Search Results

Actions speak louder than words is the tagline for Duncan Jones’ latest Sci Fi offering and ten minutes into the film and you can see why. Mute follows the story of Leo, an Amish man living in a near future, dystopian Berlin. Due to an accident when he was a child, Leo is unable to speak and so communicates through gestures, writing and drawings. Despite their being a handful of films, which centre on a moody, quiet protagonist exacting revenge, nothing has come along recently that has created an impact since 'Drive'. That is until now. Alexander Skarsgard gives a very impressive performance as Leo.  Like Gosling, Skarsgard manages to simultaneously appear vulnerable and sensitive, while at the same time being intense and intimidating. He balances these two traits perfectly, utilising each one at the right moment for the desired effect. His icy blue eyes can be cold and piercing one moment, then fragile and watery the next. In some ways the decision to have him mute adds more impact then 'Drive', as his silence makes all of his enemies nervous and awkward. The other aspect to his character is his Amish upbringing and belief. Although he isn’t as strict as most Amish followers, the lingering effect of his family’s influence is highlighted throughout. His traditional attitude and innocence is in stark contrast to the futuristic city that surrounds him. The image of this reserved and respectful man working behind a bar in a techno strip club is striking and adds to the already interesting visual style that is at play here. Religion is a theme that is explored from the start of the film and continues to be an important factor as the story unfolds. His muteness although not caused by his Amish lifestyle is affected by it, when his parents refuse treatment, leaving it in the hands of god. Then later, at various points in the film, Leo struggles to overcome difficulties, either due to his lack of voice or his inability to use technology. His choice to fall in love with a stripper, actually use a phone and drive a car is all fuelled by his repressed anger at religion. Leo is a character, who from the start always seems to be out of control of situations or worse prevented by others from doing what he wants. So, when he does finally snap, like Michael Douglas in 'Falling Down', in is truly satisfying to watch. Leo isn’t the only striking aspect of this film. The world itself is so vibrant and prominent it is almost a character itself. What I like about the film, is that even though there are flying cars and robots, there are still elements that are familiar with the current world. Like 'Blade Runner' it has a retro feel to it, opting for Tokyo style holographic billboards emblazoning the various buildings and speeding hover taxis, with 80s style lift up doors and bulky bumpers and hoods. These elements would hurl it further away into dystopia, if it wasn’t for the secondary characters that inhabit the world. Actors such as Noel Clarke and Dominic Monaghan give it cultural relevance with their down to earth and recognisable personalities. Even Paul Rudd, who brings something very different to his role, still has that zany, offbeat humour that grounds the film. The city itself is a great visual representation of the story’s tone. Near the start of the film, the bright lights, hypnotic music and colourful characters give it a glitzy allure. However, as the story unfolds, the city becomes colder, harsher and unsettling. There is a real sense of atmosphere to the piece and part of that is influenced by the strange and surreal world that Jones has created. It is hard to talk about one nemesis, as Leo seems to be surrounded by antagonists and it seems that he is constantly fighting to overcome evil. Paul Rudd is technically a bad guy in this outing, and although he doesn’t seem inherently evil, there is a definite dark presence lingering inside him. Rudd gives a notable performance, lulling viewers in with his aptitude for comedic timing and execution. However, it soon becomes apparent that there is a nasty, violent side to his personality. The fact that he has a young daughter makes for an even more conflicted viewing. The decision to explain his behaviour as being linked to him being a deserter from the armed forces is incorporated very well, despite it being a tad cliché. At the end of the day though, PTSD is a serious matter and it is both brave and commendable that Jones decided to tackle it. One scene sees a drunk Rudd flying off the handle at a security guard, after he is caught stealing peanuts. The inner demons spill out in this confrontation and it is written and performed fantastically. There are a few issues I had with the film. For one, despite the acting, world, style and concepts being incredibly strong, I did feel the choice to have the age-old story of a man falling in love with a stripper, who mysteriously disappears a tad cliche. There are a lot of films that feel the need to throw in mangst as the driving force behind the story. In this instance I can forgive it, as the characters, setting and style are so unique that it just about gets away with it. Although the romance element is a tad generic, the little nuances such as Leo’s secret project and the way they communicate with one another, keep it fresh and stop it from stagnating. It is always important to note that Leo’s love interest Naadirah is the only person bar one, he doesn’t have issues communicating with. After she disappears, Leo finds himself constantly struggling to understand other people or them not able to understand him. It serves as a good plot device, adding to the other conflicts he is already faced with at every turn. It is also saved by the fact that it suddenly turns from a film about love and loss to something a lot darker. There are technically two twists to this film. The first I suspected but the second was a surprise. Both these twists explore the darker and more sinister aspects of humans. Everyone has a limit to what they can deal with. For example, I do not get disturbed by murder as much as I probably should. Rape on the other hand, I find extremely disturbing. For those that are worried about this, there is no rape in the film. It has always been my opinion that there is no need for this in films. I can just about handle it being insinuated but there is no need to show it. Although this film doesn’t deal with that, it does deal with another very sensitive subject. So much so, that at points I was unsure whether I could carry on watching it. Although very well done, it is highly unsettling. Having watched the whole film, I would say that Jones did well. He did not go too far. More is implied than anything else and although stomach churning, the eventual outcome did have me sighing in relief, that the light overcame the dark. As well as Leo being an interesting protagonist due to his muteness and Amish upbringing, there are other traits that make him appealing. His relationship with water. His accident occurs in water at the start of the film and the concluding events of the story end in water. Throughout, he reveals that he has a curious ability to hold his breath for a very long time, as we witness him swim an entire length of a pool and down a whole glass of water. But this is not just a kooky quirk. By the end of the film, it becomes incredibly relevant and crucial that he has an ability to do this. The other aspect of his personality is his love of drawing, crafting and building. Underneath this insecure and unsure exterior, is a soul bursting with a confident voice, demonstrated through his art. Again, like with the water, it is actually crucial to the unfolding of the story and later becomes highly crucial in the eventual outcome. The small images and clues that are littered throughout are highly symbolic to the story and the world and Jones’ attention to detail is astounding. Mute is one of the most unusual and fascinating films of the year. It excels in its hybridity, presenting relevant and relatable themes in a futuristic world inhabited by weird and wonderful characters. The fact that Leo is mute, only reinforces the fact that everyone else around him who can talk, are less interesting and more dislikeable then he is. What almost is a love story, fuelled by mangst becomes something much more poignant and although the darker themes it explores are unflinching in their examination, they are explored in a tasteful and well-conceived way. The rhythm and pace are executed perfectly with slow building tension punctuated by hard hitting moments of impact. The characters are engaging, the word rich and vibrant and the narrative twists and turns at any available moment, making for an exhilarating nail biting watch. If you’re in the mood for something raw, exciting and which leaves a marked impression, then Mute is definitely worth your time.

Killed after his part in a hostage rescue, marine Ray Garrison (Diesel) is brought back to life by scientist Emil Harting (Pearce). Yet he is not only back from the dead: he’s super-enhanced and ready for revenge. There should be something tons of fun about a mash up of Robocop and Universal Solider. Based on a 1992 Valiant comic book creation, Bloodshot delivers an origin story about a military man brought back from the dead to become a super-soldier, yet rarely finds the spark or any potential richness in the conceit. Directed by VFX supervisor Dave Wilson, it has moments of visual flare but feels hamstrung by dull writing and a leading man sleepwalking through the tech and the bullets. The project was originally set to go in 2012 with Jared Leto; that might have been more interesting. Diesel is Ray Garrison (he’s a one man army, see), a marine who, after a hostage rescue mission in Mombassa, spends some R’n’R