Author: Callum Forbes

No film throughout history has been as influential as King Kong. It sounds impossible, to hear that a film about a giant gorilla who fights dinosaurs, falls in love with a human woman and then gets shot down while on top of the world’s tallest building could ever be a classic. But that is exactly what King Kong is, and it has actually aged remarkably well. Yes, the dialogue and acting is fairly cheesy by today’s standards, and of course you know that Kong and the dinosaurs aren’t really and are essentially just moving models. But it’s the films execution and the power it has over our hearts and imagination that really bring this film to life; not to mention the fact that you can feel every sweat of effort that was put into it. There have, of course been many sequels, remakes, spin-offs and rip-offs, some of which were mediocre, some were awful and some were actually really good; but there really is only one true King Kong film. So, compared to such high standards, how does new incarnation Kong: Skull Island hold up?

The story of this one is that, in 1973 a military expedition to an uncharted island, that’s hidden by storms, plans to scientifically map out the island before Soviet rivals can do so (make the most of what they have while they can, basically). After dropping what are essentially bombs on the island they are attacked by its king, Kong. What follows is a conflict of interest, with some wanting to leave the island right off, some wanting to get proof first and some wanting to exact revenge on the titanic primate. Along the way they encounter many strange beasts and environments, and soon discover that Kong is fighting his own war against the real enemy on the island; the savage skullcrawlers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2onxgmKT1fw

I’m going to go into more detail on the film here, but before I do I’m going to get something out of the way. There are actually two basic ways I can sum up this film. If you are looking for some fun; just a big blockbuster, with Kong wrecking choppers and fighting monsters, with Tom Hiddleston playing the action hero, saving people from the same monsters, with Samuel L Jackson becoming more insane as it goes on and carrying an over-the-top theme of the war with nature (and war in general), then you should see this film as it is a blast and is just so entertaining. But if you want to see a King Kong film, with deeper meanings, that pushes boundaries, that features great characters to accommodate the monsters and action, or if you are looking for Jurassic Park meets Apocalypse Now, then you’re going to be disappointed.

King Kong in this film looks great. He’s much larger and far more powerful than we have ever seen him before. He’s nearly a 100-foot tall and from the get-go takes out a whole squadron of helicopters. And the film says that he’s basically just a teenager, he’s still growing is what I remember them saying. This is really just to get him ready to fight Godzilla in 2020; yes the 2014 Godzilla and this one, plus the upcoming Godzilla: King of the Monsters all share the same universe, just like Marvel and DC. That is crazy to me, in a good way as I grew up with films like King Kong and the Ray Harryhausen monster movies, so this is a dream to me. Also on the island are the Skullcrawlers, who are also pretty good; they’re very well designed and the effects look great too. The moments when Kong and them wrestle or when the human characters face against them are awesome. This helped by the fact that, just like Godzilla before it, the film has a great sense of scale. Kong feels huge, especially when we see his silhouette against the sun, and the skullcrawlers are given an equal amount of scale to them. There are a good number of other monsters on the island and every single one of them looks great. If I were a kid I would have loved this film for just this alone.

Also inhabiting the island is our cast of characters. Just from the credits you can tell the acting that we are going to get. Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Toby Kebbell, John C. Riley, John Goodman and Samuel L. Jackson; that there is our cast people. The thing is though, while these are all great actors, here they are given nothing to really work with because of their characters. I’m not saying that their characters are bad, but they are extremely basic. Hiddleston is our hero, and that’s really all he is. He’s still Hiddleston; he plays him well and he is very charming and likable, but I don’t remember anything about him other than his actor. Brie Larson is the heroine of the film and she’s a photographer; and that’s it. Again, played really well by a great actress, but there was nothing else to her as a character. The same goes for pretty much all the side-characters too, including John Goodman, who’s basically just there to get the plot going. Riley and Jackson are really the only ones who have something memorable about them. With Riley, it’s that he has been on this island for many years, giving his character some decent backstory. He also acts as the comic relief, and I actually thought that he was pretty funny. While Jackson gets more of a Captain Ahab and Moby Dick thing going on, and only gets crazier towards the end. All parts are played fine, and it does speak a lot to these actors when their characters are so bland yet I can feel sorry when things go wrong for them (a self-sacrifice moment stands out for that), but nobody is giving the best of their career either. You can tell that most actors signed on for the fun of it, and it does look like they all had fun with it though.

Sadly, alongside the weak characters, Kong: Skull Island has a very strange structure to it as well. Tonally and visually it’s fairly consistent and it does work well as a metaphor for the horrors of war, with echoes of Vietnam. But pacing wise it’s a little, well strange. You barely have time to lay back and catch your breath because most quiet moments get interrupted by something fast and aggressive, and then those moments will suddenly calm down. I’m not sure if this was a conscious decision or not, but it felt pretty jarring. Sometimes this jarring was effective, and others it just wasn’t. It’s also bizarrely edited too. Some fight scenes were a little hard to keep track of, yet others ran smoothly. Scenes will start and end with no real warning. And the film moves by so fast that if our characters did have something interesting about them, then it was brushed aside to make way for more action. And then comes the big question: if we’re here for the action with Kong, do we need to care for the characters really? It’s a tough one to answer, but I can only give my take. Films like Kong: Skull Island, and others like Predators and Jurassic World can get away with it. Because when we reach those moments, they are great and more than worth the price of admission. I would prefer it if I did know the characters, but when they’re well-acted then you can sympathise with them to an extent. Because every scene with Kong and the Skullcrawlers is so awesome to watch, and they appear often enough, I can look past the films shortcomings and enjoy it for what it is.

When all is said and done Kong: Skull Island is not great, and if you expected great then you really can only blame yourself. But it is great fun. I really enjoyed it, but I knew what it was; it was a B-Movie that featured Kong. Once that was accepted then I was able to enjoy the film to its full extent. I had seen it with my family and we all enjoyed it, and when the time comes it will definitely have a place in my DVD collection, maybe even the Blu-Ray one. This might sound simple but if you want to gage whether or not you’ll enjoy it, just watch the final trailer; it will give you all you need to make the perfect judgement. It’s still not a scratch on the original, but it’s something I shall definitely see again.

It’s always impressive when a complex yet heart-filled story can be told within a runtime of 15-minutes. But that is exactly what Mark J. Blackman does with his urban-fantasy film Neon. The story of Neon focuses on the love of a man and woman who have never met, in fact they have only spoken on the phone. The problem they have faced, and continue to face is his job. It is a job that forbids love, despite helping others find it. All he can do to be with her is quit said job; an act that will be far less cut and dry as it sound. And it is a story that would not work as a feature length film. But as a short, well that’s where magic is at work.

The genre of urban fantasy is one that has developed a bad reputation over the years, and to be fair that reputation is deserved. But what makes such a setting in Neon work, other than the runtime, is how well it actually manages to incorporate the supernatural element of the plot into that of the real world setting. Helping out with this is the films sense of style. When the story focuses on the female lead the style is a bright, mostly white and very BBC drama feel, as opposed to when the focus is placed on the male character, where it’s dark and neon covered (true to the title), giving off a tech-noir feel not too dissimilar from that seen in films like Attack the Block, The Terminator and last year’s Nerve. This helps give the film a differential feel between these two settings, yet they also feel similar enough, and with interconnecting characters to help, that they feel like a part of the same world too. Maybe I have a soft spot, having grown up with films from such people as John Carpenter, James Cameron and Ridley Scott, but I found the style to not only be visually gripping, but add more to the story and atmosphere than any line of dialogue.

That is not to say that the dialogue is bad, not at all. This is a very well written film that utilises its runtime as best as it can. Blackman does not fall into the trap of wasting dialogue on his characters. Every word has the weight that it needs to carry the film forward. He also has a good grip on his actors as well. Our leads are played by Joe Absolom (from Eastenders) and Kerry Bennett (from Hollyoaks, neither shows particularly interest me), and they both play them very well. These are not conventional characters, especially Absolom’s, so it is very impressive that they both played their parts so naturally. There isn’t that overacting moment or the “let’s really sell this” moment from them, it’s just the emotion that we as people have on display from them. Through them I found the characters to be oddly compelling and I was constantly waiting to see what twist or turn they came to next.

But something else that impressed me was how professional the film was. It looks and sounds amazing, and I’m not just talking about the style. The cinematography is excellent and it gives the impression of being helmed by a perfectionist who knows exactly how to get the shots that he wants for his films. This is helped with the fact that the sets and visual effects are on par with those seen in the later season of Game of Thrones. Most impressive, as I can’t imagine the budget was a large one. The audio and music are spot on and aid the atmosphere in the ways which it needed. Everything about this film was competently made; which does make it a shame when we get to the ending. There is a slow-motion segment, showing us multiple side of this story in a slower frame and little audio, allowing the music and visuals to convey the message. It is a well-directed and put together scene, one that does drive home the point that the film was trying to get across, it was just too long. It goes on for over 2-minutes and, unlike the rest of the film, started to feel wasteful of the running time. It is a shame because everything else was spot on, and it’s not a bad scene, I just wish that a minute or so of it was trimmed.

Neon is a strong short film with an effective style and a strong cast and crew. While watching, I was constantly impressed by it. Sadly, I did also find it to be somewhat forgettable. It stands out beautifully while it is playing, but very little remains after a few hours. Still, you must give praise to a film that moves you during its runtime.

The X-men series has definitely had its ups and downs hasn’t it? I actually really admire it, of all superhero cinematic universes it is easily the most diverse of them all. Not one film in this series feels like the other. The only problem there is that some of them are great, and others really suck. I think no X-men chapter demonstrates that better than the Wolverine trilogy. X-men Origins: Wolverine was a truly awful film; calling it bad would be like saying Jack the Ripper wasn’t a nice guy. Everything in that film failed, with the possible exception of Hugh Jackman and Levi Schreiber’s performances. The Wolverine, on the other hand, was a good, fun, solid depiction of the Wolverine character with an interesting story that did sadly fall apart at the end, but was a good film none-the-less. And now we have our final chapter, and Jackman’s final outing as Wolverine in Logan. And true to form, this one was even better than the last.

The story: Logan (aka Wolverine) is one of only three mutants remaining in this part of the world. He is a broken man, caring for Charles Xavier (Professor X) with help from Caliban, both of who are just as broken as he is. Then a girl, Laura comes into their lives. She has the exact same powers as Logan, from the metal skeleton to the incredible healing. But she is being chased by some people, people with sinister motives. The gang are on the run and Logan must learn to care again or all is lost for the group. This basically all translates to this being a character study. No big world ending villain, no mutant trying to destroy the X-men, no big battles of varying levels of CGI; just characters being characters and the adventure at hand.

I guess I’d better address the elephant in the room. After the release of Deadpool last year Logan was granted the adult rating; R rated in the USA, 15 here in the UK. So yes, the violence has been ramped up. The thing is, Deadpool was tame with its violence; I always figured that it was only 15 because of the swearing and sex really. Logan is definitely 15 for violence! That bit in the trailer, where the guy gets stabbed in the head by Logan? Yeah, that’s far from being the worst part. Limbs are severed, heads are chopped off, heads are stabbed, holes are made in people, a guy blows up at one point, and there is plenty of slicing and dicing from our lead man and girl. It’s very violent and very graphic; which just makes the action more sweet, shocking and satisfying. It is also there to accompany the story, which it does excellently. This is a darker story, with darker characters, darker humour and deeper themes. So, I do think that the violence was completely necessary for Logan.

All the actors did what is easily the best performances in the whole series so far. Patrick Stewart as Xavier is a heart-breaking role; he has dementia, which causes more problems than you can imagine with his mind-control abilities. He is a man who wants to hope again, but fear that he will not, so when the chance for happiness comes along he jumps at it. Stephen Merchant as Caliban was a surprisingly good choice and his character did add a lot to the film. He’s not a bumbling idiot like Merchant usually plays, he’s a charming, hopeless character who still has a big heart, despite all that happens to him. Our villains are played by the amazing Richard E Grant and up-coming talent Boyd Holbrook. Grant could play a great Satan one day with the way he portrays his character; a puppet master with great charisma, and more dangerously ambition to boot. Holbrook plays more of the henchmen type villain, but he’s so deliciously devious, charismatic and passionate for the evil stuff he does that it’s honestly hard not to love-to-hate the guy. And finally there is Dafne Keen as Laura, or X-23. I thought the kid in A Monster Calls was great, and he is but Keen might very well have surpassed him. There is nothing wrong with her performance, from silence, to speech, to curious and calm, to wild and doing insane choreography; this girl was one of the most impressive performances of this year, and I include adults in that! It’s rare you can say such a thing, but there is no other actress who could do better than her in this role. She easily outshines the other kids of the film, who are not that good sadly. But they’re not the focus, she is.

Returning to the director’s chair is James Mangold, director of The Wolverine and Copland. It’s clear that Mangold had a vision for this film, and he was thankfully allowed to bring that vision to life. Logan looks and sounds amazing. The filming reminded me of those thrillers from the ‘70’s; Death Wish, Mad Max, Hang ‘Em High, Dirty Harry, The Gauntlet, that kind of classic film making. Not one image displays only one thing, ever shot contains everything that it needs to convey the story in a visual way. The graveyard bit from the trailer, which is very early on in the film, tells you everything you need to know about Logan as a character. The music is sombre and kept in the background, to the point where you don’t really consciously notice it but you feel it adding to the scene anyway. And, unlike The Wolverine, the tone is constant and it never falls into generic comic-book territory. The pacing is slow, not boring just slow, but it makes the action when it happens all the more exciting. But what really sold me on Logan, is that what it does well (and better than any other comic-book film I’ve seen since The Crow) is emotion. The film has sad moments, angry moments, exciting moments, tense moments and happy moments; each and every single moment is carried in you. You feel what the film shows, and that is what you need in a film like this.

And let us end on Hugh Jackman himself. This is his last film as Logan; I’ll believe that when I see it. But let’s say that it is his last go at it. Well this is as perfect as send off as can be imagined. This is Jackman’s best performance as Logan and one of the best he has ever given. Never before have we seen Logan like this, and Jackman takes us on the ride of a lifetime with it. He is the only actor I can ever see as Wolverine, and now he has certainly perfected it. The violence did help a lot with finally showing us Wolverine’s animal side, and his true rage; not just, you know, screaming a lot. There is also some very interesting “what if” scenarios with Logan and Xavier. What if Logan got old? What if Logan was too ill to heal? What if Charles got dementia? What if Logan was to be a father figure? What if Logan was in a 15 rated grown-up action film? Well now we know all of them, and they are all glorious results.

Logan is easily the Dark Knight of the X-men series, and is just as easily the best superhero film I’ve seen in 5 years. I’ll admit, my hopes were high for this one; of all the 13 or so superhero films coming this year (and isn’t that a depressing number) this was one of only 2 I was looking forward to. And it exceeded my expectations. I loved this film, and it has been a long while since I’ve been really able to say that about a superhero film. Go and see Logan when you can, that’s my advice. Unless you are a child, then don’t because this film is not for you.

For all you aspiring film makers out there, take ‘Lifeline’ as a lesson. ‘Lifeline’ is a short film that just about hits the 10-minute mark, and it has been cited as one of the best short films of 2016. And it’s easy to see why; on the surface it looks like we are simply getting a simple short film with a nice short yet vague story to tell. But really look at ‘Lifeline’ and you will find something rather remarkable about it.

The basic story in ‘Lifeline’ is a dystopian setting where a desperate mother must help her dying son, give him another lifeline as it were. This requires her to go to a mysterious, derelict building where through even more mysterious and sinister means this mother must do the unthinkable to get the lifeline her son so desperately needs. What follows later isn’t so much story based or character focused (although it does place some focus on these) and comes off as more world building. But the thing is, if you have a good world with interesting rules and houses interesting people then you could very easily get away with a focus on world building. And that’s definitely where ‘Lifeline’ has an advantage.

What impressed me most with this film was the world that was set up. It was very different to the world that we live in now, yet I can also see echoes of the situations the film presents throughout our world too. While never explored, there is the hinting of a rift between class and political views. But the film, for the best, chooses to focus completely on the current predicament with the mother and so any political commentary is mostly kept as just hints and whispers. Instead the focus is on the themes of the film, which are predominately the themes of motherhood, how far we’ll go for love and the power of selflessness. These are powerful messages and are told in a very powerful way, especially with the ending of the film. It also shows that these will not change even when the world is at its worse; that even when the human race is on the brink of social collapse a mother will still love her child.

This is very much helped by the acting; which is great all around. Rebecca Manley’s lead character is so compelling and so human that she help ground the entire story around her. From minute one her story is clear, you identify with her struggles and you are wishing for her to come out on top in the end. There is no wasted dialogue, there isn’t any over-acting or Oscar baiting, it’s all pure and simple and very human. Another performer in the film who I must mention is Matilda Freeman. This child, who can’t be more than 12 years old, is a good actress and a phenomenal child actress. Things happen in this film that nobody would wish for a child to see, never mind do. The film makes her participation no less shocking but all the more impressive with how well she plays her part.

But the real star of the show is the director, Sam Jones. It is clear that he takes inspiration from the likes of Danny Boyle and Gore Verbinski; with a keen eye for stylish storytelling and film making to grant what films they direct more of an identity than most. Everything, from sets to lighting looks both familiar while strange and pure while eroded. It’s a style of contrasts, something that suits the themes perfectly. What makes Jones’ work more impressive though is his age. He wrote this script while studying his A-Levels. He got it pitched, produced and had a team of people, who also believed in his vision to bring it to life. Films like this really do prove that you have no excuse to not make your film if you are aspiring to. If anything gets taken away from ‘Lifeline’ please have it be that.

‘Lifeline’ is a powerful and moving short film from a young man who is still learning his craft, but knows how to use his strengths already. The themes are driven home hard and well. The film making is stylish and fluid. The acting and writing truly bring this world to life. And all in a shorter time than most. Jones found his story and made it, for that there is admiration. For what he made, there is definite and well deserved praise.

https://vimeo.com/161274386

‘Southern Fury’ will probably be a film you will see streaming on Netflix or the like very soon. Throughout viewing it I had a feeling that this will be just another film that gets swept under the rug from the get go. I have seen this kind of film before. They’re known as rainy-day thrillers, something you put on when it’s raining outside, you have a day off and just need something to do for an hour or so. But that doesn’t mean rainy-day thrillers can’t be good, the latest instalments in Jaume Collet-Serra’s filmography prove that. So the question remains that whether or not ‘Southern Fury’ will work as a rainy-day thriller.

The story is one that isn’t unfamiliar. JP (and yes that is his name) and Mikey are brothers who were once as close to each other as fish and chips, despite the worst of situations. All grown up the younger JP has become a successful construction manager while Mikey has fallen hard into drug- and arms dealing. The brothers, despite their efforts have never been further apart. That is until Mikey goes missing with a ‘mysterious’ caller telling JP to deliver an obscene amount of money in a set time. Everyone but JP think that Mikey is in on it so JP finds himself the only man who can save his brother. But all throughout, things…well things happen.

It turns out that the question of ‘Southern Fury’ working as a rainy-day thriller is a very easy one to answer, because no it doesn’t. With films like this you know very well that you are not going to receive art of the highest calibre, although ‘Southern Fury’ does try so and to say it tries in vein is an understatement. Sticking with the story, it’s just too basic and formulaic. Beat for beat you can tell what’s going to happen. You know who the villain is from minute one, not helped by the fact that he is played by Nicolas Cage. It also has a horrible habit of throwing in new subplots and character moments that come from nowhere and return to where they come without achieving anything. An example is when Cage meets his brother; I thought this was going to lead to some strange conspiracy plot that could have taken me off guard, but instead it goes nowhere and is ended in the next scene. Being formulaic is a struggle enough without it being unfocused on top of it all.

As for the characters, what about them? You could rename everyone to Mr or Mrs Bland for the impression they leave. JP’s defining features are his constant monologues about how his brother is not a bad guy, just misunderstood, and the name that I’m certain is the abbreviation of ‘Jurassic Park’. Mikey has even less character to him. He is the big brother, the obvious victim and that is all. In truth he’s such a big man that I’m surprised that he was caught in the first place. All other characters I won’t really go into, because I’ve already forgotten them. There were only two more who stood out. There was a cop character who tries to help JP, who’s defining feature is that he is played by the once acclaimed and much sort-after John Cusack. A man who is clearly just hear to grab a pay-slip. And then the villain, who again is only really defined by the actor playing him. Nicolas Cage is also hear for the pay-slip but he at least looks to be having some fun in the role. He has his now infamous freak-out moments in the film, has a bizarre costume too; the shirt and all that are fine, the hair is a little weird, but it was the prosthetic nose that caught me off guard. Every time I saw his nose it was a huge distraction for me. I know it’s a strange thing to keep bringing up but to see Nicolas Cage with the nose of Gerard Depardieu is a major distraction to his scenes.

Other than that the directing is basic. Not bad, at least until the end, but basic. There are tricks that director Steven C. Miller has seen done well in other films, like the tracking shot from ‘Good Fellas’, the torture scene from ‘Reservoir Dogs’ and the slow-motion blood-splatter action from ‘Dredd’, but he has no idea how to implement them. In ‘Good Fellas’ we found it visually interesting and striking, while also giving us an insight into the protagonists mind. ‘Reservoir Dogs’ made us care for the character while also making us fear Michael Madson. ‘Dredd’ used the idea of drugs and the cartoonish style of Verhoeven action films to set the tone for the world around the characters. This film does none of that. That makes the tracking shots and torture scenes boring and the slow-motion laughable. Although to be fair you could have had the skills of Ridley Scott and you still wouldn’t have been able to survive the script. No line of dialogue is memorable, the pacing and tone are completely off, one moment being overly serious and the next a cartoon, and as stated before is completely muddled and unfocused.

But the films biggest sin is how boring it is. It never keeps your focus for more than a few minutes before you get distracted by that mark on your wall. The only scenes that kept me interested were when it became laughably bad. Nicolas Cage can usually be counted on for a laugh in a supposedly serious moment, of course. The slow-motion violence was so poorly implemented that it was a joy to see what faces our actors were making at the time. And there was also one of the most unnecessary, pointless and completely unsexy sex scenes I’ve seen since watching the trailer to ’Fifty Shades Darker’, which just had me laughing at how it was done and handled, not to mention the fact that it was here at all.

The sad truth is that the only time I would say this film should be put on is when you need white-noise while doing the ironing. It’s sadly not good enough to work as a rainy-day thriller and it’s not bad enough to be entertaining. What we have is just a forgettable action thriller with average directing, okay acting and some laughable moments that are sadly far too few. It’s really hard to get angry or offended by film that will leave not a single impression on you. Now might be a good time to change the title from ‘Southern Fury’ to ‘Southern Placid’.