Category: movie-reviews

Isn’t it odd that it’s taken this long for “The Scottish Play” to be adapted with Scottish accents? No, it didn’t count when Ian McKellen did it. A “Mc” in your name doesn’t a Scot make.

Macbeth is one of William Shakespeare’s best known and shortest plays. It is one of the finest works in the English language and has been put to screen 16 times since the 9 minute silent film version made in 1908.

With so many varying interpretations, one would think that the tragedy would be a relatively simple production to put on. I mean, the play is 404 years old, we should be pretty good at doing it by now.

Justin Kurzel, director of this particular film, has done something incredible. He has <GASP> changed the play!

This is not an entirely new phenomena. While Shakespeare is the 16th and 17th Century equivalent of Quentin Tarantino, his works were very much made for the performance in which they were played originally and not for the screen. The most expensive seats in the Globe Theatre in his day were above the stage, where one could barely see what was happening. It was Shakespeare’s command of language which kept him afloat. That’s why when one reads or sees his plays performed, there are pieces of dialogue describing what we’ve just seen, as if a radio play.

Kurzel and the film’s three screenwriters here have taken the Immortal Bard’s work and not condensed it, not changed its central themes, not simplified its language, but adapted it to the screen. That involved removing unnecessary scenes and lines, reordering some of the others and generally adjusting to the setting and tone that is being shown here. That takes a lot of guts.

Did it pay off? Let’s dissect it and find out.

First of all, let’s talk about our anti-hero of the evening, Macbeth, of course. Here he’s played by Michael Fassbender who doesn’t give a Shakespearean style performance, but more of a deep growl through his soliloquies which I know for a fact annoyed some of the people I watched this with. I didn’t annoy me. Fassbender once again shows us that he can not only replace Ian McKellen in pretty much any performance he ever did, but do it with a grit that melds directly into this world. I am still trying to work out how I feel about Macbeth the character, both in the play and in this movie and this ambiguity is further fueled by a superb turn by this Irish-German Scot impersonator.

When I saw the simply brilliant trailer for this movie, I was only concerned by one thing; was Marion Cottilard a good fit for Lady Macbeth? Yes. Yes she was. She absolutely knocks it out of the park. Her whispers and sharp Englishy Scottishy tones along with her impressive stance lends itself to the venomously ambitious wannabe Queen.

I mentioned near the beginning of this review that there was a silent film based on Macbeth over 100 years ago. That’s an interesting point as I would say that this film is in some ways silent. Obviously we have swathes of beautiful language, but so much of the poetry that makes me want to revisit this film again is visual alongside in its dialogue.

Remember Apocalypse Now? (Obviously if you haven’t seen it, you won’t and if you have seen it you do, it’s so phenomenally unforgettable.) The ending to that film is built up over the course of the film with so much talking and action and visual wonder and yet when it comes to it we see naught but beautiful shadows as the biblically thick subtext explodes in a bloody finale. That’s a lot like Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth. The writing knows precisely when to rely on the rich cinematography of the D.P Adam Akapaw who captured the Isle of Skye to represent Glamis through poetry of images and the greatest writer in all history and his skill in the poetry of words. This is why cinema is my personal favourite medium of art. Plus it has a big battle in it.

I love this movie. It is now my favourite adaptation of Shakespeare to screen. Do I think it’s perfect? Not absolutely. The only gripe I have is the removal of some of my favourite lines along with the necessary editing I have just raved about. I’m actually surprised that some of these parts were removed. A number of them are seminal lines of the written word.

If you’re looking for an absolute Shakespeare experience and have it on-screen rather than on stage or on paper, I’d recommend the 1978 RSC movie with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench as the Macbeths. This is what I’d say is pure Shakespearean cinema. I honestly think that if Shakespeare had written Macbeth for the screen he would do so here. Some of the filmmaking decisions are so good that I shuddered as I did upon hearing “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow” for the first time.

Some people studied Shakespeare at school and may have had bad experiences with his writing. Perhaps you believe he is too poncy, too incomprehensible, and too old. It is absolutely your prerogative to think that. Just because he is known as history’s greatest writer, doesn’t mean you have to believe it. I would however suggest that you watch this film. If this doesn’t convince you that the Bard is cool, nothing will.

