'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' spoiler thoughts

"I will finish what you started"

Star Wars: The Force Awakens has been in cinemas now for just under a week, giving fans plenty of time to return to a galaxy far, far away. So what better time is there to revisit my thoughts on the film in a more revealing manner, especially now I've managed to see it three times. Therefore I've decided to write this brief spoiler filled review highlighting what I liked, what I didn't like, and what I hope to see from Episode VIII. If you haven't had a chance to see Star Wars yet, feel free to check out my completely spoiler-free review in the meantime. 

The greatest strength I can attribute to The Force Awakens is the colourful and fleshed out new characters that seem right at home within the larger Star Wars universe. Characters have familiar aspects, but with new twists that stop them from becoming stale. Rey has elements that we recognize from Luke Skywalker, but her hidden past provides a new angle into this type of character. Furthermore, the idea that, unlike Luke who was desperate to leave Tatooine, Rey had to be almost dragged kicking and screaming away from Jakku into this adventure was an interesting new take. The only complaint with Rey is that she sometimes feels too unstoppable. She can beat up a gang, pilot the Falcon, fix it, shoot Stormtroopers expertly, learn the force in record time and defeat Kylo Ren in a lightsaber duel. This is particularly noticeable during the duel, where both Finn and Kylo Ren receive injuries, and their duel feels raw and tense, only for Rey to later defeat Ren without so much as a scratch. It's not a huge deal, but it does take away tension and raise questions for how much could Rey improve in the sequels without becoming completely overpowered.

FN-2187, also known as Finn, is probably the most unique character in the film. A Stormtrooper with a moral compass, Finn quickly finds himself running from the First Order with Rey in order to stop their villainy. Perhaps the only real negative with the idea of Finn is that it reveals to the audience that Stormtroopers aren't all evil individuals and have their own thought process. The original trilogy never considered to show another side to the Stormtroopers, and therefore when Luke, Han and Leia blast a dozen of them, it's neither here nor there, because they're just the faceless evil minions of the Empire. The prequels used programmable robots for our heroes to cut down, so there's no moral grey zone there either. The problem Force Awakens faces is it literally opens the film showing us that not every Stormtrooper is evil, only to then cut into the same Stormtrooper who showed remorse for a fallen comrade mercilessly killing his ex-partners, blasting them with a TIE Fighter, running them through with a lightsaber and aiding in the destruction of an entire planet full of Stormtroopers, some of which, like Finn was, are just working in sanitation. Again, not a huge deal, but it was slightly problematic.and it could have been interesting to see Finn struggle with having to kill people he knows were brainwashed from childhood. 

The absolute highlight from the new slew of characters, however, is undoubtedly Kylo Ren. Ren feels like everything we expected from Anakin Skywalker in the prequels and more. You can feel real conflict within the character, and the way that he discusses feeling the light side seducing him, much as heroes have felt the dark side, was an interesting flip on the status quo. In Return of the Jedi, the Emperor seems convinced that Luke murdering his father, Darth Vader, would turn him to the dark side. Kylo Ren finds himself tasked with a similar task in The Force Awakens by Snoke, and completes it. As we find out, the man once known as Ben Solo is tasked with murdering Han, both his father and a fan favourite. And unlike Luke before him, and even Vader when faced with killing Luke, Kylo Ren manages to go the extra step and abolish one of the few remaining ties to Ben Solo. It will be interesting to see where the character goes in Episode VIII, especially since the one remaining strong tie, Leia Organa, still exists. I, for one, hope he isn't redeemed. It would feel too much like a rehash of the original trilogy, plus killing Han feels a little bit too irredeemable. Either way, it's fascinating to consider where this villain can go, considering he is still evolving and his training is incomplete, unlike Vader who was pretty much constantly at the height of his powers in the originals. 

Narrative wise, Star Wars: The Force Awakens has a few issues. One of the most common criticisms it is currently facing is that it feels a little too much like a Star Wars: Greatest Hits film than the next chapter, as it goes through almost every iconic moment from the classic films. From the catalyst of the plot being hidden data inside a droid, to a climactic battle to destroy a planet destroying space station, the story does little to differentiate itself from what we have seen before. For me personally, the biggest offender is the inclusion of Starkiller base, which is basically a third Death Star that is the size of a planet that can destroy five planets instead of one. As someone who already thought that Return of the Jedi's use of a second Death Star was lazy, this one was a step too far. The worst thing is that the film definitely does not need it. There's already enough going on in the climax of the film with Han's death and the battle between Kylo, Finn and Rey, that it's completely unnecessary to rehash this particular plot point. Hopefully, now that the franchise is kickstarted, the stories for Episode VIII and Episode IX can explore more new territory. 

