Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (in 4DX) CONTAINS SPOILERS

Year: 2019

Genre: Sci Fi

We have to get one thing straight before we say anything else. The weight that this film carried on its shoulders is nothing short of staggering. It is intended to be the culmination of something that started way back in the 70's, has gathered a global fan base of one in three people who use the internet, and is quite probably the most popular science fiction franchise in the world. 

No pressure there then...

I'd went into this after watching several lukewarm spoiler free reviews on YouTube expecting the worse, but secretly hoping for the best. I walked out of it pleasantly surprised. It's nowhere near as bad as the fanboys will have you believe. It does however, suffer from some huge continuity problems that I will elaborate on in this review. 

The core problem with the sequel trilogy is consistency of character arc. 'The Force Awakens' was Disney's Christmas present to the fans after buying the rights from George Lucas, and they played it completely safe with a film that was almost a carbon copy of  'A New Hope' in terms its themes. JJ Abrams walks away with a big pay cheque, the film makes billions, and the fans get something close to chasing that first ever Star Wars high. 

Along comes Rian Johnson, who disagrees with every decision Abrams made in 'The Force Awakens', and makes a film that divides fans the world over. I for one didn't think 'The Last Jedi' was a bad film, I just really didn't agree with what Johnson did with the character of  Luke Skywalker. As this was a core theme of the film, I can see why someone passionate about Star Wars on a level much higher than me didn't like it either. 

So what happens now? Top Disney brass see how much hate their second film gets, and decide that they need to pay JJ Abrams even more money to direct the final film of their trilogy. What you're left with, is a film that contains even more fan service than 'The Force Awakens', but simply cannot undo the continuity problems caused by Rian Johnson's decisions in 'The Last Jedi'.

The most obviously staggering problem is Emperor Palpatine. Put quite honestly, I felt like he was shoehorned into the film because Johnson killed off Snook. We all know he was killed off in 'Return of the Jedi', but his return is never explained to the audience, and we are just led to believe he has been somehow resurrected by means unknown. I really didn't like what they did with his character. I know he has huge dramatic effect in the saga, but he was killed off nearly 40 years ago.

If they'd done something different with Luke in 'Last Jedi', and perhaps built up Snook a bit more not killing him off, this would have been a completely different review.

Contrastingly, the character of Kylo Ren has an excellent character arc, and I really liked what they did with him bar the kiss right at the end of the film. I can't quite put into words why, but that just seemed so out of place and unexpected, that I felt it was also shoehorned in for dramatic effect.

As you would expect, as far as cinematic spectacle goes this is probably the best thing you will see this year. I couldn't fault the CGI, and I honestly felt that this was John Williams best ever work in terms of scoring a film. It was like listening to his greatest hits. Trust me, you simply won't get the same feeling being a cheapskate watching a CAM copy of this at home on a tiny screen, and I'm really glad I didn't.

So what is 4DX, and would I recommend it ?

It was my first ever experience of it, and I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest. Trying to focus on 3D is difficult at the best of times, and it's made even more difficult feeling like someone is stood behind you rattling your chair. Early on, I honestly felt physically motion sick trying to concentrate, but got used to it after half an hour or so. Jets of air blow on the back of your head, but it just feels like someone is stood behind you at McDonalds blowing through a straw. At times, you'll feel a kick in your chair, but this just feels like the person behind you is giving you the boot. I'd like to experience a horror in 2D 4DX, but I won't be rushing back anytime soon.

In short 'The Rise of Skywalker' is a valiant attempt where everyone involved did a stellar job, but just couldn't undo the continuity problems Rian Johnson caused in his fan hated sequel. Disney should have had a plan before they set out. I recommend you go and see it. You'll enjoy it, but if you're my age you'll wonder where the Emperor suddenly appeared from too.

3.5 stars.

Joker

Year : 2019

Genre : Comic Book 

After seeing Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', there were many (including myself) that felt there wasn't an actor on the planet that could top Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. He brought something completely new to the role, and it was a fresh spin on a character that was more often than not a rehash of how Cesar Romero felt the character should be played in the 1960's TV series. I include Mark Hamill's voice overs, naturally.

I went into 'Joker' reserving judgement.

I'd also read that the film played fan service to the likes of James Holmes. He was the shooter who killed / injured over seventy people in Colorado after a screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises' in 2012.

Again, I reserved judgement until after watching the film.

We went to see it at Star City in Birmingham, courtesy of Cara's old man buying me a cinema voucher. Three weeks after release, and it was still packed to the rafters. The media reporting that it's STILL the number one film in the USA isn't an exaggeration, trust me !!!

Make no mistake, Phoenix's portrayal of a man descending into madness is an Oscar worthy performance. It really is excellent, and right from the outset the audience knows that this is a man who is on a knife edge. There have been comparisons with Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver', which I think Phoenix deserves.

Would 'Joker' inspire another Colorado shooting ?

