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. 

The Meg

Year : 2018

Genre : Action / Sci Fi / Thriller 

I could count the list of Summer blockbusters this year on one hand. It's been an incredibly quiet one really, and with the exception of Infinity War and MI Fallout, audiences haven't really been treated to much in terms of cinematic spectacle. It stands to reason that given this drought, it wouldn't take much to satisfy an audience that is hungry for leave your brain at home fodder, and this is kind of why 'The Meg' has luckily landed on its feet. Current opening weekend box office takings stand at $32 million, hands down beating  Dwane Johnson's 'Skyscraper' which was released only a few weeks ago, had a similar target audience, and earned comparatively less. 

The plot, as it is, follows a group of scientists who encounter a prehistoric 25 metre long Megalodon shark beneath what was previously considered the deepest part of the ocean, the Mariana trench. Disaster ensues, and as luck would have it, Jason Statham is the only man in the whole of the Far East capable of rescuing their submarine. What follows is a schlocky, tongue firmly in cheek B-movie that knows full well it is a B-movie, and pretends to be nothing else more than that.

It is startling obvious from the outset that Chinese media company Gravity pictures, having invested heavily in the films production, engineered 'The Meg' towards an Asian audience. While there's an argument to be had that the film is simply Speilberg's 'Jaws' on steroids, it's huge monster from the bottom of the sea roots lend themselves far more to Japanese pop culture Gojira aka ‘Godzilla’ than anything that tried to gobble up Richard Dreyfuss in the mid 70's. It is no coincidence that Jason Statham was chosen for the male lead, as bald men are assumed to have high testosterone and be alpha male types in Asian culture. Themes that are important in Asian culture are evident throughout. High achievement and appeasing one's parents play a part in one of the protagonist’s character arcs, and such themes wouldn't even see the light of day in a completely American funded production. There is even a character that has a hairstyle lifted straight out of the Anime series ‘Gundam Wing’.

None of these observations are criticisms, and they make for a refreshing change having not seen much original Asian cinema.  

Driving home following our Sunday afternoon screening of this film, there were a couple of things I felt unhappy with. Statham does his best with what is essentially a very weak script, but the Chinese actors were incredibly wooden, and made no effort whatsoever to raise their game. Whether this is intentional given the nature of the film, or whether they simply can’t deliver performances in anything other than their mother tongue is unclear. I am inclined to think however, it is the latter.

Secondly, and I know this is a bit unfair, but some of the set pieces really do require the audience to suspend disbelief.  Yes, I get that this film isn’t supposed to be taken seriously, but throughout the film’s final act, I sat there thinking that Director John Turteltaub had taken things from the moderately believable, to the ridiculous, to the utterly utterly stupid. If you go into it expecting Jaws with better CGI, you will leave disappointed.

Niggles aside, this is perfectly watchable, and the CGI is particularly impressive too, noticeably better than 2016's 'The Shallows', where although the Spielbergian suspense was there, the CGI let the film down badly. 

Any film where Statham has the chance to punch things is a winner in my book, and 'The Meg' is no exception to the rule.

No Sharknado, but no Jaws either. Three stars.

Ready Player One

Year: 2018

Genre: Science Fiction

HIS opinion

Most of us forget (or had no idea) that virtual reality is in it's second iteration. Technology that was originally released in the very early 90's has had a second bite at the cherry and although it's come on huge leaps and bounds, is still 'not quite there yet'. Much like big screen 3D it still has it's limitations, but we all know that one day technology that completely and utterly immerses the user in another world will be commonplace. 'Ready Player One' envisages that day. 

You'd be forgiven for assuming that Spielberg had moved on from making the crowd pleasing popcorn fests of the eighties and early nineties. Most of his recent work has been heavily politically influenced, and although 2015's 'Bridge of Spies' and more recently 2018's  Oscar nominated 'The Post' have received critical acclaim, you could hardly place them in the same genre as 'Jurassic Park', or 'Jaws'. One glimpse of the Struzanian influences on the poster for 'Ready Player One' though, and the audience knows they are in for a completely difference type of  fairground ride. 

