood, although a director who I admire, is a big victim of this but Gibson includes several sequences from the Japanese Army’s perspective and Doss’ character doesn’t just help out his own Army, he also rescues some injured Japanese soldiers which I think is key into how much of an impact this film has.

The score by Rupert Gregson-Williams is not particularly memorable but does generally fit into the film well, particularly in the film’s second half. It’s a bit of a shame that the score isn’t better as he has done some good work. The cinematography by Simon Duggan however is very powerful at times particularly in the execution of the battle sequences which he shoots very competently. He too however falls victim in the film’s first act where the film almost has a ‘Life TV’ sheen to it in terms of the lighting and shots he uses. It is a strange decision as I have previously mentioned but when Duggan is allowed to break free like the film does, he does it with gusto and he really manages to add to the showcasing of the horrors of this tragic war.

Overall, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is a very powerful film that Gibson directs extremely competently. These are some of the best battle sequences committed to film and the performances by the entirety of the cast are all excellent with the standouts being those who you would not normally expect capable of this. The film fully deserves the Awards attention it is getting and I am glad that Gibson has finally managed to find himself again. This individual really is talented behind the camera and I hope he will continue to direct films that are original and full of depth. However, what hinders ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ from being perfect is its first act which is quite jarring in tone and I can’t quite work out what Gibson is trying to achieve in these sections. When the second act kicks in and elevates the film to new height, there’s no stopping Gibson and for my money, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen and is one of the best films of the year so far.

 (Excellent)

Director: Garth Davis
Starring: Dev Patel, Rooney Mara, David Wenham, Nicole Kidman, Sunny Pawar
Certificate: PG
Run Time: 118 mins

If you have paid close attention to what films get nominated at the Academy Awards over the years, it is a well-known fact that Harvey and Bob Weinstein’s relationship with the Academy always allow a couple of the films that they have produced to get in there whether or not they are worthy of a nomination. Whatever your views on these Awards, these guys sure know how to play the system. And also, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the films will be of lower quality – they distribute Quentin Tarantino’s films and he’s one of my favourite film directors. ‘Lion’ is the film this year that no-one really expected to get as many nominations as it did. It is Australian director Garth Davis’ directorial debut and recounts the true story of Saroo Brierley and his plight to find his family after he gets lost as a child when he goes out to accompany his brother who is looking for work. The young Saroo ends up on a train that whisks him all the way to Calcutta which he cannot understand the Bengali language and ultimately finds himself being adopted by a couple in Tasmania where he then grow up. Sunny Pawar makes his acting debut as the young Saroo and Dev Patel plays him in the later section of the film as an adult, Patel earning an Oscar nomination for his performance. The cast is rounded out by Rooney Mara, David Wenham and Nicole Kidman, the latter also scoring an Oscar nomination for her turn here. I must admit I didn’t have high expectations for this film and I thought it had only got in because of Weinstein. It looked like a run-of-the mill biopic that was emotionally manipulative and there was a part of me that was quite ready to dish on it. However as one must do, I watched the film with an open mind.

To my surprise, I really liked ‘Lion’ and found it to be an emotionally rewarding and heartfelt experience and the material was respectfully judged by Garth Davis. It features some very real performances with the standout being Dev Patel and although it can’t quite shake off the biopic feel at times, its narrative manages to do a lot of the heavy lifting. It also features a very memorable score that is respectful and well-judged and the cinematography is equally effective in encapsulating the narrative of the film.

The performances that this film hinges on are all very strong with Dev Patel as the older Saroo being the standout.  Patel gives a perfectly judged performance and is a very versatile actor. He has to deal with the fragmented memory of his family that he cannot remember their location and he doesn’t know where he has come from. At one point, he is completely overwhelmed and this gives Patel a chance to really display his acting chops. Sunny Pawar, a newcomer, is also fantastic and in the early sections in the film that concentrate on his performance, he manages to convey his fright and despair in his situation and the audience get to experience his constant fear of the unknown. David Wenham and Nicole Kidman play the parents who adopt Saroo in Tasmania and both are brilliant – they are both compassionate and are really convincing in their roles. Although Rooney Mara’s role is small, she manages to make a good impression as the older Saroo’s girlfriend who is conflicted and doesn’t quite know how to help him with his journey.

The story that Davis manages to adapt is very respectful and I must say at first when I had heard that this film deals with finding one’s parents through Google Earth had me quite trepidatious as that is inherently not particularly cinematic but Davis really manages to handle this well and the film doesn’t just become like a seemingly paid advert for Google. The film is split into two rather distinct halves both dealing with the two iterations of Saroo – the first half a tale of despair, isolation and fearing the unknown and the second act, redemption and the sheer will to be reunited. There’s a very poignant moment in the middle of the film where Wenham and Kidman’s characters adopt a second child who has difficulties adjusting to this life and the film almost feels as if we shouldn’t be welcome to witnessing these difficulties. Davis ultimately does a very economical job of retelling this story with it not feeling pretentious which it very easily could have been and not being too in-your-face and contrived.

The Oscar-nominated score, a collaboration between Dustin O’Halloran, an American pianist and composer and Hauschka, German, is very memorable and perfectly encapsulates the various feelings Saroo has in the film and his journey to be reunited with his family. I thought it was very well judged and even as a standalone piece of music, is gripping. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is also well judged and particularly in the first half, manages to encapsulate the haphazard chain of events that happen at random to Saroo, who is completely unsure of what will happen to him as he drifts further and further away from home.

Overall, ‘Lion’ really surprised me and I ended up really liking it. It was very touching at times and I felt that all of the performances were very grounded and real whilst maintaining the utmost respect. It’s a really interesting true story that has a modern spin to it by him using Google Earth to try and get closer to finding his home and the film deals with the idea of fragmented memory really well. It’s not perfect and it can’t quite stand itself apart from genre conventions but I really wasn’t expecting to like it as much as I did. In terms of the quality of the film, I would rate it as one of the stronger entries in this year’s crop of films that have been nominated for Best Picture. Go and see it!

 (Excellent)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: James McAvoy, Anya Taylor Joy, Betty Buckley, Haley Lu Richardson, Jessica Sula
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 117 mins

When he is working with the correct material, director M. Night Shyamalan is pretty much untouchable. That was the case in the early part of his career with ‘The Sixth Sense’, ‘Signs’ and my personal favourite of his ‘Unbreakable’. However after this rise to fame, Shyamalan then ran into trouble and his next films were each worse than the last culminating in ‘The Last Airbender’ and ‘After Earth’. Shyamalan had pretty much committed career suicide and no-one really wanted him to work on a film due to this poor reputation. In 2015, Shyamalan teamed up with Blumhouse Productions, a micro-budget horror production behind hits such as ‘Insidious’, ‘Sinister’ and ‘The Purge’ to make a comedy-horror film that he personally financed called ‘The Visit‘. I found a lot to like in it and thought it was a step in the right direction for him but it didn’t manage to reach the heights of some of his earlier work. ‘Split’ is the next step in Shyamalan’s comeback and tells the story of a man suffering with dissociative identity disorder who has 23 personalities and is played by James McAvoy. This is easily the meatiest role McAvoy has ever been able to land and this has looked like a promising vehicle for him to star in. McAvoy’s character kidnaps three teenage girls, the leader of which is played by Anya Taylor-Joy, an actress who I really respect in her rise in the film industry and Betty Buckley stars as McAvoy’s psychiatrist who has devoted her life to helping people with this disorder. Again, this has been distributed by Blumhouse Productions and its budget is a low $9 million so slightly more for Shyamalan to work with compared to $5 million for ‘The Visit’. It all sounds promising on paper and the reviews have indicated this to be the case.

‘Split’ is frequently entertaining, very competently directed and features some powerhouse sequences. It is one of Shyamalan’s best works. I will not be going into spoilers but Shyamalan’s signature twist is one of his best and one of the best twists of the decade so far – it is so, so clever. Shyamalan’s twists of late haven’t been able to shock compared to some of his earlier work but this might potentially be his best one he’s ever done. However, when one focuses on how ‘Split’ functions purely as a film, it is not perfect. It is overlong and way too exposition heavy which derails the film a little. There is a near-perfect 100 minute film in here if a lot of this exposition was omitted and this would make the run time more economical.

Shyamalan manages to get some great performances out of the actors in this film and the standouts are both James McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy. McAvoy gets a lot to work with here and gives a career-best performance and without spoilers, really goes to extreme lengths at times with his performance. Anya Taylor-Joy more than manages to hold up to McAvoy and Shyamalan gives her character a great character arc to work with that is suitably developed throughout the film. The other two girls who are kidnapped played by Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula are largely throwaway in terms of their characters function to the narrative but both do the best with they have to work with. Betty Buckley’s character is problematic. Whilst she gives a good performance, her character is purely in the film for exposition purposes which as mentioned, brings the quality of the film down.

The story that Shyamalan has crafted fires on all cylinders and the film’s twist gives a completely different spin on what you have just witnessed and thus, the film is ripe for repeat viewings. The film is not too dissimilar from other thriller films of late that have dealt with a kidnapping for example the near-perfect ’10 Cloverfield Lane’ and the flawed but suitably nasty ‘Don’t Breathe’ and ‘Split’ manages to hold up. Both McAvoy and Taylor-Joy’s character receive strong character arcs and we really end up caring for these characters, even McAvoy whose character can be particularly nasty at times.

The score by West Dylan Thordson is brilliant – a departure from Shyamalan’s normal collaborations with James Newton Howard, Thordon’s score features some memorable riffs and manages to compliment the dark, brooding mood of the film. The cinematography by Mike Gioulakis is equally brilliant and he was responsible for shooting one of my favourite films of 2015, ‘It Follows’ and he does just as good a job here and really manages to encapsulate the claustrophobia and discerning mood the film creates.

Overall, ‘Split’ is a great step in the right direction for Shyamalan and if he had managed to trim out the exposition by Betty Buckley’s character which is excessive in nature which would have shortened the film’s run time, the film would pretty much be perfect. However despite this mis-step, ‘Split’ is largely successful and features great performances, a twisty and intriguing narrative topped off with a twist of epic proportions. It ranks as one of his best works and if you are a fan of the films that Shyamalan first started out making in his character, I would deeply urge you to go and see this film at the earliest opportunity.

 (Excellent)

Director: Pablo Larraín
Starring: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig, Billy Crudup, John Hurt
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 99 mins

‘Jackie’ is a biopic about the wife of the ill-fated President John F. Kennedy, played by Natalie Portman, and the aftermath of his assassination seen through her eyes. It is set as an interview where an unnamed reporter (many have speculated the film to be a retelling of the 1980 Life interviewby a Theodore White) interviews Jackie who recounts her tragedy. It is directed by Chilean director Pablo Larraín and this film is his English-language debut after directing many well-received Chilean films the most recent of which being ‘The Club’ and ‘Neruda’, both films being selected as Chile’s entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award but ultimately not nominated. Larraín clearly has talent but this film does seem like a bit of a strange choice as it doesn’t really suit his style. However, the film has received very strong reviews and Natalie Portman has received acclaim for her performance, garnering a Best Actress nomination.

‘Jackie’ is hypnotic in its execution at times but frustratingly also quite alienating and hard to connect with. The film is strongly and precisely directed by Larraín who has, for the most part, crafted a fascinating character story on the First Lady. Having Larraín directing this film ensures that this is not your standard biopic and instead what we get is more of an arthouse, deeper almost philosophical insight into this tragic event, told through Portman’s eyes. On that note, the performance by Natalie Portman is fantastic and totally deserving of the praise. The film is also meticulously shot by cinematographer Stéphane Fontaine and the film has a rather fragmented sheen to it to reflect this dysfunctional and troubling time in American history. But the overall film can be quite tonally cold at times and hard to access – it’s a film that definitely requires a second viewing to make a final judgement.

The success of this film hinges on its strong performances and pretty much across the board, the performances are very strong but this really is Portman’s film to command. I think part of the reason why I found this film hard to connect with at times and a little jarring was because of her performance and for most of the film, Portman is performing Jackie’s performance and very rarely do we get to see this character take a breather and connect with her a little. That said, I think what Portman goes for here is extremely original and again, with a second viewing, I’ll be able to appreciate her performance even more. Her character is effectively a ghost once her husband dies, she dies with him and is just pushed away out of importance and she watches these events unfold from a distance and sticks to her morals in remembering her husband appropriately. There are also some great supporting turns by Peter Sarsgaard as the President’s brother, Greta Gerwig and Billy Crudup as the reporter but the actor who made the best impression was the late John Hurt who gives one of his best performances as a Priest and the final lines in the film with his character are particularly poignant given his death, testament to the fact that we truly have lost a great man and a commanding screen presence.

I was very excited to see that Mica Levi would be scoring this film after being totally enamoured with her work on Jonathan Glazer’s 2014 film ‘Under The Skin’ and this is her first score since then and whilst it is once again very original, I did find it very jarring in terms of how it complimented the film and further added to the sense of alienation from both an audience and character perspective.  Stéphane Fontaine’s cinematography is superb here though and his imagery here is very intelligently crafted and gives a sense of the stressful time the First Lady faced. When the eruptions of violence do arrive, Fontaine’s cinematography is suitably frenetic to reflect this mood – this is someone who will go far.

In summary, I did find ‘Jackie’ to be quite a powerful and original experience but it is something that requires repeat viewings to fully discover what this film holds as it is quite hard to get into. However when the film opens up, I was totally enamoured with it and due to this, I think it is a film that will only get better the more you watch it. Pablo Larraín and Natalie Portman make for a great combination and as mentioned, I did originally struggle to see how his style would translate here but it does and this definitely has opened the path for him to greatness in Hollywood. Whilst this film will most likely be remembered for Portman, definitely take note of John Hurt’s performance as he too is excellent and testament to why he was so well loved within the film industry. For now, I found a lot to like in the film and this film should hopefully grow with further viewings.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Elle Fanning, Brendan Gleeson, Chris Messina, Sienna Miller, Zoe Saldana, Chris Cooper
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 128 mins

‘Live By Night’ is the latest directorial effort by actor-director Ben Affleck, who has proved quite the talent behind-the-screen as well with hits such as ‘Gone Baby Gone’, ‘The Town’ and ‘Argo’, the latter of which earned three Academy Awards including one for Best Picture. Since ‘Argo’, Affleck’s career has waned with the exception of his turn in David Fincher’s ‘Gone Girl’ in 2014. ‘Runner Runner’ recieved poor reviews, ‘The Accountant’ was mixed at best and what should have been the icing in the cake unfortunately backfired in ‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’ where he played Batman. Maybe his year this year hasn’t been the best but there has always been this to look forward to. ‘Live By Night’ is an adaptation from the novel of the same name penned by Dennis Lehane of which Affleck’s directorial debut ‘Gone Baby Gone’ was also based on material by the same author. It details the rise and fall of Prohibition-era gangster, Joe Coughlin, the son of a Police Captain, who as revenge for the apparent death of his girlfriend from the notorious gangster Albert White joins the rival Italian Mafia group led by a sinister figure called Pescatore. Pescatore sends him down to Ybor City in Florida from Boston to run his empire which has come under attack from White. This premise sounds as if it’s a classic gangster flick and one that should be directed with real flare by this director. Unfortunately, the film has recieved poor reviews which has led to a massive financial loss for Warner Bros who entrusted him on this project and this has culminated recently in Ben Affleck stepping down as the director for the upcoming solo DC outing, ‘The Batman’. Despite this, I was still looking forward to seeing this film due to the impressive cast that has been assembled which comprises of Affleck, Elle Fanning, Brendan Gleeson, Zoe Saldana and Chris Cooper to name a few prominent actors and I struggle to see how Affleck can make a bad film out of this material.

‘Live By Night’ is an entertaining film that features some good performances and an engaging narrative but it is ultimately rather hollow as it races through a lot of material in what is already quite a lengthy 128 minute runtime. It’s quite rare for a film to be too short but this is and I think an extra half-an-hour or so could have fleshed these characters out more and establish a more concise narrative. It is competently directed by Affleck and is well shot by Robert Richardson who chews the scenery here and I was never bored by it. It doesn’t deserve the damning reviews it has recieved so far but it’s not quite excellent either.

The film features some strong performances even though it is mainly only Affleck’s character that is developed. Affleck plays this part with ease and despite him being behind the camera in several different roles plays Couglin very coolly and empathetically. The other standouts are Chris Messina who plays his partner, Dion, who joins him from Boston down in Ybor and Chris Cooper, a Sheriff that Couglin befriends. Although not listed in the main cast list, Matthew Maher has a small role as a member of the Klu Klux Klan who causes multiple problems for Affleck’s gangster and Brendan Gleeson also has a small role in the beginning of the film as Coughlin’s father who is always extremely versatile. The female characters played by Zoe Saldana and Sienna Miller in the film are painfully average except for Elle Fanning who plays a small but pivotal role in this narrative which is one of the best performances by this young actress so far. You will have noticed this repetition of the word ‘small’ as this is very much Affleck’s characters film and no-one else is given a lot to do.

The story on which this based on by Dennis Lehane’s novel is generally very interesting and I was never bored by one second of the film. However as mentioned, there really isn’t a lot for most of the characters to do simply because Affleck races through this material and the film doesn’t get a lot of opportunities to pause for a minute and just breathe. The opening in Boston is efficient and quite economically handled but it is when Affleck’s character reaches Ybor City that problems start to arise. No sooner since he has arrived, the film suddenly winds up at how his power is short-lived and most of the new characters that are introduced are done so in short, serviceable yet contrived sequences that never really earn our empathy towards them.  If Affleck would have chosen to have concentrated the film on a certain time period or had extended the film, I think it would’ve been a better result that wouldn’t have been critically mauled. I don’t think this is the fault of Affleck’s direction though. Affleck directs this film with flair and confidence and it is generally a violent and entertaining flick.

Harry Gregson-Williams’ score is just ok – he is capable of so much more than this and the score isn’t particularly memorable but at the very least, it is serviceable. The cinematography by Robert Richardson however is great and you can tell he’s had fun making this. There are some stunning action sequences that he shoots really assuredly particularly a car chase early on in the film that is especially thrilling and he manages to elevate the entirety of the film.

‘Live By Night’ may not be the Academy Award contender one had hoped for but it certainly isn’t a travesty either. It’s always entertaining, I was never bored by it in the slightest and parts of it are gripping. There are some strong performances and great cinematography too. But the film never amounts to much more than that and especially coming off three hits in his directorial career, the fact that this film isn’t perhaps as good is why the reaction to this film has been how it is. It is quite disheartening to see how much money this film has lost in its box office and some have speculated that the failure of this film scared Affleck into leaving the director’s chair  on ‘The Batman’. Whatever reason behind that when you simply judge ‘Live By Night’ as a film, it is perfectly adequate and a pleasing way to spend just over two hours.

(Good)