My honest answer would be to say yes. As much as Joaquin Phoenix has denied it in interviews, this is the study of a loner who essentially rises to fame by killing the bullies and oppressors in his life. The character is a slowly simmering pressure cooker just ready to blow, and the film plays fan service to that on several occasions. This isn't a criticism of the film though, this essentially, is the nature of the beast playing a character who put quite simply, loses the plot.

Is Phoenix a better Joker than Heath Ledger ? You can't compare the two roles. Batman plays no part in this, and as such it's more of character study. Phoenix is really only the Joker for the last twenty minutes of the film, so essentially, comparisons are odious.

I recommend this film as a Joker origins story. It easily stands against Nolan's 'Batman Begin's' that was the Batman origins story, but I worry it plays fan service to the hoards of loners who will lap up a loner relishing in crowds worshipping an anti hero.

Four stars.

Footnote from Cara....

I have slightly different thoughts on this film. In no particular order...

• The first hour is a total snooze fest and I was disappointed The Joker wasn’t featured for longer. It only really hots up when The Joker comes into being. 

• I felt an element of sympathy for Arthur - he is a survivor of childhood abuse and struggles to cope with adult life. One could argue he is a victim of the failing society that is Gotham. Conversely, he then goes on, as The Joker, to become a driving force behind that very same failing society. 

• The Joker meets a young Bruce Wayne. This scene has great significance and I found it the most interesting part of the film, but... what type of age difference is there between these characters?! This led me to ponder the possibility that time travel exists in Gotham; perhaps Superman left Metropolis and flew around the planet anti-clockwise to turn back time. Or perhaps Arthur really is 3 decades older than Bruce. Who knows, eh. 

• The thing I appreciated most about this film is that Arthur had ‘normal’ teeth. Hollywood and America are obsessed with dazzling pearly whites and, as someone with less-than-perfect nashers myself, it made a refreshing change. I suspect deliberately giving him imperfect teeth is a visual representation of his imperfect character (in the way classic baddies are portrayed deformed or ugly or dressed in black), but I liked it. Normal teeth brought a subtle element of believable realism to the character. (Ray the scavenger in Star Wars take note!) Normal teeth FTW!

Overall, nowt to write home about. 2 stars. 

Captain Marvel

Genre : Superhero

Year : 2019

You only have to take a look of the balance of genders in Marvel's 'Avengers' series of films to see that in the main, female superheroes are the exception rather than the rule. Throughout their existence, comics have primarily featured male protagonists, probably because the target audience is male and the males who read them can't relate to a female protagonist. After 2004's 'Catwoman' infamously won the worst film award at the Razzies in 2005, and 2005's 'Electra' was a huge flop, women have always played second fiddle to the men when it comes to playing superheroes on the big screen.

That all changed however with DC's 'Wonder Woman' in 2017. Here was an alpha female in a film whereby the men played second fiddle to an incredibly strong female lead, and the film was a huge commercial success. Marvel knew they had to match it, but didn't really have anything to match it with.

Then along came Captain Marvel.

Honestly knowing very little about the main character, other than she is what Joe Public would term a 'B Lister' when it comes to comics, I had little or no expectations walking in this other than the odd review online saying it was just ok and I shouldn't expect much from it. I must admit, during the first act, I began to see where these negative reviews had come from, as the pace is very slow, and little or no explanation is given as to why Brie Larson's character is where she is to begin with. The audience are thrown into a run of the mill sci-fi scenario, which without wanting to sound overly sexist,  I can honestly see alienating many females early on who had gone to see Marvels answer to Gal Gadot.

Captain Marvel is essentially an origins story, and during the 2nd act, the audience are drip fed the reasons for her powers. The sci-fi element of it however, still strongly prevails throughout, and lacks the humanitarian element of Gadot's Diana Prince in the backdrop of the first World War. Aliens and spaceships play a huge part in 'Captain Marvel', and I can't help but think Marvel studios missed the boat on appealing to the female members of the audience by focusing on this.

It isn't until the third act that Larson's character really comes into her own. Marvel does a spectacular job of showcasing this character as essentially the female equivalent of Superman, and it shows. It was great to see Larson's character fully suited up in her official Captain Marvel rigalia and I really look forward to seeing the character later this month in 'Endgame'. 

Those of you who who's seen Gareth Edward's 'Rogue One' will know that replacing actors with CGI replacements can be a very ropey affair. Special mention in this case, has to go with the team that have recreated a younger Samuel L Jackson and put him on the big screen. Essentially, the character is CGI throughout the film, and it's done way better than anything the Star Wars universe has thrown at us up until now. While not quite perfect, it's nowhere near as bad as the recreation of Peter Cushing, and entirely commendable. 

I enjoyed 'Captain Marvel', more than I thought I would. That's not to say it will appeal to females like Gadot's Diana Prince did, purely because sci-fi, space ships and aliens are core themes. 

Nevertheless, come the end of the film, she really is a force to be reckoned with. 

I give it four out of five, only for the slow paced beginning.