Friday 8 September 2017

IT (2017)

Director
Andy Muschietti (Mama)
Starring
Bill Skarsgard (Atomic Blonde, Divergent: Allegiant, Hemlock Grove)
Jaeden Liberher (Midnight Special, Aloha, The Book of Henry)
Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, Supernatural, The 100)
Genre
Supernatural / Horror

Plot:
After recent cases of disappearing local kids in the town of Derry, Maine, IT follows a group of kids dubbed "The Losers' Club" in the summer of 1989 and their discovery and scary encounters of a shape-shifting other-worldly entity, known to return every 27 years and prey on a child's personal fears.

Opinion:
I only watched the original TV miniseries of Stephen King's IT recently in preparation for this release, and whilst there were a few creepy visuals here and there, the film seemed to rely on amazing performances by Tim Curry playing the titular dancing clown and the main group of kids whom he terrorises.  Perhaps TV budgeting or censorship got in the way of fully realising the gruesome extents of Stephen King's novel, but when I saw the 2017 film's record-breaking trailer and a more manic and sinister Pennywise, I was immediately curious.


Like many in the audience, when I sat in my seat to watch the film, I was eagerly awaiting how the director Muschietti and the film's writers handled the initial disappearance of the main character's brother to kick off the emotional heart of the film.  

Would it be duplicated? Would it be tamer? Would it be more intense?  

I could tell straight away that we were dealing with a more mature and sinister version of the story.  

The film carries the intensity throughout, but in a relatable and therefore more terrifying way.  The now-mundane things that would unnerve you as a kid (an odd-looking painting, a dark and dingy basement, the inherent changes of puberty) become realised and threatening in ways you haven't felt since childhood, and the film manages to tap into that shared dread of isolation and the unknown that we all feared once, especially when we still didn't understand the world.


Despite the film delivering scares seemingly without stop at some points, where the film really soars is developing the friendship between the members of "The Losers Club".  The Club members are all united in being outcasts from society and the film effectively touches upon issues such as race relations, school bullying and domestic abuse, showing how uniting through adversity and fear can conquer any adversary.

And speaking about The Losers Club, true commendation has to go to the casting department. The only actor I knew of was Finn Wolfhard from Netflix's Stranger Things, and so was familiar with his acting potential, but I'd say that this has helped elevate true talent that will be in several films down the line.  Special mentions to Jack Dylan Grazer as the hypochondriac Eddie Kaspbrak and Sophia Lilis who steals the film as the only female member of the Losers Club, Beverly Marsh. Both manage to give nuanced and ranged performances at such a young age that I'm sure they'll be around for a while.   


And what would be a review of this film without talking about Bill Skarsgard as the titular dancing clown?

This was probably the most worrying part of the film before watching it.  Having to follow and potentially improve on Tim Curry's performance from the original is definitely a hard task, especially since IT is revered as an iconic 'Movie Monster' and part of many people's childhood nightmares.  

However Skarsgard does a very effective job in creating unease and portraying a creature revelling in it's torturous methods.  His gangling 6'2" stance, sinister stare and ability to move one eye independently from the other just gives him an unearthly appearance, but then you add a voice that shifts in pitch mid-sentence, maniacal laughter and teeth more suitable on a Great White shark, and you've got immediate nightmare fuel.

Whilst he might not reach the iconic status as Tim Curry, this intepretation harks back to other movie monsters such as John Carpenter's The Thing, Guillermo del Toro's The Devil's Backbone, and even the director's previous horror Mama.  Regardless of what you find scary, this film will creep you out.

Rating - 8/10

Sweet Dreams :)


Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read, 
'Like' me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews 


or 'Follow' me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews

Monday 12 June 2017

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Director:

Guy Ritchie (Snatch., Sherlock Holmes, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels)

Starring:
Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy, Pacific Rim, Crimson Peak), Jude Law (The Young Pope, The Holiday, Sherlock Holmes), Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy, Blood Diamond, Furious 7)
Genre:
Fantasy / Action

Opinion:
A scarred and grizzled Arthur Pendragon (Charlie Hunnam) slowly makes his way up a crumbled cliff-edge.  His gritted teeth grinding on each other as his feet grind on the rock beneath them, his fingers gripping into cutting-slate and he is nearing exhaustion. 
However when he reaches the summit, he stands tall and proud as he sees his goal ahead of him. 
Shiny, silver and stuck in an enormous boulder...

Excalibur. 

Evil’s bane.  The sword of legend.  Everything he’s searched for.
When suddenly…

“You wanna get your hands round the handle!”
….Sorry?  Who said that?

“Ten digits round the hilt. And pull it!”

Is that?… is that David Beckham?  With a dash of mud on him, and a false nose trying to hide his identity?
“Left foot, right foot, back on the boat!”

Sigh, yep.  That’s GQ's Man of the Year 2013, David Beckham telling the hero of this epic how to pull a sword out of a stone.  And just like that, my immersion is broken and now I'm paying attention to the slick-haired free-kick specialist instead of our eponymous hero.


King Arthur: Legend of the Sword tells the story of the titular Arthur, orphaned at a young age and raised in a brothel, after his uncle Vortigen (Jude Law) steals the throne from his father and makes himself ruler of medieval Britain.  When Vortigen attempts to find a man to pull the infamous Excalibur from a boulder, a manhunt begins for Arthur as he plots to overthrow his deranged uncle.

