One Night In Miami: The Struggle To Come

One Night In Miami is a drama film directed by Regina King. The plot sees Malcom X (Kingsley Ben-Adir), Muhammed Ali (Eli Goree), Sam Cooke (Leslie Odom Jr.) and Jim Brown (Aldis Hodge), all meet up to celebrate Ali’s titleship win and discuss his conversion to Islam.

I have been waiting on this one for a while and I have to say now that I have seen it I was not disappointed. This film is raw and passionate and is brimming with things to say (all of which important), this film left an emotional impact on me after I saw it and has never left my mind since. I think this is a very gutsy but also impressive directional debut for King and shows that she is a multifaceted talent.

This film tackles its messages and politics head on, it opens a very important set of conversations that will hopefully resonate in the minds of the viewing public. I enjoyed that this film was as much about the friendship and relationship between these four men as it is about its themes. The dialogue and the writing really shone in the scenes of quiet conversation between the actors, making the film feel engaging throughout.

The performances were all very strong, the main one I would pick out as an arbitrary best would be Ben-Adir as Malcom X, his performance was truly brilliant on a number of levels.

My one complaint would be the final quote, said quote talks about martyrdom, and as is itself a quote from Malcom X, I understand the meaning behind it and its place within the film’s narrative, however it left me feeling uncomfortable.

Overall, a powerful film and one you should all watch!

Pros.

The acting

The writing

The dialogue scenes

The emotional impact

Cons.

The final quote

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Wind: Sleep With A Shotgun In Your Hand, Just To Be Safe

The Wind is a western, horror film directed by Emma Tammi. The plot centres around a frontier couple who begin to experience increasingly alarming supernatural happenings, with Lizzy (Caitlin Gerard) believing it to be the workings of a demon.

The Witch is probably my favourite horror film and is my second favourite film generally; Lost Boys is my favourite film and would be my favourite horror film though I don’t really view it as one. So, when I read that this film was basically a western version of The Witch, I was intrigued and put it on to see if it could live up to the high standard set, and I am pleased to say dear reader it more than did.

In the beginning the time hopping narrative didn’t make a lot of sense and I was lost, but as the film goes on it all wraps together nicely. The issue is that though we might be seeing a flashback, or a flash forward the film does not announce it as such, which can be a bit jarring.

The demonography of the American Frontier is fascinating, and I am surprised other films haven’t explored it more deeply before. I thought the film benefited from creating a very isolating atmosphere, that worked perfectly with the threat of the film and the idea of constantly being under siege. The larger scares towards the end of the film when we actually get to see the demons, in their human vessels, is incredibly menacing and actually managed to unsettle me; not an easy task as I have become quite desensitised over the years of watching horror films.

Overall, I think this is a superb horror film that more than deserves its comparison to Egger’s masterpiece. A must watch!

Pros.

The scares

The atmosphere

The demonology of the American Frontier

Gerard

Cons.

The timeline is a little confusing

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Untouchables: Never Get Between Sean Connery And An Italian Person

The Untouchables is a crime epic directed by Brian De Palma. The plot focuses on the early life of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner), as he fights to bring down organised crime in Chicago and stop the notorious Al Capone (Robert DeNiro).

I enjoyed this film quite a lot, it was very fun to watch. I enjoyed the mentor role of Sean Connery’s character and thought that he had great chemistry with the rest of the cast. I do, however, think because Connery’s performance was so good he might have outshone Costner’s lead just a little bit, which no doubt would be infuriating for Costner. Costner’s Ness for the most part was your typical straight lace man of the law, gone bad by the end, type. Costner brought nothing to the role that could not have been done by another actor, he was fairly interchangeable.

I thought there were a lot of strong moments and sequences that were both tense and thrilling: I think the death of Connery’s character is one and I think the courthouse roof scene is another. However, despite these great scenes the film does suffer from pacing issues and struggles to maintain this sense of tension throughout. My main complaint in this regard is that scenes often play out for much longer than they should, thereby becoming bloated.

DeNiro’s Capone is fine, he is a very hateable character which is what the film was probably going for, however, he is nothing more than a hateable low life there is no nuance there or further look into his character he is simply an antagonist and nothing more.

Overall, pacing issues aside this is a fun ride with a great performance from Connery. The rest of the cast let the film down to a degree and stop it from achieving true heights, but it is still good.
Pros.

Connery

The thrills

The action

Cons.

Costner

DeNiro

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Bill: The Untold Story Of Shakespeare, When He Became A Spy

Bill is a historical comedy film directed by Richard Bracewell. The plot revolves around the early days of William Shakespeare (Matthew Baynton), as he tries to make it as a playwright. There is also a plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth 1^st (Helen McCrory), that Shakespeare gets wrapped up in and has to prevent.

The comedy here is a little more adult, than I would expect from the PG certificate. Right from the off I was surprised about the number of sex jokes in there, I don’t remember them being in Horrible Histories, that said I am not complaining about this fact I actually found it rather amusing and the film made me laugh several times.

The Horrible Histories trope are all put well to use here. Though I would say Martha Howe-Douglas was relegated to nothing more than the supporting wife role and I would have liked to see her have a larger and more important part, or really be able to take part in the fun assassination plotline.

Furthermore, though the film is fun, and a lot of that fun does originate from the narrative, it is definitely overstuffed. The film tries to do too many things, it tries to be a Shakespeare origin story of sorts, it tries to tell this international spy game intrigue plot line, and a few other odd twists and turns as well. Now I can’t fault there ambition with making the film so densely packed, but I can fault there execution as none of the elements came together in the way they should, and part of the film even felt a bit boring.

Pros.

It’s funny

It’s fun

The cast are great

Cons.

Howe-Douglas deserved more to do

There was far too much going in a narrative sense

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Trial Of The Chicago 7: Down With The System

The Trail Of The Chicago 7 is a historical courtroom drama directed by Aaron Sorkin. The plot recounts the real-life story of the Chicago 7, a group of people who lead a protest at the Democratic National Convention in 1968, who were then falsely accused of plotting to start a riot. The film depicts the highly suspect trail.

This film is effecting, I will say that up front. It is very hard to watch this film and not feel something, whether it is horror at the issues shown, sympathy at the plight of the defendants who were guilty of nothing more than wanting a better world, or sheer hated and frustration towards the clearly bias judge; you will leave the film having been emotionally impacted.

The dialogue is short and punchy, I would expect nothing less from Sorkin. It leads to many terrific exchanges; I believe of all the cast that Sasha Baron Cohen lends himself best to Sorkin’s particular style and really shines here. Michael Keaton also gives a fantastic performance later in the film though he is more of an expanded cameo role, so he doesn’t have as much time with the audience as some of the other cast.

The film is beautifully paced, a real master class. You are gripped for the whole runtime; you become absorbed in the trail and can’t tear yourself away. The time really files by.

Overall, a moving, frustrating protest ballad that is guaranteed to make you feel something.

Pros.

Sorkin’s trademark punchy dialogue

Great pacing and structure

Sasha Baron Cohen

Michael Keaton

Cons.

Eddie Redmayne is miscast and is not very good

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Robin Hood: Step Up 2 The Streets, How To Demystify And Ruin A Beloved Folk Character

Robin Hood is an action film directed by Otto Bathurst. The plot serves as a retelling of the classic tale, now imagining Robin (Taron Egerton), as a jaded crusader who has been betrayed by his country and stripped off his lands after he was falsely pronounced dead. Together with his dear friend Little John (Jamie Fox), he decides to take the fight to the powers at be, for the people.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this film and King Arthur Legend Of The Sword (review on site), are in the same universe they share a lot of similarities, including plot and colour pallet. Much like that film Robin Hood fails to establish itself in any meaningful way or decide what it wants to be, instead it cobbles bad ideas together leading to a hard to watch end project.

Egerton is trying his best here and he is a very believable action star, he carries the film in the physicality department, and you don’t doubt his Robin’s fighting abilities. However, he struggles in the dramatic, acting, part of the role. His character feels very two dimensional and is not very easy to warm too, yes he is a badass, and?

The wider supporting cast are forgettable, the only two that come close to leaving an impression is Foxx as Little John, though he is basically just a glorified sidekick, and Ben Mendelsohn as the infamous Sheriff of Nottingham. Much like Egerton Mendelsohn is good but this talents are widely wasted and used incorrectly.

Overall, this film fails as a franchise starter and as a Robin Hood film. The Russel Crowe epic is a much better telling of the same tale.

Pros.

Egerton

Mendelsohn

Cons.

The new take doesn’t add anything

The side characters are boring and forgettable

It is very predicatable

The ending is pure sequel bait

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Ironclad: A Very American British War Film

Iron Clad is a British war film directed by Jonathan English. The plot sees a group of medieval swordsmen, some knights, some Templars, and some criminals, hold a fort against the mercenary army of King John (Paul Giamatti). Fighting desperately to uphold the Magna Carta, and to defeat a tyrant.

This is one of those films, very much like Iron Sky, that I have on my watchlist and like to put on when I feel the mood for pulpy violence or fantastical nonsense. Did it deliver on those fronts? Yes and no.

The violence I found to be bloody and brutal, which is what I was expecting and hoping for, but the camera kept cutting away in the heat of battle and it led to it feeling poorly shot, disjointed and oddly out of sequence. An example of what I am talking about is you would see something like a sword hit someone’s arm, then a cut to their eyes, then the arm would be hanging off. This to me screams of a film that was done on the cheap, which is not in and off itself a bad thing, but it is when it is this obvious.

The fantastical nonsense front was a bit better. I enjoyed the silliness of it all and how much of a blatant rip off of Magnificent Seven it is. I thought having Giamatti just talking with his normal accent and not even bother to do an English accent was a touch of genius, it pushed the film firmly into so bad it is good territory.

I am a big James Purefoy fan and I think he is trying his best here. He has a great amount of presence and he leaves an impact whenever he does something on screen, but his talents are wasted. His romance with Kate Mara’s character is also a little icky when you think of the age difference, but that’s just me.

Overall, it falls into so bad it is good territory and can be enjoyed for the sheer cheesiness of it, had the battles been shot better, it could have been genuinely good.

Pros.

James Purefoy

The stakes and the tension

It is almost comical at times

Cons.

The action is not well shot

It is highly derivative

3/5

So bad it is good for sure

Reviewed by Luke

Beirut: John Hamm Plays A Worse Version Of Don Draper

Beirut is a political thriller film directed by Brad Anderson. The plot sees an ex spook negotiator be brought back to Beirut after the death of his wife to save his friend who is being held hostage. Only a man with nothing left to lose can pull off a deal that no one wants to happen.

I think this film is quite generic, when you start watching a lot of these genre films you see patterns start to emerge and this one seem to feature all of the patterns under the sun. You will have seen it before. How many times have we seen the super spy who is great at what he does, brought close to breaking by the death of a loved one, only to have to seek redemption and prove himself again? That is basically the three acts of this film summed up without spoilers.

It doesn’t have anything new or interesting to say about the situation in the Middle East, it is just the same old same old.

John Hamm and Rosamund Pike are strong leads and bring a certain level of presence and prestige to the film, but they are stifled by a bad script. We barely get to see any range from either skilled performer, and both feel like they’re written to be cliches of other better characters they’ve played in the past.

Overall, deeply generic. Fine in a pinch okay to miss.

Pros.

Hamm and Pike are trying

I enjoyed the ending, I thought it was smart

Cons.

The script stifles them

It has nothing new to say

I feel like I’ve seen it before

It wasn’t hugely engaging

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

A United Kingdom: One Of Africa’s Greatest Romance’s

A United Kingdom is a British biographical romance drama film directed by Amma Asante. The plot follows the real-life story of Sir Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo), and Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike) Khama, a king to be who defied the world and married a common English women. Their love was met with hate and strife at damn near every turn, but they kept fighting.

I think this film is a triumph, it was sweet, compelling, and also infuriating and a bit sickening at times. Film’s like this highlight how far as a society we have come, but also how much further we have to go.

I found the romance between Oyelowo and Pike to be entirely believable, they had a strong chemistry that carried throughout the film. Both actors gave incredibly good performance with Oyelowo’s maybe taking the cake. The part when he is speaking to his people and trying to convince them why he has brought an English woman to be there Queen and he has tears rolling down his face is nothing short of powerful.

My one complaint of the film would be that it has pacing issues, as is often the case with biographical film, I understand that it has a lot of history to tell as it doesn’t want to leave anything out, but it feels a lot longer than 111 minutes.

Overall, a strong film that you need to watch. The love on display is compelling and proves that if we are ever to overcome hate we must all embrace the love we have for each other.

Pros.

Believable chemistry

David Oyelowo

Rosamund Pike

Powerful and effecting

Cons.

It feels much longer than it actually is

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

300: A Scottish Greek

300 is a historical action film directed by Zack Snyder, based on the Frank Miller comic series of the same name. The film retells the story of the Spartans last stand at the battle of Thermopylae, when 300 (the real numbers vary), Spartan soldiers held out against an overwhelming horde of Persian invaders: fighting to the last man to give the rest of Greece time to prepare.

This film is epic, I know that a cringey word, but there is no other way to describe it. I remember watching it a lot as a youth and watching it again now I am still in awe of how cool it is. The scope, the scale everything about it is intense.

Say what you like about Zack Snyder, but no one, and I mean no one, does sweaty, slow motion, ultra-violence quite like him, each one of the battle scenes is a sight to behold. The gore, which is in abundance of course, feels well used. It makes a point, but never crosses the line to where it feels gratuitous or done for shock value.

Gerard Butler plays a surprisingly Scottish version of King Leonidas, the legendary Spartan king; clearly he is borrowing from the Sean Connery school of acting. Though I joke, Butler is a man of very specific acting talents and he seems almost crafted for his role. He plays Leonidas with a regal air that is carefully covering a personality of sheer unrelenting brutality.

Overall, this film highlights the best of Butler and Snyder showing off both of their talents, creating a truly engrossing experience.

Pros.

Gerard Butler

Zack Snyder

The scope and feel of it

The battle scenes

It is captivating

Cons.

It is not historically accurate

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke