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

Film Review- Captain America: Civil War

The Russo Brother have done it again.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe will no doubt go down as a triumph is cinematic storytelling. Yet, it wasn't until 2014, six years after the franchise was originally launched, that Marvel found a way to make the character of Captain America interesting, with The Russo's initial effort "The Winter Soldier". Winter Soldier was less a super-hero movie and more of a spy thriller, with greater similarities to a the Bourne franchise than 2012's "Avenger's Assemble". This pair of siblings from Ohio had breathed life into Marvel's most stale character, so it is understandable that when it was announced that they would be taking on the infamous "Civil War" story-arc for the star-spangles superhero's third big screen outing, fans lost their minds. 

These fans will not leave the cinema disappointed.

Civil War is a political thriller featuring superheroes. I'm going to say this right off the bat: it's up there with the greatest the genre has ever seen because of the heart it has at the core of its story. Captain America: Civil War is a very human story, one which makes these character's relatable in a way past instalments haven't really been able to do. The relationships between these characters have been so clearly defined in the past films up until this point that when you finally see them tumbling down, it really does pack an emotional punch. The film's marketing has heavily focused on making the audience choose a side before entering the theatres (#TeamCap #TeamIronMan et al) yet when you finally see the film, all preconceived notions over which character is right will suddenly become less black and white. The Russo's have crafted a film that presents both side's views as equally valid, so much so that I left the cinema with a different perspective on the action than my friends did. It is a cinematic achievement in the sense that no movie in the superhero genre has packed this much emotional punch or gave each of its character's (except one or two who we'll get to later) this much depth. From a storytelling perspective, this film is near flawless.

The action sequences are also fantastic. Following on from their previous efforts more grounded and violent chronography, Civil War offers the viewer a vast selection of marvellous set pieces that are well worth the price of admission alone. Without going in to too much detail (this is a movie I don't want to spoil at all) the film has two main fight scenes that will go down as the film's most iconic moments. First up, the moment that both sides clash at the airport in the film's second act. Talk about great direction. Despite having a dozen character's to keep up with, this fight scene showcases each and every character's abilities. Tinged with the right amounts of humour to balance the emotional gravitas behind it, this is a sequence that will go down as one of the greatest superhero brawls of all time. Hands down. Yet, the film's best fight scene does not feature more than three characters: Tony Stark, Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes. I'm using their real names as that is how personal this fight is. There is one word to describe it: brutal. To say anymore would ruin the story, but let me just say that (and this will become evident as soon as you enter the theatre) that a happy ending is not possible for any of the characters involved. 

Yet, no review of Civil War would be complete without talking about the film's mark-out moments. The introduction of Black Panther was amazing. Chadwick Boseman's fiery performance as the righteous superhero actually made me excited for a movie I was previously impassive about, and I can't wait until 2018 to see him get the spotlight on his own. Tom Holland's Spider-Man is a revelation. Much like Ben Affleck in Batman v Superman, Holland has already staked his claim as possibly the best on screen web-slinger yet in relatively little screen-time. More than being an excellent standalone, Civil War has made me anticipate their future projects more, and it deserved plaudits for that. 

Being perfectly honest, to say the movie has flaws would be nitpicking. The high stakes could have led to a bit more of a payoff and some characters involvement does feel unnecessary and forced (Ant-Man and Hawkeyes in particular) but these are minor problems that do not effect the overall quality of the product as a whole. Civil War is a movie with great emotional gravitas, something all too often missing from superhero films. The action is great and the acting, especially from the previously mentioned Tom Holland and Marvel's biggest commodity Robert Downie Jnr, is stellar. The Russo Brother's have shown they are not a Marvel one-hit wonder, but the new torch-bearers of this juggernaut of a franchise, taking the mantle from the very talented Jon Favreu and Joss Weadon. 

Civil War is the summer blockbuster we deserve and, while it does still have Marvel's patented brand of humour, it sets up Phase Three as a significantly darker period in the studio's history. All things considered, it could be a very welcome change.

Score: 9.1/10

Film Review- Eye in the Sky

For me, Eye in the Sky is the biggest surprise of 2016 thus far. 

Made for under 20 million dollars, the film's marketing was minimal and its release was originally limited to small amount of theatres across the U.S. From what I had seen of the movie, I expecting some form of popcorn action/war film. However what I got was one of the best and most tense thrillers of the 2010's which leaves you second guessing the outcome from beginning to end, with inventive direction and quality acting sprinkled on top for good measure. 

Essentially the plot revolves around an operation to capture extremists in Kenya. Colonel Powel (Helen Mirren) leads the operation, with a variety of other military personnel and government officials involved. However, the mission takes a turn when the objective changes from "capture" to "kill", and a political, legal and moral debate rages as a young girls life hangs in the balance.

Firstly, Eye in the Sky really in a perfect example of how to write an ensemble. There are over 15 central characters in the film, and each of them feel perfectly services and fleshed out, giving each member of the cast a lot to play with. Aaron Paul, Batkhad Abdi, Iain Glen, Jeremy Northam, Richard McCabe, Monica Dolan and young Aisha Takow are all very strong in their roles, with some (such as Dolan) bringing real strength and gravitas to what could have essentially been a throwaway part in the hands of another actor. However, special mention has to be made to the two all-time greats who deliver some of their finest work in this film: Helen Mirren and the late Alan Rickman. Both portray hardened soldiers, both veterans of war. Mirren is the slightly hotheaded Colonel, hot on the trail of a woman she has hunted her entire career. Mirren perfectly illustrates the Colonel's desire to silence this threat, all the while without making her character unrelatable. Rickman plays a similar part, and some of his most brilliant work here comes when he clashes with Monica Dolan's idealistic MP (especially in a scene near the film's end where Dolan questions whether Rickman's General understands the costs of the decisions he's made that day). Rickman was a class act, and that is more than evident in what will be remembered as one of his last performances. 

Yet, this film is only complimented by the great work of its actors. The truly impressive thing about Eye in the Sky is the way that it has been filmed. Director Gavin Hood use of the camera in this film is great. Characters are mostly shot at very close quarters, tricking the audience into sympathising with each of them, which in turn makes the audience feel emotionally torn with regards to decision they have to make. Alternatively, his use of shots from the drones point of view make us look at the situation from a much more practical lens, allowing the audience to form their own opinions on the situation at hand. There is a point near the end where Hood quickly switches between these two perspectives and, combined with a timely use of sound, easily creates the film's most visually powerful moments. Six years on from the unequivocal failure that was "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", Hood has put himself on the map as an extremely impressive visual storyteller who and a man who can sprinkle absolutely beautiful moments of humanity into his work.

I did have one minor criticism of the film in that I felt it's ending should have been more ambiguous. While I do think it did do a good job in wrapping up each of these character's stories nicely (especially in the case of Alan Rickman's character), I do feel it should have left the ultimate fate of young Alia up in the air, as the emotional crux of the movie up until that point was whether to take a gamble with her life or not. I feel that not to have seen what the result of that gamble was would have been far more impactful and would have left me as a filmgoer mulling over the consequences of these characters decisions more than I actually did leaving the theatre.

This aside, Eye in the Sky really is a gem of a movie. Gavin Hood's direction is so strong and his storytelling so subtle that it makes even the film's less tension filled moments still wonderfully entertaining. Little moments like Alan Rickman looking in a toy shop for the "correct" Annabelle doll or Iain Glenn rushing to the loo due to a bad bout of food poisoning really humanise the characters for western audiences, while our time spent with Alia in Kenya as she plays with her hoola-hoop in secret remind us just how lucky we really have it. Overall, it is an emotionally interactive roller-coaster that will have you questioning you're own moral compass constantly throughout.

Score: 8.9/10

TV Review- Daredevil Season 2

Daredevil Season 1 was a fantastic introduction to the Netflix branch of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was dark. It was gritty. It wasn't afraid to take risks or tackle adult themes. It had strong action. It had a plethora of well-devoloped characters. It had an extremely compelling villain. In short, it was many have wanted the Marvel films to be more like for a long time, and it received rave reviews from critics and viewers alike. Jessica Jones debut season continued this trend, adding an extra layer of sultriness to this already fantastic formula. It's safe to say that expectations were high for Matt Murdock's sophomore outing. Thank the Lord then that everything you loved about the first season is present in this second season of Daredevil and, though the story can be a tad convoluted at times, there is still plenty to marvel at in this gem of a television series.

First and foremost, the cast is fantastic. Charlie Cox's Daredevil is the corner-stone of this show. Stoic, focused, ruthless and passionate, Cox's portrayal of Matt Murdock helps to illustrate both the character's calm nature and his rage-inducing internal conflict. In costume and out of it, there isn't much more to say about Cox's performance as the Devil of Hell's Kitchen except for one thing: it is bang on the money. Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Scott Glenn and Rosario Dawson (fresh off her guest-role on sister series Jessica Jones) are all also welcome returns to the ensemble cast, with Henson in particular bringing a new found likability to the role that was missing in parts of the first season. However, it is the new additions to the show that manage to shine the brightest. Élodie Yung is extremely entertaining as Daredevil's most famous associate Elektra, putting in a performance that makes Jennifer Garner's look like horse-manure. While her character traits can be inconsistent at times (we'll get the writing in a minute), Yung uses this to her advantage, playing the character with an underlying air of unpredictability that complements her actions. Yung's greatest strength is in when she plays to the characters insecurities, and it's Elektra's more tender moments that make her stand-out amongst an already stacked cast. The same could be said for the seasons MVP: Jon Bernthal in his role as Frank Castle AKA The Punisher. His turn as the brutality violent vigilant has to been seen to be truly appreciated. Bernthal is cast perfectly in the role, effectively portraying a man who sees the world in black and white, and will do anything to seek revenge for his deceased wife and children. The former Walking Dead star is forced to wear many hats in this season, much like Yung, however he pulls off everything that is required of him without a hitch. Equally as compelling as a pained widower and a sadistic seeker of sweet revenge, Bernthal is the glue that holds this season together. I don't want to delve into his arc too deeply to avoid spoilers, but Jon Bernthal's performance is as good a reason as any to watch Season 2 of Daredevil.

Its stellar ensemble aside, what Daredevil has come to become renowned for is its amazing set-pieces and extremely well-choreographed fight sequences. As in Season 1, the action is Daredevil is realistic, gritty and mostly close-combat, a far-cry away from what the MCU is doing on the big screen where the action lacks any real pathos (with the possible exception being Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Each fight sequence involving Daredevil tells a story and is almost like poetry in motion, as was the case in the debut year. In the third episode of this season, we are treated to an exceptionally choreographed stairwell action scene. It is a four-minute continuous shot of Daredevil making his way down an apartment complex and beating up the Irish mob. Apart from just being badass, it is a true cinematic achievement, topping the hallway fight scene that set the standard the previous season in my opinion.

The only thing that really lets season 2 of Daredevil down a bit is its lack of an over-arching story. The writing for the most part in good episode-by-epidode, in terms of the dialogue all round and as self-contained stories in their own right. However, the plot as a whole just feels a bit aimless. At the start, it appears as though the main story of the season was going to be Daredevil versus The Punisher yet, by the time the finale swings around, Daredevil finds himself fighting upwards of 100 ninjas alongside Elektra. Season 1's story was so good because it was simple; it was Daredevil (fighting corruption in Hell's Kitchen) against the Kingpin (who was that corruption personified). With Season 2, it all gets a bit convoluted and messy and this does have a somewhat negative impact on the season, despite it still being very much enjoyable and entertaining.

All things considered, Season 2 of Daredevil is well worth a watch. Despite the story not being as clearly defined as in Season 1, the individual elements are so strong with this show that you will find enjoyment in it if you take it episode-by-episode rather than a collective whole. The performances are great, the action is stunning, and the Marvel/Netflix coalition continues to reap results.

Watch or Avoid: Watch

Film Review- Midnight Special

Midnight Special, the latest offering from "Mud" director Jeff Nichols, is a science-fiction drama starring Michael Shannon, Kirsten Dunst and Adam Driver that has released to positive critical acclaim while only earning a modest amount at the box-office. The film follows Shannon's attempts to protect his son, who is gifted with supernatural abilities, as they journey across the U.S. to find the place that the boy continuously prophesied about in his "sermons". While the film is ambitious and the basic concept is promising, the overall product is disappointing from a storytelling perspective.

This is mainly due to the scale of the story being told within this film. Delving into the realms of cult communities, estranged families, FBI investigators and other worlds, Midnight Special tries to wear many hats, and they don't mesh well together. Nichols tries to juggle sub-plots while servicing each of his talented cast, yet the limited 111minute run time makes this nearly impossible. The film does not take enough time to introduce us to this world and to our main players, while simultaneously taking an unusual amount of time to really build up some steam and out all the pieces in place. In my opinion, this story would have benefitted from being made as a TV mini-series, as it really would have allowed the filmmakers more time to set the stage and deeper explain the mythology, all the while offering a very talented cast more time to explore their characters and show off their acting chops. 

And that is possibly my biggest gripe with this film: it completely wastes the good work done by its fantastic cast. Michael Shannon as dedicated father Roy is fantastically stoic, putting in a superbly understated performance as is to be expected from the Kentucky native at this point. Adam Driver also impresses as FBI investigator Paul Sevier, while Kirsten Dunst, Joel Edgerton, Sam Shepard and child actor Jaeden Lieberher all also deliver very strong performances. Yet, we are not given enough reason to care about them or their relationships with each other due to their rushed story-arcs. Driver in particular is criminally underused here. His character's arc is never explored to its fullest potential and thus it feels out of place, despite Driver's best attempts to bring some depth to his character. In all honesty, Driver's misuse is pretty much typical of most characters in Midnight Special, with no characters journey really coming to a satisfying conclusion.

Yet the disjointed storytelling isn't my only problems with this effort. While technically speaking Midnight Special is mostly very strong, the special effects are quite dismal. Now, I understand the film may not have had the biggest budget ($18,000,000 to be exact) but, to be quite frank, that is no excuse for how bad some scenes in this film come off. One shot in particular looks as though it has been pulled straight out of a "Sims" video game. And not an up-to-date version at that. Think circa 2003. Many people go to the cinema to escape reality, however this film's dodgy visual effects work took me completely out of the story Nichols and company were trying to tell, which contributed to my dislike for this film.

In conclusion, Midnight Special could have been great. Sharing similarities in plot and tone with Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", the film was built around a strong original concept and could have really been something special (pardon the awful pun). But what we ultimately get is a rushed and poorly edited story which has too many ingredients at its disposal but not enough room on the plate. Like I said, a mini-series would have served this story a lot better than a feature length. Ultimately it left me leaving the theatre caring nothing for what I'd just seen, and that is, in my opinion, one of the worst sins a film can commit. A good original concept squandered by an over-stuffed film.

Score: 5.8/10