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

The Hateful Eight

Say the name 'Quentin Tarantino', and you usually get one of two responses:

"Ahhhh! The voice of a generation! One of the greatest auteur directors of our time!  Constantly reinventing and imitating the film genres he loves because he's a film fan, just like us!"

or

"Oh, that overrated guy who just makes every actor speak like him?  He had one good film back in the early 90s and been riding that ever since?"

Since I would find myself more in the former camp than the latter one, I was cautiously anticipating his newest release The Hateful Eight / The Hateful 8 / The H8ful Eight / Da H8fl 8.

However since QT's recent flicks have been best described as 'revenge porn', such as Inglorious Basterds' exuberant murder of Adolf Hitler from a tommy gun to the face, wielded by the soldier known as The Bear Jew, or Django Unchained's black protagonist shooting white slave owners with rightful justice in his eyes, I couldn't see how The Hateful Eight could contain such over-the-top nonsense. 

It was just eight horrible people stuck in a cabin, right?  Well, yes and no.

PLOT

To shelter during a blizzard, eight people find themselves sharing a little haberdashery in the snowy forests of Wyoming.  All eyes are on bounty hunter John Ruth (Kurt Russell), known as The Hangman, and his captured bounty, the despicable Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who is worth $10,000 dead or alive.

Joining Daisy and The Hangman are fellow bounty hunter, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson); the new sheriff in town, Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins); Daisy's court-ordered executioner, Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth); mother-loving cow-puncher Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), the haberdashery's Mexican caretaker Senor Bob (Demian Bichir) and an elderly Confederate Civil War General "Sandy" Smithers (Bruce Dern).

John Ruth believes that the scenario is far too convenient, and at least one of these strangers is in cahoots with Domergue to free her before her execution.  But who can be trusted?

OPINIONS

Now one piece of information about The Hateful Eight that you already may have heard is it's running time. 

Whilst you may hear that the film is over 3 hours long, that is just the version with an intermission shown at roadshows across America.  The film on general release is instead 2 hour 45 minutes long. 

Whilst 20 minutes might not seem a big difference, that's the point at the heart of it.

The film's running time shouldn't put you off from visiting the cinema to watch it this weekend.  Whilst Tarantino is usually best when reigned in and not allowed to wander off on tangents, the film's relatively lengthy duration doesn't make the experience boring or tedious, rather the opposite.

Whilst all of these characters are truly despicable heels, Tarantino's fantastic screenplay is allowed the time to develop the titular eight hateful people into believable and complex characters, through sharing their stories and opinions in a steady and patient way.  No information is just shouted out in an expositional diatribe; everything is said for a reason.

If you plan on seeing this film (and I do encourage you to do so), try and watch it on the biggest screen you can.  Tarantino has utilised the beautiful mountainous landscapes of Colorado and captured them all in stunning detail. 

Combine that with the beautiful score by Ennio Morricone and you have one of Quentin Tarantino's most visually-captivating films.  And not just in the sweeping vistas of mountainside snow drifts, but also the interior shots.

With the film essentially being a stage play for the last two hours or so, you'd imagine Tarantino being quite restricted in the angles and shots he's allowed to make within this single location. 

However he manages to create a compelling and visually striking film regardless of the cramped space the eight characters inhabit.  Every single nook and cranny of Minnie's Haberdashery is utilised during the course of the film and you find yourself immersed in that world.

Let's just say if you were a fan of the claustrophobic and paranoid qualities of films like John Carpenter's The Thing or Tarantino's own Reservoir Dogs, The Hateful Eight will be right up your alley.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

I'm not trying to say that The Hateful Eight is perfect.  Far from it.  Similar to there are some fantastic high points, there are some disappointing low points.  Mainly how everything seems to be style over substance.

Not to take anything away from the amount of effort Tarantino has put into making the film look as beautiful as it can be, but without any heart or soul at the centre, the film just leaves the audience feeling pretty empty.  Impressed with the technical side, but disappointed with what Tarantino is trying to say.

Whilst Basterds made fascism it's target and Django was focussed on America's history of slave-owning, what is The Hateful Eight satirising? 

Some have criticised the way that men of all colours and creeds apparently can put aside their differences and become closer than most brothers when it comes to committing a heinous assault or verbally abusing a woman, even if that woman is a murdering psychopath like Daisy Domergue, but I don't see it that way.

Every time Daisy is elbowed in the face or shot in the foot, it is done with sincere realism and the film almost pauses to let the audience contemplate the violence they've just seen, and not in an exploitative way.  Tarantino might be a fan of a lot of things, but violence against women is not one.

LET'S WRAP IT UP!

With brilliant performances from a completely stellar cast, a powerful and evocative score twinned with majestic and stunning landscapes, The Hateful Eight is one of Tarantino's strongest films in a long time.

Whilst the running time might put off a lot of people, it is still an entertaining ride that might take a while to get going, but is worth it when the credits roll.

The film might be a bit self-serving and self-referential but it's a Quentin Tarantino film at the end of the day, you should expect that going into the auditorium by now. 

Finally giving time for his script to create a fully-formed and three-dimensional world, filled with realistic and horrible characters, it's a world in which you might lose yourself, even if you wouldn't want to.

Rating - 8/10

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

But wait... what's that Mr. L. Jackson?

GOOD QUESTION SAMUEL!

Well if you do, and you'd like to read more, 

'Like' me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews 

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

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (spoiler-free!)

A New Hope?

Since I'm in the middle of my Top 50 of 2015 countdown, I tried to tell myself that I wouldn't review films I watched in December, and save them for January.  They could last a few more weeks without me writing down my opinions on them.


I just couldn't do it.


Last night, my childhood was reawakened as I finally witnessed my heroes back on the big screen.  None of this Qui-Gon/Dooku/Grievous nonsense; Han, Leia, Chewie, they were reunited and it felt so good!  Even iconic and yet background characters like Admiral Ackbar and Nien Numb got a smile out of me just by appearing on screen.


Finally I was back in the universe that I spent so much time when I was a child.

So what has been happening since the Luke, Han and Leia were partying with Ewoks at the end of Return of the Jedi? 


To avoid some spoilers, let's just say a new evil organisation has risen and the Rebel Alliance is needed just as much as it ever has been.  But in order to make an difference, the Alliance need some plans that are hidden with a droid, BB-8.  The plot ringing any bells so far?


What follows is a beautiful, emotional and exhilarating adventure crossing planets, starships and iconic Corellian freighters. 


It might come across like a checklist of every Star Wars nerd's ideal sequel, but it's necessary to restart this sleeping giant of a franchise.

We are reacquainted with old faces, with the reappearance of Han, Chewie and Leia providing a weight of familiarity and love from the audience that truly is hard to replicate. 


There is the feeling of unspoken hardships and battles in the past in their muted and effortless performances, which honestly brought a tear to this film critic's eye.

We are also introduced to new heroes; the AWOL stormtrooper Finn (John Boyega) and Rey (Daisy Ridley) making sure BB-8 doesn't fall into the wrong hands, and daring pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) leading the X-Wings in battle whenever they are needed. 


Boyega brings an intensity and earnest nature to the character of Finn as well as a surprisingly comic timing, whilst Ridley initially struggles with the role but eventually settles into her role as the new female protagonist with a lot of potential hidden for the future.


The real surprise comes in Oscar Isaac.  Having never impressed me before in roles such as SuckerPunch and The Bourne Legacy, Isaac appears to be incredibly at home in the Star Wars Universe, bringing an air of cool not seen since a young Han Solo shot Greedo first.

But heroes such as these are only as compelling as the villain facing them and one of the most intriguing parts of The Force Awakens is the guy plastered all over cereal boxes and pencil cases worldwide; Kylo Ren. 


