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

The Conjuring 2

Year: 2016

Genre: Haunted House / Horror

The financial and critical success of 2013's 'The Conjuring' pretty much guaranteed that New Line Cinema would be backing a sequel. It's decades old list of influences that included Friedkin's The Exorcist, Rosenberg's The Amityville Horror, and Donner's The Omen ensured that both hardened horror fans and newer audience members would lap it up. After taking $137 million dollars at the box office, New Line gave the green light for a second installment, and the 'Conjuring 2' went into production.

Treading very safe waters, the film uses the infamous story of the Enfield poltergeist as it's backdrop. Original leads Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson return as parapsychologists Ed and Lorraine, brought in to investigate claims from a family in Enfield, London that their house is haunted. You would think that with James Wan returning as director, good plot foundations, and leads that have excellent on-screen chemistry, it would be very difficult to make anything that audiences wouldn't happily pay to see...

Wan returning as director was hardly surprising considering his already successful back catalogue of  modern horror films. This is, after all the guy behind the original Saw and 2010's box office success Insidious. His talent lies vry much in suspenseful camerawork, and Wan is a modern master of drawing out the jump scare with long, extended shots of footsteps creeping along creaking floor boards, or peering very slowly through doors that are ever so slightly ajar. More often than not, he will fool the audience into a false sense of security with anti climatic imagery and then hurl the intended part of the scene at them like a bullet out of a gun. This is what Wan does best, and he knows that for modern horror to be a success, the 'jump scare' has to keep audiences guessing until the very last second of the scene.

Being a haunted house movie, 'Conjuring 2' has these scenes a plenty, so naturally, it has a very broad spectrum of appeal that will keep the generic film goer happy. If like me however, you're a seasoned horror fan you may well find yourself very quickly becoming bored of the same old cliches time and time again. The slamming doors, the demonic possessed child, the furniture unpredictably flying across the room. Yep, they're all in here, and it's almost like James Wan had a toolbox of cliches he had to shoehorn into the film before he could call it a day. Those who've seen his previous films will also know that he's famous for creating characters that more often than not transcend the original film they featured in. Think how in the original 'Conjuring', the Annabelle doll was given it's own spin off. Perhaps most famous of all is Wan's self confessed creation Billy the Puppet from 'Saw' back in 2004 which almost became as iconic as Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees. In 'Conjuring 2', Wan attempts to create another iconic creature that clearly has influences in his Saw trilogy but ends up looking like a jokey parody of Billy the Puppet and Marylin Manson. I was personally very disappointed with this aspect of the film, and expected a lot better from the guy who bought me the original Insidious.

The cast largely do a great job with an above average script that fortunately doesn't feature too heavily on the 'up the apples and pears' Cockney stereotype; albeit a soundtrack that is chock full of late 70's mainstream pop. Special consideration has to be given to young actress Madison Wolfe who brings both equal amounts of menace and melancholy to the character of Janet Hodgson. One only has to look at how child actor Noah Wiseman's ear achingly annoying Samuel in 2014's The Babadook can make or break a movie, but fortunately Wolfe's portrayal of the cliched demonic child is aeons less irritating than the aforementioned.

'Conjuring 2' is meat and potatoes main stream horror. If you're a main stream audience member, you won't be disappointed and more than likely come out of it feeling satisfied with Wan's sequel. More hardened horror fans won't find it anywhere near as fresh as It Follows, and far less atmospheric than Jennifer Kent's crowd funded Babadook. That's not to say they won't enjoy it, they just won't find anything memorable, being choc full of cliches and things they have seen a million times before.

Three stars, which becomes 3.5 if you're mainstream.

Batman v Superman, Dawn of Justice

Year: 2016

Genre: Superhero

Next to 'Force Awakens', 'Batman vs Superman' has been the film the fanboys have been anxious to see since what seems like dawn of time. We've been drip fed The Avengers, X-Men, Captain America, Ironman, and countless Spiderman films for the last fifteen years. Contrastingly, other than Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy, and Snyder's 2013 Superman reboot 'Man of Steel', the fans have had very little from DC.

Time Warner (owners of DC Comics) have been very slow to get off the starting blocks. The first Justice League movie (their equivalent of The Avengers) isn't due to be released until next year, and contrastingly, Marvel have been pumping out X-Men films since the turn of the century. Not only has this led to anticipation for DC content from fans going off the scale, but it's also allowed Marvel to hone their filmaking skills into what are nowadays although formulaic, both critically and financially successfull releases. 

This leads me to my biggest bugbear about the film. If you're going into 'Dawn of Justice' expecting something on par with some of the latest Marvel releases, you'll be sorely dissapointed. It simply isn't, which is a big shame. Given that I criticised the last 'Avengers' film for having too much skyscraper smashing and very little of substance, you'd would think that a step away from it would be a refreshing change for audiences. 

This is the biggest problem with the film. Producers have taken TOO much of a step away from Marvel's smash and bash formula. Seventy five percent of the film is plot expansion, with very little action inbetween. Audiences go and see a superhero movie to see superheros do 'super' stuff. If that ain't part of the film, audiences will feel let down. Think of an action movie with no car chases. A horror film with no scares. A comedy with no laughs. The biggest problem with 'Dawn of Justice' is that there just isn't enough going on inbetween plot developing scenes, and I honest ended up sitting thinking 'please, just get on with it and get to the good bits!' 

It's a shame because when the set pieces do arrive (and I counted three in the film's whole two and a half hours run time) they're very enjoyable and in terms of spectacle, on par with anything Marvel have done in the past five years. It's great to see Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman team up, because quite frankly I was getting sick to death of Iron Man and co year after year and needed to see some new characters on the big screen. If they just made more of the action, and less on back story / plot building, this would have been a completely difference experience. 

Character wise, Affleck's Batman is far from the let down that fans were expecting after growing used to Bale's portrayal in the Nolan trilogy. He's a lot stockier than Bale, and this weightier Batman helps a lot with believing that an ordinary guy could take on the legendary Man of Steel. Bale's problem with almost incomprehensible dialogue as the Dark Knight is also solved, as Affleck's lines are clear and easy to understand. 

Cavill is given very little to do as Superman until the last act, and this is also a shame. As in 2013's 'Man of Steel', I don't think Zac Snyder makes full use of the fact we don't have to suspend actors on wires anymore, and he doesn't use CGI to the extent it could be used for the Man of Steel. Cavill's chiseled jaw makes him a natural choice for the role, and eye candy for the ladies, but I honestly don't think Snyder does much with the potential the character has. 

So how about supporting female roles? As much as I was looking forward to seeing a fresh portrayal of Wonder Woman, I personally felt Gal Gadot was way too skinny and flat for the role. She lacked the curves that Linda Carter gave the character in the 70's tv series, and as a result just seemed like she might snap in half anytime Doomsday went near her. I'm hoping she beefs up a bit in time for the Wonder Woman movie in 2017. 

As for Lois Lane, I never agreed with Amy Adams being cast in the role for the 'Man of Steel', but we're stuck with her now. Her on-screen chemistry with Cavill is none existent when you compare it to Reeve and Kidder from the 70's. It's even less than Cain and Hatcher from the 90's tv show. Sorry guys, I'm not a fan. 

Oh yeah, and special mention needs to go to Jesse Eisenberg, who hands down becomes the most annoying movie villian in the history of cinema. Way too young for the role, he more or less just repeats his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in 'The Social Network'.  A very bad casting decision, given the potential people they could have bought in for the role.  

'Dawn of Justice' had a lot of potential. It doesn't fall entirely flat on it's face, but it wastes a lot of the potential it had as a concept. Enjoyable characters are let down but a film way too heavy on plot, and very light on action. Not as dissapointing as the critics make out, but nowhere as near as good as it could have been. 

3 stars. 

Star Wars The Force Awakens

The trailers for 'Force Awakens' have been doing the rounds since Easter, and as much as I liked them, I remember back in the 90's feeling positive when the I first saw the pod race trailer for 'The Phantom Menace'. Star Wars fans will openly admit that nothing quite prepared them for the sense of crushing dissapointment when the opening credits rolled, and Lucas started talking about taxes, galactic politics, and the rest is history.

The other two prequels had their moments, but with cringe worthy scripts, way too much cgi, and some very poor casting choices, none of them even came close to matching the cinematic presence of the original trilogy back in the 70's and 80's.

After feeling so massively let down, I went to see 'Force Awakens' with an 'expect the worst, but hope for best' approach. As good as the trailers were, they looked like a retread of the best bits from Lucas's originals. Although this what fans would like, I wanted the same emotional resonance, but a new story accompanying it. I thought the film warranted Star City's Gold Class, so I paid £18 to see it with unlimited free popcorn and a reclining leather chair. Was it worth the entrance fee? Hell yes, and them some more.

You know your in safe hands the moments the opening credits roll and there ain't a single mention of politics or any sort of interplanetary tax rebate. The Empire is no more, but in it's place is the First Order. They have the same ambitions as the Empire, but the resistance are as always, out to stop them. Its meat and potatoes Star Wars plot, and the sense of relief you get the moment you see Abrams has gone back to basics is overwhelming.

So why does it work? What makes it so much better than the prequels?

I never thought Hayden Christiansen was up to much, and a very bad choice for such a pivotal role as the guy who became Darth Vader. In contrast, Daisy Ridley's Rey is a triumph of the highest order. She clearly put her heart and soul into the role, and makes the character her own. Ridley is supported by John Boyeger's Finn, who as well as giving an excellent peformance, provides the audience with the comic relief that was so painfully lacking from the prequels.

By the way, incase you're wondering about BB-8,  it's the new R2-D2, hands down. I never thought I'd say a magnetic ball could also provide the audience with comic relief but it does.

'Force Awakens' works because it ticks all the right Star Wars boxes, and provides the fans with everything they want from a new Star Wars at the same time giving them characters that can carry the weight of the franchise forward. The older generation will be very happy to see Han Solo, Leia, and Chewacca back on the silver screen together in sets reminiscent of the original, and the quality of the performances from two leads reassures us that JJ Abrams has taken us in the right direction. Supported by John William's epic score, it's hard to believe the same guy who gave us 'The Empire Strikes back' also gave us 'The Phantom Menace'.

Putting my film critics hat on, there's a couple of things I must draw attention to because it comes with the territory. I personally felt Kylo Ren had nowhere near the stage presence Prowse's Darth Vader had in any of the originals. Perhaps it's intentional, or perhaps it's because he's such and iconic villian, the boots were just too big to fill. Also, if you wanted to nit pick you could say they've clearly rehashed classic scenes from the originals and put them all in one film. Endor, Hoth, the Death Star. Tatooine, the final scene in 'Empire', the Cantina scene. They're all in there.

It makes you wonder where Abrams can go if he directs the next one

As a stand alone entity though, 'The Force Awakens' is everything you could possibly hope for as a Star Wars fan. It show how utterly shit the prequels were. The characters Abrams introduces leaves you wanting more.

A solid five stars. Easily. Go pay the money and see it.

Legend, guest reviewed by Cara Clarke

Year : 2015

Genre: Biopic 

I've always found the Krays interesting, but to be honest knew relatively little about them. I’ve never seen any other film about the Krays, so I went into this one with no expectations or pre-defined ideas. It’s not very often I watch films rated 18, but I was keen to give this one a go… 

The narrator is Frances, Reggie’s wife, and parts of the story are told from her point of view. She is the first and last voice you hear. The film charts their relationship from the happy days of courting through to the decline of their marriage leading to Frances’ eventual suicide. The emphasis on a relationship, rather than the work of The Firm, ‘softens’ the film somewhat and prevents it from being overly violent and graphic. There are only a handful of violent scenes, but still enough to shock. (I’m thinking of Jack ‘the hat’ Mcvitie’s death here.) 

I had reservations about one actor taking on dual roles. I thought I would spend the whole time trying to spot differences in how Tom Hardy portrayed the two brothers, and that’s exactly what I did do. He plays them well, with enough distinctions for you to almost forget it’s one actor. Yet, at times, I thought he played up to the gangster image a bit too much. His portrayal of Ronnie, in particular his crazy-eyed stare, was almost a cartoonish interpretation of a typical East End gangster. But then again, perhaps that is how they actually conducted themselves. Who am I to quibble with the Krays? 

I imagine a lot was omitted from this film, it covers only a snippet of their lives. After watching the film I turned to Wikipedia to see research them and recognised a fair few scenes from the film as being taken from real life. I would have liked a few more ‘gangster’ scenes and less ‘husband and wife’ scenes. Because of this I felt the film left me wanting more. I want to watch documentaries on them. I want to watch the 1990 Krays film starring the twins from Spandau Ballet. I want to read Ronnie and Reggie’s autobiographies. They have a very interesting story and I doubt this will be the last time it is depicted on film. 

A good, but hardly brilliant 4 out of 5 stars. 

Antman

Year: 2015

Genre: Superhero 

The last Marvel studios movie I saw at the cinema was 2015's 'Avengers Age of Ultron'. I posted a review on here, and commented on how although it was still an ok film, there was way too much Michael Bay influence, the characters had no depth, and it was nothing we hadn't seen a million times before. I was honestly getting bored with Marvel churning out the same stuff year in year out, and if the truth be known, was beginning to think they were a one trick pony. 

Then along came Ant Man. 

Directed by relative unknown Peyton Reed, who's biggest film to date was Jim Carrey's 'Yes Man', 'Ant Man' takes Marvel in a completely different direction to the Avengers and places rom-com actor Paul Rudd in the lead role of one of it's lesser known superheros. You wouldn't be the first person to be completely oblivious to his existence prior to the movie's announcement, but don't let that stop you. 'Ant Man' is definitely one of the better films the Marvel behemoth has made. 

The plot is relatively simple, and it makes a refreshing change to see a single superhero in their own movie again after the last 'Avengers' and 'X-Men' movies introduced so many new characters they became way too over complicated for their own good. Rudd plays Scott Lang, a former burglar who's just been released from jail and is trying to scrape the money together to pay his ex wife child support so he can have contact with his kids. All seems lost until he crosses paths with Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly. Douglas plays Hank Pym, the former CEO of a company that developed a suit that can 'reduce the distance' between atoms, and henceforth shrink people down to the size of an ant. Rudd's character begrudglingly takes on the role of Ant Man, and naturally, is given the small task by Pym of saving the world. 

Casting Rudd as the protagonist was a stroke of genius by the producers because for the first time since Sam Rami's 2002 incarnation of 'Spiderman', the lead role is given to a beta male who the majority of males in the audience will be able to relate to. Antman has no super powers per se, he isn't a multi billionaire like Tony Stark, he isn't a God like Thor, and he hasn't got an adamantium exoskeleton like Wolverine. Rudd plays Lang much the same as he would do in any other movie, a normal guy with normal problems. Being ever popular with the female section of the audience due to his extensive romantic comedy back catalogue, he nails it as Antman and will be a popular choice. 

The supporting cast do a great job with the roles they are given, with the exception of Evangeline Lilly. Douglas is on form as the under appreciated, super intelligent inventor. Michael Pena provides some genuinely funny laugh out loud moments (that some say are the highlight of the film) but Lily is as flat as a pancake. Her character is overly mechanical, wooden, and she wears a VERY obvious wig throughout the movie. To top things off, there is absolutely zero chemisty between her and Rudd, and you leave the film wondering how she got past the screen test for the character. 

Perhaps it was just me, but I also felt that Corey Stoll hammed up role of the villian Darren Cross so much, that he almost became a 'he's behind you' / 'mwah hah hah hah' pantomine character, and it became very difficult to find his character threatening with that in the back of your mind. 

Credit must be given to the special effects team for conveying a real sense of scale during the sequences where Rudd wears the Antman suit. They are the highlights of the film, and the CGI is used to it's full potential to give a genuinely convincing feel of how small the character is in relation to the outside world around him. The only problem I had during these sequences (even though they remain true to the original comic) are when Rudd is surrounded by swarms of ants helping him along the way. I understand that's how it was done, and the fanboys would have kicked off had they done it any differently. I just felt that there were unnecessary, and the film would have been a better one had it been Rudd in the Antman suit against the world. 

A small gripe though, in what is a great addition to the Marvel universe, and a return to form after the overly complicated Age of Ultron. As a general rule of thumb when superhero movies are concerned, the origins stories are the best, and 'Antman' is no exception. 

4 stars. 

Terminator Genisys (and Silk Route Dudley)

The rules have been reset

Year: 2015

Genre: Action

*contains spoilers*

When I first saw the trailer for this on line, they showed a grey haired, wrinkled Arnie jumping out of a helicopter shouting 'I'll be back'. I remember at the time sitting there thinking that Arnie looked WAY to old to play the character, and this film had unintentional ridiculous parody written all over it. As a completest, I was willing to suspend disbelief and throw caution to the wind (in the absence of anything else to watch to be honest) and we eventually caught up with this movie two weeks after release last night.

Since his political career ended in 2011, Schwarzenegger's films have all been disappointing, and there was no reason to suggest that 'Genisys' would be any different. I walked into the Dudley Showcase after somewhat over indulging on Chinese buffet (more of that later) expecting the worst, but really, really hoping for something a bit better. My main concern was the overly complicated plot, which I had read about on several websites prior to watching the film. Time travel is a theme central to the plot of the 'Terminator' franchise, and it can be done well, or made ridiculously complicated. Here goes....

The film opens in 2029, JUST prior to 'bad' Arnie being sent back to 1984 in the first movie. We are given a brief explanation as to why this happens, then Kyle Reese (played by relatively unknown plastic actor Jai Courtney) goes back to 1984, cue the plot of the first Terminator. Follow me so far?

Once in 1984, writers Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier literally throw the plot line of the Terminator franchise out of the window and start again. We are immediately introduced to Emilia Clarke's already half-Rambo and way too young looking Sarah Connor, instantly disregarding a core plot line of the original whereby in 1984 Linda Hamilton was a naive cafe waitress. Somehow (and this was a major annoyance for me) a T-1000 model is chasing after Kyle Reese in this time line, and to top it all off, a grey haired (but convincing) T-800 Arnie is ALREADY there, waiting for an impressively CGI rendered young Schwarzenegger from the original.

Have I lost you yet?

Clarke, Courtney and Schwarzenegger then go forward in time to 2017, in an attempt to prevent the launch of 'Genisys', a mobile app that transcends all platforms and is ultimately the beta version of what eventually becomes Skynet. In this time line however, John Connor (played by even more yawn inducing Jason Clarke) is the bad guy, sent back from 2027 by Matt Smith (yep, you read that right, Dr Who) to stop them from taking down the Genisys servers.

It's no exaggeration to say this this film completely and utterly disregards the continuity of the first two films (even the third), and that was my biggest bugbear. Audiences fresh to the franchise will have no problem with it, because as a stand alone plot, it just about works, and makes sense. When you try and tie it together with the original though, or Cameron's infinitely superior 'Judgement Day', it just makes no sense whatsoever. There are plot holes a plenty, characters are given a completely new persona, and you can't help but think they they should have kept the time line constant. Instead, audiences get a muddled, 'Back to the Future II' type storyline that leaves you scratching your head instead of sitting back and enjoying the spectacle like you should be.

Thankfully, Schwarzenegger saves 'Genisys' from being a complete and utter turkey. He is great in the role that he was ultimately born to play, and provides some much needed comedic moments that distract from the confusing plot and wooden acting by the other two leads. If there's one thing that's remained constant throughout these films, it's him, and audiences will be satisfied with the performance he gives. The 'flesh that ages' over a metal exoskeleton does work, even though I never thought I would get on board with it, and it is Schwarzenegger's performance that is the most memorable thing about the movie.

It would be unfair to recommend this film purely based on the quality of one performance though, as several other aspects of it are lacking other than the plot. Robert Patrick's liquid metal Terminator was done nearly 25 years ago now. Back then, it was cutting edge CGI, but now it's nothing you haven't seen a million times before. You would have thought the writers could have come up with something a bit more menacing given 25 years to think about it, and it's usage as a recurring special effect feels lazy and unimaginative. The action set pieces are also instantly forgettable in much the same vein, especially when you have the like of Vin Diesel's 'Fast and the Furious' franchise setting such a high bar to compete with.

Would I recommend this film? For the Schwarzenegger completest, yes. For the rest of us, Arnie is back in the role we all know and love him in, alas he is easily the best thing about a mediocre movie that has limp characters we don't really care for, sub-par special effects, and actions sequences that pale into insignificance when compared to those in Cameron's 'Judgement Day'.

A disappointing, but hardly surprising two stars.

Before I sign off, I just wanted to mention the Silk Route restaurant we went to prior to watching the film. From Wikipedia:

'Silk Route is an ancient network of trade and cultural transmission routes that were central to cultural interaction through regions of the Asian continent connecting the West and East by merchants, pilgrims, monks, soldiers, nomads, and urban dwellers from China and India to the Mediterranean Sea during various periods of time'

As you would expect, the two main cuisines on offer are Indian and Chinese. There's a bit of UK food for those with weaker pallets, and some puddings for those of you can't finish off a meal without a spike of insulin.

Food quality is very good, and the variation is there, which is a bonus. Service is excellent, your old plate is always whipped away before you get back to your table with the next one, and the staff are friendly. Location-wise, it's only by Dudley port, so not a million miles away from those of us who live in West Brom. We got it on Groupon, but I'm not entirely sure if the offer is still up.

A highly recommended four stars (would have been five if there were more prawn dishes on offer.

