Author: Callum Forbes

Alright, who’s not dead, sound off! For those who don’t remember ‘John Wick’ I must ask, what is wrong with you? ‘John Wick’ remains to this day one of the most visceral and thoroughly enjoyable films I’ve ever experienced. It was action film making at its absolute best. It has successfully brought back the star power of Keanu Reeves and the action remains to be some of the best I have ever seen. And for once we got a sequel announcement that I could fully get behind. ‘John Wick’ had opened up and interesting world with great possibilities for a sequel. And now I have seen ‘John Wick Chapter 2’ after two years of waiting.

The story to the first film was very simple, here things get a bit more complex. I don’t wish to spoil any of it really so I’m going to be deliberately vague for a moment. John Wick has started to settle down after avenging the puppy in the first film. But then circumstanced bring him back into the criminal world. He finds himself in the middle of a coup far greater than any other attempted within the organisation and ends up with enemies on all sides. Gun play and knife fights and fisty-cuffs ensue and we have our film. Now to be as unvague as possible, remember that dog he gets at the end of the first film? Well, it’s alive and well so dog lovers fear not.

John Wick as a character never lost a moment of charm throughout this whole film. He is still everything we remember from before; strong yet vulnerable, charismatic yet blank, he’s got a soft heart yet he’s a blood hungry monster. Keanu Reeves could never be replaced, he isn’t playing Wick, he is Wick. And he does of course blow us away in the action scenes (and also everyone involved in them). There are many other characters who shouldn’t be ignored either. I won’t go into much detail with them; some return from the first some are completely new. Some follow us throughout the film, others are only in two or three scenes. Yet not a single one feels wasted or uninteresting. Yes, it certainly helps that they are played by actors like Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne (back from ‘The Matrix’ with Reeves it appears), Ruby Rose, John Leguizamo, Common (oddly enough), Peter Serafinowicz, Peter Stormare and Franco Nero. They all get the same treatment, simple yet effective. Which is a sentence that can sum up this whole film.

As before the action is phenomena. From start to finish it’s all a blast to watch. Unlike the first one there isn’t much build up, you are just thrown into the deep end with this one; but we know the character now and the start is where the first left off so it feels right to happen the way it does. Besides, with the spectacle delivered there is no right for anyone to complain. It only goes from crazy to crazier too. We have a fight in a wreck-yard, then one in Roman ruins, then one in a hall of mirrors and so on. All keeping with the same visceral style as the first one. But I must say that this one had the most “Oooooh” moments in it. If you are like me and cringe when you hear an arm or leg go “snap” as it is wrenched then expect to say “oooh” a lot. It’s all entertaining and never gets tiresome. The fact that it is all exceptionally well directed, shot and choreographed makes every single move made all the more impressive. Yes the blood is CG, but considering how much there is and all the stunts being done to cause so much blood, I think they’re allowed to save a bit of money.

Something that this film does, and ‘The Raid 2’ did this as well, is it builds on the world that we are introduced to in the first film. It is very welcome; we actually see how the gears in this killing machine work and, while never realistic (of course it’s not), it’s fascinating to watch. I always wonder how certain things were conducted in the first film, and now I know and it makes things all the more interesting looking back. That is exactly what a sequel should do, especially to an action film like ‘John Wick’. The worst thing this could have done was feel like more of the same. To me they were different enough in plot, pacing and style that I could easily see both of these films as their own separate thing.

Sadly ‘John Wick Chapter 2’ is not the greatest sequel ever made, with its own fair share of issues. I was vague on the plot because I don’t want to spoil it, which is exceedingly hard to do with how convoluted it is. In building the world, which I am glad they did, they threw a bit too much information as us for one easy watch action film. There is also one plot development given about Wick’s past, that sadly takes away from the scare factory “Baba Yegga” has given himself. The pacing got a bit lax in moments and I found myself asking for more action in some quiet moments. So it is a bit messy. And then there’s the unavoidable comparisons. I loved the characters in this, but I preferred the characters in the first film. I loved the action in this, but even the best action scene doesn’t match the nightclub scene or the fight with Miss Perkins in the first. And Wick’s motivation for getting back into the fray is sadly not that compelling. It’s less of a deep emotional attachment to him and his efforts and more of “the plot told us to do it”.

In the end ‘John Wick Chapter 2’ still has enough power to knock you on your back, even if the first film is more tightly wound. If you loved the first one like I did then this one is a definite must see. Ignore the likes of ‘Fifty Shades Darker’ and watch something really worth a bit of time. Mindless yes, but expertly so. There is some sequel bait to this film, so I hope that the third one is on its way. And when it arrives, well Wick has already given the plot away; “I’ll kill them all” he says. After these two, I believe him.

Why is it that Will Arnett has become one of the best incarnations of Batman? Batman himself being one of the best parts of the amazing ‘The Lego Movie’, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprising that he got his own spin off movie. Upon hearing of this film I definitely had my doubts about it. But I quickly reminded myself that I felt the same about ‘The Lego Movie’ and ‘Storks’ (which was made by the same studio) and they both ended up being either great or immensely entertaining. I am an avid believer in seeing a film and judging for yourself so a trip to the cinema was in order to see what ‘The Lego Batman Movie’ had in store.

The story this time around almost completely ignores the events of ‘The Lego Movie’ despite being in the same universe. Batman is great, he beats the bad guys, has a huge fan base and has his own soundtrack. The problem is that he is all alone. At the end of every day he returns to the Batcave and Wayne Manor with no one but Alfred waiting for him. That all changes with a bizarre string of events, including new commissioner Barbara Gordon wanting the police force and Batman to work together, Batman mistakenly adopting Dick Grayson and the Joker hatching a scheme that will destroy Gotham once and for all.

Despite the films short run time there is a lot that happens in this film, and almost all of it is hilarious. This film feels less like a film such as ‘The Lego Movie’, an animated comedy with heart at its core, and more like the spoofs of old. Not the disastrous spoof films like ‘Scary Movie’ or anything excreted by Friedberg and Seltzer; ‘The Lego Batman Movie’ is more like ‘Galaxy Quest’, ‘Airplane!’, ‘Top Secret’ and anything crafted by Mel Brooks. Unsurprisingly, this parody is of everything to do with Batman in any form of art or media. We have the obvious ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’, ‘Batman Vs Superman’ parodies, but we also have pokes at the animated series from the ‘90’s and we even go back before Adam West put on the oddly blue cowl and hit the original detective comics. But luckily, much like ‘Airplane!’, you don’t need to know what is being made fun of to find the jokes funny. No joke is just the film makers pointing at a reference (not a joke, a reference) and saying “recognise this and laugh at it!” What we get is a great showcase of perfect timing and well thought-out jokes that mostly come at Batman’s expense. There is an early joke about the old comics and even though I haven’t read a comic book in my life I still laughed at it.

The jokes keep coming and they come fast. Too fast at times really; you can laugh so much at the jokes (particularly in the second half) that you miss the following ones. Some could say that this is an issue but really if your problem is that you are laughing too hard then you can only blame your sense of humour. But I have found that the best comedies tend to have a story with goals and likeable characters who just happen to be funny, not just Adam Sandler putting on a strange voice again. And ‘The Lego Batman Movie’ knows this too.

Let’s be honest, from reading the plot you know exactly what the message that is going to be conveyed is. It all comes down to family and respecting and loving others and not shutting yourself away from those who care for you. We know it, we’ve seen it, all that can be done is to have it well incorporated into the story. And, yes it is. It never gets sappy, although some of these  heart-felt moments do have an effect on the pace at times. In fact they are the only times the film slows down from the high gear it drives in. And it must be said that after a fast-paced but stable first half, things get incredibly bonkers in the second half. But the best jokes and references are in that part of the film so I’m not going to complain. Other than that the story really does just give reasons for jokes and character drama so it’s not really worth diving into further.

As for the characters, Batman is still hilarious. Will Arnett brings his A game to the voice work and he perfectly captures the teenage-full of himself persona that the character has this time around. We also get Michael Cera as Robin, who is really just there to deliver the heart to the story but he does well with it. Ralph Fiennes is Alfred and, as I had imagined going in, he turned out to be the funniest character of them all with his dry humour and monotone gentleman voice. Rosario Dawson joins in as Barbara Gordon, who like Robin is just here to deliver heart and move the story along, but again like Robin she does a good job with it and is completely likeable as Batman’s polar opposite. And finally we have Zach Galifianakis as the Joker. The idea for the Joker here is that he has a “relationship” with the caped crusader; he wants to be his worst enemy the exact same way a person wants to be their crushes partner. He even gets jealous when Batman fights other bad guys. I must admit I’ve never seen this before and I found it weirdly hilarious and almost endearing at the same time. There are other guest stars as guest villains but I won’t get into that here.

All else that can be said is that all characters and the world around them are exceptionally well animated. Like ‘The Lego Movie’ it’s really hard to tell if some moments were assembled in a computer or if they actually took the time to stop-motion animate them. Not once does it feel like an advertisement for Lego; it clearly is in the end but you really wouldn’t think it with the respect they give the audience by telling a good story with likeable characters and deliver legitimate laughs. Christopher Miller and Phil Lord have started something really strange with ‘The Lego Movie’. Strange, but by no means unwelcomed.

It never reaches the highs of ‘The Lego Movie’; it’s not quite as funny or heart-warming, and in the end Emit was a more compelling hero than Batman was. But in the end I’m glad I saw it. It’s a good sign that the spoof film is not dead yet and hopefully never will be. It’s ironic and almost sad that ‘The Lego Batman movie’ is a far better film than ‘Batman Vs Superman’; in fact I’d argue it’s better than ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. In a world where superheroes and product placement are everywhere, it’s nice to finally see a mixture of the two that is fully self-aware.

As far as black comedies go you’ll struggle to find any darker than ‘Trainspotting’. It’s been years since I last saw that one and I’m actually surprised with how much I actually remember. Although when your film features swimming in toilets, dead babies, dead baby hauntings, brutal depictions of heroine abuse and British life, with Danny Boyle’s visuals then it’s bound to be at least memorable. ‘Trainspotting’ has been called such things as “one of the most important film in British cinema”, and it’s easy to see why. Outside of its off-putting content to some viewers it’s an amazing film, both heartfelt and hilarious why also being brutally realistic and outright horrifying. What I’m building up to is that it’s not really a film that warrants or even needs a sequel. But I couldn’t deny that from the advertising ‘T2: Trainspotting’ looked pretty good actually. With the original cast and director returning there was hope for this hopeless cause.

Picking up 20 years after where the first film let off, I guess we’re doing an off-screen version of what ‘Boyhood’ did, the story is that Mark Renton has returned to Edenborough after having stolen from his mates. He aims to gain forgiveness from Daniel (Spud) and Simon (Sick-Boy) and hopefully regain the friendship they once had, while also avoiding past mate and psychopath Franco (Begby). There is more to it but that’s the skin and bones of it. And to the films credit it handles it very well. This is exactly what a sequel should do, build on the original and develop from it while also remaining true to the spirit of the first film.

Let’s just dive right into the cast of ‘Terminator 2: Trainspotting’. ‘Trainspotting’ was the catalyst for the careers of those involved and they all return to their roles as if they never left. Ewan McGregor as Renton is our focus once more and if there was ever an actor who could hold up any film it’s Ewan McGregor (you may remember him as one of only two decent actors in the ‘Star Wars Prequels’). Here we get a likable and even relatable character given by an actor who gives everything he can to a down-to-earth and respectable performance. Renton has more faults that qualities going for him at times, but we like him anyway; for his charm and quick wit, and his passion to live his life as he can. As for his friends we have Ewen Bremner as Spud, who get much more development given to him and who becomes the most sympathetic character and performance in the whole film. Jonny Lee Miller returns with a good performance to the big screen as Simon, whose chemistry with Renton makes for most of the film. I’m really glad it is as well because it’s those two who make the film almost singlehandedly. And then there’s Robert Carlyle as Bigby, easily the most enjoyable performance of the whole film; but considering that it’s Carlyle that should come as no surprise to anyone. All great all around. I felt like I could watch these four for hours after the film had ended. It’s only a shame that Kevin Mckidd’s character died in the first one.

But let’s not leave out the final team member, Mr Danny Boyle. Boyle is possibly one of the greatest directors of our time with such films as ‘Trainspotting’, ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, ‘Sunshine’ and ’28 Days Later’ under his belt. He’s a man who has avoided sequels until now, which may be a wise move really but here it’s like he was born to it. But outside of doing what a sequel should (I mentioned it earlier if you were paying attention) he still delivers on what made the first one good in the first place. He knows exactly how to get the most out of the actors he works with. He knows how to work with John Hodge’s excellent script. And most importantly, he knows how to pull off a great film with style. It’s visually nice to look at, even at the film’s most unpleasant moments. He brings in music and songs and implements them perfectly into the scenes he makes. He knows how to use footage from the first film, amazingly, to this one’s advantage.

On top of all of that it’s hilarious, one scene in particular (it involves two toilet cubicles) had me laughing to the point where it must have annoyed people around me. It’s also thoughtful and moving. It has that great “choose life” speech. It’s also not as hard going as the first one is, making it a slightly easier watch. This is also brought in by the films message. Both films focus on friendship at the heart of it all. But the difference is that my feelings on the first one was that it marked a loss of innocence with it; this one on the other hand gives more of a reconnection feeling. Again it makes it feel less aggressive and more pleasant a watch than the first one.

But that is also ‘T2’s Achilles heel. ‘Trainspotting’ was a unique film, and a huge part of that is because it feels like a visceral experience that once it finished left you feeling exhausted. ‘T2’ feels like a film. A well-acted, well-written, well-directed film with a great story, characters and style to it, but it still feels like a film. And it should go without saying that being a second film means that it feels less unique too. I can see this easily annoying some fans of the first film, but for me I think this films pacing, which is tighter than the originals pacing, even things out.

‘T2: Trainspotting’ is a great British film and a more than worthy successor to the original. For fans of the books ‘Trainspotting’ and ‘Porno’, which this film is based off of apparently, I can’t tell you how faithful it is but I think you’ll enjoy it regardless. If you haven’t already go and see it, it’s more than worth your time. It might be cheesy to say so, but this duo is pretty addictive. Welcome back boys, we didn’t realise how much we missed you.

Weird yet wonderful. That’s a saying that I have come across many times. That I have used many times myself too. We’ve all seen those films that are weird yet wonderful, sometimes they are among our very favourites. And why not, it’s in the title of this phrase. But do you know what’s harder to gage, if a film is weird yet wonderful or just plain weird. That is where ‘Doll in the Dark’ comes into it.

‘Doll in the Dark’ (or ‘The Melancholy Fantastic’ according to IMDb, just to confuse you more) is a film by Alejandro Daniel in his directorial debut. So what’s the story? Well that’s a little hard to explain. Not that the film is ‘Inception’ levels of complex, it’s actually simple in structure and pacing, but it’s a very visual and at times unconventional story which everyone will experience and tell in their own way. The basics, a depressed young woman with a tragic past has almost successfully cut herself off from the outside world. Her only company, and her constant torment is a mannequin-sized doll call Mor. Mor, as far as this young woman is concerned, can talk to her and is very domineering in its treatment of her. All starts to change when she meets a young man called Dekken, one who seems to understand her and they both share mutual feelings for. Which, with Mor around, is extremely dangerous for both of them.

Despite the set up and some of the films imagery I wouldn’t call it a horror film, or even a thriller film. It can only be described as a macabre drama. There is plenty of suicide imagery to this film, which I can tell right away is going to get under some people’s skin. I know people who I wouldn’t feel comfortable showing this to with such imagery. Suicidal tendencies and depression playing as major themes of the film throughout. But that is where the very story and character of the film come out. While our characters do have the odd monologue or two to give us indication as to who they are, what we are really told lies deep within the cinematography and mise-en-scene. What lies in the foreground and background is always important and meticulous.

Daniel have obviously taken inspiration from the likes of Guillermo Del Toro, J A Bayona and Alejandro Amenabar. And why not? These three have become powerhouses in the medium of visual storytelling. The opening credits alone made me realise this and, in defence of the film it did get me interested from the get go. Accompanying such imagery is an eerie, almost dreamlike musical accompaniment. In fact the music in this film works the same way as the music in ‘Jaws’ did, in that if it was removed then a huge part of what made this film would be lost completely. And between the music and the sets and costumes we get given a unique and immersive atmosphere which really does make the film feel like we are watching a dream at times. Everything feels odd and off-key, both the good and bad and it only makes sense once you wake and experience the end of the dream or sometime after a little thought.

The cast do a good job as well, most impressive given the bizarre and difficult topics that are being covered within the film. The lead of the film is played by Amy Crowdis, who successfully comes off as a more modern and female spin on Norman Bates. You can tell from the get-go that she means well, despite her obvious deliberate isolation; but you can also tell that there is something disturbed living underneath. Some scenes play on this a little too much, I think, with the stand out moment being her eating a sandwich of mouldy bread. I feel she shines through at her best in the more quite moments, with body actions and facial expressions carrying her character forward and making her compelling for the viewer. Alongside Crowdis we have Robin Taylor (best known as The Penguin in Fox’s ‘Gotham’) as Dukken. Dukken looks like if the character T-Bird from ‘The Crow’ wearing the make-up of, well The Crow; who is himself very supporting and patient with our lead, clearly has feelings for her and provides her with a light in the darkness. I did rather enjoy this character and his philosophy and Taylor played him extremely well, nearly stealing the show. But what I liked most about his character was his unworldly presence. The sense that he gives us as the viewers is that he may be real, or he may not be…adding deeper layers to our lead and in turn making Crowdis’ performance all the more impressive.

‘Doll in the Dark’ does prove that you don’t need a budget to tell a story or make a compelling film. However, it does often fall into the trap of having the audience playing “guess the metaphor”. It’s focus on visual storytelling does often have me wondering what certain images or scenes mean. However, that is a double-edged sword. Because while I am looking for answers to the imagery I was getting distracted by the search for the answers. Some films like ‘The Orphanage’ played this kind of film making to their advantage, leading to a satisfying film that had you so engrossed in what you saw that you forgot that you were looking for the answers all along. ‘Doll in the Dark’ never really got past that barrier, and while the end made some sense I still felt that the film was a little too cryptic in its delivery. The dialogue I found, while poetic, was confused at times and at some others was just inconsequential.

Once ‘Doll in the Dark’ had ended I found it to be less weird yet wonderful, and more strange yet standard. Compelling characters, good performances, visual flare and simple love and ambition towards the project definitely saves the film from what feels like a muddled script and overly cryptic themes. There are improvements to be made for certain, but I was impressed with how this film played out overall. It’s certainly not for everyone, and I’m not entirely sure it was the film for me in the end, but for those who respect the work and dedication that was put into it, as well as its macabre themes and imagery then I would say it’s one to check out at least once.

http://www.safecrackerfilmdistribution.com/doll-in-the-dark

When was the last time anyone heard the name Mel Gibson connected to a film? Oh, he has been in the press fairly often, but for completely different reasons. But let’s be kind and not bring up any of that, it’s not my place to make comment. But Gibson does seem to have avoided the directing chair for quite some time. I’m not entirely sure what brought him back, but I will say that his return did have me worried, especially given the story being a true one in World War II.

I will be honest, I have not done my homework on the events of ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ so for those who are wondering what the historical authenticity of the film is, I cannot say. I’ve heard that it is actually fairly accurate, but given Mel Gibson’s track record with historical films I do have to call in into question. The story that the film ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ provides is a character focused wartime drama about a young medic in the US military called Desmond Doss. Doss refuses to kill people, going so far as to not even hold a gun; this being a war, comes into clash with his superiors and squad members. Despite the ridicule and even life threats he joins the American’s in Okinawa where he saves over 70 of his fellow squad members.

It is very easy to see this film in two parts, not dissimilar to ‘Full Metal Jacket’; we have before he goes to war, where we get character focus and all attention is placed on the actors, and then we have the war film which supplies enough body parts to make Frankenstein’s monster and enough organs to put ‘Repo Men’ to shame. Personally I much preferred the former. Not only was it well written, but it was well directed, paced and acted. Gibson downplays any pretentious tendencies he may have, in hopes of delivering a smooth, simple and completely relatable world for our characters. Everything has some form of gloss over it, which does give the feeling that this is the 1940’s and the costumes help out immensely too. In contrast the wartime part of the film loses all gloss in favour of gritty, bloody and unrelentingly cruel action. Appropriate for a wartime film perhaps, but I say action and not war or battle is because that’s exactly what it comes off as. Any realism is often washed away by people performing stunts that I can’t see actually happening in a way. This involves kicking grenades in mid-air, to using a severed torso as a human shield, to pulling the pin out of an enemy’s grenade and using him to cover the blast. It’s all a bit too fanciful at that point.

But going back to what I touched earlier, the acting from all involved is spot on. This is a pretty impressive cast that includes but is not limited to Andrew Garfield, Hugo Weaving, Sam Worthington, Teresa Palmer and Vince Vaughn of all people. Garfield is the lead man who many have already said deserves an Oscar nomination for his performance, and I must say they may not be wrong. He captures the character of Doss perfectly. The real Doss is dead now, as the film generously tells us in the end, so there is no way of telling what he would say to it or what he was really like. But this fictionalised version of him is very well realised. Garfield had a lot to work with and worked superbly with it, and he’s not an actor I really go for (his Peter Parker in ‘The Amazing Spiderman’ was a disappointment to me). This is helped by the backstory that is meticulously delivered to us, allowing us to see exactly what got him to be the man he is in this moment. There are a number of out of character moments for him, the biggest being his reason for joining comes out of nowhere, and the accent is clearly put on at times, but on the whole it works very well.

However, it was Hugo Weaving as the father that won me over. Weaving (Elrond in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and Agent Smith in ‘The Matrix’) is a great actor, even when the film is bad he still delivers a more than admirable performance (who else could have given us the Smith laugh from the third ‘Matrix’ movie). In this he plays a drunk, abusive man who beats his family and has obviously had a negative effect of his two sons. But he is also a veteran who lost everything in the Great War, one who hasn’t learned to cope with the loss to this day; he also ultimately wants what’s best for his children too. This is perfectly caught in Weaving’s performance and nobody else could have done better. We even got a surprisingly good dramatic Vince Vaughn performance, and anyone who has seen Vaughn’s more “serious” work knows that that’s a rare thing.

When the action does happen it is undoubtedly impressive but as previously stated is just too fanciful, which is not helped by Gibson’s pretentiousness finally coming out. The film is extremely gory at times but that shouldn’t come as a shock. Also, considering that this is the story of a medic, it feels appropriate. It’s much more a case of strange framing and religious imagery that just jar with what we are meant to be seeing. Religion plays a big part in this story, and from what I hear Doss was a religious man. I have no problem at all with the inclusion of religious themes, especially in a war story. But when they are hammered in and hammered in so often it does start to grate after a while. The pacing is also a little off in the war scenes. It feels like we could have lost about ten minutes of the film without really losing anything to the overall product. I would, however, say that ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is easily Mel Gibson’s best directing effort. It felt less like ‘Braveheart’ and ‘Apocolypto’ (two films that ultimately disgusted me with their offensive inaccuracy towards the history and cultures of their tales) and more like ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and ‘Gladiator’ (even if it doesn’t reach the heights of those two); finding a story and accounts during a period in history and using them to make something epic and character-based that works as a story in itself.

‘Saving Private Ryan’ it is not but ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is a perfectly enjoyable and interesting wartime character study. I can see why it is raved about and why it has a shot at the Oscars. Don’t think too much and you’ll ultimately enjoy it for what it is. For me though, it is a one watch wonder, I will never see it again. Still there’s nothing wrong with being happy with one watch. Don’t be afraid to call the medic on this…let’s just hope Gibson keeps up his efforts here in the future too.