SInce the plot has adopted a more family-centric plot, and done away with the 'rags-to-riches' formula that other Arthur films have done, it's no surprise that the film attempts to steal some style from Game of Thrones, combining fantasy elements with it’s medieval setting.
But that imitation is this film’s main problem; as the film frequently dips it’s toe into the fantasy world, but is then being dragged back into a grim and Cockney-Gangster London and the two just do not mix.

Now don’t get me wrong; Guy Ritchie can write and direct some damn fine Cockney-Gangster films when he wants.  Both Sherlock Holmes films, as well as Snatch. and Lock, Stock... manage to combine action seamlessly with a pithy kind of cocky-wit.  

East-End gangsters engage in bare-knuckle boxing matches and then discuss the differences in the colour of caravans, all whilst keeping the viewers eyes glued to the screen and ears primed for more amazing one-liners.

And this is the path that King Arthur should have travelled.


The King Arthur legend has been told time and time again but always relying on the standard clichés of the Sword in the Stone, Merlin, the Lady In The Lake etc.  The fantasy elements always creep in and no-one had tried to ground the story in realism.  However the same thing could be have been said for Sherlock Holmes before Ritchie and Downey Jr. created an eccentric and foppish version for their 2011 version.  Holmes always manages to disprove all the fantastical elements of his villains by showing the science behind them and that was what made interesting viewing.

Instead, Ritchie mixes RocknRolla and Fantastic Beasts, creating a rather bizarre world where he doe not fit.  One sequence features Arthur visiting a random island in the middle of a lake (I’m assuming near London) to battle gigantic snakes and spiders to train for battle against Vortigen.  It’s ludicrous.

Next for Mr Ritchie is the live-action remake of Disney’s Aladdin, so I cannot wait for him to no doubt ruin that in the same way he ruined any chance of this reboot working.  Let’s hope Vinnie Jones and Jason Statham stage an East-End intervention before that can happen.

Rating:
3/10  -  Wait until a drunken Saturday night with Netflix.


Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read, 
'Like' me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews 

or 'Follow' me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews


Monday 22 May 2017

Alien: Covenant

Director
Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator)
Starring
Katherine Waterson (Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, Inherent Vice, Steve Jobs)
Billy Crudup (Watchmen, Spotlight, Almost Famous)
Michael Fassbender (Macbeth, Shame, Assassin's Creed)
Genre
Science-Fiction / Horror / Thriller

Opinion:
Let me start by saying: I liked Prometheus

It is not an opinion that is shared by many people, but I did.  I didn’t watch Prometheus expecting a film in the same mould as Alien or Aliens, but one that further explained and established the beginnings of an existing franchise.

You know… what a prequel is meant to do.

And what I got was a well-told and interesting science-fiction film that theorised about who potentially created life on Earth, and what would happen if you managed to royally piss them off.

It had everything I expected; tension, scares, body horror.  Even the added bonus of idiotic people who should not be sent into space, since they can't figure out how to avoid a rolling spaceship going in one direction.  But most intriguingly Prometheus was about ideas.  More than just "Who created us?", the film discussed free will and morality and whether the lack of these could have a corrupting influence.  It touched upon whether religion is a manufactured construct or a necessary comfort, and these aren’t topics you find in most modern sci-fi/horror films.


But unfortunately the film wasn’t warmly embraced among the Alien die-hards and it will forever be remembered as an honest attempt that failed.

Skip to six years later and Ridley Scott has got another shot.

Set a few years after Prometheus, a spaceship intent on completing a colonising mission comes across a radio signal from a seemingly habitable, but unknown, world.  Curious to it’s origin, the crew make the decision to investigate… and things go as well as you'd expect.

To go into further detail will spoil too much of the story, but if you have seen an Alien film before, you will probably see the signposts for where the film is heading.  However, the audience’s familiarity with the stereotypes of the Alien franchise is where Ridley Scott tries to make the best use out of his prequel; by showing the audience how the later and much more acclaimed films were set in motion; showing you how the dominoes were set-up before we saw them fall over.

Although it seems that Scott has bowed to pressure from the audiences, and tried to have his Prometheus cake and eat it with Alien knives and forks… if that makes sense.  

He wants to carry on telling the story he started in Prometheus, further developing the origins of the Engineers and theorise about ideas of our creation, but to keep the audience from complaining, he’s made some dumb people run around dark, steam-filled corridors whilst being chased by a slick, black, death creature.  And the film suffers because of it.

The crew of the Covenant are never given any back-story apart from Character X is married to Character Y, since all of these people are couples and most of them are going to lose their partner to a slick, black, death creature.  Billy Crudup and Katherine Waterston are given centre stage, but potentially interesting plot points are never fully developed and as with Prometheus, Michael Fassbender steals the show.  Crudup is a proven talent and Waterston is an interesting up-and-comer so it’s a shame that they aren’t given much with which to work.  

There ain’t no Ellen Ripley for the audience to root for, that’s for damn sure.


Whilst the locations are gorgeous and rich in detail (it might as well be H.R. Giger's homeworld), and the direction never falters, Alien: Covenant follows the trend of films with huge potential not being able to fully embrace their director’s vision, for fear of alienating too much of the audience and losing box office in the process.

Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla. Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four / Fan4stic.  Even Ghost in the Shell from earlier this year. 

They don’t want to leave the audience bored, or scratching their heads in confusion and telling their friends not to watch the film because of it.  It’s the nature of the industry currently, and I don’t blame Scott for bowing to this pressure.  I just hope that Scott doesn’t do the same with Blade Runner 2049 later this year.

Rating – 5/10 - It's worth a watch, just don't expect much.


Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read, 
'Like' me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews 

or 'Follow' me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews