Author: Callum Forbes

Admit it, you hadn’t even heard of All the Money in the World until that whole mess with Kevin Spacey started. I know I hadn’t. I didn’t even see a trailer – just heard out of the blue that Kevin Spacey has been replaced after filming had finished in Ridley Scott’s new film. It actually makes it kind of fun. It’s nice to compare the two performances from the trailers. But, as fun as that is for us, it must have been rough for the film makers. Does it show in the finished product? That’s the biggest concern.

Based (although after doing some research, I’d say very loosely) on the true events of J. Paul Getty. When his grandson, John Paul Getty III, is kidnapped in Italy he is held for the random of seventeen million dollars. Getty is the richest man in the world and has enough money to pay the ransom and not notice a difference. So, what will he pay for the release of his grandson? Nothing. It falls to the boy’s mother to help save her son, with or without the billionaire’s help.

For true events, this is a pretty good one to pick. And, although Scott plays very fast and loose with events to help dramatise the film more, he does manage to reach some of the potential of the story. There is no hiding that the performances are what carry this film. Michelle Williams as the mother was excellent. I don’t think that she has given a bad performance to date, and that trend is carried on here. You feel for her as you should a mother who wants to save her child. Mark Wahlberg reminds us of how great he can be in films. This is especially refreshing after seeing him last year playing, ugh, Cade Yeager in Transformers: The Last Knight. I must also mention Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers. He is so charming and yet menacing in his performance that he succeeds at doing exactly what he is meant to be doing. You fear him when you need to, and you feel for him when you need to.

Let’s get to the big news now. Kevin Spacey was cast in the role of Getty. He had on a lot of make-up and was putting on a voice to sound more like the actual Getty. It looked silly and I’m not sure if it’d work or not. But that doesn’t matter now. After certain issues were brought to light about Spacey, Scott cut him from the film. Filming was finished, so they hired another actor and reshot all of Getty’s scenes with the new actor – all in under two weeks! Who did they hire? Christopher Plummer. A man who gives us one of the best performances I have ever seen him give. It’s amazing. Plummer steals the show – and because he looks like Getty and is already the right age, there is no distracting make-up. And you honestly wouldn’t tell that these scenes were not filmed at the same time as the others. Wahlberg is noticeably bulkier in some scenes and there is one bad green-screen shot. That’s it, everything else is perfect about the reshoots.

This is a Ridley Scott film, and true to form it looks very nice. It’s strange, because with the style taken for this film, you half believe that it was a Spielberg film – in the vein of Bridge of Spies and Munich. This was one of those few times that Scott held back on style and allows his actors and the dialogue to do most of the work, and it is better for it. Something I’ve been noticing about Scott’s directing is that he feels very workman like with his films. He gets them done with an artistic eye and the best actors, crew and equipment that money can buy. All the while, he gets them out in a hurry – which would answer how he can make one or two every year. It’s certainly admirable and gives us some great pieces of work. Sadly, it usually becomes his film’s Achilles heel.

I’ve had the feeling with most of Scott’s recent works – barring The Martian – that they were all one more script draft away from greatness. It’s the same here. Getty’s scenes are the best in the film, and I get the feeling that’s because they had more time dedicated to them – being reshot and all. The others are not bad, but there are a number of scenes that feel unnecessary. The ending in particular suffered for this. I was looking at my watch for the final ten minutes of the film. It was about fifteen minutes too long. That mostly comes down to what feels like padding out the runtime. It also ends a little too cut and dry for me. I feel that ten minutes of the end could have been removed and some ambiguity kept in. This would have made the ending all the more effective for me. Ridley Scott is one of my favourite directors, and I will always see his next films. But this is becoming a very noticeable trend to me.

All the Money in the World is a good film. But it could have been a great one. I love the performances, the smart dialogue and Scott’s over all direction. But it is a little too long and missing an impactful ending. It’s a hard one to recommend going to the cinema for, due to it’s length and some pretty intense moments. But I do recommend seeing it on DVD or TV when it’s released. It’s an interesting and tense thriller that follows some interesting characters well played by great actors. It’s by no means the best, but you can still find some enjoyment here.

If there’s one thing I love, it’s psychological thrillers. What I love even more is a psychological thriller with a sci-fi or monster movie edge to it. It’s for this reason that the earlier works of John Carpenter and David Cronenberg work so well for me. It’s also because of this that Paul Holbrook’s Cell started off very strong with me. It is a perfect recreation of these great director’s styles – from the Cronenbergian atmosphere of unease from an unknown source, to a score reminiscent of Carpenter.

The story is not a complex one, it’s just very weird. A cowardly Allied Forces soldier is captured by the Nazi’s and thrown into a cell with a naked woman. The two of them have nothing but fear and suspicion for each other – but must soon find a way to trust each other when the experiments begin. What follows can only be described as Saw meets The Thing.

From the get go, I loved the cinematography of Cell. The set designs and lighting are utilised very well. This makes the whole film feel claustrophobic. The unease felt in every frame is on par with an ‘80’s Cronenberg or an early 2000’s Neil Marshall film. You are on edge all the way to the big reveal at the end. There is no denying how effective it was, and it had me wanting to see more. With Cell being only nine minutes long, the hook straight away is of great importance. The score has its moments of blaring out, namely during credits and title cards – but it’s mostly subtle and very well blended into the scenes.

https://vimeo.com/215807215

I also thought that Cell was well acted. The performers give a good show. They convey both fear and disbelief at everything that transpires. Many moments in this film are uncomfortable, although this is mostly due to the costumes and make-up, I think. The basic image of a naked woman locked-up in a small cell with a man with a gun is always going to be an unsettling one. But it’s never played to the point of disturbing the viewer, due to the performances and the colours scheme.

But that’s also where Cell’s shortcoming fall. After seeing the film, I struggled to remember it. It honestly left no lasting impact on me after viewing it. It’s pretty tragic, because the first few seconds grabbed me so well. I struggled to find out what caused this lack of impact. I do feel that part of it is that, outside of some creative imagery and the gory climax, nothing shocked me. I was never disturbed or upset by the film. And considering that it was a parody of the horrors of mankind, that is a bit of a problem. It lacked teeth that it sorely needed to imbed itself in my memory.

I think what didn’t help was the voices used. There’s a voice over an intercom and a character in the film’s final minute who both have really silly voices. This was used to take away the humanity from these characters – I assume this was to strike a kind of uncanny valley effect; making the voices different, but not so much, to hit the point of being creepy. But no. It was just silly to listen to. This wouldn’t have bothered me if there was this camp tone or underlying humour to Cell, but there isn’t. It just jarred too much that it completely took me out of the film whenever these characters talked.

Cell works in its own way. It is a dark parody of mankind’s cruelty and delivers some nice themes of hope and mercy beneath all the violence. It just doesn’t have enough weight to be memorable. It’s a case of ticking the boxes, which it does very well. But I can’t deny that I have seen better psychological thrillers – some even shorter than this. I do recommend Cell for all it achieves, and I do hope that it gets recognised as a fun thriller. If not a memorable one.

Jumanji, staring Robin Williams, was one of my absolute favourite films as a child. It was just a cool idea; a board game that literally brought its trials to life. But things change as you grow older, including your taste in films. I do still really like Jumanji. The action is good, the acting is strong, particularly from Williams and Jonathan Hyde (as both the father and the hunter), the comedy is good and there are some very nice messages in there too. But it was also sloppily directed by Joe Johnston, not well written, weirdly mean-spirited for a kid’s film and features some truly awful special effects. It’s a mixed bag to say the least. It’s also something I wouldn’t put down as requiring a sequel. But here’s Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle anyway.

Four kids are spending time in detention when they notice an old game console. Turning the game on and selecting their characters, the kids find themselves sucked into the game. Now inside Jumanji, and in the bodies of Dwayne Johnson, Jack Black, Kevin Hart and Karen Gillan, they must complete the game to be set free. They have three lives, a world to save and a villain to beat – but what happens if they run out of lives?

It’s strange to see Jumanji gaining popularity enough to warrant a sequel this far along. I know, there was that Zathura film in 2005, but that didn’t really feel like a sequel or tie in in any way. What’s more surprising is that Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (admit it, you hear Guns and Roses whenever you say that title) is actually a very strong film. I had no faith for this film – it’s a blockbuster comedy with huge stars, that’s rebooting an older, nostalgic film. It didn’t help that it was directed by Jake Kasdan. The man who gave us Bad Teacher and Sex Tape – both utter garbage. But, not only was it better than I gave it credit for, it rivals the original.

Right off the bat the directing is tighter. Joe Johnston has always bothered me with how he paces his films. He always has some scenes go too slow or has them moving to fast, and almost always stitching them together with choppy editing. Kasdan allows his film to breathe. Jumanji doesn’t exactly feel real, but it’s characters do. We get the time to understand them while moving at a pretty brisk pace. The action is a joy to watch. It’s over the top, but I found myself getting tense with the action at points. Particularly a scene involving a canyon full of rhinos.

Also like the first one, the acting is great and so is the comedy. There’s a lot of fun with role-reversal here. Dwayne Johnson is playing a nerdy, scared kid in the body of Dwayne Johnson. Karen Gillan is playing a socially awkward and self-degrading know-it-all in the body of Karen Gillan. Both of these give us some great, self-aware and self-satirising comedy. Amazingly enough, it rarely misses the mark throughout the film. Kevin Hart, though, plays it like he usually does. It is a bit of a shame, but Hart’s comedy is mostly self-aware degradation, so it works very well with the film. By far the best part of the film was Jack Black. Black plays a phone-obsessed, self-absorbed drama queen, who is now in the body of Jack Black. What makes the already golden comedy sparkle more is that Black completely sells it. All the actors sell that they are who their characters are, but Black manages to convince me that he is this teenage girl in a middle-aged man’s body.

The choices of role reversal does help get across some effective messages too. The main being that we all have only one life. Nothing new or ground-breaking, but a good message. It’s a shame that the pacing in this film is way too fast. It’s one of those films that feels like it’s over not long after it starts. This does make it a fun and easy watch, but I could have done with a little more. Maybe wishing for more isn’t much of a negative, but I feel like more could have been done. They are in a videogame, and the film has fun with this, but a part of me wished that there was more fun had. Maybe a glitch at points, or texture pops? But, maybe that’s just me. Less subjective though is the fact that the effects are still pretty bad. The jungle looks nice, but no animal in this film convinced me that it was real.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle was a huge surprise to me. It’s not great, being far too quick and featuring some oddly rubber looking beasts and creepy-crawlies. It’s also a little predictable at points. But that’s not why people came here. They came for a good time with the family. In that, Jumanji is a huge success. Hilarious, thrilling, well-acted and with a well told story, there’s something for everyone in this one. I don’t think my childhood will allow me to call this film better than the first one, but it’s certainly an equal. If you haven’t already, go down and see it. There are worse ways to spend your three lives.

As a person I am always up for learning new things. Most of these are fairly trivial, but something that has fascinated me is culture. More accurately, different cultures to my own. I mention this because the culture shown in In Between is one that is very different from my own, yet it is interesting to see how similar it is at the same time. It’s because of this that I think that In Between is a story that could work regardless of what culture the makers decided to show.

In Between is about three young woman who live in the same flat. That is all they have in common. One woman is an independent person, with a good job and positive, if cynical attitude, but is also experimental with men and substances. Another is a lesbian with a minimum wage job, judgmental parents and personal insecurities. The third woman is jobless and eager to please her family, but is engaged to a man who she can’t stand and is very closed off. Throughout the film we follow an unspecified amount of time in these three lives, as we see how they interact with each other, and how they each attempt to grow as individuals but are tested and halted by their culture and the opinions of others.

This works extremely well, given that this culture is as it is to me. The culture itself is unfamiliar, yet I know that the same happens in my culture to those who wish to simply be who they want to be. There is a lot of potential here. Luckily director Maysaloun Hamoud manages to capture most of this potential. This is probably the most realistic film that I have seen in a very long time. There were plenty of stylistic choices that made this film feel real. I know, feeling real is ultimately the goal of any film – even the most absurd and surreal film aims to ground itself by rules to make it accessible. But I mean that this film feels like footage taken of our world. Nothing enormous, saturated, stylized or dulled. Just the world we live in today.

Because of this, In Between can be very hard to watch. This is mostly thanks to an intense scene of homophobia and an unexpected and shocking rape scene. That latter point is the most shocking moment of all because it is one of the only act of violence throughout the film. Moments like these do serve their purposes and bring to light questions and themes that have you thinking about them for hours after viewing. It must be said though that, if like me you know people who suffered from such experiences, or maybe even if not, you may find these moments to be very upsetting.

What makes this film better than its shocks and morals though is how maturely it is all handled. There is no music unless it is within the scene – such as the music from a bar or the radio in a car. This grounds the film more than if there had been a score. The writing is so natural and well delivered that it wouldn’t surprise me if it had all been improvised. The acting is superb from all points – apart from one of the boyfriends, Ziad, who was very stilted at times. The film would have fallen apart from minute one had it not been for the performances of our three leads. But most of all it’s the film’s passion. This was clearly a story that Hamoud wanted to tell and had a clear vision for how to tell it.

In Between is a raw and very real story with a lot of heart beneath its surface. It works well as a feel-bad picture with ambiguity in the right moments to make it powerful at times. Hard to watch scenes and the heavy atmosphere in general will stop me from watching it again, but I don’t feel like I need to. In Between will stay for a good while. If you feel like you can take the shocking moments and the depressing feel, then you will find yourself watching a fascinating film. Who knows, maybe you’ll learn a thing or two.

Never have I ever been more conflicted by a Star Wars film. I actually saw The Last Jedi a couple days ago, but I couldn’t review it once I watched it. I legitimately did not know what to make of it. I knew what I liked and what I didn’t, but I couldn’t grasp my feelings on the overall film. I guess I have to give Rian Johnson credit for that. He has successfully made a challenging and mature Star Wars film. But does that mean that it’s also good?

The plot is a tough one to talk about. Partly because of my fear of spoiling it and partly because there is just so much happening. It’s as complicated as The Phantom Menace. Except being, well, competently made. The basics are that the First Order is hunting what remains of the Resistance. Po is trying to save the resistance from slaughter, wanting to take down Snoke’s colossal battle cruiser. But they need a hacker, so Finn and new hero Rose venture to a casino planet to find one. Meanwhile Rey is attempting to convince Luke Skywalker to train her. But the more she learns about the Force, the more she feels the pull towards the darkness. And towards Kylo Ren, who has motives of his own.

So, we have four major stories going at the same time. And there lies one of the films problems. Now, for the most part, the film does balance all four very well. No tones clash. They’re all told in equal amounts. But two of these stories are really good – Kylo Ren and Rey’s stories – Po’s is just okay, whereas Finn’s is bad. Really bad! And because they are so evenly spread, it means that I can be following Kylo Ren and getting really into it, then come to a stop because it’s time to look on as Finn does whatever he’s doing. It’s a shame, because I think that John Boyega is a good, charismatic actor. He just has a section that is poorly paced, poorly written, looks alien to the franchise – I hated the looks of this casino world – is a little too heavy handed in its preaching’s and partners him up with the most irritating Star Wars character since Jar Jar.

But what short comings the story has is not shared in the directing. This is a great looking film. It’s a bit too grey in moments, but with the darker tone that feels appropriate. The action scenes are pretty spectacular – well, for the most part – with this being possibly the most violent of the films so far. I also think that Johnson’s keen eye for visual flare is matched by his ability to work with his actors. There are some challenging scenes in this film, some of them the most challenging of the series, and yet this remains one of Star Wars’ best acted films. Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac and Laura Dern all bring their best to their roles. Even the most unreadable lines are spoken naturally. While Mark Hamill and the late Carrie Fisher give the best live action performances of their careers.

I guess you could say that Johnson did well directing, and the films shortcomings should be blamed on the script writer. But, unfortunately for Johnson, that’s also him. It’s not all bad. I love what they do with Kylo Ren in this film, making him easily the best villain the series has had outside of Darth Vader. There are great moments with Luke that stand out. There were even moments that I didn’t see coming in the film. Nothing mind-blowing, there was no amazing twist on the level of ‘I am your father!’, but I was still surprised. But for every good creative choice made, there were at least three or four that baffled me.

This does not feel like a second instalment to a trilogy. It feels like a finale. There is a lot that gets wrapped up and answered here, and most of it feels rushed or unfulfilling. There’s a major character death that took me by surprise, but not in a good way. More in a ‘well, what are you going to do for the next one?’ way. I can’t go on without mentioning a scene involving Leia somewhere in the middle – if you’ve seen the film, you know what moment I’m talking about. It’s the stupidest thing I have seen all year. And I’ve seen Transformers: The Last Knight! It’s absolutely ludicrous, I couldn’t believe what I was watching. I read up on Johnson’s explanation for the scene – his reasoning only made it stupider to me.

The film has moments of this scattered throughout. Characters breaking who they were before to benefit this films plot. Not in a daring way either. I hear people praising this film for taking risks, but it really doesn’t. It surprises you at times, but that’s not the same thing. There are moments, particularly one towards the end, when I though the big risks were about to be taken – only for the film to pull back and play it safe once again. It’s not even that new a film. It has its unique moments, particularly a pretty trippy mirror scene, but it’s mostly just a mash up of The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi.

Part of me is glad that we now have a blockbuster film that is so divisive among so many people. It’s refreshing. I think the last film to do that was The Dark Knight Rises. I want more of this style of film making, albeit riskier. But, like The Dark Knight Rises, it’s a pain when I find that I am among those who don’t particularly like it. I will never call Star Wars – The Last Jedi a bad film, it isn’t. It’s too well crafted, acted and spectacular in scale to be a bad film. But some of these choice infuriated me. Not long after the controversial Leia moment previously mentioned, I just stopped caring. I feel that you really have to like these new characters to get the most out of this film, and I really don’t. I love Kylo Ren and I think Rey is alright, but Finn and Po are blank slates to me.

The Last Jedi is a visually stunning, artful and occasionally fun film. It’s just not for me. Its flaws are too glaring for me to ignore – from creative choices to plot holes. I have no idea what’s going to happen next – JJ Abrams has his work cut out for him now. Everyone I meet who has seen it all say the same thing. ‘I don’t know what to make of it’ is the first reaction. It’s a second watch or just the passage of time that determines if they loved it or hated it. This being very much a love it or hate it film. For those who saw my earlier ranking of the Star Wars series so far, you can place The Last Jedi above Revenge of the Sith, but below Return of the Jedi. Go and see it, I am interested to see what everyone will think of it. Let’s see how strong the Force is with this one.

Do you want some real Spotify playlist followers or increase your Instagram followers?