Category: Released in 2016

Let’s put this review this review into Cruise Control as Tom Cruise is back as Jack Reacher in this latest Lee Child adaptation thriller.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back has Reacher try to defend a Mayor in the army who has been accused of having ordered two of her men dead and has many people after her.

The previous Jack Reacher flick was relatively interesting. It came out not long before Tom Cruise’s failed sci-fi dystopian film Oblivion which also had him play a guy called Jack, and it tried to be something of a grounded thriller. Grounded being a relative term when it comes to Tom’s movies. It had some cool fight scenes, but it was pretty much a TV mystery movie with a bit more of a budget and with Werner Herzog as the villain for some reason (though I’m not complaining, I could listen to him for hours).

This film goes for that “realism” once again. And once again it’s Tom’s realism.

I still have no idea why Jack is pretty much a homeless man despite the fact that, at least at the start of this film, he doesn’t have anyone after him. If he acted like a homeless man who kicked ass, it would be kind of interesting instead of annoying. Of course, when people come after him, it’s a Private Military Company so no real government institutions get offended in real life.

The movie does have some cool, surprisingly violent fights (which makes me think some stuff was cut to get a 12A) and multiple moments of Tom Cruise running. The latter thing made me laugh on a couple of occasions as it looked like Tom wanted to run in a scene whether he needed to or not. Running = EXCITEMENT!

Thrown into the mix is Reacher’s maybe-maybe-not daughter. It’s the main crutch on which this injured soldier of a story rests and its made of easily broken glass. I hate the kid, I hate her relationship with Reacher, I hate the “drama” and it makes me really not like Reacher himself, just for how boring it gets.

The only truly redeeming feature is Cobie Smulders as the badass soldier Reacher tries to protect/try to date. She’s just pretty cool. Although, looking at her Wikipedia, she’s 20 years younger than ol’ Tom. Hmm…

These films are the Takens of Tom Cruise’s filmography. People raised their eyebrows out of vague interest at the first instalment. Now we wish our brows had remained securely fixed.

Recommended Scenario: Really? Well, maybe if you’ll see ANYTHING Tom Cruise is in.

To borrow an expression I’ve heard from a few people, this IS Tim Burton’s X-Men.

Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is a family film directed by Mr Burton. It follows Jake as a boy who is taken to a magical place, a time loop of one day in 1942, where there is a children’s home for children with supernatural abilities run by a shape-shifting woman played by Eva Green.

This movie gives me not much to work with due to its lack of originality in the broad strokes. That premise I just gave, with a couple of words changed could summarise a thousand Y.A movies. I will give credit to the whole time loop thing being pretty cool, but Doctor Who did it first and better.

That’s just the start of this film’s problems. Asa Butterfield, that kid who I think was the other boy in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, plays Jake. I generally try to give credit to young actors. Acting is not easy, particularly at that age. However, Asa is just bad here. Whether it’s his fault or a script or directing issue, I have no idea, but he is so boring to look at and listen to.

Samuel L. Jackson plays the main bad guy here as an evil scientist who wanted to become immortal yet inadvertently turned his masters into things that look like Slenderman (don’t ask, I don’t get it either). He and his evil brethren have a dastardly yet confusing and boring plan to gain immortality by consuming the eyes of children or something. It’s stupid and I hate it, plus it leads to some of the most gratuitously gory imagery I have ever seen in a movie and that is no exaggeration. This is the level of “surface cool” Tim Burton provides here.

Now don’t get mad, but I don’t think Tim Burton is the genius everyone thinks he is. I hate being the guy who says this kind of stuff. I don’t like being negative about the work of one guy. Yet in spite of all the praise that gets thrown his way for how “original” and “dark” his films are, I can only think of 3 or 4 good ones, the last one being Sweeney Todd and that was just less than 10 years ago.

I put Burton in the same category of director as Zack Snyder and Michael Bay. They have one cool thing that they do and they put it on loop. Cool being the operative word as there is no warmeth or depth to it, it’s just “hey ain’t this neat”.

I appear to be trashing this film, and I am, but I will give it credit that some of these cool things I mentioned are indeed cool. It’s just a shame that there are just so many layers and layers of nonsense.

Recommended Scenario: If you’re a Tim Burton completionist.

DC has had a pretty rough few years, what with their Extended Universe being a dumpster fire of epic proportions and even their adaptation of Alan Moore’s immortal The Killing Joke containing gratuitous Batman/Batgirl sex, this throwback to the 60s is their last chance to save their 2010s.

Return of the Caped Crusaders marks the animated return of 60s camp style Batman with voice work from Adam West as Batman, Burt Ward as Robin and Julie Newmar as Catwoman.

When I say camp, I mean camp and purely hilarious. I watched with a bunch of friends, some of whom were fans of this period of Bat-history already. This is the best scenario for watching this, sorry to spoil it so soon. We were often in tears of laughter.

Adam West is in full Mayor West from Family Guy mode here. Not necessarily in his delivery which is closer to Batman, but in his timing. Burt Ward plays to the questionable sexuality of his character in sublime fashion.

That’s’ before we get to all of the Deadpool-level fourth-wall-breaking. This really is the year of self-reflection being the best policy in movies and out.

This is the kind of saving grace I want Warner Bros to learn from. I have no idea how they can save their DCEU, but maybe if they go out on this high and focus on that Fantastic Beasts thing, or better yet Warner Bros does something NEW, they can salvage their souls.

The OTT humour is not the only thing taken from 60s Batman. They also borrowed some its awkwardness.

This works wonders for a lot of it. When it cuts to the villains their so bad they’re good puns don’t quite land. I’m somehow OK with this.

What surprised me was how the meta nature wove into the plot so fascinatingly. The strangely dark places the story went were reflective of the dark places that the character of Batman has gone in his near 80-year history.

This is exactly what I wanted from this film.

Recommended Scenario: It’s already out on DVD/Blu-Ray. It’s a great stocking filler.

British director Andrea Arnold has given me one of the most complex movies to write about this year. It’s not a confusing film, but it is a deep, deep film.

She has directed a film called American Honey starring a psychology student called Sasha Lane, an art piece called Shia Labeouf and a country called the U.S.A. Lane plays a teenager who is picked up by a group of down and out magazine selling youths and gradually falls under the spell of one of them, played by Labeouf.

The casting process, having, looking it up online, was very much a case of life imitating art. Arnold walked up and down a beach looking out for drunken youths and asked the most adventurous ones if they’d be in her movie. Out of this came a brilliant first performance from 20-year-old Sasha Lane in this film.

Opposite her, LaBeouf does a lot more acting stuff, his performance involving more energy and is practically gift-wrapped for the man. Overall, though, to compare these two is like asking who does a better performance between Brando and Pacino in The Godfather. Pointless.

The whole film is in a wonderful mix of neo-realism and hard diajesis. All the music and life of the story feels like it’s happening within the movie’s 1:1.33 aspect ratio. A documentary would feel less real.

On top of that, this might be the best looking and sounding movie of the year. We follow these kids as they discover themselves and the world. This journey works its way with one helluva soundtrack, moving from Bruce Springsteen to something more modern and cool, seamlessly. This might be the only time I’ve heard Rhianna’s ubiquitous Hopeless Place and liked it as it fits so darn well, helping me prove my point that if there’s a piece of music, there’s a film that needs it and vice-versa.

While we take this ride, we are appalled and enamored by these kids. They infuriate us through their decisions, but we love them as we as the audience are their parents, despite them mostly being older than me.

Like in Hunt for the Wilderpeople the film asks us to come out of our comfortable existences and watch an 18-year-old drop into a skip to find food. That’s our opening scene and the film continues with this image burned into our minds throughout. This is Oliver asking for some more, which is fitting since this would be the Oliver Twist of this generation, if Oliver Twist wasn’t already the Oliver Twist for every generation.

I reserve the right to not call American Honey an outright masterpiece as there is something wrong with this very moving road movie. There is no reason for it to be 160 minutes. I can’t say exactly where a cut should have been made, but 2 hours and 40 minutes feels a little indulgent.

Then again, I love P.T.A’s over-indulgent masterwork Magnolia, so what do I know?

Recommended Scenario: If you wanna sit down with a near 3-hour road movie with the feel of a documentary and the emotional power of a V8.

Trust Emma Malins to recommend we watch one of the best films of the year!

The Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a comedy set in New Zealand starring Julian Dennison as a troubled youth called Ricky who is adopted by two farmers played by Rima Te Wiata and Sam Neil. Due to bizarre yet oddly moving circumstances, Ricky and Uncle Hec must go on the run from the New Zealand police in the Bush!

I don’t know if this is the funniest new movie I’ve seen this year, but its pretty close. Newcomer Julian Dennison is a diamond of comic timing and his chemistry with a curmudgeonly Sam Neil is electrifying.

Their journey through New Zealand’s gorgeous landscapes is so funny, so magical and just so lovely that if I wasn’t laughing, I was beaming with sheer delight.

I didn’t get a chance to see What We Do In The Shadows, but I now know why everyone was going crazy for Taika Waititi’s direction and writing. I hate hearing this expression, plus it’s probably too early for this anyway, but this guy might just be the next Edgar Wright in terms of comic skill behind the camera. Maybe this guy’s Marvel dreams won’t fall through.

What elevates this film is, of course, the main characters. Not only are they funny as hell, but the film’s intrinsic theme of the abandonment by society and judgment of kids is executed to a T in such a way you’d think Paul Thomas Anderson had a hand in it.

Jeez, I’ve mentioned 3 great modern directors in this review so far. It’s almost as if we are in a golden age of cinema or something!

I’m genuinely finding it hard work to find something wrong with this film. This really is one of the most perfectly done films I’ve seen this year.

Recommended Scenario: Please watch this Indie darling of a mini-masterpiece.

 

This is a movie based on the life of one of my grandfather’s heroes. It better be at least okay.

The man who knew Infinity tells the true story of Srinivasa Ramanujan and Indian clerk who early 20th century was invited to Cambridge University where he proved himself to be one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

 

 

Jeremy Irons please the man who practically discovers the Indian genius and takes under is wing. Quite frankly Irons could have been our maths professor and previous life so he does well. Toby Jones is calling in both banter and charming way.

Ramamounjin himself couldn’t be played by anyone other than Dev Patel. Young actors practically the face of his country to the west, in all its wistful romance and all the wistful romance Bollywood season itself. His addition here is perfect for the Spielbergian whimsy of this picture.

One critic described this film as “Good Will Hunting for the 21st century”. In terms of it being a story about undervalued genius from a poor background trying to prove himself amongst intellectuals can fault the logic. In terms of Srinivasa’s character? Will Hunting is quite different is considerably more complex. It’s no coincidence though that this comparison is made since in good will hunting, Stellan Skarsgard’s character compares Will to Ramanujan.

The feel-good charm of this film is undeniable. I love some sugar filled sentimental stuff from time to time. My only issue being that this film is not terribly well structured exacerbated by weird editing.

All the although this is pretty much direct to DVD sports movie involving numbers. I think the film knows this.

Recommended Scenario: If you’re in the mood for a pretty decent British Bollywood film.

At the time of this review, it has been just over 3 weeks since I saw the girl on the train. Third-year and YouTube videos do not a productive blogger make.

The Girl on the Train is a thriller based on the bestselling novel I confess I have not read and stars Emily Blunt whose character watches a perfect couple through a train window every day. That is until she sees something that changes everything.

 

 

That’s the vaguest synopsis, I’ve written for a while and for good reason. This is, in all intents and purposes, a mystery. And much like in my review for Gone Girl, spoilers would be poison.

Gone Girl is probably the best comparison I can think of for this movie. Both fall very neatly into this form of 21st-century, cynical neo-noir and of course both of extremely clichéd words with it within the title. (Seriously, how many thrillers have “girl” or “gone” or “train” in their name.)

Both relied on the surprise factor for the best Internet connections, different levels of success. Executed their different thing well, but you could see it from a mile away while GOTT it extremely well particularly in its advertising but was hampered by a lack of skill in the execution of the big picture.

GOTT’s marketing was quite clever. We know that Emily Blunt’s character looked out the window and that would start. The thing she sees, however, is not what you’d expect and’s character is not someone you’d expect her to play.

Subverting expectations becomes a major part of the form and function of the entire film. Props to the story for using its main theme in as many ways as possible. The drawback lies in the predictability of the final twist is a bad twist, but one that doesn’t challenge or move me like gone girl dead.

That film me with Fincher’s unrelenting nihilistic tendencies this one kind of felt like a TV show. It’s best comparison would probably be that show The Tunnel which had a completely ridiculous twist which didn’t quite match up with what I was wanting.

I’m not here to knock TV, but long-form is generally the best route for this kind of thriller.

I do not heed this film. I like it. It’s well paced, the acting (particularly from Blunt) is great, the direction is good.

I just can see it move me.

Recommended Scenario: TV night in with your significant other.

Before you shout at me, I have no excuse for the lateness of my reviews recently. I’m sorry.

Today on catch-up time, I’ll be reviewing a film I saw what feels like ages ago, The Infiltrator starring Bryan Cranston. He stars as an FBI undercover agent in the 1980s trying to take down the largest drug cartel in US history. This apparently actually happened though it wasn’t actually Bryan Cranston.

The best way to describe this movie would be if American Hustle took itself seriously. This is a film with comic moments rather than a comedy with a serious subject matter.

This plot’s love of procedure and the process of catching drunk baddies is a beautiful and. John Le Carre spy movie we see one man’s attempts to support an enemy far beyond the comprehension of his own government. I love this kind of movie.

Also Bryan Cranston in this movie, from the moment he is introduced with Rush’s Tom Sawyer playing, he oozes out cool.

His character is an interesting departure from the cliches of his time. The job affects the people around him, sure, yet apart from having to outwardly play his part a few times, he remains a good man. Many obstacles faced by this experience NARC are of his own doing.

Another fantastic element is his relationship with two colleagues Emir and Kathy. With the former, he has a partnership were both genuinely learn from one another while with the other he actually finds a true friendship, not some love triangle crap.

The film was rated through an ever so slightly dirty lens leading at 70s filmic quality I haven’t seen since Inherent Vice.

I’m sorry this little for me to say. It’s good. Sorry about the wait for something so anticlimactic.

Recommended Scenario: If you’re a fan of good solid thrillers.

The trailer for this most recent film version of Ben-Hur was just awful. CGI mess showing us what’s wrong with Hollywood. Time to see whether my fears were justified.

Ben-Hur is the classic tale of revenge and chariot racing in the Roman world originally brought to us in a novel by Lew Wallace. Judah Ben-Hur is a Jewish aristocrat in Jerusalem at the time of Christ who is betrayed and placed into slavery by rubbing friend of his. Come to think of it, it really is a lot like that Ridley Scott film. You know, Blade Runner.

The story was most famously adapted in 1959 into a movie directed by William Wyler. That version 1 a record 11 Oscars (like that ever meant anything) and included the single most impressive action scene ever committed to film, a glorious chariot race.

While the link is one of them must see sword and sandal pictures, it is actually the first film version of the story. Before it to silent versions existed which were apparently very good.

So maybe a remake in 2016 is that sacrilegious.

In some regards, in fact, this movie is an improvement on the 50s version.

While I’d or slow pace in some epics, I understand that the 1959 Ben-Hur’s near four-hour runtime is hard to stomach for some. This iteration is more manageable for modern audiences in terms of the speed of events.

Connected to this is the film structure which allows for an opening action sequence to get the crowd pumped rather than a long close-up of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the old version. CGI is all around, but at least there is some inciting violence.

What they really mean an upgrade on was the real relationship between Ben-Hur and Masala, the Roman who betrays him. We now care about the latter and really believe that there is a loss for both sides. This idea of love and enemies is a much better connection to the Christian centre of this film.

Yes, this film is Christian. In this movie Jesus does appear. I have no sympathy with people who will be offended by this. There is however a substantial difference in the betrayals of Christ in both versions.

50s Jesus is always shown with his back to the camera and with no lines providing with a sense of gravitas moving with the times, the 2016 Jesus seems more human and shown in full as a man. Both versions are great and show different sides of the Messiah will stop its up to who you prefer.

There are a couple of good editing months to. Not much to say on it, but it is another positive.

So a good Ben-Hur? Well, I don’t know…

The action does get quite exciting in the way’s shot, but it is hampered by truly terrible computer-generated imagery. Stuff that would make 2000s TV shake its head.

The majority of this film’s problems are in its aesthetics. The digital photography is so clean that looks like we are watching people play Romans rather than Romans being Romans.

Charlton Heston played the title character in the old version and that man, for all his flaws, could do unbridled charisma. Whoever it is in this movie, I can’t remember who it is, just count. Nobody except Morgan Freeman in a supporting role (giving completely unnecessary narration occasionally) seems to have the look and gravitas to feature in an epic.

There are other problems I Get into without going into spoiler territory. Suffice to say though, Ben-Hur ends with a pop song over the CGI closing credits in 2016!

Recommended Scenario: If you think you can put up with what is described in that last paragraph, this movie may be for you.

Laika is yet another animation studio which has been producing an output of brilliant films for years, apparently, and I am only now watching one of them. Sometimes it feels efficient, self a critic!

Kubo and the Two Strings tells the story of a boy, Kubo, who uses his guitar to summon spells and samurai era Japan. He is forced to go on a journey to find his father’s armour and sword, so you might protect himself from his Grandfather, the evil Moon King.

Everyone’s been going on about how is the best film of the year. They say it’s the most perfectly executed movie ever made. I think such criticism with a grain of salt. I’m of the feeling that many, when they come across a great film, an animated film particularly, overemphasise their opinions for two reasons. One because they want to convince the uninitiated animation is not just kids’ stuff. To because of the stouter for when they would only watch animated films.

The mean these people are wrong. I often being among them. This reaction is paired often with one of the magnificent Studio Ghibli Animes and yes, some of their work is among the greatest cinema ever created.

So is this?

First of all, Laika specialises in puppet stop motion animation. They are bloody good at it! Every motion, every colour, every character bursts forth with furious and extraordinary life.

Next is those characters. All of them are brilliantly created. All have personalities I can relate to. Heck, even Kubo who a lesser movie would come across as some sort of generic, wonder-bread protagonist, is a joy to behold here.

The world’s characters inhabit is akin to the world of Ghibli. Not only is set in mediaeval Japan and contains a great deal of magic, but the people in this world feel like they live, work and died here they are part of the setting and the setting remains part of them. A key trait in at Studio Ghibli film.

In the first two-thirds of the film, I was floored by the animation, entranced by the setup and thrilled with the adventuring characters!

Then the third act happened. The third act is a tricky thing to pull off in most films, particularly in Ghibli films which this is clearly emulating. However, the reveal of some of the twists in this film’s closing third is so obvious and emotionally uninvolving that it makes the cryptic and technically brilliant final moments of the movie lack potency.

Nadine this is one of those movies I have to watch twice to fully get. That was something I expected considering how hiked up this film was. If anything, though, it approves the film.

It means I can watch it again.

Recommended Scenario: If you love beautiful animation and a great adventure with an ending which makes you think.