The film has a few more stumbles, such as the convenience of R2-D2 waking up at the end for no apparent reason, plus the entire CGI octopus scene was absurdly out of place, didn't propel the narrative at all, and should have undoubtedly been scrapped. But thankfully it's more fun than faults. Particular highlights include a spectacular Millenium Falcon chase filmed in IMAX, the breathtaking duel between Kylo Ren, Finn and Rey, and the climactic moment where Rey finally comes face to face with the legendary Luke Skywalker. The humour is also rather well done, such as scenes where Ren has a fit of rage with his lightsaber to the shock of nearby Stormtroopers, as well as Daniel Craig's brilliantly subtle cameo as a Stormtrooper that Rey performs a mind trick on. I also really enjoyed a lot of the secondary characters such as Poe Dameron, General Hux and the completely lovable BB-8, that promises a rich and strong Star Wars universe awaits us in future installments, although I expected a lot more from Captain Phasma who's one contribution to the narrative was to give in to the will of Resistance members who have her at gunpoint and lower the shields to Starkiller. The way her character was presented made me assume she'd rather die than betray the First Order, but hopefully we can see more of her in the future to make up for it. 

In conclusion, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is an extremely strong entry into the franchise that should please fans new and old. Relying on familiar plot points a little too much holds it back from the greatness of the original trilogy, in my opinion, but it successfully lays the groundwork for the future of Star Wars. There is no denying, however, that The Force Awakens is ultimately an extremely fun film despite its flaws. It's the kind of film you'll want to see again and again just for the sense of escapism that the original trilogy once provided so expertly. The Force Awakens ultimately succeeded in its goal: Star Wars is back! Here's hoping the wait until Episode VIII in May 2017 isn't too daunting. 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens  -  8 / 10

'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' review

"There has been an awakening. Have you felt it?"

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is potentially the most hyped film since Star Wars' own The Phantom Menace sixteen years ago. It's the first installment in both the sequel trilogy, as well as the first since Disney's acquisition of the franchise. Given that fans were burned with the previous trilogy, and that the saga is now in new hands, The Force Awakens had a great deal on the line with whether or not it succeeded. This review is going to be a brief, completely spoiler-free summary of my thoughts on the film's various aspects. Click here for a more in-depth look into The Force Awakens. 

Luckily for fans everywhere, The Force Awakens is leaps and bounds ahead of the previous trilogy opener, and we can rest assured that Disney have succeeded in pulling us back into the classic Star Wars atmosphere that has been missing from the theatrical films since 1983. The film blends returning members of the original cast with brand new additions in order to give us the next chapter. And every single character crushes it. If you were worried about Harrison Ford after his lackluster outing in the last Indiana Jones, put it aside. If you were worried about Carrie Fisher given that she hasn't done much recently, put it aside. If you were worried about the relatively inexperienced John Boyega and Daisy Ridley, put it aside. Every single character feels wonderfully written and fantastically portrayed in a way that makes you forget about the wooden, two-dimensional characters of the prequels. Adam Driver's Kylo Ren was an additional particular highlight of the film that may cement him among the legendary antagonists from a galaxy far, far away. Without going into any details of the narrative, the plot is executed fairly well with the script managing to soar into greatness on more than a few occasions, but a handful of flaws causes the story to stumble in a few places.

Director JJ Abrams aimed to replicate the real, gritty feeling of the original trilogy by shooting as much of the film as possible with practical effects. This is definitely something that visibly paid off for the final product. Scenes begin to look real again, and less like green screen messes. There were a couple of minor scenes where CGI characters would appear, and I'm not sure if it's because of the practical aesthetic of everything else or just poor CGI, but they definitely stood out poorly in the film more often than not. John William's score is as reliably entertaining as ever with some solid new themes for the franchise, but fans may be disheartened to discover there's no instant classic from the score such as 'Binary Sunset', 'Imperial March' or 'Duel of the Fates'. The 3D for the film is a worthy upgrade, with lightsabers being flung at the audience, Star Destroyers flying out of the screen and vicious battles becoming more enhanced with the extra sense of depth. 

It's hard to really get into the gritty critique many would want of The Force Awakens without entering spoiler territory. So I'll leave you with the fact that the film is a technical marvel, with Abrams managing to recreate the atmosphere from the original trilogy for a new audience and creating a genuinely refreshed landscape for future installments in the Star Wars saga. A few issues with an otherwise good plot hold The Force Awakens back from true excellence, but if you're a Star Wars fan of any kind, it's hard to imagine you wouldn't at least have fun with this film, With the Star Wars franchise itself now reawakening, Disney and Abrams have done a terrific job at convincing us that we can once again look forward to returning to a galaxy far, far away. 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens  -  8 / 10 

'The Good Dinosaur' review

"You have to get through your fears to see the beauty on the other side."

The Good Dinosaur is the latest effort from Pixar that focuses on the idea of what if the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs missed Earth, and they continued to roam the Earth alongside cavemen. Specifically, the film focuses on a young, unsure dinosaur named Arlo who has to face his fears when he's teamed with a savage young boy named Spot and stranded in the wild.

The relationship between Arlo and Spot is the film's greatest strength.

Without going too much into detail, the structure and basic plot of The Good Dinosaur is somewhat similar to such Disney classics as The Jungle Book and even Pixar's own Finding Nemo. The film is almost an anthology-like series of encounters as Arlo and Spot journey through the wild and meet various new characters, similar to Mowgli and Marlin's adventures on the way to their destination. However, The Good Dinosaur doesn't seem to connect these individual encounters together as well as other examples, resulting in an enjoyable yet slightly disjointed narrative. Luckily, the film has an ace up its sleeve to keep everything together, and that's the emotional connection between Arlo and Spot. It could have been easy for either of these characters to become annoying, or Spot to become too one-dimensional and bland with his inability to communicate. Thankfully, quite the opposite is the case, and both characters are fantastically developed and their chemistry on-screen is the emotional core of the film.

Pixar's blend of unique character designs and gorgeous environments are stunning.

On a technical level, the film is a marvel. The landscapes and scenery are absolutely beautifully and masterfully created. It becomes extremely difficult in some scenes to tell the difference from reality and animation. Given that the 20th anniversary of Toy Story has just passed, it's hard to not be astonished at how far Pixar's animation has come. One aspect that is sure to be a more dividing aspect of the animation is the character models. There have already been criticisms of how cartoon-like the animation for Arlo is in contrast to the hyper realistic environments. However, this is an design aspect of the film that I actually really appreciated. As the line between CGI and reality becomes more and more blurred, the temptation must be there for them to create hyper real, impressive character models and forget their true animation roots. Personally speaking, I'm glad to see them use a distinct animation style here. In a time where the previous few Disney animations have been criticized for the style of humans being too similar, Pixar strives to make a unique style for their dinosaurs and succeeds.

The Good Dinosaur uses a simple but effective narrative plot to get events into motion, but sometimes it feels a bit too simple. In fact I was shocked when the film began wrapping up as it felt like a relatively short film, despite clocking in at 100 minutes. It's hard to put my finger on exactly why it felt short, but it seemed like it would have benefited from an extra ten or fifteen minutes. Overall, the film is far from Pixar's worst, but it doesn't quite reach its best as it is held back by its sometimes disjointed and clunky narrative. It can sometimes feels like a lesser version of The Lion King and Finding Nemo, and a few scenes in particular make it particularly hard to shake that idea. However, it is still a technical feat, and worth the price of admission alone just to explore the wonderful two protagonists Pixar have created here.

The Good Dinosaur  -  7 / 10

'Spectre' review

"You're a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond."

Spectre is the 24^th outing for Ian Fleming’s iconic James Bond, and the fourth for Daniel Craig’s portrayal of the character. Bond is flung into yet another international crisis when a mysterious message puts him on the trail of a dangerous organisation that seek world domination.

Bond returns to head off the villainous 'Spectre'.

The plot of Spectre returns somewhat to the spectacle and outlandish stories of the classic Bond films whilst still retaining the gritty modern edge and reflecting real world issues.  It should come as no surprise that the titular organisation Spectre come out of the shadows for the first time in Craig’s gritty relaunch of the series after a legal dispute over copyright held the Spectre name away from the films. However the series hasn’t exactly been subtle about attempting to slyly reuse or replace the hole Spectre left. Bond found himself facing off against the eerily similar Quantum in the first two instalments, and unsurprisingly Spectre has the organisation return and revealed as a mere subsidiary of the larger villainous scheme. When one considers that there was no way the prior three films were written to tie in to the latest, it’s hard not to give the script credit for tying them all together rather neatly. If Skyfall was the true coming together of Daniel Craig’s origin of the hero, then Spectre wastes no time in setting up his antagonist so that the four films come together as an almost perfect origin of the James Bond mythos.

Dave Bautista shines as the intimidating henchman Hinx.

However, Skyfall proved to be a tough act to follow, and despite Sam Mendes returning to direct, splutters in trying to escape the shadow of the predecessor. There is still a distinct style lingering from Skyfall, and that’s a compliment. The combination of Mendes’ directing, Newman’s score, returning screenwriters and the supporting cast creates a similar feel here that is more than welcome. The first two acts do a superb job of setting up a terrifyingly vague villain for Bond to fight against, spearheaded by Christoph Waltz’s Oberhauser with Dave Bautista’s Mr Hinx providing the muscle. Both actors manage to be intimidating in their own way. Waltz’s mystery and calmness is a worthy foil to Bond, and Bautista’s silent yet brutally deadly Hinx proves to be more than just a thorn in the hero’s side. Léa Seydoux’s performance is also notably interesting, and Craig’s Bond is serviceable yet there feels like missed opportunity to show more range from him in certain scenes with Oberhauser. The action is masterfully directed (the opening shot is proof enough of that). The pacing is incredibly swift. The story is extremely intriguing to say the least. But then towards the end of the second act, a major plot point comes into play and the film grinds to a halt as the creative team clearly struggle with how to continue.

Christoph Waltz's Oberhauser doesn't live up to all it could be.

Perhaps the reasoning behind the third act problems ironically lie with one of the film’s incredible strengths. The blending of classic Bond iconography with the modern gritty reimagining manages to work successfully for the most part. Classic Bond fights through here more than it ever has with Craig as the frontrunner, and there are more than just a few tidbits that are sure to excite fans of the older Bond generation. But when it comes to blending in more heavy parts of the classic mythos, the film struggles to maintain interest as it undergoes teething issues. There are also some issues with the antagonists in the third act. The problem with trying to establish Spectre as the puppet masters behind all the villainy in the Craig movies is that you insinuate the organisation has deviously unstoppable intelligence, and their plans are relentless if not unstoppable. This puts incredible pressure on the screenwriters to create a tangible threat for Bond to tackle in the climax whilst also maintaining the illusion behind Spectre, and they don’t manage to have it pay off. When compared to the raid on Skyfall in the previous film, the climax to Spectre is unfortunately bland and predictable, even compared to its own earlier action sequences.

'Spectre' has issues towards the end, but is still an incredibly fun experience.

Predictability is perhaps one of the key issues with Spectre, as the film attempts to have a twisting narrative when in fact every plot point is painfully obvious. Even without the script leaks of the Sony hacking, there would be no hiding any surprises in this script. Despite this, and key issues with the characterisation of Oberhauser and his organisation in the third act,  Spectre remains a fun and exciting entry into the Bond franchise that hopefully lays the groundwork for bigger and better things for the character. 

Spectre  -  7 / 10

'The Martian' review

"I'm gonna have to science the shit out of this!"

'The Martian' is the latest directorial effort from Ridley Scott which follows Mark Watney, portrayed by Matt Damon, who finds himself stranded on Mars when a storm strikes during a manned mission. After a slew of critical disappointments, many fans were waiting to see how Ridley Scott's latest feature panned out, and whether it could promise a return to form for the legendary director. With a popular novel as source material and a spectacular cast, it was looking hopeful. Just as an important side note, if you have not yet seen the trailers for 'The Martian', I highly recommend you skip them. They spoil a lot of details in the film that would have otherwise provided dramatic tension, and they actually even spoil some content from the third act of the film.

With all that said, it feels great to finally say that 'The Martian' really demonstrates Ridley Scott back on form. The film struck similarities among the general public with recent films such as 'Gravity' and 'Interstellar' (especially given shared cast members with the latter), but perhaps the best compliment I can pay 'The Martian' is how unique the experience feels. Scott trades the glum and ultra-serious tones that similar films use, and instead presents us with something genuinely fun and entertaining to watch while masterfully blending in just enough drama to keep up the suspense. This is undoubtedly due to three main aspects: Scott's masterful directing comeback, Matt Damon's extremely likable portrayal of astronaut Watney, and a damn near perfect screenplay by Drew Goddard. The three work so well together to ensure that scenes following one abandoned character avoid the pitfalls of becoming overlong and dreary, and instead become the most entertaining parts of the film.

The film, of course, has a little more going on to it than simply following Damon trying to survive. And without going into too much detail, the scenes that don't follow him are almost as entertaining as the ones that do. Once again, a stellar supporting cast really helped these scenes. The film uses huge and recognizable names for some really small roles that helped to develop what could have easily become cliche forgettable characters into memorable highlights. I won't mention specific actors regarding small roles, both for the sake of keeping the surprise as well as not hyping up such small roles, but I will call out Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean and Chiwetel Ejiofor for their larger roles. One thing the film handled especially well in these sequences was the conflict between characters. Again, without going into detail, the film handled both sides of an argument equally and let the audience decide what the best viewpoint was, and didn't have to fall back on a cheap "evil" character reveal to create conflict like another certain space exploration film did.

As if an astonishing screenplay, cast and director weren't enough to hook you in, 'The Martian' is also a visual marvel. The 3D actually added a layer of depth to the film and helped to draw you in to Mars. The juxtaposition of scenes set on Earth, which usually had a drab grey look, and the ones on Mars with the vivid red was also an interesting use of visuals, and one which made Mars seem less of a desolate hell and more of an attractive scenery. The CGI was always extremely convincing, and sequences never looked fake or poor. And perhaps most importantly, the film was shot beautifully, especially the scenes on Mars. Throw in an awesomely nostalgic soundtrack that almost rivals 'Guardians of the Galaxy' for oddball space mixtape and some pretty damn spot on science that was presented in an interesting matter, and 'The Martian' is perhaps the best space exploration film we've seen in a long time.

The Martian  -  9 / 10

The Problem with Buying Film Digitally

Furious 7 has more value on Blu-ray than Digital.

This week, Fast and Furious 7 hit video on demand services a full two weeks before the release of the Blu-ray. As a fan of the film, I decided to look into it willing to buy it. But I ran into the same problems I have always had with digital film purchases: pricing. Or more specifically, value for money. In preparation for its home video release, Universal have prepared an extended version of the film to include on the Blu-ray, alongside the theatrical version. However, those who wish to purchase the film digitally will find that they're met with both versions being released separately instead, with both priced at a whopping £13.99 if you wanted them in HD. That's an extremely high price point, especially considering you only get one version of the film. Now consider the impending Blu-ray release. You have to wait two weeks longer as part of a strategy more studios are implementing to push digital onto consumers, but when it is eventually released the price of the Blu-ray on Amazon currently stands at £14.99. It only costs £1 more for the physical copy of the disc, with all the extra costs that come along with producing that such as the packaging and the postage to retailers. When you realize that the Blu-ray also comes with both versions of the film, special features, and a digital copy of the film anyway, you have to wonder why anybody expects you to buy digital.

Steam is one of the few digital retailers offering value for money

I'm in no way against the concept of digital film purchases. It's an instant and easy way to view what films you want, wherever you want. But right now, there are too many problems facing the format to make it a viable option for most people. This is a problem I also have with another form of digital entertainment: gaming. Steam is renowned among PC gamers for its incredible pricing and massive sales. It has completely changed the way that PC gamers buy and play games in recent years. But this is something that console gamers are not benefiting from, with games on the digital PlayStation and Xbox stores costing the same if not more than the retail physical copy of the game. It baffles me that something that unarguably costs less to produce considering the lack of postage and packaging should cost the same or more to the consumer. Digital entertainment should be passing the savings on to the audience, not having them pocketed by major corporations. Looking at my opening example of Furious 7, this is a problem shared by the film industry. There's only a £1 price difference between digital and Blu-ray, and that measly £1 upgrade would cover the packaging, an additional version of the film, bonus features and a free digital copy anyway. If you're selling a cheaper-to-produce version of the film, stripped completely of all the added content one can get via Blu-ray, there should be a massive saving for it to pay off.

You'll have to wait an extra month for Ultron on Blu-ray in US.

Right now, the only reason studios and digital retailers are offering you for buying digital over Blu-ray is indeed this exclusivity window that so many studios are implementing. This is basically their way of trying to force digital onto the consumer rather than actually making it a worthy option. Besides the aforementioned UK release strategy of Fast and Furious 7, let's look at the US release strategy for Avengers: Age of Ultron. According to an official Marvel press release, fans can purchase Age of Ultron digitally on September 8th, but have to wait three and a half weeks until October 2nd if they wish to instead purchase the Blu-ray. Now credit where credit is due, this release at least offers digital consumers the same bonus features one could buy on a Blu-ray (America seems to have digital down a little better than UK right now), but the point still stands that this release strategy is clearly designed to funnel excited consumers who don't want to wait down the digital path, with it being the only way to watch the film for close to a month. It's a sort of backwards, anti-consumer strategy. If studios and retailers want digital to replace discs, they should ensure that their digital releases are more appealing and better value for money than discs.

There isn't enough freedom to watch these films as you choose with digital.

Another major issue I have with digital film purchases right now is the way in which you are forced to view them. Briefly consider the way digital music is sold and consumed. You can buy the track you want, stream it and listen to it (after all, a digital music file is very small and easily streamed regardless of connection speed), and in the case of the vast majority if not all digital music retailers, you can also download the song to listen to at your leisure across the multiple devices you know doubt own without the need for a constant internet connection. But digital films operate in a much different way. In what is no doubt a ham-fisted attempt to combat piracy, most if not all digital film retailers require that you watch the film by streaming it via their website, and offer no additional way to watch the film across other devices or without an internet connection. This is possibly the biggest problem I personally have with digital film right now. We're living in a time where internet speeds are only getting faster and faster, but it's not yet the norm for the entire general public to have fast and reliable internet. Even on a fibre optic plan, I often struggle with sluggish speeds and network drops from time to time. The big problem with digital film is that right now, if your internet goes down or becomes slow and can't handle buffering a massive digital film file, then you're denied access to your entire collection. Looking at popular digital retailer Google Play, you cannot download your film to watch offline unless you do so specifically from an Android smartphone or tablet, or through a Chromebook. So unless you own a specific compatible device, you'll have to deal without offline viewing. This goes right in the face of the ideal that digital music currently promotes, where you buy the file and then it is your to do what you want with. Until either fast and reliable internet becomes the norm, or digital retailers and studios change their stance on this and allow you to download the file that you paid for and watch it in whatever way you want, digital is not going to be a viable complete replacement for Blu-ray. Considering how close the prices are, I feel much better buying the Blu-ray so I always have the film to watch and then using the free digital copy that comes with it if I wish to watch it in another way.

Hopefully the format is perfected before digital takes over.

In conclusion, there are just too many detrimental factors to purchasing film digital to make it a worthy successor to buying Blu-ray right now. There are, obviously, exceptions where corporations have managed to make film streaming work for them, such as a subscription plan like Netflix where a set monthly fee allows you access to their hundreds, maybe even thousands, of titles. But the reason this works so well is smart pricing. Subscribing to Netflix to one month and being able to watch as many of their titles as often as you want for that title would currently cost you less than it would to buy one new digital film. Buying digital is just too costly for its own good, considering they are saving on manufacturing. When you consider that on top of that it also limits the content you get (there aren't a lot of titles in UK where buying digitally will get you the same bonus features as the Blu-ray), that you're limited in the ways you can watch (only online streaming) and that purchasing physically is pretty much guaranteed to get you a free digital copy anyway at near enough the same price, there's not really a good enough reason to buy digitally right now. Until retailers and studios stop funneling their products through exclusivity windows and start actually polishing their product and making it an appealing buy, I'll continue supporting the physical formats.

'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' review

"You have a new codename: U.N.C.L.E."

'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' is the latest action comedy from visionary director Guy Ritchie. The film is a re-imagining of the 1960s TV show of the same name, and follows an American and Russian spy forced to work together, despite their rivalry, to stop a common threat.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.'s 60's aesthetic provides excellent charm to the film.

At its heart, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a fundamentally stylish and fun film that we've come to expect from Guy Ritchie from his success on smaller films such as Snatch to his unique take on a blockbuster franchise like Sherlock Holmes. In an era where spy films lean toward the gritty realism of Bourne and Craig's Bond, it feels like a refreshing treat to revisit the tone of a fun 60's spy film. It's something Kingsman touched upon, but U.N.C.L.E. takes it a step further, and benefits from the film's rich 1960's era atmosphere. Anchoring the spy escapades are Henry Cavill's Napoleon Solo, an American spy, and his new partner, Armie Hammer's Illya Kuryakin, a Russian spy. Cavill and Hammer both nail their accents for the two characters, and turn in extremely likable performances only helped by their great on-screen chemistry. They blend into their roles better than I expected, and are only helped by a good supporting cast, particularly Alicia Vikander as an ally and Elizabeth Debecki as an antagonist. Both seem like relative newcomers (Vikander had a role in this year's Ex Machina, and Debecki had a role in 2013's The Great Gatsby, but nothing else major), but both seem like actresses to keep an eye out for. 

Cavill and Hammer have great chemistry as the reluctant partners.

Perhaps it is only fitting that a visual and stylish director like Ritchie would be attached to such an aesthetically rich film, because he manages to exploit the 1960's style for all it is worth, and combines it so smoothly with his own directorial style for a stunning result. Indeed, sometimes the scene stealers for U.N.C.L.E. aren't among the cast, but rather the stunning editing from James Herbert and the magnificent score by Daniel Pemberton, which has become my second favourite score of the year behind only Mad Max: Fury Road. They were probably the two elements of the film that really helped provide the charm the most, and perhaps if they weren't as on form as they were, the film wouldn't have been quite as fun as it ended up being. As evidenced in the Sherlock Holmes series, Ritchie has an eye for directing action, and that doesn't change for U.N.C.L.E. From car chases to hand-to-hand combat, the film manages to nail pretty much all its key action beats. While the film succeeds in creating charm and fun with its characters and style, it does suffer from some narrative problems. Namely there isn't a lot here you haven't seen before, and at one or two points in the film, there were minor pacing issues. 

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a love letter to 1960 spy adventures. 

Even then, it feels strange to criticize U.N.C.L.E. on a lack of originality when it is so obviously designed as a fun throwback to the spy thrillers of old, including but not limited to the original TV series. The film does exactly what it set out to do by providing the audience with a fun, nostalgic time watching a stylish 60's spy adventure. It may not have the insane action scenes of Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, it may not be as consistently laugh-out-loud as Kingsman: The Secret Service, and it may not have the intricate story that Spectre promises, but if you're a fan of the spy genre, or just fun action comedies in general, you owe it to yourself to pay The Man from U.N.C.L.E. It is certainly a surprisingly enjoyable blockbuster in what is quickly becoming a year filled to the brim with spy films, and perhaps the most fun you'll find at the cinema in a typically barren August. 

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.  -  8 / 10

'Fantastic Four' review

"We are stronger together than we are apart."

Fantastic Four, or Fantfourstic as Fox as fond of advertising the movie as, is the fourth attempt at a film based on the comic series of the same name, following the unreleased 1994 film, the 2005 reboot and its 2007 sequel. All three have been deemed incredible failures by fans almost universally. But now we're truly in the golden era of superhero movies. Marvel have just made a fantastic Ant-Man movie, of all properties, just a month ago. So perhaps now with the lessons learnt from previous installments and all the successful superhero films to draw from, Fox can finally re-engineer their property into a success? You'd think so...

Warning: This review contains a fair amount of spoilers, but nothing much beyond what the trailers spoiled themselves. 

Richards is the world's smartest man who makes the world's dumbest choices.

Fantastic Four follows a young Reed Richards as he works with best pal Ben Grimm to create a teleportation device. Despite his fifth grade teacher inexplicably telling him that a career in science isn't a real career, for some reason, Reed begins to slowly perfect his device over the next seven years. He takes the device to a school science fair (as in the ones where baking soda volcanoes and potato clocks reign supreme... he actually takes his teleportation device to a school fair) and tries to impress everyone, only for his same fifth grade teacher who for some reason is still grading him seven years later to once again dismiss science as magic when the device clearly works. But luckily, one of the world's greatest scientists has decided to visit this school fair just in case amongst the baking soda volcanoes and potato clocks there is a young man working on teleportation technology, and by some incredible coincidence that only the Gods themselves could have manufactured, he goes to the only one in the world where there is a teleportation device. This is approximately the first ten minutes of the film, and the narrative doesn't stop relying lazily on major plot holes, coincidences and lapses of logic for the rest of the film. I'm being serious. 

I hope you liked this shot, since it's from the film's only action scene.

Reed Richards is then taken to continue working on the device with the scientist, who just so happens to be the father of Sue and Johnny Storm. The three of them work together with Victor Von Doom to perfect the device so they can teleport to a new dimension. Ben isn't present during this portion of this movie. For whatever reason. When they create the device, Reed, Johnny and Victor decide to explore the new dimension, inviting Ben just because, and have a horrifying accident that seemingly leaves Victor in the other dimension dead and transforms the other three. And Susan. She didn't go on the trip she was just kinda there when they get back. The film then gets a little interesting as there's a really cool focus on body horror. There's a horrific shot of what looks like Johnny burning to death, and Ben appears to be crushed by boulders. It was a really unique look at how powers could affect an individual, and it was what director Josh Trank seemed most interested in covering when he mentioned it in every interview. But then three minutes later, the body horror stops, the film flashes forward a year, and that's the end of that. Three minutes. I'm pretty sure this was Trank's entire vision for the film, and it's in a single blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene. Without spoiling the second half, nothing interesting happens with the Fantastic Four for a while, Victor suddenly emerges from the alternate dimension with disfigured skin and a cape and they battle. The end. It literally happens as fast as that. I didn't even realize we were in the third act for quite some time, because it happens so abruptly. 

Doom looks bad here, but somehow he looks even worse in the actual film.

This film really feels like several genres just smashed together and forced into this horrifying Frankenstein monster of a film. It doesn't flow at all. As mentioned before, things will just happen for no apparent reason. Victor Von Doom seems to be really pally with the other three while they're working on the device, but then he'll suddenly turn and say something like "Maybe Earth deserves to die because nobody is worth saving here". To which Sue replies, and I'm fucking quoting the movie here, "Check out Doctor Doom here" in a sarcastic jokey way. I'm a huge fan of the comics, so it felt even worse when this film was just spitting in my eye and pissing on this franchise. The introduction of Victor Von Doom, possibly the greatest villain in all of Marvel Comics, was him sitting greasy in darkness playing games on triple monitors. He looked more like the World of Warcraft guy from South Park than the leader of Latveria. And then after he his accident and ends up in this void dimension, he somehow returns wearing a cape (God only knows where he found that) and looking like someone took a shit on him then rolled him around in green neons. I thought he looks bad in the shot from the trailer seen to the left, but he looks even worse in the actual movie! His eyes glow green and look really close to each other, and he's not wearing a mask, yet his mouth doesn't move and he can talk perfectly well. And he suddenly just begins to turn evil, claiming this empty dimension as his true home (I really need to stress there is nothing fucking there other than rocks) and that Earth needs to be destroyed so he can live by himself on Rockville. He makes 2005 Doom look like Heath Ledger's Joker

The talented cast still can't salvage these poorly written characters.

There really is nothing redeeming about this film. I know all the main actors have been fantastic in other properties, but this choppy script gives them no time to flesh out characters at all. In fact, the Four barely get to interact after the accident that gives them powers. Even the effects looked horrible in a lot of shots. Reed's stretchy arms look like something from an early 2000's video game. The Thing actually looked cool in about 50% of the shots he appeared in, but in 2015 that's not nearly good enough for a huge blockbuster like this. Human Torch actually looked worse than 2005's attempt a lot of the time. Doom looked utterly laughable in the few scenes he actually appeared in. This is both due to poor effects and awful design. I was aware of the extensive reshoots before going in, but if you weren't before you will be after seeing it. Sue Storm's hair literally changes colour every other scene where you can tell they've shoved in some new redone scene. The same could be applied to the tone, as it will swing from a gritty re-imagining to an attempt at light hearted humour. 

What Doctor Doom actually looks like in the film. Really.

If I had to take a guess at what went wrong with this film, I'd say Josh Trank came on with his original vision and the studio liked it. But as the fans reacted negatively to certain leaked news from the set, such as Doom's name being Victor Domashev (there's literally a scene where they clarify his name is now Von Doom), the studio panicked and begin re shooting and re working the film and twisting it into this complete worthless garbage they released in cinemas today. The end result is a film with no flow, no coherent narrative, no vision and a complete insult to its entire target demographic. The one interesting thing that Fantastic Four provides is that we now get to sit back and enjoy watching Fox scramble to figure out what to do with this completely fucking doomed reboot now, because there's no chance this is going to make a profit for them. I literally haven't heard a good thing about this film from anyone for good reason, and even going in with those extremely low expectations, it still managed to disappoint me. Do not see this film. Not in the cinema. Not on DVD. Not on rental. Not even on Netflix. It will consume 100 minutes of your time that you will never get back and only leave you bitterly angry, confused, sad and empty. Marvel have managed to convince the general audience in recent years that Rocket Raccoon and Ant-Man are cool superheroes you should be excited for. Fox have managed to convince me, a huge Fantastic Four fan, that this is a completely fucking worthless franchise that should be left in the hazy memory of cinema only to ever come up in conversations about the worst superhero movies to take its rightful place amongst the likes of Batman and Robin, Catwoman and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. Somebody asked me if this film is terrible, and I can honestly say it is not. It completely trancends terrible. It earns a special place amongst the ranks of failed dogshit that goes beyond just a terrible movie. Fantastic Four pisses on everything I love about the comic books, it spits in my eye as a fan of film (it doesn't even follow a coherent three act structure) and it completely emotionally bankrupted my love of the Fantastic Four. 

Fantastic Four  -  1 / 10

'Trainwreck' review

'Monogamy isn't realistic.' 

Trainwreck is the latest comedy directed by Judd Apatow, but the first not written by himself. Amy Schumer is on screenwriting duties this time, as well as starring in the main role in this romantic comedy. Schumer's character, also titled Amy, has lived her life based on teachings from her father that "monogamy isn't realistic", and enjoys sleeping around and living a sexual life rather than settling down with her family (as her sister has done). But her ideals are challenged when she meets the next person she must interview for a magazine: Bill Hader's Aaron.

Schumer and Hader's chemistry is, luckily, a highlight of the film.

The story is an interesting enough take on the romantic comedy genre and provides enough moments for its characters to shine, but unfortunately it does tend to fall into the regular clichés of the genre, forcing the film to become more predictable and tedious in some areas than it really deserves. Certain elements, such as Amy being promiscuous, are just subverting typical male roles. It is fresh to see this new angle on it, but not exactly unique. The film definitely thrives when it focuses on character over story. Schumer thankfully didn't construct the script in a way to give herself all the limelight and force the character into the audience's face, which allows you to appreciate her more as a three dimensional character rather than a stereotype. She really does have some touching moments, especially with her family, that were a nice change of pace. She also has great chemistry with Bill Hader, who does a surprisingly strong turn at playing a more straight role rather than being a wacky and wild comedic role, and shows potential at something more than just comedic acting. 

LeBron James is just one of the surprisingly effective supporting characters.

The full cast is effective beyond the main stars. Brie Larson is spectacular as Amy's sister and polar opposite, and really helps sell some of the more dramatic moments. Tilda Swinton is near unrecognizable as she blends into the role of Amy's boss. John Cena and LeBron James were two stars of the film I did not expect to enjoy as much as I did, but they both were highlights of the film and showed a real strong sense of comedic timing. There were also a decent amount of cameos which I won't spoil here who were enjoyable to see crop up. But these moments weren't featured as often as I expected them to be. The film definitely leans slightly more toward drama than it does comedy, but thankfully not as much as the dull Funny People, also helmed by Apatow. The drama all works, as long as you go in not expecting a laugh out loud comedy. It could have done with a bit more focus on the lighthearted during select scenes, however. 

Brie Larson helped sell some dramatic moments involving her family.

The film has other problems beyond a little bit too much of a focus on drama. Clocking in at just over two hours, the film could definitely benefit from being trimmed down a bit more, with it feeling about fifteen minutes too long. On the contrary of that though, the resolution was really extremely rushed, and felt like the film was aware of its own bloated run time so they decided to just rush an ending to get it done. The reliance on the tropes of the romantic comedy genre was also a really noticeable problem, with the story borrowing typical third act conflict ideas from about every single romantic comedy you can name. These negatives don't completely tarnish the experience though. With a winning leading pair, a strong supporting cast, and some convincing drama and depth for its characters, Trainwreck is a decent romantic comedy and a worthy watch, despite it stumbling with tonal and pacing issues. 

Trainwreck  -  6 / 10

Trainwreck smashes into UK cinemas on 14th August.

'Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation' review

"The syndicate is real: a Rogue Nation trained to do what we do."

Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation is the fifth installment in the Mission: Impossible franchise that once again follows Tom Cruise's now iconic Ethan Hunt once again entangled in complex espionage plot and must work harder than he ever has to thwart the threat to international security.

Rogue Nation delivers more slick, refined action scenes in line with III and IV.

Ethan Hunt and the team are up against, as Simon Pegg so aptly describes it in the trailer, the "Anti-IMF" through a mysterious organisation known as the Syndicate. Without delving too much into story spoilers, the premise allows the film sometimes feels like a constant escalation between the two parties to outsmart one another. Indeed, it was rather reminiscent of a rivalry such as Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty, and it was fascinating to watch it play out.  The action was creative, slick, well choreographed and spectacularly shot, with a plethora of heart pounding sequences to enjoy. Anyone who feared that the trailers completely spoiled the film's most crucial action scenes when they highlighted Tom Cruise clinging for his life on the side of a plane may lay their fears to rest.  Rogue Nation actually manages to continuously escalate until the climax. The bike chase was a particularly thrilling highlight, especially when viewed with the IMAX format, but there are plenty of scenes to choose from.   

Simon Pegg is once again an utter delight to watch on screen.

Rogue Nation utilizes a very familiar cast list, which is a relief as the franchise has a tendency to change significant portions of its cast with each new installment. However, reuniting with Tom Cruise this time are Simon Pegg's Benji, Jeremy Renner's Brandt and Ving Rhames' Luther. Seeing these three fantastic characters return really works to the favour of the film, as they all have wonderful chemistry with Cruise, and by allowing the audience to be with familiar faces, it let's you focus more on the plot and action rather than getting to know an entirely new team. This is to no detriment of the new additions, however; Rebecca Ferguson and Alec Baldwin are both welcome additions to the cast and fit right in with their interesting characters. The stand outs of the film are really Cruise and Pegg, though. Cruise is always a delight to watch in action films, as you can really see him pour everything he's got into making the action on screen believable. It's hard not to admire his dedication to the franchise with each new installment. On the other hand, this film follows in the footsteps of Ghost Protocol and allows Pegg to shine and presents more of his wonderful and hilarious chemistry with Cruise. He's an utter delight to watch as always, and I hope he remains a staple of the franchise throughout future sequels as well. 

Rogue Nation represents the franchise at its best. 

Rogue Nation doesn't bring a lot to the table that we haven't already seen done expertly in III and Ghost Protocol. But it does provide more of what we loved so much from those films, and continues to refine and perfect the Mission: Impossible formula in pretty much every way which results in one of the most enjoyable films of the summer. It could have benefited from a demanding villainous presence not unlike that of Philip Seymour Hoffman in the third installment, or showing off some creative new tech for the team to use like the raid on the Kremlin in the fourth, but it provides more than enough reasons for a return to the franchise, with spectacular action, a delightful cast and a fun story.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation  -  8 / 10