Author: Craig Andrew Robertson

I keep forgetting to write this review. Perhaps it’s because I keep forgetting I’ve seen this film.

A remake of the classic Ealing Studios Production, this is the story of an island in the Outer Hebrides which, in the grips of a disastrous whisky shortage, is blessed when a ship carrying 50,000 cases of the drink crashes into the rocks just off their shores.

This movie is almost utterly pointless.

Remakes are useful for establishing where our culture has changed and where it’s stayed the same.

The original was from 1940, right in the middle of the war in which both films are set. Certain permissions we have now would be quite alien to filmmakers of that time, not to mention the knowledge we now have of who won the conflict. Thus, an ever so slightly different product is likely to be born.

For example, in the 2017 version a secret document on board the whisky ship which the intelligence agencies of the crown wish to keep hidden is used as blackmail at one point. This plot point goes nowhere, but it does demonstrate a change in the times.

Honestly, I can’t think of much more to say. It’s decent. The original has aged like a fine whisky. This one will probably age like a glass of water.

Recommended Scenario: Original. Just watch that.

Here we go again in a place where no one can hear you scream and where there’s a 60-70% chance that the movie will suck.

Covenant is an Alien film set 10 years after the disaster that was Prometheus but still a few years before the perfection that was the 1979 Alien. So by logic this iteration in this long out-of-date franchise should be half-crap, half-brilliant.

In a way this theory holds true.

As always I’ll start with the good. Unlike Prometheus, which tried to turn Alien from a subtle allegory on the horrors of rape with brilliant monster action and suspense into a pretentious muse on creation with terrible characters and writing, Alien: Covenant actually holds its own in a few key filmmaking areas.

The characters are done so much better here. I know who at least some of them are, even if I don’t know their names and I don’t want anything bad to happen to them. I think Sir Ridley Scott needed to direct The Martian just to remind himself what likable characters look like. That is despite the fact that the lead is played by that woman from Fantastic Beasts who would not stop crying (she’s a pretty good actress, but please stop being on the verge of tears for every line delivery!).

While the bare-bones plot remains the same as it has for the past 6 canon Alien flicks, at least this time the motive for the crew landing on the planet infected with monsters makes a bit more sense than in previous entries.

In terms of horror, it isn’t bad. There’s a bit of gore, a little suspense. I’d say that Scott’s intention was to be the director to finally combine the “I hear it in the air-ducts” chills of Alien with the “Get away from her you bitch” thrills of Aliens. While I personally prefer the former, the cocktail doesn’t taste bad.

Of course with Scott at the helm, this is a technical marvel. Apart from some editing weirdness near the end, this is a solidly done piece. Heck it looks so good that the CGI monsters for the first time since Shelob in The Return of the King are actually a bit scary!

The final and best of the good things in this movie is Michael Fassbender. In a dual role as two androids he is both extraordinarily creepy and a little charming. Getting slightly into spoiler territory, one of the androids has some not so nice plans which are so, so good and so, so bad.

The philosophy of a great deal of Sir Ridley’s filmography revolves around a battle between God and Man. In Prometheus he tried to culminate this into a final essay on the matte and failed spectacularly. Here he succeeds a bit with this message, but so much that we should be applauding him for it.

Some clumsy explanations and clumsy lackings in explanation lead to something that’s almost clever, but not quite. It’s quite infuriating.

What’s worst is that Covenant has an awkward relationship with Prometheus. Stuff which was going to be explored deeper in that film has been dropped or half-continued. This episode is really made better and worse for the existence of its predecessor. Perhaps one day a re-edit of the two and one finale to what I think will be Scott’s think-piece prequel trilogy will make this whole thing make sense.

Until then, I refer thee to my recommended scenario.

Recommended Scenario: Watch Alien & Blade Runner, Ridley’s GOOD sci-fi.

The Guardians of the Galaxy was one of the first films I ever wrote a review for. That was years ago now. So I have kind of a special connection with this little franchise. Will this sequel break that connection?

Guardians Vol. 2 follows Star Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Groot as they continue being scoundrel heroes to the Universe all while Star Lord discovers some interesting things about his past.

The sequel to a movie like Guardians has a distinct advantage to the original. It no longer has to spend its runtime setting up all of the heroes and why they come together to form the team. With that spar time, this second entry has time to establish a story with not only larger literal stakes, but larger emotional stakes, the key to a great sequel.

Star Lord, or Peter Quill to his pals, is introduced to his father, an alien played by Kurt Russell. He takes some of the Guardians to his planet while the rest have to del with some of Yondu’s Ravagers (if you haven’t seen the first film, I’d understand if you are completely lost right now).

In terms of story, structure and comedy, this film is less like a Marvel Movie and more like an episode of Futurama. And it is so better for it.

Speaking of comedy, Vol. 2 has it in spades. There were so many times I was properly laughing through the runtime. A number of comedies I’ve seen recently start strong but run out of steam half-way through, including the first Guardians which I re-watched as part of a double-bill with 2. This film does not lose steam.

That doesn’t mean that there are not problems with the comedy. While I love Drax, he is a bit overused and Gamora’s funny side is underused. Also, there are times during serious scenes where the mix of comedy and pathos is not quite right. Some moments make me wince. Like when a friend makes a bad joke at a funeral.

Back to the good, James Gunn and his team sure know how to make a good-looking movie. The first film ever shot in Digital 8K resolution, the colours here pop beautifully, giving a truly fantastical feel to the piece, unlike some other Marvel projects which have much more boring soundtracks and colour palettes like concrete.

Also unlike other Marvel Pictures, there really isn’t a set up for bigger events here, no teases of comic book bits and pieces to be explored in the MCU. Thank God! I’m tired of films that are just set-up for a different movie! I can actually recommend this genuinely good sequel to my MCU ignorant parents!

Recommended Scenario: If you want Guardians of the Galaxy but a little better.

Just a note before I begin, turn off your phone in a cinema. Seriously, turn it off. A guy near me in this film had it ring on vibrate four times before I told him. Not on!

The Zookeeper’s Wife tells the true story of a Polish Zookeeper and his wife who between 1939 and 1945 sheltered hundreds of Jews from the Nazis.

I can’t imagine something more difficult to convey on-screen than the Holocaust. It’s been done in the past, but it is something so far removed from humanity that it only works in certain circumstances.

What works in this movie is that it is entirely from the perspective of non-Jews wanting to help. This relative distance and only rare glimpses into the full horror of the situation make it easier for us to put ourselves into the protagonist’s shoes.

I can’t even give this movie the increasingly common criticism of “white saviour film” since this is based on a true story and the Jews are not just passive agents here either.

The humanity of the Zookeepers is so endearing. Their belief in the value of other lives is genuine, un-cynical and very moving. People as fundamentally good as these are inspiring and that is a great quality for this kind of movie.

To make a movie about one of the worst events in human history emotionally resonant is very hard. As Stalin supposedly said (but probably didn’t), “one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic”.

That’s why films use cinematic little moments to convey the loss on a human level. In this one, there’s a moment so unexpectedly heart-wrenching that I burst into tears.

If I had one complaint it would be the use of Daniel Brühl’s character, Dr Lutz Heck, as such a horrifying nemesis. I can’t find much evidence of his actions as portrayed in this movie save for the fact that he did some cooperation with the Nazis as he would be forced to do. Even to Nazis, art must be fair.

Another minor complaint is that this film has a few too many endings. My favourite movie is The Lord of the Rings so I can understand if you think this criticism isn’t fair, but they could have cut out at least one finale!

The animals and the zoo are effectively used as an allegory throughout. The Nazis exterminate some while taking some of the “better stock”. The animals run around Warsaw confused after the bombings on the 1st of September 1939. And the Zookeepers do their utmost to protect them.

As obvious as those metaphors might be, in getting a general audience into understanding this dark period of history, it is a very well executed device.

Recommended Scenario: If you want an admittedly sentimental, but inspiring Holocaust Drama.

Late as always, here’s my take on the remake on an anime classic.

Ghost in the Shell, based on the Japanese franchise of Mangas and Animes, is a science-fiction film set in a futuristic city, possibly Hong Kong, in which robots and humans are becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart.

Scarlett Johansson plays Major, a robot cop with a human brain. She and the rest of the police are after a cyber-terrorist. However, it doesn’t  take her long to realise that the bad guys might not be where she thought they were.

So basically… Blade Runner. I really hate saying this as there is such a huge fan-base of this series, but Ghost in its original form and as this reimagining are pretty much Blade Runner, but not as good.

I only saw the original movie version of G.I.T.S quite recently and did not think much of it. It was a little too slow, a little too cold and did little to wow me. I admired it, but did not love it.

This version does some good stuff with the material.

For one, the world and action here are both handled expertly . For a sci-fi actioner, those are the essentials. The visual grammar of The Shell is top notch and always more interesting than the standard film of its kind.

While some of the dialogue is a little clichéd, including some bizarre copying from Batman Begins, there is an emotional core to this film that I felt was lacking in Version 1. I actually teared up a little at one very well-realised moment which I shall not spoil.

Now let’s discuss the beautiful white elephant in the room.

First, the facts.

Scarlett Johansson is white. She is playing a white robot with a brain from a Japanese woman.

Now, the two sides of the big debate here.

For this move:

• The Japanese creators blessed it and there’s been no outcry for blood from Japan or a considerable portion of Ghost in the Shell
• Major, in the source material, is white.
• Johansson will pull in more money for the picture, at least in theory and does the whole sexy robot/alien discovering humanity act well.
• One could call this whole thing a commentary on whitewashing.

Against:

• The fact that her brain is Japanese is not very clear in the film.
• This is a waste of an opportunity to cast an Asian-American actress in a major role (pun not intended).
• If this is a commentary on whitewashing it’s a pretty vague one.

Those are the main arguments. I thought I might as well list them here without an opinion so you could make up your own minds. A little interactivity for you, so I can avoid being punched by the internet.

Either way, this movie is fine. Pretty good. Not really good or bad enough to go on the twitter warpath.

However, they do remove that lesbian kiss that was in the trailer. What’s that about?

Recommended Scenario: If you like OK sci-fi fun.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a decent satirical film. Let’s rectify that.

Get Out is a thriller about a black guy meeting his white girlfriend’s parents. Once they get there he discovers some creepy going’s on.

 

I’m just going to get this out of the way, I love this film. This is one of the smartest and funniest horror-thrillers I’ve ever seen.

An extraordinarily clever dive into 21st Century racism, we see that the bigots of our time aren’t the kind of bible-belt hicks we think about normally. They are middle-class, clean white people who genuinely don’t understand what’s wrong with some of the things they say. Heck, some of them are like me.

I can’t wait until the essays about this subversive take on an issue that we assume has gone away, but still lies buried in our collective subconscious. The “I’m not racist, but” style of prejudice that is so difficult to root out.

Written and Directed by celebrated comedian Jordan Peele, this is a feast for fans of spooky filmmaking. The imagery used in Get Out is truly breath-taking for a directional debut feature, particularly in a genre that the director is not known for.

The transition from TV to Cinema is a tough one. Thankfully Peele has been able to translate his comedic traits into horrific ones, finding a beautiful balance between the two surprisingly similar disciplines.

He draws a highly sympathetic straight man hero and while there is comedy for him to react to, it is mixed expertly with the horror. We get funny scenes that are scary and vice-versa.

I’m a little saddened by this film losing its 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but at least it’s kept itself in the high 90%s where it deserves to be.

Recommended Scenario: If you want an intelligent scare and chuckle fest.

I have to be frank, I kind of wanted to hate this movie. A good chunk of my mind was set on tearing this obvious cash-grab a new one. Let’s see whether my prejudices were justified.

Beauty and the Beast (2017) is the live-action remake of the 90’s animated classic from the Mouse House. If you don’t know the story already, I’m sorry but this review is basically for people who know the original.

Last year I gave a relatively positive review of The Jungle Book. What that movie did was give a new take on an imperfect movie with extraordinary visuals and bizarre renditions of I wanna be like you. This film today is attempting to improve upon one of the best animated films ever made.

In a couple of respects, the film succeeds in this lofty aim and not in insignificant areas.

The supporting players of this movie are fleshed out a bit more. This could be seen as distracting from the main story, but I see it as giving some extra dimensions to already great characters. While I’m not 100% sold on the look of the magical furniture just yet, it is growing on me and they do provide some effective moments.

This movie has some really good casting almost everywhere. Emma Watson is damn near perfect as a beautiful nerd (and she’s pretty good at playing Belle too). The Beast, whatever his name is, is also suitably baritone throughout and Luke Evans as Gaston actually works, surprisingly.

Interesting that the casting in the animated film was generally American while they got British voices for this version. Perhaps to class things up a bit.

Other changes that were pretty neutral to my enjoyment include the fact that nobody seems to be an idiot. All the characters are played quite a bit straighter (except for one but we’ll get to him) and certain actions have a little more logic to them and not just Disney Logic.

Now we come to the stuff I disliked.

I think this movie is badly shot and badly edited. There were moments where I honestly could not tell what I was looking at and still didn’t upon leaving the scene. The ending goes from being well-paced at the “All is Lost” point to rushing through the happily ever after. It’s really weird.

I’m fine with a new song or two and some of the new stuff between Belle and the Beast is fantastic. However the addition of some arc about their dead mothers is so forced and Disney-like it is actually really sad, but not in the way they had in mind.

And let’s talk about the Rainbow elephant in the room. Le Fou, that little brat from the first move is unambiguously gay.

For 90% of the film, it is done fine. We get some funny jokes, some nice character growth and Josh Gad is for once in his entire career not self-immolatingly irritating.

However, a couple of moments near the end are so relentlessly “look how progressive we are” it makes the whole admittedly noble effort lose all credibility. I agree with increased representation, but it doesn’t excuse clumsy execution.

My final problem is this. It’s LIVE-ACTION.

I honestly don’t understand why “The Most Magical Studio on Earth” is so keen to redo all their films without some of that magic. That’s what is happening.

Comparing the Disney Beauty and the Beasts makes this one looks so awkward. The big song numbers are never as compelling (apart from the ballroom scene which was done quite well). No matter how good the CGI is, the candlesticks and Beasts are never in the room with Emma Watson!

Disney is scheduled to remake every film they’ve ever made. That’s not hyperbole. EVER film good, bad or great seems to be getting the live-action treatment.

That is just creepy!

Recommended Scenario: If you want an OK version of a great film.

Some people love this film, some find it offensive. Where do I lie? Can I be the one to end the debate?!

Patriots Day tells the true story of the Patriots Day bombings at the Boston Marathon in 2013 and the subsequent investigation.

I find it interesting to think that I’m now old enough to remember the events Hollywood is turning into films. I remember the Boston Bombings. I remember the manhunt. I remember I was nearly finished with my 5^th year of High School.

Obviously to portray the events of that fateful week, some sensitivity would be required. What concerned me in the lead up to the release of this film was the idea it would portray the bombers as some overarching conspiracy right from the heart of ISIS, a narrative which plays into the hands of our enemies and those “on our side” who would use it to oppress Muslims.

Plus, the film’s trailer had Kevin Bacon, who plays a Special Agent of the FBI, say the words “It’s terrorism” in the most unintendedly hilarious way possible!

The stuff that works in Patriots Day is when we see the human level of both sides. After the explosions, the panic was real and the swift response of the people who were there to help is portrayed in a way that is simultaneously moving and terrifying.

Similarly, the bombers are portrayed honestly. They’re not evil geniuses led by other evil geniuses. They are idiots, misguided into believing that the flawed western world deserves only destruction from top to bottom.

I don’t mind the use of Mark Wahlberg as the eyes and ears of the whole scenario. His character, from what I can gather, is a fictional amalgam of various Boston Police Officers, meaning he can be placed in positions that would have been impossible for any one guy. He delivers a fine performance and has some of the most heart-breaking scenes of the film.

What irritated me to no end was this film’s cutesy showing off every character long before they’re important. I understand that many characters need a backstory, but it feels like every one of them came out of Fargo.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Fargo, but Fargo was a special case of using exaggerated homeliness to contrast the darkness. The way, Peter Berg, frames the situation is like a documentary, making certain showings of Boston affection a bit comical. I get they want to show who the good guys are but it’s a little too cute.

This is a more effective portrait of recent terrorism than other thrillers of its kind. Just take certain elements with a pinch of salt.

Recommended Scenario: If you want a pretty good film showing the resilience of a people when some asses put bombs in their street.

Peter Jackson made his King Kong 12 years ago. I now feel old.

Kong: Skull Island is yet another reimagining of King Kong, this time from the people behind 2014’s Godzilla. In the 70s some soldiers and scientist head to Skull Island to find and destroy the monsters there. They get a lot more monster than they bargained for.

This is an out and out monster film and it knows it. I can tell that the filmmakers were aware of the tiredness people feel when every monster film “does a Jaws” and hides the main attraction since they pretty much show Kong, who is bigger than ever before, from the get go.

The movie doesn’t wait around. We came for badass monster stuff and we get it in spades and it’s great. This has some amazing design and creature work with some awesome action, some even paying tribute to Cannibal Holocaust of all things.

Stylistically I like this film too. While the CGI isn’t the best, the film’s colourful 70s aesthetic is really top-notch containing some very clever little visual moments (e.g a transition from an Interior Day scene to an Exterior Night done though a WHITE BALANCE CHANGE! I’ve never seen that before, kudos!).

What let’s the whole thing down though is one specific thing. Tone.

I don’t know what I’m supposed to feel in this movie. We go between supposedly really tragic death scenes to a moment of badassery to a comedic moment. This isn’t helped by scenes and characters that go nowhere or start in the wrong place in time and space.

Who is the main character in this film? All the billing of the credits points to Tom Hiddleston as a badass ex-SAS guy, but all the drama happens elsewhere. John C. Reilly is this WWII castaway on the island who plays the comic relief guy, the exposition guy and the drama guy. Pick one, buddy!

Like 90% of the flawed movies I review this could be ironed out with some editing.

As is, this is a relatively enjoyable creature flick that I’d gives 3/5 stars to if I did that kind of thing. Which I don’t.

Recommended Scenario: If you want a monster movie that does not waste its time getting to the juicy bits.

Once again I’m late on writing a review and once again I’m reviewing a comic book movie with a continuity I’m not so familiar with.

Logan is the final movie in which Hugh Jackman will play X-Men’s Wolverine, the famous knife-handed, baddie-killin’ mutant.

We live in a world in which the meta-narrative weaves its way through every part of our stories. this is not a new thing, nor is it a bad thing. The problem is when storytellers use either the true outside lives of the actors (The Expendables) or the franchise’s history (Star Wars) and forget the story proper.

With something so big and convoluted as X-Men, what makes the films that work in its canon work, is a remembrance to occasionally step back and let a character be a character.

Logan is a dark, brutal, violent, adult drama about the titular immortal super-being looking after Professor Xavier, played amazingly by the legend that is Patrick Stewart, when a young girl who seems awfully similar to him turns up and he has to protect her from really bad dudes and remember the value of life.

Did I mention violent? This film is violent! Do not take squeamish kids to see this! It is shot mostly pretty well, though some scenes could have done with a different way of portraying the fights.

It is also very dark. This is darker, not really in the philosophical sense, but in the content itself, than any comic book movie I’ve seen since A History of Violence.

When things calm down, though, Jackman and Stewart deliver the goods in performances on par with the best of their careers.

Xavier, the telepath, has Alzheimer’s and frequent seizures which through his unique mind are transmitted into the minds of all around him. That is such a clever idea. Stewart always had such grace in his ageless, previous portrayals of this character. Now we see what grace can be taken away by time, even for a guy like him.

The star though is, of course, Jackman. Every part of him aches throughout the film and he really sells it and delivers an ending with incredible pathos.

This is a really good film that really does stand on its own. While some little elements kind of irk me, they are mainly balancing issues for tone and pace and are pretty minor.

Farewell Jackman and Stewart era X-Men. Now for the sad goodbye to McKellen.

Recommended Scenario: If you want a great Superhero Western

P.S Stephen Merchant is in this and he’s amazing!