Film Review- X-Men: Apocalypse

The X-Men franchise was once responsible for revolutionising superhero movies. Not only did the first entry in the saga (which was released almost 16 years ago) really prove the point that this genre of movies could make serious money but it also set the precedent for how to make a good superhero ensemble a whole decade before The Avengers, while also making a star out of Australian national treasure and Oscar winner, Hugh Jackman. Despite a dip in its quality come the third and fourth entries in the franchise (my distain for the Hollywood equivalent of used toilet paper that is X-Men Origins: Wolverine being well documented) the series was rejuvenated in 2011 with X-Men: First Class and it has went from strength to strength since then.

Until now, as X-Men: Apocalypse doesn't really hold up to what's come before.

For all that there was a lot about this movie I did enjoy, there was a lot of glaringly obvious problems, the biggest of these (literally and figuratively) being the movie's title villain, Apocalypse. He is the most generic, seemingly all-powerful, tyrannical big-bad you could possibly imagine. This is no knock on actor Oscar Isaac who brings all he can to the part, but the character is just badly written. He is just a boring, blueish, generic super-villain. That's it. You may as well have called him Ronan and had Chris Pratt defeat him by way of dance-off. The series to this point has made use a plethora of really complex and compelling antagonists (Magneto, General Stryker, Sabertooth etc) all of whom make Apocalypse look very one-note by comparison. Sometimes movies are only as good as their bad guy (see Heath Ledger's Joker) and this film is a testament to that philosophy. The other major issue I had with the film was the use of CGI, which the filmmakers relied on far too heavily. Most of the film's final act centred around general scenes of mass destruction and I couldn't help but feel that I'd seen this before. Like the title character, the CGI felt very generic. On top of this the effects themselves were underwhelming at best, with the best example of its lacklustre quality coming halfway through the run-time when Cyclops accidentally cut a tree in half. Without going into this too much, it looked about as fake as Donald Trump's hair and completely sums up my argument in a nutshell.

These major grievances aside, there were also some minor gripes I had with the film which I'm going to list quickly. There were far too many characters who didn't get as much screen-time as they deserved, namely Storm, Beast and Nightcrawler. There were far too many unnecessary characters included that did nothing to advance the plot. As great an actress as she is, this was J-Law's flattest outing as Mystique. Also, why did Apocalypse not die when all the rubble fell on him at the start of the movie? Did they have to give away one of the film's best moments in the trailer? Was it the intention of the filmmakers to make the fate of Magneto's family so painfully obvious? And why in the bluest of blue hells did so many characters cry a single tear in this movie? The single tear acting, while mostly on point, was drastically overdone. To sum up, there were parts of this film that I absolutely loathed.

On the flip-side, there were elements of this film I thought worked extremely well. The new additions to the cast were fantastic, and the benefits of hitting the reset button in Days of Future Past are very clear to see here. Sophie Turner shines as Jean Grey, giving new life to a character who was grossly mishandled the last time she was used on the big-screen. Turner has proven her acting chops on Game of Thrones, and her strong performance here is a reflection of how much she has grown as an actress since 2010. Tye Sheridan, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Alexandra Shipp also did a fantastic job in bringing some of our most popular mutants back to the big screen, while franchise veteran James McIlvoy arguably gives his best performance to date as Professor X. The film's character driven moments are excellent and it's just a shame that we couldn't have seen more of these moments in the messy third act. Other highlights include the throwbacks to the original X-Men film (see Xavier and Magneto's dialogue in the final scene) and also an intense (albeit unsurprising) cameo from a certain man from a land down under. The film's post-credit scene also gives me faith that they are going in new and brave directions with the future of the franchise.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on this movie due to my love of this franchise, but I can't deny there were flashes of brilliance in X-Men: Apocalypse. There were snippets of great character development. There were glimpses of deeper underlying themes. There were golden moments of pure, gritty action. Yet when I think back on this movie I feel nothing but frustration. The film's obvious flaws hang over it like a black cloud in my mind. The over-reliance on sensationalised action and CGI created a disconnect between the film and the viewer, the inclusion of too many characters meant some did not get their fair share of time to shine, and the translation of the X-Men's greatest threat as he made the jump from the comics to the big-screen was underwhelming at best. While it's not as bad as some films in the franchise's past (cough cough wink wink Origins) it is by nowhere near its best. A number of different factors could be blamed for this, though I think the studio had more than a hand in the way this film turned out, perhaps forcing Bryan Singer to go in this over-the-top direction in an attempt to compete with the releases of Batman v Superman and Civil War respectively at the box-office. This was a mistake. X-Men shouldn't try to play by anyones rules but it's own. X-2 is perhaps the best film the superhero genre has ever seen, and it takes place predominately in smaller scale settings. It proved that blockbusters could be entertaining, make money AND be quality films. I wish I could give this film a better grade because, like I said, there were parts I really enjoyed. In saying this, ultimately the overall experience left me frustrated and the overarching plot was somewhat forgettable. 

Let's hope Hugh Jackman's last outing as Wolverine is better than this effort, as that man deserves a great send-off for the massive contribution he's made to the franchise.

Score: 6.8/10

Film Review- Our Kind of Traitor

Our Kind of Traitor is a spy thriller directed by Susanna White and starring Ewan McGregor, Naomie Harris, Damien Lewis and Stellan Starsgård. Based on the John le Carré novel of the same name, the movie follows Perry Makepeace and his wife Gail as they become embroiled into the world of Russian mobsters and money launderers after a chance encounter with the charismatic Eastern-European Mafioso named Dima. Now, they must assist MI6 agent Hector in helping Dima take down this crime syndicate before they can spread their influence to the UK. Limited advertising has meant this film has went under many peoples radar, however I would argue that this is a movie worth seeing if you are a fan of the spy genre. 

First of all I was a big fan of the way this movie was shot and directed. White (whose only previously feature was the second Nanny McPhee movie) makes a lot of brave decisions with the way she shoots scenes and it makes for some really gorgeous cinematography. The opening slow-motion shot of a dancer mid-jump is absolutely stunning, while the visual of a young girl lying dead in the snow with blood slowly pouring from her head makes for some chilling and effective imagery. There are flickers of excellent visual-storytelling at play here, and White does all she can to not only make this movie thrilling, but also well-above par from a visual standpoint. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (who won the in 2008 for Slumdog Millionare) also deserves immense credit for how good this film looks. 

The film's other key strength for me was the standout performances from both Ewan McGregor and Stellan Starsgård, as well as the outstanding chemistry between the two actors. McGregor is great in the main role, delivering a good subtle performance as a man who has lost his way and is trying to find some purpose in his life. His characters evolution is perhaps the stories most satisfying arc, as we see Perry become more self-confident and sure of himself as the film progresses. For his part, Starsgård displays both comedic and dramatic chops in OKOT. Fiercely protective of his family, Starsgård's character is a friendly and entertaining while at the same time being a ruthless killer. It's exactly the type of role that the Swedish actor excels in, specifically evidenced by the parts he has taken in his native land. In my opinion, Starsgård is the shining light of this production, bringing the necessary levity and grit where and when each is required. 

But the problem is as much as I really enjoyed this movie, I cannot ignore the issues it has. The biggest problem is that too many plot threads and story-arcs do not get the payoff they deserve in the third-act. We do not see any of our antagonists (set up so well in the film's first half) get their comeuppance, we don't see Lewis' Hector get any satisfying form of revenge, and we don't see a final moment of romantic reunion between Perry and Gail (although the chemistry between the  two wasn't as strong as it should have been). The ending is weak and underwhelming, and the film's final third is void of any character development for most of its talented cast. From a personal standpoint I wasn't a fan of Damien Lewis in this film, finding his portrayal of Hector to be a tad grating. The story also does contain some noticeable plot holes, most glaringly MI6's reluctance to sanction the investigation, despite an abundance of mounting evidence.

I really wish I could score Our Kind of Traitor higher, because in all honesty I really did enjoy this movie. It was shot by a director clearly determined to prove her worth, and features a very game cast with Stellan Starsgård absolutely stealing the show in a great performance. However, the film does lose its way in the final act, and there are a number of plot points that don't get the necessary pay-off they deserve. It almost feels as though production was rushed in its final stages. Regardless, it is an enjoyable thriller that I would recommend seeing.

Score: 6.8/10

Film Review- Bad Neighbours 2

Good comedy sequels are a rare beast. Zoolander 2 fell flat at the box-office, The Hangover follow-ups were not nearly as good as the original, and Dumb and Dumber Too felt the ire of critics worldwide. The problem with sequels in general is that they fail to bring anything new to the table, and the comedy genre suffers more in these types of situations because a lot of the time the plots are so specific that it is difficult not to fall in to the trap of relying heavily on old material. In other words, for the most part, they aren't necessary.

Bad Neighbours 2, directed by Nicholas Stoller, should fall into this category. Set a few years after the original, homeowners Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne), who are in the middle of selling their house, must call in their old rival from the original, Teddy Saunders (Zac Efron) to help them get rid of a sorority that has moved into the house next door. The movie does recycle the premise of the last film and does then rely on the tropes that have come before. This is an issue that does affect the film's overall quality, that is undeniable, but we don't need to go into that in much more detail.

The real story with Bad Neighbours 2 is that, when taken for what it is, is actually a really decent movie. The physical comedy in this film is great, particularly in a chase scene halfway through the film. The dialogue is fantastic at times, especially in the scenes where Mac and Kelly are interacting with the buyers of their home. Yet it's the cast that really give this film a boost. Seth Rogen knows how to do Seth Rogen, and while his constant references to smoking pot may grow tired, he also does deliver some of the film's best laugh-out-loud due to his signature sarcasm and undeniable screen presence. Rose Byrne (dodgy Australian accent aside) also brings a lot to the table with her on-point line delivery, while Zac Efron proves his comedic chops once again in a role that fits the former High School Musical star like a glove. In saying all this the film's real star is Hit Girl herself, 19 year old Chloë Grace Moretz. Moretz is the film's emotional centre, playing an antagonist that you can root for as well as against. The Kick Ass star is so energetic that it's infectious, and I can honestly say that this film may not have been as good as it ended up being if they hadn't cast Moretz in this role. A part that could have been vanilla ended up being the film's best character, and this is a testament to the young star's ability as an actress.

Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a fine film. While it does steal a lot from its predecessor, there are more than enough fresh new gags and one-liners that will leave you walking out of this film satisfied. It does have its weak moments (particularly the opening scene) but if you take this movie for what it is then I have no doubt that you will get enjoyment out of it. The best praise I can give this film is that it is one of the best comedy sequels in recent memory, as well as being a great summer comedy that you will have a fun time watching. At the very least, it's another landmark in the blossoming career of Chloë Grace Moretz.

Score: 7.0/10

Film Review- The Jungle Book

2014's "Maleficent" 2015's "Cinderella" kicked off what I'm calling Disney's "Reboot Era". There is a list almost as long as my arm of live-action remakes that the company have pencilled in for a facelift in the next couple of years which includes Beauty and the Beast, Winnie the Pooh, Pete's Dragon and also classic Disney villain Cruella De Vil. This year it was the turn of the Jungle Book. 

I'm just going to say this straight off the bat; nine times out of ten I go into reboots with a negative predisposition. From my point of view I'd much rather see an original concept or adaptation brought to life on the big screen for the first time, however nowadays studios want to invest their money in bankable franchises that will make a profit. And therein lies the problem: most reboots are little more than cash-grabs by the bigwigs. On the flip side, even when this isn't the case and a reboot is good, you will still find for the most part that it will be unable to escape the shadow cast over it by its predecessors. In many ways reboots and remakes are fighting a losing battle before they even make it on to our screens because they will always be heavily scrutinised and compared to the original (look no further than the negative reaction thrown at the lacklustre "Ghostbusters" trailer as an example of this in action).

Jon Favreau's Jungle Book is the exception to the rule in that I think it will be remembered as being superior to the original.

Just to make things clear, this doesn't mean that I absolutely love this movie. To be completely honest, the 1967 version is one of my least favourite Disney Animated Classics purely due to its disjointed story, underwhelming animation and the fact it only has 1 or 2 really good songs to its name (The Elephants Marching Song is one of the most boring drones I've ever had the displeasure of listening to in my life). And while I will get into what Favreau does well with his version, it still did contain flaws. One or two of these stemmed from the original, with the plot seeming to veer off into some pretty pointless places at times throughout the film. Also, because it is a remake, the stakes feel lessened as you know how the story is going to end. This of course subconsciously stops us with engaging with the idea that any of these characters are in real danger and subsequently weakens the emotional connection the viewer will have with the final product. However the biggest problem I had with this movie was one specific character and how that character was handled. What in God's name did they do with King Louis? He looked more like bloody Donkey Kong. The only positive thing I can say about the character is that Christopher Walken's voice work is stellar, but everything else is just one big mess. He sings, which is out of place. He is disproportionate to his size in the original, which also feels out of place. He is a gang boss, which is simply ludicrous. If I was to rewatch this movie, I swear to the high heavens I would simply skip the parts that feature this primate. Very seldom does the personification of one character almost ruin a film for me, but it was certainly the case here.

Now that's all out the way, let's get into the positives. First off, the CGI is unbelievably good. It very much reminded me of Life of Pi in that everything looked so hyper-realistic, which is insane considering this was all filmed in Los Angeles with no actual animals involved in the shoot. Everything from the jungle setting to the mist in Kaa's lair to the silky short hairs on Bagheera's shiny pelt are so well-crafted, and the technical prowess that had to go into putting this on the big screen has to be commended. If nothing else, this is a visual masterpiece on par with what we saw in Avatar in my opinion. The film's next great strength was its cast. Youngster Neel Sethi makes an outstanding film debut as the Mowgli. Many seasoned stars are found out when it comes to acting with CGI, but Sethi more than rises to the occasion, at times carrying the film all on his own. Props have to go to director Jon Favreau for managing to get such a dynamic performance out of this inexperienced star. Bill Murray is the standout of the voice cast, bringing his A-game to the iconic role of Baloo. His voice drips with a lazy sarcasm which suits the bear perfectly, and his comedic timing is just as good as it was in the 80s. Idris Elba is also impressive as the villainous Shere Khan. The London native is absolutely terrifying as the big cat, with his strong baritone voice perfectly illustrating both the strength and the savagery of the tiger. All this aside, the last thing that really put this film over its 1967 predecessor for me was the subtle changes it made to the plot (monkeys aside). I won't delve into them too deeply, but the film does manage to shock viewers at times and add extra gravitas with the slight edits it makes to the original story. Going back to what I said earlier, the problem with reboots is that they seldom add something new to a story. This is certainly not the case here, as Favreau's version of this tale might be one of the best yet.

Ultimately this film will be remembered for its stunning visuals. While it is true that I usually prefer practical effects to CGI, the work done on this film shows how good the medium can be when it's done right. It does have its issues but if Disney is to make all of its reboots with the same care and passion that went in to this production, then we could be in for treat. 

Score: 8.0/10