Category: REVIEWS

Let’s be honest, who was actually looking forward to this one? Justice League has finally been released – only five years after Avengers Assemble! Justice League is so late to its own party I’m actually amazed that it’s finally happened. The ship has sailed, yet still this passenger turned up to port. But there is still a lot riding on this one, for DC at any rate. Man of Steel was a dull, soulless and overall poor Superman film – not to mention, on a more personal note, I’m not sure I’ve been more bored by a film before or since. But it was at least coherent. More than you could say for Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, a colossal mess that had its moments – like the warehouse scene – but otherwise was a painful watch. Suicide Squad was a horrible film on almost every conceivable level. Not without it’s joyful moments, but all around just very poor. But with the release of Wonder Woman – a fun and pretty decent woman-empowering action film – and the film it’s all been building to, maybe we have finally hit our turn around.

A new threat has arrived to destroy the world – because taking over it is too much hassle I guess – in the from of Steppenwolf. This new villain is enough to make Batman and Wonder Woman find other powered beings; namely The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman. They discover the villain’s plan and know what they must do to stop him. The problem is, for their plan and team to work they need someone with more strength, both physically and mentally. They need Superman, but he is dead…

For more on the plot I advise you to put on a copy of either of the Avengers films because it’s the exact same thing. This does mean that we get some interesting (if overblown) action scenes and some nice banter between characters in-between. Honestly, it’s mostly the cast that works in this films favour. Yes, Henry Cavil and Amy Adams are back; and yes when they are together they are both horrible written, badly performed and have the same chemistry as Christenson and Portman did in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. When separate though, they were passable. I also felt that Ciaran Hinds was a pretty poor choice for our villain, but more on him later. Everyone else, though, were actually really good. Ben Affleck, Jeremy Irons and Gal Gadot return, and while not giving their best performances, did a good job of keeping these characters alive. Our newcomers are Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher and Jason Mamoa. Fisher did well as Cyborg, although he felt rather sidelined. More so was Mamoa as Aquaman – but the charisma he oozed made this a fun character. Miller took the role of Flash and was easily the films highlight. He perfectly played the character, to my understanding anyway, and never failed to be fun and charming all at once.

As for the rest of the film, it’s pretty tough to say. There’s no way of continuing without addressing the elephant in the room. Zach Snyder is credited as the film’s director; but he stepped down when his daughter committed suicide. With this understandable decision made, Avengers director Joss Whedon took over and finished the film with reshoots. I mention this because, to this film’s credit, you can’t tell that two people directed it. Both styles complement each over very well. What does show, however, is that the film was extensively reshot and that over fifty minutes of film had been cut. With production starting just after the release of BVS, I can safely say that this film was rushed. Tonally speaking, Justice League has a very unbalanced structure. It’s dark and full of slaughter at times, but then light-hearted at others. It also feels like it starts about six times. It’s a bad sign when my first reaction to a film is “what’s going on?”

It’s also weirdly pretentious. This film feels like an apology for the previous franchise films and like a celebration of them all at once. The visual style and dialogue all feel like there is something important to say. Like this is the big film that brings these fallen heroes together and fighting evil again. It’s a nice message and I appreciate the effort, but maybe things should be attempted with such seriousness when your film features a fish-man fighting a bad guy called Steppenwolf! Let’s talk about him, shall we? Weird and hilarious name aside, Steppenwolf really stood out to me in this film…as possibly the worst movie villain I have seen in years. He’s boring. He’s ugly to look at. He’s not well acted. He’s not well written. He feels like a henchman to a greater villain who has been given full reigns of the film. I never felt threatened by him. Because of this, my immersion was halted. I could not get into the film at all because I had no feeling that anything was at stake.

It’s not just him. Aquaman has near zero character given to him. The Flash is better off, but it’s mostly from the performance. Cyborg I still know nothing about. The same goes for Batman and Wonder Woman too; but they have had their stand-alones already. These three have not. I have read very few comics, only one of which was a DC comic (Watchmen), so I have no idea who or what these characters are. That’s why I feel I can only recommend this film to fans of DC. If you liked the other films in the DCCU, then this will be perfect for you. If you wish to see your favourite comic heroes on the big-screen, then this will also be perfect for you. But for the majority of audiences, this film will be completely lost on them.

Justice League is fun I suppose, but it’s the worst superhero film of the year. It’s just a mess. However, it is a stumble in the right direction. It’s pretty sad to see that the bold, dark and brooding DC has been forced to copy Marvel after one too many blunders. But, if that means that I get to see less of the films like BVS and Suicide Squad then I’m happy with this little course correction. Despite myself I am glad I saw it, and I can only hope for better down the line.

By Marti Dols Roca.

Surely Andrey Zvyagintsev is not a name that would appear in a conversation about the top directors nowadays; however one would seriously wonder why on earth not after coming across any of his movies. Especially considering he has won the Jury Prize at Cannes twice (Leviathan, 2014; and Loveless, 2017), the Grand Jury Prize at Venice (The Return, 2003) as well as having a movie nominated for best foreign language film at the Academy Awards (The Return, 2003). Not to mention his latest film Loveless has already been selected as the representative for Russia at the Oscar’s once again.

As mentioned, Loveless has not only won the Jury Prize at Cannes, but also BFI London Film Festival 2017 under the Best Film category. Its UK and Ireland release will be on February 9^th 2018 and it can’t feel more adequate as it’s a bloody cold and tough story (in the best of senses).

Loveless portrays the lives of a young couple, Zhenya and Boris, who are trying to make their separation as smooth as possible considering they hate each other’s guts. Boris tries for his ultra catholic boss not to find out about his divorce before he formalises his upcoming new marriage and fatherhood; Zhenya, on the other side, doesn’t look up from her cell phone except when she is with her new and charming companion, as if she didn’t want to see what’s around. This would be a relatively easy though exasperating period if it didn’t have a third party involved: their 12 years old son Alyosha.

It looks like the kid will be staying with Zhenya who as she says to her current boyfriend: I didn’t know what love was until I met you. She never knew such a thing with her mother and was unable to experience it after giving birth to a not really expected baby, which led to a marriage and soon to be miserable life. After the umpteenth argument with Boris, Zhenya speaks her mind about Alyosha’s near future: “he loves summer camp, he will like boarding school; and after that the army”. Adults can say certain things in certain situations that may not be completely true or they may not really believe. However, if you son has been in the toilet all along and has heard what you are going to do with him he may take a childish but understandable decision: run away. If this happens during the cold Russian winter with the only help of a group of volunteers to look for him given the uber bureaucratic and not that reliable police system, drama is served indeed.

Loveless is a brutally honest film in both visual and conceptual senses. Especially by treating upfront the most common of realities: young parents that realised too late that wasn’t the live they wanted and now there’s a third party involved who’s rarely guilty and often a victim.

A movie that, amongst other things, comes to say: love your kids or just don’t have them (which when it comes to statements, it’s hard to find a more reasonable one). The soviet architecture, hostile weather and brusqueness of its dwellers serve as the perfect wrapper for this crude story.

So, it’s a kick in the guts but a very good one. As it was The Return; as it was Leviathan. Do check Andrey Zvyagintsev’s work. You won’t regret it. Don’t do it one of these days you’re feeling blue though. You then may regret it.

With the way the world has been politically lately – what with the controversial President Donald Trump and the even more controversial post-Brexit Britain – it makes sense that we now get a political parody film. Luckily, Armando Iannucci, the creator of Alan Partridge and The Thick of It, and director of In the Loop, has been more than happy to oblige. Iannucci’s films always being simulations grittily realistic and as hilarious as a Monty Python feature – this is clearly a man of unique story-telling talent. It is refreshing to see such talent back in the fray – and after seeing The Death of Stalin, it’s hard to imagine a better fitting director for such a feature.

The Death of Stalin is based off the graphic novel of the same name – which I hadn’t heard of to be honest. It depicts the events set in motion after the death of the Soviet Union’s dictator, Joseph Stalin. All of the political manoeuvring and backstabbing; the diabolical acts of the secret police and armed forces; the weakness of some politicians and the craftiness of others. Above all, it’s a film that depicts the fear and uncertainty of a country that had no idea of what came next. And it is told with depth and respect, and with the same cheeky humour that made audiences everywhere fall in love with Monty Python’s the Life of Brian.

You can’t watch this film without recognising the fact that it and In the Loop – a parody of the politics behind the Afghanistan wars – share the same writer/director. I watch The Thick of It fairly often and I am certain that it is not dissimilar from what parliament is actually like. I feel the same way here. As overplayed as it is, the subject is also given a dark edge that makes me believe that this is very much how events might have played out. I can’t really remember the last time I saw a black comedy blend belly-aching laughter with genuine, edge-of-the-seat tension so well. The almost documentary style filmmaking gives The Death of Stalin just the right amount of surreal believability.

The script for The Death of Stalin is one of the best the year has given us. Everything was so natural that it all felt real. To call it smart would be a colossal understatement. You will laugh. You will laugh a lot. But at the same time, you will understand what the characters are going through completely. More likely than not because you have felt the same way with certain events over the past few years. I have to give credit to the script and especially the actors for the work they did for these characters. Every single character depicted is a despicable human-being. They were monsters working for a tyrant. But, despite that, they just ooze charisma and somehow get you rooting for each and every one of them.

It does help that the cast includes Steve Buscemi, Jeffrey Tambor, Paddy Considine, Simon Russell Beale, Jason Isaacs and Monty Python’s own Michael Palin. These are not only actors who know the importance of comedic timing and dramatic depth, they are also among the greatest character actors in the business today. The limelight ultimately falls onto Buscemi and Beale as Nikita Khrushchev and Laventiy Beria. These are two opposing forces who both have the same ultimate goal and aim to achieve it the same way as the other – by trying to bring the other crashing down as they raise up. It’s as intricate as early seasons of Game of Thrones and is just as, if not more enjoyable. I did, however, find Isaacs to be the films highlight. His role is of a disgruntled general, with a weird Yorkshire accent considering that this is Russia. I loved every second of his screen time as he never failed to make me laugh.

I am not an expert in Soviet Russian history – in fact I’m barely a novice – so I cannot say for certain if you would learn something from this film or not. But from where I do stand, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the film is educational. The humour would certainly help the lessons of the past stick in your mind. Iannucci’s directing certainly gives such an effect to the film. Funny and smart are the two words I can give to this film above all others. It’s not a film for its story, outside of Stalin’s death and the aftermath there’s practically no story. It’s a film for it’s characters. Horrible as they are, you latch onto them from interest alone. Solid performances definitely helping out.

I feel that this is a film that will be seen as a comedy cult classic, just as In the Loop is. And rightfully so I think. A perfect marriage of thrilling drama and satirical comedy, The Death of Stalin is a comedy I would recommend to anybody. There really isn’t anything wrong with it outside of nit-picking. It sets out to do something and it does it superbly. I might have come off a bit vague here, but that’s only because I do not wish to spoil much of a great film. Find some time and get it watched, there’s no quicker cure for stress and boredom.

Who doesn’t love a good mystery? There has always been enjoyment in the old “who-dun-it” story. It’s so satisfying looking at all the clues yourself and discovering which of the characters presented is the villain. Sadly, this only really works when the story is, well, good. I don’t think anyone can deny that the grand-masters of this type of story were Arthur Conan Doyle – with his Sherlock Holmes stories – and Agatha Christie. Christie has written plenty of books – none of which I have read. But, what many consider to be her magnum-opus is Murder on the Orient Express.

The story is simple yet complex and as classic as they come. Hercule Poirot is the world’s greatest detective. The Belgian has just solved a case and is now on his way to a well-earned holiday. Taking the Orient Express, Poirot comes across colourful characters with their own stories to tell. Along the way, however, an avalanche halts the train and one of the passengers, the sinister Mr Ratchett, has been brutally murdered. Taking it upon himself to work out who the killer is, Poirot soon discovers that this case is linked to another murder years ago. The case takes one dark turn after another, until Poirot realises that this may be the greatest case of his career.

