Justice League - Review

Before we start talking about Justice League in-depth lets talk about the superhero genre. Its been a few years since superhero/comic book films have genuinely excited me and the only example to come close was Batman Vs Superman purely because of what the title and the project as a whole meant. So here we are in 2017 and there is a Justice League movie but I must ask, where was the hype? I know that I bring this up a lot with recent cinema but where was the sense of scale and not just within the film but as an event itself. Batman and Wonder Woman were going to share a $200mil plus movie with other superheroes that people care about, yet where was the hype?

As a person that takes an interest in the behind the scenes and someone who just knows about film production via osmosis I knew why this film was not being hailed as a masterpiece or an event but why wasn't the popular culture hyping this film to nth degree. The most I saw was bus stop posters and that was it. Keep in mind that I saw Justice League on the Friday following its release and you would not have known a Justice League film was showing other than a usual quad poster.

Justice League, in my opinion, marks the end of Warner Bros attempting to build a universe and honestly I think in order for the DC brand these films need to fade away for a few years. We have had 5 films within this universe and only one of them has truly found an audience, there were 5 Marvel films before the Avengers and at least all of those were enjoyable whereas DC currently have Wonder Woman and that is it.

Justice League should be the cautionary tale for any studio looking to build a shared universe without earning it or at least having somewhat of a cohesive plan in place. Why WB did not just identify the characters they wanted for their Justice League movie and make solo films of said characters, in the same fashion to how Marvel did it, then when the time was right build an epic 150 minute spectacular is way beyond me. So is Justice League any good?

Heck no, Justice League might be one of the worst budget to quality ratio's in the history of cinema. I understand the reason it went so over budget but I cannot ignore the poor writing, visuals, acting and just tone of the project. This film is a mess and to be honest I can't see anything within this chopped up Frankenstein's monster of a film that could have been better or even great if Zak Snyder got to finish his idea.

The story of Justice League does not work at all, the film starts halfway through a story that we have no concept of other than the dream sequence in BVS and what is told to us after the first scene. The first act of the film is trying to be mysterious by building up strange symbols but  then just drops it so that two of the characters can just say "this is what is happening" and everyone else just goes with it and it all just leads to a worse version of the New York battle in the Avengers. This film infuriated me with how lacklustre the story was, I know I was not expecting much but dear lord this film does not even try for bare minimum. It turns out that there are three cubes and they are being hunted by a tall guy who looks like the villain from the Medievil PS1 game. Seriously this is as bare-bones as the plot gets.

You could argue "the story may not be great but what about the characters?" Trust me $300 million is not worth a what if episode of The Big Bang Theory if they became the Justice League. This film stinks of desperation especially the character of The Flash who is clearly there to appeal to the general audience to make quips that feel really out of place he is easily the worst character in the film. Every character is made to be sarcastic, which is certainly an addition from Joss Whedon but it does not fit with the rest of the film. The next part will include spoilers.

Superman gets his own section because this could have made the movie so much better but WB and the screenwriters dropped the ball hard on this one. The resurrection of Superman, arguably the most important character in these movies, comes in the middle and is resolved in 10 mins. He is brought back to life, goes evil for a second then is turned good by Louis Lane. Why bringing back Superman was not the entire focus of this story I don't know but it would have made for a far more interesting film. Just imagine a film where the members of the Justice League have to team up to bring back Superman, that is gold but instead we get 10 maybe 15 mins and then its back to the plot about the boxes.

On the technical side of this film is where I seriously got frustrated with the film. It appears that everything about this film is wrong from a cinematography stand point. So the first Justice League film ever made, a budget of $300 million and we open on... cameraphone footage of Superman. I can't think of a worse way of opening your tent-pole blockbuster of the year, it set the tone for the rest of the film. The aspect ratio was something I noticed from the trailers and the cynic in me immediately knew why the film was in 1.85:1 and that is because the Avengers was shot like this but the aspect ratio really does affect the look of the film. Most scenes feel empty with the characters having huge amounts of space between them, this choice is odd. The decision to adjust the colour in post is jarring and makes everyone stick out, again this was a way of making the film be more "fun" but it does not work in the slightest.

Overall Justice League is awful and I don't recommend seeing it, the film is an unfinished mess which was rushed to meet its release date even though it needed a lot more time. Boring story, bland action, annoying characters and whole chunks missing make Justice League unworthy of its title and budget.

4/10

Written by
Ashley Harvey

Blade Runner 2049 - Review

I must apologise for this delayed review and the lack of content in general but I will continue to review and discuss movies on this blog.

Lets start by saying that Blade Runner is my favourite film and I do consider it to be one of the best ever made so this can tell you something about my anticipation and expectations for the sequel. When the first teaser dropped I was surprised by how much it felt like Blade Runner and you could say I was looking forward to the film. As time came closer to the release the marketing kept ramping up and the trailers and marketing started to put doubt in my mind and then seeing Alien: Covenant was when my worry for Blade Runner went into overdrive. I am so happy to say that all my worrying was for nothing because Blade Runner 2049 is the best film of 2017 so far but I am very confident in saying that it will not be topped.

As of the time of writing this review I have seen 2049 twice now which is a good sign because I enjoyed it both times. I can see people being very apprehensive of this film due to its run-time of 2 hours and 40 mins but personally I prefer films that break the 135 min barrier especially a film with a budget north of $120 million. Saying that the film does not feel its length, it can be considered slow but slow does not mean bad and 2049 has time to breathe and let the audience soak in the world and atmosphere of Blade Runner.

 In terms of story I think that 2049 does provide a decent story and does not make the mistake of just retelling the same story but with different characters. It asks questions and does have the feel of a classic sci fi film rather than just a mindless action spectacle which most modern science fiction films have become. There are moments within the film that does reference the original in a slightly annoying fashion but they are few and far between and the average viewer wont be able to spot most of them although there is one big thing, which is a spoiler, that almost ruined the film for me but for the casual viewer this wont be the biggest issue in the world.

Its funny to think that we are now at a stage where special effects don't wow us anymore and I am so happy to say that 2049 was impressive visually which is a massive achievement, one thing that I would like to point out is the movement of the camera when moving around L.A and how it elegantly glides around the landscape allowing the audience to become immersed in the world. Colour is also a very important part of this film because everything pops and the film is lit very well and there was one instance where I was impressed with a set which to the average person would not be a big factor but for someone like me this really impressed.

Performances on the whole were rather good with Ryan Gosling making a perfect replicant and Harrison Ford looking like he gave a damn. Everyone else ranges from decent to good nothing really bad but it could have been better.

The score for this film is excellent, nowhere near as good or memorable as the original but this is something else and its so refreshing to have a score that wants to be noticed. The crashing electronica sounds on show are so mesmerising and elevates the film, its so distinct and immerses the viewer into the world. I love how the visuals and the score compliment each other so well.

Overall Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most impressive films of the past couple of years due to the care put into the film. Everything mixes well and provides an excellent viewing experience that does not disappoint especially for fans of the original. Definitely watch Blade Runner 2049.

8.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

American Made - Review

Where do I start with this one? Well I think you should go see American Made because it is a genuinely good film, not great, but I would say it is my favorite film of the year surpassing Dunkirk. Although I think Dunkirk is a far superior movie on a technical level I just can't deny how much I enjoyed American Made.

In this current climate the popular culture seems to have an affection for all things "80s" and Pablo Escobar so I was hesitant when going in on American Made but I love Tom Cruise, and that is a deep and completely heterosexual way and I don't think Doug Liman is as cynical as most directors working today which I think helped American Made.

American Made does have its problems and most of them come from Liman's direction. This film has a very handheld and off the cuff approach to shots with a lot of cuts and shaky shots but as I have always said if your movie is good I can forgive a bad camera which is very true for American Made. Other than the cinematography I feel as if the film could have been edited a little better and by that I mean by trimming some of the fat, not saying that it is loaded with unnecessary scenes but some do just hinder the film from keeping a good pace.

It is very easy to get lost in this film which is something that a lot of recent movies has been lacking because I became invested in what was going on. Scenes actually meant something and drove along the story and my god does this film have some tense scenes. Another criticism I have would be the ending, both this and Dunkirk just ended that one or two extra minutes too late but as I have said this is a very good movie so these problems are far less obtuse because the film grabbed my attention.

This film is hinged on Tom Cruise and I am glad to say that he does give one of his better performances in recent memory, not to say that he has been bad but this does feel like a different role to Ethan Hunt or Jack Reacher. I do have to say that Domhnall Gleeson is very good in this movie and it is nice to see him crop up in films that I like this dude just knows how to fill a role. The other performances are good but nothing too special.

I do praise the films soundtrack because it does attempt to stray away from your typical "retro" songs for more of a focused approach which again works in the films favour and does help it break away from something like a Guardians of the Galaxy which uses music as a tool rather than letting the music compliment the film.

Something I notice amongst new screenwriters is a trend to have every other line have a characters name in it. This film does suffer from this trend nothing too major just thought I would mention it.

Overall I highly recommend seeing American Made because its been a while since we had a good drugs movie and this is certainly better than ninety percent of movies in cinemas at the moment. Good story, good acting and an all round fun time.

7.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets - Review

Before we get into the review proper I would like to warn everyone that I will be making many comparisons to The Fifth Element. This is because Valerian and The Fifth Element are very similar especially because Luc Besson has directed both of them and that The Fifth Element is heavily inspired by the Valerian comics.

Valerian is one of the better films of 2017 which makes it sad that it has tanked at the box office because I would love to see a sequel to this film but unfortunately we may never get a sequel. In short Valerian is a movie that feels like a movie and that is more than can be said for other films within the past eight months. Valerian is by no means a perfect movie and I was ready to discredit the entire film from the first frame because it played a David Bowie song but as the film went on I found myself engaged in the film. Here is the big thing about Valerian it has an identity which, again, is more than can be said for the majority of recent films. Valerian feels like its own film which is heavily inspired by other movies including Besson's own Fifth Element but the film has colour, it builds a universe and most importantly to me it feels big.

I do have negatives towards Valerian but most of them are quelled by the positives I have with the film but problems do exist. Some of the camera work could have been better with many of the shots feeling loose and having a strange micro zoom which was odd, the other major problem I have with this film is that it can drag at points especially towards the end where it just keeps going and going which I feel could have been tightened but like I said the rest of the film makes up for this.

The story of Valerian is decent enough and does do a good job of keeping the audience somewhat engaged in the film but its the visuals that are most impressive with this film, nowhere near the pinnacle of visual effects but certainly very good and interesting. Although I feel the visual style of Valerian is lacking when compared to The Fifth Element which really felt like a realised world and universe whereas Valerian does feel a lot more generic but good nonetheless.

The performances in Valerian are mixed but overall no one was bad other than Ethan Hawke and Rihanna who were not as solid as the others and their scene really stops the film and kills all the pace just to show off that the film has a pop star, you could compare it to the Ruby Rhod character in The Fifth Element but at least that works within the context of the film and does add to the world whereas in Valerian it does kill all momentum of the story. The two leads were fine but I felt lacked any charisma that could have elevated this movie just think of Bruce Willis and Gary Oldman in The Fifth Element. Other than that the performances were all serviceable and did not detract from the film.

Overall Valerian is a film I enjoyed but does have problems with pacing and acting but it is an enjoyable film that you should at least watch once. If you have seen The Fifth Element it would be worth checking this out because it does feel like a watered down Fifth Element. Certainly give Valerian a watch. Just don't expect the next Star Wars.

7.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Atlantis: The Lost Disney Movie

Before I say anything specific about Atlantis just know that you should watch this film as soon as you can because in all honesty it may be one of the best Disney movies and certainly one of the biggest surprises I have had in a long time. I am honestly shocked that people do not discuss this one as much as they would discuss Pocahontas or Tarzan, not to say that those films are bad but Atlantis is far more interesting of a movie than those are certainly does not feel like a typical animated feature from Disney.

This is one of Disney's most striking animated features both on a story and visual level and I think might be the high point of Disney animation. This film is very different tonally to other Disney animated films because this deals more with discovery and adventure instead of a traditional love story, it does have romantic elements but the majority of the film is centered around Milo and his obsession with finding Atlantis. In terms of visuals there is something about Atlantis that just sets it apart, I think colours play a major part in the unique visuals of this film especially the look of the Atlantians with their grey skin and white hair,  its really rather striking and this is what makes Kida such an interesting Disney Princess. Her look is so visually stunning yet Disney have forgotten her and it appears that they will no effort to remind people of this film which is a shame because this is one of the better Disney movies.

I think this film is unfairly treated by Disney because if they did put out merchandise for this film, especially in this culture of collecting, I think that they could do a lot with Atlantis. As I have said before Kida is the most unique Disney Princess because of her design and her character and introducing this character to a younger audience could allow Disney to make more money on merchandising.

Overall I think that everyone should watch Atlantis because it does deserve a second chance, if you allow yourself to understand that this is not Tarzan or Mulan then I truly think that more and more people will highly rate Atlantis. I just find it funny that the film about something lost in time became lost itself.

8/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Dunkirk - Review

This is the best film of the year so far and overall I had a good time watching the film yet only few small problems keep this film from being great. Keep in mind that I think that the film is good and that any problem I have with it is minor compared to the majority of films I have seen in 2017.

Of course any Christopher Nolan film is going to peak many moviegoers interest since he is one of the more consistent film makers in Hollywood and I don't think he has made a "bad" film. Some are of course better than others but none of them are infuriating to watch, even Following is interesting enough as to make up for its lack of polish. So where does Dunkirk rank among his films? Its on the lower end of the scale just below Interstellar, which is a film I personally love, but is nowhere near as good as Inception or The Prestige.

About a week before Dunkirk was released I discovered the run-time which surprised me clocking in at only 106 minutes, in my head I thought Nolan making a war movie would be at least 150 mins, which dampened my excitement which is silly I know but it just did not sound right to me. To my surprise I think the film is a little bit too long which is crazy when paired with my last statement but I think the ending should have ended sooner but I will go into further details later on.

Lets start with what was good about this film, first off the sound design is amazing and is on par with Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, which is good company to be in, with the Spitfires absolutely rocking the theatre and the explosions actually having bass to them which has been lost in recent years. The use of real extras and practical effects really helps a film of this calibre I have always appreciated how Nolan would rather do something practically or in camera and only using CG as a last resort or as a way to enhance what is already there. Costumes and the look of the film is brilliant and that is down to it being shot on 70 mm which looks great and its a shame that most cinemas use digital projection because a film like this would really pop with a proper projector. Overall there is nothing "wrong" with the film in fact it has been a long time since I was so invested in a movie in the cinema. The only problems I have with the film are minor at best and play more into personal preference rather than the movie itself. 

The ending is the biggest problem for me and its the reason why I have decided to not award it a higher score, I personally think the film should have ended when the soldiers left Dunkirk and Kenneth Branagh looks over the channel but instead the film drags on as we follow the men back home and it feels unnecessary and tacked on for "emotional" effect. The acting overall was fine for a movie of this type but no one really stood out as amazing but again this is not the film where someone will win an Oscar for best actor. My biggest complaint is something that most people would not even consider nor care but I feel as if the cinematography does not correspond with the use of 70 mm. The film was very close quarters and this may just be due to watching in a cinema, that frankly does not care about image quality, but the shots felt compressed and cramped, without many wide shots which, for me, defeats the purpose of the bigger film stock. Those are my only real issues with the movie and I think that this is going to be the film of the year for me.

Overall Dunkirk is one of the most suspense filled movies I have seen in the cinema in recent memory and I recommend that everyone go see it. I do have problems with the film which does take a toll on my rating for Dunkirk but these are down to personal preference and most people would not even notice. Definitely go see this one and see it in 70 mm if you can I can imagine it would be an amazing experience. 

7.5/10

Written By

Ashley Harvey

Why I Walked Out Of Spider-Man Homecoming

This is not a review of the entire film because to be honest I did not sit through the film and for that I do apologise but this film drove me to the breaking point and in all fairness this is not even the worst film of the year so far but this one broke me. Recently we have been going through this "faux" 80's phase which is annoying in itself but I can deal with if done right, the other trend is having an abundance of references within the film to either make the filmmakers feel better about themselves or they put them in so that a select few audience members can pat themselves on the back. The reason I know this was because I was one of those audience members when I was younger, when I saw The Avengers in 2012 I laughed at the Galaga reference but as the years have gone by and my thoughts on how films should be made and written so has my attitude towards this type of content and to be perfectly honest I have come to resent it. A big reason why I feel as if this has been a major negative on modern movies is the lack of subtlety and direction, who are these for?

So how does this relate to Spider-Man Homecoming? Well within the first 40 minutes which was all that I could stomach there were so many moments that just irked me, lets start off with the use of Can't You Hear Me Knocking by The Rolling Stones and how the use of this song in any film after David O Russell has touched it has lost all credibility. This song would be fine if it was not tainted by wannabe Scorsese filmmakers who want to use rock 'n' roll tracks in their movies. Then there is the dumb humour during the high school scenes and how "Penis Parker" is the phrase that is used several times. The Vlog portion of the opening also contributed to how this film has dated itself already and it only came out this month, my argument with this point and many of my other points is, who is this for? Using the Vlog at the beginning is clearly marketed towards a demo of under 27's whereas the Ferris Bueller reference in both homage and then ruining it by showing the film, who is that supposed to appeal to? It's this content that ruins movies for me now. Spiderman (2002) never had a scene where Peter Parker was watching Superman The Movie, I know that analogy came from nowhere but it does make sense in the context. Why is it that 15 years later we can blatantly do this and no one bats an eyelid. It is clear to me that many film makers are not too concerned with legacy and that is disappointing this is not to say that all contemporary media is bad, not at all but if you were given the opportunity to make a film based on an iconic character why would you rely on all of this auxiliary content to make people like the film. Why can't we just make good movies that stand on their own?

