The True Story Of A Woman Who Defied A Nation And Made History

Director
Ridley Scott

Starring
Matt Damon
Adam Driver
Jodie Comer
Ben Affleck

1386, Paris. Two knights and former friends, Jean de Carrouges [Damon] and Jacque Le Gris [Driver] square off in an officially recognised judicial duel to the death. Carrouges has accused Le Gris of raping his wife and seeks justice, Le Gris wishes to defend his name and honour. The film then replays the actions leading up to the moment of the duel from the perspectives of Carrouges, Le Gris and Lady Marguerite de Carrouges [Comer], each with their own distinct focus and take on the events.

Firstly it has to be said that this is a Scott film through and through. This will initially scare off some and entice others. Scott is one of the few directors with the clout and passion for this kind of story and the ability to bring it to the screen with all the scope that is required. As such the attention to detail is astounding and the portrayal of knighthood covers the honour, posturing, politics and cold hard cash required of a knight, not to mention the warring and the muddy visceral violence free of the romantic notion of chivalry. This is heightened from start to end with rich production design and absolutely gorgeous visuals from cinematographer Dariusz Wolski. When we finally come to it, the eponymous duel itself is magnificently vicious and scrappy, devoid of all grace or romantic depictions of the past. But the surface sheen of this movie is fascinatingly misleading and the heart of the story is significantly more interesting than originally signposted.

As stated before, the film is segmented into three parts, moreover these components are marked by titlecarded chapters, all of which state “The truth according to..” and then the name of the POV character. For an introduction to the movie, the opening chapter rushes through highlights of the friendship between Carrouges and Le Gris, marked mostly by the growth of hair and beards. Carrouges is introduced to his future wife and nobly weds her to save her father from shame (having previously sided against the King of France). Carrouges is noble, loyal and a hard fighter but for all the pageantry and production spectacle, the first half an hour feels a little toothless and languid. This is partly because the way in which the film intends to unspool, sort of like legal proceedings, isn’t clear yet. It’s only when the second chapter kicks in that the film starts to truly shine.

We then see the same events from Le Gris’ perspective and all of Carrouges’ complaints seem petty, his wife’s glances toward Le Gris more intimate. From Le Gris’ perspective he tries to continually extend his hand in friendship but cannot shake the spurn Carrouges feels for having land intended as a dowry taken from him. Le Gris then approaches Marguerite to confess his love and their sexual encounter is played off as a tryst, with him later confessing to his friend and Lord, Count Pierre d’Alençon [Affleck] that they had an affair but it wasn’t rape, adding, “the customary protest, it was not against her will.” Suddenly the film takes a poignant turn and what had started as a retelling of a famous French tale of either two knights gallantly fighting for honour or two men bickering over name and property eventually becomes a question of a woman’s part in history as an interesting parallel to the Me Too movement. With a 21st century view, we are asked to reassess the evidence and ask, why would a woman make-up such a claim, knowing that to do so would make her a pariah? That to continue down this path could also seen her burn at the stake should her husband fail?

From the outset the film has seemingly little interest in giving the audience what they may expect or want but to tell a complex narrative full of intrigue at its own pace and without stellar performances, this could have easily devolved into an over-baked slog. Thankfully that isn’t the case. Damon and Driver give wonderful dual performances, displaying how the characters perceive themselves. On the one hand Damon believes he is a noble and loving husband who fights bravely for his country. On an expedition to Scotland, during an ambush, his men flee while he stands boldly, arrows ricocheting off his armour crying out, “Why do they run!?” before charging head-first into battle. Then you have Driver being thoroughly charming, romancing women of court and climbing the social ladder due to his connection with the count but also his ability to successfully balance accounts. And yet neither is true. When we finally see both men through Comer’s eyes, Damon is harsh and only concerned with his legacy while Driver is in love with himself, believing he can do whatever he wants without repercussion. We also have Affleck as the thoroughly spoilt Count Pierre and Affleck is clearly having more fun in this role than he has in years. But as with many other Scott pieces, the real highlight, which is only clear from the denouement, is the female lead – but I’ll expand on that later.

**spoilers within as the conclusion is discussed**
Any time someone pens a script that shows the same story from several perspectives, it’s impossible not to reference Rashomon. I’m a little hesitant to do that as part of the beauty of Rashomon is the ambiguity, the sense that we may never know which of the three (technically four) testimonies reflect the truth. The difference here, however, is this tale focuses more on perspective and what is withheld as much as what did or didn’t take place. Rather than wildly different accounts, it’s the nuance and delivery that shifts the tone. The glaring difference is that the third title card states “Chapter Three – The truth according to Lady Marguerite de Carrouges” and as the text fades away the words “the truth” remain. Some could argue this robs the film of ambiguity and cements a definite series of events (and it does) but when you see what the film is trying to say it becomes clear why that is vitally important. At the end of the day, this is a classic legend told through a contemporary lens. It’s not enough to simply present all the evidence and say “make up your own mind.” The script instead actively says, “this woman was raped and risked everything to have justice visited upon her attacker. Believe her.” In that way it is a credit to the fine collaboration between Nicole Holofcener, Damon and Affleck, all of whom are credited as writers.

The Last Duel is a story of complexity, human failings and one that lingers. It’s not the lance strike of something like Gladiator or the decapitating axe blow of Alien, it’s the dagger under the ribs that slowly bleeds out and finds its mark over time. Some will brand it pretentious or unwieldy but it deserves to stand as one of Scott’s best.

Release Date:
15 October 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
During Marguerite’s chapter, we see not only the real Jean de Carrouges but his wildly contradictory attitude to his property. Illustrating to his wife a bold mare, Carrouges is interrupted when a stallion bolts and mounts her. Furious, Carrouges chastises his servants and mercilessly beats the horse with a shovel, claiming this a matter of money and the mare will breed only noble warhorses from specific stock. It is revealed two scenes later that Carrouges has a fairly warped understanding of how his estate is run and locks pregnant mares away when they should be grazing for their health, refuses to have the horses plough the fields (despite it being faster) because he believes them best used for war and has failed to collect rent from the citizens of his land. All of which serves to highlight to Marguerite that Jean is in fact terrible with property despite but his pride leading him to believe otherwise.

Notable Characters:
I mentioned before that Comer’s performance stands above the others. Not only does she have the dual performance of her male counterparts but the additional juxtaposition between a devote wife, a doe-eyed temptress and a woman at the mercy of a world stacked against her. Marguerite’s trial in Paris is mortifying and the indignity with which she is treated by those around her gives Comer a chance to really impress in essentially three roles. A particularly memorable aspect is once the claim is submitted to the crown, Marguerite’s friends abandon her and even her mother in law states it is just the way if things, despite revealing that she too had suffered the same fate. Yet all Marguerite wants is justice and what is right while her husband is solely occupied with being personally wronged.

Highlighted Quote:
“There is no right, there is only the power of men”

In A Few Words:
“A mature slowburn piece that excels as a seldom seen thought-provoking epic period drama”

Total Score:

5/5

Evil Dies Tonight

Director
David Gordon Green

Starring
Jamie Lee Curtis
Nick Castle
Andi Matichak
Judy Greer
Anthony Michael Hall
Will Patton

Set immediately after the events of Halloween (the frustratingly titled sequel to 1978’s Halloween), we discover Michael Myers is still alive as fire fighters respond to Laurie Strode’s [Lee Curtis] burning residence. He kills them all and continues his rampage. At the same time, Laurie is taken to hospital to be treated for her wounds, believing Michael is dead but when several survivors of the initial killing spree in the 70s – headed by Tommy Doyle [Hall] – learn Myers has returned, they rally a throng of angry citizens to hunt down and kill the murderer.

Picking the story up with the same team ensures a perfect continuity in tone and feeling from the previous instalment. On a positive note that means we’re treated to the same great thundering score, interesting dynamic direction, solid performances and magnificently executed kills. We also continue the grounded, almost Unforgiven style approach to combatting fear, specifically the idea that competence and skill falter in the face of something truly terrifying. Or in other words, when Michael appears people can’t shoot for shit.

Regrettably this returning cast and crew means all my previous grips and frustrations are back. We get the same level of irreverent humour that doesn’t always work, Allyson’s crappy boyfriend is back but given a redemption arc and a strong idea of where it wants to go but meandering to get there. In addition to these issues, Halloween Kills creates more grief for itself due to the lack of a time skip. Progressing the story straight after the 2018 events generates the same limitations and obstacles that something like The Last Jedi faced, as the script has to deal with the consequences of what we’ve just witnessed while lurching everything forward, in essence sort of unwriting the clean denouement. This also means that you can’t have your fairly grounded gritty take with a lacerated Laurie Strode at its centre and hospitalising what every fan considers to be the franchise lead (as well as, let’s face it, the best actor on set) will irk many.

The real polarisation, however, comes from this instalment’s central theme. Halloween 2018 introduced us to a very different Laurie Strode, similar to the version in Halloween H20, she is clearly suffering with PTSD but was more aggressive in her reclusivity and preparedness for attack. Halloween Kills extends that mindset to Michael’s other would-be victims, which is personified in the survivor’s guilt riddled, revenge-driven Tommy Doyle. It’s not just that Tommy is suffering with anxiety but he has developed an inferiority complex stemming from the inability to defend his loved ones from harm as a young child. This then manifests in the adult Tommy, determined to reap street justice and by rallying a mob initially changes the dynamic of the film, with the ensuing chaos feeling like new territory for the decades long franchise. This escalates to scenes reminiscent of Frankenstein as the townsfolk hunt down and pursue another escapee from the bus crash in the previous film, believing he is Michael Myers. While I genuinely enjoyed this analysis on the crippling effect of fear and mob mentality over reason, the film is so wrapped up in this direction that it fails to deliver what many want or expect from a Halloween release.