This has got to be the latest in about half a dozen adaptations of the popular novel. To be fair, if there was ever a man to bring this story to life then my money would be on Kenneth Branagh. Branagh directs and stars in the lead role here, and to his credit does very well in both roles. The directing of this film is nearly impeccable. The colours alone in this film draw you into the atmosphere of the story. Atmosphere being what this film does exceedingly well. You feel like you are on this train with these people. It’s nice and posh, delivering a nice bit of wow-factor – yet, tension never leaves you because you know that someone you are enclosed with is a murderer. Honestly, not really knowing the whole story before seeing this film, I was very surprised with how dark this film was at points.

Along with Branagh and his charismatic and enigmatic performance, we have an all-star cast of would-be killers. Daisy Ridley, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Willem Dafoe and Judi Dench are included in the line-up, with Johnny Depp as the unfortunate victim of the crime. All of them play their parts perfectly. They all have charisma and always feel like they have more to say than what they do. This often throws you off the scent of the killer, but also keeps you suspecting every single one of them. The identity of the killer being a well-hidden secret until the shocking reveal. But sadly, this is also a major part of the films problem.

With such an ensemble of characters, everyone is limited in screen time. Add to that the fact that everyone is guarded and refuses to tell all and you have characters who are well performed yet you really do not care for. It actually got so bad that there were points in the film where they were talking about a character and I honestly could not work out who they were on about. Because of this, the film does have its dragging moments. It’s never boring, I’ll make that clear. But there were scenes I felt could have been cut down. Another issue is the jarring tone of the film. It starts off rather light-hearted and even jokingly, a tone which does run throughout the film, to be fair. The problem is that it is partnered with the tone of a dark and twisted thriller, with themes of homicide, suicide and infanticide. This makes the light tone seem false, or the dark tone appear far darker than intended.

As an adaptation of the work, Murder on the Orient Express appears to do the job. It’s atmospheric, interesting and Poirot is a great and fun character to follow. Towards the end we even get a tease for Death on the Nile, which I would not be against with this team again. It’s beautifully shot and every actor does a great job with what they are given. It is just the lack of attachment to the characters that brings the film down from potential greatness. As a who-dun-it, it’s fun. I liked picking apart the mystery, even though the ending is rather well-known at this point. In the month of November, I’d say you could do a lot worse than watch this film. Give it a go and see if you can find out who the killer is.

Anxiety-filled, stimulating and dull could describe those distressingly fabulous years between twelve and twenty.  HEARTSTONE, Icelandic writer-director Guðmundur Arnar Guðmundsson’s first feature-length film, has managed to capture all of this. The story was partially inspired by his own experience: “The village was an environment full of contrasts, where the sun shines without rest during the summer and barely rises at all in winter. A place where the same things you love and give you freedom also tie you down. The years of our youth reflect our lives in a very clear, beautiful, and often harsh manner.”

The heart of the film is the friendship between two teenage boys, Thor (Baldur Einarsson) and Christian (Blær Hinriksson).  Best friends and neighbours, they live in a remote Icelandic fishing village where during a summer they are left to their own devices and largely ignored by their parents, who are navigating their own problems. An ambivalent pursuit of a girl called Beta (Diljá Valsdóttir), unsettles their simple friendship. From the impressive fishing in the first scene to mountain camping, the strong visual aesthetic of a wild Iceland stands out.

The film has vividly depicted not only the estrangement that takes place between parents and children, but the risks and negotiations that take place in adolescent relationships, thick with attraction and desire. The underlying core is the ambiguous bonds people share that can be trustworthy and binding, or harmful.

Gudmundsson developed and wrote his first feature film HEARTSTONE during a Cannes Cinéfondation Residency due to his successful short film Whale Valley (2013), which received a Special Mention in the Official Competition of the Cannes Film Festival. HEARTSTONE was screened in the Discovery section at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival and won the Queer Lion at the 73rd Venice Film Festival. It was also nominated for the 2017 Nordic Council Film Prize.