Anyway that was just a rant about why Spider-Man Homecoming forced me out of the cinema. I am not saying that you should not watch the film this was purely for me to vent about the mistakes of modern big budget movies.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Rope - Review

I would like to start by saying that I have not seen many Hitchcock films which is bad I know but what better time to start. I had previously seen Psycho, Rear Window, North By Northwest, The Birds and Vertigo with Psycho being my favourite but after watching Rope I think Psycho might have some competition.

I would say Rope is most famous for its "one shot" nature and this being from 1948 it is very impressive and does contribute to the suspense of the film. There are cuts and if you are paying close attention you will notice them but I film is far more than a gimmick and does hold up today. Suffice to say the cinematography of Rope is top notch with the camera moving effortlessly between rooms and focusing on different characters within the story.

The performances are all good with James Stewart being the standout but everyone was convincing in their roles and you were engaged with everyone and their own story. It is refreshing to see a film where its simplicity is its charm. I would go further into story but I feel as if you go into Rope without knowing anything the film will be a very enjoyable experience.

From what I know on the internet and people I speak to Rope seems to be lower on the list of Hitchcock films and I find it difficult as to why that is, this is one hell of a good film and I recommend everyone watch it, film enthusiasts and even casual movie watchers will have a good time with this one.

9/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Transformers: The Last Knight - Quick Review

This film is awful and I loved every second of it. This film is a great example of why good direction can save a dreadful screenplay because if I am honest the film feels as if it were written by a 5 year old but my god does the direction save this film and make it so enjoyable.

I have to address the four aspect ratios and how ridiculous it is, there is Imax full frame then their is a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and two different letterbox I noticed this in the trailer but assumed that it was just a mistake but nope. Its not like its specific scenes in different aspect ratios but varying shots, for example two characters could be talking in a simple shot reverse shot format and one character is letterboxed and the other is in the full Imax frame its simply silly yet I still had so much fun with this film because the action inside the frame is simply stunning.

It is hard for me to really talk about this film because most of you know what to expect from a Transformers film but in all honesty this is far from being the worst one in fact I would rate it just under Dark of the Moon. The plot is a mess though and it does not even get introduced until the 30 minute mark. Performances are the usual from a Transformers film with Anthony Hopkins being the standout because you know he is just having fun with it.

The sound design in these films continue to amaze and do set it apart from your standard blockbuster fair but other than that the score was forgettable and adds nothing to the film. This is a very short review because there is simultaneously nothing and everything to say about Transformers.

Overall I do recommend seeing it just because it is insane but the action is well done and you can clearly see money on screen but don't expect Citizen Kane.

6.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Mummy (1999) - Review

The newest Mummy movie has been released recently to less that favourable reviews which turned me off seeing the film and made me curious to revisit a childhood classic of mine The Mummy from 1999. So why did I go back and watch The Mummy 1999 over seeing the new one and reviewing that, the simple answer is that The Mummy 1999 still holds up and is a solid action adventure film.

The Mummy is not a flawless movie but it achieves what it set out to do which is to have an Indiana Jones style adventure based around the Universal Monster classic The Mummy. The striking thing about re-watching this is how much time is given to the characters and not in a Suicide Squad way where there is too much time wasted on characters but enough time is spent on each character so the audience can get a feel for what they are about. The other surprising aspect of this film is how the film lets itself breathe because after the prologue setting up the backstory of Imhotep the film goes full on adventure with sprinkles of supernatural here and there. It is only until the second half of the film are we reintroduced to Imhotep and the film switches its focus to stopping him. Watching this in 2017 is so refreshing because we have a clear set-up, characters who we can get invested in and a plot that does not flip flop every 20 minutes.

Alongside the structure is the action which is great the set pieces are shot and choreographed perfectly and you feel as if you are in the action, nothing in the action scenes takes you out of the film which again is this massive problem we are facing in today's film industry but this film handles with finesse. Of course this film is not of the calibre of Indiana Jones but it does provide the audience with a fun action romp with The Mummy as a foundation. The opening shot is still impressive today and its amazing that some films today cannot match the scale of it. The battle at Hamunaptra again has scale and feels epic in its scope and then you compare that to the footage that I have seen of this new film where everything feels close quarters and small.

Performance and characters are important in the 99 film, as previously stated the characters are all believable and they are set up very well. The actors do a wonderful job with their roles especially Brenden Fraser and Rachel Weisz who both are charismatic and fun. Fun is the key word when discussing this film and the popcorn elements clashing with the more horror type elements just create this fun romp that is not too scary but is not too light either. The film struck a perfect balance.

The score for The Mummy is incredible and helps extend the scale of the film beyond just the visuals and gives the film an identity that has been lost in recent years where the score has just been another part of a machine. The score is sweeping and has a classical feel to it but then flips to convey the more sinister elements of the film. It is a wonderful score.

Overall I would recommend people to watch The Mummy 1999 because you will get far more enjoyment out of it than you would if you saw the Tom Cruise film and if you have already seen The Mummy go back and re-watch it because it is just that much fun and certainly worthy of multiple viewings. Fun premise and story with likeable characters.

8/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Wonder Woman - Review

This is the best DC Universe film I will admit that its unfortunate that its not as great as everybody is saying it is. This is not the worst film I have seen this year but Wonder Woman leaves a lot to be desired and is bogged down with niggling problems.

Before I get into the negatives I would like to talk about the aspects of the film I did like. Chris Pine was the best part of this film, other than some awkward comedy moments but his character was believable and him being a spy felt refreshing. His character had a clear motive and goals, the same could be said for the character of Wonder Woman but again its the "comedy" written for the characters that just bog the film down. I enjoyed the film when it was moving along and the scenes make sense within story. Other than that the rest of the film just did not work for me.

Lets start with the structure of the story because the first ten minutes of this film are poor and the film repeats the problem of having scenes that don't add anything to the story, sure you can call it "character development" but its not, it just slows the movie down where you could have the same development done with actions rather than stopping the film to directly tell the audience how the characters feel or their motivations. When Chris Pine is introduced that is when the film starts to get going because we have plot but as soon as we are introduced to this character the film feels it necessary to have an overblown action scene which is filled with the most annoying slow motion since 300. This scene does not really add anything to the story other than Wonder Woman's mentor is killed by a German which could have been done in a far more effective and less headache inducing manor. For example lets say that Chris Pine crashes off the coast of Themyscira, Wonder Woman goes to save him, as she is dragging him back to shore have a German plane come through and land on the beach. The Amazonian General played by Robin Wright comes down to the beach to investigate what is going on she attempts to get close to the plane but is shot by the German pilot, Diana sees this and kills the pilot checks on Robin Wright as Chris Pine is laying on the beach. There I just saved an overly complicated action scene for something that is more powerful, and does not overstimulate the audience within the first 20 minutes of the film, save the bad-ass Amazonian fighting for when Wonder Woman is on the front-line in WWI.

I think another problem with Wonder Woman is a problem all major motion pictures are facing today is too many characters. If the entire film revolved around Chris Pine and Gal Gadot this film would have felt less cumbersome which would have given more time to have Diana and Steve to grow in turn making his death even more tragic. Lets talk about the supporting characters because they don't really add anything to the story, maybe they are other DC characters but this is a prequel Wonder Woman film I don't think this is the appropriate place to sprinkle other DC characters. Steve's secretary is the worst part of this film, the Jar Jar Binks character that is only there to say "funny" lines and it is the most poorly written dialogue in the entire film and the actress is awful at delivering it. Then we have Steve's friends that include, budget Oscar Issac, Ewen Bremner and Chief. These characters add nothing to the overall story and don't do anything of importance except when Chief lights a smoke signal for Diana, that is it. Finally we have the villains and this is where the film falls apart because throughout the film Diana thinks that Aries the God of War is behind WWI and she wants to fight him and kill him, so we are introduced to two bad guys General  Ludendorff and Dr. Maru the audience is lead to believe that Ludendorff is Aries. It turns out he is not and I thought that Dr. Maru, the female scientist, was going to be revealed as Aries which would make sense instead it just turns out that David Thewlis is Aries. This just comes out of nowhere and makes zero sense, why not have Dr. Maru be Aries.

The overall direction and look of the film is flat and rather uninteresting, with action scenes over-stylised and dialogue being flat and wide. This film has some of the worst effects I have seen this year, something about it was really off especially the end when it became a PS2 cut-scene. The action is where I have the biggest problem, there was no impact to anything because it was just overdone, again a case where if they had dialled back the style and just shot a solid action scene the film would have benefited but from a visual standpoint and a thematic one. WWI is not the setting for a quirky action comedy, because there are scenes where they try to display the "horrors" of WWI but then your mind is cast back to when she couldn't use a revolving door. The tone is all over the place. This is the DC film which would have benefited from having no humour.

Overall Wonder Woman is not the worst film you will see this year but certainly not the best, its flawed but I can see how you can enjoy some of it and to the average audience member it could come across as a decent action film but for me there are too many problems on a technical and thematic level for me to be invested. This film will make its money and be paraded as this massive progression in equality when in fact its just a superhero film that is a little bit better than Man of Steel.