with his wife Gina (Tallulah Riley) on the Amalfi Coast (cue gold filters). Garrison is captured by evil Martin Axe (Toby Kebbell), who, in the film’s most memorable moment, does a Mr. Blonde style dance to Talking Heads’ ‘Psycho Killer’ before executing Gina and then shooting Garrison dead. The action has learned nothing from John Wick.Garrison wakes up in the lab of Rising Spirit Technology, regenerated by Dr Emil Harting (Pearce, channeling _Iron Man 3'_s Aldritch Killian) through nanites injected into his blood (hence Bloodshot). The regeneration gives Garrison all sorts of superpowers — super strength displayed by punching concrete pillars, interfacing with technology at rapid speed, the ability to self-heal — but not his memory. Yet with the help of Harting and his assistant KT (Eiza González), Ray begins to piece his old life together and escapes the facility to go after Axe.It’s at this point that Jeff Wadlow and Eric Heisserer’s script delivers the film’s one decent idea, that niftily reframes and story but almost goes so far as to explain why it has been so poor up to this point. But the film never really capitatlises on the clever conceit, falling back on action, techno-talk and a throbbing bombastic score courtesy of Steve Jablonsky. Save for a Point Break-y foot and bike chase, the action has learned nothing from John Wick or__ Chad Staheski’s 87 Eleven aesthetic (ie. letting action take place in long takes). Instead a punch up in a toilet, a showdown in a tunnel riddled with flour after a truck crash (it allows Diesel to walk moodily out of the dust), cinema’s only action sequence set in East Sussex and a fight atop a lift all feel like by-the-numbers set-pieces, full of slo-mo injections and senseless cutting. After being shot in the face, Garrison’s visage rebuilding itself is an impressive effect but little else lodges itself in the memory. The film gets a spec of character colour from two techies played by Siddarth Dhananjay and Lamorne Morris but for the most part it’s a bland ensemble following Diesel’s lead. There’s something potentially moving in Garrison’s plight — a man who’s lost his past and can’t face his future: think Peter Weller in Robocop — but Diesel gets nowhere near it. It’s a somnolent, inexpressive performance (even by Diesel’s standards) that makes Stallone’s turn in Escape Plan 3 feel like Daniel Day-Lewis. Download: Run 3 online.

I’m Luke Allen, a 15 year old award nominated filmmaker from Shropshire. Here’s the trailer for my latest short film, Unstable. ://youtu.be/F-0Ow3UI5Jg

JUSTICE LEAGUE REVIEW The first thing you should know (if uninitiated in comic book history) is that DCs Justice League is not a direct response to Marvel’s Avengers. The Justice League were formed in 1960, debuting in The Brave & The Bold #28. The original team comprised of: Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern, Flash, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Superman. The Avengers first appeared 3 years later. I mention this, because the Justice League movie also stands on its own film credentials, not taking any cues from Marvel's Avengers Assemble or Age Of Ultron. If anything, you’ll notice that there are more re-enactments and scenes that closer match Tolkien’s Lord Of The Rings trilogy, than anything offered from comic book land. It's a slight shame, that the production team looked outward instead of within, as if they really needed some inspiration for a mega scale delivery, they need look no further than their own feature length animations. Rightly done, an adaptation of some of these titles, would have rocked the superhero movie genre for sure. But I delay. Is Justice League any good? The Good News; Justice League is worthy of a cinematic visit. It is better than Batman Vs Superman, but not as good as Wonder Woman. The main kick you’ll get out of this DC entry, is in seeing the roster of heroes (main ones and cameos) that make an appearance. This gives the film a type of fulfilment that a solo character outing can’t achieve. Some of the action scenes are awesome, in particular the Themyscira assault and a little internal squabble between the JL team members. Performance wise, newcomer Ray Fisher who plays Cyborg, ironically brings the most endearing humanity to the proceedings and Ezra Miller as The Flash, brings the humour. "Ultimately, the film’s main downfall, is that it is not a consistent ride." But now, for The Bad News. The CGI…oh lord. I don’t know what it is about DC films, but the graphics always look like they are only one step improved from a triple A computer game. This is one factor that I always have to take my hat off to, in regards to Marvel productions, they make me believe in the worlds that they create. As an overall production value, DC/Warner Bros need to seriously step up in this department and other failures arrive in the script having some clunky