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

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

Mad Max: Fury Road

Hell Hath No Fury

Mad Max: Fury Road (not to be mistaken with Furry Road; a completely different film) takes place in a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland where water, petrol and bullets are the three most precious commodities. Everyone now is either a poor, flea-bitten and mutated hermit, or an absolutely crazy person hell-bent on death, destruction and driving really, really fast!

However there are still police, or 'Road Warriors', and one is Tom Hardy's Max Rockatansky.  Max has some demons in his past but we find him a bit busy being kidnapped by the warrior tribe of the tyrannical warlord Immortan Joe.  Whilst kidnapped, Max gets involved in a family squabble between Immortan Joe and Charlize Theron's (amazingly named) Imperator Furiosa, and that's where the fun begins.

Now admittedly, I have never seen the first three Mad Max films that shot Mel Gibson to international fame.  Not even the Tina Turner one.  I know that many people will now be thinking 'Oh My God!  How has he never...?!  They're CLASSICS!!!" etc. but they never really appealed to me.  I have heard they were incredibly ambitious and truly iconic, which I appreciate but still the appeal was just never there.

However now with $150 million behind the project, the director George Miller has finally been able to make the film he always wanted to make in 1979, and I was in such awe by the sheer production value of this film alone.  The entire film is gorgeous from start to finish.

I think I blinked twice during the entire 120 minutes.  Maybe three times.

Oh What A Lovely Day!

Miller was called a 'visionary director' by the teaser trailers, which I thought to be quite big-headed of him, but seeing what he can produce with a bigger budget behind him, I'm truly shocked that this is the same eye behind Babe: Pig In The City and both Happy Feet films.  Really.

I don't want to spoil any of the film's plot but when Immortan Joe assembles his posse to take revenge on Charlize Theron, his band of miscreants are completely bat-shit crazy, focussed on a glorious Viking-style death due to their overall radiation-poisoned existence.  Due to this, they pull off some of the most incredibly inventive stunts and just jaw-droppingly amazing action that I have seen in a film for a few years.

I mean, one of the big rigs is just a gigantic wall of speakers with drummers and a flame-throwing electric guitarist strapped to them.  Why?  Because.  That's why.

See?  Told you.  Because.

I really cannot stress how fantastic the film is from a creative viewpoint, especially how colourful and vibrant it is.  The African landscapes that have been used to replace the post-apocalyptic wastelands are filled with natural beauty and Miller has definitely used them to the best of their ability.  Special effects were only used when they had to be, to emphasise how real the Dead World feels, and it definitely works  Everything feels so raw and authentic, from The War Boys' modified war-cars to the boggy marshes past the desert wasteland, and every bone-crunching fight scene in between.

Notice how I'm not speaking about Max himself much in this review so far? That's because I don't really have to. Tom Hardy is a decent enough casting for the lead, but he is a lead in titular name only.  The film definitely belongs to Charlize Theron's Furiosa and her struggle against Immortan Joe.  Max simply stumbles upon this fight and decides to help, despite his quiet loner nature.  He is the calm at the centre of this mad world, having his actions speak louder than his words.  Which is helpful because when he did speak, I truly could not decipher his accent (in true Tom Hardy form!)

Oh, and, on a final note, some critics of the film have downplayed the movie as having an unwelcome 'feminist agenda' which is simply ridiculous.  The film advocates freedom from tyrannical rule for all, not just simply female freedom.

I truly recommend watching Max Mad: Fury Road, and if you can, on the biggest IMAX screen you can find.  Because you just can't beat Mad IMAX.  Ha!  See what I did there?!

Rating - 8/10

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed what you read and you'd like to be kept more up to date with my posts, I can be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Dunn-Reviews and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeDunnReviews - if you want to help the site grow, give them a 'Like' or a 'Share'!

Interstellar

There was no doubt in my mind when I was coming up with the list of 2014's Best Films.  No doubt at all that this film would be at the top.  The film just blew me away.  Completely and utterly amazed me.  I don't know what individual aspect was so overwhelming, maybe it was the music, maybe it was the imagery, but one thing was for certain, all the aspects together created a spectacle that I had rarely experienced in a cinema auditorium.

I, of course, am talking about Christopher Nolan's science-fiction, space exploration opus....

#1 - Interstellar

For those of you who didn't manage to watch Interstellar, it takes place in the near future, in which the planet is slowly producing less and less food for the population to eat.  This begins a worldwide 'dust bowl' effect, and NASA start to wonder if another world is our best bet at a potential future. Enter Matthew McConaughey, fresh off his Best Actor Academy Award win for The Dallas Buyers Club, who is just the spaceship pilot NASA have been looking for.  Alongside Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine's help, McConaughey must leave behind his two children in order to potentially extend humanity's last chance for a future.

The film is such a technical marvel, I was lost for words at its culmination.  The neighbouring couple of people seemingly disagreed, as they exclaimed: "Nolan has lost it! He can only do Batman!"  I nearly punched that man.  It is so obvious that Nolan has put so much effort into creating a science-fiction masterpiece that seemingly marries the theoretical story of Contact (which also starred McConaughey), with the visuals and imagination of 2001: A Space Odyssey as well as the action and drama of recent films such as last year's Gravity.  The end result is a thrill-ride that shocks, marvels and awes you with its grandiose, as well as its visual splendour.

A massive part of that is down to Hans Zimmer's wonderful and powerful score.  It has been known to reduce some audience members to tears in American cinemas, and rightfully so.  He has truly gone all out on this score, seemingly trying to match the grand scale with the film's ideas and visuals and it works perfectly.

The acting is top class too.  The McConaugha-sance (said like 'Renaissance') continues with everything this man touching turning to gold.  Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine and David Gyasi all provide top-notch performances.  However the plaudits have to go to two unpredicted sources, a child and a CGI robot.  The robot, TARS (voiced by Bill Irwin), is the source of most of the film's humour and has some witty dialogues with his human counter-parts.  However his design is just beautiful, being a Space Odyssey-style monolith but with the capability of being a Transformers-esque multi-legged transportation device; an inspired creation.  The child actress, Mackenzie Foy, playing Coop's daughter Murphy, provides an excellent performance as a girl who is devastated to lose her father at such a young age.  She provides wit and charm not-often-seen in a actress so young.

The film potentially could have fallen into two dreaded categories; too highbrow and technical that audiences would be uninterested, or painfully over-explaining every bit of information.  Thankfully, it treads this line perfectly.  Information is doled out by the bucket load about what McConaughey et al plan to achieve on these potential livable "new worlds", but time is spent explaining only the essential information rather than everything, leaving the audience informed and comfortable, rather than patronised or confused.

Admittedly, the film slightly over-reaches when it comes to the film's final third, with McConaughey entering unknown territory, but it is typical Christopher Nolan to aspire to pushing boundaries and I, for one, always admire him for that.  However, there is a problem when it comes to Nolan's technical achievements.  He seems so focused on providing such a visual marvel that he sometimes forgets what else cinema is known for; emotion.

Upon doing some research, I found that Interstellar was originally going to be directed by Steven Spielberg, and that was not really a shock.  With his past work with Close Encounters of the Third Kind and A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, Spielberg is no stranger to emotion-driven, thought-provoking science-fiction.  Spielberg brought Jonathan Nolan on board to write Interstellar's script, but then left the project some years later.  This allowed Jonathan to bring his brother Christopher on board and the rest is history.  However Nolan is fantastic for his technical precision and keen eye for visuals, but when it comes to the emotional core, the film feels like it doesn't know what to do with it.

All the way through, Coop (Matthew McConaughey) regrets leaving his daughter Murphy on Earth, and they grow further and further apart.  However, the film begins to argue (in typical Hollywood fashion) that love can transcend the boundaries of space-time and that it can reach further than we think.  However such an argument would have felt fine within a Spielberg film, but within the constraints of a Nolan film, it feels artificial and unnecessary. Like a robot finding out what human emotions are, you get the feeling Nolan simply said, "What is this thing you call 'love'?" and tried his best to convey it, but it ended up failing.

However, these things are trivial when it comes to the film overall.  It may fall down slightly on the emotional level, but it is right on cue with everything else.  The visuals will astound, the acting will entertain, and the music may leave a tear in your eye.  The IMAX presentation was especially incredible.

Interstellar definitely left me with the conclusion that Christopher Nolan can do no wrong.

Except poetry...

...and Superman films.

Now, bring on 2015!  Happy New Year Everyone!

Les Misérables

Hardly Master Of The House

I've been struggling over my opinion of Les Misérables since it was released back in January.  Can I start by saying that the musical/opera Les Misérables is, without doubt, one of the most fantastic Broadway musicals ever made.  The longevity it has sustained is evidence enough to how well-crafted it is.  It inspires tears and horror, whimsy and joy, pride and passion, a sense that you’re watching something that will stick with you forever.  However, in my opinion, the film of Les Misérables does not.

Now I don’t want that to sound like a overly negative criticism towards the film of Les Misérables; I did find the storyline transferred well to the screen, the songs were as captivating and entertaining as ever, and the overall theme of national and personal pride shone through, just not in the same way as the stage show.

For those uncultured swines out there, Les Misérables tells the stories of a horribly downtrodden lot of people in Revolution-era 18^th century France.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a bailed prisoner tries to start a new life by escaping the law, leading him to be hunted by tireless policeman Javert (Russell Crowe).  Whilst starting fresh, he agrees to care for the child of a dying prostitute, Fantine (Anne Hathaway).  Valjean and the child begin to care for each other, forever worried that their true identities will be uncovered.

Years later, the French Revolution begins and a whole mess of stuff happens, but I feel like I've lost your attention already.  In short: Wolverine gets chased by Gladiator, until he meets Catwoman, takes care of the blonde girl from Mamma Mia!, and then participates in one of the biggest political uprisings in European history.  Simples.  Yet it is a mystery as to why I feel Les Misérables failed to live up to my expectations.

Could it be a problem with the director? Not at all, as I'm a huge fan of Tom Hooper's previous films (The King's Speech and The Damned United), and I felt like he brought the same visual technique and personal direction to Les Misérables as he did with Speech and United.

Could it be a problem with the songs?  Hardly.  The songs were thankfully unaltered from the stage production with the odd exception or addition, and now being bellowed out by new actors and actresses with as much blood, sweat and tears as humanly possible.  Seeing these songs sung on film rather than on a stage gave Hooper an interesting opportunity to use a variety of close-ups and long shots to truly experience the pain and anguish these characters live through.  The tears and emotion of Fantine whilst singing 'I Dreamed A Dream' (AKA 'Susan Boyle's Curse') truly transformed Anne Hathaway into a beaten and homeless French prostitute and not the perky, smiley Disney princess we all know.  I feel that this was hugely due to Hooper's use of having the cast properly sing whilst filming, instead of miming and then recording the singing separately afterwards.  It made the emotion and words feel more real and heartfelt, which I'm sure assisted Hathaway onto her path of deservedly winning the Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

Alongside Hathaway bringing the audiences to tears, I personally felt that the female cast were the highlights of the film whilst the men were simply cast for their notoriety rather than their vocal quality.  Undeniably, the human-owl that is Amanda Seyfried carried Cosette’s high notes well and casting Samantha Barks as the over-looked Eponine was a wise decision as she starred in the same role in the stage production of Les Misérables.  However, the main partnership of Valjean and Javert just didn’t have the special quality I felt it needed.  I completely understand how because by being a film, Les Misérables had to feature actors rather than singers for the roles.  If there were no singing involved, I'd be more than content for Wolverine and Gladiator to chew the scenery, but no; this film requires a degree of vocal harmony, of which I felt was lacking with Jackman and certainly Crowe.

It all looks majestic and breathtaking, but personally it just lacked a certain 'je ne sais quoi'.  I'd say the equivalent was attending a Rolling Stones concert, but watching Prince paint it black instead of Mick Jagger; still fantastic set-list, stage design and overall experience, but just not perfect, mainly due to the miscast front man.

Rating: 6/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One

Death-Eaters Strike Back

Now I must say that before I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One, I really didn't think the franchise had any artistic merit and that they were just quickly made adaptations of the books just to score money off the movie-going public. And whilst the second half may still be the case, I think I'm changing my mind on the 'artistic merit' side of things.

For those few people who haven't been caught up in the phenomenon that is Harry Potter, Deathly Hallows: Part One is the penultimate installment of the franchise, where the titular Potter along with his friends Ron and Hermione, drop out of Hogwarts school and set out across the country trying to find 'Horcruxes' (mementos storing parts of the Big Bad Voldemort's soul) and destroying them, and therefore the Big Bad himself. Since the sixth film, Voldemort has risen to be in control of The Ministry of Magic, and is starting to turn the country into a sort-of Nazi state, indoctrinating children about the dangers of 'cross-breeding'.

I know, I know, it sounds like your ordinary kids' film, but I think the dark way that the books and films have gone have only given more weight to the story. It's given the director (David Yates) and the three main stars (Radcliffe, Grint and Watson) something to finally work with and sink their teeth into. Speaking of the three leads, this film rests on them more than ever before. Thankfully, I feel that this film is their best example of how far they've progressed. They have constantly been criticised for the lack of range, but with most of the film's time being dedicated to the three being in a tent travelling the country, they are allowed to show how they can handle drama, horror, romance and comedy all in the second act of the film.

However, with the heroes deciding to leave Hogwarts and carry on without help, it also means that there is little screen-time for Potter regulars, such as Alan Rickman's wonderful portrayal of Snape, reducing their input to being first act cameos, surely to be enhanced in the second part of the finale. With the focus being shone on the three leads, the other storylines such as the fate of Mad-Eye Moody, are skipped over or briefly mentioned and never returned to, which made it seem rushed, although these could be touched on in the second installment.

Overall, I believe that this installment is the equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back in the Star Wars saga. The heroes are trying to outwit and outrun the all-powerful dark forces at work, and with help of friends as well as their own development and growth, they set up the pieces for a hopefully fantastic final chapter.

It is by far the best film of the franchise so far. It is dark, broody, emotional and filled with great action, special effects, and above all else: acting. It only annoys you that you have to wait until next Summer to find out how it will end.

Rating - 7/10