6.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Why Unfunny Comedies are the Worst

Comedy is one of the hardest genres to get right in entertainment. If a comedy works it can be one of the best experiences an audience can have but if the jokes fall flat and it fails to gain a laugh it becomes painful and worse than watching a bad film of any other genre. So why are unfunny comedies worse that other films that fail?

For me its all about story an unfunny comedy can still work if the story and the film making make up for the lack of humour. A common factor in most successful comedies is a good story and characters for example Ghostbusters is one of the best comedies ever made, it has the right balance of humour and story this is beneficial for the film overall because if it were to have bad jokes or was unfunny to someone it is still possible to enjoy the film for the story. This is why Deadpool was one of the worst cinema experiences of my life, I understand that the reason I did not enjoy the film was the fact that I did not find it funny and I accept that but there still should have been something to hold my interest something for me to latch onto but there was nothing other than a wafer thin "plot".

Of course there are examples of great comedies without a strong plot such as CaddyShack which I personally love and could watch it at any moment. It has no real plot its just scenes of comedians stitched together but it just works and I feel as if its down to the comedians themselves. Unfunny comedy is nothing new for instance I hate the Carry On films because I just don't find them funny, I can see that they are decently made and have talented people involved but I would find it easier to watch something a lot worse.

I think the reason why watching a terrible film is easier than watching a bad comedy is because a bad film can become humorous from how poorly made it is, or how bad a performance is. Watching The Happening is far more enjoyable than watching A Million Ways to Die in the West because its easier for us as an audience, we become overwhelmed by how much nonsense is in The Happening that it becomes intriguing and we wonder how someone could have made this. Whereas AMWTDITW just makes the audience cringe at the poor jokes and it makes for a much more miserable time because we know that someone found this funny.

I just wanted to share my brief thoughts on why I find it easier to watch bad films over bad comedies but I must admit that there are a few cases where a bad comedy can come full circle and transcend into one of the best experiences for example Encino Man.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Michael Bay: Good Direction - Bad Screenplays

Michael Bay is a good director. I have always had this opinion and its a controversial one but when has anything I said been a popular opinion but Bay is a good director who chooses bad scripts. In this piece I will be discuss what it is about Michael Bay that sets him apart from the rest and why I can look past the awful scripts.

Has Bay made good movies? Yeah I would have to say that Michael Bay has made good films, for example I would put 13 Hours as one of the best films of 2016 but the same film maker made Transformers Age of Extinction which is a steaming mess. So lets go through the filmography and see what film work and the ones that don't.

Bad Boys is a good film and a strong debut from Bay, this is a great action comedy where the action really stands head and shoulders above the rest, I am going to be saying this a lot during this piece but Michael Bay knows how to craft an action scene. The humour is fine with some parts being actually funny but for me this is more about the action and being thrown into this police thriller. It also helps that Bad Boys has a very strong opening scene. Not Bay's best but nowhere near his worst, this is a solid film that should be watched or re-watched.

The Rock is the best film Michael Bay has made, not the most visceral nor the biggest but the best and is a must in any action film fan's collection. The film just works and its just so fun to watch, of course it has its dumb moments but nearly every film has a silly moment, but in action films a little bit of dumb can mean a hell of a lot of fun. This is where Bay started to really develop his visual style and making every shot look a million dollars. Bay has a great way of making his films feel expensive, from the visual effects down to the score everything is grande which is funny seeing how "small" the plot is. Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery make an excellent team and they play off each other very well. Objectively this is the best Michael Bay film and I don't think I am alone in that school of thought, is it my favourite? probably but it has been some time since I have seen it so a second viewing is imminent.

Armageddon is where Bay starts to deteriorate and sowed the seeds for the hatred towards Michael Bay, for me this film is fun but I do understand that it is a bad film, but not the worst film ever made but compared to his first two films this one feels different. I think Bay wanted to make Titanic in space and to his credit it sort of worked but not in a good way, Titanic is a brilliant film whereas Armageddon is an average film that clearly has taken elements from Titanic and forced them into a strange thriller/action/romance comedy its a strange blend with an even stranger cast. I have no idea where to start with the cast. I'm not talking about Bruce Willis or Ben Affleck but Steve Buscemi and Owen Wilson and this all ties in with the problem of too many characters, its so hard to talk about this film because honestly it just has to be seen to be believed. Overall a fun film but has many problems and it drags.

Is Pearl Harbor a bad film? Yes. Does Pearl Harbor have a solid film buried within? Yes. If Armageddon was an attempt to copy Titanic then this is is Bay taking the blueprint shredding it up and attempting to piece it back together. This is a hard one to talk about because I do think that buried deep within this film is a solid action film that runs around 120 mins. Its a shame because this film does have some really engaging action scenes and a decent cast but its shrouded in this poor attempt at a love story that just slows the film down and running at 183 mins its just too long. I think my thoughts on Pearl Harbor could make its own post which would come later down the line. In short this was the first big problem people had with Michael Bay on a quality level.

Next up is Bad Boys II which to be perfectly honest is one of the dumbest big budget action film to grace our screens and I love every minute of it. This is an example of why Bay is one of the best at directing action scenes, this film is just excessive in the best way possible. Running at just under two and a half hours this film has fun with itself and my god does it just work. Of course if you were to look at the film objectively it is a bad movie, not as bad as Pearl Harbor or Armageddon but its ridiculous but for some reason it just works. Its seriously fun and dumb which makes it amazing for me because if a film is fun enough to distract me from poor writing then its doing its job well. The film starts with a KKK meeting in which Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are undercover as klan members, and a musical score supervised by Dr Dre I don't understand how people cant enjoy this film for what it is, if this screenplay was directing by anyone else it would be one of the worst, unbearable films ever made but Bay is so adept at directing action scenes and keeping the energy levels up that you are along for the ride. Is it better than the first one? No but on the other hand they are two separate films, the only thing that relates the movies are the characters, name and director. Bad Boys II is certainly worth watching for any action fan and is the perfect example for this argument that Bay is a good director but just has dreadful scripts. Defiantly worth watching at least once to experience it.

Now The Island is a strange one to talk about because it has been a long time since I seen this one and from what I remember I liked it but in recent years I have started to notice a lot of hatred towards this film which I can neither confirm or deny. This is a slight departure from Bad Boys II in the fact that it was attempting more of a Minority Report feel than a typical Bay film. So I can't really talk about this film in detail but this is not the worst Bay film but certainly not the best its fine. I would recommend watch it but don't expect anything too special.

2007 is where the modern reception towards Michael Bay began and Transformers is the film that brought about this opinion. I will be talking about the four Transformers in one segment because to be honest they are all the same but with varying degrees of quality. The first Transformers is a decent film and in terms of big budget blockbusters it was fantastic and to be fair in terms of direction and visuals, the Transformers films are the better blockbusters in recent times. The Transformers series has gone too far into silly territory but in terms of action spectacle they have not been topped. With The Last Knight coming out rather soon and looking like a hot mess I am excited to see how Michael Bay can use this franchise to top himself.

Lastly we have to talk about Pain and Gain and 13 Hours, these two films are really good and they should be seen, especially Pain and Gain which is one of the most energetic films from Bay and completely caught me off guard by how engaging it is. 13 Hours is a solid action film, enough said, but seriously both of these films should be watched and are closer to The Rock and as far away from the Transformer movies as possible, which goes to show that Bay will do a fantastic directing job whether the script is good or bad. The man loves spectacle and in recent times we have lost that.

Michael Bay is never going down in history as one of the greats, but I feel as if more people should acknowledge that as a director he is very good at what he does, its only the guys writing the scripts that are letting him down. Please watch his good films to see that the same director is there using all the same methods but using a far better script. I will always love Michael Bay, he knows what he likes and he knows how to get me excited to watch a film. Most filmmakers these days all blur into one but Bay stands out.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Alien: Covenant - Review

Before March 2017 I had a feeling that Alien: Covenant was going to be a solid film, people had been high on The Martian which I still have yet to see. The trailer made it look like a back to basics horror film in space, sure some of the cinematography was a little wonky but I could forgive that if we were to get a decent Alien film. Then March came and I noticed something, the advertising for Alien: Covenant started popping up everywhere, I would see busses with Alien on the side, before and during every Youtube video would be the trailer or a teaser for Alien. This was when I started to worry for the film, I knew that a film like this being advertised everywhere was a big warning sign and it turns out that I was correct. Alien: Covenant is not a good film in fact I would say its actually a poor one, don't get me wrong there are decent parts within the film but as a whole and as a prequel/sequel it just does not work within the franchise.

Before I go any further there will be spoilers throughout this review. Lets start with some positives although there are only a few. Michael Fassbender's performance as the android Walter was very good and much better than his performance as David in both this and Prometheus also the character of Walter was better, I like how emotionless Fassbender played it and it worked, its just a shame they hardly do anything with his character. Speaking of hardly doing anything with an interesting character, Billy Crudup plays the acting captain Christopher Oram which is a very interesting character for me but is unfulfilled and just seems wasted. Other than those two actors and their characters there is little else in this film that I thought was good.

I would say one of the biggest problems with Alien: Covenant is the characters, not the characters themselves but the amount of characters. Its a problem we see a lot now where a film has too many characters which in turn means that the more interesting and important characters can get lost in the shuffle. Covenant has too many "main" characters and only a few get decent development when I say a few I really mean David because the other characters don't really do anything you could argue that Danny McBride's Tennessee does develop during the film but its ever so slight. This is the part of the review where I start comparing it to the original Alien. The original Alien was far more effective with characters because the film developed them, even the smaller roles all had something that developed and over the first act of the film we knew a little about all the characters because was slower and had fewer characters. When Kane dies it has an impact because we know the character we have spent time with the character and we know everyone else's relationship with him. In Alien: Covenant the first person to birth an "alien" is a no name grunt, how are we supposed to feel any connection to the events when such a pointless character dies, and then five minutes later another "alien" is born from another no name grunt, all tension is lost and the scenes have no punch on an emotional level, sure they are filled with gore and blood but that is not a good substitute for build-up. If Covenant had half the characters it would be far more effective when someone dies and the film does have a good example of being effective when a main character dies. When Billy Crudup is tricked by David to be a host for a facehugger it means something because this character has had some establishment, there is more weight behind his death but then it is ruined by a CGI chest-burster opening its arms out for David. Of course I have to talk about the Ripley clone for this film, she is not as bad as I was expecting but the character of Daniels, played by Katherine Waterson, was just so bland and to be honest she had barely anything to do in the film until we needed to parallel the end of Alien. Alien: Covenant needed far less characters and needed to beef up the character of those that were important to the story.

The story of Alien: Covenant is unnecessary, most of the scenes and motivation in this film is unnecessary. Within the first ten minutes we are introduced to David speaking to Weyland with some philosophical dialogue that felt really out of place then cut to the ship Covenant where Walter is doing routine checks while the crew are in hyper-sleep and then an action scene happens out of nowhere which kills James Franco. I don't understand why there needed to be this scene, the scene is only there to kill Franco and to wake everyone up, it felt like padding and I feel the film would have benefited from a slower start. The rest of the basic plot is essentially the same as Alien, a strange signal from an unknown planet, the crew go to investigate. Where the film loses me is with the backstory of the Aliens themselves, Alien: Covenant just does not make sense. It feels like Ridley Scott was torn between two films he wanted to make, a return to the first Alien with an atmospheric horror film and the sequel to Prometheus and what we got was the result of trying to merge those two ideas. If we had to chose one I would have gone with the Prometheus sequel, because Ridley Scott does not need to make the Alien film, but if he had continued with the Prometheus story I feel as if we would have got a far more polished film. There is nothing else to really say without breaking each scene down and explaining why it does not work so I will spare you the in-depth analysis and just say that the plot and script is a mess.

Now the cinematography and film making itself I have massive issues with in this film. People often say how much of a "visual" director Ridley Scott is and I would agree but it depends on which Ridley Scott you are talking about, because anything pre Gladiator is visually stunning and engaging but after that he became more "gritty" especially with the use of higher shutter speeds. Alien Covenant is an ugly movie, its shot poorly and just has the wrong look and feel, with some scenes looking like they belong in 28 Days Later. The first Alien is a beautiful film, and from frame one you feel as if you are in this situation, the lighting was perfect everything felt dirty and real. Covenant everything is too bland and at points it feels as if it is trying to be Alien, hell even Alien Isolation looks better than this. No scene has tension and the action/horror scenes loose any impact due to the high shutter speeds and handheld nature of the camera. This film feels like an imitation of an Alien film rather than the big budget prequel. The CGI in this film is damn right insulting, even Prometheus has practical effects but this made all the versions of the Alien look fake and silly, It baffles me that the same man who allowed this made Alien and Blade Runner.

Lastly the soundtrack has to be addressed, why do we have to rely on the previous film to get brownie points. To say the score is a straight up copy of the original is an understatement, the exact same cues and stings are ripped straight from the original and to be honest it does not work. Other than that the rest of the score is just generic and dull.  Nothing else to really say about it.

Overall I would not recommend watching Alien: Covenant, you are better of doing a double bill of Alien and Aliens. This film is a mess and not even an interesting mess, I would stay away from this film and wait for it to be on TV to check it out. Like Alien Resurrection this film should only be watched to see how wrong the film makers got it. Its a shame because this film had potential and could have been at least decent but instead what we have is a mess of a film.

5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Review

I want to start this off by saying I did not hate this film, I am just disappointed. This trend of 4th wall breaking and references needs to stop and I understand that the first Guardians kicked this off but not to the extent that Vol. 2 does.

One thing I have noticed with my reviews is that I do not discuss plot that much and this review will be the first to rectify this problem so lets discuss the plot. The film revolves around StarLord finding his father played by Kurt Russell while being hunted by a race of aliens after Rocket Raccoon stole something from their home-world. Early on in the film the Guardians are split up and we have three storylines that all come together at the end. Now the story itself is rather decent and I found myself rather engaged in the story, but I found myself wanting a little more from this sequel, it feels rather disjointed from the previous film. The story is decent enough to keep me engaged and is rather interesting. The biggest problem with the characters and dialogue is the references which honestly does stop the film and take me out of the film even more than in the first film. Not to say the music takes me out, in fact the soundtrack did not annoy me and it works rather decent for the most part on the other hand the score is rather lacking which is a common theme in the Marvel movies.

All the performances are fine with Kurt Russell fitting perfectly into the Marvel Universe as Ego and everyone else is comfortable in their roles with Dave Bautista having lots of fun with the role. My biggest issue is with the character of StarLord and how he is mainly used as a way of having references in the film, he does have some character but the ratio is heavily on the reference side.

In terms of direction the film is fine, the slow motion does become rather distracting and the film does follow the same basic pattern as the first one. The costumes and makeup are rather good but this is contrasted with some distracting CG at points with some parts looking a little too cartoony in a major motion picture. I was surprised with how Baby Groot was used in sparing fashion which was nice because the advertising made it look like this movie's equivalent of the Minions.

Overall I would recommend seeing this film because when its good and engaging its really good and worth a watch but it does have problems that can suck you out of the experience and the references do let this film down.

7/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Art of... Hype

I think its fair to say that over the past year my "hype" for movies has died down to a depressing level. The last film I was hyped for was Rogue One and with that film being a massive disappointment I feel myself not looking forward to any upcoming releases. Sure there are films I want to see but I am not hyped more cautious especially with Blade Runner 2049 which was a film I was hyped for before I saw Arrival now I fear for what it may be. Although I do think there may be other factors at play.

Marketing has started to annoy me, with some films hitting you over the head with trailers to the point where you don't want to see it and others leaving a trailer so late that you start to suspect that the studio has little faith. I can no longer trust trailers especially with Rogue One's trailer flat out lies and with every trailer looking and feeling the same it has got to the point where I would rather go into some films blind. Not to say that all trailers are bad but the fact that it seems that every trailer must have a "wow" moment or a pop song just ruins the point of a trailer, in my opinion a trailer should feel unique to a film or franchise essentially a sales pitch for the audience but with everything being the same there is no individuality and it does ruin the hype.

Another factor that ruins hype for me is other people, that may sound selfish and to an extent it is but when I hear and see other people getting insanely hyped for a film it does put me off depending on the film. The best example was The Force Awakens, I doubt we will ever get a film as anticipated as this ever again but I had to take days off from college leading up to it purely because I would have become very angry at certain people because it would be nothing but people hyping something that in some cases they have no reason to be hyped about. With The Last Jedi trailer I am less hyped for that film, not because it was a bad trailer it is fine and the film will be better than Rogue One but having the masses "analyse" the trailer and theories it becomes too much and when you start to see past it and know that a lot of these people probably don't really care about Star Wars its a shame.

Hype can be important and I do feel that over the last couple of years we have lost the good type of hype in favour of this trendy hype where young teens are hyped for Jurassic Park sequels and comic book characters they didn't know until the popular culture demanded a Wikipedia search, whereas I want more of the big movie hype, for better or worse a Batman Vs Superman hype. Blockbusters need to feel like events again and sadly to me they are starting to not be important anymore. There is a new Pirates of the Caribbean that should be a big deal but it feels small and it does not help that the trailer makes it look an uninspired CGI mess.

So I just want to know where the hype went or has hype finally died and been replaced with this "faux" hype a weird trend where you have to hype everything. I hope I can be hyped again and to be honest the sooner we get to The Last Jedi or Blade Runner the hype probably will spark I just don't want to be mad at movies anymore.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The F8 of the Furious - Review

I just wanted to say that F8 of the Furious is a far better title than Fate of the Furious. Expecting a Fast film to be objectively good is the wrong way to view these films. F8 is not a good film but it is so dumb and fun that its poor direction is forgiven because I can not be mad, its Fast and Furious 8.

Prior to seeing F8 I re-watched half of Fast and Furious 6, I say half because that film is rather unbearable to watch, but I can certainly say that F8 is better than 6 but can not hit the heights of 7. If you saw the trailer and was interested then certainly go see it, its not a waste of 2 hours like some other recent cinema experiences.

From a film making perspective this is rather poor, it just lacks in some areas and the use of CGI does lessen the set pieces to some extent. In a film about fast cars doing crazy stunts, you should always try and strive to make it look convincing but the film does look cheap when it comes to the CG. This is not a major problem just a tiny nitpick but why does the CG fire look like its from an early PS2 game, I just find it funny that a film with a massive budget looks rather cheap.

Holy shoot this film is colourful, its so jarring watching a film in the cinema and it having vibrant colours, this film is rich in colour from the opening scene in Cuba. When the film is using actual cars and real stunts it does look good but the effect is diminished when compared to the janky looking CG.

The performances are what you would expect, Vin Diesel is stale, The Rock is a bit too much of a smart-ass, Michelle Rodriguez is annoying to look at and the rest of the cast are actually alright giving over the top performances without going too far except one person... Tyrese.

This being a Fast and Furious film, the soundtrack is loaded with hip/hop and it makes the film so dumb, in the best way possible and having the hip/hop contrasted with the subpar Mission Impossible plot makes the entire film so laughable but if you are taking this seriously either you have a low IQ or you went into the wrong film. The score itself is lacking in some places, generic thriller music does not live up to the stupidity of the Fast and Furious series, where a Bad Boys II bass heavy score would have benefitted this film immensely.

Overall I can't stop anyone from seeing this film but I have no need to, its a blockbuster that feels big and a worthy cinema experience. Dumb fun that has problems but overall its not something you would regret watching. I would like to add that the submarine sequence is rather good and Tyrese Gibson is the Jar Jar of these films.

7/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Beauty and the Beast (2017) - Review

I am not sure on my stance on this new wave of Disney live action films, on one hand Cinderella was rather decent whereas Beauty and the Beast felt lacking in most areas. Now I understand that this film was not made for me nor was i expecting much and yet I still feel this film made too many mistakes for it to be considered good. Taking these established Disney films and turning them live action does create a strange situation where someone could take the source material and expand on it and someone else might try to recreate the film scene for scene.

I have not seen the animated Beauty and the Beast neither did I have any real knowledge about the story itself but this film does feel like there is something missing and in other aspects there is too much shown its a real dilemma that this film has. Lets start with the casting, for me this was a major misstep using established actors in the live roles. Its hard for me to watch Emma Watson and not think of Harry Potter especially when the film takes place in a castle, it was rather distracting and I felt her performance was lacking and I cant tell if that is a poor script or faithfully adapted from the Animated film because she felt lifeless to me. Everyone else is ok nothing special other than Kevin Klein as the father, he was the only character that had any character. I would like to use this film to say how much i hate hearing the British accent in films, its really distracting and just annoys me but I am not using that as a negative towards the film.

With the recent controversy surrounding Mass Effect: Andromeda facial animations it was rather distracting watching the Beast and how awkward the mo-cap was, throughout the scenes with the beast I was reminded of Tim Curry in Legend, it would have been far more beneficial to have had that over the awkward cgi. Sometimes the green-screen was distracting at points and the castle felt too small for how "grande" it is supposed to be.

The music is not too bad but the score itself was not that impressive and I can assume that the musical numbers are all taken from the animated version so overall I have nothing important to say about the music other than its there.

Overall it really does not matter what I have to say because this film will make the money and the majority of people will think its "magical" when its rather shallow and small. It is not anything special and it wont change your life but its harmless and its going to entertain the masses. I don't want to always be negative but they make it so hard for me not to.

6/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Kubo and the Two Strings - Review

In recent times my opinions towards "kids" films has changed, it was only last year that I started to warm to the idea that they are slowly becoming better than most major motion pictures. Zootopia being a catalyst for this change in opinion and with that film winning Best Animated Feature at this year's oscars I will be reviewing that later on but this review is about Kubo. Kubo and the Two Strings should have won Best Animated Feature.

Its so refreshing to see a film where the content in the film is contained to the world and universe the film is based. We get no references to Twitter (Moana) or Iphones (Zootopia) the dialogue and content are all grounded in the context of the film. This is a major benefit for the film and allows it break away from other animated films.

This is one of the prettiest films of 2016 with its visual style and colour palette really complimenting the fantastical element of the film. This film also does boast creepy visuals and themes which again allows the film to be its own entity that lets the film stand the test of time. The setting of Japan provides an interesting backdrop to the film and really helps the proverb nature of the story and the film feels like a tale rather than a Hollywood screenplay, of course not all of the dialogue and story is perfect. There is a lot of redundant attempts at funny dialogue from Matthew McConaughey and the pacing of the film lets the quest feel less important than maybe it should be. Kubo seems to defy the odds very easily and I would have rather have seen more problem solving but its not a problem that breaks the film.

The sound and score in this film is very whimsical and like the art style really provides a Japanese feel which aids in creating a fantasy world. Kubo's music is especially pleasant and the visuals that accompany it are rather beautiful. This feels like an Enya music video in the best way possible, I really find the aesthetic of Kubo amazing in this current climate of poorly coloured and shot movies and having something that is vibrant and whimsical is a step in positive direction.

Overall Kubo is a good film, notice that I did not say kids film because I feel that this film is more than a kids film. With a "film" like Boss Baby coming out it really shows that there is a massive chasm between studio made kids films and artistic films that are for everyone. I recommend this film to everyone, it may not be the best film of 2016, hell its not even the best film of this art style but it was a lovely film that is not too taxing to watch and does have some dark elements which compliment the more pleasant aspects of the film.

8/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Warner Bros HD DVD Problems

This is just a quick post just informing everyone who owns HD DVD's that it is rather common for Warner Bros discs to not work or start freezing. Out of 50 Warner Bros discs around 7 have started to have this problem. A way of testing this issue is to test the disc by trying every chapter on the disc, if the process freezes or distortion in the picture then you can identify that there is a problem. It could be as simple as a scratch which, in some cases, could be fixed but some discs that are healthier than others on the surface may have more significant damage. For example Training Day did not work when i attempted to watch the film but after some light cleaning it works fine. The Matrix on the other hand was working perfectly up until 1 hour and 37 minutes and refuses to work properly at the time of this post.

So my goal is to attempt to deep clean the discs I have in order to get them working again but I thought it would be a good idea to use my platform to warn owners of HD DVD of this problem and it is mainly Warner Bros discs that I have found this problem. From online reading it appears that the biggest problem with Warner Bros HD DVD's is disc rot, this is what I fear is happening so I implore all HD DVD owners to test their Warner discs to see if they suffer from this problem and start to look to upgrading them to blu ray.

Written By Ashley Harvey

Cafe Society - Review

Im not sure if I could class this as a hidden gem but the fact that this film is not talked about that much could make it one. The reason why I am not classing it as a hidden gem is due to how recently the film was released so I just class it as a review. That being said Cafe Society is one of the best films of last year. 

This is the third Woody Allen film I have seen and it could be the gateway for me and many people into the world of Woody Allen. This film is a perfect example of having references in a film without making it seem as a way of showing off and the setting of the film allows for the content to come across as genuine. This film can be compared to La La Land and I think that Cafe Society is the superior film in both film-making and story aspects, taking the idea of golden age Hollywood and making a warm, light hearted film centred around that is a great idea and Cafe Society does it well.

Jesse Eisenberg is excellent in this film and really channels classic Woody Allen archetypes which is amazing to watch. Kristen Stewart and Steve Carrell are also great in this film and everyone plays off each other very well, with the supporting cast also bringing a high level of quality to it. One of my favourite aspects of this film are the characters themselves and the stories that all characters have to share with us. 

The story itself is decent enough but is certainly a framework to hang these characters on which works really well. All the sub plots work well and never feel like we are meandering which is great writing and really serves the film well, its hard to talk about the film in detail because it just needs to be watched for the best experience. The cinematography in Cafe Society is beautiful and one of the best looking films from the past year, rich colour and perfectly composed shots really compliment the great screenplay and characters.

Overall Cafe Society is one of the best films of 2016 and should be watched especially if you did not like La La Land. This film is delightful and is great watch, its 96 minutes so its also a very easy watch. Please do check this one out.

9/10

Written By

Ashley Harvey 

Kong: Skull Island - Review

I would like to start this review off by saying that the only reason I sat through the entire film was to ensure that this blog remains as professional as possible. Now with that said Kong: Skull Island is the worst film of 2017 by far. With most films I can find a few positives among the large amount of negatives but Kong had nothing I enjoyed.

Lets start off by saying that this film is annoying from a film making point of view, this film brings nothing new to the table, not every film needs to be original but a film should have a sense of identity and this film feels like someone tried to make Apocalypse Now and failed so badly. Setting this film in the 70's was a big mistake because it distracts from the film and really hammers home the fact that they wanted to make Apocalypse Now without understanding what Apocalypse Now is.

More and more contemporary films have the same problems with characters, Kong has too many characters without setting them up properly and most are redundant to the story. Some characters are fully set up then killed off without any impact and it makes you wonder why we spent so much time setting these characters up. The only character that was bearable was Tom Hiddleston but even he had barely anything to do until the last 40 mins of the film. I felt as if he should have been the main character and had him as the Martin Sheen character if we need to parallel Apocalypse Now . John Goodman and Samuel L Jackson felt misused and underdeveloped until the story requires them to do something and one other actor who I shall not name for spoilers is a carbon copy of Dennis Hopper from Apocalypse Now.

Lets talk about King Kong himself and how he is misused in this film, the first problem is his reveal there is no true reveal shot he is just kind of there and it ruins the point of having this monster creature in your film, the film lacks creativity and just throws monsters out there without setup or pay off. Rather than the monsters and Kong being a threat they came across as an inconvenience to the characters. Every monster encounter plays out the same way and it becomes frustrating to the point where the action no longer has impact.

The soundtrack is annoying its almost as if Warner spent too much money on the rights to the Suicide Squad soundtrack that they had to lump anything from the 70's into this film for "world building" when it just comes across as a way to seem hip and cool. If King Kong (2005) was the romantics King Kong then this is the hipster King Kong. The actual score to the film is also forgettable not one track stands out apposed to the Peter Jackson film where the main theme is rather memorable.

Overall I would not recommend seeing this film at all, if you want a good monster film re-watch Pacific Rim if you want a good King Kong film watch the Peter Jackson version and if you want a good Vietnam film watch any other Vietnam film. This film is devoid of any personality other than what is artificially created to come across as "deep" or "cool". Too many characters clutter this forgettable slog of a feature. Avoid this film as if it were Skull Island itself.

4/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

I Am Sam - Hidden Gem

I Am Sam is a rare case where its a film purely driven by a performance and a decent story and everything else fails on a film making level yet I still enjoyed it. This film seems to have got lost in the shuffle, no one really talks about it and when I Am Sam is mentioned it is usually because of the stellar performance by Sean Penn. It also does not help that around the same time A Beautiful Mind was released and dominated the box office and won Best Picture. So is I Am Sam a good film on its own?

I Am Sam is a very good film and one that is very easy to get lost in, Sean Penn puts in an astounding performance as Sam Dawson and at times you forget that Penn is acting which could be seen as a negative but I found it fascinating. Its a shame that the film making on display is awful, I understand that it can be seen as a reflection of Sam's state of mind but at points it does become distracting with the camera constantly zooming in and out.

This is truly a film that is about performances and other than Penn, Dakota Fanning and Michelle Pfeiffer also put in top quality performances although none of them can touch that of Penn's. Every character feels real and all the characters are well written which is fundamental to a film with this subject matter. Its hard to really talk about the story without ruining it and with the hidden gem reviews I want new viewers to go in fully blind to enjoy this film.

I Am Sam is a film that over time will start to grow on people but as of now it seems to have got lost amidst other performance driven films of that era and especially A Beautiful Mind. I am usually against films that have poor cinematography but this is a rare example of where the story, characters and performances all work together to make a really special film that needs to be recognised more. Do check this one out, its a really decent film that is not remembered as well as it probably should be.

8/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Logan - Review

The first five minutes of Logan gave me hope for the film, its a shame that the rest of the film is a boring mess that has no clear focus or story. I made a post about my thoughts on the trailer of Logan and how it felt small and a little off, it turns out that i was right.

I would like to start off with what I actually liked. The first couple of minutes of the film were very good, it set a good tone for the film but its a shame that it doesn't continue that way. That is where the majority of my praise stops. The rest of the film is just dull and uninteresting with a weak plot and character motivation.

I don't like to swear on these posts and i will try my best not to but as soon as the F word was uttered I knew what this film was. This film was designed to appeal to teenagers and the comic book fans which is not a bad thing but the way in which Logan attempts to be violent and edgy comes across as what a teenager would write and make. It has been a long time since i have watched a movie in cinema with as much swearing as this, I am not against swearing, violence and nudity when it is done well but when it is shoved in the film without context or class it comes across as juvenile.

The violence in this film is nice to see in a major blockbuster but the way in which it is done leaves much to be desired, if only director James Mangold framed the action well maybe this film would not be as dull as it is but instead we get these shaky-cam action scenes where its hard to know the geography of the action.

Having the film set in 2028 was strange to me, I know that we needed it to be sometime in the future but 2028 seems a little far fetched. I did like the idea of Patrick Stewart as Professor X slowly loosing his mind and that being a danger but a lot of what his character does within the film does not coincide with this idea. The script is very lazy it relies heavily on "humour" and swearing which takes away from when the film is trying to be serious. Logan could have been a very solid movie if it had grounded itself completely. Strip the humour and just make a down to earth Wolverine film and like I said the elements were there I just feel that the material was handled poorly.

I did like the majority of the X-23 parts, up until she started talking. She is introduced very well and the majority of the performance is good. Her action scenes are solid and she emotes well with just her face. When she starts talking is when she and the film goes way downhill. The main "plot" is to get X-23 to Eden where other mutants are living. Turns out these other mutants are children like X-23 and thats when we get the problem with making X-Men films, the on screen powers of the mutants look awful and lame.

There is also a fight between two Hugh Jackmen in which one of them has been de-aged.

Overall Logan could have been a really good down to earth action film with Wolverine just kicking a lot of butt but instead we get a slog of a film where the action is poorly shot and meaningless, a bad guy we have no connection to and dialogue that a 12 year old wrote. I can't recommend this film to people that can easily spot bad writing and plot problems but honestly it is not as bad as most films from last year and is certainly not as bad as X-men Apocalypse. If you want a good Wolverine film watch The Wolverine.

6/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

La La Lied

Introduction

This is my thesis on why La La Land is a bad movie on both a screenwriting and technical level, this will be broken down into different sections. I would also like to mention that this is being posted before the Oscars so I have no idea whether the film done well or had a Boyhood moment.

The Current State of the Industry

Its no secret that the film industry is currently in a bad state, the quality of films have diminished substantially over the past couple of years. The rise of the "Cinematic Universe" and reboots have been a source of this decline in quality. So within the darkness of Hollywood we do get some glimpses of hope, Star Wars Episode VII was an example of doing a reboot and a major blockbuster well and of course there have been some really good smaller films.

The majority of independent films are not good they are plagued with filmmaking problems, usually understandable problems but none the less they are still average films. The biggest problem plaguing a lot of films not just independent films is that of appealing to pretentious audiences and critics, this is a big problem. Referencing other films and the industry making the audience and critics feel important, the problem with this is the fact that it does not actually add to the substance of the film or filmmaking but makes the film and director/writer come across as shallow.

The solution to the problems are simply not to treat your movie as a way to show off your film knowledge and just make the best film you can. Keeping a film within the context of its universe is the key to having your film stand the test of time. So if filmmakers could stop referencing other movies in their own and just keep your films as its own entity.

The Art of the Comeback

As previously stated references need to stop in films, The Godfather never had a scene where Marlon Brando looks at the camera and goes "I could have been a contender" and then the audience claps because they get the reference. Its seriously a cancer than needs to stop in films, the sooner we get away from this trend the sooner we can start to enjoy films again.

Doing a throwback is different from referencing, a throwback takes a lot of skill to pull off, just look at the original Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark they are perfect throwbacks, using iconography and themes to then tell an original story and make a really good film. In recent years we have not really got a good throwback film, or at least a major blockbuster. The horror genre has been very good at the throwback film but we need a major Hollywood blockbuster throwback. La La Land could have been that throwback, and this could have been one of the best films of the decade. The problem is we got a film with references and not a throwback.

Musicals are a dying breed, the last big musical was Les Mis and to be perfectly honest it was a good film. Im not saying that musicals need to return in a big way but it could be a genre that could be great again. Making a throwback musical would require a lot of research and effort to craft a good original musical that has the feel of a 50's musical.

So why is it that the film feels nothing like a 50's musical? .It claims to be this throwback and a homage to the classic musicals, but the film it resembles the most is Xanadu. I find it weird that the people bringing up the classic musical argument has clearly never seen a musical made before 2000. It is clear that this film was made to appeal to a mass audience who would overhype it to hell, the film is nothing like a 50's musical.

Remembering Whiplash

Since i first saw Whiplash my opinion has vastly changed on it, i started out loving Whiplash and now find it a good film with problems. Whiplash is a very good first film, a breakout film and so i can understand there being problems, mostly filmmaking and screenwriting problems that come with a relatively new filmmaker. My biggest problem with Whiplash is the script, having Miles Teller be a vessel for Damien Chazelle to force his opinions onto the audience but we will discuss that further on. Overall Whiplash is a fine film to get your feet wet within the industry, but the minor problems with Whiplash were surely going to diminish over Chazelle's career.

New Year, New Disappointment

After 2016 the film industry needs to start improving and with the release of La La Land i thought that this could be a good omen for 2017 but instead it damn near killed 2017 for me. Luckily T2 Trainspotting, Lego Batman and The Great Wall are good films and already show that 2017 is better than 2016 but La La Land was a massive disappointment to me.

Chazelle - The Character

Now La La Land and Whiplash both have something in common, both the main characters are agents for director Damien Chazelle to express his opinions to the audience. Both Ryan Gosling and Miles Teller really like jazz and Damien Chazelle's screenwriting won't let the audience forget both of the characters constantly have to tell the other characters how good jazz is. It starts to become annoying because they come across as one dimensional.

