Author: Callum Forbes

What can you say about the highest rated superhero film of all time? Black Panther is the latest film by Marvel studios. After his first appearance in Captain America Civil War; there has been a lot of hype surrounding the character’s return in his own stand-alone film. The idea is to make this as different from the other Marvel films as they dare. Ryan Coogler is hired to direct. The world is promised to be new and bold. The plot promises to be different. The themes it tackles promise to be the most mature of the entire MCU. Does it really deliver this?

Black Panther has just been crowned king of Wakanda – a technologically advanced yet sheltered African country. He aims to first save his country from a South African arms dealer who stole their technology decades before. However, his heroic path is halted by the arrival of a new villain. One with the right to challenge the Panther to become king and shake the entire world as he does so. All while doing this, he is slowly discovering what it means to be both, a good king and a good man.

If I were to give only one bit of praise to this film, it would be to Wakanda. This is a very fun and interesting culture. Mixing African traditions with high-tech sci-fi must have been a tough challenge for all involved. But it does work very well. I do wish that I saw more of it, as we are actually very limited in what we do see of Wakanda, but I was impressed with even the little details. It feels lived in and very much like a civilisation that would exist today given the chance. It helps that the world in this film is also the main driving force of the story. Should their tech really remain a secret? What would happen if it fell into the wrong hands.

Also helping was the films villains. Michael B Jordan – who’s last superhero film was Fantastic 4 (or Fant4stic), so the less said about that – plays one of the greatest villains in Marvel history. He’s complex, yet understandable. You get his motives and buy the performance completely. He is a psycho who kills lot of people, and yet he’s not entirely wrong in his goals. Jordan and Coogler have worked together before and are clearly comfortable with each other, which really helped. He’s just a great villain, and for Marvel that’s something special. Even more special is that we also have another good villain too. Andy Serkis reminds me why he’s one of my favourite actors in this. He’s having so much fun in this film, it’s intoxicating. He laughs, you laugh. It’s not often a superhero villain is this much fun to watch.

Coogler’s direction is very good throughout. He directs his actors very well. Chadwick Bosman does a great job as the Black Panther, feeling just as fresh as in Civil War. I also really liked Lupita Nyong’o, Danai Gurira, Martin Freeman and Letitia Wright in their roles too. And Coogler brings the same character moments and visual distinction he displayed in Creed. Don’t get me wrong, they are both very different films, but you can also tell that the same man is behind them both. There’s even a nice use of techno-African chanting going on in the music at times, which was certainly a welcomed, if strange choice.

There’s no going on without mention of the big news of the film. This is a mostly black cast, filmed by a black director. It’s very similar to what we had last year with Wonder Woman; at least in how it represents the much longed for diversity in Hollywood. Now, this isn’t the first black superhero film, the amazing Blade came out in the late ‘90’s. But, there is no denying that this does represent a nice step for the genre. Just like Wonder Woman. It’s not something I’d blow out of proportion, but I would be surprised – and immensely disappointed – if this didn’t broaden people’s and studios minds, both for casting and representation.

But, again like Wonder Woman, Black Panther is sadly hampered by the fact that it’s just a middling superhero film in the end. The characters, outside of the villains, are pretty one note for a start. They’re all well performed. It’s just little things like Black Panther being made a little too over-powered. This has become a common thing with Marvel and it just makes their films more boring to me.

The action is okay.

There are some stand out moments, but it’s mostly just serviceable. However, it’s the story and the effects that let Black Panther down. It feels like we have two films playing at once. We’ve got a decent enough, but not very engaging James Bond thriller – where our hero must stop Andy Serkis from selling a weapon to threaten the world. And we’ve got a strong, if messily closed, Shakespearian fantasy thriller with Michael B Jordan. The two don’t mix too well and cause a huge clash of tones in the middle. It’s a tad too long and there was a point where I was feeling a little bored.

The effects, though, are awful! Sometimes they’re pretty good. There’s some nice work on the Panther suit and some establishing shots of Wakanda are good. But it’s mostly bad. And I mean early 2000’s CGI bad. There’s a battle at the end that gave me haunting images of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. There’s a fight scene on top of a waterfall near the beginning – there’s a crowd watching the fight and certain members of the crowd were clearly added in later. It’s really strange to see effects this bad in a Marvel film – although, thinking about it they were pretty weak in Spider-Man Homecoming and Avengers Age of Ultron too. Effects do not make a great film, but when the film is this effects heavy, it’s a little hard to ignore.

Black Panther is a good Marvel film that you should definitely watch. It’s just a little over hyped. It has its issues, but it’s also visually distinct from the other Marvel films. I’d probably say that I admired it more than I enjoyed it. I do hope that this leads to a better and more diverse Hollywood down the line. But as a Marvel films, I’d say it’s one of the middling crowd. I think I’m just sick of superheroes. That is not this films fault, that’s been building up for the better part of a decade for me – but it hasn’t changed my views either.

Checkout the top rated and listed Busy Bees – cleaning services details click here for more info.

Just from hearing that title, you have a pretty good idea of what you are in for. London Symphony is described as a city symphony – which aims to be a poetic celebration of the diversity and culture of the city of London. Which I would say is a very fair analysis of the film. Using only imagery and music, London Symphony does manage to convey exactly what it aims to show us. There truly is no better word than poetic for such an experience as London Symphony.

London Symphony, above all, is a very pleasant and easy-going experience. It reminds me very much of those films that came out back in the 1920’s – those that celebrated the rise of industry or condemned it. The films, silent movie nature and black and white imagery almost makes it easy to mistake for a film of that time. There is a very strong feeling of authenticity about London Symphony. Every image feels sincere – like there is no agenda to the film other than a simple celebration of the culture of a great city. In times like these, that is something that I feel that most people need to be reminded of.

The film is split into four chapters (or stanzas, if we remember the films poetic nature). Each chapter is set with its own structure. Some move faster than others, and some focus more on an aspect of London than the others do. For example, the second chapter gave us more imagery of the city’s wildlife and parks than the other chapters. I am unfamiliar with London myself – having only been there three times, and admittedly not enjoying it any of those times – but I do feel that this film does cover every avenue of London that is worthy of celebrating. This comes from the majesty of the city, its construction and its nature – and also its people, their lives, their religion and how kind and supportive that they can be.

The music and the imagery complement each other perfectly. I could never tell if the images were leading the music or the other way around. If I were to compare it to anything, it would be Disney’s Fantasia. The score picks up in rhythm and speed as the images abandon the empty and static streets and move to the pumping of industry and chaos of construction. It perfectly demonstrates how different London is from itself – how loud and quiet constantly clash with each other – and yet how harmonious the city is with itself.

Poetry is certainly how I would identify London Symphony. Which does also bring with it the fact that it will not be for everyone. If, like me, you value films of story (visual or not) and characters, or documentaries of information, such as those of Attenborough – then this may not be for you. It is easy to admire it and enjoy the music and imagery regardless, but the overall effect may very well be lost on you. But, if you look for art, for inspiring imagery, themes and music, or even just a pleasant atmosphere – then it is most certainly worth a look for you.

London Symphony may not be a unique experience, what with it follow the basic structure of those films from the 1920’s, but it is still one worth having. Even if it is not for everyone. It’s certainly not the kind of film I usually go for. And, while I was not the target audience here, I still admired it for what it was and what it set out to do. It’s an admirable celebration of where we are now, despite how the world may look through the newspaper. For that alone, it is certainly worth a look.

This feels a little late to the party. I thought that we’d finally stopped with the young adult novel adaptations (or YANA, apparently) for now. Although to be fair, Maze Runner: The Death Cure, does have its reasons for being late. What with the main star in critical condition after an onset accident. Thankfully he’s made a full recovery and has brought us the last in the Maze Runner trilogy. The Maze Runner was not a film I got into; it had good action, was well acted and directed, but the story, characters and effects were just so bad and unengaging. The Scorch Trials was a little better; the action was better, so was the acting, directing and story, but the characters were still weak, and it was just so boring to watch. Now there’s a third one – so, yeah…

After their friend is kidnapped, Thomas and co try to save him from the last remaining city on Earth. The problem is that this city is run by WCKD (stupidly pronounced as Wicked, can’t get more forced than that) – the company that aims to torture and kill them to harvest the cure for a zombie-like virus that is killing off mankind. Aiming to gain help from the traitor, Theresa, Thomas comes up with a plan to save his friends from WCKD once and for all. But the deeper he goes, the more he has to ask – should he sacrifice many, for the sake of a few?

Thankfully, this is not a book split into two parts. They have one book to follow and are going to do it in one. So, unless they plan on making those prequel books to this series, they’re not going to make any more of these films. Which, I’ll admit is a bit of a shame, because The Death Cure is the first film in the Maze Runner series I’ve gotten into. Surprise, surprise, the action, acting and directing are still very good. This is easily the most visually interesting of the films. It comes off less like a Hunger Games knock-off and more like a Neill Blomkamp film. It’s gritty and dirty but has some nice sci-fi locations and set-pieces to spice things up every now and again. But, the story isn’t that bad, and I finally cared about the characters. They’re still blank slates, but I could relate to them finally.

Dylan O’Brian is really good at playing as Thomas. I hated this character in the other two, but here I do follow him and relate to his struggles and predicaments. O’Brian completely sells the emotional moments the character has, as well as the action scenes. I’d like to see him in more action films later on – he may have a talent there. The other kids, including Thomas Brodie-Sangster do very well too. Brodie-Sangster in particular stands out and delivers a great deal of humanity to his role. We also get an amusing performance by Giancarlo Esposito as a rugged rogue with a heart of gold. And an even more amusing performance from Aiden Gillen as the over-the-top bad-guy with really bizarre priorities.

Wes Ball does well in directing the series once again. It’s not often a director does an entire series, so I applaud him for that. He also demonstrates that his eye for action is so keen that he should be given the script for the next James Bond film. It’s very thrilling action, with some real edge-of-the-seat moments. Even the more emotional moments are done well. Once scene in particular hits you in the tear ducts. Although, Ball does have a weird fascination with Jurassic Park. That’s my favourite film, so I find it weird when someone tries to mimic scenes from it in films like this. This led to a moment in the film I lovingly called “Littlefinger in the kitchen”.

But, don’t go thinking that I’m singing this film’s praises. The truth is, it’s still not very good. It’s way too long for a start. Clocking in at over two and a half hours. It doesn’t help that the ending is as swiftly delivered as that of The Return of the King. It’s not well written either, causing the pacing to suffer even further and tonally clashing at more than one point. The Death Cure also has a severe lack of scale. The action is big, but the story has no weight to it. The urgency is told to us, but not sold. It feels like if Thomas or WCKD screw up with their plans then they can just try again tomorrow. But, it mostly just suffers from a lack of originality. I mentioned the Jurassic Park reference, but there’s so much more. The WCKD logo is ripped from Aliens. The city is like that of Blade Runner. The zombie infection is handled the same way as The Walking Dead. Even the plot feels too familiar, from countless sci-fi films. Nothing is done new enough to justify this, making the film feel far too predictable.

I enjoyed The Death Cure. It’s the first of the series I have enjoyed. Despite this, it does have its colossal flaws. It just depends on what you want. If you’re just after a fun little action film, with some cool visuals, great action and some genuine emotional moments, then I think you’ll enjoy it. If you like the other two then you’ll definitely enjoy it. Otherwise, just give it a pass. I expected a subpar action film – I got an on par action film with some stand out moments and a hilarious villain performance. So, yes, I’m happy. It also made me feel like giving the books a try finally, so I’ll give it that too.

Pixar is a company of very little wrongs. I don’t know of a single studio that has consistently made such great films. The Toy Story trilogy is an easy, and appropriate example – but we also have Finding Nemo and Dory, Monsters Inc., Wall-E, The Incredibles and, my personal favourite, Inside Out. Yes, every now and then then they give us a film like the Cars trilogy and The Good Dinosaur, but for every bad Pixar project there will always be two great ones. So, when I see a film that was poorly advertised – seriously, what an awful teaser this film had – and have no idea what the plot is, what the words Pixar come up, I’m in!

Coco is set in the Mexican Day of the Dead – El Día de los Muertos – which is definitely a unique setting. The story follows a boy whose family, thanks to an old relative of theirs walking out of their lives to pursue his musician dream, has band music from their lives. But he doesn’t want to be restrained by the old tradition, as the pull of music is too much for him to ignore. Much to the dismay of his family. And this had me worried. But thankfully it all picks up once the boy finds himself in the land of the dead. Slowly dying himself the longer he stays there, the kid must receive the blessing from a family member to go home and live. His great great grandmother will only give him her blessing if he gives up his music dream, so he goes to find his great great grandfather. The musician who left his family.

Before he goes into the land of the dead, I was very worried that this was going to be another Brave. When the film hides most of what it is in its advertisement, only to be very generic in story and characters. It felt like Footloose, as well as a few other films that follow this “music is bad” storyline. Once he enters the land of the dead, while it’s not unpredictable, it is very well done. It’s a familiar story told in a different way. It also gets more visually interesting and delivers the films more interesting characters.

The world of the dead is amazing. I have never seen an afterlife so colourful, imaginative and yet completely believable. Whatever your belief on such things is, there is not denying that this feels like a nice afterlife for us. It incorporates the Mexican beliefs and our contemporary world perfectly. I did not expect to see such amazing people and creatures in this film. Whether they are a richly designed skeleton, with the Day of the Dead patterning’s on them, or a luminescent green, flying jaguar monster, everyone in this film is amazing to look at.

The characters are pretty excellent too. They all have fairly simple motives and don’t necessarily change that much over the course of the film. But they are relatable, likeable and are so full of energy and charm that you can’t help but love them. My favourite character is easily this con-artist skeleton who wants to help the kid find his relative, just so that the kid will put his photo on an alter so he can come to the land of the living. Everything about these characters, from the voice acting to the designs, to the animation are as perfect as they need to be.

It’s beautifully animated, but I don’t think I’ll give Pixar points for that anymore. You know the drill; the sky’s blue, water’s wet, Pixar films are gorgeously animated. But what Pixar have also managed time and time again, and what drives this film, is emotional impact. There are so many moments in Coco that are sold by how they get to you. There are numerous moments that will make you shed at least one tear in this. Others will keep a smile on your face. An example comes at the beginning.

The boy is talking to his great grandma, Coco, about the simple things, like what he saw today or what his favourite wrester was doing. He knows that she doesn’t really understand him, but she is always happy hearing him talk – her energy in listening to him talk passionately builds on his passionate energy and they both love it. It reminds me of when I used to do the same with my grandad – talking about dinosaurs or animals and we would both just enjoy listening and talking because we both loved how passionate the conversations were, even though I knew that he didn’t really understand most of it. That’s what this film does, it hits you on a very relatable level, better than most in recent memory.

It’s not without its shortcomings. The opening did lower my expectations. And yes, what you think is going to happen will happen. You might not be prepared for certain twists, or even how dark Coco gets towards the end, but on the whole, the story isn’t entirely unheard of. I also found some of the living characters a little too cut and dry. You have the over protective grandmother who upholds the traditions. There’s the father who doesn’t really listen. The sassy sister and the older brother who thinks he’s wiser than he is are here too. But, to be fair they’re not where the focus is.

After a rocky start I had a blast with Coco. It’s one of Pixar’s better film of recent years – I prefer it to the likes of The Good Dinosaur, Brave, Cars 3 and Up. I just loved it and would recommend it to anyone. It’s fun for whatever your tastes are and whatever your age is. My screening was full of adults and only a handful of kids, so you don’t need to worry about this being a kid’s film. You’ll most likely cry and you’ll certainly laugh. But mostly, you’ll feel happy.

People have WWII on the mind these days. In the course of six months we’ve had Dunkirk, that Churchill film starring Brian Cox – and now we have Darkest Hour, yet another film about Winston Churchill. But, to be fair, all three of them have proven to be good films. Not to mention completely different from each other, despite the subject matter. If this is a resurgence of WWII films though, I’m not one to complain. There’s a lot that you can tell with that tragic period of history. Darkest Hour, in that does have an edge. The story of Churchill does have the potential for great film making.

Despite being a historical film, Darkest Hour does play fast and loose with events to tell a more dramatic story. What it attempts to chronical is Churchill’s rise to power within his parliament. Neville Chamberlin has been forced out of office and Viscount Halifax has refused the post of Prime Minister. Therefore, the role falls onto Churchill, possibly the most hated political member of his party. He gladly takes up the position – his goal is to end the war and Hitler’s tyranny. The problem is that Britain appears to be losing the war, and Halifax is leading a campaign to sign a peace-treaty. It is here that Churchill must fight for what he thinks is right, while doubting his every decision along the way.

This is a period piece. It’s period piece directed by Joe Wright, a man who has proven many times that he has a good eye for such films. This is the director of Atonement, Pride and Prejudice and the action film, Hanna, after all. And yes, he also directed Pan, which remains to be one of the worst fantasy blockbuster’s I’ve ever seen, so it’s not a clean record. Here, Wright brings his keen eye for visual and audio storytelling. This is an exceptionally well directed and shot film. There are nice and calm images, with some haunting ones dotted around. The one that sticks to my mind is an aerial shot of craters from bombs in a field, which that seamlessly transitions to a mud-covered corpse with bloody, dead eyes. Better was the use of sound. When Churchill is trying to make a decision under pressure, you hear all the little noises – the ticking of a clock, the distant voices of people, the rapping of a ring on a desk – and you start to feel the stress that he is under too.

It does help that Gary Oldman is playing Winston Churchill. Oldman is one of the best actors working today and is, once again, almost unrecognisable as Churchill. And no, it’s not just because of the make-up. That was a little distracting at first, but you quickly stop noticing it. He got everything that everyone knows about the man down perfectly – from his drooping lips, “unique” manner of speaking and constant smoking of cigars, of course. He fit the role very well. He is with a cast of great actors, such as Kristin Scott Thomas, as Churchill’s wife, Lily James, Stephen Dillane and Ben Mendelsohn as King George VI. All bring their A-game and none disappoint. Even though, Dillane and Mendelsohn do have the odd accent slip from time to time.

Where the film may falter is in that inaccuracy issue. Despite telling the overall story how it was, the film does get a little muddled in the details. This is usually only an issue for those who look for such things – which I don’t unless it’s just blatant disregard, such as Braveheart or Apocalypto. My problem with it is that wanting to tell a dramatic story, but also wanting to stick to the historical events does muddle things a bit. There are plot threads that just go nowhere. The most obvious of this is when Churchill calls the President of the USA. Not only was this made up but it adds nothing to the story at all. It also means that some events that did happen, and were of great meaning, sometimes get overshadowed by those that didn’t happen.

Whatever Darkest Hour’s narrative shortcoming, it’s still a great film and well worth the watch. It’s a slow burn to be sure, but it burns bright enough for me. The inaccuracies may leave some moments feeling a little jarred. But, accepting that this is a romanticising of the heroic actions of one man, you can still find enjoyment and interest in it. It’s probably not the kind of film I would watch twice, or at least not for a while, but I’m glad I saw it the once.