Jurassic World

Year: 2015 

Genre: Summer Blockbuster

'Corporate felt genetic modification would up the 'wow' factor'

It's a somewhat sobering thought when you consider the original Jurassic Park was released over twenty years ago back in the early 1990's. Computer generated imagery was relatively new at the time and had only really been seen in the the 'Terminator' sequel a couple of years previous. By putting dinosaurs on the big screen, Spielberg became the first on record to effectively utilise it to place photo realistic CG creatures in front of nineties cinema audiences.

The original spawned two sequels that were both instantly forgettable and hugely inferior to their predecessor. In 2002, a fourth instalment of the franchise was announced that was originally slated for a 2005 release. Ten years later, several re writes of the script, multiple changes in the production team, and 'Jurassic World' is released to cinema audiences. 

The majority of you will already be familiar with the plot. Richard Attenborough's vision in the original for an all singing, all dancing real life dinosaur theme park has been in business for several years, but business is flagging. The share holders decide that it needs a new star attraction to boost revenue, and create a genetically modified 'super' dinosaur. As luck would have it, the imaginatively titled 'Indominus Rex' escapes, and operations manager Bryce Dallas Howard is instructed to use the skills and experience of velociraptor trainer Chris Pratt to take it down and kill it.

So how does the movie compare to the now iconic original?

There's been a lot of water under the bridge since early nineties cinema. Audiences are familiar to computer generated imagery, almost to the point of saturation. It's no longer the spectacle it was back when the original was released, and herein lies the problem. How do you meet modern audience expectations when the original broke the mould, and set an almost unsurpassable 'wow factor'.

The answer is ultimately, you can't. All that director Colin Trevorrow could do (and has done) is make everything bigger, louder, faster, and just crank up the spectacle as far as modern CGI techniques allow him to. There's giant crocodile-like Mosasaur in an unbelievably deep man made aquatic feature. There's a huge pterodactyl cage. The Indominus Rex is bigger (and louder) than the centre piece T-Rex of the original. This time round, instead of a relatively small cast and in enclosed set pieces, the whole of Isla Nublar is open to thousands of swarming crowds. Everything about 'Jurassic World' is more, more, more.

Sadly, this extra style does not equate to extra substance. The CGI and animatronics honestly haven't really changed much since the 1993 original. The dinosaurs don't look 20 years more convincing than they did in 'Park' mainly because they already looked fairly good to begin. That's not to say they look fake, they just don't look any more real than they did before. The two leads do a relatively good job with the scripts that they are given; in particular Chris Pratt, who is rapidly becoming the new Harrison Ford. I was glad to see Dallas Howard's overly confident operations manager gain a bit of humanity in the latter half of the movie, and the chemistry between them is believable (but only just).

One thing to note. This is a LOT grizzlier than any of it's three prequels. In line with Trevorrow's philosophy that more is better, the body count has been stepped up ten fold. There was a couple next to me who's noticeably agitated child was clearly scared during the films darker moments. It just about scrapes it's 12A certificate. Cara wanted made me delay publishing this review until she could write a footnote.

As far as spectacle goes, it does the job. Substance wise, it could have been better.

3.5 stars.

Footnote.

Before i go any further, I should point out that I refuse to watch anything which makes me scared or overly upset. I am the wimpiest person on the planet. When I was a youngster, Scooby Doo Seaweed Monsters, and the 'Poirot' theme tune scared me. The opening credits of 'Tales of the unexpected' were petrifying. You get the general idea. Fast forward to my thirties and not much has changed in that respect.

I thought it would be just like the Jurassic Park series - a family film about a few dinosaurs escaping their pens. But no. No, no, no, no, no. The aim of the new theme park is to 'scare and shock' and that is exactly what the film set out to do too. And, with a viewer as wimpy as me, it succeeded. It's like Jurassic Park has grown up. Although not particularly gory, the film contained roughly a zillion deaths. It was relentless. The fear of being caught and killed was ever-present and I found it distressing. It was loud and fast and without escape. People were dropping like flies so much that at times it felt like a disaster movie. It wasn't a bad or rubbish film, I didn't hate it; it's just a bit strong for sensitive souls who like films about pretty flowers, unicorn glitter and rainbow dust.

Mark pointed out that because I refuse to watch anything remotely scary, I have no tolerance level for it. (Like a teetotal person getting drunk on one drink.) Never a truer word said.