Film Review- Independence Day: Resurgence

"Independence Day" has become a modern-day classic since its release in 1996. With just the right combination of action, destruction and humour, the film made huge money upon its release and was considered the definitive blockbuster of a generation. The sequel "Independence Day: Resurgence" has been in development for the past two-decades however despite the goodwill displayed to its predecessor, Resurgence has not been very highly anticipated. A number of factors, such as the dropping out of Will Smith and the general apprehension of audiences to sequels, have heavily contributed to this, however things seemed to go from bad to worse when it was revealed that the film would not be released for critics before its release. This is an unprecedented move, especially in modern day Hollywood, and led me to entering the cinema with my expectations significantly lowered. 

As it turns out, Independence Day: Resurgence is not the complete train-wreck that many expected, however it is far from perfect. The loss of Will Smith does hurt the film, as his naturally charisma and likability would have bolstered this story when it really mattered. His character's legacy is carried on by his son, played by Jessie Usher. Usher does nothing with this part, his charisma and screen presence being completely non-existent throughout. His character was boring and unnecessary, and the screen-time he takes up would have better used in the more competent hands of Hunger Games star Liam Hemsworth. Hemsworth has the potential to be a bankable leading man and he once again does a fine job here, though it is beyond me why they will not let him speak in his natural Australian accent. The rest of the cast is fine, however the film was stuffed with so many characters, both new and old, that no-one got the screen-time they truly deserved (cough cough Bill Pullman) nor did many manage to make their performances stand out. No-one apart from Mr Jeff Goldblum. Ok, maybe Brent Spiner, but let's focus on Jeff Goldblum. What a man he is. Jeff Goldblum is an actor who could read you the phone-book and still make it entertaining. In a film where too many of the cast seemed to either take it too seriously or didn't really care, Goldblum is clearly having a lot of fun. He is beautifully over-the-top and his line delivery is so unique, yet when called upon he is by far one of the best serious dramatic actors on the planet. The Pennsylvania native steals every scene he is in, and this should serve as an example to studios of how he can instantly improve whatever he is in (#JurassicPark). Without him this film could have been a lot worse so I think that Jeff Goldblum deserves a lot of credit for the work he does here. 

The CGI work in this film is mostly very good. While not as groundbreaking as the previous instalment (the effects of Independence Day still hold up today) Resurgence does have a lot to offer in terms of realistic looking action and mass-destruction. Indeed, I would actual argue that more focus should have been paid to these destructive moments. Independence Day made a name for itself not because of its dramatic merit but purely because it blew up big landmarks and featured a lot of fun chaotic action. This film should have took itself for what it was: a fun summer popcorn disaster flick. Instead it tries to squeeze in character building moments and a ton of needless exposition, but this is not what Independence Day is all about. It's not something I say very often, but giving the disaster aspect of this movie more respect would have benefitted the product as a whole.

I think ultimately the problem I had with this movie was how hit-and-miss it was. For every good or surprising plot development (such as the revelation that there was an intergalactic consortium fighting against this hostile species of alien invaders) something really stupid would happen (such as Judd Hirsch riding a school-bus full of children into Area 51). For every great character (we simply need a Predator-style spin-off showing the guerrilla warfare waged between DeObia Oparei and the aliens) we get an absolute stinker (God knows what Ryan Cartwright was doing here). And for every-time I thought that the film had really sold me on its destructive quality (the destruction of London in particular was a highlight) it brought me back to something completely unnecessary and boring (Vivica A. Fox, why were you even here?) This made for a frustrating watch and served to consistently take me out of the movie. Director Rolland Emmerich is known for making disaster movies, so I have no idea why he took the gamble here of trying to weave needless and unwanted drama into a movie that should have just been sheer fun.

Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence is not bad. The CGI is good, the audio work is tremendous and it's great to see Jeff Goldblum back on the big-screen after a few baron years. Yet, the film ultimately suffers from not knowing what it is and in taking itself too seriously at times. The first Independence Day was a fun and mindless disaster movie with tons of swagger and charisma. I think ultimately the filmmakers forgot that in making Resurgence. In saying all this, it does have its good moments and if you go in knowing what to expect then I believe you will get your money's worth.

Score: 6.5/10

Film Review- The Conjuring 2

The Conjuring was one of the first horror movies I went to see in cinema and it was an experience I'll never forget. Watching this genre in the confined environment of your own home is one thing, but nothing means the sheer terror that can be elicited from watching a horror on the big screen with excellent audio. The first movie was eerie and extremely clever, lacing its scares with very human characters and little touches of humour. It was clear that this could be the beginning of a new series akin to director James Wan's other recognisable works such as Saw and Insidious. Yet the question going into this film was clear: would this be stricken by the curse of horror movie sequels, or would it stand as a good movie in its own right?  

The latter proved to be correct as The Conjuring 2 more than lived up to the success of the original. This time everyone's favourite paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren are at it again, swapping the first film's setting of a large farmhouse in Rhode Island for a council house in Enfield. The recession really did hit everyone hard. The premise is largely similar to its predecessor with a family seemingly haunted by a demonic spirit seeking the Warren's help to rid themselves of it. However, when you throw in the fact that this is based on a widely documented real-life case (as is another famous investigations which makes up the film's opening) and the fact that this is a story more personal to our central protagonists than the first and you've got yourself a large melting pot of horror movie goodness. 

What makes this film (and indeed the first) stand out to me is how well it has been made in terms of the crystal clear quality of its picture and the on-point level of its sound. Growing up in the era of found-footage horror films (a sub-genre revitalised by the success of the Paranormal Activity series) it is so refreshing to see a movie that can not only compete with this style in terms of jump scares, but indeed surpass in terms of cinematic execution. There are frames in The Conjuring 2 that are simply works of art, which is not surprising considering it was Don Burgess, who was nominated for an Oscar for his work on Forrest Gump, who served as cinematographer in this production. Also the sound-design here is typical of what we as an audience have come to expect from a James Wan production, with silence being his greatest weapon. The score is also very effective Joseph Bishara once again proving himself a very reliable collaborator of Wan's. 

All this aside, what I would say truly make this film feel special to me was the strength of the story between its two leads. Too often in the horror genre are the central protagonists overlooked in favour of the scares or the mythology of the monster or villain they are battling. The Warren's have proven themselves over two movies to be probably the most competent and more lovable horror heroes in cinema. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson have fantastic chemistry on-screen and their relationship comes across very organic and real. The sequel's plot really gives them both a chance to shine, with the underlying story really being about the conflict within Lorraine over wanting to help the family and prevent her husband's demise. Farmiga plays this really well, and her performance at the end of the final act is spellbinding to say the least. Wilson is also fantastic, his natural charisma shining through when he performs a rendition of Elvis Presley's "Falling in Love with You" for the family he is trying to help. I can't say enough about how highly I rate this on-screen pairing except for the fact that, in my humble opinion, they are perhaps two of the most likeable and relatable horror-movie characters bar none and I could easily lead this franchise for many more years to come.

There are a few reasons I would probably rank The Conjuring 2 just under the 2013 original. While it was a very scary film, it didn't fill me with quite the same feelings of dread that it's predecessor did. Also, while the first film didn't show us the demon until very late in the film, this film plays its cards very quickly which takes the fear of the unknown away from the audience. Finally, the visualisation of The Crooked Man was less "Exorcist" and more "Nightmare Before Christmas". Clearly made using special rather than practical effects, this particular personification of the demon looked cartoonish next to its more goulish counterparts. 

Overall, The Conjuring 2 was a really enjoyable horror movie. While not as frightening as the original, it still has enough scares to keep certain audience members awake at night. The story is strong and the cast is great, with the chemistry between the two leads being one of the film's key pillars. Hopefully we see another instalment in the Warren's adventures as this is a franchise that most certainly still has legs.

Score: 8.2/10 

Documentary Review- Where to Invade Next?

Michael Moore's newest documentary "Where to Invade Next?" hit UK screens on a limited release last week, coincidentally just in time for the referendum to determine the UK's future in the European Union. Moore's work has been both acclaimed and criticised, gaining admiration from many for his honest look at the problems with right- wing America while others have criticised his seemingly one-sided approach to his subject matter. 

Moore's latest effort is exactly what you would expect from the socialist director. His work is always refreshingly enlightening, but this release in particular was filled with a subtle sense of optimism his previous works may not have had. The film follows the American's journey as he "invades" nations throughout the world seeking to take from them resources that the U.S. needs to better itself. As it transpires these resources are not physical objects like oil, but rather ideas and policies which Moore feels would make his nation great again.

I would highly recommend seeing this movie for a number of reasons. Firstly, the subject matter that Moore is explores here is so diverse that the film finds new ways to attract your attention throughout. There is no segment that stands out as a "dud" nor could I point out a moment through the two-hour run-time where the movie lost my attention. With the discussion points ranging from free-school meals to women in power, "Where to Invade Next" is a very consistently gripping journey across the globe. Secondly, Moore is an expert at invoking emotion in his audiences. His dry sense of humour is on full display here in what is perhaps his funniest picture yet, and there were times when his unique brand of cynicism and sarcasm literally made some of my fellow audience members double over in laughter. Yet, his humour is always juxtaposed with the more serious points he wants to make, making it easier for him to manipulate the audience into feeling anger, reprehension or even disgust at some of the images he includes points he makes on screen. More than simply an educational experience, "Where to Invade Next" is one that will stay with you well after you leave the theatre because of both the passion and wit of its director.

All things considered, It's good to see Michael Moore back doing what he does best after a brief four-year hiatus. The film's travelogue format means that it contains a plethora of subjects and stories, so there will at least be something that any individual watcher can get out of this documentary. Leaving you with both feelings of bitterness and hope for the future, "Where to Invade Next" is Moore back at the top of his game and hopefully he keeps making films as good as this for as long as he can. When and if he decides to retire, he would be a great miss to the world of documentary filmmaking. 

Watch or Avoid: Strongly Recommend 

Film Review- Warcraft

Warcraft is the worst film I've seen so far this year by some distance.

The plot centres around a conflict between humans and orcs after the Orc Wizard King (if that is his real name) uses green magic that is powered by human life to transport the orcs to the human world through some kind of portal. Or something like that. To be honest, I didn't care much for the story near the end of the third act, paying more attention to the bus times so I could get home in decent time for the Wales game. The general point I want to convey is that the plot is all over the place and also contains several rebel orcs, a human-Orc hybrid, two wizards, several pointless dwarfs and elves and the Eagles from Lord of the Rings... *sigh* This film really was a giant pile of excrement. 

First of all, the way this film was formulated made it seem like it was a bunch of cutscenes from a video game thrown together. So many incredibly short scenes of little consequence follow one after the other, providing either forced exposition or failed attempts at character development which made the whole experience seem very formulaic. If the writing was the problem then I'm shocked this film ever got made. If this was caused by the way the film was edited then it would lead me to suggest that the filmmakers tried to squeeze too much into the movie and, instead of leaving entire inconsequential sequences on the cutting room floor when they realised their error, have cut portions from each scene which in turn causes the film to feel both poorly paced and overly-long. To be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that the writing was the ultimate problem, as the strength of the dialogue would not suggest that this was written by a man of Shakespearean prowess (please see a scene near the film's end where a hippy-wizard and the aforementioned orc-human discuss love and intercourse as an example).

Secondly, the acting for the most part was diabolical. I expect several people to win Razzies for their efforts in this film, and there would be no one more deserving of the honour than one Travis Fimmel. His performance really is quite astounding. Never before have a witnessed a performer over-act as much as Fimmel did here and yet still manage to be completely and utterly boring. The man was a charisma vacuum any time he was on screen and his character, who was meant to be the film's central human protagonist, just ended up coming across as a slightly insane perverse emo. The same goes for Ben Foster, who appears to put as much effort into his performance here as Donald Trump has to try and appear PC. His ability to act seems to get progressively worse as the film progresses, his presence only leading me to question time and time again why I stayed to the end of this movie. There was next to no-one who shined in this production, though I have to give Toby Kebbell credit where credit is due for delivering the film's most (perhaps only) heartfelt performance. In saying this, when your most relatable character is a CGI created monster you know you've got a problem, but don't let that take away from Kebbell who is proving himself to be a force to be reckoned with in the world of MoCap. I pray to God he gets the chance to display his talents again in the future as part of a better production.

Speaking of CGI, it's utilisation here was both this film's best friend and worst enemy. On one hand, the motion capture work with regards to bringing the Orc creatures to life was actually pretty good. On the other, most of the special effects were not. The settings did not feel at all realistic and it was actually pretty jarring seeing humans interact with fictional beings due to their cartoonish appearance. The creatures in franchises like LoTR and the Harry Potter series were for the most part made to look somewhat realistic and their presence was balanced by an array of practical effects and real world settings. Warcraft is a film where a large portion of the acting is done in front of a green screen, and this over reliance on artificial elements does nothing but create a disconnect with the events of the story in the viewers' minds. Coming off of the success of  Star Wars: The Force Awakens in the winter, I said that I hoped it marked the beginning of a new wave of blockbuster filmmaking that would champion the use of practical effects. However, after seeing Warcraft, it is very clear to me that Hollywood has a long way to go before it learns from its mistakes on this matter. 

Overall, Warcraft is a mess. It is an overly-long, soulless, confusing and somewhat offensive waste of my time and money. The film's best element by far is the motion capture work done to the orcs and the acting of the protagonists who were hidden under these special effects. Yet this is just about the only compliment I can give the film. Most of the performances were cringe worthy, the plot was convoluted, and the general feel of the movie was inconsistent. At one stage a character commits what is essentially mass genocide and I felt nothing. This is not a good sign. I understand this was probably made with fans of the game in mind, but I can't help but feel the filmmakers failure to fully explain the mythology of this world could have contributed to their downfall. A smaller scale, simpler story to introduce us to this world and these characters would have been desirable. I could go on, but my message is essentially this: unless you are a fan of these games, I wouldn't recommend seeing Warcraft. 

It might just ruin your day.

Score: 3.5/10

Film Review- The Nice Guys

 Shane Black's "The Nice Guys" is one of the most pleasant experiences I've had in a cinema so far this year. Starring Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe, the film follows two private-detectives who are thrust together by chance and circumstance as they try to uncover the mystery of a missing teen, all the while unravelling a much larger conspiracy along the way. The advertising for this film was spot on with the trailer utterly convincing me that I had to go and see this movie, without it giving too much away in terms of plot that it spoiled my overall enjoyment of the story in the theatres, and this is reflected in the film's strong opening weekend at the box-office. 

The best part of The Nice Guys has to be how strongly written it is on the part of Shane Black. Black is a talented director, but almost no-one writes sharp and witty dialogue the way that he does in Hollywood today. The way he sets up scenarios comes across as utterly natural and thus the conversations that characters have spawning from these situations also appears authentic. One sequence in particular that stands out as an example of how great Black's writing can be is the protest scene. This was my favourite scene in the whole movie wherein the two investigators turn up to question a protest group who are campaigning against the pollution in the Earth's atmosphere. From the group's constant insistence that they couldn't discuss the case with the detectives as they "were dead", to Crowe's quick witted questioning of why the group's gas masks didn't save them from the dirty air, this scene perfectly showcases Shane Black's abilities as a writer of comedy, and this is only a three minute slice of the film. I've yet to see a Shane Black movie I really disliked, and this outing definitely continues that trend. If you have a dry and dark sense of humour, I would highly recommend The Nice Guys due to Black's stellar writing.

The chemistry between the two leads is also very impressive. Gosling and Crowe play off of each other very well, and what is great about these characters is that, while they have their differences, the two are not polar opposites. Gosling's Holland March is a man with little shame. He is a single father with shaky morals who has become jaded with his job, viewing it as solely a way to bring in money after his wife's unfortunate passing. On the other hand, Crowe's Jackson Healy is a man who cares about his work, having found it gives him a sense of purpose. While not yet an officially listened PI, Healy is the straight-man of the double act, most of the time proving himself more competent than his more experienced counterpart. In saying this, it is the internal struggle that both men share that brings them together, as both March and Healy are both trying to rebuild their lives after the loss of their wives has left them damaged and aimless men. The relationship between the two men feels more organic than would be expected from this type of comedy, and the performances from both Gosling and Crowe make it clear that this is a very real friendship we are seeing develop on-screen. Serious props also have to be given to young actress Angourie Rice, who excels in the role of March's daughter Holly. Playing a character who is mature beyond her years, Rice delivers each scathing insult and hilarious one-liner given to her with a perfect deadpan expression and tone, and her acting is never over-the-top as is the inherent problem with most other ambitious child actors. Rice doesn't just deliver a good comedic performance "for a child star", Rice delivers a good comedic performance "period". All-in-all, the future looks bright for this impressive young actress.

I only have a few minor gripes to make about the film. There were a few occasions were the jokes fell flat, which can be expected from any comedy. Yet what the Nice Guys does wrong is that it revisits these failed laughs, highlighting its weaker moments rather than reminding the audience of its highs. Also there is a slight imbalance in the film's plotting. Sometimes there is far too much going on and on some occasions there seems to be nothing really happening. Steadier pacing would have benefitted the story greatly and would have helped to hold the audiences attention 100 per-cent of the time from beginning to end. However, these are small problems as this really is a largely enjoyable film.

The Nice Guys continues a strong year in for all-new original properties. It is an intelligent film that balances great physical comedy with hilarious dry wit. The cast shines in parts which they were born to play, and all-in-all it was a very enjoyable time at the movies. The audience in the screening I went to were buckled in their seats from beginning to end, and I would bet that I've yet to witness a crowd who enjoyed their movie-going experienced as much as the men and women I shared the theatre with for The Nice Guys. While this won't be the most impactful or emotionally hard-hitting movie you will see this summer, it is an enjoyable throwback to the buddy-cop movies of old and a very clever and funny film that could easily spawn a franchise. 

Score: 8.5/10

Top 5- Actors that can Save Faltering Franchises

Very few movie franchises are perfect. I would even go as far to say that I would struggle to name a film series that doesn't have at least one dud amongst its collection. Some go off track very quickly (such as The Matrix) while others experience a more gradual drop in their quality as the years go by (the Shrek series probably being the best example of this). In some cases, there are some franchises that were never that good to begin with (cough cough Twilight). In other words, sometimes it's best to take once beloved franchises out the back and put them out of their misery... But fear not humble citizen, for the world isn't all doom and gloom. Sometimes all it takes is one good casting decision to save a popular series. So, without further ado, here is my Top 5 list featuring actors who could save failing film franchises and how they could do so.

5) John Goodman- X-Men

The X-Men franchise is one of the most consistent and respected series' that the superhero genre has to offer, however there is no denying that interest in the mutants has started to fade away in recent years. While the franchise was rejuvenated with the release of "First Class", ever since then the quality of the storytelling has started to slip, with the newest instalment in the saga especially failing to live up to expectations. Many factors have contributed to this dip in form, but the biggest problem for me has been Brian Singer and company's failure to field a compelling villain in the last few years. What the X-Men franchise needs is a fresh, human villain who can test the team in ways they haven't been challenged up until this point. My pick for this role would be John Goodman. Goodman would star as The Supreme Pontiff, the leader of the anti-mutant religious fanatics The Church of Humanity. Goodman is one of the greatest character actors alive today, and also one of the most nuanced. The Supreme Pontiff is effectively a cult leader, a character that will be required to be both charismatic and terrifying. Goodman could do this in his sleep. In the comics, The Church of Humanity nailed mutants to crosses and burned them outside Xavier's Mansion. If we could bring this grotesque imagery to the big-screen we could have ourselves the most brutal and gritty X-Men film we have ever seen. Nightcrawler of course would be central to this arc, with the story being his anguish at having to choose between his faith and his friends. My idea would involve The Pontiff taking advantage of Nightcrawler's vulnerability and convincing him to aid The Church in their crusade of terror against his own kind. Goodman is the only actor who can handle a role this dark, as well as being the most qualified for the part. The X-Men need a good villain to make them relevant again, and I firmly believe that John Goodman is the man who can make their problems disappear. 

4) Tom Hardy- Alien

The first two entries into the Alien series produced one of the greatest horrors and one of the greatest action movies of all-time respectively, however since then every instalment has either been disappointing at best and woefully bad at worst. Yet it is a franchise that still has potential, and the news that Ridley Scott and Sigourney Weaver will both be returning for the next instalment in the series may be enough to turn the space saga's fortunes around. In saying this, the key to making a strong Alien movie lies in its supporting cast, and that is where Tom Hardy comes in. Hardy could star as Ridley's second-in-command, and the light-hearted charm he showed in films like Inception would be welcome in a franchise not best known for its levity. At his best Tom Hardy can light up a screen, and I think he'd be the perfect balance to Weaver's stoic Ripley in a similar way to what Bill Paxton was in James Cameron's Aliens. Hardy would not be there to outshine Ripley, but to majorly complement one of the most iconic characters in film history. Supporting roles are the lifeblood of classic movies, and Tom Hardy has earned himself a reputation as a man who shines in supporting parts. His Oscar nomination for his performance in The Revenant speaks for itself. Throw in the fact that Hardy is one of the best box-office draws of recent years as well as being a legitimate action star and you've got yourself a match made in movie heaven.

3) Helen Mirren- Terminator

Just hear me out. I swear I'm not crazy. While I know that Dame Helen Mirren is no spring chicken at this point, I can't help but feel she is in a unique position for an actress her age where she could still carry a franchise. My vision would be that she would play a much older Sarah Connor who serves as the leader of the Resistance in the timeline started by the events of the terribly bad Terminator Genisys. The story is simple: Sarah Connor, after years of hopelessly fighting the machines, goes on a suicide mission with some of her most trusted companions to try and take down Skynet once and for all, all the while seeking redemption for the wrong-decisions and sins of her past. Mirren has more than enough charisma to pull off this role, and we can see from her performances in both Red and Eye in the Sky she there is a certain grit and toughness that she can bring to the table when required, as well as being a lady of great poise and sophistication. She is still fit enough to pull off some action work, and the subtle way she emotes is better than most that have ever come before her. The only way to make the Terminator series feel fresh again is to tell a story we haven't yet seen, and I believe the tale of an older Sarah Connor would play out beautifully on the big screen. Just keep Arnold far away.

2) Sean Connery- James Bond

If any film franchise could convince Sean Connery to come out of retirement, it's James Bond. Connery is the most iconic 007 of all time and his inclusion in the next instalment of the saga would create serious intrigue, especially after the lacklustre offering that was 2015's Spectre. The screen legend's role in the story would be speculated right up until the film's release and would be a major selling point in the film's advertising. Will the Scot going to become a mentor of sorts to the new Bond? Is he going to feature in some kind of flashback/flash-forward sequence as a past/future 007? Limited use of Connery in the trailers would only add fuel to this fire, and more and more fan-theories would be made about how Connery would feature in this new flick. In the end, I think that fans would be extremely shocked by the outcome, as I'd have Connery play the villain of the story. The script writes itself: Bond (most likely Tom Hiddleston) is sent after an ex-secret service agent gone rouge (Connery), who's plan is effectively to cause as much damage to major secret-service agencies around the world as he can through acts of terrorism and violence. The story is simple, but therein lies its effectiveness. This is Bond effectively confronting himself, facing off against a man who he could very well become if his life was to ever spin off-track. Connery, for his part, would play a man who has given everything for his country but has been left with very little in return, creating a sympathetic albeit irredeemable antagonist. All-in-all, Connery's character would serve as the toughest mission that the gentlemen-spy has ever faced, as well as creating a very personal and introspective conflict for this film to feed off of. Villains are best when they force our hero to stare into a mirror and see themselves, and that's exactly the effect the legendary Scot would bring to the freshman year outing of our new James Bond.

1) Dwayne Johnston- Transformers

Transformers is perhaps one of the most poisonous franchises in movie history. 2007's initial offering was decent, but the Michael Bay series only went downhill from there. Not even the inclusion of the usually stellar Mark Wahlberg could prevent the latest instalment from becoming one of the worst films I have ever seen. Ever. There is only one man who can save Transformers from extinction: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnston. After all, if there is anyone on this planet who knows how to save a dying property, it is "The Great One". GI Joe, Journey to the Centre of the Earth and Fast and Furious are only examples of a few franchises that have benefitted and thrived from Johnston's involvement. Hell, Journey to the Centre of the Earth 2 earned almost 100 million dollars more than the original. Why is that? I'll tell you why, because the filmmakers took Brendan "Famous in the 90's" Fraser's name off the posters and replaced it with "The Brahma Bull's". Dwayne Johnston is the definitive action star of this decade, and his universal likability is more than enough of a draw on its own to get buts in seats. "But Transformers is beyond saving" I hear you cry? This is untrue. Transformer's is at its best when it focuses more on the action and less on its mythology. You're never going to make Transformers an Oscar winner, let's call a spade a spade. But what you can do is make it a fun summer blockbuster that is inoffensive and action-heavy.

 My plan would be as follows: 1) Fire Michael Bay and bring in an up-and-coming commodity to direct. 2) Bring back franchise veterans Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson, focusing more on the military side of things. 3) Ditch any and all love stories involving uncharismatic teens. 4) Put Dwayne Johnston front and centre. 

What the Transformers franchise should be in a fun time at the theatres, not a mind-numbing movie with a nonsensical story. Dwayne Johnston has proven countless times that he has the ability to not only improve a series but take it in all-new directions, and this is precisely what Transformers needs to do if it is to survive. 

Film Review- Money Monster

The success of actors-turned-directors has varied in Hollywood over the years. Some take to it like a duck to water (with Clint Eastwood, Angelina Jolie and Sir Kenneth Branagh being some of the more high profile names that come to mind) while others (such as Eddie Murphy and William Shatner) have failed to flourish when sat on the director's chair.

After seeing Money Monster earlier this week, I can confirm that Jodie Foster is well on her way to being one of the good ones.

The film revolves around self-proclaimed financial guru and television host Lee Gates (George Clooney). He fronts the show "Money Monster" and his eccentric personality is funnelled by his longtime director, Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts). However, after Lee gives some bad advice on the stock of a major corporation that causes everyman Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell) to lose his family's savings over night, Kyle decides to invade the show and hold Lee at gunpoint, forcing him to find out why the stocks crashed and to uncover a major conspiracy in the process.

Like I said, I really enjoyed the way Jodie Foster has directed this movie. From a filmmaking perspective, Money Monster meshes really well. It is colourful, amplifying the circus-like environment of the show's set while also giving the production a grander feel. The dynamism Foster choses to shoot her scenes with is also impressive as she switches from high/wide shots to close ups with subtle ease, helping the audience to understand the stakes of situation and add depth to her shots, all the while without breaking the viewer's connection with these characters. The TV show setting is also put use, with the perspective of the show's cameras (manned mainly by the film's unsung hero, Lenny the Cameraman) being implemented well and without being overused or coming across as gimmicky. From a visual-filmaking perspective, Money Monster ticks all the boxes.

Yet, the film's plot almost lets this down a bit. The story itself is good and it does try to tackle some important themes, such as the relationship between wealth and power, whether it's right for the poor to blame the rich when life doesn't go their way, and what happens when a man is forced to confront his dilutions about himself head on. Yet it just doesn't hit these points home hard enough. It would be like a musician playing all the right notes but just slightly out of time. The story also does veer off track from time-to-time, with subplots involving Caitriona Balfe (star of Outlander) and Giancarlo Esposito (Gus from Breaking Bad) feeling more like an excuse to take a toilet break, and nowhere near as exciting as the main story. I can't help but feel the film would have been even better than it was if it had stuck to the confines of the studio environment a bit more rather than paying attention to what was going on outside it.

However, minor plot grievances didn't prevent me from enjoying this film and that is mainly due to the stellar acting that was on display. Roberts, Esposito, Balfe and most members of the supporting cast (shout-out to the two high European guys with Yoda voices) give stellar performances, yet it is Clooney and O'Connell who steal the show. O'Connell perfectly portrays both sides of his character: a man pushed to his breaking point and a decent person who wants to make a difference. His character's motivations, while arguably initially selfish, end up being pretty noble and self-sacrificial and the English born actor portrays his characters journey from a gun-raving lunatic to a man with a purpose with such beautiful ease. Only the veteran Clooney can top O'Connell's performance. Clooney is so seasoned at this point that the subtle things he does can go under appreciated. His performance here on the surface may appear to be of a self-obsessed man who has become engrossed in his own fame, but in reality this is far cry from the entertaining role he played in Hail Ceasar. Clooney has thoroughly thought out the character of Lee Gates and he squeezes every bit of comedy and tragedy he can out of it in his performance. He portrays Gates as pathetic, a cringeworthy man who lies to himself daily about his inner-happiness. Take the scoreboard scene in the middle of the film's second act as an example of what the former ER star can do when he lets go dramatically. George Clooney is one of Hollywoods best dramatic leading men, and he reminds us why here with a powerhouse performance which many will take for granted. 

Overall, Money Monster is a good film that raises the stock (pardon the pun) of all the people involved in the making of it. It announces Jodie Foster's arrival as a director to be reckoned with after years in the wilderness, it continues what could turn out to be a banner year in the career of the George Clooney after yet another standout performance, and it also features note-worthy performances from all of its supporting cast. The story is best when it focuses what's happening inside the studio and not outside it, with the chemistry between the two leads being the film's main spark. Other sub-plots do fall flat at times, but the filmmaking elements are so strong that Money Monster can be forgiven for the minor failings it makes in its story.

Score: 8.2/10