As a component of a larger story, Halloween Kills serves as an interesting thought experiment littered with some of the most brutal, bloody and violent kills in any Halloween film to date. In essence it is trying to please a number of different audience types but despite all this, it’s still a bridge. The film ends without a satisfying conclusion and more so than its predecessor leans into the reliance of a follow-up, meaning as a standalone it doesn’t pack enough punch to come off as truly memorable or noteworthy. Having said that I would be genuinely curious to see how Halloween Ends brings this narrative to a close and whether those events will serve to elevate what took place in this release.

Release Date:
15 October 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
The film opens by showing us that Deputy Frank Hawkins [Patton] is heavily wounded but alive. It then details a very interesting through-line which flashes back to immediately after the events of the original Halloween. Myers’ rampage is complete and the police attempt to apprehend him with the help of Dr Loomis. I have to say, these scenes were fantastic. So often these recreations fail to capture the look and atmosphere of the time period but everything about the cinematography and production design is masterfully evocative and bringing Hawkins’ guilt to the surface is a truly interesting angle.

Notable Characters:
Once again Judy Greer and Jamie Lee Curtis remain standout. The dynamic between mother and daughter continues to captivate and both being the voice of reason in the frenzy is wonderful. Another decent minor performance comes from Patton as Hawkins. When he and Laurie console one another, they both take turns blaming themselves for Michael’s actions before concluding that he is simply a force of evil and neither of them are to blame. This is actually a great bit of writing and really speaks to how survivors of trauma see the world and the events inflicted upon them.

Highlighted Quote:
“People are afraid. That is the true curse of Michael. You can’t defeat it with brute force”

In A Few Words:
“As with 2018’s Halloween, this story doesn’t come close to the heights of the original and doesn’t do much to surpass the other sequels but for all its missteps, it’s clearly trying something novel and should be commended for that”

Total Score:

2/5

Last One Standing

Director
Andy Serkis

Starring
Tom Hardy
Woody Harrelson
Michelle Williams
Naomie Harris

After the events of Venom, reporter Eddie Brock [Hardy] and the alien symbiote in his body have a mutual truce but Venom is bitter, feeling they should be hunting down criminals. Brock is brought in to interview serial killer Cletus Kasady [Harrelson] and in the process manages to learn the location of his buried victims. This reopens the case and the State sentences Kasady to death. Brock meets with him once last time and when goaded, Venom lashes out, giving Cletus enough time to bite him and absorb part of the symbiote. In doing so he is able to stop the lethal injection and breaks out of prison to locate a fellow in-mate from his childhood, Frances Barrison [Harris].

I think it’s fair to say, no one saw Venom being the runaway success that it was. It was a bloated mess of a movie but one that garnered enough praise (and more importantly cash) to warrant a return. This time Serkis has been brought in to replace Fleischer and it’s evident certain lessons have been thankfully learned but even with these implemented changes, we’re still left with a remarkably mediocre movie.

In truth, Hardy’s performance continues to be the only real reason to stick around. It was the thing that got people to see the previous film in the first place: the whacky co-piloting and erratic behaviour tarting up an incredibly uninspired script. But despite the energy in the performance, the character of Eddie Brock is still utterly baffling. Venom itself highlights that he was a shambles before the alien parasite came along and the mystery of where Cletus’ victims were buried was only solved thanks to Venom’s observations; which is true. So the film does the dated sequel conflict of forcing Venom out on his own and the two realise how much they need each other.

On the other side of things is Harrelson as Cletus/Carnage. It’s abundantly clear Harrelson is having a lot of fun in the role but we aren’t given sufficient enough reason why Cleitus contacted Brock in the first place. Initially it seems he’s doing it to get a message out to his childhood partner, Frances, but that impetus feels so very weak. From there the film sort of cobbles together a few ideas ranging from him wanting to get his story out because he was abused by his family before he killed them (employing that classic lazy “abused kids grow up to be killers” trope) before settling on “I wanted your friendship.” It may sound like I’m honing in too much on a very minor aspect but it becomes such an all-encompassing motivation that sets most of the story in motion and the fact it’s so paper-thin is telling that it doesn’t matter so long as the two symbiotes get to meet and fight.

This of course highlights arguably the film’s biggest issue: the writing. Everything about this movie feels like a throwback to the superhero films of the 2000s and while that may be a fun welcome return for some, it doesn’t justify sloppy scenarios. The dialogue is unfunny with Venom’s jabs feel like cheap punch up, the scenes are uninspired and at the end of the film, Brock tells Venom about Don Quixote but completely misses the point of the character dynamic to the point it’s worth questioning why they included it in the first place. And then there’s Carnage. There’s no explanation why this symbiote is red or how it has it’s own personality while embodying Cletus. It’s borne of Venom (calling him father) but we don’t get any sort of idea how and why this thing exists and the very implication that all it takes for someone to become an alien parasitical killer is to ingest some blood is worrying to say the least. But the script doesn’t care. The film literally has no time because it knows from the experience of the first film that the strengths will be pithy dialogue, Hardy’s over-the-top performance and a big brawl at the end.

As stated earlier, there are areas where the film excels over the former outing. Number one is the runtime. Venom: Let There Be Carnage is mercifully shorter, to the tune of around fifteen minutes. But that shaving down means that the majority of the manic events don’t outstay their welcome as much. I would also add that the action is a little clearer than the melted snotfest that was the first one – but that’s also because it feels like there are significantly fewer action sequences. But again the tone feels off. In America, these films have both been rated PG-13 but in the UK they didn’t get the 12a rating they were after and had to be released as 15. I bring this up to highlight that the filmmakers weren’t aiming for a dark older teen release but actively trying to force the jovial nonsense of a 12a into this weird possession piece that leaves us with an immature body horror tale with all the potential wasted.. again.

All things considered, this is another surprisingly dull and predictable slog. There’s very little new ground and the arc of Venom and Brock being best buds was how the first film ended and is exactly the same as how this film concluded. No real growth, no progression, just a loud chaotic affair that culminates in a mid-credits tease that will be the most talked about aspect of the whole film.

Release Date:
15 October 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
While separated from Eddie, Venom takes random unsuspecting individuals on joyrides. Eventually he finds himself in a club with people in costume. We then go through the rather worn-out trope that Venom gets to be his true self and the revellers just accept that his appearance is a costume. Then he walks up to the stage and gives a speech about aliens should be free to live where they want and everyone should be allowed to be who and what they are. This strikes a tone with the (never openly but presumably) LGBTQ+ crowd but the scene doesn’t go anywhere. It’s just a weird one note joke and a cheap visual gag. Which, in all honesty, sums up a lot of issues this film has.

Notable Characters:
Once again, Michelle Williams is thoroughly wasted. Harris’ character isn’t great but at least she gets to play around as this campy villain but Williams is given the impression of things to do without actually escaping the damsel in distress role.

Highlighted Quote:
“Responsibility is for the mediocre”

In A Few Words:
“No better or worse than its predecessor, picking up the slack in certain areas but falling by the road in others. Another thoroughly middling affair”

Total Score:

2/5

Director
Fran Kranz

Starring
Jason Isaacs
Martha Plimpton
Ann Dowd
Reed Birney

Two sets of parents meet in the neutral ground of a church hall to discuss the aftermath of a school shooting that claimed the lives of their respective sons. Jay [Isaacs] and Gail [Plimpton] want some sort of reason or answer to justify what happened while Richard [Birney] and Linda [Dowd] try to detail the type of person their son was before he made the decision to commit the crime.

Mass is an outwardly straightforward pressure cooker chamber piece addressing the difficulty of needing to heal but having such great difficulty getting to the point where that is possible, as well as the struggle of not knowing exactly what anyone wants or how even to get there. Ultimately the story highlights the limitations of language, especially when clouded by grief, as the four main characters haphazardly blame society, institutions and themselves while trying to analyse post hoc why the events happened the way they did, knowing full well there will never be a satisfactory answer.

The first half an hour is uncomfortable viewing with the constant bubbling tension and fury at the back of the throat which is only broken at the end of the first quarter with Gail bluntly responding, “Why do I want to know about your son? Because he killed mine.” In truth, I’m surprised this wasn’t optioned to be a stage play rather than a film as it spools on in real time, giving the actors such a simple platform to express so much pain, sorrow and anger. And the performances on display here are truly masterful. The information slowly being unravelled and unveiled for the audience as the baton is passed between the four leads, each given their chance to take the foreground and reveal more and more details of the events; a method that could easily feel incredibly forced and clumsy in lesser hands.

Kranz’s direction is arguably so simple but it’s more the editing I think that really stands out, it elevates the performances and tension throughout and what little score there is feels like a horror movie with its dark ambient humming. Pacing-wise, the events draw to a natural point of close every 15 minutes or so and just when everything settles, it flares up again. In this way we get spikes but overall there is a clear bellcurve of emotion, from simple awkward opening pleasantries to at each others throats desperate for answers before finally returning to the same simple pleasantries; like a warm up and cool down.

This is clearly indicated (some could say heavy-handedly) from the quiet unassuming opening with very locked-off symmetrical shots carried by the captivating mundanity of the performances imbuing an ominous foreboding of what’s to come through the preparation of the spaces – even down to a child’s attempt at a stained glass heart shape made of crepe paper evoking negative feelings. This establishes a general sense of absence and emptiness so by the hour mark, the camera comes off the tripod and embodies the emotional escalation in the room as the shots become unstable. But as with before, just when you think the film is over and left wondering what is left to tell, Linda reappears with one final story and it’s crushing.

Creating a one-location narrative in real time with two seemingly opposed pairs going through the stages of grief – quite literally – should be cliche. It should be rote and amateur but through the way the film is presented and performed, it’s a spectacularly emotional experience. But there are those who will see cliche in the symbolism, it’s just a question of preference and tolerance. Case in point, transitioning from two couples separated by a table to four chairs in a circle, sitting in silence is the kind of writing that some may find obvious while others will feel is remarkably powerful.

Release Date:
11 October 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
A subtle interesting choice, in addition to transitioning the way the film was shot from tripod to handheld as the tension escalates, was the decision to change the aspect ratio and lenses with a shallower depth of field to make the simple room even more claustrophobic, bringing you in.

Notable Characters:
It’s extremely hard to separate any of the performances but Martha Plimpton’s transition from being prickly and furious to arguably the most cathartically forgiving in the room is glorious. With Gail saying she made a promise to her deceased son that his death wouldn’t be in vain, that things would change when the country they live in seemingly never will and trying to focus on something innocent to highlight the value of a life cut short.

Highlighted Quote:
“It’s not whether it’s one thing or the other, that’s the fallacy, that’s their whole distraction defence. You know, don’t look over here by guns, look over there by mental health. You know, it’s not possible to address both, it’s insulting”

In A Few Words:
“A beautiful, harrowing, utterly understated, true American drama”

Total Score:

5/5

This Changes Everything

Director
Cary Joji Fukunaga

Starring
Daniel Craig
Rami Malek
Léa Seydoux

In an unusual move, the film effectively starts with two cold opens. The first is a flashback to Madeleine Swann’s [Seydoux] childhood wherein we see her mother killed by a masked assailant – a victim of her villainous father. The film then jumps ahead to an effective honeymoon period between Bond [Craig] and Swann. Under Seydoux’s advisement, Bond visits the tomb of former lover Vesper Lynd, however upon arrival the pair are ambushed, destroying the MI6 agent’s trust for his partner. Five years later a highly sophisticated bioweapon is stolen and Bond is forced to return to MI6 to assist in its recovery.

The last five Bond films have been the most directly connected narrative in the franchise’s history and has proven extremely successful because of it. As such, there is a distinct air of legacy to the various elements on show. Not only do we have references and threads from the last four films, there are countless nods to 60+ years of James Bond. Most important, however, is that their execution is vastly superior to something like Die Another Day. From the subtle portraits of former “Ms” to the use of leitmotifs from decades of Bond films woven into the score, there’s a through-line of historical weight and representation. On top of that we are also treated to plenty of treachery and double-crossing one would expect from a spy thriller but plenty of 90s level action and comedy has made a welcome return to inject a bit of life and fun into the grounded grittiness we have come to expect from this particular iteration of Bond.

Speaking of the man himself, James Bond now has the most complete arc in his history. While we previously enjoyed standalone, almost serial-esque outings, these five features create a single (albeit choppy) story. With his emotional journey, the eponymous spy is given more nuance and is less of a misogynistic brute. He is constantly caught off guard, being unable to read an obvious double agent, allowing himself to be trapped and manipulated and thoroughly underestimating a young female CIA agent. For the fact that we don’t have this constant refresh from film to film, with Bond actually growing from a hot-headed middle aged man to a thoroughly tired and bitter older man will ensure not only Craig as one of the best portrayals of the character and a fan favourite but also likely dictate how the franchise will push forward.

I would also add that, as was attempted during the Brosnan years, the Craig Bond films try to combat the idea of “the Bond girl” by portraying driven women who challenge both the main character’s (and the audience’s) preconceptions of the world around him. While there have been varying/arguable levels of success with this, nowhere is it better illustrated than in this feature. Everything we have come to expect from Bond’s existence, his allies, his attitudes and actions, as well as the theatre he operates in, are given a little more scrutiny. Things cannot remain static for the series to progress and if the world is changing but the central figure refuses to, one could argue what is the relevance of such an individual. This, obviously, can strike a tone with the target demographic but will no doubt be called out by detractors as Bond being too liberal or conscientious while failing to understand that this is the growth the character so desperately needed.

Unfortunately, where the film doesn’t grow or progress is the villain. The idea of what Lyutsifer Safin [Malek] represents is infinitely more impressive than the actual confrontation and never truly lives up to the hype of complexity at the start. Safin’s plan is a little odd, there isn’t much effort to explain what he’s been doing from the cold open to his re-emergence, there is a strong focus on his otherness, as represented by his thick accent, effete manner and disfigurements. The script does its best to imply a shadow, that Safin is the other side of the coin for Bond, a cautionary tale of what he could have been but the truth is that was never the case and has been done better in former Bond films. It’s just disappointing that we are still focusing on the same tired representations of marginalised communities to portray villains. I will, however, give the film some credit in not calling him Dr No. So much of the movie from its title to the opening credits to the denouement’s setting give several clues that the villain is in fact Dr No in all but name and I actually appreciate the restraint; if that indeed was the intention.

No Time To Die is constructed extremely well and it’s always good to see the franchise with in-camera practical effects – which admittedly kind of makes the CGI-heavy finale feel a little out of place at times. In my review for Skyfall I mentioned that at that point, the story had been brought full-circle to a degree, with all the series tropes in place, one could seamlessly slot straight into Dr No. Little did I appreciate that we’ve come so far from the lampooning of comedies like Austin Powers that we can indeed have a story that ends on a volcano island base with a softly spoken megalomaniac, surrounded by people in 60s-style hazmat suits, threatening to end all life on earth with the weaponised terror of the moment. Where we had the cold war nuclear fear, now we have an impossibly unstoppable viral peril, it’s a marvellously 21st century threat that feels painfully prescient considering this film was originally scripted, shot and scheduled for release long before the covid pandemic.

The film is not without faults. After the splashy thrills of Cuba, it sits into itself and delivers a fairly mature thriller and while this will please some, it could be considered boring for others; although unlike Quantum Of Solace, which came out during the writer’s strike, everything flows well and the whole effort is surprisingly well paced for nearly 3 hours. But again, this is largely due to attempts to course correct from the previous film, being forced to to cram in a fuller conclusion to Bond’s nemesis and resolve the threat of Spectre while telling its own unique story and on top of that offering something entirely new: an end to the Bond saga.

As stated earlier, this is the first time in its history that we have a connected Bond story with a start, middle and end. But despite this connected plot, it doesn’t actually have the satisfaction of an overall story because each instalment was made without any real overarching plan and when watching all 5 back-to-back the cohesion is lost, realising that it’s mostly foggy memories that helped it along in the first place. It’s not so much the lack of a plan, more the stop-start energy that repeatedly resets the story. Every time you have a handle on who Bond is, the landscape of the country he serves and the mastermind adversary in front of him, we are treated to a jilted restructuring that impacts the momentum.

In spite of its minor failings, No Time To Die will serve as an extremely bold and satisfying conclusion to a beloved era that resurrected a hobbled franchise. Naturally there will be plenty of discussion about where the series will go next and who will take on the mantle but for now let’s just appreciate that MGM have accomplished something some would have never thought possible: an end for James Bond.

Release Date:
30 September 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
In a film littered with spectacle and action beats among mounting suspense, there is naturally a wealth of content to highlight but for me, one of the standout moments was the raid on the MI6 lab in London. From the opening shot of insurgents scaling the skyscraper windows at dusk to the frenetic and terrifying ransacking of the laboratory, it felt less like a standard Bond action requirement and more like the tense thriller it projects itself as.

Notable Characters:
While I would like to focus on the pleasing supporting roles of individuals like Ben Whishaw, Lashana Lynch Ana de Armas or Ralph Fiennes, I have to focus on something altogether different. I can’t get past Swann and Bond as a couple. The script works valiantly to push these two together and portray them as ill-fated but destined lovers, that their circumstance and history mean they are fated to be together. But the truth is, I still don’t see the chemistry between Craig and Seydoux. Both play their roles with diligence and care respectively but when together I am in no way convinced of their compatibility or desire. It’s unfortunate because in essence the entire five film narrative hinges on Bond being hung up on Lynd but wanting to move on with Swann and while I am absolutely sold on the former, the latter just doesn’t work for me.

Highlighted Quote:
“If you have nothing to give you are irrelevant. We thank you for your service again. Goodbye”

In A Few Words:
“Surface imperfections and series correction aren’t enough to sully the veneer of this decently put together final outing for an iconic blockbuster staple”

Total Score:

4/5

Director
Cate Shortland

Starring
Scarlett Johansson
Florence Pugh
Rachel Weisz
David Harbour

Taking place immediately after the events in Civil War, Natasha Romanoff [Johansson] is on the run, hiding out in a remote part of Norway. There she receives a package that draws her back into her old life as a spy, before joining SHIELD and becoming an Avenger. Racing across Europe, she is reunited with the members of her childhood mission that made up her family (albeit a constructed cover story) and discovers that the Red Room that trained her is still active and chemically controlling the minds of their current members.

Helmed by Shortland, Black Widow is one of the least Marvel feeling movies in the current roster. It hits all the beats and is clearly part of the shared universe but the presentation of the first two thirds stands separate to the degree that this could easily be a disconnected action thriller. For some this will be a negative while for others it will be the perfect palate cleanser. Leaning heavily on it’s contemporaries, Black Widow heavily presents itself as an equal to the modern spy thriller, evoking Mission: Impossible energy with elaborate stunts and action beats across locales then cooling off with quiet moments in rustic locations stocked with guns to assess exactly what went wrong. On top of that, the film goes out of its way to make direct James Bond parallels with Natasha reciting old Roger Moore films in her spare time. For me, this was an incredibly smart move, it not only positions this release as an alternative counterpart but doubles down on the suspension of disbelief; the idea that if we are willing to accept that this spy can fight alien hordes and out-of-control AI robots, she can survive a fall that someone like James Bond or Ethan Hunt would be able to endure.

As much as the comic-book element is present with the continuation of the cold war legacy of mind control, manipulation and brainwashing, the film is largely presented as a straight thriller. The cinematography tilts more toward a grounded political cryptogram with a heavy chase element, while the direction is close and tight and continuing that sort of Jason Bourne kineticism. That is, all the way until the third act which sort of suffers from the same issues that plagued Wonder Woman – with the established setting and logic heavily abandoned for an obligatory CGI spectacle piece. Thankfully, this transition isn’t nearly as unpleasant as it could be, thanks to the unsurprisingly impressive score from Lorne Balfe which carries us through with great recurring leitmotifs and momentum. I would even go so far as to say that it stands alongside The Winter Soldier, Doctor Strange and Black Panther as one of the best all-round Marvel scores. Although it has to be said, studios teasing us with these bold trailer themes that are in no way present in the final score is an unfortunate industry necessity but make for a very frustrating time when they hit a really decent sound that is nowhere to be seen in the finished film. Looking at you Captain Marvel.

On an acting front, I was overall very pleased. The dynamic and chemistry between Pugh and Johansson as Natasha and Yelena is fantastic with Pugh’s chaotic younger sister vibes ensure she’s not just Black Widow 2.0 – even though that’s the very definition of what the studio is doing here. There’s also just enough self aware commentary that lambasts how Johansson’s character has been handled in previous instalments; things like mocking the way Romanoff performs a “superhero landing” then flicking her hair back, with Yelena accusing her of being “such a poser.” Some may believe the back and forth juxtaposition between the irreverence and severity of the situation invalidates its presence in the first place while others will see it as gallows humour in the vein of most standard marvel quipping in the face of certain death. I feel it’s probably a bit of both. Any time we feel we’re getting close to some actual deep-felt development, we are pulled back with an undercut of comedy – something that has been present in these movies since the beginning and very much a product of the Whedon-style TV writing of the late 90s. At one point Yelena ribs Natasha for her idea of moving on, highlighting that they are both serial murderers but only one of them is on magazines with little girls around the world calling her a hero. It’s a very interesting point that is never fully addressed. There is the idea that redemption is a thing but not really fleshed out enough for us to say whether it is ever truly earned, either by the titular character or anyone else in the Red Room programme. The irony here is that with Marvel’s plan, Yelena will have the exact same hollow transition that she chides Natasha for reaches for.

The film is also carried by decent supporting roles. The dysfunctional family element is one of the film’s strongest components when it is firing on all cylinders. Harbour and Weisz play the Incredibles roles of the big dumb but caring strong dad and the clever mum who’s under appreciated and “doing this for your own good.” I will admit that with the film pressing heavily on the who can you trust angle, the development of these characters can feel a little up and down and there’s an odd conceit that while undercover these individuals have the perfect American accents but for the point of the movie they adopt Russian accents for the rest of the film. Then we have the central villain, who I won’t get too deep into to avoid spoilers but I find it hard to separate the actor from the performance for this one. The role in question is played by Ray Winstone and what he does with the script is perfectly serviceable but I cannot fathom why he was chosen. Of the central cast, he is the third British actor playing a Russian and while he has the requisite menace, I feel this could have been done by anyone and for such a strong part of Natasha’s life and drive, he will eventually be remarkably forgettable.

My main complaint with this film is that it didn’t have any surprises for me. So much of this feature is competently executed and thoroughly enjoyable but ultimately nothing I didn’t see coming. And I think a lot of that stems from the delay to tell this story. As stated from the outset of this review, the events portrayed take place just after Civil War and that would likely have been the best time to release this film. More so than that, this is a long overdue outing considering Johansson has been in the on-screen MCU longer than Captain America or Thor. This is frankly a movie that you could have put out around the time of Iron Man 3 (2013 for those who have forgotten) and it would have stood out as one of the best. Instead what we get is a solid send off but also a frustrating glimpse of an entire trilogy that could have served as one of the MCU’s most interesting properties.

I also mentioned earlier that this movie feels like it’s trying to say something but whenever it gets too close to something of note, an overbearing censor swoops in and says “that’s far too serious, we need to add some levity here.” The themes of child abuse and trafficking are incredibly serious and the movie alludes to it in a way that feels like it scratches the surface. There’s a magnificently cold line which is that the one resource that is an abundance which can be easily exploited is girls. That is frankly chilling in how poignant it is yet being an escapist film, the movie never pushes hard enough on that to feel like it has taken any real stand.

Ultimately, at no point did I believe this story was being told because it needed to be, it feels more like filling a quota or meeting a contractual obligation. That being said, I think it is a strong standalone expansion which introduces us to a brilliant new player as well as a fitting tribute to a familiar one in this multi-billion dollar sandbox. But the truth is, as I have said time and again, Marvel films are structured like TV episodes now; they all feed into a larger narrative arc with big mythology episodes pushing the stories forward and smaller monster-of-the-week adventures that add to the whole but can be seen as self-contained tales. Black Widow has the unfortunate nature of being an early season standalone episode but was only bundled with a DVD release of the series; so it fills in a lot of blanks but if you missed it, you haven’t necessarily missed out. And for me, that’s a damn shame.

Release Date:
09 July 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
I will say that Black Widow, arguably has one of the most engrossing cold opens in any Marvel film. Set in the mid 90s it quickly establishes the faux-harmony of the undercover spy family with a deep level of genuine affection shared among them. This is all heightened by the daring escape to Cuba under hot-pursuit from the law. Executed compellingly, maintaining a sense of urgency and threat, it pulls you right in. It’s a shame that we don’t really hit that high again for a long time but it’s a hell of a way to start a film.

Notable Characters:
We have to talk about Taskmaster. For the longest time Marvel has had a problem with its villains, with the best efforts either being turned into antiheroes (Loki and Zemo) or killing them off entirely (Killmonger and Thanos). For fans of the named character, this will likely feel like a sort of betrayal, for others it will merely be the start of a potentially long narrative journey. But while this remains to be seen, I felt the identity, role and motivation of Taskmaster became a sort of race against the clock. To explain, this movie has a full opening titles sequence with the top-billed actors named upfront. This meant that I gleaned a name which had yet to be seen or confirmed, so it was impossible not to start formulating theories based primarily on that actor as opposed to anything being teased on-screen.

Highlighted Quote:
“This would be a cool way to die”

In A Few Words:
“A gratifying eleventh-hour release that would have had significantly more impact if it were released when first demanded some eight years ago”

Total Score:

4/5

One Will Fall

Director
Adam Wingard

Starring
Rebecca Hall
Alexander Skarsgård
Kaylee Hottle
Millie Bobby Brown
Julian Dennison
Brian Tyree Henry
Demián Bichir

Following a storm which wiped out all but one [Hottle] of the Skull Island’s indigenous population, King Kong has been moved to a facility, monitored by Dr Ilene Andrews [Hall] for preservation but also to avert an all out fight between two alpha titans. After an Apex Cybernetics plant in Florida is attacked by Godzilla, a conspiracy podcast host (and Apex engineer) begrudgingly teams up with Madison Russell [Bobby Brown] and her friend Josh [Dennison] to uncover why Godzilla attacked without provocation. Meanwhile the head of Apex, Walter Simmons [Bichir] contracts geologist Dr Nathan Lind [Skarsgård] to charter an expedition to the centre of the earth to prove his theory of a hollow earth. Lind explains it will only be possible to breach the barrier if led by a titan and thus Kong is unwillingly conscripted but taking him out of his enclosure alerts Godzilla to his existence.

Since their first release in 2014, Legendary have been trying to get traction with their giant monster franchise and for the most part they have. Critical reviews have been decent and the box office has been a fairly solid half-a-billion dollars; admittedly this was not mirrored with the most recent instalment (Godzilla: King Of The Monsters) but this pitched universe has ultimately, at least at this stage, been building toward this fight. And if this is where this experiment ends, I’d be ok with this as a send off.

The film whips along at breakneck pace for the shortest runtime of the four features thus far (a fraction over two hours) and leans more on Kong than Godzilla. While one could argue that Godzilla had a sequel so Kong should get more attention, these aren’t people, it’s not about contract disputes, it ultimately comes down to Kong being a huge ape and therefore easier for writers to humanise and interact with. Having said this, the split makes sense to me and I take little umbrage with who gets more or less screen time; the problem I have is the opening credits. Far too much heavy lifting is given to a few blink-and-you’ll-miss-it images that cover the last five years of world building. Frankly there isn’t nearly enough cohesion from the end of King Of The Monsters, which ended on the climactic image of several giant titans making their way from all over the world to bow to Godzilla. Surely a world in which multiple titanic creatures exist is going to have major implications for how we progress as a species but seemingly very little changes for humans other than our technology advances a good five or six decades.

In terms of its construction, the film is actually a real treat. The action is clear and well directed – I think it’s fair to say the fight choreography could mostly be described as “What?” “You gonna step to me?” and “Stay down!” – the cinematography is rich and flooded with bright neon lights – something that will no doubt irritate some but with so many washed out, desaturated films, it’s a nice change of pace – and the CGI is incredibly impressive with very few problematic shots. While the sound design is decent, if a little busy, the score by Warner Bros’ current go-to composer, Tom Holkenborg is pretty dry. I absolutely loved the themes by Alexandre Desplat in 2014’s Godzilla and Henry Jackman’s score for Kong: Skull Island is genuinely the best thing about that movie for me. But Holkenborg’s offering here is mostly simplistic droning with little nuance, elevation or range. Listening back to it, there are so many really strong elements and the possibility of something memorable but at the end of the day, it felt a little smothered.

Oddly enough, no matter how many decades have passed since the eponymous character’s first respective outings, the main criticism hasn’t changed: more monster stuff, less human stuff. While the human/kaiju ratio has always been a point of contention, I think there’s a certain Mandela effect, a misremembering of how these films have always been structured. The problem isn’t too many human plot lines, it’s that that the human angle is rarely well written and fails to engage the audience, it should be just as engaging and entertaining as the monster fights and that is admittedly a very difficult balance. For a prime example of where it works well, you need only look at something like Jurassic Park or to stick with the kaiju genre specifically, Shin Godzilla or Gamera 3: Revenge Of Iris. There has to be a good harmony between the titan punch-up and the human plight and in an effort to counter this criticism the humans are woven into Kong’s story with reasonable ease but the elements carried over from King Of The Monsters don’t fare as well as there has never been a true connection between Godzilla and someone like Madison. But the boring truth is, it’s a cost factor, always has been. The budget can’t stretch to two hours of constant CGI monster fights and in a way this leaves Godzilla Vs Kong feeling very reminiscent of old 90s and early 00s blockbusters but now with the budget and technical ability to really sell the visuals.

Speaking of the human component, I’ll admit I didn’t find any of them particularly offensive. I thought the team of Drs Lind and Andrews with Jia was perfectly compelling and while they could have been severely grating, Madison, Josh and Bernie were perfectly serviceable and I’m sure if I were 12, they would have been a nice precocious audience surrogate for me. There’s very little illusion who the villains are, from the moment they are introduced, but again, if you’re pitching this to kids as your primary demographic, that’s not the weakness it could have been. I do wonder, however, if there were significant amounts of this film discarded to keep it under two hours as you have someone like Lance Reddick in a glorified cameo, despite being named in the title sequence and Kyle Chandler being whittled down to the point of useless in this film.

**spoiler paragraph**
I feel like a Godzilla film is released and it’s a serious allegory about war, death, climate control or just the idea of mankind being punished for its hubris. Then we get a follow-up and sticking with the established formula, we need to see a bunch of monsters punching each other in the face, the grandiose themes are stripped away and there is an element of fun to the general carnage and chaos. Time and time again we see this slide from grounded in reality to full-blown fantasy science fiction with aliens, psychic signals, secret realms and magic weapons. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that but I certainly enjoy them less. As stated earlier, this film’s world building seems to go a little Pacific Rim and imply since the discovery of these creatures we have developed the sort of technology that will allow us to create our own robotic kaiju and vehicles that can pass through the earth’s core. I will say this much, it was a bold gamble but it actually paid off well. Initially setup in Kong: Skull Island, getting to see this inverted gravity world that exists at the planet’s centre (like a scotch egg) was pretty bombastic and largely pleasing for the sheer Journey To The Centre Of The Earth ambition. While we’re talking about the hollow earth, it was interesting to see this film actually pick a winner. We weren’t given an entirely stalemate situation, Kong got whomped, had to upgrade, got whomped again. But this brings us to Mechagodzilla – arguably one of the worst kept secrets due to the toy companies being too keen – I was expecting the sort of pitch from 1974’s Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla wherein the Godzilla wreaking havoc on the world is an imposter with a robotic endoskeleton but what we got here made sense, I didn’t hate the design of the creature, I’m glad it was linked into the Ghidorah head from the previous film and using this new adversary as a common enemy will feel a little Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice for some but I can’t complain too much.

In summation, I think this film pretty much delivers what it has advertised. Here is a film wherein the titular characters fight each other, a few times, in a few different locations. There are additional mini fights and a lot of great set pieces. Yes the human element could be stronger but the connection between Kong and Jia alone was passable enough for me. In truth, this could be an example of the right film at the right time. After a year (in the UK at least) of cinemas being shutdown bar a handful of limited screenings, many are starved for big blockbuster films and this feels cinematic. It feels like an event film and the novelty of that might light a fire under tired critics and weary audiences. Naturally I would prefer to have seen this in the cinema but all films end up on home media (physical or streaming) so we can’t argue that point too much. But to circle back to how I opened this review, if this is the last instalment of this particular iteration of these characters, I’d say they’re going out on a high.

Release Date:
31 March 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
So many audience members will be itching to get to the fight. A couple of teases and various human-based plot threads won’t suffice, they’ll want an all out, no holds barred brawl and I think the neon-lit nighttime showdown in Hong Kong absolutely delivers. The shots are clear, the camera work is clever, I literally didn’t care if anyone lived or died on the streets below (which should be worrying) because my attention was solely focused on the big lizard and the big monkey clobbering one another. What more can you ask for?

Notable Characters:
Another character that felt utterly undercooked but could have served as a very interesting individual was Ren Serizawa, played by Shun Oguri. I’ve seen Oguri in a few Japanese features and he’s a solid choice but he is so very wasted here. When introduced I immediately recognised the name and expected some sort of exploration of this but as little came out of it, I wrote off the link as something I projected onto the film. Only to later discover that Ren Serizawa is indeed supposed to be the son of Ken Watanabe’s character from the previous Godzilla films. So we had a character playing the son of the man who obsessed over and gave up his life for Godzilla but the justification for his transition to working for the company looking to effectively replace the titans is non existent. And a small addition, In a movie littered with subtitles due to sign language, why not just have him speak Japanese? You’d see fragments of sentences being said by Oguri but I feel the majority is reactionary footage from others around him, which reeks of ADR and is unfortunate.

Highlighted Quote:
“We need to go, the woman with the villain hair do is getting goons”

In A Few Words:
“Godzilla vs Kong: does what it says on the tin, at the expense of everything else”

Total Score:

3/5

Us United

Director
Zack Snyder

Starring
Ben Affleck
Gal Gadot
Ezra Miller
Jason Momoa
Ray Fisher
Henry Cavill
Ciaran Hinds

With the death of Superman [Cavill], a vast wave spreads across the world, signalling to three ancient devices that the planet Earth is no longer protected by an alliance of powerful beings and as such, the halted conquest by the alien conqueror Darkseid can once again continue. The emissary Steppenwolf [Hinds] hears this signal and begins collecting the three cosmic items to win back favour with his master and terraform the planet. Realising the threat at hand, Batman [Affleck] and Wonder Woman [Gadot] begin uniting a cabal of heroes to stop this. But with or without the mighty submariner metahuman Aquaman [Momoa], the super fast Flash [Miller] or technological hybrid Cyborg [Fisher], they may need to resort to extreme measures to bring back Earth’s strongest champion.

Throughout cinematic history, the existence of “director’s cuts” has presented a fascination for fans; the prospect of exploring interesting what ifs and experiencing the purest artistic vision, unfettered by studio interference. But these variant editions do not exist in a vacuum and it is almost impossible to go into this film without some knowledge of the background politics, the years of fan campaigning and the on set scandals by those who were brought on to fix it. And yet despite this, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is not what was intended. As a largely self indulgent experiment, it can offer insight into Snyder’s outline for the shared universe but Warner Bros were never going to release a 4 hour film in 2017. As such, comparing the two can be quite detrimental as the circumstances of their generation are so wildly at odds with one another, so I’ll try to avoid that where possible.

From the very outset we are informed that the movie is presented in the 4:3 aspect ratio as the director intended. While this format has been used for independent releases of late, it’s not necessarily that unorthodox as the final shot we see is often cropped to fit screens. In fact, 4:3 is quite close to the IMAX format. Personally I’m not the biggest fan but I will say that the aspect ratio neither adds nor detracts from the film itself but ultimately feels like a bit of an unnecessary insistence. The same could easily be said for the upcoming “Justice Is Gray” black and white edition, which I can’t imagine would really improve on what has been made or take from the already largely saturated image.

Coming off the back of Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice, Justice League feels like an improvement and a positive step forward. It still has all of the setup baggage and doesn’t know what to do with a lot of the characters it’s introducing but it feels like a more coherent and fleshed out character-focused piece and has been structured and arranged fairly decently; both as a long film and as a TV series.

At the time this would have been our first major look at several leads, while we’ll circle back to Aquaman, I’d like to focus on both the Flash and Cyborg. Everything about Ray Fisher’s portrayal of Cyborg felt like an absolute after thought in the theatrical version but in this edit, he is one of the most compelling individuals. A teenager wise beyond his years who has suffered tragedy and a being adjusting to his new reality. Fisher is compelling and interesting and stands toe-to-toe with not only veteran actors but comic properties that even non-comic book fans are familiar with. Granted, some of his interactions are clumsy and smack of Man Of Steel logic. For example, Victor’s father Silas explains everything his Frankenstein-like creation can accomplish and in the process it feels like a zealot heralding a villain before pivoting with the fairly weak Jonathan Kent “you have to choose” schtick. And so Cyborg goes out into the world, scours the entire digital frontier of human existence and finds one woman struggling to pay her bills and awards her one hundred grand. This may not sound like much but it’s Snyder’s whole attitude to heroes and one that illustrates that he doesn’t understand this incredibly complex and stupidly powerful person – like using a top of the line Mac to solely browse Facebook.
The Flash is also much more tolerable in his current form. Presenting someone who is quirky and sarcastic is a fine line without making them unbearable but Miller’s Flash is handled decently, offering some much needed levity to the whole dour universe we’ve been witnessing thus far (speaking from a 2017 perspective, obviously this observation holds no water alongside something like Shazam or Birds Of Prey). Additionally, Steppenwolf may look like the contents of a cutlery drawer in a washing machine but the performance has nicely evolved. Finally this antagonist has an agenda and actual expression in his face. Although I will admit that far too many of his scenes are a retread of the same exposition over and over but we’ll get to that later.

From an aural standpoint the sound design is decent and the score works well enough, if a little forgettable at times and often veering into Mad Max Fury Road / 300: Rise Of An Empire territory. Cyborg’s whole suite is genuinely quite soulful and moving and the Hans Zimmer Superman leitmotif remains incredibly strong. The thing that really jars is Snyder’s music choices, which seemingly never fit, setting the wrong tone. A prime example would be Aquaman downing a bottle of whiskey before returning to the sea, accompanied by Nick Cave’s There Is A Kingdom. The lyrics are eye-rollingly on-the-nose, the “last song of the night” vibe feels remarkably out of place and even things like the instruments used leave the impression that the entire justification for this accompanying track was “I like this song.”

I touched on the trademark washed-out colours being paired with the boxy aspect ratio, as well as the excessive runtime but we really need to talk about the director’s obsession with slow motion. I appreciate this is almost to the point of parody now but we should address the fact that he has proven it can work extremely well. Case in point, the resurrected Superman turning to see the Flash while he is at full speed is still the best moment of the movie. But slow motion is a tool, like any other in a filmmaker’s kit, and should be utilised to accentuate a point or moment of significance. The problem is that Snyder just likes how it looks and subsequently just over 10% of this entire feature has had footage slowed down meaning a tenth of this movie is presented as if it is a moment of significance. And while one could argue a story about saving the world from an alien invader must have plenty of significant moments, a sesame seed falling in slow-motion is certainly not one of them. What’s more, for all the money sunk into this feature, the CGI is often muddy, clunky and obvious. Admittedly, we have to take into consideration that this is fallout due to the release schedule and the pandemic but regardless of these factors, the film is far too reliant on it and wasn’t given enough time to properly develop it.

While I was expecting a certain amount of frustration with how Wonder Woman would be handled or Batman’s pivot from I must kill Superman at all cost to I must resurrect him at all cost, I found myself arguably most frustrated with Aquaman. To clarify, I think Momoa’s version of Aquaman is actually very decent and still hold his standalone feature up as an example of the sort bombastic entertaining tone DC should be aiming for. And that’s the problem. Snyder’s entire vision for Aquaman is pretty weak; I’ll admit it’s better than Whedon’s interpretation but the dialogue about his origin, the constant forming of air pockets to hold conversations, they highlight the director’s limitations on how to handle this character. This film also falls into the classic DC pitfall of how to handle Superman. Multiple Christ analogies and a damned good theme aside, Superman remains overpowered and the entire league unable to stand up to him goes so far to prove you don’t actually need a Justice League if you have a single Superman.

I could continue and pick apart the minutiae from Lois being fairly inconsequential to Steppenwolf’s repetitive exposition dumps being prime “cut that” material, or the endless amount of sequel/universe setup culminating in a supposed lost planet with the anti-life equation being earth all along, or the Atlanteans and Amazons guarding their motherboxes for centuries while mankind just dug a 3 foot hole in the ground in the woods, or Martha having a seemingly meaningful talk with Lois that turned out to be an interaction with someone else entirely, or Wonder Woman killing multiple individuals and being rewarded with a “can I be like you when I grow up” exchange, or the idea that Lois might be pregnant but I won’t because it doesn’t matter. And that is the ultimate failing of the director’s cut in a world of shared universes.

Poor world building is what led Warner Bros to ditch the original vision because the projected shared universe wasn’t vibing with audiences or critics, leading to a shift from expensive underperforming projects to more standalone unique creations with their own identity and audiences. Granted, one of these audiences loves what Snyder has done and would desperately love to see how it concluded but this is operating under the mindset that these stories have an end. Even something like Avengers: Endgame, which was the culmination of over a decade of setup was never going to be the end because the studio simply won’t allow a fiscally successful property to die. Subsequently, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is an interesting experiment but it shouldn’t be a springboard to relaunch an already sloppy universe that didn’t have the legs to maintain this march toward an apocalyptic future. I will absolutely hold my hands up and say this rendition is a vastly superior cut to what was released in cinemas four years ago. But the vast majority of audiences have moved on and I fear in an attempt to please every demographic, we’re going to end up with a series of course corrects that will still struggle to achieve what WB ultimately want – what Disney has. But hopefully I’m wrong.

Release Date:
18 March 2021

The Scene To Look Out For:
Despite the fact that this is likely the end of the road for the undeveloped storylines, Snyder still insisted on reshoots to further tease his apocalyptic vision of the future and frustratingly this is one of the most talked about moments because it’s the first interaction between Affleck’s Batman and Jared Leto as the Joker. With so much teased in the trailer, this entire thing boiled down to a remarkably flat damp squib littered with meaningless references and fan service posing as edgy content. If I had any flicker of interest for a continuation of this story, that scene firmly snubbed it out.

Notable Characters:
From the beginning I have stood by the casting of Jeremy Irons as Alfred and the playful chemistry he shares with the weathered Bruce Wayne continues to be a joy to watch.

Highlighted Quote:
“Not impressed”

In A Few Words:
“A stimulating and striking retread but one that still failed to exceed where necessary”

Total Score:

3/5

Director
Patty Jenkins

Starring
Gal Gadot
Kristen Wiig
Chris Pine
Pedro Pascal

Nearly 70 years after the events of Wonder Woman, Diana of Themyscira [Gadot] is the only survivor of the original cast. She lives a life of pure service, dividing her time between social isolation from those around her, holding down a day job at the Smithsonian and keeping the streets of Washington DC safe as “Wonder Woman.” But everything changes after a simple robbery unveils an ancient relic which seemingly has the ability to grant wishes. In the care of newly appointed gemologist Barbara Minerva [Wiig], the stone is sought after by television entrepreneur Maxwell Lord [Pascal] who believes it is the remedy to all his woes. And to complicate matters further, Diana’s long-dead love interest Steve Trevor [Pine] has woken up in another man’s body, unsure of how he arrived there.

I have a simple theory that to enjoy this movie you have to come at it in a very specific way and once this epiphany dawned on me, I was able to genuinely enjoy the experience for what it is. In a world where Superman breaks necks, Batman uses guns and there seems to be almost no superhero material for children, Wonder Woman has stepped in to fill the gap. More than that, this film emulates the benevolence and tone of the Richard Donner Superman films. No matter the obstacle, Diana refuses to kill, protects the innocent and ditches the sword and shield in favour of the lasso of truth. No doubt this will rile a lot of fans who are used to a certain type of superhero film or those who are expecting certain seminal moments of comic lore but this feature is trying to push past all that and recreate something that has been absent from cinema for a very long time.

The DCEU’s opening was dominated by both the success of The Dark Knight trilogy as well as Zack Snyder’s branded version of hyperviolence and pessimism, in terms of tone and visuals. But there has been a distinct alteration and there are now as many features pushing away from that image as there were those that defined it. Like Shazam or Aquaman, Wonder Woman 1984 is big and triumphant but more importantly is imbued with a fun wholesome energy throughout. The sheer lack of cynicism, globe-trotting adventure and literal wish fulfilment allows this movie to really stand apart from everything that has come before. Admittedly, the narrative isn’t doing a lot that’s new other than the female focus but in earnest, that is new and therefore feels fresh.

Speaking of the DCEU, the continuity doesn’t matter. None of it makes sense. It’s a shared universe with very little cohesion, so the fact that this film doesn’t fit into something like the events in Batman v Superman makes no difference to me, it flows from its 2017 predecessor and that’s all that matters. As we find her, Diana is alone and unlike someone like Steve Rogers who woke up to everyone he knew gone, Diana has watched them live, grow and die. This has given her a slight edge to start with and a hesitance to let people in. Which is a fantastic place to introduce Barbara Minerva. Barbara walks every cliche of the 80s but does it well – although I feel how you receive this character will depend entirely on your opinion of Wiig’s brand of comedy. And then there’s the primary antagonist, Maxwell Lord. Comic fans have grown up with a few versions of Lord and this is really none of them, it’s a unique creation for the movie but one I very much enjoyed. Maintaining that light sense of redemption, no one in this film is truly evil, Barbara and Max are just two weary downtrodden people desperate for a way out of their misery. While the first Wonder Woman film had a solid adversary in the idea of Aries and war in general, this led to a fairly displeasing climax that was the weakest element of that feature. With Barbara being Diana’s mirror opposite at the cost of her humanity and Lord’s selfish drive to prove to the world that he’s not a failure (with the noted tragedy of his son innocently wishing for his dad’s greatness), there’s something sympathetic to them and rather than snapping their necks or piercing them with a spear, the audience should want them to be redeemed as much as the titular character does.

Gadot once again shines as Diana and with every return to the character it becomes clearer and clearer that she was a fantastic pick for the role. As a fan of the Azzarello comic run, I’m desperate for something steeped in mythology and titanic monsters but a magic wishing stone cursed by a god offering elements of Wishmaster and Quantum Leap is a solid compromise. Although there’s something amusing about the real-world parallel of wishing on a monkey’s paw to sing a simple song to make the global lockdown not seem so bad – wish granted.. but at a price.

Curiously, you’d almost think these movies were directed by completely different individuals. Where the 2017 feature was desaturated and dark, due to its war-time setting, WW84 is as vibrant, bold and colourful as it can be. It’s not that this tonal shift is a disservice to the character or the continuity but it serves to highlight the incredible versatility Jenkins has and her ability to retain a recognisable emotional core regardless of setting and premise.

Of course, the movie isn’t perfect. The clichés and tropes are a little dulled by setting it in the 80s but they’re still present. There’s also the handful of questionable CGI moments that seem like a mandatory prerequisite of contemporary blockbusters these days and Barbara’s “end” feels somewhat unresolved, possibly open for a sequel or merely an oversight. But to my mind these are fairly minor flaws if you have been sold on the overall concept. Much like Black Panther, it’s not the finest version of what it can be but it feels like the start of something and the effort made is noteworthy and important.

It’s entirely possible that without a pandemic raging globally, Wonder Woman 1984 might not have made the impact it needed to, suffocated by the competition around it but as an optimistic beacon of hope, it stands out. In a world of r-rated superhero films geared primarily to middle-aged men with a disposable income (i.e. me), this feels like a movie you can take your kid to. Not just a teenager but a child and I think we’ve been quietly seeking that for some time. Furthermore, depicting a version of humanity which is able to shirk off selfish desires for the greater good thanks to the inspirational actions of a powerful female figure is something we so desperately need and for that alone the film deserves undying praise.

Release Date:
25 December 2020

The Scene To Look Out For:
Rupert Gregson-Williams’ 2017 score managed to use the frankly laughable guitar motif from Batman v Superman, adding it to a bold but ultimately sombre suite. Curiously, WW84 brings back Hans Zimmer for a strikingly different collection of almost care-free playful themes – the track 1984 in particular feels like it came thundering out of the last century. Despite that, toward the end of the movie, we are treated to John Murphy’s Adagio In D Minor from Sunshine, which felt wholly out of place and reeks of hold music (wherein a director uses temporary tracks in the edit but becomes so attached to them that they end up saying “make it sound like this”). The scene in question is also arguably the key emotional moment for Diana and it deserved better than taking me out of the film and stirring thoughts of an entirely different movie.

Notable Characters:
Arguably, a hero is only as good as the villain and it’s interesting that there is a third adversary under the surface yet constantly present. More subtle than a conman selling happiness for your soul or a cat/woman hybrid, it’s just living in a man’s world. All too often the female characters bat away unwanted advances and attention and understandably, there’s no conclusion to this. People like Diana and Barbara exist in a quietly oppressive world and despite all their power will still be subject to forms of sexual harassment and invalidation. Ultimately it could have said or done more with this but the scene with Barbara holding the wrists of an attacker and defiantly saying “No” is a clear enough message.

Highlighted Quote:
“I give everything I have every day and I’m happy to.. but this one thing–”

In A Few Words:
“A welcome return to big joyful superhero films of the past that instructs its youngest viewers to be good and aim high”

Total Score:

3/5

Director
David Fincher

Starring
Gary Oldman
Lily Collins
Amanda Seyfried
Charles Dance

In 1940, screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz [Oldman] is contracted to pen a script for Orson Welles (played by Tom Burke) but ends up in a car crash and is forced to take on assistance writing the script; this comes in the form of Rita Alexander [Collins]. Isolated, Mank’s mind wanders and through flashback we learn of his time at MGM and his friendship with Marion Davies [Seyfried] and paper tycoon William Randolph Hearst [Dance] that went on to inspire the story for Citizen Kane.

Other than pieces like Trumbo, Barton Fink and Adaptation, films about screenwriters are few and far between and very rarely flattering. And why would they be? Writers are very under-appreciated in Hollywood yet absolutely integral to its success and when scrutinised by fellow screenwriters, they often fall victim to whatever insecurities the individual holding the pen sees within themselves. With this in mind, it’s worth noting that Mank is very much an accompaniment piece like Ed Wood or Shadow Of The Vampire, that works fantastically on its own but really needs an understanding or appreciation of the movie that inspired its conception; in this case Citizen Kane.

One thing that is absolutely undeniable, even to the laymen, is that this film is marvellously constructed. The script is brimming with incredibly witty, fast paced banter and oozes charm. Curiously enough, there’s a nice parallel between the rhythm of the score and that of the dialogue. Speaking of which, Reznor/Ross’ jazzy transportive score is superb. Musically speaking their talent has been undeniable but few could have predicted the impressive range they have put on display in the last few years alone.

Unsurprisingly for Fincher, this movie is masterfully shot. The cinematography, grading, scene transitions and direction all bear the distinct stylings of Kane. Even the sound design has the echoy resonance to the dialogue from the 40s and that’s before we get to the subtle buried details like cigarette burns prompting reel changes followed by an ever-so-slight shudder implying the projectionist has just fitted the next part of the movie. But for all its focus and attention to minutiae, this obsessive love letter surprisingly does very little to dissect the classic Hollywood machine or bring anything new to the Welles/Kane story.

Anyone who knows the rough history around the writing of one of cinema’s greatest films will know that certain liberties have been taken and aside from the narrative structure there’s not as much about Citizen Kane as one would expect, more the individuals and events that inspired its creation. Most curiously, while Hollywood loves Hollywood, this film truly thrives in the politics it puts on show. Set in the formative late 30s, with war in Europe on the rise, one can hardly avoid politics but it’s more Mankiewicz’s combative personality and lack of filter that really exposes his peers and provides the movie with some of its greatest scenes.

Regrettably, there’s a distance from everything, unlike other biopics, you feel like a passenger as this film careens past, with a cavalcade of drinks, scripts and witty put-downs. The trouble is, you don’t get a chance to really connect with anyone. The Hollywood machine is so vacuous and fake and distant from the real-world struggles that feeling for these individuals is nigh on impossible and even peripheral individuals like Herman’s wife Sara, his housekeeper Frieda or typist Rita never get fully explored, despite bluntly revealing fascinating developments that could bring the audience closer, save a few throwaway lines.

It’s also notable that this film has been created for a specific and intended audience, making little consolation for the casual viewer. This is in no way a slight – it’s good to create something with integrity, regardless of any supposed audience – and the film seems to actively challenge that concept when Mank is instructed to “write hard, aim low.” But while I was watching the film, I couldn’t help but question why Fincher chose to make this film. I feel this becomes a little clearer when it closes with a heavy emphasis on Mank dying at 55 years old and the credits reveal the screenplay was written by Fincher’s own late father – who died some seventeen years ago. Suddenly this shifts from a simple passion project biopic to an extraordinarily personal production. But regardless of intentions or technical prowess, Mank’s ultimate flaw is that it exists in Kane’s shadow and will never escape it; more than that, in spite of the love and care that has been injected into every single frame, it is forgettable.

Release Date:
04 December 2020

The Scene To Look Out For:
During one of Hearst’s many parties, conversation turns from industry gossip to politics, the rise of the right and the differences between socialism and communism. Despite a fairly simple setup wherein characters are almost entirely stationary, it’s magnificently framed, constructed and acted. If there was going to be a single scene released to highlight what this film sets out to achieve, it’d be this one.

Notable Characters:
Amanda Seyfried is magnificent in a cast of deeply magnificent actors but in truth, Oldman’s permanently inebriated Mankiewicz delivers perfectly crafted barbs and dissections in almost Shakespearean monologues and does it with effervescent dexterity. Frankly, he carries the film effortlessly and serves as another example of why he’s one of the best.

Highlighted Quote:
“The narrative is one big circle like a cinnamon roll, not a straight line pointing to the nearest exit. You cannot capture a man’s entire life in two hours, all you can hope is to leave the impression of one”

In A Few Words:
“A beautiful celebration of talent and eccentricity but one that falls just short of excellence”

Total Score:

4/5

Director
Francis Lee

Starring
Kate Winslet
Saoirse Ronan

In the early 1800s, Britain saw a rise in independent excavations of fossils. One particularly talented and prolific palaeontologist was Mary Anning [Winslet], who unearthed several important findings which altered how the scientific community assessed prehistoric life. Ammonite is the story of Anning’s later years, her major finds behind her, struggling to makes ends meet by selling paltry common fossils to tourists. The work is hard and the environment unforgiving but the abrasive Anning’s misery and toil is lifted when she is asked to chaperone Charlotte [Ronan] the wife of a rich aspiring geologist. Despite being from different worlds, the two find a kinship through shared strife and a relationship blossoms.

Ammonite is nothing if not magnificently constructed, with Lee continuing his flare for capturing what it actually looks like to live in a place and extends that to an entirely different century with ease. The washed out colours perfectly capture the bleak landscape and unforgiving life of someone so shut out by a hostile society of male academics. On top of this, the absence of a score for the majority of the film heightens both the uncomfortable pauses and the realism of it all.

Both leads respectively bring something fantastic to the screen. Winslet is caustic and short-tempered but it’s a roughness that has been borne out of mistreatment and neglect by her peers. So many lingering pauses and glances that say so very much without having to resort to overt dialogue, allowing her backstory and inner monologue to be pieced together by the audience from the fragments of telling looks and fleeting softness that shines through.

Similarly, Charlotte is introduced with eyes raw from tears an affixed expression of sorrow. With her husband unable to process the depression that comes with the loss of a child, Charlotte is painted as little more than a burden. In this way, there is a quiet isolation to Ronan’s performance; this is represented extremely well by her initial fear of the sea and the abject terror of being wheeled out to it in a wooden shed, only to be confronted then battered about by an angry tide.

But frustratingly, while these two incredible actors offer marvellous performances, they run parallel to each other rather than interweaving. It would be very easy to say this is down to a lack of chemistry and I think there’s definitely some validity to that but I think it’s more that Ammonite is a solid character study but not an especially good love story. There’s an inevitability to the romance, one which is arrived at as a result of formal hesitation, rather than one of passion and desire.

There is a fair amount of talk about the “historical accuracy” of the events portrayed, regarding Mary’s sexuality, but that doesn’t necessarily matter if the story is well portrayed and well acted. My immediate, and admittedly unfair, comparison was with something like Portrait Of A Lady On Fire which performs similarly but with a vastly superior outcome due to its heavier focus on melodrama and transcendent passion. Again, I don’t necessarily think that’s entirely negative, just a different perspective. While Portrait Of A Lady On Fire is bold and exciting and impassioned, Ammonite is repressed, distant yet deeply emotional and ..entirely English.

For so many positive qualities, I would definitely say Ammonite is worth the watch and for the latter scenes where Mary is credited for her findings with something as simple as a sticker over the name of the man who purchased one of her finds, the message resonates.

Release Date:
13 November 2020

The Scene To Look Out For:
The scene when Mary and Charlotte excavate their first sizeable fossil together is presented differently from anything else in the film. The score starts to take centre stage, the cuts are quick and the shots largely handheld, it feels altogether different to mark its significance but oddly enough this means it just feels out of place, somehow rushed and given more direct attention than the climactic love scene.

Notable Characters:
All the men are wonderfully pathetic. On the one hand we have Roderick Murchison [James McArdle] with his eloquence and manners but complete lack of empathy and availability for his wife. There’s also Dr Lieberson (played by Alec Secareanu) who is progressive in the sense that he believes the rehabilitative methods prescribed to Charlotte are little more than archaic water torture but still believes a woman’s place is “to care for her fellow sister” and sees Mary as a simple opportunity for marriage than a person.

Highlighted Quote:
“I’m pleased my rock was worth the work”

In A Few Words:
“Two very powerful central performances guide this passive tale yet somehow never truly meet”

Total Score:

3/5

Til Death Do Us Part

Director
Jennifer Sheridan

Starring
Sophie Rundle
Matt Stokoe
Olive Gray

Sam [Stokoe] and Rose [Sheridan] are an outwardly normal couple but Rose is struggling with an illness that requires them to live in almost complete isolation, relying on a handful of supplies regularly couriered to them by a trusted source. As the story progresses, it becomes clear that Rose is afflicted by a form of vampirism. While the couple have been able to survive all this time in secret, their safety and stability is jeopardised when a young lady, Amber [Gray], is caught in one of Sam’s traps and requires medical attention.

Rose: A Love Story is an impressively tight, contained piece reminiscent of Scandinavian features or something like It Comes At Night. The fact that Stokoe is both writer and male lead is an additionally interesting factor, with the attention to detail, the lore and the routine having been carefully and cleverly thought out. Only to be thoroughly disrupted by the introduction of Amber to the dynamic. But the truth is, every day Sam and Rose are pushing their luck and running out the clock together.

With such beautiful chemistry between Rose and Sam, it’s didn’t surprise me in the slightest to learn that they are now a married couple in real life. The relationship dynamic, the conversations are voyeuristically believable and this empathetic familiarity is through the cultivation of captivating performances.

While Sheridan has a solid history in television, this is her feature debut and it is a very strong one. Beautifully shot, magnificent, atmospheric sound design and a eerily winding score, start off a very unassuming tale which compiles tension ever so slowly and subtly beneath the surface, unfolding perfectly to the extent that as the last 15 minutes approach you start to realise everything has been fairly consequence free up until this point.

In truth, vampires are spectacularly well-trodden mythology. Since cinema’s inception we have been flooded with a host of different interpretations from the perspective of the victims and even the creature itself but this movie is a rather humanising look at vampires. The twist or gimmick here is that it is framed as any other story about a couple, one of whom has a degenerative illness or an infirmity that requires niche care and attention. In that way, one could draw a strange parallel with something like Supernova with the intensity of the bond between the leads and the crushing affliction that is eating away at them. You could also add that there is an additional unique layer to this film regarding the timing of its release; specifically, the notion of being locked in a cabin, having everything delivered to you and only able to leave your house with a mask on – it’s a painfully relatable scenario during a global pandemic that may stir a resonance within certain audiences.

Other than a few genre tropes and cliches that make their way into the film, it’s a very promising directorial debut and arrival for a lot of the central cast who have mostly been utilised in television up until this point but I would be very interested to see what they all respectively have lined up next.

Release Date:
13 October 2020

The Scene To Look Out For:
Nursing Amber’s broken leg, still debating what to do with her, Sam is very cold. This is broken with a moment of earnestness wherein Sam explains to Amber what it’s like to fall in love with someone and how it can not only cloud your judgement but also press you to act against your own interest or endure strange circumstances. In this way, it’s one of the rare opportunities to get into one of the leads’ heads and a welcome one.

Notable Characters:
Being such a contained piece, there are almost no supporting elements. We have a handful of faces that make sporadic appearances but ultimately it comes down to the co-leads. And while I mentioned Sam opening up in a previous scene, I found Sophie Rundle’s performance particularly impressive, with its combination of affability and a deeply suppressed ferocity.

Highlighted Quote:
“I will help you forever because I love you. But the second you lie down and give up, I’m sorry, but that’s the second I lie down and I die next to you”

In A Few Words:
“A remarkably twisted tale of devotion”

Total Score:

4/5

Drink Up

Director
Thomas Vinterberg

Starring
Mads Mikkelsen
Thomas Bo Larsen
Magnus Millang
Lars Ranthe

Following a conversation about the benefits of operating with a specific steady amount of alcohol in your system, four teachers Martin [Mikkelsen], Peter [Ranthe], Tommy [Larsen] and Nikolaj [Millang], embark on an experiment to secretly do just that. To their elation, they feel more vibrant and energetic than ever before but soon enough their secret indulgence becomes a problem and edges closer to addiction.

From the outset, the framing of teachers facing a midlife malaise, surrounded by unengaged kids enjoying their lives, is clear. There’s a simple contrast between the opening scene illustrating the uproarious hijinks of the teenage students playing a game which requires them to run around a nearby lake, downing bottles of beer along the way and the flat, dim pastels of the classroom headed by frankly dull older men. This parallel never really leaves the story because the longer the experiment goes on, the more childish these supposed adults become, toying with pseudoscience to justify a petulant defiance. There’s an amusing rationalisation based on this notion put forth by Norwegian psychiatrist Finn Skårderud, with the group going so far as to set out a trial manifesto, imbuing their study with an official air, drawing up clear rules such as no drinking after 8pm or at weekends and buying breathalysers to maintain the desired 0.5 level. This is largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a handful of individuals who performed great feats despite being seemingly constantly intoxicated – Churchill, Hemmingway, Heerfordt, etc – but this direct causality is a clear falsehood.

The group dynamic is magnificent with each pillar acting as much as a supportive strut as a point of peer pressure. This is aided infinitely because each character is individually rounded and relatable and more importantly, charming. Having said that, at times it’s framed as an endearing friendship, other times there’s a sense that these bloated older men are rather pathetic and immature. A fantastic example of this is the third part of their experiment which looks at pushing the theory to its maximum, leading to the four men, painfully drunk, collapsing in supermarkets, haphazardly fishing on a pier by chucking rods into the sea then obnoxiously taking over a local bar before staggering off into the night. The social cohesion and support of the group lifts Martin’s spirits but in a prime example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, the teachers chalk this up to the alcohol, not being open with each other.

Thanks to Vinterberg’s ability to shine a light on tight-knit groups, Another Round is a rather thought-provoking analysis of drink culture, the social pressures to drink as well as the camaraderie that goes hand in hand with with imbibing. While it also offers a fleeting exploration of the rituals surrounding drink, it never truly delves into a pure damnation of alcohol, more about its ability to corrupt, the film offers a talking point about excess and moderation. Serving as a reminder that booze is not a substitute for happiness, that these men already had problems and the drinking wasn’t the direct cause, merely the catalyst that brought these feelings to the surface.

What makes the story initially engaging is the clinical aspect to it, the playful armchair philosopher. It’s something that was front and centre in Lars Von Trier’s Idioterne, pitching these men not as desperate old men but four worldly scholars set out to better themselves through unorthodox methods. Early in the experiment, Martin is off his chair, he’s engaging the students, challenging them, charming them and one of the most universally important requirements of life is a good teacher and Martin clearly believes the alcohol allows him to do this. But unlike other works covering social experiments, say Kinsey, Another Round never really explores the depths of depravity. It acknowledges that this is a supremely selfish endeavour and the leads’ lack of separation from their normal lives means the results cannot be purely academic but it fails to fully explore consequence, even though the movie directly deals with death.

As a character study, Another Round is well performed and very entertaining but I’m not entirely sure if it’s supposed to be a neutral statement about alcohol, an outright approval due to the inevitability of humans drinking or a stark criticism. In a way, much like the central characters, there’s no real outlined conclusion to thesis so it seems largely up to the audience to continue the conversation.

Release Date:
20 November 2020

The Scene To Look Out For:
To the film’s detriment, the world is never really explored outside of the core unit. At one point, Peter encounters a morose student, desperate to get into medical school and unable to cope with the general pressures of school life. Not operating to the fullest of his faculties and a little emotional that he never had a child of his own, Peter bluntly suggests the student take a shot before his exam to take the edge off. In terms of writing, this should setup a dilemma – a bit of a Chekhov’s gun – but there’s no real fallout, the film never has any form of ramification for this frankly crazy act. Which is a shame.

Notable Characters:
Mikkelsen has always been an amazing talent but it seems his work with Vinterberg produces his finest performances. Martin’s lethargic displacement erupting into peak emotional outbursts, both positive and negative, is deep, nuanced and spellbinding.

Highlighted Quote:
“I miss you too”

In A Few Words:
“A wonderful if ever so slightly toothless study”

Total Score:

4/5