Recommended Scenario: If you love Shakespeare or hate him, this Scottish Play is right for you.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Guys, there’s liquid water on Mars! I’m sorry, I’m kind of still getting to grips with that. Isn’t science great?!

Science certainly is great for Matt Damon’s Mark Wattney in this year’s adaptation of Andy Weir’s bestselling novel, The Martian. He has been accidentally left behind by his crew and must find a way to survive in this alien world.

Director Ridley Scott is one of the few properly good and respected directors that has a large filmography demonstrating a full range of quality. The same man who brought us Gladiator also brought us Hannibal. The man who brought us Alien brought us Prometheus. My friends and family have been so excited for The Martian. I honestly didn’t know what to expect.

I can safely say that my fears were not entirely justified.

Mars is the only planet we as humans have plans to land on anytime soon. The reason we haven’t done it yet is not its toxic atmosphere, its lack of surface water or its freezing temperature (we landed on the Moon didn’t we, 50 years ago). Its because it’s really far away. Four years away, at least.

Scott’s expert lensing captures this arid landscape in a way I think is actually kinda uniquely good. I have seen a lot of movies and TV shows take us to Mars and beyond. For the first time, I feel like this is an authentic representation of the Red Planet.

Speaking of authentic representation, the Science seems legit. I am definitely not a NASA scientist, but when the science babble feels close to physics lessons I remember from School, I feel I can trust it. There are a couple of moments I thought otherwise, but most of this appears accurate, according to my calculations.

But this movie is called The Martian, not Mars, so how is the lad we are told to spend a great number of SOL’s with?

Oscar Winning Screenwriter Matt Damon here has never been more likable. Like Tom Hanks levels of likability. Not only is Wattney an expert in his field and thus has the smarts to at least attempt the long struggle to survive.

He’s also surprisingly upbeat. Obviously, it being a lone survivor movie we have the moments of desperation breaking down our protagonist, yet I feel that the humour in this movie, not just from Damon, is somehow a realistic reaction for human beings. This balance of seriousness and lack of it is what comes out of some quite clever writing. Think of Gone Girl and its jovial tone mixed in with the darkness of that story.

There’s something about this story I can’t spoil that I have not seen in any of the lone-survivor movies I’ve seen. I tell you that it makes for some sort of mix between Apollo 13 and Life of Pi and it’s perfectly good.

I’m relieved at how good The Martian turned out to be.

My only real complaints are that some of the more serious scenes didn’t get serious enough for my taste, though like I said, I enjoyed a lot of the levity. Something like his thoughts on suicide would be nice. Not nice, but you know what I mean. I also find the pacing to be a little off sometimes. I suppose the only way this film could be done is compress time to a thriller-style rate of progression.

The exposition at times I can see being a drag for some people, it was a little for me. On the most part they deliver it well.

Overall, I don’t think this film is entirely worth the hype, strange considering it had that terrible spoiler-filled trailer, but it is a very well put together movie. I can’t imagine this sort of film being easy to make entertaining, with a subject like this.

Not a great Ridley Scott film, but certainly one of his better ones.

Recommended Scenario: If you want some heartfelt and sciencey science-fiction.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

When Mad Max: Fury Road came out, some complained that Tom Hardy didn’t have a big enough presence in the film despite playing the title character, with a lot of the story’s focus dedicated to Charlize Theron’s awesomely stereotype-twisting role as Furiosa. To those people, I give a movie where we have twice the Tom Hardy for your buck.

Legend stars Tom Hardy as both Reginald and Ronald Kray, two gangsters who practically ruled London during the 1950s and 60s.

I find gangsters endlessly fascinating. The fact that there are people that are so powerful that they are above the law and will do anything to sustain that power is a terrifying and horribly poetic idea dating back to the ancients. That’s what makes the title Legend so appropriate. The Krays are legendary and this story shows their reign in a manner similar to iconic accounts of great kings. If you want to find about these twins, I recommend, as I do whenever watching a biopic, researching them after watching the movie.

The choice to have Tom Hardy play both identical twins is honestly one of the smartest filmmaking decisions of the decade. It could also have been one of the most foolish. Hardy had to bring about the similarities between these two very violent individuals while also showing that they are different people. Not to mention the technicalities of showing him talking to himself.

Luckily I can write that Tom Hardy and the superb visual effects department of Legend have surpassed all expectations I had by many a mile. At certain points I forgot that I was watching Tom Hardy. I only saw Ronnie or Reggie Kray in every brutal detail. Most times I can hazard a guess how a particular effect was done, in a movie. Here, though, I will have to watch the making of documentary. It is simply astounding. As my Dad and I left the cinema, he turned to me and asked, “So who played Ronnie? I know Tom Hardy played Reggie.” Praise does not get much higher.

Wait for it though, because praise is only going to increase in this review. Throughout the film Emily Browning gives a cool narration as the lover of Reggie Kray, Frances Shea. It feels like this is a story read to us by a primary source round a fire at night, further emphasising the level of Legend we are dealing with.

This device makes one feel like we are watching a Martin Scorsese film. I won’t say that this film has quite the same directional flair that Scorsese brings to his films, but it has no less brutality. I noted several fantastic nods to his 1990 masterpiece Goodfellas throughout the film. Fortunately this never gets in the way of the story and Legend‘s own blend of styles, it simply pays homage to the master of the gangster movie. The tributes are used for the sake of the film rather than as an excuse to say “One of cinema’s best directors did it, so it must be good.”

I’ve already written too much about this movie. I can think of no negatives. The writing, the direction, the acting, particularly from Hardy, is beyond Oscar worthy. Please go see it if you haven’t already.

Critics will write anything in the hope that it makes it onto either a poster or a DVD/Blu-Ray cover. I’d quite happily be quoted in saying that Legend IS the British Goodfellas. Yes. It really is that good!

Recommended Scenario: If you want to live through the lives of two criminals in one of the best movies of the year.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

This is interesting. For the second time in two weeks I’m reviewing a spy movie based on a TV show from the 60s.

This film, The Man from U.N.C.L.E, tells the story of a C.I.A Agent and a K.G.B Agent, played by Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer respectively, who must reluctantly team up at the height of the cold war to stop someone turning up the war’s heat.

Guy Ritchie directed this movie. This accounts for the stylish way in which it portrays Europe in the 60s and for the often superb handling of the action which often combines drama, suspense and comedy.

In this regard, U.N.C.L.E is very similar to Ritchie’s recent and, in my opinion, underrated Sherlock Holmes movies.

Those movies also counted on a double-act, in the form of Holmes and Watson. Here, the double act of Cavill and Hammer is pretty convincing. There are a good number of quips between the two of them that are very satisfying.

The writing is often good at bringing out this chemistry. What it is not good at is bringing this chemistry in the third major character of the group.

This third is an East German lady who of course forms some kind of sexual tension in the trio. There’s another female character who is also needlessly sexualised. While this can be seen as a throwback to the gratuitously sexification of women in the spy genre, it’s done with no knowing wink to the audience and often makes me scratch my head and/or yawn. The good thing is, it’s nowhere near as bad as Jupiter Ascending.

Another issue I have with the film is an aspect of Ritchie’s directing inherited from Sherlock Holmes, wherein the film backtracks a little bit to explain something clever a character did before the audience’s eyes. For example someone might sneakily steal a wallet and when he/she explains what they did, we see the moment they stole it from a different angle. Sometimes this works, like in the case I just stated. However, sometimes it feels like the film thinks the audiences are simple.

So did I hate this movie? No. The two leads, some of the comedic writing, the action and the editing was entertaining enough.

One thing it did capture well was the tension between the two sides of the cold war, without overly explaining what it was all for.

I can’t compare 2015’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E to its 60s original, but I feel like the typically American, British Henry Cavill and the decidedly Russian, American Armie Hammer give some retro charm under the wing of the British Guy Ritchie.

Recommended Scenario: When you want a light version of Inglorious Basterds set a couple decades later than that film.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.