Once Upon A Time In Hollywood: A Love Letter To Tarantino

Preface: When I first saw this film, I didn’t like it, but after seeing it the second time I have much more of an appreciation for it.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, is the 9th film by acclaimed director Quentin Tarantino, and is in a sense a retelling of the real-life Manson Murders; all bit it with a twist, but I’m not going to spoil that here. The film itself reads like a love letter to the Golden Age of Hollywood, as well as to the 1960s.

The plot of the film revolves around three intersecting stories, each focusing on one of the three main cast members, Brad Pitt,( Cliff Booth), Leonardo DiCaprio, (Rick Dalton), and Margot Robbie, (Sharon Tate). Rick’s story focuses on him realising he is past his peak in terms of acting and, needs to adapt his ways to stay relevant. Booth is mainly a supportive figure to Dalton, being there to lend a hand, although his story line does bring about the Manson Family element which adds an exciting spark to the film*.

*I believe knowing about the events of the Manson Murders before going in to see the film, adds a sense of dread to the proceedings, with you knowing it’s just a matter of time before the killings happen; if you don’t know the history the final act of the film can feel like it’s just come out of nowhere.

The third and final main character, Robbie’s Tate is by far the weakest as she is given the least to do, and I didn’t notice this the first time around, but nothing much to say as well; her amount of dialogue compared to Pitt’s and DiCaprio’s is none existent; she mainly exists to dance around to various 60’s tunes and go on drawn-out trips to the movies.

On the flip side of that, the writing and the dialogue for both Booth and Dalton is well done, both of their characters seem like people, they’re relatable and easy to root for. Moreover, one of the final scenes of the film shows the relationship between these two men, in such a perfect away, it’s incredibly effective.

My biggest complaint against the film is the pacing of it. A lot, and I mean 60% + of the scenes feel like they could have been edited down, a lot of them weren’t vital and just served to reinforce and retell us things about the characters we already knew. Adding to this complaint, we only actually see Charles Manson, for one scene; which is incredibly brief. I don’t know if they shot more scenes and they didn’t make it in, but it leaves said scenes feeling oddly out of place.

Overall there are things to like about this film; both leading men are charming, there are some excellent celebrity cameos, but it doesn’t hide the fact that this is one of Tarantino’s weaker efforts.
The man has a stellar catalogue, with the likes of Django Unchained and Inglorious Bastards, but this seems like a mismatch of different things and ideas that don’t come together.
To summaries, I loved 40% of the film, but the other 60% was just too long, too dragged out and, dare I say it too self indulgent.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Yesterday: The Best Film of Summer 2019

Summer 2019 has, in terms of film, been one of the most disappointing in recent memory. We’ve seen unwanted remakes and reimaginings; beloved series shoot themselves in the head, looking at you Men In Black International and, your genius decision to not bring Will Smith back. Overall Summer 2019 has been in a word- meh.

The highlights would probably include, Brightburn for sheer originality, Toy Story 4 for not being a blatant cash grab and, Spider-man Far From Home, which let’s face it is only really cared about now because it might be the last one in the MCU.

Horror was in pretty good form over the summer though, with Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark and Midsommar both being fantastic films, sadly the horror front was let down by the lacklustre Annabelle Comes Home from the Conjuring Universe, but at least 2 out of 3 isn’t bad.

However, one film stood above all as the best film of the summer, at least to me, that film was Yesterday. Yesterday is a British ‘Feel Good’ Romantic Comedy, focusing on talented but, overlooked musician Jack Malik, (Himesh Patel), as he, after a bike crash, wakes up in a world where no one remembers the Beatles, except him and two others. What follows is Jack’s rise to fame as he takes credit for writing and singing all of the Beatles most famous songs, along the way he learns what’s important to him, and that fame isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Though the premise, Beatle-less world aside, has been done a million and one times before, there is something about Yesterday, so endearing and undeniably positive, that you can’t help but smile. It hits on a lot of different emotional cores and leaves you happier than when you went in; there is no doubt about that.

The film is well-executed and planned out, with each musical sequences feeling needed and relevant to the plot of the film, rather than just feeling like it’s there to be “remember this song”, as so many other musicals do. This goes to show that Director Danny Boyle hasn’t lost his streak for making great films, said streak brought us the likes of Trainspotting 1 and 2 and is still very present here.

A significant plot point of the film focuses on the will they won’t they, relationship between Jack and his childhood best friend Ellie, (Lilly James). The chemistry between James and Patel is palpable, which makes the eventual relationship not only believable but, also one you can’t help to root for and, become invested in. The interesting twist on the standard unrequited or, overlook love angle here is that it’s James’ Ellie who is madly in love with Jack, but he can’t see it and, thinks they are just friends. This twist on the standard gender roles this story angle usually has is fascinating and, something more films should do.

Finally, the film’s music is infectious, even if you don’t like or, for some reason don’t know the Beatles, their music is used in such a heartfelt and touching way here; that you can’t help but, sing along. Yesterday is a love letter to the Beatles and to music in general and, that fact shines brightly in every scene.

If you haven’t already, you should see this film, as I can guarantee it will put a smile on your face and, make just a little bit happier.

5/5

Review by Luke

Gremlins: The Best Christmas Film

With summer coming to a close we begin the slow march towards Christmas, it really does get earlier every year, as such I want to write about my favourite Christmas/ Holiday movie of all time; Gremlins.

The idea of a Christmas film is usually something happy and upbeat, enjoyable by the whole family, things like Home Alone and the Santa Claus spring to mind. In that parameter, Gremlins doesn’t really fit in; it is a horror-comedy film, unusual Christmas movie fare. However, that’s what works so well about it; it subverts all the stereotypes about what defines a Christmas movie, while still being set at Christmas, coming across almost as a homage.

To give some background to the film, it was released in the summer of 1984; it was a considerable hit commercially and critically and, this along with Raiders of the Lost Ark lead to the creation of the PG-13 rating. The plot of the film revolves around Billy, (Zach Gilligan), as he receives a Gremlin, here called a Mogwai, from his father as a Christmas present. Upon receiving Gizmo the mogwai, Billy has to learn and keep to the stringent rules of ownership; otherwise, there will be disastrous consequences, to spoil it, he breaks the rules and chaos ensues.

This film portrays Christmas, not as this sweet idyllic time of the year, but rather as this crazy manic time where everything is continuously moving, a move which I find refreshing. Furthermore, the relationship between Billy and Gizmo is very relatable to anyone who has ever got a pet on Christmas morning, with this relationship being the beating heart of the film.

Gizmo himself is easily the cutest puppet in film ever; he has a distinct look that makes him easily recognisable and iconic. Furthermore, the facial movements of the character convey emotion to significant effect, leading you not only to root for Gizmo but also viewing him as somewhat of the main character. Comparatively, the evil gremlins, because yes, there are more gremlins, and some of them are or, become evil, actually inspire fear. The puppetry of these gremlins conveys malice and menace as their different design comes across as ugly and monstrous, which the film uses to great effect, showing us the difference between cute happy Gizmo and the evil other gremlins.

The humour in this film is also incredibly well done being funny and very endearing; the gore of the film also works to this extent. With a lot of the kills towards the end of the film, being quite comedic in their brutality, in almost a Zombieland esque kind of fashion.
There is so much charm and heart to this film that it quickly makes it’s self one of the most memorable films of the 80s, having a legacy that lives on way over 30 years later. The sequel, while still entertaining couldn’t live up to the heights of the first film and fell short in many ways. However there is now talk of a Gremlins series coming to the small screen, so there is clearly still demand after all these years.
In my opinion, the first Gremlins is a must-see and one of the best films to watch at Christmas, if only as a palate cleanser to all those sickly emotional Christmas films that plague the holiday season, like ghosts that refuse to die.

Angel has Fallen: What makes an Action Hero?

There is an art to being an action star; it’s something only few can do; fewer still convincingly. Therein lies today’s topic I want to talk about what makes a convincing action star, and how all that can and will change over time. When you imagine an action hero, you imagine a tough person in the prime of their life, ready and able to do whatever it takes to save the day. Keanu Reeves is believable in John Wick because he trains incredibly hard and has excellent stunt coordination. The is true of Sigourney Weaver in Aliens as well; she is a believable badass, due to a well-developed character and great set pieces/ stunt work. This brings us to the meat of what I want to talk about today the recently released blockbuster Angel Has Fallen.

Angel Has Fallen is the third film in the Fallen series, carrying on from the events of Olympus Has Fallen and London Has Fallen. The third film focuses on Mike Banning, (Gerard Butler), as he faces off against the Government when he is framed for murder. A big part of the film focuses on the effect being a Secret Service agent is having on Mikes health, as he is not the man he used to be anymore. Despite that being a theme, the action in this film comes off as some of the laziest and most uninspired of recent history. I understand from a plot perspective Mike can’t be doing the same things he was doing in the first film, but other than some shooting and running he doesn’t really do all that much.

Maybe I have been spoiled with well planned out, well-executed action movies like this year’s John Wick, but in any case, I don’t see a reason to release an action movie, when it is clear that no one really cares, cookie-cutter in the extreme might as well be this films tagline.

What makes this all the more troubling is Gerard Butler himself. There was a time at the start of the 2000s where Butler’s name was being said in the same breath as Jason Statham and Arnold Schwarzenegger when it came to action stars; this was mainly due to the release of 300, which catapulted Butler into action superstardom. Cut to now, and the performance he gives in Angel Has Fallen is one of tiredness, it is clear he doesn’t want to be there anymore; crucially he isn’t believable as the character in this film. I know Butler can do better than this, he proved he can still be a viable and menacing action star in last year’s Den of Thieves. However, none of what made his performance good in that film is carried over.

To conclude, I think the Fallen series needs to be taken out back and shot; it is the merciful thing to do. We are a long way from the heights of the first film and, the longer it goes on, the more unbelievable Butler becomes as an action star, which is a shame. My final thought is that Butler needs to think carefully about the roles he picks, focusing more on films like Machine Gun Preacher and Law Abiding Citizen, where he shone through as a relatable action star.
What’s more, for the love of all of us when Fallen 4 comes a-knocking, Gerard, don’t answer.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Life and Death of Spider-man

Spider-man is one of Marvel’s most famous and beloved characters, as such, we have seen plenty of him on the big screen over the years; with three series and countless other properties attached to the character. It is these series and the future of the Webslinger I would like to talk about today, trying to keep it impartial from the whole Marvel Studios vs Sony spat; as they are both a little in the wrong.
The Sam Raimi Trilogy is to many the best of the Spider-man films to date, just don’t mention Spider-man 3, this was the first big-budget, big-screen adaptions of the character and a lot of people were very excited for it. Raimi’s trilogy nailed many vital details of who Spider-man is and what he stands for, showing his relationship with his Aunt and Uncle and as the series developed his romance with Mary Jane Watson. As the trilogy went on the films got bolder and bolder, diving further into Spider-man’s Lore; with many classic villains adapted, to various degrees of success. Therein lay the problem, as the series reached the end it started adding too many elements to the story, having so many plot threads they couldn’t all be addressed; whether by studio mandate or, by a poorly written script, it was this that would end Raimi’s trilogy on a sour note, and continue to be a problem going forward.
Years later talks broke down with Raimi to make the much speculated about Spider-man 4 and, so the Mark Webb Amazing Spider-man series was born. Webb set out right away to make sure his series of films was tonally and visually very different than the Raimi films that predated it. The humorous goofiness of the Raimi trilogy was swapped out for a more edgy and mature tone; they also favoured the Gwen Stacy romance over the Mary Jane one; all to set it apart. Of the three series, this one has the worst reputation, but I genuinely believe the first Amazing Spider-man film was excellent, the romance between Emma Stone and Andre Garfield was quickly the best and most moving part of the films. Then the Amazing Spider-man 2 came out, and just like Raimi’s third instalment, it was marred by the overuse of familiar villain characters, most likely in a hamfisted way of setting up a Sinister Six film so they could spin it out into another franchise.
Then for the third attempt at a Spider-man on the big screen, the character was returned to the MCU, where he could rub shoulders with the likes of Captain America and Iron Man. Many would say that these were the best Spider-man live-action films, and though the humour was pitch-perfect and Far From Home made me tear up a little, these films weren’t without their issues. Many didn’t like how symbiotic the relationship between Tony Stark and Peter Parker was, finding that the latter was losing some of his identity in favour of being more like the former, there is a scene in Far From Home that confirms this.
Now at the time of writing Spider-man is currently between fought over by Marvel Studios and Sony, with each wanting him for their films. However, what the character deserves is the chance to shine for who he is, rather than have him be just another part of a larger whole. Similarly, he deserves to have his story told the right away and not have nonsensical plot threads stuffed into his films just as an effort to set up other films to make more money.
Ultimately a great Spider-man story can be told with just a handful of characters, and a bit of careful consideration and both studios would do well to remember that.

The Exorcist: A Titan of Horror Cinema

The Exorcist is a 1973, American horror film, revolving around the possession of Regan MacNeil; and the priests that try and save her soul. Though this premise seems like nothing new by today’s standards where we watch someone get possessed on the big screen, every other week, it was incredibly novel for its time. Upon release, it went to war with rating boards, who had never seen something, as they put it, “so obscene”, and there were reports of the film being so scary it was making people have fits in the cinema. So much so that the British government banned the film outright. Watching the film today and comparing it to the sort of things we might see in a 2019 horror film, the film looks incredibly tame and, it is hard to understand what upset censors so much; however it did push things in horror cinema upon release.
The Exorcist will always be one of the best horror films of all time and a must-watch: because despite almost being 50 years old the film is still just as chilling as when it first came out. The film puts the atmosphere and tension at the forefront, and we see a slow build in the demonic activity until it reaches vomiting green slime level. This is much appreciated as it leads the following actions to appear far more shocking by comparison, but also further enforces just how horrific the ordeal is for little Regan.
The practical effects work is also something to be revered, as some of the most iconic shots in all of horror cinema come from this film and they were all practical, the head-spinning scene is proof of my point.
The plot of the film never lets up, never giving you a minute to catch your breath, even at the end, the twists and turns keep coming; keeping you guessing even after the credits roll.
The acting in this film is the stuff of legend, and so many movies have tried to harness or harken back to it in more recent year, with Linda Blair selling the possession of Regan so well that you start to believe it. Max Von Sydow, plays the tired old priest, who is beginning to lose his faith brought out to fight the incarnation of evil, to perfection, quickly making him a horror icon.
Lastly, the dream sequences at the start of the film that mark the beginning of Regan’s possession, are so hauntingly beautiful, the cinematography for these scenes has almost a dreamlike air to it; which really help to give them their flavour and set them apart from the rest of the film.
The later sequels would go on to tarnish the film’s legacy to a degree, but nothing can, or ever will change that fact that this is one of the most impactful, inspiring, captivating horror films of all time. That is simply a fact.
Ps. The Exorcist TV show was pretty good as well.
5/5
Reviewed by Luke

Creature Design and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark

Across all of Horror Cinema, there have been a collection of creatures that have not only captured the imagination but, also terrified. These creatures have all been practical, not CGI. When you think of monsters like The Creeper from Jeepers Creepers, their looks sticks out because of how well designed and realistic it is. Creature design and attention to detail can mean the difference between a terrifying horror movie villain and a joke. It’s on that note I talk about the subject of today’s review Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is a horror film; based on the children’s books of the same name. The plot of the film revolves around a group of teenagers that find a book in an abandoned house, the curious leader of the group Stella, (Zoe Colletti), decides to take the book home; a decision she will regret forever. Once she takes it home and looks through it, stories start to appear on their own; targeting her and her friends.
Going into this film, I was expecting something akin to the Goosebumps film of a few years ago; with the stories coming to life and running amuck; how wrong I was. The stories that come to life feel personal and precisely tailored to each character, as the book plays off each one of their fears, whereas, in the other film, it was merely random. The scares work well and, though there are a few jump scares peppered throughout, there is also a keen scene of atmosphere and dread which permeates the film. However, the most praiseworthy aspect of the film’s horror is by far the creature design. Now there are several creatures in this film, as it is broken down in a collection of short stories, with a broader narrative to bind them all. Each separate creature is unique, and it is plain to see how much care has been put into them down to the smallest detail. This is no doubt the influence of producer Guillermo del Toro, who is known for his love of practical monsters. I believe these villains are the films greatest strength and help it to stand apart from the 1000 other generic horror films with forgettable monsters and demons.
The characters, unlike the monsters, are all rather one-note, being dull and nonmemorable. The group of kids never really graduate from the teenage outcast stereotype and, are more caricatures; you won’t remember who any of the characters are 5 seconds after the film ends and, you won’t remember their names during it. That said, the film is on the whole incredibly well done and impressive, even the low age rating doesn’t take away from the film, as it does in some cases, the horror and the deaths are all well-executed and chilling without the need for excessive gore, and I think that says a lot to the film’s credit.
Overall this was a horror film where you can tell the people making it care, the creature design speaks to that, it masters the subtle art of scares so entirely that you will be thinking of the film’s monsters long after you’ve gone home, shame the same can’t be said for the characters; this may well be the horror hit of the summer, and I for one can’t wait for more scary stories to tell in the dark,
4.5/5
Reviewed by Luke

Angry Birds 2 and the Animation Stigma

Animated films have been around for well over 50 years, and they first came to be to show the potential of Cinema, to be able to show what is effectively art on the big screen. When these films first came out they were intended to have mass appeal to be viewed and enjoyed by everyone, but somewhere over the years animated films became just for children; with everyone who is not a child and likes them being made to feel some shame about it. How did it get to be this way? Well, probably because early cartoons and animated features were aimed at more mature audiences and had humour and themes that adults would respond to and enjoy, an excellent example of this would be the Flintstones. However, as this new medium began to grow companies and executives, began to think about merchandise. Adults weren’t buying merchandise, or at least not to the same scale kids would in the decades later, so companies started to release new animated films and cartoons that would appeal to kids, viewing them as an untapped market. This brought the era of “Saturday Morning Cartoons”, and though in more recent times there has been a rise in adult animation again with the likes of South Park and Rick and Morty, animation is still seen as something mainly aimed at kids; all because of that one fateful shift. This is a massive shame because it means a lot of people miss out on some of the best stories and films because they think they’re too old for them; which is entirely untrue. Everyone can enjoy animated movies and to think differently is not only dumb but, also funding the trend of live-action remakes I have previously mentioned. That brings me to today’s subject, Angry Birds 2. I fell victim to the preconceived notion of what animated films were when I went to see this; I was proven to be a fool, and henceforth will go and see animated films with an open mind.
Angry Birds 2, is an animated adventure comedy, based on the mobile game of the same name. In this instalment, the heroic Birds are forced to team up with their Piggie rivals when an even more significant threat appears which could spell the end for both civilizations. I thought the animation was beautiful, with each character having a clear and distinct look. The voice cast all worked well too; they didn’t bring me out of the film to think ‘oh that’s Danny McBride’, which helped me to get lost in the world far more quickly. The themes of the film while not new, the fear of being forgotten, or alone, resonated with me and I thought Red’s, (Jason Sudeikis), character arc over the film was well done and added something to the character. With the over characters adding nicely here and there. For me, the real highlight of the film was the side story of the Hatchlings, who lost one of their member’s little sisters and so had to go through a series of wacky adventures to try and get them back, each more whimsical and unbelievable than the last. I believe it is these sequences that capture the heart of the film, and I would gladly watch a whole film just focusing on the Hatchlings and their adventures.
To Conclude, animation is something that can and should be enjoyed by people of all ages, as these tales have something to offer us all; and Angry Birds 2 proves that and shows how great and touching a film can be.

4/5
Reviewed by Luke

Dora and the Lost City of Gold

Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a family action and adventure film based, of the Dora the Explorer kids TV program. The plot revolves around Dora, (Isabela Moner), going to the city after her parents go away on an expedition. Once there she meets her cousin Diego, (Jeff Walhberg), who she has not seen in 10 years and tries to adapt to high school; then through a strange series of events ends up being shipped back to the jungle to try and track down the titular Lost City of Gold, Diego and plucky group of friends in toe. Now before I get into it, the main reasons I wanted to see this film was that it looked hilariously bad and, because it hit me with a lot of nostalgia from my childhood. I wasn’t disappointed the film overall is very funny, there are laughs that both children and adults will find amusing, these range from fart jokes as they walk through quicksand, to self-referential jokes about the nature of the show, mainly Dora talking to the camera and saying, “now you say”. The comedy works greatly as Moner plays it mostly straight, seemingly unaware that what she is doing is weird, or odd.
Furthermore, her father played by Micheal Pena is also a standout of the film making for some hilarious scenes. To continue on the thread of funny scenes, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about the drug-induced hallucination scene. Said scene takes place towards the film’s third act, as the gang are running through a field of flowers that all release spores, these spores make the characters view each other and the world around them, in the same art style as the TV show, this scene is a masterstroke, as it shows audiences what they know and love and was easily my favourite of the whole film. This film doesn’t just appeal to children there is also a lot for adults to like especially the high school sequences which have a lot of culture clash humour, which is a welcome twist on the show. The animated characters of Boots and Swiper easily steal the show, Swiper is funny and likeable while also being threatening and believable as the villain. Benicio Del Toro’s captures the character perfectly he’s memorable as the character, and I would like to see him reprise the role in further films. Danny Trejo voices Boots Dora’s pet monkey which she claims can talk and in one hilarious scene he does, and Trejo milks it for all its worth; being one of the films best scenes. The adventure of the film is rather standard it never really does anything that any other movie hasn’t done before, so if you’re going for novelty or originality, this may not be the film for you.
Overall, Dora and the Lost City of Gold might not be anything new, in terms of adventure films, but it is fun wholesome fun for the whole family, it captures the spirit of the show and adds something new to it with a self-referential take. There is a lot to love about this film, and it is one that both parents and kids can enjoy together.

4/5
Luke

The Lion King and Disney’s Live Action Craze.

Remakes, the word probably causes some form of emotional response in you, whether its optimism at seeing a film done again or a tired cynicism and disbelief in Hollywood’s lack of new ideas. Over the last two decades, we have seen remakes of everything from The Evil Dead to Ghostbusters. Some add to the original in some meaningful way while others are just a transparent cash grab, it is in the latter category that we find the subject of today; Disney’s The Lion King. Disney has been on a quest to seemingly remakes as many of their classic animated films as quickly as they can, with 2019 having not only the Lion King but, also Alladin and Dumbo. The results are inconsistent; Dumbo was a bland mess of a film, while Alladin was surprisingly good and provided something new on the original animated film, The Lion King follows in the footstep of Dumbo. The 90’s Lion King was an undeniable classic, and no one seems to know this more than Disney. The 2019 live-action Lion King, while technically impressive, is also shot for shot the same as the original down to some of the lines of dialogue. They add nothing new; except for one or two new songs. This is not wholly a bad thing as it is nice to hear all the old songs again and see all the old characters, but it does make you question why this film was made as it does not justify its existence, which is the primary thing a remake needs to do. The only achievement of the Lion King remake is it shows the heightened form of near hyper-realistic CGI. When you realise how much of this film is CGI, you understand just how impressive it is. A justification of the remake would be to lure in new audiences and make a new version for the younger generation, and that would be an excellent reason for this film to exist if there was anything wrong with the original, but there isn’t. While this does work as dumb summer blockbuster fun, the same result could be achieved by having a re-released the original.
In many ways, this film is the inferior of the two, the cast highlights this; the new voice cast composing of the likes of Beyonce, and Donald Glover is just not memorable and a lot of the big-name stars who are in the film almost sound like they aren’t trying, perhaps they just couldn’t turn down that sweet Disney paycheck. This makes me worry about Disney’s upcoming live-action films like Mulan; hopefully, these films will follow after this years Alladin and add something to the original movie, otherwise, these films are going to start rubbing people the wrong way, and people will stop being interesting in them. The Lion King is by no means a bad film, nor is it a good film, it is a film that has no reason to exist. If you want to watch a film that captures all the same notes as the first Lion King, watch the classic animated film. Ultimately remakes aren’t going anywhere, in the end, Hollywood will remake all of our favourite films if there is still money in it for them. Hopefully, we can get more films like the Evil Dead, where the creative team want to add something to the property rather than do it for money’s sake.

5/5 (For the Original)

Luke