dialogue, some physical movement that scientifically doesn’t make sense superhero or not (including one scene where Flash’s running style is really bizarre) some narrative mishaps that will have you planting your face in the palm of your hand…and please, STOP with the superhero poses. For 21st century cinema, it looks corny and ridiculous! I’m all for films not being too aware of themselves, but be aware here! If you want to find the ultimate, unpretentious superhero pose in cinema, then look at the very last shot in Batman (1989). Ultimately, the film’s main downfall, is that it is not a consistent ride. There are noticeably good lines and bad ones, nice surprises and annoying parts, good action and bad action. Consequently the film is a seasaw of good and bad ideas - but you'll have to decide which end is staying up longer. Also, as foes go, they picked the wrong villain – Steppenwolf, Steppen who? Exactly. On a personal note, at this point within the superhero movie, I am officially bored of seeing superheroes fight 10,000 minions throughout an entire movie, that present no real challenge. If a studio needs a means of superheroes being able to unleash their power, without any blow back about screen violence and achieving a PG rating, then find another way. There is also one major reason you have to watch this movie – but that would be a major, major plot spoiler. DC are almost on the right track, they just need some of their production values re-examined and tightened. Watch JL with minimal expectations and just go with the flow. Release Date 17th Nov 2017

It’s been a pretty good week for the creators of ‘Paddington 2’. Firstly, the movie received sparkling reviews upon it’s release last Friday, and then news emerged yesterday that the movie has severed ties from the much maligned Weinstein Company after the North American distribution rights were nabbed by Warner Bros. Paddington, our furry little hero from Peru, is a timely ray of shining generosity and love in this the second edition of his tale. The sequel to 2014’s first instalment is just as charming, amusing and uplifting and includes an extremely talented and extremely British cast. We return to the life of Paddington (brilliantly voiced by Ben Whishaw), who has now settled with the Browns, and has made friends with many in the community. With his aunt Lucy’s birthday coming up, he plans to find the perfect present for her which turns out to be an old pop-up book of London that he finds in an antique shop. In order to pay for the book, he tries saving money by working in a barber shop and as a window cleaner which both carry their own comical bout. Just as he is on the brink of having enough saved, the book is stolen from the antique shop and worse yet, Paddington is framed for the robbery. With the help of the Browns as well as those he inevitably makes friends with in prison, Paddington attempts to devise a plan to clear his name and retrieve the book. Given how much of a pleasant surprise the first Paddington film was, it was certainly going to be a tough task for the second to live up to expectations. But it exceeds them thanks to some more brilliantly put-together comedy sequences, some fine casting and more general joyful, feel-good movie making. It bears (excuse the pun) reiterating again the brilliance of Ben Whishaw as the voice of Paddington, who has that soft, friendly tone that so seamlessly goes along with the CGI’d character. It’s difficult to believe that Whishaw was drafted in at the last minute to voise the bear but thank goodness he was. He heads another incredible cast in the second instalment as Sally Hawkins, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent and Peter Capaldi all return. This time joined by Hugh Grant and Brendan Gleeson with cameos from Richard Ayoade, Joanna Lumley, Ben Miller and Jessica Hynes. It’s a brilliant British cast where both Grant and Gleeson are absolutely on top of their acting game. Grant in particular, who plays the failing actor and main villain, Phoenix Buchanan, has certainly resurrected his career and this can be considered as one of his best comic performances. Grant is just one of the many brilliant comical elements of the movie which playfully rolls by with a number of visually funny gags as well as plenty of witty remarks and jokes. With that said, director and writer Paul King includes plenty of peril and tension in the movie beneath the comedy, none more so than the climactic underwater escape sequence. As a result of this layer being including in a movie primarily designed for children, Paddington 2 is an all round treasure of a film, rather than just worthy of a few laughs. But at the centre of this delightful watch is a character who offers a humble message of love and kindness, albeit sometimes in the most calamitous of ways, leaving Paddington 2 a hugely entertaining and charming watch throughout.

Just take a moment to think about how much time you spend on your smartphone. Think about how much of your week is spent on social media, scrolling through the endless amounts of selfies and filtered pictures. Do you ever get envious or judge people based on what they post on social media? Wish that picture of you from Friday night got more likes on Facebook or that you had more followers on Instagram? Well this is Ingrid cranked all the way to maximum and the poignant message in the dark comedy, Ingrid Goes West, is of how social media promotes an illusion of connectivity which is currently being cast on a generation in today’s society. This movie comes so close to homing in on that warning but cops out right at the end when all of its good work comes undone and any caution about the perils of social media evaporate literally within the last 20 seconds of the film. Ingrid is played by Aubrey Plaza who fits the role of the main character perfectly. The 33 year-old has come a long way in a short space of time since Parks and Recreation and here she plays an unstable social media stalker. We get an understanding of just how media obsessive she is at the start when she pepper sprays her friend at her wedding for not inviting her only to discover that the bride wasn’t a friend but had once commented on one of Ingrid’s Instagram posts. After recovering from that episode, Ingrid then decides to move to LA to track down Instagram expert, Taylor (Elizabeth Olsen), who she had come across and begins to fixate upon. Through a series of creepy acts, she tricks Taylor into befriending her and the pair begin spending time together before it all falls apart when Ingrid’s dark secrets are revealed. None of the characters in the movie are particularly likeable and therefore make the film a rather uncomfortable experience all round. Just think how annoying it is being out with your friends when everyone is staring at their phones or taking selfies – now think how annoying that would be just to watch unfold. The one aspect of relief is Dan (O’Shea Jackson Jr.), Ingrid’s landlord in LA and Batman fanatic who offers a number of laugh out loud moments to the proceedings and the only one who has any concept of reality. The devastating twist at the end should have been where the movie ended and landed its knockout blow of a message. But where 99% of the film is about the dangers of social media obsession, the remaining 1% is the closing sequence to the film that completely obliterates any positive message it was trying to promote. It ultimately lets down what is otherwise a poignant, contemporary movie.

"You put a dime in him, you've got to let the whole song play out." When Arthur C. Clarke wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology was indistinguishable from magic I doubt whether atomic scientist finger wizardry from former Cat-Women was exactly what he had in mind, yet that is the barely explained science thing we are asked to buy into during the closing moments of Ant-Man & The Wasp which, not unlike the rest of the movie, leaves a lot to be desired. Finding Evangeline Lilly's bite-sized mother is the name of the game in Peyton Reed's second stab at bringing Ant-Man to the big screen. To achieve this Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) - who is currently serving house arrest after the events of Captain America: Civil War - must first be abducted, then put in a position where he must choose between the debt he owes the Van Dyne crew (Lilly and Douglas) and his own young daughter, all because he dreamed he was Michelle Pfeiffer once (and really, who among us?). They've got some kind of quantum connection, the Van Dyne's contest, because they've both shrunk to sub-atomic level and they need to get inside his head to find her. It's the kind of ambulatory plot contrivance that super-hero movies are often forgiven for and wouldn't be as much of an issue if it weren't indicative of the kind of laziness on display throughout the rest of this thoroughly uninspiring movie. Chief among it's flaws is the fact that despite ostensibly being something approaching a comedy, Ant-Man & The Wasp manages to be so consistently unfunny. Rudd has his moments and Reed is able to construct one or two decent sight-gags, but the lion's share of the humour is delivered by Michael Pena who - while being fantastic in this movie - isn't in nearly enough of it to keep the script from moments of eye-roll-inducing tedium. Asking Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly to shoulder any kind of comedic burden is like telling a child to disarm a bomb: it's unreasonable of you to ask and will almost certainly end in tragedy. The script here is so lacking in anything resembling actual jokes that it feels almost as if Pena must have ad-libbed his lines, he is that far removed from everyone else in terms of quality. Not pictured: Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth high-fiving as Thor Ragnarok's stock as a comedy retrospectively rises. The absence of good comedic writing would perhaps not be as noticeable if the rest of the movie weren't so lacking in any kind of tonal consistency, or even just a script which didn't feel like it was written with nothing but getting it's characters out of stupid situations in mind. Lang's daughter video-calling her dad while he is being held hostage, with his kidnappers holding the phone up to his face out of frustration, is a relatively funny idea. Attempting to sow dissent between the kidnappers literally seconds later as they argue - very seriously - about whether they should also abduct his daughter is - at best - clumsy and - at worst - wildly misjudged. And this movie is full of these kind of tonal handbrake turns; a moment played off for humour which is also required to move the story forward and carry emotional weight. Neither the writing nor the direction is competent enough to achieve all three of these goals in one scene and so the movie frequently fails at all of them. And the constant sense that events are simply occurring because the plot demands them to compounds this lack of quality. Visually, this is boring. The occasional uses of licensed music are fairly entertaining although this is purely because the song choice is good and it really can't be over-emphasized how funny Michael Pena is here. It's no coincidence that the best sequence of the movie is narrated entirely by him. It's just a shame that this wasn't a film which focused around his character. This is a movie which would have been better as schlock. It tries to give the kind of villains who explain their plans to you a heart instead of having them twirl their mustaches, while the good guys stand around telling bad jokes and staring wistfully at each other with slight smiles while strings play softly behind them without a shred of irony. This is a super-hero movie where no one feels villainous and the heroes - like the film in general - are boring as hell.

First thing first, kindly watch this if you have a thing for sci-fi. As per many news media outlets, Blade Runner has been declared a flop. Please, please and please, kindly ignore those tabloids and watch it at your own accord. The movie like many Denis Villeneuve movies is a visual treat. Breathtakingly stunning and every frame producing it's own distinct piece of beauty something which will make you sit up and marvel at the imaginations of few individuals and their ability to draw them out on the screen with such panache. Deakins probably has sent a clear message that anything less than an Oscar nomination will be a complete shame. Not to forget the special effects and the background score (Zimmer) which were equally brilliant. As far as the story is concerned, I honestly could never figure out what to say about it. Not the best storyline I came across but to say that it's bad will be purely insulting the sanctity involved behind the making of this film which in every word needs to be respected . In the end it was equally difficult to look for any reasons to think about any flaws because it did cross the level of magnificent it was expected to scale. It was equally difficult to sit down and look for flaws and even if there was any, take the liberty to brand it with any negative adjectives. Nevertheless, on a personal level, I would be lying if I wouldn't say that BR2049 is hands down one of the best movies of 2017 and probably a work which might have set a certain barometer for Villeneuve for eclipse in future. The movie is close to 3 hours long and extremely heavy in nature. As mentioned earlier that unless you are a fan of Sci first kindly stay away as there is a huge chance that you might leave the hall early, something I saw many others doing during my three hours spent in the theatre. Ryan Gosling is brilliant and undoubtedly is the major player who carries the film forward very well. Jared Leto is under utilized and felt should have been used more, but he probably is the trump card for the director as he may set out to make another sequel. Is it as good as its prequel? The 1982 movie was a landmark movie in its own right and hence it will be a sin to compare it. The current one is beautiful in its own manner and deserves to be put in a bracket of its own. PS- Kindly watch the prequel before you watch this one. On a scale of 5 my rating would be a 3.5/5.

Even though Dirty Dancing was produced in 1987, it is clear to say that it still gets us up onto our feets to dance 'like noone is watching!' It is a shock to find out that Dirty Dancing - a box office hit - was in fact a low-budget film! However, that didn't change anything! The storyline itself catches the eye of the audience - set in the summer of 1963 in a interactive resort in the Catskill Mountains, a young 17 year old girl named Frances "Baby" Houseman (Played by Jennifer Grey) is taking a vacation with her family. A plain, innocent get-away leads to Baby to ultimately 'come out of her shell' by falls in love with with the handsome and flirtatious dance instructor Johnny Castle (Played by Patrick Swayze). It is fair to say that this was every girls fantasy, falling in love with the guy of EVERYONEs dream vice versa! Who wouldn't want that! DIRECTING: The director Emile Ardolino has undoubtably provided a box office hit with the plot, storyline, characters and every element for the film. With only a budget of $6 million, the talented Emile Ardolino caused the film to have an outstanding box office of $214 million. I'm sure the figures themselves highlight the positive outcome of the film. ACTORS: Patrick Swazye and Jennifer Grey provided a brilliant representation of the character. Jonny's serious nature being shown to have an emotional side is portrayed through Swayze's body language and favial expressions. Grey's own acting skills plays an amazing role, showing her awkwardness in the setting, contrasting her from the other characters. EDITING: The film shows many different scenes, many different characters, and many different scenarioes all in which edited beautifully. The flow of each sceneis created positively, providing the manipulation of time to be unnoticable. FUN FACT: The director used actual footage of the bloopers between Swayze and Grey (scene where she is learning to dance and she keeps laughing, showing his seriousness) -yeah...He was not happy! Last but not least, the SOUND!: The moment people hear 'Time of my life', their thoughts instantly go to Dirty Dancing and the major dance scene at the end of the film. This effect it has, has left a positive remark as this highlights the memorable film which is still sa classic and amazing to this very day! I recommend watching it - if you haven't have guessed