Ren is possibly the most interesting villain the franchise has produced since Darth Vader, and whether it is his petulant and unpredictable attitude or his unique and dramatic background, his story is the most I am most looking forward to watching.

The effects are brilliant and won't be outdone for a long time, as finally seeing the Millennium Falcon diving and swooping will certainly make you feel like you are finally in the dogfights among the TIE Fighters and X-Wings. 


Again, it's like the director J.J. Abrams has asked the fans what they want and just given it to them, all the while making sure there are compelling storylines with fascinating characters at the heart of them.

This isn't to try and say it's perfect as that isn't the case at all.  But it is the film that the fans, and the franchise, have needed since the failures of the prequels.  Once the cobwebs have been shaken loose, it's clear that this is simply a breath of fresh air into a Universe of infinite possibilities.  One that I am eagerly waiting to visit again.

Star Wars is back, ladies and gentlemen, and it's packing a punch.  Like a lightsaber being passed from father to son, it is a film that will be cherished and viewed for years to come.

Rating - 9/10

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

Spectre

Skyfallen From Grace

INTRODUCTION

You know what was fantastic about Skyfall?  It didn’t feel like a Bond film.  It was just a fantastically-shot, incredibly-acted, interesting, equally mature and silly spy film.

It didn’t rely on misogyny, fast cars and one-liners to appeal to audiences.  It was an enthralling, intriguing and exciting story of betrayal, honour and retribution, focussed on three very credible actors (Daniel Craig, Judi Dench and Javier Bardem) and all thanks to one fantastic director (Sam Mendes).

Despite the fact that owning GoldenEye64 was the pinnacle of coolness growing up in North West England, the Bond films never really enthralled me as I felt they took themselves way too seriously and I couldn't really differentiate between them all.  However I saw the start of the Daniel Craig-era as the perfect time to try again.

Casino Royale grabbed my attention, Quantum of Solace nearly lost it, but Skyfall was easily one of my favourite films of 2012.  It felt like the Bond franchise had grown up.  It was ready to present itself as this new gritty entity, not reliant on campy megalomaniacal villains, silly throw-away gadgets and an overall outdated attitude.

Three years pass and here comes Bond 24, otherwise known as Spectre.  The same cast as Skyfall, the same crew as Skyfall, the same director as Skyfall.  What could go wrong?  Sigh.

PLOT

Spectre takes place in the fallout of Skyfall.  Bond is taking orders from the new M (Ralph Fiennes), trying to uncover the shady operations of the titular 'Spectre' organisation, whilst still saving damsels-in-distress, taking down world-dominating bad guys and… Wait a minute…  I thought we were past this?  I thought Skyfall showed audiences that a Bond film didn’t have to rely so much on the typical 'Bond formula' to be entertaining?

“Nope!  Instead we’re going to revert back to the old method!  Now give us your money!”

ANALYSIS

If the 'Blonde Bond' films have proven anything, it’s that inserting respectable and talented actors into these ridiculous films still achieves impressive performances.  

Mads Mikkelsen, Eva Green, Javier Bardem; all of them credible actors who gave memorable performances.  

So when I heard that Monica Bellucci, Léa Seydoux and mainly Christoph (freaking) Waltz were going to be in Spectre, my expectations rose very high!  But they are given nothing to work with! 

The script is poor, the plot twists are tired ideas that can be seen in other films and the actors are so annoyingly wasted in their roles, especially Monica Bellucci!  At least Seydoux stars in most of the film, and Waltz gets the early creepy and seemingly-omnipotent scenes under his belt before they ruin him, but the incredibly talented and beautiful Bellucci is hardly in the damn film!  

Two scenes and that’s her lot!  She’s just used by Bond for get important information (but not before he beds her first, hours after her husband’s funeral!... The husband that Bond killed by the way!)

The fantastic and versatile Léa Seydoux is unfortunately shelved and used as window-dressing.  Not to be glib but her iconic Spectre moment is walking down the middle of a train’s dinner carriage in a silver dress.  All before falling madly in love with the man who hasn't given her any reason to do so.  It’s just so flimsy.

And that leads me to the man of the hour, Christoph Waltz, the man who we all expect to be Hans Landa, but hasn’t met that standard since he broke onto the scene in Inglorious Basterds and stole our hearts.  Similar to Landa, Waltz’s villainous Franz Oberhauser successfully captivates the audience and appears very much in control of events early on, but just falls flat when it comes to providing genuine menace and a worthy adversary to the world’s number one spy.

That goes double for Dave Bautista’s Mr. Hinx.  Fresh off his amazing portrayal as Drax The Destroyer in Marvel’s off-beat gem Guardians Of The Galaxy, and being a huge WWE fan myself, I was eagerly anticipating Hinx kicking Bond’s ass all over Spectre.  

His size and surprisingly comedic timing, twinned with Hinx’s apparently-signature silver-spiked thumbnails made me excited for the possibility of Hinx going down in Bond-lore as an iconic henchman similar to Jaws or Oddjob.  

However he is given so little to do, it perfectly sums up the problems I had with the film.  There is so much potential in its components and the result is so much more disappointing because of it.

Returning to Waltz’s Oberhauser, his motive is so flimsy and stupid that it just lost all credibility for me.  His methods of torture were ineffective and pointless, his main goal is a petty and immature one; certainly one that doesn’t effectively explain the events of the three previous films and he just doesn't come across like much of an obstacle for Bond to overcome.

Oberhauser confidently explains that he is ‘the author to all [Bond’s] pain’, but it never explains this or goes into detail, and seemingly never will.  There are mentions to the plotpoints of Casino Royale and Skyfall (making sure not to mention the rather mediocre Question of Sport ... Quantum of Solace) but only as pointless nods to the audience.  I’d expect much more detail explaining just a small fraction of his actions when it is apparently Bond’s Big Bad we’re talking about.

COMPARISON

Such failure just shows how Spectre falls short in nearly every area Skyfall flourished.  It disregards all the hard work and effort spent by its previous instalments trying to present the Blonde Bond era as a gritty, realistic and Jason Bourne-like modern spy epic.  I hate to use an example from another franchise, but it felt like The Dark Knight Rises after the brilliance that was The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight struck a certain chord due to the film’s message that sometimes an honourable lie is better than the disappointing truth, when it’s all for ‘the greater good’.  An interesting concept for a blockbuster comic-book adaptation to champion.

However during Bane’s takeover of Gotham in The Dark Knight Rises, he reveals the disappointing truth of Harvey Dent's downfall, causing outrage from the public who are not interested in why they were lied to and all the benefits gained from it.  And then they just move on to trying to defuse a nuclear bomb.  That’s it.  That’s all that’s mentioned of it.

All the good that The Dark Knight did to discuss moral ambiguity and question what is allowed for the sake of the greater good.  Nope, not for The Dark Knight Rises.  Now it’s just “Don’t tell lies! Never ever!” and the poignancy of the ethical quandary just disappears.

Whilst The Dark Knight managed to use a vigilante billionaire and a sociopathic clown to discuss questionable morality and the fairness of chaos, The Dark Knight Rises resorted unnecessary comic-book tropes like a masked maniac holding a city to ransom with a nuclear device.  Not really that ground-breaking or memorable.

WRAP IT UP

That’s how it felt watching Spectre.  Everything that Skyfall did well, Spectre threw it away.  The goodwill a non-fan like me earned, gone in a 120-minute-long instant.  I was left with a very bad taste in my mouth and felt like all my preconceptions about Bond from my youth had returned.

I understand why fans of Bond may adore Spectre and see it as a return to form, but in my opinion, Bond didn’t need to return to anything, it was doing great as it was.  However now with Spectre tying up all it's loose ends, here's hoping that this will be Daniel Craig’s final Bond film, as I feel the franchise needs to be shaken.  Not stirred.

