The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017)

Get Triggered.

 "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is directed by Patrick Hughes (The Expendables 3, Red Hill) and stars Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool, Green Lantern), Samuel L. Jackson (The Hateful Eight, Django Unchained) and Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight, Harry Potter). "The world's top bodyguard gets a new client, a hit man who must testify at the International Court of Justice. They must put their differences aside and work together to make it to the trial on time". Ryan Reynolds is still yet to have a success outside of "Deadpool", will teaming up with Samuel L. Jackson do the trick?

I had no expectations for "The Hitman's Bodyguard" - I expected a very run-of-the-mill buddy action-comedy and feared it would match the Ride Along films in terms of quality. However, I was surprised to find out that "The Hitman's Bodyguard" was a pleasant and mostly enjoyable film. It's a very solid flick that I think will perform excellently down the line in all ancillary markets. I still don't know whether Ryan Reynolds has found his niche as his character in this is very different to "Deadpool" and I actually think his casting was a missed opportunity. "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is forgettable but despite its flaws, it's mostly fun, light-hearted and a good time. 

Unsurprisingly, the story for "The Hitman's Bodyguard" isn't the most original. You've seen similar stories told a million times before. The plot was also explained quite briefly, I think some more plot development could have been done to elevate the material. However, the brief setup did mean that the film moved at quite a fast paced. There always seemed to be something going on, there was rarely a dull moment. However, I did feel the film's length. I think that's because so much is packed into the 120 minute runtime, it messes with your mind as you feel like you are much further into the film than you actually are. Another problem with the screenplay is that "The Hitman's Bodyguard" really functions on movie logic. It was just unbelievable to think that with the amount of extreme attacks going on in such a short space of time, there was no sign of the emergency services. I actually think "The Hitman's Bodyguard" discredits the emergency services of today. It also wasn't that clear why Michael (Reynolds) and Darius (Jackson) were on the run in the first place- weren't they the good guys? For such a simple and generic plot, so much is skimmed over, the whole thing becomes overcomplicated. However, I did think that the film presented a good villain- his motivations and plans were pure evil and actually quite topical. Gary Oldman's Vladislav Dukhovich was a immoral and vile dictator that I was fully behind killing. The film certainly did a good job portraying the villain in a negative light, nobody could get behind him.  The villain may have been well setup but I thought the character development could have been a little stronger. It wasn't made clear enough why Jackson's Darius was so important. Jackson and Reynolds also had an interesting chemistry (more on that later) but when it was actually revealed what their 'beef' was from years ago, it was definitely a fun twist but it didn't have the shock or punch that I think was intended. SPOILER- it's revealed that Darius is actually the person who killed Michael's client which lead to him falling down the ranks. This meant that as characters, Michael's motivations for protecting Darius made sense, he wanted to get back to where he once was. However, Darius's weren't as clearcut. I believe his purpose in life was to go after the bad people in the world but I may be wrong. Another weird creative choice with the plot was that the film starts from Michael's POV but ends with Darius'. Michael was the more likeable character and I would say he was more of a lead out of the two so it was odd to end the film with Darius partying with his lover. A good thing about the film and script were that it presented some interesting ideas. One of these being a debate about the difference between a good guy and a bad guy. Both Darius and Michael believe they are good guys and believe that the other is bad. I liked how the film explored this and it really did make me think. Yes, Michael may seem like the good guy on the surface but surely sometimes he is protecting very bad people? So the script and screenplay is a mixed bag. At a glance, it's easy to follow and moves at a quick pace but when delving deeper, it definitely functions on movie logic with many plot holes and unanswered questions. Praise to Tom O'Connor for being able to put together a mostly coherent original story. 

"The Hitman's Bodyguard" is an action-comedy. I thought that the action was actually stronger than the comedy which was surprising considering the hilarious Ryan Reynolds is in a starring role. The action was unexpectedly very violent and graphic. The sequences were fast paced and well choreographed. It's not as stylish or memorable as "John Wick" or to a lesser extent "Atomic Blonde" but the action was to a much better standard than I was expecting and helped to add to the excitement level of the film. They are action sequences that are fun and great in the moment. However, I did find the final action sequence a little discomforting with the usage of a bomb in a lorry heading into a group of protestors. I watched this film not long after an attack like this actually happened so it was a little too close to home to call 'entertainment'. The comedy took its time to come in, I found the first act especially unfunny and was worried. However, there were some big laughs and my favourite moments were the nuns on the bus, the wife in prison and when Michael flies out of the car. The timing of the latter was spot on, it got the biggest roar from the audience. I think the comedy would have worked much better if Reynolds was actually given some comedic material. He did his best with what he was given but it was odd seeing him playing the 'straight man' to Jackson's 'comic'. Even though it could have done with a bit more comedy, the balance of action-comedy in "The Hitman's Bodyguard" works really well and I think it has a light and almost feel-good factor that is going to lead to good word of mouth and a long life on streaming and other ancillary markets. 

Speaking of the performances, they were alright but I expected much more from both of these actors. However, for Reynolds, I don't blame him. Reynolds is given a character that gives him little room to shine. Outside of "Deadpool", Reynolds does play the same character every time and it's no coincidence that he's not had a hit outside of the merc with a mouth. For Reynolds to really fulfil his potential, he needs to really experiment with his acting style and do something a little different. In this film, Ryan Reynolds plays a not-as-funny version of well, Ryan Reynolds.  He was a producer on "Deadpool" and so far, that's where he's worked best. Maybe he needs to be more involved behind the camera in order to excel? He should have been funnier, it didn't feel right seeing him so serious. Recently Samuel L. Jackson has started playing wacky comedic characters and I may be in the minority but I do not know why because I don't think he's very good at it. I find him irritating and I'm never convinced by him because he has oversaturated himself as an actor with endless paycheque gigs. He had some funny moments in this film but should have had way more considering he got most of the comedic material. Another complaint I have is that the two didn't have that much chemistry- after watching, I don't care too much about seeing this duo return and they certainly aren't a new film duo that are going to be remembered for years. I think the lack of chemistry can partly be blamed on the types of characters they are portraying, they don't get along. However, when they start being nicer to each other towards the end, I still wasn't quite convinced. Overall, the acting was alright but it didn't really require much. 

What makes "The Hitman's Bodyguard" more than tolerable and a film that I'll give a 'pass' to is that it may be forgettable but it's forgettable fun. I'd probably compare it to something like last year's "Keeping Up with the Joneses" which was harmless fun that wasn't awful. "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is a lot better though. "The Hitman's Bodyguard" could have been a straight to digital release and I've already mentioned, this is going to shine on platforms like Netflix and iTunes in a few months time. I think it has a good repeatability factor. I didn't love it but I'd happily watch it again. Effort has been made with this film and that's clear. It's not a cash-grab, it's a shot at an original action film and I applaud any film daring to be original in Hollywood's climate today. I think this film is actually a great example of a summer, popcorn movie. You're going to have a good time when watching, that's guaranteed but you'll also notice the many many flaws. The film also surprisingly takes itself more seriously than I was expecting from the marketing- for some reason, I was expecting a parody type film that spoofed "The Bodyguard". It's flawed but those flaws are easy to see past. It's one of those dumb but fun kind of movies.

"The Hitman's Bodyguard" is a fine and pleasant film. Especially as the summer movie season draws to a close and Hollywood has almost skipped the month of August with no major releases, a film like "The Hitman's Bodyguard" really has the chance to shine. If you've seen all of the other summer releases which are becoming stale at this point and want to see something new, "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is definitely worth considering. The action is exciting and it has some funny moments, but could do with more. The acting is alright, nothing special. However, this is original Hollywood and is the debut screenplay from Tom O'Connor. Switch your brain off, summer's coming to an end and although there are better ways to send it off, "The Hitman's Bodyguard" will have to do. 

61

/100

What did you think of THE HITMAN'S BODYGUARD? What's been your favourite summer movie in 2017? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

Logan Lucky (2017)

See How The Other Half Steals.

 "Logan Lucky" is directed by Steven Soderbergh (Magic Mike, Ocean's Eleven) and stars Channing Tatum (Magic Mike, 21 Jump Street), Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Paterson), Daniel Craig (Skyfall, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and Riley Keough (Mad Max: Fury Road, The Girlfriend Experience). "Two brothers attempt to pull off a heist during a NASCAR race in North Carolina". A great cast. A renowned director. A mysterious screenwriter. How lucky will audiences feel post-viewing "Logan Lucky"?

"Logan Lucky" was one of those rare films that I knew nothing about going in. I had heard about it and knew who the cast were but had not watched a single trailer. I kind of assumed it was going to be a film involving car racing. I was wrong...and I'm glad I was because that's not the type of film I was in the mood for. "Logan Lucky" is actually a heist film. This meant that the plot was driven and the end goal was clear. This really is a terrific cast and they are put to good use in this film. However, other than Daniel Craig, I don't think the others will be remembered for their performances. It's definitely worth seeing if you're a fan of Soderbergh's previous work or like any of the cast members. It's even worth seeing if you like car racing movies (like I was expecting). Although it's not the flashiest, fast-paced or most exciting of films, I think anyone who has a slight interest in it prior to watching will get a kick out of it and enjoy watching "Logan Lucky". 

When I say heist film, big action sequences and car chases come to mind. "Logan Lucky" takes a different approach to the classic heist formula. Yes, there is still a group of characters attempting to steal lots of money but it's all done in a much more low-key and subtle kind of way. For example, the actual moment where the characters send an explosive into the bank is possibly one of the most played-down explosion scenes I've seen. The tagline for the film is 'see how the other half steals' and I really think it's true in more than one way. For instance, 'the other half' could be mainstream Hollywood who steal with loud explosions, exciting scores and high octane action whereas "Logan Lucky" represents unconventional and more niche Hollywood where they steal in a much more realistic way. I certainly believed and was more on board with the heist plan in "Logan Lucky" than I have ever been for any mainstream Hollywood heist movie. This is a very understated film and I think that's going to put some people off who want it to go all the way and be this crazy and exciting action film. That's just not what "Logan Lucky" is. Soderbergh's work is very nuanced and lifelike. The plan was well thought out, the pace moved at a sensible speed and the characters reacted in a genuine way. Praise should also go to screenwriter, Rebecca Blunt who has done a pretty brilliant job compiling her first screenplay. She is a name to watch: 1. Because of her great talent 2. Because of the possibility of her true identity being revealed. 

I thought there was just enough development written in the plot for the film to work but I think some more explanation and details should have been provided. For example, I liked how the film spent some time establishing Jimmy (Tatum) as a character and his relationship with his daughter and ex-wife. The context of him losing his job acted as a motivation for wanting to rob the speedway. It's also mentioned that Jimmy and his brother have a history of getting into trouble. However, I did think that the actual decision to rob money in the first place came out of the blue. I understood that Jimmy's life was on the decline but I didn't really get why. To me, he didn't have a valid motivation to be committing such a serious crime. Although once I got my head around that and the film moved on, it didn't stop me enjoying what was to come. I especially liked the plan the characters used to get Joe (Craig) out of prison. It was a genius idea. I thought the subtle commentary on prison life and corruption in general was clever and worked with the plot. Another slight issue I had with the story is that the last 20 minutes didn't feel needed. The heist was complete and most of the money had actually been returned. However, the film spends the last 20 minutes with the FBI trying to track down the team. I get that this is quite a realistic angle to take which once again proves how grounded the film is but the story just took a very slow turn. However, the end scene and reveal was clever. "Logan Lucky" also left quite a few unanswered questions. This may have been done deliberately but I would have loved a monologue from Jimmy explaining why he returned most of the money. It was a nice touch that he paid all of the people who unknowingly helped him along the way. 

"Logan Lucky" certainly utilises its terrific cast. Soderbergh managed to cast each of the lead actors in roles you wouldn't usually expect from them..and it worked. Channing Tatum perhaps plays the closest to his usual character type but this time he has a Texan accent. To his credit, his accent is well sustained throughout the film and although there's nothing too memorable about his performance, he does a good job and I think Tatum has now reached the level of being a well-regarded and reliable actor. I haven't seen too much of Adam Driver, just The Force Awakens and Midnight Special. However, he once again impressed and I do see a great future for him in film. Daniel Craig makes the biggest impression. Whether that be due to his bleach blonde hairdo or his pretty wacky performance. I have never seen Craig like this. I was impressed and it's definitely restored my faith in him as an actor as he often comes across wooden and lacks charisma. He fixes that with "Logan Lucky" and I can only applaud him. The film does lack a strong, female lead but Riley Keough is the closest thing to that. Like Tatum, she's good but nothing too memorable. Finally, Farrah Mackenzie is a little star! She elicits the biggest laughs and has some of the best lines. Yet another child actor breaking the stereotype. 

From seeing other reviews and articles about the film, I've started to realise that this film was sold quite heavily as a high-energy comedy. Unfortunately, the film is relatively low-energy (but that's ok!) and I didn't find it all that funny. There were some moments where the audience laughed out loud but for many of those moments, it took me a while to realise what was funny. Just like everything in "Logan Lucky" is under-played, I would say the comedy is too. On the other end of the spectrum, I think that the film tries to say something about the other half, middle America in particular. Just like Sheridan's American Frontier trilogy, I believe that "Logan Lucky" was trying to highlight life for a particular group of people in the US. These characters aren't rich and don't lead luxurious lifestyles. They all have to work to survive, they all seem to get in trouble and romantically, things can be troubled. These are well realised characters who are true to life so what the film lacks in fun and action packed sequences, in makes up for with pretty well rounded and lifelike characters. 

"Logan Lucky" is an enjoyable and perfectly acceptable film. It's by no means the best time I've had at the cinema all year and I wouldn't be surprised if I forget it in a few months time but it was good enough. The characters are brilliantly written and the plot is easy to follow. There are some twists and turns towards the end which are intriguing, exciting but one of them slows the pace down a little too much. "Logan Lucky" isn't a flashy action-heist film, it's subtle and low-key and relatively low-energy. That's not a bad thing though. In fact, I thought it was a refreshing take on the genre. Craig shines with the wackiest performance I've seen from him and the rest of the cast do a nice job. This isn't a must see but it's a pleasant time-filler and would be worth the watch at a streaming price. Fun...but it could have been funner. Smart...it couldn't have been much smarter. Good...it could have been better. 

69

/100

What did you think of LOGAN LUCKY? Who do you think Rebecca Blunt actually is? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

Rough Night (2017)

The hangover will be the least of their problems. 

 "Rough Night" is the feature length directorial debut from Lucia Aniello. The film stars Scarlett Johansson (Lucy, Avengers), Kate McKinnon (Saturday Night Live, Ghostbusters), Jillian Bell (Office Christmas Party, 22 Jump Street), Zoe Kravitz (Divergent, Big Little Lies) and Ilanda Glazer (Broad City, The Night Before). "Things go terribly wrong for a group of girlfriends who hire a male stripper for a bachelorette party in Miami". "Bridesmaids", "Bad Moms" and "Girls Trip" have all been big hits with audiences, can "Rough Night" replicate the successful formula?

On paper, I love this type of film. I generally have a preference for female-led films and in recent years, I have really enjoyed female-led comedies. Bad Moms was one of my favourite films of last year, I liked the female reboot of Ghostbusters and I really enjoyed Girls Trip last month. When I first saw the trailer for Rough Night, I was on board but then the reviews came in and they were quite mixed so I lowered my expectations. However, I think that worked to the film's advantage as this film ended up being a very pleasant surprise. It was much funnier than I expected, with plenty of big laughs and some particularly memorable moments. Yes, it's cliche and formulaic and arguably has too much to say for its own good but all-in-all, I did enjoy watching it and would recommend. 

Group-led comedies live or die based on the chemistry between the group of main characters. Especially for films like this which often have quite a basic and generic plot, it's the characters and their bonds that elevate them. Girls Trip, a very predictable and formulaic film is upgraded from that status by a fabulous cast who are having a great time and have a convincing chemistry- they seem like genuine friends. This element is what Rough Night is missing. Although most of the cast do a more-than-fine job, I just didn't believe them as a real-life friendship group. It definitely felt like a group of people a casting director had put together. The ladies give it a great go though so a convincing bond is formed, it's just not on the same level as the tightly-knit friendship group portrayed in Girls Trip. I also think it doesn't help that the plot for Rough Night takes quite a serious turn so isn't something that would tastefully be able to portray a group of great friends constantly having fun, they are in a very sticky situation. The film does abide by most conventions in the 'friendship-comedy' sub genre. For instance, Jess (Johansson) is given a card from one of her closest friends, Alice (Bell) towards the beginning of the film. Anybody who has seen enough of these films will know that Jess will not open that card until towards the end of the film where Jess and Alice have had some sort of fallout and the message in the card will remind Jess of the friendship she is missing. That is exactly what happens during the final act of Rough Night. Also, the typical 'best friend' vs 'best friend' dynamic is portrayed with the characters of Alice and Pippa (McKinnon). It definitely was not as memorable, comedic or effective as Kristen Wiig vs Rose Byrne in "Bridesmaids" but it certainly served its purpose and no film like this would be complete without such a dynamic. 

Speaking of the cast, I believe everybody here gave it their best shot. Some worked much better than others though. The best lines and moments were given to Jillian Bell and Kate McKinnon who consequently elicited the biggest laughs from the audience. I liked both of these comedic actresses prior to watching this film and it was great to see them shine here. Bell had bigger one-liners but it was McKinnon's hilarious Australian accent and quirky characteristics that made her character all the more fun. One of my favourite moments was when Pippa injured herself from falling off the jet-ski so when she got up, she had one of the weirdest but also hilarious walks. It had me crying with laughter. McKinnon's facial expressions were also very funny- she definitely stole most scenes she was in. McKinnon and Bell may have been the MVPs but Scarlett Johansson did not make a fool of herself in the comedy playground. Naturally, she seemed like a fish out of water because comedy isn't the genre Johansson has become famous for but for the most part, Johansson is the 'straight man' to all of the other ladies' 'comics'. It would be unfair to say Johansson didn't have some funny moments but none of that was down to her, it was simply the lines she was given. Next up, Ilanda Glazer who played the stereotypical 'oddball' character type. I thought she did alright but she was certainly not my favourite character and she was possibly the most forgettable. Finally, Zoe Kravitz. I think they could have got someone better than Kravitz as she didn't deliver much comedy and her acting wasn't too convincing either. Kravitz seems to be on a different wavelength in comparison to the others- they're all having fun and not taking the film too seriously whereas it seems she is. The film also did nothing with her character's subplot which was weird as a big deal was made about it in the first act especially. The ladies mostly did a good job, what about their male counterparts? Paul W. Downs was ok. His scenes were definitely the weakest in terms of comedy as they distracted from the plot. It also didn't help that the relationship between Jess and Peter (Downs) wasn't that established so I didn't quite sense a strong connection between the two. The humour for Downs' scenes was also a lot dumber in contrast to everything else. 

I've touched on the comedy already and I hope I've made it clear that Rough Night certainly delivers the laughs. Where I think this film goes wrong is that it makes very biased social commentary, especially when it came to politics. Even though I agreed with what the film was saying, I think it's come to a point where political views should stay out of otherwise harmless and light-hearted comedy films. Audiences didn't buy a ticket to see Rough Night to be preached about real world (particularly American) issues. I like films that provide social commentary but I like it when that is the film's main purpose and it actually adds to the plot and elevates the material. The social commentary in Rough Night just seemed shoe-horned in. It also doesn't help that the cast, Johansson in particular are very politically involved and express their views openly. With mainstream audiences, the film will already be receiving lots of prejudice because of its cast but the actual content is very similar to why the cast members lost some of their popularity. I want to emphasise that I agree with Scarlett Johansson's political views but I think it was the wrong creative choice to have political facts and commentary shoe-horned into a light-hearted comedy where there's no need for it. Unfortunately, Rough Night will offend viewers with opposing views. Films should be universal and unbiased. It was mostly Ilanda Glazer's Frankie who delivered this type of humour which could explain why I wasn't too keen on her character or performance. However, when Rough Night wasn't being political, it was being very funny. 

SPOILERS

For a film with such a light tone, it did feel odd for such a serious event to be at its core. The film begins as the typical 'girls on holiday' story and then out of no where, the tone is flipped on its head as the plot gets quite dark. The writers do find a way to keep the material light and I'm thankful that it is revealed that the victim isn't just an innocent stripper or else the film would have been in very bad taste. As the plot unraveled and the ladies kept failing to disguise what they had done, I was questioning how the writers could wrap up the plot with a happy ending and the characters remaining likeable. The reveal/twist was right in my face the whole time! The guy wasn't the stripper after all and was actually a burglar on the run. The final scenes were quite exciting and I liked the way Jess handled the situation. 

Rough Night is a funny film, you will definitely get your money's worth when it comes to the laughs. However, you might just get more than you bargained for as political beliefs are expressed in quite an explicit manner. Whether that be, Johansson's Jess resembling Hilary Clinton and being in a similar electoral race or Glazer's Frankie constantly mentioning topical and political subjects. If you're looking for a comedy film that provides escapism from such real world issues, try Girls Trip or Bad Moms instead. The story is a twist on a generic formula. There are plenty of cliches with the whole thing being quite predictable. The cast don't quite have the chemistry I would have hoped but they still work well together with Bell and McKinnon showcasing their excellence in comedy once again. I recommend Rough Night with caution as I think the political angle will turn some viewers off. 

57

/100

What did you think of ROUGH NIGHT? Should Johansson make more comedy films? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

The Dark Tower (2017)

There are other worlds than these.

 "The Dark Tower" is directed by Nikolaj Arcel (A Royal Affair) and is based on the best-selling series of books written by Stephen King. The film stars Idris Elba (Luther, Thor), Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Mud) and Tom Taylor (Doctor Foster). "The last Gunslinger has been locked in an eternal battle with the Man in Black, determined to prevent him from toppling the Dark Tower, which holds the universe together". 2017 is a big year for Stephen King adaptions, how high will "The Dark Tower" set the bar for "It"?

I didn't quite know what to expect from "The Dark Tower". It never looked that good but there was a reasonable amount of hype surrounding it due to it being an adaptation of a famous series of novels. That's where this films biggest problem arises- 4 books are condensed into a 90 minute film. Imagine the entire "Game of Thrones" story being just a 90 minute feature, it just wouldn't work. In every other area, "The Dark Tower" is offensively mediocre. The acting, the visual effects and the story it decides to tell are all very pedestrian and not that memorable at all. For this screening, I took my mother. The film ended, she looked at me and said "that was the worst film you've taken me to see in a long time". Now for my review...

"The Dark Tower" is a bad film. There's no two ways about it. However, there is potential and that unfulfilled potential actually makes willing to revisit this world in the future. I thought there was some potential for good world-building as many of the locations were quite cool- I would have loved to have spent more time there. However, because the writers are tasked with a near-impossible task, there's no time to pause. The writing is what lets this down as a film but I also blame the studio and the producers for deciding to compile the books into one, reasonably short film. Stephen King has quite a following, why couldn't the producers have taken it one book at a time...we could have had the next Harry Potter on our hands! But no. With terrible box office returns and lousy reviews, I guess we won't get to return to the world of "The Dark Tower" for a long time. The pacing is quick and usually that's a good thing. However, "The Dark Tower" is too fast paced for its own good. There is no time to breathe or think. This may work great for people who have switched their brains off for the film and will forget about it as soon as they leave the cinema but for more active moviegoers, the film may wash over whilst watching but when looking at it in retrospect, the plot was very pointless, not much happened and so many questions were left unanswered. Sloppy sloppy writing. Guess who's to blame for that? 4 different people! Maybe each person was tasked with a different book and then they all worked together to mash it to one comprehendible story (unfortunately was not the end result). Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen and Nikolaj Arcel (the director) shouldn't work together again. They don't produce great results. It's always a warning sign when a film has more than one pair of hands writing its script (two at most). Too many visions and too many ideas. 

The actual story is incredibly one-dimensional and doesn't actually have any depth or anything going on under the surface. We get the most brief explanation of what The Dark Tower is and why it is important. However, for some reason, this film does not feel like it is about the tower itself. The writers could have done a much better job highlighting the risks and importance of the tower. Such a complex and potentially interesting idea was rubbed down to the simplest, boring and generic ideas. Another thing I didn't quite buy was this longtime rivalry between the Gunslinger and the Man in Black. Other than them having opposing views on the tower, it wasn't quite clear why they had such a hatred for each other. Maybe that's because this hatred is developed and explored over 4 books not just 90 minutes of screen time? The Man in Black's motivations and intentions were also not clear at all. His powers were cool but everything else about him really resorted in him being a nonstarter of a villain. We also weren't given enough development behind the Gunslinger in order to get behind him and as for Jake, it's never explained why he is the chosen one and why he has been having these dreams and visions. "The Dark Tower" is made for people with 0 brain cells. It's a shame that such a highly regarded authors work has been turned into something so low-brow, dumb and stupid. 

I also found the plot incredibly predictable. The film begins with a prologue showing children being strapped into chairs and their screams then being used to knock down the tower. I knew exactly then that eventually Jake would be strapped into one of those chairs but rescued by the Gunslinger. What happened in the final act of the film? Exactly that. The film really also tried to play on father/son relationships but with sons who had lost their father. However, it did it in such a cringe-worthy and silly way, it just didn't work. Coming from somebody who can relate to this, I found it forced and stupid. There were some really silly lines about 'he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father'...what does that even mean???! There's a whole scene which is meant to be important and emotional that just doesn't work and is bluntly put, bad. 

The performances are all very pedestrian. I've seen more annoying child actors than Tom Taylor so I suppose that is a good thing. I actually think this kid has potential in this kind of film, he seemed well cast. However, he landed himself in a bad film and I don't think it was the right choice to kickstart his movie career. I feel sorry for Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey - two actors who have proven to be talented in the past are stuck with a dire script in a very bad film that is pretty laughable. The thing is, I don't think either Elba or McConaughey realised that they were making a pile of s**t even when filming as both seem to be taking their roles very seriously. I was impressed by McConaughey and thought he delivered his lines in a fittingly evil way. His voice works very well as a villain. It's a shame that there was nothing else going for The Man in Black. However, as for Elba, this is one of his most mediocre and forgettable performances to date. He wasn't given much to work with but I didn't believe his chemistry with Taylor and the only reason I believed his rivalry with McConaughey is because the script told me to. The supporting cast aren't great either. Like the story, the cast have a lot of promise on paper but it didn't quite work when brought to life. 

The visual effects were very poor. CG is used pretty sparingly but when it is used, it is so bad. I haven't seen a film look this bad in years. The weird demon creatures look like something from Doctor Who...10 years ago. The cinematography in general is ok but I think it's quite hard to make a desert landscape look bad. What was awful though is that the film noticeably used bad quality stock footage for its extreme wide shots of locations. And what makes that even worse? They added effects over the stock footage according to what was occurring on screen. Do they honestly think the audience wouldn't notice that? I know stock footage is used quite a lot in films but when it's so obvious, that's when it becomes a problem.

The Dark Tower really hasn't kicked off this supposed 'Stephen King universe' in the best way at all. To be honest, it couldn't have got much worse- poor critical response and barely any interest from audiences. However, it's not a criminally underrated gem for people to discover, it's something people have been clever enough to avoid. Whoever green-lit this project with the idea to condense 4 books into 1 film must have been losing their mind. This film was never going to be good. The acting was pedestrian, the visuals are poor and the story is a shambles. It's a shame because I do have some interest in revisiting this world and its characters so hopefully one day somebody will pick it up and do it properly, one film at a time. I'd like to apologise to long term fans of the novels who've had to witness this and are probably disgusted by what they saw. Thank goodness it was only 90 minutes, I couldn't take much more.

32

/100

What did you think of THE DARK TOWER? What is your favourite Stephen King adaption? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

Everything, Everything (2017)

Risk everything...for love. 

This review contains spoilers.

 Everything, Everything is directed by Stella Meghie and is her first major theatrical release. The film is based on the popular novel by Nicola Yoon and has been adapted by J. Mills Goodloe (The Age of Adaline, The Best of Me). The film stars Amandla Stenberg (The Hunger Games) and Nick Robinson (Jurassic World, The 5th Wave). "A teenager who's spent her whole life confined to her home falls for the boy next door". Is Everything, Everything 2017's answer to "The Fault in Our Stars"? Or is it yet another forgettable YA adaption?

I didn't really know what to expect from "Everything, Everything", I was hoping for something along the lines of "The Fault in Our Stars". However, I haven't seen a YA romance better than "Fault" since its release. The sub-genre started off strong but now it's dying out. Not even just YA romance, it's rare to get a YA film at all these days. Unfortunately, films like "Everything, Everything" are not going to change that. This isn't just a mediocre film, it's a pretty bad one. I actually hate the film's message and even though the twist towards the end was clever and unexpected, it acts as a detriment towards the rest of the film. Undoubtedly, this will please the target demographic of tween girls but anybody else? Good luck. 

The worst thing about "Everything, Everything" is that it actually ends up sticking a middle finger up to anybody with SCID. Firstly, the film's lead character, Maddy is incredibly irresponsible and actually puts a boy before her own life. There's a ridiculous scene (that comes out of no where) where Maddy sees Olly fighting his dad and literally runs outside to stop the fight. I guarantee that in the book, a big part of Olly's character development is his abusive father. However, in the film (and that's all I can base my opinion on), the whole scene comes across overly aggressive putting neither Olly's father or Olly himself in a good light. Olly was not in a life-threatening position, I just don't get why Maddy literally dropped everything and risked her literal life to stop the fight. Secondly, Maddy then decides that she wants to risk everything and go on a romantic break away with Olly to Hawaii. Of course, Maddy ends up getting rushed into hospital at the end of her trip and as the audience, we're meant to feel sorry for her but I felt no sympathy at all. Of course it's not nice to see any human bed bound but when Maddy has literally grown up knowing the dangers, it was completely her fault that she fell ill on holiday...and could have died. 

Then there's the last minute twist. Maddy's overprotective mother has lied to her her whole life and she's actually perfectly fine. Way. to. go. "Everything, Everything". Films that tell stories based on illness' should be very careful- yes, it's a fictional tale but they are also shining a light and spreading awareness. I suppose they can also act as a way for people who suffer from such illnesses to empathise, relate and see themselves depicted on screen. SCID is a thing and this film spends the most part of its 90 minute runtime making us feel sorry for Maddy...who doesn't actually have SCID! The whole thing is a big. fat. lie. If I was somebody with SCID I think I would be seriously offended by the depiction and that the illness was used all along just to tell a different spin on a romantic story. The more I think about it, the more annoying it becomes and my hatred for the film grows. The twist itself is clever and surprising but kind of irritating as it's right in your face the whole time. 

Back to Maddy. Let's forget about the twist ending for a second and pretend that Maddy does have SCID like the film wants the audience to believe for 95% of the runtime. I think the film did a pretty good job of developing Maddy's character in the first 5 minutes or so- it did feel a little rushed and was very obvious exposition. However, at the end of it, I felt like I had a grasp of who Maddy was and what she suffered with. However, I don't know whether it's down to the acting or the choices made by the director but Maddy seemed quite content with her contained life. I know it's all that she would know but there must be some psychological impacts due to the way she grew up? I also wouldn't be surprised if a SCID patient suffered with depression. The film could have done a much better job of portraying Maddy's day-to-day life. Instead of a deeper and darker look, we got a sugarcoated lifestyle that actually didn't seem that bad. Her lifestyle only became a problem when she looked at a boy and fell in love. When people try and say that "13 Reasons Why" was glamorising and sugar-coated a serious issue, I'm seriously going to direct them to this film so they can see what sugar-coating and glamourising really looks like. 

The relationship. Even if it's not factually accurate, at least the relationship can be cute and charming right??! No. Once again, I don't know whether its the acting or the writing...probably a bit of both but this has to be one of the dullest relationships I've seen portrayed on-screen in a while. I was never on board with the relationship as it kicked off in the most ridiculous way- Olly literally just has to see Maddy and he loves her. He's then obsessed with her and abracadabra, the relationship is born. This didn't do any good for the character of Olly who at first comes off as desperate and obsessive- he's one of those boys who just needs a girlfriend. I liked the scenes where the two were texting as they were slightly more inventive- instead of a 10 minute scene of the two texting, the film actually put the two characters in one of Maddy's model buildings and they spoke in there, in person. It worked well and was a nice touch. The relationship really didn't come off as anything special- I don't know the film's timescale but it felt like they only knew each other a couple of weeks and Maddy wanted to go on holiday with him. Oh, and did I already mention that after such a short time, Maddy was willing to sacrifice her life for him? 

I think one of the better parts of the film is the two young actors as its centre. This is the first I've seen from Amandla Stenberg since her short but powerful performance in "The Hunger Games". I don't think Stenberg did a bad job at all. I just think the material she was given was pretty weak. I hope Stenberg continues to get more work in Hollywood as the jury is still out on her so I want to see what else she has to give. Nick Robinson was ok. I think he came off quite cold and not particularly charismatic- I don't know if that's because his character was quite a 'cool guy' but I think it was him who was detrimental to the chemistry between the two really setting alight. In general, the chemistry between Stenberg and Robinson was alright but definitely not good enough for a film that is all about the romance. 

The film looked and sounded good. Even though a lot of the film is contained in one house, the house was visually appealing. However, some of the best shots came when the two got to go to Hawaii- there were some beautiful shots of the ocean and underwater wildlife. Then again, could even the worst cinematographer make the Hawaii landscape look bad? The score itself was forgettable and didn't really make an impact..lots of the scenes actually felt rather awkward due to the lack of a score. However, the second half of the film seemed to have more songs overlaid on top of scenes. This is quite a common trope in YA flicks. The song choices were good and the moment where 'Stay' by Zedd and Alessia Cara played was my favourite moment in the entire film. 

The film's message is also its tagline. "Risk everything...for love". I agree with its message to an extent but in the context of this film, I completely disagree! The film suggests that you should risk your actual life for somebody you have known for less than a month. I do not think this is the message that should be sent to impressionable, young Tweens. I like the message when it comes to life's experiences but when it comes to risking your actual life for love, it's just stupid and mindless. I think that's "Everything, Everything"'s biggest problem. It just doesn't have a brain. It's harmless and light on the surface which actually ends up being quite harmful and distasteful as it tackles a serious subject. I'm really intrigued to see how fans of the book react to this- has it just not been translated well to the big screen at all? 

"Everything, Everything" isn't an awful film. It's just quite a bad one. In more ways then just one. Firstly, I don't think this is a great adaption as I cannot see such a basic love story taking off. Secondly, the twist ending may be effective but its in really bad taste in retrospect. The acting is alright but these actors should be doing better if they want their stars to rise. It's just mindless and pretty ridiculous. It's rare when you have to turn your brain off to enjoy a romance about a serious illness but I recommend you do for "Everything, Everything". What's wrong with this film? Pretty much everything (everything). 

44

/100

What did you think of EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING? What's your favourite YA adaption? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

Wind River (2017)

Nothing is harder to track than the truth.

This review contains spoilers.

Wind River is directed and written by Taylor Sheridan and is the conclusion to his "American Frontier" trilogy (Sicario, Hell or High Water). The film stars Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, Arrival) and Elizabeth Olsen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla). "An FBI agent teams with a town's veteran game tracker to investigate a murder that occurred on a Native American reservation". Sicario and Hell or High Water were both critical gems, with the former reaching the top of my year-end 2015 list. Can Wind River follow suit?

Wind River was this month's film for #OdeonScreenUnseen. Out of all the contenders, Wind River seemed the most likely but I kind of hoped it would be something else. However, I am so pleased that it ended up being Wind River because it was a truly breath-taking film. The narrative is heavy, the tone is dark and the message is powerful. Wind River is everything that it needs to be and I think it concludes the loosely connected trilogy well. 

At the heart of Wind River's success is its script. Written by Taylor Sheridan, who also directed the film. The script is incredibly well thought out with plenty of subtle hints and foreshadowing that make lots of sense in retrospect. Wind River's pace is also spot on, it may be a little slow for some but I think it moved at a very careful and suitable pace. This is a serious issue being tackled so to go super fast and turn it into an on-the-edge-of-your-seat thriller would be in bad taste. I found the film to be quite poetic- the dialogue was written eloquently and some of the lines in particular were pretty beautiful. Sheridan received an Oscar nomination for his screenplay for Hell or High Water and I definitely think he deserves another one for Wind River. It's rare to see a script so well thought out that knows exactly where its going, brings appropriately developed characters along the way and manages to remain engaging from start to finish. Wind River's is all of those things. Sicario was a film that had to be really engrossed to appreciate it fully and I think Wind River is the same. This film deserves all of your attention and you will be thankful you gave it your time when it comes to the end. 

The mystery element was a good hook. What I like about mysteries in general is the looming excitement that everything will be revealed at the end- they are always the best moments in this type of film and Wind River is certainly no exception. So what happened to Natalie? How did she end up over 5 miles from the nearest house? Why was she barefoot? Even though the audience don't get a chance to become connected to Natalie prior to her death, the film certainly makes the effort to get you to care about her. Whether that be from discomforting scenes involving her grieving family or by revealing the horrific thing that actually happened to her. There's always a sense of mystery and enigma throughout the film but there was some moments that bursted with tension. The first comes when the team are looking for Natalie's brother and her brother's friends do not react well to this. Due to the prior development (Jane doesn't come off as incredibly experienced), it feels like the characters are in genuine danger. Everything was spot on- the camerawork, acting and music all helped for a pretty tense few minutes. The moment Jane finds out she is not alone in the caravan was also excellently executed as it seems like she has scouted the whole room until she peers around a final corner and there is the adversary, armed and loaded. This was not only an effective jump scare but a great pay off to a nerve-wracking sequence. 

The next big burst of tension lasted much longer, pretty much the whole final act in fact. This began when the two different teams of security (police and drill security workers) started to get agitated and nervous of each other. A police offer is sure he saw something suspicious but neither the audience or Jane are aware of what he meant. Jane then knocks on the caravan door to where Natalie's boyfriend lived. With a genius creative choice, the scene match cuts to her boyfriend opening the door to Natalie. This was such a clever choice and was perfect timing for everything to be revealed. At first there's not much going on but because we are already aware of the fatal conclusion, there is a sense of dread that lingers over the scene. Then in stumbles the drunk, Pete. Everything goes down hill from there with some horrific imagery that's incredibly discomforting and upsetting to watch. Then the film cuts back to present day and there's no answer at the door. The drill security offer calls Pete via radio and then suddenly a gunshot goes through the door and into Jane's chest, luckily she's wearing a bullet-proof vest. This moment was shocking and brutal and showed how dangerous this man was. From then onwards, it's a shootout between the two different teams which ends with Cory (Renner) taking the opposition out from afar. However, Pete gets away. Cory finds him and knocks him out where he awakes on a high mountain. Cory then gets the truth out of Pete and 'sets him free'- however, after knowing how Natalie actually died, we know that Pete's lungs will likely burst at any moment due to the cold. Cory's dialogue in this scene especially are brilliant and I liked how Pete saw the same ending that Natalie had to suffer because of him. I'm aware this section was very descriptive but I wanted to highlight how well done the third act was. From the reveal to how it ended, everything came full circle and it was really satisfying despite being shocking and discomforting. The only issue I had was that I would have liked for Pete to have been introduced as a character earlier on so it wasn't just a random, new character that was revealed. This would have added a better level of surprise to the climax. The tension is always in the background throughout Wind River but when it wants to up the anti, it really does go there. 

The two leads in Wind River are polar opposites but it really works. Firstly, Jeremy Renner's Cory. It's not quite clear why Cory wants to be so involved in the case until it's revealed that Cory's daughter was mysteriously murdered a few years back and she was good friends with Natalie. Cory almost wants to get the closure for Natalie's family that he was never able to have. I'm sure there's a hint of revenge at play as well. I thought his character was also cleverly written as his job was a hunter so he was the perfect guy to help find a criminal. It also meant he could use more streetwise skills than the FBI's protocol. On the other hand, there's Jane who doesn't come across as the most experienced member of the FBI but she's still headstrong and wants to get the job done. I think it was also a smart creative choice to make the character female as it gave the film the chance to highlight the prejudgements that women often get in this career but then it was also able to defeat those prejudgements when Jane knew exactly what she was doing and ultimately, was able to solve the case. Like any job, a role in the FBI is gender fluid. The age and gender of Jane also helped the character to relate to Natalie- she could think logically and after all, she does suggest early on that the boyfriend could have something to do with it. What's important though is that neither Cory or Jane are perfect, neither would have been able to solve the case alone but together, they could. The two were exchanging information and both respected each other. I don't know whether I liked that a romantic element was added in one of the final scenes as it took away the fact that men and women can work together without love being a factor. However, both are well developed characters that have their imperfections which aids in making them feel all the more real. 

To do those two lead characters justice, a pair of talented actors would be needed to bring them to life. That's where Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen come in. I have to say, it was refreshing to see both actors in such different roles. I was impressed by Renner who played the stone cold Cory- he fit the role like a glove. I was a fan. Elizabeth Olsen heightened the film when she first came on screen. I thought her performance was good but not amazing. She had some moments where she could have expressed more emotion and her line delivery was sometimes a little off. However, her reactions to horrific things and expressing pain were spot on. Olsen shines when she stands up to all of the officers and security and makes it clear that she is the FBI and the only one with actually any power. This was a highlight in her performance. Her final scene was also very good. Renner and Olsen weren't required to have great chemistry but I think they both had a believable colleague-esque relationship. Even though Olsen's performance had more flaws than Renner, I think it helped to underline that her character was very real with imperfections just like anybody else. All of the supporting cast did a nice job but then again, there wasn't too much required of them. Finally, James Jordan who played Pete. Visually, Jordan looked like the creepy drunk that his character was. However, I wasn't quite on board with Jordan's performance whenever he actually spoke. His role was very crucial and some of his most important line's seemed forced and exaggerated, definitely not as realistic as the other performance. I think Jordan's performance belonged in a completely different film. Luckily, the character of Pete was written and portrayed in such a strong way that the performance didn't matter all that much. 

Outside of the script, technically, the film was very well done. The cinematography really showcased a side of America that is rarely portrayed in film. The colour palette was very bleak and washed out but I think the aesthetic of the film really matched the location. There were some really picturesque shots of the snowy mountains especially towards the end. Cinemas may not be thankful for how white and snowy Wind River is as it heightens how dirty the screens are...Shout out to Ben Richardson whose cinematography makes such a plain landscape so beautiful to look at. The score was also very well done, there were some moments where it really shined. The score did exactly what a score should do- it heightened the mood, tone and themes that were intended in each scene. I haven't noticed Ellis and Cave's work until now but they certainly did a noticeably good job with Wind River's score. Some scenes were all the more emotional because of it. 

So as I said, Wind River is quite a deep and heavy film. The message its trying to get out there is that there is a statistic for most missing people except for Native American women. Nobody knows how many are missing. This is incredibly shocking and devastating. The case portrayed in Wind River probably isn't that rare but unfortunately, the real life cases are probably not even noticed or looked into. The culture in this part of America seems pretty unsafe for young women as such occurrences are so common. Hopefully after this film, a change is made and Native American women are tracked and the FBI and other services do keep a closer eye on this. If anything, the culture portrayed in this film is pretty backwards and needs to change, especially when it comes to the treatment of women. Also, this is the conclusion in Sheridan's 'American Frontier' trilogy. I've only seen Sicario and Wind River but from both films, I get that the gist of the trilogy is showcasing parts of American culture that are usually ignored in films and shining a light on issues and unearthing what is really going on. I definitely want to see Hell or High Water to see if I'm correct. 

Wind River is a pretty spectacular film. Sheridan may just be one of the most talented writers working in Hollywood today and for this to be only his second film he has directed, it just shows how much talent this guy has. He is certainly one to watch and a hot name to get on board with any project. The story is written to the finest detail and is very close to perfection. There's plenty of mystery and bursts of effective tension. The acting from Renner and Olsen is a good representation of what these characters would be like in real life. Wind River has an important message and is very entertaining despite its dark and heavy content. I left the screening almost speechless and apologises for the pun but I was pretty much blown away by Wind River. A highlight for summer 2017. 

82

/100

What did you think of WIND RIVER? What's been your favourite #OdeonScreenUnseen? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

You don't know the real story.
This review contains MILD spoilers. 

 Annabelle: Creation is directed by David F. Sandberg (Lights Out) and stars Lulu Wilson (Ouija: Origin of Evil, Deliver Us From Evil), Talitha Bateman (The 5th Wave), Stephanie Sigman (Spectre, Miss Bala) and Anthony LaPaglia (Without a Trace, Lantana). "Several years after the tragic death of their little girl, a dollmaker and his wife welcome a nun and several girls from a shuttered orphanage into their home, soon becoming the target of the dollmaker's possessed creation, Annabelle". Can the Annabelle films pull a 'Ouija' with a sequel that improves massively on the first not-so-good film?

The first Annabelle was really the oddball of The Conjuring universe for all the wrong reasons- I don't remember much of it but what I do remember is that it wasn't that scary and it wasn't that great. Even though 'Creation' is simply average, that is still an improvement on the first freaky flick. Annabelle: Creation is packed full of effective jump scares but what the film makes up for in scares, it really lacks in narrative. There also wasn't much connection to The Conjuring Universe and I wasn't convinced by the horrors of the Annabelle doll, other than her appearance. 

Before we get to the negatives, I'll tell you what is good about Annabelle: Creation. I've briefly covered it already but Annabelle 2 brought the scares to a new level in comparison to the first film. There's jump scare after jump scare and even though it is obvious they are coming, they always manage to surprise and elicit the exact reaction that is intended. Director, David Sandberg also directed last years very very solid, Lights Out. You can really see that he specialises in horror as he has the scares down to a tee. One complaint I do have though is that I wasn't convinced that it was 'Annabelle' causing all of the scary antics. I know that it's actually a demon possessing Annabelle so the doll is just a host but with such a freaky appearance, you'd think Annabelle would have more 'Chucky' vibes than simply being possessed. I wish the demon that possessed Annabelle made her to more freaky things rather than just appearing in odd places and turning her head -let's get a creepy laugh or some physical movement. 

Another positive is the cast. They all do a superb job and really maintain the high-brow horror tone that The Conjuring films have created. Lulu Wilson and Tabitha Bateman are both fantastic as the two young leads. This time though, its Wilson who remains innocent, scared and naive instead of becoming possessed like her character in Ouija 2. I do also think it's an interesting choice for Wilson to be featured in both sequels to two very inferior films. I don't think Wilson can risk doing another horror film after this as although she's good at it, audiences are going to get confused and she will never escape the genre. Tabitha Bateman is also fantastic, both when she's innocent and naive as well as when she's evil and demonic. Wilson and Bateman also have brilliant chemistry which makes what happens all the more devastating. The connection and friendship between the two girls is very well established - there's an especially sweet moment before everything goes pear shape where the two girls reminisce about their old times together. All of the other young females do well. It's finally nice to see both young actors and actors in horror films portrayed well - it's becoming more rare that there are bad young actors and bad horror actors. Stephanie Sigman's performance is very warm and she is convincing as the guardian of the six girls. Anthony LaPaglia is also good. I have to say, this is just a very well-acted film in general and it's becoming very nice to be able to say that after watching most horror genres. The genre seems to be fixed. 

Here come the negatives and the big one is the plot, narrative and script. Who's to blame? Gary Dauberman. Unsurprisingly, it's the same writer as the first film so it makes sense why every other area has improved except for the narrative. What's worrying though is that the same writer is behind the highly anticipated 'It' and another Conjuring spin-off, 'The Nun'. What did Dauberman do wrong? He fails to compile an interesting and compelling story...to be honest, he fails to create a narrative whatsoever. It's never clear what direction the film is heading which also has an impact on the pace. It just felt like the film lingered around until it was ready to reveal what was actually going on which then triggered the conventional super scary horror third act sequence. I also thought it was interesting how the film's big reveal was already revealed in the trailer- luckily I hadn't realised this beforehand or else I would have really felt like I was wasting my time. The plot is actually pretty basic and generic - a group of girls arrive at a home, weird things start to happen, one of them becomes possessed and the other girls finally realise and try to stop it. I also found the ending very anti-climactic, it all seemed to easy. I think that was down to there actually being nothing new- we've seen Annabelle do stuff like this before, we've seen similar things in The Conjuring universe - the film needed to pull something new out of its sleeve to go out with a bang. Annabelle: Creation is very light on story and I think it really suffers from that. 

Something else the film fails to do well is add to The Conjuring universe. There's no new mythology to explain why this prequel needed to exist. What was even more annoying is that there are flashbacks within this prequel which means there is a prequel to the prequel - we were promised a story about the creation of Annabelle but instead we got the middle chapter (with the first film being the final chapter). I was hoping for a feature length tale about the Mullins and how they were tricked into believing the spirits were their dead daughter. Does this mean we will be getting a third instalment that is actually the origin of the doll? Thinking of it, that would be quite a clever thing to do- a backwards trilogy. The way the film actually ended was very satisfying. Even though the first Annabelle wasn't my favourite- I liked how this one literally tied to the first. It was clever and I was pleased there was some pay-off to an otherwise irrelevant film. Another connection to the wider universe was the reference to The Nun- this was very brief but very excited and got me excited for the spin-off. It was what a tease should be. Finally, even though the story lacked being connected and important, this film still stylistically felt like it belonged in The Conjuring universe. The set and costume design matched with the previous entries and although Wan, the chief of this universe, didn't direct this one, it's still clear he has creative control as it definitely fits in with The Conjuring puzzle pieces. 

All-in-all, despite Annabelle: Creation actually not being that great, it still manages to feel like a high-brow horror film with superb acting, exquisite set and costume design and a very distinguishable style. Creation is also much scarier than its predecessor and is generally better as a whole. However, what the second entry fails to improve on is the story - Creation tells an anti-climatic, pretty much non-existent story and instead its more like just watching a situation unfold. I fear for the promising upcoming projects Dauberman has written. Annabelle: Creation is worth seeing simply for the scares but if you're hoping for something that adds to the wider universe, you may be disappointed. Creation will satisfy horror fans who have been starved of scares this summer movie season. 

59

/100

What did you think of ANNABELLE: CREATION? What is your favourite entry in The Conjuring universe? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More

The Emoji Movie (2017)

An adventure beyond words.

 The Emoji Movie is directed by Tony Leondis (Igor, Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch) and features the voices of T.J. Miller (Cloverfield, Deadpool), James Corden (Into the Woods, Gavin & Stacey), Anna Faris (Mom, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) and Maya Rudolph (Bridesmaids, Sisters). "Gene, a multi-expressional emoji, sets out on a journey to become a normal emoji". Have the creative team managed to put together a convincing narrative surrounding emojis or is this one big corporate cash-grab?

The Emoji Movie really does start off abysmally, the first 30 minutes or so are incredibly hard to get through. Thankfully, the film picks up slightly towards the end but it's never amazing or even good for that matter. This is the most critically panned film of the year yet and I can see why. It's uber child-friendly and I really cannot see older audiences enjoying it. There's a handful of laughs but they are mostly comedic one-liners. Most of the 'bigger laughs' do not land. I can see what the film is going for but it just doesn't work. 

The Emoji Movie's biggest weakness is its script - a script that has had 3 different pairs of hands all over it, and one of those belongs to the director. This is an incredible misfire for Tony Leondis- I would be surprised if he works again after the critical disaster that is The Emoji Movie. The story may just be one of the dumbest and most basic plots that has ever graced the silver screen. There are two simultaneous plots - 1. Alex sends the wrong emoji to a girl and his phone starts playing up so he goes to the shop to get it erased. 2. Gene fails at being a 'meh' emoji so is being hunted down. I don't think the writers could have come up with a more ridiculously silly and lazy plot. There's got to have been something slightly more intellectual and original that they could have done? I mean, I know this is a film about emojis but it would have been cool to see the film given the Inside Out meets Wreck-It Ralph treatment. Once you get past the painful first 30 minutes and start visiting other apps in Alex's phone, the film does add some fun to compliment the dumb. What makes the first 30 minutes so excruciating is that it's very dull. I didn't really care for the world the emojis lived in and I think a serious error was choosing 'Meh' as the lead. The 'Meh' jokes would have worked in small quantities but there are so many of them because he's the lead (he also has two 'Meh' parents) and they all fail to elicit even a giggle. There's nothing to like about 'meh'- an emotionless feeling. They may as well have picked the bored emoji. 

So how could The Emoji Movie get better after such an excruciating first act? Well, it stopped taking itself so seriously and a load of IP's were inserted into the film. Even though most of the apps that are featured are admittedly 'old news', it was still amusing to see some familiar apps represented in the film and was interesting to see how they were utilised. I thought the Candy Crush segment was fun but looking back, there was no actual reason as to why it was featured in the film, it added nothing to the plot. Just Dance was probably the most outdated, who even has Just Dance on their phone? But the dancing and music kept the tone light and the pace fast. Spotify was probably the most well utlised, the 'sound waves' were a clever touch. However, what made no sense to me at all is that they could have just walked straight to DropBox, there was no actual need to go through all these apps, other than because the film was paid to do so. I can just imagine the pitch now. The characters would say that they ventured into the apps to hide from the BOTS but whenever they confronted the villainous robots, they easily defeated them anyway...and they found them in the apps they were meant to be hiding in. So even though featuring IPs was a fun touch, it really added nothing to the plot and just screamed cash-crab. 

Is The Emoji Movie funny? As I've already mentioned, there are a few times where I laughed. There was a funny joke made about the appearance of the Just Dance dancer and there were many references to frequently used 'social terms' today. The Emoji Movie was definitely in tune with the trends of the internet and modern society. I liked the 'Internet troll' jokes and 'Spam' in particular. However, many of the other jokes were forgettable, unnecessarily crude and down-right unfunny. 

The animation style may be one of the worst I've seen in a long time- it's very cheap looking. It actually came as a shock when the film first began as the quality was similar to what you would see on a children's television show not a major theatrical release. The weakness of the animation was exposed most when in 'human world'- these humans did not look good at all, the most basic CG I've seen in a while. The Emoji Movie is from Sony Pictures Animation and I have to say, even with their most successful franchise, Hotel Transylvania, animation is still not a strong point for them. I won't lie and say the film constantly looked awful- I liked the visuals when the characters were riding the sound waves and I thought Candy Crush land was suitably bright and colourful. I had an epiphany whilst watching The Emoji Movie- I think they should have took inspiration from 'The LEGO Movie' and had an animated main story but a live action sub-plot. The humans could have actually been human and then the emojis would have been in their cartoony, digital world. I think this would have worked extremely well and would have actually benefited the animation style as it would have come across as a deliberately overly cartoony emoji world. 

The cast do the best they can with such a dire script. T.J. Miller is alright but with the blank, emotionless 'meh', there's not really anything interesting he could possibly do more. T.J. Miller is often hired because of his comedic ability but there's nothing funny about his character or performance. Miller is stuck in one of the most dullest roles he's ever been given. I really wasn't a fan of James Corden. I wasn't convinced by his performance and simply thought it was James Corden the whole time. It's hilarious to think that Patrick Stewart has landed a role in this film as the Poo emoji, how embarrassing. Luckily, Stewart has literally nothing to do and his involvement in this project should be forgotten quickly. Do you know who was the most impressive? Maya Rudolph has the villain, Smiler. She came across very evil and her performance was very eccentric and suited the role perfectly. Nobody in the entire cast makes much of an impression other than Rudolph but I also don't think Rudolph wants to be the only one remembered for being in The Emoji Movie. 

Finally, before The Emoji Movie played, a Hotel Transylvania short 'Puppy!' came on. I am a big Selena Gomez fan and if I'm honest, the only reason I chose not to skip The Emoji Movie is because I wanted to see this Hotel Transylvania short film. Unfortunately, this is the worst thing to come out of the Hotel Transylvania films yet. All of the actors who returned were as good as always but the short had serious issues with its pacing and script. The short was very short and felt very rushed as it moved at a lightening speed pace. There wasn't really a story to it and I actually don't really understand why it was made. I kind of hope the 'Puppy' in this film miraculously disappears when the third Hotel Transylvania gets released as I don't want any callbacks to remind me of this short film disaster. I would still rather watch this again though than The Emoji Movie...(nothing down to it being just 5 minutes I promise ;) ). 

The Emoji Movie is awful, to begin with. But thankfully the film becomes a tad more tolerable as it goes on, even if that's down to it using corporate IPs. This is still definitely one of the year's worst and really worries me that Hollywood thinks its ok to produce such unoriginal, lazy and uninspired content. There are more outrageous and intellectual routes The Emoji Movie could have gone down but instead a script was written about a worried boy because he sent the wrong emoji to his crush. The cast don't make much of an impression other than Miller being miscast and Rudolph being a wicked villain. The animation is poor and a little too TV-like for my liking. Hollywood! Get your act together, The Emoji Movie is an embarrassment to the modern film industry. 

28

/100

What did you think of THE EMOJI MOVIE? Can you think of a better story? - COMMENT BELOW

See You Soon!

Read More