Based on Earnest Cline's 2011 novel and set in 2045, 'Ready Player One' is set in a world I personally found very reminiscent of Neill Blomkamp's 'District 9'. The population has resorted to escaping the desolation of these slum-like cities by engaging in the virtual reality world of the Oasis, a sort of massive multiplayer online world where users have their own avatar and gamer tag. In this world there are three secret keys, coded by one of the original developers and the gamer who finds them gains full ownership of this world combined with a rather large amount of money in the form of company shares. The film's protagonist, Wade Watts, tasks himself with finding these keys and along the way battles a company intent of monetizing the Oasis and profiteering from it's users. Right from the outset, the films sucker punches modern publishers and their drift towards micro transactions will not be missed on the gamer portion of the audience. 

As a purely visual form of entertainment 'Ready Player One' is a success. If there was one regret I would take away from the film it would be that I didn't see it in IMAX 3D. It is simply stunning to look at, and the colour palette it utilities is vast. Start chipping away at the ground breaking CGI however, and cracks start to appear. Character development is almost none existent, and the films protagonist goes through emotional changes that happen so quickly they are comically unrealistic. 

As you may have seen from the trailer, one of the big draws for the film is the number of nods to other franchises it contains. I must admit, this was one of the aspects that drew me towards it as well. The problem with this however, is that Spielberg tries cater for the younger AND older audience members, and what you're left with is references to contemporary Japanese Anime mish-mashed together with films and game consoles from the mid 1970's. It becomes confusing, and the films wanton desire to throw every single character license it could afford at the audience looses it's appeal, very very quickly. 

Over reliance on CGI and lack of focus on character development is sadly the Achilles heel of this film and it really is a shame. We know that it's not that Spielberg can't do it, but in 'Ready Player One' he just seems to want to dazzle younger audience members with cultural references whilst older audience members sit there feeling puzzled. Spielberg need look no further than James Cameron's 'Avatar', a thematically very similar film to see that ground breaking visuals and good character development can, and have gone hand in hand in cinematic history.   

Not disappointing, but a hardly jaw dropping 2.5 out of 5. 

HER opinion

Spoiler warning: plot/ending discussed. Read at your own risk!!!!

I spent this entire film thinking WTF. I knew before watching that I wasn't the target audience, but this turned out to be the biggest understatement ever. In contrast, my teenage nephews - right up their street. I can imagine them talking about it with friends at school for days!

I felt like I was watching a film written for teenagers which wasn't quite sophisticated enough to appeal to a non-video gaming adult audience. I found the storyline hugely predictable, it was almost like watching an episode of Scooby Doo where a gang of kids follow clues to nail the baddie. Especially one of the final scenes involving a police car (trying hard not to drop any spoilers here folks, but it's so predictable you can probably guess what I mean anyway). I almost expected the baddie to utter the immortal 'I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids'. In fact he should have - the film missed out on a killer pop culture reference there!!

At times it was cheesy, corny and one huge cliche. I actually groaned at the cheesiness a few times and it brought to mind '50 Shades' - and that's saying something! The big baddie was almost a pantomine villian, especially his corporate-looking avatar and unbelievable password. Oh and don't get me started on one of the other characters - a homage to Garth in 'Wayne's World'?! Hilarious in the 1990s, not quite so in the current day. And what was with the random 'The Shining' scenes??? Isn't 'The Shining' an 18-rated film? Yet 'Ready Player One' is rated 12a, so I don't quite get the mix there. Is the target audience expected to understand the Garth and 'The Shining' references? Or are they aimed at the parents taking their kids to see this at the flicks?

There is a section in the film where characters discuss the possibility that gaming avatars may not be an honest representation of who the players are in real life. But low and behold! Yes, the real people behind the teenage avatars do indeed turn out to be teenagers. Hmm. I understand the film's reluctance to visit the seedy underbelly of this topic, but not quite sure the importance of this mindful messsge will actually stick with the millions of kids watching.

Now, let's find some positives; Couldn't fault the costumes or the cinematography. Very stylish and swish, as expected from a Speilberg blockbuster. And believe it or not, I liked the original premise that the future is distopian so people 'live' in VR instead. I just felt the storyline, script and incessant pop culture references were a little OTT for my liking. The only snippet which held my interest was one character sacrificing themselves and making a hand gesture as they fell. (I am a sucker for self-sacrifice, every time. Whether it's in 'The Walking Dead' or 'Titanic' - you name it, it gets me.)

The ending conveys a message about spending too much time living in video games. Commendable. But somewhat ironic considering the audience has just spent two hours watching a computer game rather than a film. 

I wish I could be more positive about Ready Player One. This review is just my feeble little opinion, after all. I suspect millions will love it and it'll be a rip-roaring success at the box office. It is just not my cup of tea.

Edit - I have just watched the review podcast by BBC film critic Mark Kermode. He said he laughed often, felt uplifted & was emotionally involved with the characters. Humph. I'm obviously missing something here. Shall I give it another chance to win me over? Not on your nelly.

1/5

PS. I feel bad writing such a harsh review. I'm usually an advocate of 'if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all'. Honestly

Peter Rabbit

Year: 2018

Genre : Kids 

I had to twist Mark's arm to see this film and now that we have - I'll be honest - I have mixed feelings. Prepare for a pompous review...

GOOD: 

1. Ignoring the Beatrix Potter heritage, this is an enjoyable stand-alone film in its own right. 
2. The mix of animated and live action characters blends well. No naff or awkward special effects as there are in some of these types of films. 
3. It is funny enough to hold my attention and I chuckled quite a few times. 
4. All but one of the animal voiceovers fit well and sound 'believable'.
5. The bunnies are cute and pigeons are featured. (An underrated bird I always feel gets a raw deal in life.)
6. I enjoyed seeing other BP characters in background cameo roles. A nice touch.

BAD:

1. To link this film to the wonder that is Beatrix Potter's work is such an abomination it is almost blasphimous. The only resembalance is the name of the characters and that Peter Rabbit is naughty. Oh, and Mr McGreggor has a garden. All similarities end there. The story line strays far from the source material, which disappointed me. 
2. There are frequent scenes of (comedic) violence, hardcore partying and even one snippet of a character appearing to be stoned! None of these behaviours ever cracked a mention in any of BP's stories. (Note - I have yet to read the recently-discovered BP story 'Tale of Kitty-in-Boots', so I may be wrong on this. Perhaps I should reserve judement on this point!)
3. The word 'evil' is used a few times, too. I don't think such a strong adjective ever featured in BP's vocabulary.
4. The voiceover of James Cordon is not as well suited as the other animal voiceovers. However, after a while it blends in. It just didn't say 'cute-but-naughty-bunny' to me. 
5. Plus, it felt just plain weird and profoundly wrong seeing PR portrayed in a different illustrator's hand. 

CONCLUSION:

An enjoyable film in its own right if you disregard any BP-related expectations. The film tried too hard to be contemporary and thereby lost the innocence which is the true essence and beauty of BP's stories. And in my opinion, this is why it doesn't match the brilliance of Paddington 2. 

3.5 out of 5

Stephen King's IT

Year: 2017

Genre: Horror 

The original adaption of King's 1986 novel was released in 1990 as a two part television series and eventually became a huge sleeper success on VHS as a three hour movie. The biggest reason behind it's huge cult following was Tim Curry's portrayal of Pennywise the dancing clown. Were you to strip away Curry's charisma and charm from the film, it would probably have never been the run away success that it was back then, and never achieved it's high placing in the annals of horror movie mythos. 

Having been in development since 2009 it makes sense that the producers held back on Pennywise's return for twenty seven years because it ties in with his return in the novel. The trailer was released back in March of this year, and many fans on social media (myself included) took to their comment boxes to vent their anger about Skarsgard's Pennywise . This is not unusual, as it's human nature to resist change. I for one, instantly took a dislike to the character's redesign, but were willing to throw caution to the wind until I had seen the film at the cinema. Have I changed my mind now I've seen it? Well yes, and also no. 

The film opens with an almost scene for scene identical recreation of Georgie's boat going down the storm drain and Pennywise offering to give it him back. This was good, because the audience gets to see the character they've paid money to see very early on in the film. First impressions? Make up looks good, CGI is adequate, and then Skarsgard gives you his interpretation on how Pennywise should sound... 

It was at that point the film lost me. What comes out is Skarsgard doing an impression of Yoda, interlaced with mannerisms VERY reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker from the Dark Knight. Gone was Curry's charisma and wit, and you're given a out of the box character that is unoriginal, and has none of the traits that made Curry's interpretation so iconic amongst horror fans and alike. It's not that I found his character dislikable, I just found him uninspiring and bland. I was dissapointed early on in the film, and this wasn't a good sign. 

Second to Curry's portrayal of Pennywise, the coming of age theme that was core to the first half of the novel and 1990 original was another reason I enjoyed the film first time around. Very much a fan of Rob Reiner's 'Stand by Me', taken from King's 82 novel 'The Body', I knew the film could still partially win me over if that part of it worked. Thankfully, the chemistry between the child actors was perfect, and in particular the final act reminded me of Speilberg's 'The Goonies' and more recently the Duffer Brother's 'Stranger Things'. The child actors are the films strongest asset, and the bring it up from what without them, would be a very generic, scare free, made for the masses horror.  

This was my other gripe with Muschietti's interpretation of the first half of King's novel. It just isn't scary. It has intentionally been given a considerably darker tone than the 1990 version, but it just throws generic scares at the audience. There's nothing in here that the audiences haven't seen a million times before (including a haunted house and a soaked in blood shower scene). Granted, this is lifted directly from the novel, but the way they are filmed is made for the masses, and will disappoint horror fans who are looking for a little bit more than run of the mill scares. 

Taken as a coming of age film, the 2017 interpretation of  'IT' is a success. It benefits from extra scenes that weren't in the 1990 iteration, that explain plot holes to people who have never read the book will be glad to see. It's scored excellently, and the performances from all of the child actors really do shine. 

It just isn't scary. It's supposed to be Stephen King, it's supposed to be scary. It just really, really isn't. 

I'm gonna give it three stars. I wish I could give it more. 

Get Out

Year: 2017

Genre : Social Thriller

I first heard about 'Get Out' on IHorror.com a couple of months back when there were some very loud noises coming out of the States on it's release regarding how good it was. It seem's to have had a very limited release over here the UK, and as it wasn't showing at our regular haunt the Light Cinema, we headed over to nineties haunt Showcase Walsall to see if it actually lived up to the hype. 

'Get Out' opens with black actor Keith Stanfield being followed by a car in a middle class American suburb late at night. As the car slows down, Flanagan and Allen's 'Run Rabbit Run' can be heard coming from inside, and the audience almost instantaneously know that race relations are going to play a big part in the film. Shortly thereafter, the film moves onto introducing the films protagonist Chris Washington, and his 'butter wouldn't melt in her mouth' girlfriend played by Allison Williams. Chris and his other half pay a visit to her parents house during the annual family gathering, but Chris can't help but notice that black people working for her parents, they are unusually submissive in nature and almost robotic in the way they conduct themselves on a day to day basis... 

I honestly can't write anything else about the plot without giving away an absolute bucket load of spoilers. Sorry...

Make no mistake, newcomer to the director's chair Jordan Peel has really pulled out all the stops with 'Get Out' and for a first effort, this is an outstanding piece of cinema. It's not a horror film in the traditional sense of the word, even though it produced by the same guy that was behind 'Insidious' and 'Ouija'. There are no haunted houses here, and I think I counted but one single jump scare. Also, unlike what I call 'made for the masses' horror films, 'Get Out' is broken up with some very funny comedic moments that are a welcome break from the underlying sinister tone of the rest of the film. In terms of structure, this film ticks all the boxes.

At it's core 'Get Out' is a social commentary about the post Obama covert racism of middle class America. Director Peel is fully aware that as well as the 'out and out proud to be white' Deep South Trump voters, there are swathes of middle classes who although do not openly profess to being racist, still strongly believe that black people are inferior to white, and to this day, belong on a plantation or serving dinner to the liberally racist middle class Trump voter of the Mid West. 

I really enjoyed this film. Its ideas were original, it was unsettling but not a traditional way, and it serves as food for thought for the rest of the world looking in on modern America. An easy five stars, and my favourite film of the year so far. 

Logan

Year: 2017

Genre: Comic Book

There's large contingent who honestly feel that 2016's 'Deadpool' was the Marvel's Studios answer to the hoards of fans growing tired of films aimed at the younger generation. In the media, 'Deadpool' is widely regarded as Marvel's attempt to appeal to the older members of the audience, those tired of the endless CGI skyscraper smashing squeaky clean superheroes that serve no other purpose other than to fill the already bulging bank account coffers of studio executives and alike. Granted, the character of Deadpool swears a lot, but Marvel still played it safe and CGI was still a big part of the third act of the film. Before Logan, and when compared to Christopher Nolan's vision in 'The Dark Knight' trilogy, Marvel had yet to release a film that wasn't a generic crowd pleasing fairground ride, and do something a little different.

Then along came Logan.

It's been seventeen years since Bryan Singer's original 'X-Men' graced our screens, a film that is generally accepted as the seed that planted the tree which became the Marvel Studios behemoth of modern cinema. As time has passed, pretty much all the actors from the original trilogy have been replaced with the exception of one - Hugh Jackman's incarnation of Wolverine. In very much the same way Christopher Reeve was born to play the lead role in Donner's original 'Superman', Jackman has made the character of Wolverine his own. Forever the anti hero, Jackman's Wolverine shuns the conventional stereotype and is perhaps the only Marvel character of recent times to have any sort of depth of personality. The fact he hasn't been asked to play the role head to toe in lycra gives the character an element of humanity that isn't seen in any characters Marvel have churned out in recent years.

'Logan' is set several years after the most recent 'X Men Apocalypse' against a backdrop filmed in the American Deep South. The only surviving members of Xavier's school for gifted youngsters are Xavier himself, and Wolverine. They are holed up in a remote area of Nevada, hidden away from authorities who believe that Xavier, now showing signs of suffering from Alzheimer's, is a weapon of mass destruction and must be brought into custody. Patrick Stewart returns to the role, and his Shakespearean roots really begin to flower with a convincing performance of someone suffering from dementia. Once their hideout is discovered, a chase ensues across several states right up to Canadian Border in North Dakota where the final epic battle between Wolverine and the authorities takes place.

Right from the outset, the first thing that strikes you about 'Logan', is the sheer brutality of the fight scenes. Make no mistake, this is in no way targeted at a younger audience and if anything, should be kept away from one. Claws impale skulls, enemies are beheaded, limbs are severed, and all within ten minutes of the opening scene. The violence has been ramped up several notches, feels bone crunchingly real, and is on a level never seen seen in any Marvel film since the studios inception in the late 1990's. This is Marvel listening to it's critics, and this is Marvel stepping outside of it's comfort zone. Somewhat ironically, it's main critics were the fans of DC Comics who said Marvel didn't know how to do melancholy and always played it safe. 'Logan', is exactly what older comic book fans have been asking for, it's hit the bulls eye, and gives a huge sucker punch to an already out for the count DC Comics following their 2016 critical mauling by cinema audiences.

Is there anything to find fault with it? Well if I'm being brutally honest, I felt the middle section of the film quietened things down for a tiny bit longer than they needed to be, and could have done with being a bit shorter. Initially, I felt Stephen Merchant was an odd choice, but he turned out to be a likable character. My main gripe was with Marco Beltrami's score, which I personally felt was very weak and didn't benefit the film in any way whatsoever. It's an area Marvel need to improve on going forward and really look at how Hans Zimmer's scoring of Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy and perhaps go back to Danny Elfmans 'Batman' aswell. I know Marvel Studios aren't really famous for their choice of composer, but they need to appreciate that a good score can elevate the audience's emotional investment in a film tenfold. Food for thought.

Overall, I give 'Logan' four and half stars. Hugh Jackman gives the performance of his career, and it's a more than sufficient send off for a character audiences have grown up with and will miss dearly.

Star Trek Beyond

Year: 2016

Genre: Sci-Fi

Back in 2009, 'Star Trek' fans the world over rejoiced at J.J Abrams big screen reboot of the 1960's cult TV series. Tasked with pleasing a very fickle fan base, Abrams successfully paid homage to the source material, whilst providing the perfect balance between action, humour, a strong story, and world class CGI. The film was a global success raking in $385 million at the box office, and looking back through my Rotten Tomatoes reviews, I wrote: 

'Easily my first five star film of 2009. Everything you could want from a half decent Trek movie is in here. A superb prequel that pulls out all the stops and delivers in every way possible'. 

Four years later the cast were reunited for 'Into Darkness', which for me although being thoroughly enjoyable, and a stellar performance by Benedict Cumberbatch, didn't quite have the same emotional resonance as the 2009 reboot. Walking into yesterdays screening of 'Beyond', I was hoping that new franchise director Justin Lin's film was going to be an improvement on 'Into Darkness', and achieve the same level of greatness Abrams did in his original reboot. I walked out of the cinema two hours later, very pleased with the package Lin had bought to the table. 

One of the first thing that strikes you in the first act is the quality of the CGI in this film, which really is some of the best I've ever seen on the big screen. A real sense of awe is felt by the audience as the camera pans over Starbase Yorktown in the opening act, the and the battle that ensues not long after the Enterprises leaves to respond to a distress call puts special effects house Double Negative in Academy Award winning territory. This level of quality is maintained throughout the film, and even surpasses 'The Force Awakens' when talking about on screen spectacle. 

CGI takes a back seats from then on, as the film quietens down a bit in the second act and gives the audience a chance to get to know the cast a little better. Excellent characterization has been a high point of this franchise since Abrams reboot in 2009, and 'Beyond' carries on the trend with a group of actors who work flawlessly together recreating the feeling of the 60's show but also bringing new things to the table. You could argue Zachary Quinto was born to play the role of Spock, looking and both acting exactly how you would expect a young Leonard Nimoy to behave. He has great chemistry with Chris Pine, and together they successfully recreate the relationship Shatner and Nimoy had in the original series. The remaining cast all give excellent performances. Simon Pegg clearly relishes playing Montgomery Scott, and newcomer to the franchise Sofia Boutella's Jaylah injects some femininity into what is essentially, a cast dominated by males.   

The action is ramped up again in the third act, as the crew of the Enterprise have to defend Starbase Yorktown from Idris Elba's Krull and his fleet of ships that resemble a swarm of very angry bees. As in the opening act, the quality of the CGI really is world class, and probably some of the best I've ever seen on the big screen. Sadly, Elba's Krull doesn't quite achieve same level of menace as Benedict Cumberbatch did as Khan in 'Into Darkness', largely because he is given far less to say, and spend the vast majority of the film under mountains of prosthetic make up. Nevertheless, his performance is more than adequate, and at no point did I sit there and think his character was in any way underwhelming as the film's villain. 

For me, 'Star Trek Beyond' was a return to the form of Abram's original reboot. It will definitely appeal to Trek fans, but at the same time, audience members unfamiliar with the characters will probably get something out of it too. You don't have to have spent hours watching the original TV series to enjoy it, as likable characters, excellent performances, and some ground breaking CGI stand it head and shoulders over the likes of the recent Independence Day sequel, and the utterly dreadful 'Ghostbusters' remake. 

Five stars, easily. 

Suicide Squad

Year: 2016

Genre: Comic Book / Fantasy

I'll be honest, knowing that director of both 'Batman vs Superman', and 'Man of Steel' was executive producer on 'Suicide Squad' made me very cautious. I'd had high hopes for both films, and like so many other fans, felt crushingly disappointed walking out of the cinema after seeing them. I'd seen several lukewarm reviews for this on YouTube, so as is the norm for DC films nowadays, I walked into the cinema hoping for the best, but expecting to be far from bowled over.

Is it as boring as 'Batman vs Superman', or a disappointing as 'Man of Steel'? In a word, no, thanks to the humorous elements of Will Smith and Margot Robbie's performances, something that Snyder's previous two works so desperately needed. The sets are stylish, the mood is gritty throughout, and I liked the way a fluorescent colour palette was used convey the feeling of anarchy.

This isn't to say that it's a great film though. Warner Brothers have still got a long way to go before they reach the level of polish that Marvel studios can churn out. Granted, there isn't anybody to root for as such in this, so it's not going to have the tone of a Marvel movie. All things considered though, there's still quite a few things it could have done alot better.

My biggest niggle with 'Suicide Squad' was with the main villain, and the issue is two fold. Remember how I commented in my 'Ghostbusters' review that one of its main problems was no 'Gozer' character from the original? Well, all I'll say is that the producers of 'Suicide Squad' must have read my blog and decided to include one in their film to make up for it. It just doesn't work, and is quite frankly utterly ridiculous. It's just Cara Delevingne (why?!) in a skimpy bikini, gyrating on the spot. That's all it is. Seriously, whoever made the decision to cast a catwalk model with no acting experience whatsoever?! I really don't understand why they chose a villain completely unfamiliar to mainstream audiences, and equally, why someone with very little acting gravitas or stage presence was chosen for the role. 

Also, I'm not entirely sure Will Smith was the right choice for the character of 'Deadshot'. The film is very much his, and with the exception of Margot Robbie, the other cast members play second fiddle to his one liners. Having seen so many films where he is the good guy, I just couldn't get used to him playing someone with bad intentions. I'm not saying it's a bad performance, I'm just saying I don't think it's the right casting decision. It's ironic because his performance is one of the highlights of the film.

Margot Robbie carries off Harley Quinn perfectly, and reminded me of Tara Strong's voice acting in the 'Arkham' games from Rocksteady. I was pleased with her performance, and she was one of the highlights of the film for me having played all three 'Arkham' games to completion. I have no doubt the target audience for this film will feel exactly the same.

I think Jared Leto was a very brave man taking on the role of the Joker after Heath Ledger's performance in Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'. He clearly tries to emulate Ledger in his performance, but is given neither the screen time or the script to do the job. The end result is a far from a disaster, but instantly forgettable.

'Suicide Squad' is an improvement on 'Batman vs Superman', but much the same as when you walked out of 'Man of Steel', you feel it's just ok, and a far cry from the potential it has as a concept. It's not a bad film by any stretch, but Cara Delevingne's character really brings it down a few notches. Here's hoping they rectify the problem in the sequel..

A slightly above average three stars.

Ghostbusters

Year: 2016

Genre: Horror Comedy 

When the trailer for 2016 remake of Ghostbusters went online, it went on to become one of YouTube's most downvoted clips of all time. At current count, it is listed as having  950,000 downvotes as opposed to a significantly lower 250,000 people who have upvoted it. Fans of the original were furious that director Paul Feig had recast all four male leads with women, and trolling on the videos page was rife with misogynistic comments about how the film was effectively ruined because it wouldn't be the same with women in the lead roles.

Remaking what is largely regarded as a classic of it's era, Feig was very brave to make such a huge change to the original. I'm a firm believer that if a remake is to work, is has to pay homage to it's source material, but at the same time bring something new to the table that makes it worthy of the brand. I went into the cinema knowing full well that for me, there was no way that Paul Feig was ever going come close to Reitman's original. The questions in my head were just how far off the mark was he going to be, and were the female leads going affect the overall quality of the film.

Let's get the answer to the question on everyone lips out of the way of way first. Feig's decision to play women in the lead roles does not influence the quality of the final cut in any way shape or form. I'd be lying if I said I was apprehensive before I went in, but with the exception of Kate McKinnon's utterly ridiculous Jillian Holtzman, the remaining three leads do what's asked of them admirably. I wasn't there halfway through the film thinking that their performances didn't work, because that simply isn't the case. The film doesn't suffer having females as the leads, perhaps because the characters in the film would work with either sex. I don't think you could make that statement for every film in the history of cinema though, because had they changed the four females leads of Sex and the City to males, we may be having a completely different argument.

Does this mean that the remake holds up Reitman's incarnation? Well sadly, no.

In the original, Sigourney Weaver's appartment was haunted by Zuul, a demigod worshipped as a servant to Gozer. This plotline was at the core of the original, and cited as being the reason for ghosts appeared around New York on an increasingly frequent basis. For some strange reason, Paul Feig has completely changed this in his remake, removed all of the aforementioned characters, and rewritten the plot. It just doesn't work, and characters that were so important in the original have all vanished. There is no Gozer, no gatekeeper, no keymaster, as Feig has replaced them all with a pantomime worthy villain who I personally hated.

So what about the leads? I've never been a fan of Melissa McCarthy, and find the characters she plays irritating. I've never been a fan of her humour, and she just seems to play every role exactly the same. You could have taken her Abbey Yates character out of this, dropped it back into Spy, and you wouldn't have noticed any difference whatsoever. I liked Kristen Wiig's Erin, because she wasn't given any scripted one liners, and seemed to have her feet firmly on the ground. I've already talked about Kate McKinnon (and the less said about that, the better) with the remaining 'token' black actress Leslie Jones providing what I thought, were some of the films funnier moments (which are very few and far between, trust me)

One a side note, I personally felt the way Chris Hemsworth's played the Ghostbusters dumbed down secretary was completely unnecessary. It was in no way an accurate reflection of Janine in the original, and quite frankly, annoyed me.

The only thing that this remake does better than the original is the special effects. Is this really an accolade though, considering CGI has been the norm for the past twenty years? Not really no, and it would be unfair to Reitman's classic to say they are superior when he made his film over thirty years ago.

Feig's remake pales in comparison to Reitmans iconic original. It would be unfair to call it a bastardisation, but it is so far detached from it in terms of humour, plot, and substance, that I'm only giving it a couple of stars. Ironically, it wouldn't have been any better a film were the leads all male a second time round.

A disappointing, but to be expected two stars.

Independence Day Resurgence

Year: 2016

Genre: Science Fiction

I remember seeing the trailer for Independence Day back in the mid 90's, and staring in awe at the momentous scene where the alien ship slowly approached Will Smith and Vivica Fox. At the time, CGI was in it's early days, and this was something seen on a scale audiences had yet to become accustomed to. The film went on to win an Academy Award for best visual effects, become the highest grossing film of 1996 taking $817 million dollars worldwide, and to this day stands as the fifty fifth highest grossing film of all time. 

Resisting studio pressures to make a sequel, German director Roland Emmerich went on to become Hollywood's man to trust when it came to the big screen disaster movies. As CGI became more and more prevalent on the in cinemas, audiences were given Godzilla in 1998, The Day After Tomorrow in 2004, and most recently, Channing Tatum's attempt at being Bruce Willis in 2013's White House Down . Twenty years after the first film was released, and Emmerich has decided to bow down to studio (and financial pressures) to give the world a sequel to his 1996 Summer blockbuster. 

The story very much follows exactly the same path as the original. It's been twenty years since the aliens first tried to destroy civilisation, and since we defeated them, we've incorporated a lot of their technology into our own. You'll see missile defence systems on the moon, Star Trek-esque shuttle crafts, weapons that fire lasers like in Star Wars, and computer technology that far exceeds anything you would see on earth had the aliens not visited in 1996. This would be great if we had paid to watch a sequel to Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, but it means that from the outset, the sense of vunerability that that you felt throughout the original from ordinary folk overcoming such an overpowering force is immediately lost. My other half tended to disagree with me on this point, but for me, it was bone of contention. 

If you cast your mind back to my review of Jurassic World, you'll remember that one of the big problems with that film was the way the Colin Trevorrow had given an emphasis to making everything bigger, louder, and generally more brash whilst putting character development on the back burner. This is sadly also the problem with Resurgence. There is now only one alien spaceship that invades the earth, but it's size quite frankly verges on the utterly ridiculous (at one point in the film it's quoted as being 3000 miles in diameter) The aerial space battles make up for almost 75% of the film itself, with absolutely no cooling down periods to pad them out like in the original. Also, you can't help but think that before he sat sat down to write his screenplay, Nicolas Wright must have watched James Cameron's Aliens a couple of times, the reason for which I won't give away for fear of revealing a spoiler. 

Most of the original cast return, but young age of the new leads makes the film feel like it's intentionally handing over the reigns to make way for Independence Day 3 (already registered on the IMDB). Bill Pullman is in there as the ex-president (although he does seemed to have aged considerably worse than everyone else. Brent Spiner returns as the head techie in Area 51 (and manages to shoe horn in a blink or you'll miss it Star Trek Easter Egg).  Sadly, Will Smith's absence leave a huge gap, and the humorous elements he gave the audience in first film between the dog fights and destruction are pretty much non existent in Resurgence. The stand out character is Goldblum's David Levinson, pretty much upstaging everyone else on screen with the style of acting he bought to so many other of his famous roles. The young cast of support roles which includes Thor's younger brother Liam Hemsworth, and Maika Monroe (Jay from It Follows) do a decent enough job with a script isn't overly cheesy considering how Edam laden the plot of the film itself is. 

The biggest problem with Resurgence is that is suffers with the same issues so many other Summer blockbusters of recent have also done. Way way too much CGI, way too much green screen, no new ideas, very little character development, just making everything larger, louder, and lots more of it. By no means is it a bad film, you just don't walk out enjoying it as much as you did the original. I get that if something ain't broke, you shouldn't attempt to fix it, but it would be nice if for once, they could bring something new to the table, whilst maintaining what made the original as special and timeless as it originally was. 

Go and see it. It needs to be seen on the big screen. It's ok, just not brilliant.

3.5 stars