Rating - 3/10

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

Macbeth / Bill (Two For Tuesday)

Better A Witty Fool

Speak to any person who has sat through high-school English and they can name at least one play written by William Shakespeare.  If you were like me, you would have also been shown some films adapted from his works, because English teachers are lazy sometimes.

No doubt the works of Shakespeare have been the backbone of British theatre since they were first performed more than 400 years ago and his name has become synonymous with tragedy, comedy and historical epics since then.  Even if there have been questions about the identity of their true author.

In the past few weeks, there have been two films released associated with William Shakespeare, an adaptation of his most feared and dramatic work, Macbeth, as well as Bill, a fictional biopic of Shakespeare's lost years made by the team behind the Horrible Histories TV show.

Now whilst these two films are both alike in background, they are very different in terms of theme, message and audience.  Whilst Macbeth is obviously for the drama lovers in the crowds, Bill is mainly aimed at children and those with their tongues firmly in their cheek.

Macbeth

For those unaware of the plot, Macbeth takes place in medieval feudal Scotland as King Duncan (David Thewlis) defends the crown from those wanting to take it from him.  Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) is one of Duncan's most trusted soldiers.

However, when Macbeth meets a set of witches that tell him he will one day be King of Scotland, he becomes obsessed with his supposed future and spurred on by his wife, Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard), sets about taking the throne for himself.

It's a story that has been adapted and performed countless times but this is the first time that I have seen the titular character portrayed as such an emotionally-damaged soldier.

In countless versions before this, Macbeth has either been an underhanded coward or just a simple puppet of his wife, Lady Macbeth.  However director Justin Kurzel portrays Macbeth as a devastated man before the witches even mention his royal potential.  He is shown as a grieving father and a man thoroughly affected by war, such an emotional state that the resulting paranoia and greed is understandable from such a frame of mind.

Michael Fassbender is perfect as the titular aspirational murderer, bringing raw anger to the battle scenes and a fevered madness to his slow and painful descent into hallucinating paranoia.  He is equally pitiful and yet despicable as he frantically holds onto the throne, which is a hard act to balance.

However it is not just Fassbender where the casting got it right, it is brilliant throughout.  The ever-reliable Paddy Considine is fantastic as Macbeth's general, Banquo, giving a more menacing silent performance than other characters just by providing unyielding intense stares or pregnant pauses.  Sean Harris is also an inspired choice for Macduff, bringing an intensity that is necessary for his mutinous treason against the villainous Macbeth.

But the plaudits for performances of Macbeth usually hang on those of the play's seminal character, Lady Macbeth, probably the strongest female character in fiction.  Marion Cotillard performs the role with such grace, poise and passion that I was surprised that her role is dramatically diminished compared to other versions I have seen in the past.

Lady Macbeth is known to be the driving force behind her husband's actions and the one who spurs him to commit the heinous deeds.  After their coronation, they both suffer from paranoid delusions and hallucinations but she is still resolute in her reasons and her pursuit of power never falters.

However Cotillard's Lady Macbeth hides behind her husband more than previous incarnations which disappointed me. Whilst her devious side is shown in the early scenes, I felt like that could have been emphasised in the latter scenes, but her performance was still fantastic.

Performances aside, the art direction is truly beautiful.  Towards the end of the film, after the surrounding forest is set alight, the amber hue that descends upon Macbeth's castle gives the final scenes an otherworldy quality that made me think I was watching painted backgrounds.

The sweeping shots of the Scottish Highlands set the scene perfectly, as they show how desolate and cold medieval Scotland would have been.  It also emphasises the pointless task that Macbeth embarks on, as it seems that they are quarrelling over the control of empty green fields and misty moors.

Filled with political ambition, murder and some fantastic performances, Macbeth is truly an emotional experience.  If you aren't a fan of the original Shakespearean version, the film's dialogue is not updated but that doesn't at all detract from the film.  It's a beautiful and brutal adaptation that's worth paying money for.

Bill

But enough about Macbeth!  What about the man who wrote it?  What happened during the years between William Shakespeare's time in Stratford-upon-Avon and him becoming famous in London?

Well the Horrible Histories team predict he had quite an exciting life!

Set during the troublesome time before England's war with Spain, the Spanish King Philip II plans to sneak into England and blow up Queen Elizabeth I.  But how can he do it?  Luckily, the hapless Earl of Crawley Croydon is planning on staging a play for the Queen, using the words of the new talent Bill Shakespeare as his own, and they are looking for actors.

It sounds ludicrous and it is, especially compared to the plot of Macbeth mentioned earlier, but that's the great thing about Bill; it doesn't take itself seriously at all.  And it is all the better for it.

I can honestly say that this is the most I have laughed during a film probably all year.  The script's wit is irreverently British, the slapstick is childish but not annoyingly so, and the puns are so amazingly awful (but in a good way...)

I've never watched the Horrible Histories TV show but my friends with children tell me that it is one of their favourite shows to watch with their kids, as there is enough entertainment for both of them.  The kids get to learn about the time period and the events that happened, and the humour is still intelligent for the adults to get a kick out of it. When I went to see the film, there were more adults in the screening than children and they were all laughing out loud.

I would highly recommend both of these films, obviously for different reasons.  If you are wanting a visceral epic filled with political ambition, set in the Scottish wilderness, Macbeth is a great option.
But if you just want a film that is a good laugh, filled with British wit, sarcasm and one that kids can enjoy as well, Bill is a fantastic choice.  I truly hope that this isn't the only film to come from these gifted talents.

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

Fantastic Four

Fantastic For Insomnia

BACKGROUND

The history of the Fantastic Four movies is a long and complicated thing.  But I'll try to be brief...

The Cowlick hairdo was all the rage back then...

Back in 1986, the Constantin Film company bought the movie rights to adapt the comic book supergroup to the big screen.  

However with nothing happening in the eight years after, Roger Corman was hired in 1994 to produce a low-budget film so that the company could retain the rights and not have them revert back to Marvel.  

The Fantastic Four had a trailer and a promotional tour, and even the cast were excited for it's upcoming release, but nothing ever happened... With the film inexplicably shelved, the movie rights were bought by 20th Century Fox.

2005 comes around and the Jessica Alba/Chris Evans-version of Fantastic 4 is released to mediocre reviews but box-office success, resulting in the sequel Fantastic 4: Rise Of The Silver Surfer two years later.  

But since audiences weren't clamouring for a three-quel to this underwhelming super-hero franchise, things then went dark for a few years.

Slowly but surely, the rapidly-expiring movie rights came into contention again.

I can only imagine a shareholder meeting went something like this...

"If another Fantastic Four movie doesn't get made soon, the rights will revert back to Marvel!  You know, those guys who are killing the box-office with their massively impressive and coherent Cinematic Universe!  

We can't let them get their hands on some superheroes who could be included in the next Avengers film!  That'd be terrible for us!  Let's do what we did with those god-awful Amazing Spider-Man films and just throw one together!"

And here we find 2015's Fantastic Four, or FantFourStic as the poster would have you believe...

"PLOT"

When they're freaking ten years old, Reed Richards (Miles Teller) and Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) manage to crack teleportation.  Seriously.  But no one believes them... despite the overwhelming evidence they can produce.

Cut to a few years later, and Dr Franklin Storm recruits Reed to work in his laboratory trying to crack inter-dimensional teleportation.  There he meet the reckless technician Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan), his adopted scientist sister Sue Storm (Kate Mara) and the loner genius Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell) who has a crush on Sue.

After figuring out how they can cross into another dimension within days of Reed's arrival, they are told they can't travel though (rightfully, since they're nerds, not astronauts).  So Reed and his team get drunk, behave like idiots and go through anyway!

Whilst there, they get touched by mysterious goop, blah blah blah, Victor gets covered in the stuff, blah blah blah, they come back and they have super-powers! What a shocker, you get the idea...

OPINIONS

Oh my God, this film.  Where to begin...?

This film made me legitimately angry.  Seriously.  At one point I got so frustrated with the confusing mess on screen, I shouted out "DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON?!" quite late on into the film.  

Thankfully I was sat with friends in an empty screening so it was answered with equally confused shakes of the head, and not in my removal from the screen.

The entire film feels like a 100 minute long trailer for another film that never happens.  There are hints at potential tension that never occurs, ruined friendships that just get fixed in an instant and romance triangles that spectacularly never get touched upon.

Remember when things were fun and light-hearted? *sigh*

The main problem stems from the fact the director Josh Trank (director of semi-superhero film Chronicle) wanted to take the film in a realistic and gritty direction, similar to The Dark Knight or Man of Steel, and treating the super-abilities like deformities or illnesses. 

Admittedly, that is an interesting approach to the subject of super-powers, especially in the scene where Reed is just getting used to his stretching ability and you can hear bones crack as they grow and shrink in size.

However, the Fantastic Four as a group have always been a light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek style of superhero.  The problem with FantFourStic is by taking out all the fun of the powers and portraying them as freaks or social outcasts, you drape a black cloud over all the action and drama. 

You feel like it's a chore to be in their company, something that is the complete opposite with any film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially Ant-Man, released only a few weeks prior to FantFourStic.

Another issue the film suffers from is that none of the main four characters are interesting, or even likeable. 

Reed is a power-hungry narcissist who abandons his friends at the first sign of trouble.  

Ben is hardly in the damn film, and yet when he turns into The Thing, he just becomes a Hulk-For-Hire, sitting miserably in his room, unhappy with his mere existence.  

Sue is just boring and has no personality, other than Daddy's Girl.  

And I know the character of Johnny Storm is a 'hot-head' with a heart of gold, but damn I never realised how perfect Chris Evans was in the role before I saw someone else try to portray him. Nothing against Michael B. Jordan, but his cocky and arrogant Human Torch has no endearing qualities at all.

All of that is before we even touch on Victor Von Doom.

This is Doom by the way.
You'll see him for all of ten minutes,

Toby Kebbell is SUCH an amazing talent, and yet in FantFourStic, he is given nothing to work with.  

He starts off as a wayward protégé of Dr Storm's, hating the world and playing video games (which was a persona I was willing to go along with).  

When he is brought onto the team, he becomes a standard boring scientist, jealous of Reed and Sue's growing 'relationship'.  

A year after his abandonment on Planet Zero (or wherever they got sent to), he ultimately becomes a crazed and maniacal psychopath fused with a mysterious and unexplained green goo.

Dr. Doom is considered to be one of the greatest supervillains of all time, and he is given around 10-15 minutes of screen time!  And in those short few minutes, he manages to rack up an impressive and unnecessary kill-count for a 12A-rated film.  All killed by squeezing people's heads until they break using his, again unexplained, telekinetic abilities.  Yay!  Happy! Fun! Superheros for kids!

LET'S WRAP IT UP

God, I could carry on for a whole other article about what is wrong with FantFourStic, but you get the picture.  It's just such a mess.  All soulless and empty, with the main goal to just keep the movie rights in the greedy hands of 20th Century Fox.

The film disappoints on nearly every level, but coming from such a promising director and with the initial scenes having some degree of potential, it's just even more of a let-down.

Hopefully Marvel/Disney will see the damage that their child's guardian is doing to it and step in before another reboot is shoved down our throats in ten years time.  They've managed to successfully negotiate a deal for joint custody of Spider-Man, hopefully they can do the same with the Fantastic Four.

I would call this film the worst of the year so far, but I know a film that is worse... and that's getting reviewed next...

Rating - 2/10

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