In Whiplash, Miles Teller has a scene where he talks to the "normal" members of his family and has to explain why jazz is so important. This scene is only here for Chazelle to show off his interest in jazz. When Ryan Gosling started talking in La La Land i knew exactly what Damien Chazelle is about. Ryan Gosling has many scenes where the film stops for him to explain to the audience why jazz is so much better than all this modern music, especially the scene where he flat out says that the majority of 80's pop is not real music and how he is a real musician. These scenes are only here for Chazelle to come across as a deep filmmaker who has a passion for jazz and that makes him superior to us and i'm not standing for it. Chazelle also references himself at points with Whiplash being thrown out there a lot going as far as to include JK Simmons in the film playing essentially the same character, its not clever Chazelle it comes off as masturbatory and pretentious.

Chazelle also enjoys showing of his film "knowledge" in Whiplash its when Miles Teller went to see Rififi at a cinema, this is Chazelle screaming at the audience saying how he "knows" movies and then La La Land takes this to the Nth degree. The first instance is when we see a "The Killers" poster in Emma Stones apartment, Jesus Christ this just irks me so much, its clear that Chazelle wants the audience (and the academy) to know how good his film taste is. Ryan Gosling has an entire subplot where he feels compelled to explain to Emma Stone how she MUST see Rebel Without a Cause, this scene sent me into a rage in the cinema, its so clear that Chazelle is a very shallow filmmaker who relies on his "knowledge" to get by and lets be real his filmmaking technique is not that great which leads us to...

Chazelle - The Filmmaker

Chazelle is not the worst when it comes to cinematography or style he is just a film student with a budget. Nothing about his style is revolutionary and his quick cut edits of food need to stop. When watching La La Land you get the impression that Chazelle wanted to be recognised for the film making when a film makers goal should be to have really good cinematography and camera movement without drawing attention to it, this is the same problem i have with Birdman. Opening the film with 'presented in cinemascope" was also a pretentious way to open your film and a clear sign that he was pandering to the academy, it also did not help that his film in terms of visual flair looked rather bland. La La Land looks like those Nike or Adidas adverts that play before the film rather than a 50's musical.

So we have established that Damien Chazelle is a shallow filmmaker who resembles a film student more than an auteur, he is not the worst director working today, but certainly not Oscar calibre. Whip-pans by the way are nothing special.

Modern Times

This may sound petty but i feel that if the film was supposed to be a "throwback" why was it set during modern day. Having the film set in a contemporary time, especially now, only hinders the film and including many modern aspects like iPhone ringtones snap the audience away from what they are watching, the film making and screenwriting are very hypocritical with what Chazelle wants to preach to us. He has Gosling talk about how great jazz is and then have Gosling horrified at the fact that there is a modern edge to jazz but then makes a movie that feels like modernising something that should preserved as it was. This is one aspect of Chazelle that really gets under my skin, he is a hypocrite and the worst type of pretentious hipster film maker. The entire film felt like Will Smiths white dad in Focus, just awful dialogue that is supposed to come across as edgy but just seems silly.

The Film Itself

The film feels like a modern day interpretation of a musical by that i mean its very muddled and has direction issues and the end result is a bland mess. The music in La La Land is nothing special with only two songs in my memory those being City of Stars and Another Day of Sun, I don't enjoy either of them. La La Land also has a strange pacing issue towards the middle of the film where it slows down to explore the characters more and there is a lack of any musical number until the last 20 minutes. To me it felt like an idea more than a screenplay, Damien Chazelle wanted to win an Oscar and the best way to win an Oscar is to include content about Hollywood and also be a musical. As I said before the story feels like the story of Xanadu smashed together with Whiplash, the most interesting part of the film being the plot about Gosling wanting to open a nightclub, that would have made a far better film.

Lighting is the Key to All of This

This film looks awful, its an ugly film to look at, the majority of it is washed out and dull, the foreground and background constantly feel separated. Why is it a trend now for films to look less cinematic than they did ten years ago, it really makes me angry that La La Land gets all this attention and praise whilst looking like trash and a film like Silence gets little attention and looks stunning. People are stupid and it annoys me that its only a select few people that can see through this facade that Chazelle has. This film needed to be colourful and yes you can say that the costumes were colourful, but it is vibrancy of the frame that i am talking about. A dull image is a sin, how can we be in 2017 and have films that look like they are 1950's industrial movies.

In Conclusion

Overall i would say La La Land is not the worst film ever but it does not deserve the majority of the praise it has garnered since its release. This was just my thoughts on why i believe that Damien Chazelle is a shallow filmmaker and why i personally did not enjoy La La Land. We shall see how it does at the Oscars but i have a sneaking suspicion that it will be another Boyhood, expected to sweep but fails. I can only hope. Here is to a better 2017 and I wish you all a good Oscar night and do remember that they don't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Oscar Predictions: 2017

The Oscars are tomorrow and here are my predictions, i will be listing my Think and Wants with a brief explanation on why i chose them. Now this year's Oscars are not the greatest and some of the nominations are pretty awful but here are the predictions.

BEST PICTURE

Think - Manchester by the Sea
This is the type of film that the Oscars love, its more about the performances than the film itself and it comes across as a "walking movie" it would not surprise me if this one best picture.

Want - Fences
Fences is the other realistic choice for best picture. Its a period piece and Denzel is no stranger to the Oscars.

Now i believe that if Manchester wins Denzel will win best actor. If Fences wins Casey will win best actor. If i were to go with what really should win then the answer will be Arrival.

BEST ACTOR

Think - Casey Affleck
This is the type of performance that all actors wins awards for. Casey is a good actor and does deserve praise but this comes across as typical Oscar bait

Want- Denzel Washington
Denzel is a great actor and consistently puts in decent performances and out of all the actors nominated he should win.

BEST ACTRESS

Think - Emma Stone
Now this is where my cynicism starts, she was not great in this film and should not win, but she will.
P.S I may be posting a blog about how i hate La La Land tomorrow.

Want - Natalie Portman
I can't explain why i want her to win but it just feels right.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Think - Mahershala Ali
Moonlight needs at least one win and this will be the one.

Want - Michael Shannon
Why not, i think is a fine actor, it will be novel.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Think - Viola Davis
People are raving about her performance and I believe she will win.

Want - Nicole Kidman
Again this is just one i feel will win.

BEST DIRECTION

Think - La La Land
Of course this will win, I personally don't see why it deserves any nominations but here we are.

Want - Arrival
I want this to win because I have faith in Blade Runner 2049.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Think and Want - Kubo and the Two Strings
This is one that deserves to win just because of the art style.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Think - La La Land
Again it will win for some reason.

Want - Silence
This film looks beautiful. Thats It.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Think - Jackie
Its a period piece in the 60's.

Want - Fantastic Beasts
The costumes looked very good shame about the overall quality of the film.

BEST EDITING

Think - La La Land
All the technicals will go to La La Land, if it gets one it gets them all.

Want - Hacksaw Ridge
War films usually win for editing.

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIR

Think and Want - Star Trek

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Think and Want - La La Land

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Think - Can't Stop the Feeling

Want - City of Stars

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

Think - Hail Caesar!

Want - Arrival

BEST SOUND EDITING

Think - Arrival

Want - Hacksaw Ridge

BEST SOUND MIXING

Think and Want - 13 Hours

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Think and Want - Jungle Book

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Think and Want - Fences

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Think and Want - Manchester by the Sea

Overall the Oscars are not important in the grand scheme of things and we will forget what wins in a couple of months. Look forward to my La La Land rant tomorrow.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Great Wall - Quick Review

This film was a watershed moment for me, being the first major Chinese blockbuster and to be honest they made a better blockbuster than the majority of what Hollywood has produced.

The film itself is rather decent nothing mind-blowing or great but a solid action fantasy but where this film succeeds and most others have failed is both in the script and the look of the film. Lets start with the script, again nothing great but what it set out to do it did well without having to make silly jokes or reference other films it was a film contained within its own universe. It has pacing problems in the beginning but when we are at the wall that's when the film finds its groove and keeps on going.

The story is about Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal who play "traders" in the east looking for black powder (gunpowder) they end up at the great wall of china and have to help the Chinese fight off a horde of monsters. That's it, it has a straightforward plot and sticks with it, no curve-balls just simplicity. Matt Damon is fine in the film not his best work but certainly not his worst and Pedro Pascal is good and convincing. The other actors are all fine in the film, no standout performances and overall it feels like a mid 2000's blockbuster in the same vein as Van Helsing or The Mummy.

Cinematography is what sets this film apart, there are problems but there is so much colour in this film and it is a welcome return to movies. Scale is also a part of this film, its not always present and sometimes the film feels claustrophobic but some of the wall scenes are huge. The CGI scenes in this were nothing special but they were not eye-gouging.The music was also very standard eastern fantasy affair but serviceable to the film.

Overall i think this a good steeping stone for the Chinese film industry to go mainstream and i encourage anyone to go see this film in the cinema, its not great but it is better than a lot i have seen in the past year or so. Definitely worth a watch.

7/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey