The 15 17 to Paris

Spoilers ahead.

Firsts thing first, let just give Clint Eastwood some praise for the ballsy decision to cast the real-life soldiers in his film; rather than hiring actors. It was this factor that was always going to make or break the film, they might be heroic soldiers, but could they act? Surprisingly they can, with Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, being particularly good. However, that is where the positives end for this film. The first half an hour when the 3 men are children, is painfully hard to watch, with none of the child stars being at all likeable. Furthermore, there is some needless political and religious message shoved in for the what feels like the sake of it. This continues to be a problem throughout the film. The writing for this film often sets up a theme or plotline and then just moves on to the next one, never satisfyingly delivering on them, and all these subplots and anecdotal things just feel tacked on. What is the ultimate negative of this film, is the titular train is only about 15 minutes of the overall 1 hour, 30 minutes run time. Everything else that encompasses the other 1 hour and 15 minutes is glorified filler, that tries to establish the soldier’s lives and what motivates them but ultimately falls flat. In addition, it seems that Eastwood knows most of his film is filler as he foreshadows, (in almost a teasing way) the train journey throughout. This is shown when Spencer says “I feel like life is catapulting me towards something” about halfway through the runtime, they have a whole conversation about it, it’s the most blatant, badly used foreshadowing I’ve seen in quite some time. Another issue with the film is that a lot of the dialogue feels trite and unbelievable, this is again mainly presented in the section when they are children. The lines that particularly brought me out of it, were when the children were introducing each other by their last names, as well as an emotional scene where a young Spencer and Alek are saluting each other that just feels wrong and out of place. The film is really split into 3 parts when they are all children being the first, (which is damn near unwatchable, with Judy Greer performance as Joyce Eskel being it’s only saving grace). The other two were the trip around Europe that the 3 men were on, and then finally the train ride. Whilst the trip around Europe is well shot and to a degree enjoyable, it has an unmistakable feeling of filler and feels weirdly off base with what the rest of the film is about, and makes you question why Eastwood put it in. However, the final section when they’re on the train is where Eastwood shines, with it being an incredibly well shot, and having a very real, visceral, believable feel to it; that manages to capture the seriousness of the situation. It just as shame that this good sequence is only about 15 minutes of the film. Overall, I left questioning a lot of things, mainly whether this would have been better as a documentary rather than a feature film? Secondly why a lot of scenes has been included? Thirdly why the script rammed political and religious messages down your throat? If I had to point out the biggest issue the film has it would have to be the script, which was wildly, and I mean wildly all over the place, with some of the worst dialogue and foreshadowing, I’ve possibly seen in years. The only redeemable qualities the film has are, Judy Greer’s performance, the 3 soldiers were all convincing and performed well, and the final section of the film on the train is well-done and believable. To conclude I can’t suggest you go out and see this because it just has so many problems, and the only enjoyable part of the film is the last 15 minutes; that’s just a bad investment for your money.

1/5
Reviewed by Luke.

The Mercy

Spoilers ahead
The Mercy is based on the life of sailor Donald Crowhurst, who was a weekend sailor who decided to participate in the Golden Globe race in 1968. When I went to see this film, I had no idea about the real-life story or the events that had happened, as a result, all the twists and turns were quite surprising to me. However, I believe this film biggest reveal that he decided to lie and fake his progress because he couldn’t go on was ruined by the trailer; so, when this was revealed my emotional response was tapered because I was waiting for it to happen. Furthermore, I think the plot suffers from some leaps in logic, with the ending being an example of this, with me questioning the characters motivations a lot of the time as I don’t believe that character’s motivations were properly established. In terms of tone the film is quite melancholy and even depressing, with the trailers seeming to suggest that it was going to be much more inspirational then it was. The film itself did two things that impressed me. The first was the use of digetic sound, to accurately present this idea of isolation out at sea, this was done to a masterful degree by Johann Johannsson who did the music design. This triumph of sound design is shown in one particular scene when Colin Firth’s character of Donald is playing the harmonica around Christmas time, and the scene perfectly captures the isolation and loneliness the man would have been feeling. The second thing that impressed me was the use of monologues, through these monologues we see the slow slip into madness that Donald goes through and we see his inner thoughts, this helps to empathises the emotional impact and helps the audience to emote and feel sorry for his character, as we can see the tole this adventure takes on him. Furthermore, the deconstruction of the character of Donald Crowhurst himself is quite interesting here, as we are first presented we a man who a family man is, who isn’t a proper sailor, but then we see him sacrifice more and more towards his ultimate end and we begin to question his character and decisions. The director James March does this deliberately to show these two contrasting ideas of Crowhurst, making the audience reach their own conclusions about what type of man he was. There are also quite a few nice montage scenes here which are used quite effectively and to great impact. The performances here from, Colin Firth (Donald Crowhurst), Racheal Weisz (Claire Crowhurst) and David Thewlis (Rodney Hallworth), are all top calibre. With the standout performance being by David Thewlis, who though not heavily featured managed to be charming, funny and memorable in his small role. I think this film also suffered from thinking it was cleverer then it was, and almost had an Oscar bait tone towards it; that it never quite managed to live up to.

Despite some plot holes and leaps in logic, the strong performances manage to improve the overall film. Still, with many other Oscar bait films out at this time of the year, I wonder if you’re time wouldn’t be better served watching something else. Whilst a riveting tale, this film also manages to be depressing and at time dull and ultimately a disappointment.

2.5/ 5
Reviewed by Luke.

Den of Thieves

To sum this movie up, this is a heist film like the Oceans film series but without the charm. This movie like other heist films has twists and turns and in this particular case, they come in 2 varieties. The first is blindingly obvious such as when the characters are robbing a bank, and then they escape into the sewers; which was obviously what they were going to do from the beginning of the scene. The second type is the twists that are wildly confusing, and are thrown in in an attempt to try and make this film seem cleverer than it is, the end twist is an example of this, said twist undoes quite a lot of character decisions and makes you think, well why would such a character have done that then. So it’s quite easy to say that my main issue with this film is the script and the plot, with the only real way to enjoy this movie is to switch your brain off and not think about it too much. The acting, for the most part, is quite one-note and generic, with me not remembering even what the characters were called after seeing it, and the whole film just not being memorable. Unlike, in the much superior film, Ingrid goes west, O’Shea Jackson Jr brings no charm to the role, with his protagonist character never really being likable. 50 Cents character of Levi Enson is barely in the movie at all, and though there is one scene that tries to develop his character this scene feels oddly out of place, because up until this point in the film he’s barely been given a second thought. Then there is Gerard Butler’s character of Big Nick, which though being the antagonist of the movie even going so far as to say “we are the bad guys” in one lacking line of dialogue, is arguably the most likable character in the film. Butler’s character even has some funny lines in the film, and is even made vulnerable to the audience in a scene, where one is left to question are you trying to make the antagonist of your film likable? It would have been a similar issue if Andy Garcia’s character had been made likable in the before mentioned Oceans series. Despite this, we also see him as a terrible husband and as a manipulator, arguably he is the most fleshed out character in the movie and is the only memorable thing when the credits roll. Some of the cinematography in this film is pretty beautifully shot, with one scene in particular of Butler’s character Nick standing on a beach on the morning of the heist, and the visuals are quite stunning.The last thing I wanted to mention was Pablo Schreiber’s character of Merrimen, his character is poorly written his character’s motivations are at times puzzling and other times just head scratching. The final twist as I mentioned before completely underwrites his character and makes you think really as if I suppose to believe that. However much like Rosa Salazar, I think that Pablo Schreiber is a rising star, with him being able to elevate the stilted dialogue he is given.

To conclude this film is beautifully shot in parts, funny (unintentionally) in parts, with good performances from Schreiber and Butler. Whilst also being bland, generic, badly written and just baffling throughout, with one of the most pointless twists I’ve seen in a long time.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke.

12 Strong

At its core 12 Strong is a standard war film with ideas of grandeur. It needs to be remembered when we talk about 12 Strong that it is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, the same man who produced Black Hawk Down, so there is a degree of pedigree to this film. Furthermore, this film is beautifully shot; with some stunning vista and establishing shots that really paint a picture. Also, there is a number of interesting decisions by the director Nicolai Fuglsig, such as his use of shadow in certain shots from the base camp scenes that add an artistic flair to proceedings. The character work is strong, but only in one character, Abdul Rashid Dostum; the leader of the Alliance, Played by Navid Negahban. Negahban brings a heart to this film, being the only truly memorable character after the credits roll, his bond with Hemsworth’s Mitch Nelson is very believable and remains good throughout. Michael Pena’s character of Sam Diller is completely one note, and until writing this review I couldn’t even remember his name. Diller is mainly a comic relief character, only the problem with that is that most of his jokes aren’t very funny, just being bad. Secondly, Michael Shannon’s character of Carl Spencer is given more to do and does have some genuinely touching emotional beats, but somehow manages to feel wasted, especially when you compare his performance to that of Hemsworth. Following on from that Chris Hemsworth in this is bland, that’s putting it mildly, really anyone could play his role as he brings so little to it. Hemsworth’s shortcomings are really apparent when compared to Shannon’s performance which managed to be memorable if only brief, and one is left to ask why they didn’t give Shannon the lead role. The biggest issue with this film is the plot, for a start, they have a subplot which revolves around the 12 man team splitting in half, one half goes off to fight, the other stay at the base camp. The issue comes from all the scenes that cut away from the 6 out fighting and goes back to the base camp, these scenes drag on and feel wholly uninteresting when compared to the other scenes away from the base camp. Thankfully this subplot is wrapped up halfway through the runtime, and everyone is reunited. What’s more is there are leaps in logic akin to that of a Michael Bay movie, (the movie also manages to match his level of explosions), which really bring you out of the film. An example is early on in the film, it is revealed that Hemsworth’s Mitch hasn’t killed anyone and that he doesn’t have “Killer Eyes”. However later in the film, he can just kill people indiscriminately, with only one short scene explaining the shift and the toll that change brings to him psychologically. The film in many ways tried to have similar elements to Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker, even to the point that one of the soldiers in 12 Strong befriends a young boy, just like Jeremy Renner’s character in the Hurt Locker. Furthermore, the film seemed to think that it had something to say, a commentary on war or something of the sort, in a similar vein to Zero Dark Thirty, but it really just comes off as standard and generic fair when compared. To end on a positive the sound design is solid throughout, with the non-diegetic sound during some of the action scenes making it very tense, this does help to elevate the action.

Overall, I learned something from this movie that I didn’t already know it was an interesting perspective. Shannon and Negahban give wonderful performances, and it is stunning to look at in some scenes, however, that aside there is little to elevate it beyond standard genre fare, and the whole thing is rather generic.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke.

Maze Runner the Death Cure

Spoilers ahead.

The question I had going into this was, can this film cure the death of the Young Adult film genre. Everybody knows that the YA genre, has not had a good past few years with the end of The Hunger Games, and Divergent, the Mortal Instruments and The 5th wave crashing and burning; it looked like the genre was at an end or at least slowing down. However, one high profile YA series remained and that was Maze Runner. First off I think the delay in release date was a genuinely good thing for this film, as it allowed it to stand a good distance apart from the other YA films of years past, and command more attention. This film is a bit of a mixed bag because a lot of its strengths are also its weakness and vice versa. The first such example of this is the runtime, 142 minutes seems extortionately long for this kind of movie, and yes it does bring with it quite a few pacing issues; with some parts feeling needlessly long and other not flushed out enough. However, with this long running time, it avoids what has pretty much become a trope of the genre and that is splitting the last film into 2, I would say that the film benefits overall from this long running time, and it allows it to tie up all the loose ends and go out on a high note. Furthermore, the performances here are also a mixture of highs and lows. On one hand there are tremendous actors such as, Aiden Gillen and Walton Goggins, who play Janson and Lawrence respectively; however, both characters are barely used with Goggins in particular only being in the movie for a few short scenes. Gillen’s Janson does manage to be a memorable villain, being both aggressive and slimy at the same time, and whilst his character was previously built up in the series unlike Goggins, he still is given very little to do. Where the performances shine through are in the younger actors, specifically in Dylan O’Brien (Thomas), Thomas Brodie- Sangster (Newt) and Rosa Salazar (Brenda). The friendship between O’Brien’s Thomas and Brodie- Sangster’s Newt, is the emotional core of the movie, with Thomas trying to find a cure for Newt whilst also searching for their friend, both actors give amazing performances making this friendship both believable and relatable in all the best ways. The untimely death of Newt towards the end of the third act hit me with much more emotional impact than the death of Theresa, (Kaya Scodelario), whose character is the one of the weakest and most boring of the whole movie. This is a shock as the relationship between Thomas and Theresa has been built up for 3 movies, and the end of that build up felt rather anti-climatic and just poorly done. In addition, there is the usual YA problem of the plot being laughably dumb, and this movie does suffer from that, I don’t think someone who hasn’t seen at least one of the previous two movies would be able to jump into this and understand what is going on; which is a large issue. Finally, I just wanted to briefly mention, Rosa Salazar’s performance as Brenda, I found her to be a wholly enjoyable character, and very easy to root for; being able to pull off both comedy and drama with ease. Her performance in this makes me a lot more confident, for Alita Battle Angel that she is staring in later this year. Her scenes were my favourite part of this movie.

Anyway, though the film suffers from some issues, (many of which are commonly found in the genre), and does waste some of its actors, it is still enjoyable. This film feels like a good mix of Mad Max and The Hunger Games and is most certainly a very good final entry in the series.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Commuter

This Liam Neeson lead action film is the latest collaboration between, Neeson and director Jaume Collet- Serra. This is, in fact, the fourth movie that the duo has worked on, with the others being Unknown, Non-Stop and Run All Night, and this film is much of the same fair as the rest. It is nice to see Liam Neeson a man of 60, still being given action hero lead billing, and more importantly still being believable. Neeson is as charismatic as ever in the role of Michael MacCauley, a man recently without a job and put in a dangerous game, on his train ride home from work. Enter Vera Farmiga’s enigmatic Joanna, who gives MacCauley the chance to win big money if he does, “one little thing”. Whilst she isn’t present much Farmiga shines in every scene, easily being the best thing about this movie; being able to present a genuine threat. The opening sequence that cuts together multiple mornings to make it appear all as one, is quite a nice directional choice and gives an impression of the monotonous effect of not trying anything new in a while. This contrasts nicely with the unexpected nature of the later events, which highlights both situations well. However, that is where the praise ends, there are a plethora of issues that plague this film. Firstly is the plot, which is at best wholly unbelievable, at worst ridiculous, with as many plot holes as there are passengers on a busy train. These, however, aren’t critical issues, as these leaps in logic are typical of most action movies, and really should be expected. The movies most dire issues are twofold, firstly is the wasted side characters, whilst a little light is shined on these characters back stories, (really just enough to make them interesting), it never feels enough. These characters feel almost entirely one-note and ultimately bland, you will not remember them when you leave the cinema. Furthermore, to add to this problem the little that is shown of these side characters back stories set up subplots, and these are never satisfactorily resolved, leaving you feeling less than satisfied. The second key issue is that the twists and turns the plot take feel played out and obvious, with everyone in the audience working out who MacCauley is looking for a good half the film before he does. Furthermore, the twists regarding, Patrick Wilson’s character are signposted a mile away, and a bit off topic but why Wilson took this role is a good question because his character is entirely forgettable. Ultimately, this isn’t a bad movie, it’s well shot, well acted by its two leads, but at the same time, it’s entirely forgettable. The film itself is a waste of potential really all round, with it just being kind of a generic action movie, which maybe check it out one day when it’s on Netflix, but for now, unless you’re a hardcore for the action genre give it a miss.

2/5

reviewed by Luke

All the Money in the World

This film is a testament to Ridley Scott as a director, with him replacing an actor and reshooting all his scenes only months before release. Whats more these scenes are hard to tell apart from the rest of the feature, blending in well; in contrast to other recent releases such as Justice League. Christopher Plummer portrays the role with equal parts ruthlessness, and a sheer sense of greed that perfectly encapsulates the character of J. Paul Getty. The film itself centers around the kidnapping of Getty’s grandson Paul, (played here by Charlie Plummer), and Getty’s refusal to pay any money in random. At its core, this film is defined by 3 key performances, Christopher Plummer’s Getty, who is tremendous throughout. With the performances of Michelle Williams, (Gail Harris), and Mark Wahlberg, (Fletcher Chase) also being critical. This is where the film fumbles, Michelle Willimas is perfect with her performance of a mother in crisis, trying to get her son back being both believable and the emotional backbone of the film. For anyone who has read any of my other reviews, they will know that so far this year I ‘ve been a big Michelle Willimas fan, with her role in the greatest showman being one of the best and most believable parts of that movie. However, it is the third key role that falls flat and that is Mark Wahlberg’s Chase Fletcher, who feels bland and uninteresting, really his role could be played by anyone. The strange standout social relationship of this film is between Charlie Plummers Paul and Romain Duris as Cinquanta, who are both excellent characters in their own right, but together they’re somewhat of an endearing pair. Duris’s Cinquanta is a sort of father figure to Paul and provides an interesting contrast to the usual stereotype of the despicable criminal. Through the character of Cinquanta, Scott explores the idea of a family with this man who is a criminal, who is one of the men who abducts Paul ultimately caring about him just as much as his mum. Furthermore, Cinquanta, when juxtaposed with Mr. Getty, is shown to be far more caring towards Paul than his own grandfather. This portrays one of the victims of the film as ultimately one of the antagonists. The negatives for this film really come from pacing, the film is paced badly, with the second act feeling dull and ultimately unnecessary, with too much time spent looking at the Chase, Getty relationship which ultimately goes nowhere. There were points in this film where it lost my interest to such a point, I debated the merits of going to the toilet for a prolonged break. Also, there were subplots with characters such as Pauls father which again feel like they go nowhere, with his character going through big changes in the first act without much explanation. The film could have benefited greatly from focusing more on Michelle Willimas’s character, and ditching Wahlberg outright. This is a gripping story sadly it’s just too long and not interesting enough, though I did appreciate the unusual captive captor relationship.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke