Put On A Happy Face

Director
Todd Phillips

Starring
Joaquin Phoenix
Frances Conroy
Zazie Beetz
Robert De Niro
Brett Cullen

To read this review may bring about some confusion in the sense that the ratio of criticism will not reflect the final score; this is largely due to the fact that I have awarded this movie a high rating but will spend the entirety of this word count banging on about two specific frustrations in great and meandering detail. But I should highlight that the majority of this release, the cinematography, production design, the incredibly deep score work, is a marvel and genuinely engrossing cinema. Unfortunately, there are just a few significant points that need to be addressed.

The film opens in early 80s Gotham, where we are introduced to Arthur Fleck [Phoenix], a meek, timid clown-for-hire who lives with his mother and clearly suffers from several mental health issues. As the cruel city around him chips away at the few remaining pillars of his stability, Fleck descends into a self-destructive collapse before evolving into a confident nihilistic killer.

There are infinite merits to homage and imitation in cinema. They can be used to draw beautiful contemporary parallels, take established concepts and run further with them or flip them on their head entirely. It is undeniably and brazenly clear that Joker is an effective recreation of key components from both Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy – which the film makes no attempts to hide, going so far to include Robert De Niro among its supporting cast – and without prior knowledge of these releases, Joker earns an initially impressive air of maturity, intelligence and depth. But while the aforementioned Scorsese movies had insightful narratives, Joker is surprisingly base, existing mostly as a surface-level character study with hints of social commentary but never truly picking up these themes that have been so expertly used in the past and running with them.

This then started something of an existential calculation in my mind; specifically focusing on the question of does a film fundamentally need to say anything to be good, can it not simply be a character study? Does Joker merely present nihilism for the sake of nihilism ending up saying nothing? There will, of course, be discussions about how this movie reflects contemporary society to a degree, surrounded by subliminally influential headlines that say “kill the rich”, addressing the state of mental health neglect, presenting a growing air civil unrest and tension and tabulating factors that lead to mass shootings and other acts of disenfranchised domestic terrorism. But as much as this feels like a film that projects the plight of our time onto a past setting, in actuality, all it does is takes a decent but cinematically familiar unhinged, voiceless individual and slaps the joker face-paint on him. Once the MCU first gained real traction and success, it was evident that cinema was going to inadvertently adopt a lot of comic book tropes and trappings. We are now at the state of the standalone, the elseworlds tale that does not exist within the established universe of the franchise; which, ironically, is how cinema has functioned, outside of serialisation, for a century. To my mind, this film exists in the same way that Netflix’s Daredevil does; it can be seen as a darker, subversive tale with a character that will likely reappear in a different form in the near future but that shouldn’t detract from what has been achieved therein. Having said that, Daredevil took its time to cultivate complex characters, storylines and universe building, whereas Joker focuses solely on that first point.

Which brings us to the nature of the Joker himself. I harbour a point of contention when it comes to praise for the Joker predominantly because of a misconception about the role. All too often the mysterious clown prince of crime is heralded as the greatest villain of all time, even the greatest character of all time, with the most memorable and shocking performances. This is, frankly, bullshit. The truth is, anyone can play the Joker. As an incredibly broadly drawn blank slate, littered with ambiguity, the portrayal is easy to do because no matter how over the top or subdued, it still sells the character. That’s why there may be iterations that people favour but each one holds merit in its own way (yes, even Jared Leto, whose neon gangster persona spoke to many people and fit the setting he found himself in, even if I personally didn’t care for it). This is because the Joker is a lens to magnify an actor’s uninhibited heights; a way to say “be as big as you can then go another 10%” which, let’s be honest, is what most actors desperately love to hear. The difference here is that Phoenix is an exceptionally talented individual and brings to life an incredibly strong, layered performance, from the physicality and uncontrollable (almost painful) laughter, to the left/right hand switch in his journaling and his eventual transition to confident superstar villain. It is, quite frankly, impossible to fault Phoenix in this movie, he is undeniably flawless and the film is worth seeing for this masterful unstable shift from weak to empowered.

In the Marvel/Sony collaborative version of Spider-Man, there is no visible Uncle Ben origin. The MCU assumes and ultimately relies on audience preconceptions and prior knowledge of the franchise. This is something that I feel is a bit of a failing point because without seeing the formative moment that defines the character and his quest to become a hero, we latch onto other superfluous or secondary motivations. Similarly, this franchiseless tale can’t escape Batman. It wasn’t enough to simply tell a Joker origin story, we had to tie it in to a character who is completely irrelevant to this feature, for whom there will be no tie-in, crossover or follow-up; like the cameo from Richard the Lionheart at the end of Kingdom Of Heaven, it appears solely as a wink/nod/in-joke to audience members in the know (which is arguably everyone). But while Bruce is a fairly non-existent, silent character in this release, we are treated to an alternate look at his father, Thomas Wayne [Cullen]. Here, Wayne is shown to be both a caring and dispassionate individual, the kind of 80s republican “pull yourself out of poverty” individual who wants his city to thrive but doesn’t want to get his hands dirty in the process. He’s also the closest thing we get to humanising the opposition. But we never see the life of the rich other than Fleck’s perspective – meaning we don’t have a clear understanding of who to sympathise with; the serial killer clown or the sucker-punching thugs? This lack of coherence means the film closes on chaos and riots in the streets but we witness similar riotous upheavals happen in The Dark Knight Rises but we weren’t supposed to sympathise with Bane and without the juxtaposition of a Batman, we don’t have anyone to say “you’re wrong” and the only one who does gets a bullet to the face and chest. But that’s the fundamental problem with nihilism used as an artistic expression, if nothing matters, what conclusion are we supposed to form? Pair that with an unreliable narrator and there is the ambiguous question of whether anything shown in the film actually happened or not.

In addition to my issues with the nature of the Joker and the use of homage/imitation, there are a handful of other minor things that crop up the more one scrutinises this feature. Things like Joker actively saying he isn’t political before giving a political statement and performing a public execution, that he doesn’t acknowledge he’s a symbol before becoming that very thing and relishing it, what’s more the film attempts to operate above the mainstream superhero offerings, looking on them with a level of disdain, while being put out by the mainstream and finding itself in the familiar trench of depicting Thomas and Martha Wayne dying in an alley with those fucking pearls flying in slow motion. And then there’s the end, a dream-like sauntering but before that it feels like the movie can’t decide which final image it wants to settle on, giving us a Lord Of The Rings style conveyer belt of powerful images that could easily close the movie.

As stated at the start of this review, despite my harsh and pessimistic tone, I very much enjoyed this film and think it deserves a great deal of praise for what it has accomplished and committed to screen. Within this feature is a thoroughly unpleasant, disturbed individual grounded in reality rather than a hyper sexualised or idolised champion – as the Joker has been constructed in the past. One could argue this film is in danger of galvanising and inspiring a group of susceptible individuals but I have never subscribed to the notion that art motivates people to do terrible things, so the less said on that, the better.

Release Date:
04 October 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
In what will likely be most audience member’s favourite or most memorable scene, a fully-formed confident Joker walks down the steps he frequently trudges up, dancing, strutting and striking a magnificently powerful self-indulgence, blissfully unaware (or indifferent) to the world around him. It’s a culmination of the film firing on all cylinders and one of the emotional culminations of Fleck’s arc. But – and this is a substantial but – the music used caused an eyebrow to rise. US audiences may be unfamiliar with British 70s singer Gary Glitter but in Britain he is an infamous convicted paedophile. His hit, including Rock And Roll Part 2, are all but expunged from our collective works, regardless or any merit the actual music has. I say this as someone who listened to that theme and thought, “Oh I haven’t heard this in ages.. what is this?” before reality dawned on me. In truth, it’s very difficult to say how deliberate this inclusion was and will no doubt be flagged as a trigger for many people as this would imply the demonised musician will receive royalty funds for its use. I haven’t come to a full conclusion of how I feel about the matter but it’s a point that will likely be brought up frequently over the coming months of analysis, praise and criticism.

Notable Characters:
The role of Murray Franklin doesn’t feel much like a recent De Niro character. Sure, there are a few familiar traits and characteristics but there’s an energy, humour and subdued aggression that we haven’t seen from De Niro for several decades. Whether that’s down to his agent, type-casting or lazy roles is hard to say but I thought his inclusion (while conjuring direct parallels to a younger De Niro’s works) was a smart and welcome one.

Highlighted Quote:
“I just hope my death makes more cents than my life”

In A Few Words:
“Not nearly as clever as it makes itself out to be but a tremendous central performance driven outing nevertheless”

Total Score:

4/5

The Answers We Seek Are Just Outside Our Reach

Director
James Gray

Starring
Brad Pitt
Tommy Lee Jones

In the near future, Earth is bombarded with a surge that briefly knocks out all power and creates chaos. Astronaut Roy McBride [Pitt] is charged by SpaceCon to travel to Mars, via a base on the moon, to send a long-range message to the outer edges of the solar system. It is their belief that McBride’s father, legendary astronaut H. Clifford McBride [Jones], who went missing around Neptune decades prior, is in fact alive and could hold the answer to what is causing these surges and to ultimately stop them.

With Ad Astra, Gray continues his glacial, measured 1970s style direction and pacing from The Lost City Of Z; finding a middle ground between the approaches of Terrence Malick and Andrei Tarkovsky. The story itself is an example of the best kind of science fiction, a simple tale that could just as easily have been set several hundred years in the past about an arctic expedition, terrifyingly grounded pioneer horror where the only threats are the elements and the limits of our own sanity.

On a technical level, there is a lot to compliment. The visuals are bold and incredibly striking, the production design has that magnificent credibility and Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography is frankly gorgeous. And over all of this observable splendour is this grand and chilling score from Max Richter, full of brass and presence and foreboding.

The entirety of this film rests on Pitt’s shoulders and he carries this burden with remarkable ease. As the emotionally distant and controlled Roy McBride, Pitt gives a subtle, disciplined and understated performance; everything is conveyed in micro-expressions and finely spun from an actor in complete immersion with a character. Furthermore, the periodic psych evaluations are a nice device for allowing the character to offer another level of introspection, other than the narration alone. Admittedly, without subplots or a continual supporting character, the tension is false and manufactured but that reality never truly dawns on the audience because we want to see how Roy’s story will end, we want him to succeed – whatever that success is.

The ponderous, self-analytical complexities of this film will no doubt be construed as pretentious or even dull but while I can understand the logic behind such critiques, I would say they are largely unfounded – or harshly cast at the very least. Over the last decade, we have witnessed some truly distinct directors in the form of people like Denis Villeneuve, Jeff Nichols and James Gray, all of whom are bringing back a much needed tempered, creeping confidence and originality to big screen science fiction features.

Unlike the bleak outlook of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Ad Astra offers an amazing message that for all of its beauty and majesty, space is not our home, Earth is. And we should do everything we can to savour and protect it. In that, I found Ad Astra gave me the high-brow philosophical intensity and emotional resonance that I wanted from Interstellar and while I will happily confess that Interstellar is still a fantastic (but flawed) release with some truly unforgettable imagery, Ad Astra is its more mature younger brother who delivers the impactful payoff that I craved.

Release Date:
20 September 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
**spoilers within**
When the two McBrides finally reunite, there is a marvellously crushing distant sterility between them, as well as a mirrored stubbornness that has cursed them both with the madness of obsession and exploration. It’s always difficult when portraying a character that others spend the majority of a film’s runtime discussing and pondering on but Jones delivers pleasingly when the spotlight is cast on him.

Notable Characters:
Much like booster rockets that break off from the main vessel, the supporting cast are solely there to push Roy further on his journey. They do not take it with him but they facilitate him along the way. Frustratingly, those that we do see are a little two dimensional because Pitt cares so little for them but if there was one individual I would have liked to seen develop further, it would be the overseer of the Mars facility played by Ruth Negga. The minor revelations that she brings to the lead give us just a hint of something bigger that I would have liked more of.

Highlighted Quote:
“I’ve been trained to compartmentalise, seems to me that’s how I approach my life”

In A Few Words:
“Haunting, evocative and poignant, Gray has created a sublime thought-provoking, curiously optimistic hyper-frontier adventure”

Total Score:

5/5

Walk All Over Wall Street

Director
Lorene Scafaria

Starring
Constance Wu
Jennifer Lopez
Julia Stiles

When you mention Goodfellas in a review, it immediately puts a lot of backs up. Goodfellas is such a towering release that no imitator has ever really come close but Hustlers follows the path set out by Scorsese and strides so confidently down it that its missteps are forgivable. So when I say this film is Goodfellas-esque, in terms of story type, directorial style and character arcs, it’s not said lightly.

The narrative bounces back and forth between a journalist, Elizabeth [Stiles], interviewing ex-stripper Destiny [Wu] and the events being described, taking place before and after the 2008 financial crisis. Destiny reveals that in 2007 she took up work at a strip club, befriending the enigmatic and extremely successful dancer, Ramona [Lopez]. Together they make a ridiculous amount of money, feeding off the base desires of Wall Street bankers but once the crash happens, the big-spender clientele evaporates and the club devolves into a seedy unsafe environment. With the money running out and Destiny forced to raise her new-born child alone, Ramona introduces her to a scam wherein she sources previous regulars, drugs them and racks up an enormous credit card bill, assuming that no one would ever publically declare their actions.

One of the big takeaways from this release is that Scafaria is an incredibly capable director and certainly one to watch. The film opens by wonderfully illustrating the unglamorous reality of the industry which is then turned on its head with Jennifer Lopez’s intro scene doing the exact opposite and revelling in the hyper-sexuality of the stage. This successfully executed “have your cake and eat it” juxtaposition of expectation vs reality is impressive enough as it is but with genuinely spectacular direction, acting, editing and pacing, the whole feature is an incredibly impressive achievement and if we were grading this movie solely on its opening half, it would be contender for film of the year.

Another important aspect to cover is how this movie sounds. Obviously Hustlers will garner immense praise and attention for its overall look, with the production design, lavish costumes and atmospheric cinematography all worthy of merit, but the myriad novel sound design techniques are equally laudable. To my mind there are three notable examples of this, the first set during the framing device when Elizabeth presses Destiny for information and becoming cagey, she shuts off the recorder and walks to the door, instructing Elizabeth to leave. From the moment the recorder stops until the door slams shut, the film is silent and we do not hear the exchange. The second takes place when one of the strippers is wearing a wire for a police sting, the visuals carry on as normal while the audio feels like listening back to a single wireless body mic. And finally, and maybe most interestingly, this film is a fantastic example of music being used despite an absence of an original score. It’s commonly known that Tarantino does this all the time but the variety of genres involved (rather than a seemingly random, eclectic mix) is used to highlight the time period, the mood and signal what is next to come (i.e. everything a good score should do) while wisely avoiding songs featuring Jennifer Lopez, Cardi B or Lizzo that could distract from the story.

The other point of note for this film, other than how it looks and sounds, is the powerful central performances. There aren’t a great many examples of films with strippers as the main characters that doesn’t feel excessively exploitative or presenting the illusion of control and power while never delivering it. I believe part of that stems from the fact that these were films shot by men, whereas Hustlers presents two very real individuals at its core who are both incredibly powerful but also remarkably human. The supports, as strong as they are, admittedly fall away whenever Wu and Lopez are on-screen. The chemistry between them, the emotional stress and turmoil, the way they’ve been framed and shot, it’s a masterclass of visually establishing a character style and dynamic. From a male gaze, it’s difficult to not sound either lecherous or like I’m virtue signalling but the complexity and demand of these two performances is possibly career bests from both actors and wholly deserves all the accolades bestowed upon them.

But the film is far from perfect. It may be Goodfellas-esque but it’s no Goodfellas. For one thing, the entire middle section drags and introduces two heavily supporting roles quite late in the film’s runtime to the degree that they do not impact the story as heavily as they should. On top of that, the ending is fairly abrupt and a little unsatisfactory but being inspired by true events, the finale is often a problem for films of this nature. Having said that, the choice to close with the classic white text on a black background detailing “what happened next” doesn’t have the desired effect when you’ve had a framing device running throughout the movie set after said text. There are also examples of signposting and signalling that unfortunately went nowhere (I felt the character of Stephen was going to serve some sort of purpose but he did not) and Ramona goes from whip-smart savvy to making reckless stupid decisions but these are minor gripes and ultimately, the big flaw is that the third act can’t deliver on the promise of the first and second.

Much like Magic Mike, advertising for Hustlers has been flashy and playing heavily on the gaudy elements but the film itself is a nuanced, substantial character study with simple relatable drama and amazing tension that should be widely seen.

Release Date:
13 September 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
When Destiny suggests changing the ratio of the drug they are slipping to their marks, we are treated to a very light-hearted sequence debating turning the power into a liquid or the liquid into a powder. The trials are silly and a little over the top, thanks to the accompanying piano, but perfectly illustrates the central friendship and offers the kind of bonding and absurd levity that sets it apart from the surprisingly similar Widows.

Notable Characters:
In the final act of the film there are a few too many undercooked characters. Dawn is a walking stereotype so is quite easy to understand but at the same time, she is also a bit of a cartoon character when compared to the grounded seriousness of Destiny and her constant back-and-forth struggles. While the performance itself can’t really be knocked and this isn’t a sole accusation, her presence added a little tonal instability and inconsistency that caused the whole final act to wobble.

Highlighted Quote:
“2007 was the fucking best. I made more money that year than a fucking brain surgeon”

In A Few Words:
“An entertaining and cathartic workplace dramedy headed by two incredibly solid central performances”

Total Score:

4/5

It All Ends

Director
Andy Muschietti

Starring
Bill Skarsgard
Jessica Chastain
James McAvoy
Bill Hader
Isaiah Mustafa
James Ransone
Jay Ryan

Set 27 years after the events of the first film, Mike Hanlon [Mustafa] is the only member of the losers club who has remained in Derry, working as the librarian. When he learns of mysterious deaths in Derry, he believes the creature they fought as children has returned and he must reunite his friends, who have all but forgotten the experiences of their youth. Upon arrival the now adult misfits must retrace their steps to restore the missing memories and deal with the threat for good.

It is my opinion that this movie will not be especially divisive. The flaws are quite transparent and incontestable but they don’t impact the film enough to make it arguably any less enjoyable, just a little flat in places. The CGI, much like the Chapter One, has an oddly jarring quality to it and the more you look at it, the more silly and significantly less scary it becomes. I can’t quite decide whether this is a conscious choice to illustrate the nature of adults interacting and combating childish fears or if it is simply a misjudged decision and subpar effects. But for all the faults and flaws of the computer generated elements, they seem to strive for something original. With such a heavy focus on the mix of practical and computer effects, I think enough attention isn’t given to the incredibly inventive direction and editing that is used throughout this film. It would have been so very easy to shoot this in a bland fashion but the creativity on display is genuinely welcome in this genre. I could say the same of Benjamin Wallfisch’s score which at times is eerie, suspenseful and atmospheric but at times veers into surprisingly uninspired. The whole thing makes for a mixed bag that leaves Chapter Two feeling acceptable but short of its predecessor on a technical level.

Casting any dual role is extremely challenging and I think it’s fair to say every member of the cast gave a perfectly fitting symbiotic recreation of their counterpart’s performance; case in point, the reunion scene in the Chinese restaurant illustrates this fantastic chemistry. As with Chapter One, this instalment retains the good use of levity but with adults as the central characters, there is a slight tonal shift to accommodate for the time period and characters aging up. This, as with the CGI, could be construed as a negative but I feel that is more a commentary on the nature of how we perceive change; specifically that the events of our lives shape us as adults, so I wouldn’t expect the central characters to have the exact same mannerisms and charm because they are jaded and guarded – which is the very nature of adulthood. Despite this, two performances in particular genuinely stand out from the others and that is those of Bill Hader as Richie and James Ransone as Eddie. Both as a continuation of the familiar and as performances in their own right, Hader and Ransone are a joy to watch from start to finish and bring a level of soul that the characters may not have possessed in the book.

One particular performance that, while perfectly capable and serviceable in its own right, is that of Teach Grant as the adult Henry Bowers , who has spent time in an asylum for the crime of killing his parents. Midway through the film It summons Bowers, prompting him to escape from prison and hunt the losers down. Initially he appears to be imbued with supernatural qualities but it later becomes apparent that this is not the case and can be killed like any mortal. The problem seems to be that the character is so easily dispatching and doesn’t really move the story along, other than to serve as another brief obstacle that it becomes ultimately pointless, which is extremely unfortunate. The other performance to discuss is that of Bill Skarsgard, returning as Pennywise. When the initial footage went up of the evil creature’s clown form, people were sceptical but what Skarsgard brought to the performance was so memorable and chilling that it struck an immediate chord with audiences. As with the first part, Pennywise is just as unnerving and sinister but as with a lot of the film, because we are dealing with adult versions of characters, the foreboding presence of the clown itself is robbed of its power and menace.

A repeated observation throughout this review is that this movie doesn’t have the punch of It Chapter One but no less impressive. In truth, it’s not even particularly scary. The jump-scares are predictable, the visuals aren’t particularly monstrous and the imagery doesn’t stay with you as long as it should; the most disturbing thing is how realistic the homophobic attack is at the start of the film and the fact such an attack in a 1985 setting has just as much resonance with a 2019 audience. But this brings me to the point I’ve been alluding to from the start, this film inherits all the flaws of the book in that the kid’s story is much more entertaining. And while the adult element is a fantastic place to take the story, it also feels like a retread and shifts the tone of rationality and plausible acceptance. For example, not one character suggests shooting It, there’s simply a childlike regression with lines like “this kills monsters if you believe it does.” I get one of the themes of the book was the nature of the loss of childlike innocence and how it can never be reclaimed but this never really came across. Instead, recalling the group eats a lot of the runtime and slows the pacing to a crawl, only to then be replaced with a memory quest that becomes very formulaic very quickly. Furthermore, the impact on their adult lives isn’t especially well felt or communicated because outside of the initial setup, we never see any follow-up or impact; as if the events in Derry, both past and present, exist within a bubble, leaving the entirety of the story ending on a less than satisfying dreamlike note.

Ultimately, the flaws lie with the structure of the novel itself but as a single story, rather than two separate standalone entities, these adaptations of chapters one and two work perfectly but with a slightly stumbling finale but still better than the egg laying, catatonic Audra being brought back with a bike ride nonsense of the source material. The real question is how would this movie have been received if dramatic changes had been made from the events of the book (more so than currently on display here), my guess is badly.

Release Date:
07 September 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
To establish that Bill went on to have a successful film career, we cut to him on the Warner Bros lot desperately trying to write script pages for an amended adaptation to his best-selling book. I hate this scene. I hate it because everyone involved has been on a film set and this doesn’t really feel like a film set, more a projected nonsense reality. Yes, I know troubled shoots have rewrites on the day and chaos ensues when no one knows what is happening but according to the director (who was Peter fucking Bogdanovich by the way!) they literally have no idea what the ending of this movie is but are apparently filming it in a matter of hours. What’s more, this serves to enforce the point I made earlier about the “real world” having almost no impact or relevance because it is never established what happened to either that film or indeed Bill’s wife. I mean, I know the film is already quite bloated but this kind of disconnect is extremely unhelpful.

Notable Characters:
Other than those listed above, I was very pleased that the young cast came back without noticeable differences. In fact, one of the standout moments for me was the young Stanley at his Bar Mitzvah ceremony challenging everyone present. A solid reminder that these kids were and are phenomenal choices for these individuals.

Highlighted Quote:
“People want to believe they are what they choose to remember”

In A Few Words:
“Technically, an inferior feature to its predecessor but when watched as a whole, hard to argue it’s anything other than a genuinely solid (and likely eventually considered classic) adaptation”

Total Score:

3/5

The 9th Film From Quentin Tarantino

Director
Quentin Tarantino

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Brad Pitt
Margot Robbie

Set in late 1960s Hollywood, the film follows Rick Dalton [DiCaprio] as he tries to salvage a once high-studded career with TV guest appearances but never getting the grace he feels he deserves. With him as his dogsbody is stuntman Cliff Booth [Pitt] whose calm demeanour and simple living conditions seem to compliment Dalton’s highly strung need for approval and success. Around the time of this slump, Roman Polanski and his new wife Sharon Tate [Robbie] move in next door and for a period of time we follow Tate as she enjoys LA life. Lurking in the periphery is a group of transient young women who all live out on an old film ranch with an enigmatic man named Charlie.

At its heart, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood feels like an attempt at a more focused, mature story from a director who has had great fun playing with a toy box of artistic talent but now wants to create something of grounded merit. However, without as many signature directorial flourishes and a very lethargic story, the final result is one that closes disappointingly. From the fairly disjointed opening vignettes, quickly darting through flashbacks to points of Dalton’s career, to the lack of closure with most of Booth’s subplots, the entire experience is left slow and languid due to lack of real fluidity. On top of that, the script suffers from some unfortunately overt and frankly lazy writing. Tarantino has always been gifted with dialogue and natural-feeling discourse but too often the dialogue devolves into uncharacteristically blunt signposting. As an example, in one of the film’s most enjoyable and immersive scenes, Dalton is on the set of a TV pilot, reading a pulpy western novel while his precocious young co-star is working on her character. In this scene, the actress asks what the book is about and Dalton explains that it centres on the adventures of a semi-over-the-hill bronco named Easy Breezy. As he describes the character questioning whether his better years are behind him, he starts to break down in a moment of fragility. The actress comforts him before he snidely pushes her away. This should be a subtle insightful moment but it lacks nuance and beats the audience around the head with the parallel between Dalton and the subject of his story. Then you have the Bruce Lee scene, which wasted a great imitator performance and is a classic example of unimaginatively pitting your fictional creation against a recognisable or established individual to cement their supposed abilities. It’s seemingly not enough to illustrate through circumstance that Booth is a wholly capable performer, he has to pummel someone who the audience know would have been extremely difficult to best in fight. And in the most backhanded of compliments, that is genuinely beneath Tarantino.

At this stage in his career Tarantino is in an interesting place, his films are commercial and critical successes (even his missteps have merit) and that’s largely due to the incredibly talented individuals he surrounds himself with. Subsequently, it’s hard not to compliment great swaths of this movie. Case in point, the production design and period recreation are exceptional with the cars, locations, costumes, hair and makeup perfectly evoking the desired time period. This also extends to the cast and their honestly hypnotic performances. For a great deal of the runtime it can often feel like nothing is happening – especially as a brief synopsis of the film could boil down to, actor films a pilot, stuntman picks up a hitchhiker and actress gets a book then watches a film on the way home – but calibre of acting involved means that these small moments are the most memorable and moving; for example, Tate decides, on a whim, to watch her own film in secret, enjoying the audience’s positive reaction and feeling pride that she has done well without jumping up and soaking up any praise or limelight. But with all these fantastic components, the film ultimately stumbles and falters with the denouement primarily because the story-proper is barely tangible and the only people who really care about Hollywood stories are Hollywood.

**the end of the movie is discussed in this paragraph.. so.. spoilers**
In truth, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood strives to capture something but never quite does. The entire film circles, without ever fully focusing on, the Manson Family, before bringing it into the foreground at the end of the film. At this point, Tarantino departs from the genuinely gruesome history and creates his third revenge fantasy. This created a problem for me that had a retroactive reflective effect. Creating an alternate series of events surrounding the Tate murders left a strangely bad taste in the mouth and didn’t strike me as cathartic or an act of celebratory retribution, just an exercise of poor taste. But while this writing tool or gimmick, if you will, was incredibly effective in Inglourious Basterds but had diminishing returns in Django Unchained, it finally outstayed its welcome here; which is where I had a bit of an analytical crisis. I praised the Hitler’s face being peppered with bullet holes while a giant face cackles, “this is the face of Jewish vengeance” and understood the satisfaction that comes from seeing a freed slave walking through a house of cruel plantation owners, mercilessly blowing them away with the effect of a canon but this was different. This felt less like a fantasy correction of a huge endemic case of genocide or mass-slavery, it was a single, personal event. But surely that’s just as appalling as these aforementioned cases. Am I just unhappy with its use here because I’m bored of the gimmick? I would like to think that isn’t the case but either way, I think the key difference is the characters and stories were so centrally focused on this entire issue and the audience could work up to where the events were headed but with this feature, the Manson Family are quite peripheral and incidental. I can understand that might have been the desired effect to show how the events in question came out of nowhere but as stated, it strives for something but never quite attains it.

The real frustration is if this film was in the hands of any other director or acting team, it would be lambasted for being a bloated, pretentious, meandering celebration of a bygone era of male-oriented stardom at everyone else’s expense. But owing to the individuals involved, it will likely be hailed as a glorious love letter to a “better time” that never really was.

Release Date:
23 August 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
As stated, there are some truly gripping and fantastic vignettes throughout. One of which is Cliff Booth surveying the ranch he use to work on and approaching the owner’s house. Booth can handle himself as a war hero so we know any negative outcome is unlikely but the levels of tension as the entire community stop and watch him walk up to the lonely shack is fantastic. What’s more, it made me realise how much I would like to see Tarantino do straight horror – even something akin to Rob Zombie’s work if he wants to retain his schlocky grindhouse feel – affording him the opportunity to make something truly interesting.

Notable Characters:
DiCaprio is without a doubt a standout performer. He is an actor who has been giving commanding roles for over two decades and brings so much depth and dedication to every single character he embodies. Rick Dalton is no different and the levels of complexity and immersion are fantastic, from the outward projection of his “acting” to the character he is in private, to the extremely fragile broken man he allows himself to briefly be around close confidents. It’s an authentically brilliant all-round performance that unfortunately belongs in a superior release.

Highlighted Quote:
“My idea is we kill the people who taught us how to kill”

In A Few Words:
“A wholly self-indulgent commemoration of cinema from yesteryear but one that fails to actually say much of anything”

Total Score:

2/5

This Time There Is No Team

Director
David Leitch

Starring
Dwayne Johnson
Jason Statham
Vanessa Kirby
Idris Elba

After an MI6 operation is hit by a terrorist group known as Eteon, the only surviving agent, Hattie Shaw [Kirby], injects herself with an engineered virus to ensure it can’t fall into the wrong hands. The Eteon insurgents are led by Brixton Lore [Elba], a biogenetically enhanced soldier with various cybernetic upgrades. With Hattie on the run, the CIA bring in two fixers to hunt her down: federal agent Luke Hobs [Johnson] and former Special Forces mercenary Deckard Shaw [Statham]. As the two have a history, they are less than happy to see one another but must work together to prevent Hattie from dying and the Snowflake virus going pandemic.

In truth, the story boils down to a fairly by-the-numbers odd couple heist film meaning it eventually devolves into an incredibly long, bloated and surprisingly dull slog. With the first The Fast And The Furious starting out as Point Break with cars, the franchise has kept itself alive by evolving somewhat and moving from street racing action thriller to action heist dramas and finally to superhero (in all but name) features. This has earned the Fast/Furious franchise a bit of a formulaic reputation for constant posturing and testosterone-driven alpha-male nonsense peppered with on the nose dialogue about family and loyalty, etc. Nowhere is that more evident than this release.

On paper, doing a spin off pairing one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood makes complete sense. It frees up the characters to largely step away from the trappings of what came before and acts as a jump-on point for anyone who isn’t up to date with the now eighteen year old series. But what we get is dumb.. truly, laughably dumb. In The Winter Soldier Captain America (a genetically enhanced super soldier) has difficulty holding onto a helicopter but Hobbs can hold one down with a chain because.. muscles. Then we have the constant tension. I was less convinced by the painfully trite romance between Johnson and Kirby as the real on-screen sexual tension is undeniably between Johnson and Statham. Which would actually work as a nice progressive story arc but I don’t think the fanbase or even the actors themselves could handle that kind of development. So in addition to emulating the action set pieces of a superhero film (abandoning all semblance of realism and escalating so far from stealing DVD players in the first film) the film heavily shifts its weight from thriller to comedy. For all its flexing and end of the world talk, a cavalier attitude is on display from start to end and this film thinks it is incredibly funny. It is not. Instead, we have a supposedly high stakes scenario with two indestructible characters wisecracking throughout.

For the most part, the CGI is impressive and the fight sequences are rather well-choreographed but anything positive is butchered with clumsy editing. Fairly early on in the film, Hobbs and both Shaws are trying to evade capture by Eteon agents. The chase itself is a decent combination of thrilling action, noteworthy CGI, great sound design and a decent score complimenting the whole thing. But as it comes to a close, our leads manage to evade capture and it becomes painfully obvious that this film is never going to create a scenario wherein our heroes struggle. And sure enough, every fist fight, every chase, everything circumnavigates back to a victory for Hobbs and Shaw. One could argue this is true of any action piece but it is in fact the opposite. The standard cliché is to introduce our character, have them experience a setback or lose, show them learning from their mistakes and coming back in the third act to achieve a more meaningful victory. Again, it’s cliché but it’s also writing 101. Hobbs and Shaw seemingly refuses to adhere to this because the alpha cannot be seen to fail and the ego of the actors is too strong and unyielding. Meaning the film is robbed of any tension, development or consequence.

Before we cover the central cast, something has to be said about the supports, most notably the self-indulgent extended cameos. Ryan Reynolds portrays a quipping CIA handler named Locke, who may as well be Deadpool. I thought I had missed something in a previous instalment because his introduction is so absurd and extremely jarring that it’s hard to know if he is in any way genuine or just psychologically unhinged. Then we have Kevin Hart appearing as an Air Marshall in what would usually amount to a throwaway line but carries on for a full mini-scene plus call-back. One could say there’s nothing wrong with these harmless oddities but in truth they skew an already uneven and unbalanced film.

In truth, there’s little to say about Johnson and Statham’s respective performances because they are remarkably safe; there is nothing outside of what we would expect and frankly, that’s what the film wants. I will discuss Elba more later in the review but I was both impressed and disappointed for Vanessa Kirby. It’s evident that Kirby is a great actor and that she will rise to prominence quite quickly. She has already proven herself with standout performances on The Crown and Mission: Impossible – Fallout and while she is afforded the opportunity to portray a physically capable character, she is instead relegated to a support with little agency after the first act. Speaking of Hattie Shaw, this film offers us a few flashbacks and imparts the closeness of their relationship (with some absolutely fucking stupid “plan names”) but completely omits or forgets that Deckard has another brother, Owen Shaw from Fast & Furious 6. It’s not really worth dwelling on but it’s such an oddity and smacks of amnesic writing.

Some of the best on-screen action, in terms of how it is shot and executed, can be found in the Mission: Impossible films and for action comedy the first Kingsman movie strikes a wonderful balance. Hobbs & Shaw presents the worst components of both, all flash and flare with little to no substance, heavily reliant on the lead’s charm and incredibly dismissive of any sort of intelligent engagement. While it would be so easy to simply dismiss this as a franchise staple and claim that these movies have always been big and dumb, the truth is that they have been bold and flashy but largely had a modicum of heart or passion. Hobbs & Shaw, regrettably, resembles the weaker Fast/Furious releases but will no doubt entertain its core demographic and make more than a mark at the box office.

Release Date:
02 August 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
**spoilers**
Throughout the film we are constantly told that these two superhuman leads are not only physically capable but extremely mentally savvy. Quoting Nietzsche, referencing previous accomplishments and boasting about flawless plans, we are instructed that the eponymous characters are masters of stratagem. When it comes down to it, however, their plans are laughable and the big “Mick Jagger” plan simply doesn’t work, almost entirely reliant on a deus ex machina in the form of a Russian scientist. But that’s what you get for basing your highly coordinated strike on a crudely outlined con run by children.

Notable Characters:
The villain for this feature was crucial and while the owner of the mysterious distorted voice remains to be seen, Elba is a fantastic choice. He has the confidence, presence and acting chops to helm an antagonist of this nature and exudes cool. On top of that, there is an nicely thought out physicality to his performance, moving and holding himself in a way that reflects the biometric upgrades inside him. Even if his bulletproof suit with an exposed head is remarkably stupid.

Highlighted Quote:
“The more machine I am, the more humane I become”

In A Few Words:
“I will commend this film for trying something different but the final output is a silly lazy comedic action piece that, despite its blatant flaws, will likely go on to be extremely successful”

Total Score:

2/5

Take Your Place In The Circle Of Life

Director
Jon Favreau

Starring
Donald Glover
James Earl Jones
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Beyonce

In the pride lands of Africa, we are introduced to the reigning king, Mufasa [Jones] and his newborn son Simba [JD McCrary]. The wise king tries to instil virtuous to his impetuous child who believes that becoming the new monarch will allow him to say and do as he pleases. Simba’s uncle Scar [Ejiofor] is resents the prospect of serving under a spoilt child when he was the next in line for the throne and schemes to remove both his brother and nephew in one fell swoop with the assistance of a rival gang of hyenas.

It goes without saying that The Lion King is not only one of Disney’s best animated features but also one of their most beloved, sitting in most people’s Top 5s. From the music and artwork to the simple core morals, for many in the West, watching this film for the first time is a formative experience. So before the first frame was shown or the first song sung, there was already a significant level of scepticism and maybe some guarded optimism. Sure, Disney have had some success with their live-action remakes of classics but the most prosperous of these were the ones that either deviated from the story or took features that most audiences wouldn’t have as strong a connection to (excluding Dumbo.. that did both and was still bad). But this movie will always exist in the shadow of and cannot escape its progenitor and without a clear, new vision, this remake feels like little more than an exploitative cash-grab.

Speaking of which, let’s discuss the idea of the remake for a moment. In 1998, acclaimed director Gus Van Sant made a shot-for-shot recreation of the classic horror film Psycho. It was an interesting undertaking but one seemingly without purpose, being both perfectly serviceable and completely forgettable. In this case, it would be unfair to say this is a shot-for-shot remake because it is closer to a reinterpretation of essentially the same script – a few lines of dialogue tweaked, a scene or two added but the bulk of the film depicts the same events from different angles while evoking the same imagery. This is the tightrope walk these films put themselves through, of creating a new or unique interpretation while also staying true to the original. But by failing to do enough differently and wanting to appease everyone we end up with a chimera, a Frankenstein’s monster with familiar components in tact but painfully different from what we know.

Subsequently you would assume producing something so faithfully would construct the perfect environment for triumph but while it has the blue prints for a critically and commercially acclaimed hit, The Lion King runs into two rather unanticipated obstacles: a lack of emotional connection and dull direction borne out of an obsessive quest for photo realism. The latter is much easier to explain so we’ll start there. The camera in Disney animated films, for better or worse is incredibly expressive. It defies logic and weight, moving passionately, acting alongside the vocal work and score as another means to engage, entertain and emote. To maintain the illusion of reality, the camera simply can’t do that, so gone are the dolly zooms, flashy musical numbers, palate and contrast shifts, mystical elements and heightened theatrical lighting, all of which are replaced with weak National Geographic direction and uninspired camera work.

The other powerhouse element sacrificed at the altar of reality is the facial expressions. Lions don’t cry. Hornbills don’t have lips. Warthogs don’t frown. I understand this, we all do. Know what else they don’t do? Talk. But there has got to be a middle ground for the purposes of entertainment where we can suspend disbelief and maintain a semblance of credibility. This is largely why I felt The Jungle Book worked while Mowgli: Legend Of The Jungle did not. With so many blank faces, all the well-known emotional beats fall flat, leaving the heavy lifting to the voice acting. On paper the chosen cast are absolutely perfect. When the list of actors dropped, I nodded approvingly at the eerie precision of their selection but without that symbiotic tie, the performances feels somehow detached from the on-screen animals and that perfect cast becomes wasted.

This will also be an unpopular decision but bringing James Earl Jones back was a mistake. I appreciate that his portrayal of Mufasa is iconic but this is true of all the cast and retaining such a strong reminder of the original hinders anything this film could have been. What’s worse is that, like a live performance of a musical act, these artists age, their abilities shift and they can offer entirely different iterations or renditions. But having played what is effectively a recording of one take over and over so that we, the viewer/listener, find it impossible to imagine the delivery of one line being said any other way, you doom your project by not bringing someone else in to try and bring a fresh perspective. This means that certain scenes lack the same resonance or indeed any presence/urgency. I found this when Simba is being scolded by his father then shifts his tone to one of affection with the line, “that’s ‘cause no one messes with your dad.” It’s a playful scene and delivery that indicates a nice emotional transition while highlighting the bond between father and son; it’s what makes Mufasa’s death all the more painful to experience. For whatever reason, the new delivery comes off a little tired and grounded, robbing us of what should be a cutting moment of foreshadowing. And in truth, that’s my problem with the whole feature.. robbed of something beautiful in place of something functional.

I truly believe this will be one of the least divisive of Disney’s remakes solely because the flaws and merits are so evident; there already seems to be a general consensus that it lacks a soul but for all the head-hanging and hand-wringing, it needs to be said how much this movie accomplishes. This movie is unequivocally visually astounding. The art these animators have brought to life is undeniably breathtaking. My only frustration is that their achievements have been focused on something nobody really asked for and will not receive the industry changing impact they deserve. That accolade will be reserved for the team that brings this level of finesse, proficiency and skill to an original, game-changing story. Regrettably, this is not it but if this feature does anything, it serves as a reminder for audiences of how powerful, effective and seminal the original is.

Release Date:
19th July 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
I try to imagine if this film would be enjoyable and have the same impact if I had no knowledge of the material it is emulating. So say a child goes to see this movie, having not watched the hand-animated version, would they have as many issues or gripes? I would assume Disney is hoping they would not. But then we have Timon and Pumba singing Hakuna Matata with a few self aware nods that will go straight over this implied audience’s collective heads. Just little callbacks like the meerkat and warthog explaining that people usually cheer when they first hear this phrase and the line “I got downhearted every time that I fa—” is no longer cut-off by Timon in a fourth wall breaking moment but given a new twist. I have no idea why this stuck with me so much but it’s one of the only moments in the film that I’ve been replaying in my head. Take from that what you will.

Notable Characters:
Scar is a truly all-encompassing Disney villain. His motives, performance, song, design, motion, dialogue and queer-coding created something theatrical, self indulgent and decadent. It’s what we think of when we think Disney villain. Ejiofor’s Scar is not. What tears me is that I actually like what this film does with Scar, I like the less (for lack of a better word) sexualised flowing locks and gives Scar a bit of a mangy unkempt loner look. This is not someone to be admired, he’s a murderous, ambitious opportunist. But for all Ejiofor brings to the role, it can’t hold a candle to what Jeremy Irons did.

Highlighted Quote:
“There’s one in every family. My cousin thought he was a woodpecker, slammed his head into trees. Our beaks weren’t built for it. He was concussed regularly”

In A Few Words:
“In a quest for technological advancement The Lion King eschews emotional impact and suffers for it”

Total Score:

2/5

Swinging Over To Europe This Summer

Director
Jon Watts

Starring
Tom Holland
Zendaya
Jake Gyllenhaal
Samuel L Jackson

After the events of Avengers: Endgame, the world is recovering from the loss of certain heroes and the reunion of people who have been missing/dead for five long years; none more so than Peter Parker [Holland] aka Spider-Man. This period is given the simple affectation of “the blip” and it is explained that the students that survived are in their early twenties while the others have returned to complete high school. With this new lease on life and an appreciation that time is a precious commodity, a field trip to Europe is arranged, where Peter intends to take full advantage of the opportunity and confess his feelings to fellow classmate, Mary Jane [Zendaya]. Before leaving, Peter is contacted by Nick Fury [Jackson] who is working with a hero from an alternate version of Earth to stop a host of elemental creatures intent on destroying the world and hands him a pair of sunglasses from Tony Stark (hooked into the entire Stark defence network). But feeling the pressure to be the next Iron Man and missing his mentor, Peter simply wants to enjoy his field trip and be a kid. While in Venice, the trip is interrupted when a water elemental attacks and Peter meets the hero Fury has been working with: Quentin Beck [Gyllenhaal] who the kids nickname Mysterio. With someone to talk to about superhero woes, Peter believes he may have found a new confident.

The true success of this film is that it puts some truly loveable characters front and centre and no matter how they are tessellated, they interconnect marvellously. As with his previous appearances, Holland remains spectacular casting and a great representation of an actual teenager rather than the 70s and 80s idea of what a teenager is. I appreciate there are those who really enjoy previous iterations – I would include myself among their number – but from a description of the character alone (hyperactive, funny, incredibly intelligent, insecure and torn between responsibilities) Holland embodies these traits with amazing ease. I was also quite impressed with Zendaya’s representation of Mary Jane. After the semi-twist reveal at the end of Homecoming, a lot of people were unsure about the direction of the character but this slightly adjusted MJ is still incredibly identifiable as a teenager who is trying to figure out who she is while maintaining an air of cool. In one scene she learns an Italian word and wryly states, “Bo is my new superpower, it’s the anti-aloha. I was born to say this word.” But this increased focus on MJ means less focus on Ned (who was a standout character in the previous instalment) and I missed that friendship dynamic. It’s still present here but is given less spotlight to develop. Introducing Nick Fury to the mix was a nice touch and watching his frustration at being out of the loop for five years, going from knowing everything to knowing nothing, was a nice touch. This allows him the opportunity to keep up the terrifying pretence of an all-knowing super spy as well as channelling irritations at feeling so left behind. Admittedly, I had some initial concerns about plotholes with the presence of Fury, the SHIELD operations and how Beck manages to convince everyone he is a bona fide hero but with all the levels of subterfuge and deception utilised throughout, it mostly works and with the end credit sequence most of my concerns with allayed. Bringing Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan more into the foreground was a genuine pleasure and it’s easy to forget that his character has been around since the first film and Favreau is very deft when given the opportunity to be a bit silly.

Speaking of silly, it’s always been argued that certain comic book characters do not translate well to the big screen for their, for lack of a better word, goofiness. Mysterio, with his emerald body suit, long flowing cape and smoky fish bowl for a head is a prime example but through the combination of a great performance, interesting design and plausible motivation, Mysterio is definitely in the upper tier of MCU villains. It is my belief that there are only a handful of individuals who would be appropriate for this role. To realise a character who has to start out as a trustworthy, endearing, surrogate father figure then to turn into a real threat driven by unhinged malice is an incredibly difficult task but one that, let’s face it, almost every Spider-Man villain is expected to achieve. The only one to date that has really come close is Alfred Molina as Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2 but Mysterio has been setup perfectly with this version of Spider-Man substituting the whole Uncle Ben angle with dead Tony Stark. But I digress. Gyllenhaal is absolutely perfect casting for someone charismatic and likeable to suddenly make such an alignment shift and ensure that this betrayal resonates with the audience. The only real problem I have with Beck is that he is effectively same as the Vulture in Homecoming and like the rest of the film, exists in Iron Man’s shadow. Again, considering how this Spider-Man has been introduced, he will be inextricably linked to the legacy of Tony Stark and regrettably that means his adversaries will likely also stem from the same place as the MCU has avoided depicting a lot of the origin tropes that we are familiar with. Having said that, there is more than enough by way of difference between these characters and the implications of how we absorb media and news in 2019 (with the constant threat of augmented images, AR technology and questionable, agenda-driven news agencies), Mysterio is a good and interesting choice for the antagonist. I would also add that while Michael Giacchino’s score is far from his best work, his recognisable take on the Spider-Man theme makes a welcome return and the mix of thundering operatic tones and electrical synth work for Mysterio was impressive and fitting.

With a successful vibe achieved, Far From Home builds off of the characterisation and tonality of Homecoming. I will admit that this is both a positive and a negative as it won’t win over any new fans who didn’t get on with this MCU-friendly version but feels like more of the same. Unless you really enjoyed Homecoming, in which case, this will be a welcome treat with the added bonus of feeling more like a Spider-Man solo film than Homecoming – even with all the Endgame/Iron Man fallout – because more agency and development is placed on Peter finding his confidence and stride. But this transition isn’t a seamless on and there are some pacing issues as the story hops from one location to the next but thanks to the production design and location work, each one feels distinct and unique, rather than just a blur of overly similar locales. There is also a lot of loose-end tying that is foisted onto this film’s shoulders and what starts out amusing ends up repetitive. To explain, the film opens with a school news network mourning the loss of the Avengers who gave their lives to bring everyone back. Furthermore, it explains away a fan questions about the five year age gap leaving certain students five years older than others. But this is only one of a handful of clumsy expository info dumps, the other most notable one is Quentin’s toast – which I won’t go into too much detail about to avoid spoilers – which could have been presented in a host of more interesting, novel and inventive ways.

**Spoiler in the last sentence**
Like Ant-Man (for most people; I wasn’t a fan) Far From Home is a palate cleanser, a wind down after a big event before the next chapter launches. After so much to digest over the last few features, it’s nice to take a breather with a light-hearted teen comedy. With that said, while its light irreverent levity makes it a welcome break from universe ending scenarios it also makes it somewhat more forgettable. What’s interesting though is that the most memorable aspect is the giant in-joke that will only really resonate with certain audience members. For example, from a viewer perspective, many of the fight sequences with the elementals come off as a bit samey but the film goes out of its way to indicate this is an intentional choice; acting as both a satire of the action blockbuster industry but also revelling in the hypocrisy. I mean, the very fact that Mysterio’s costume has two versions, one of which is literally just a motion capture suit, is amazing.

Far From Home isn’t exactly forging new territory for any of the genres that make up the Venn diagram of categories it falls into but it performs reasonably at all of them, which is an incredibly impressive feat in and of itself. The real development takes place in the mid-credits sequence which effectively acts as a game-changing cliffhanger development for the next film to deal with.

Release Date:
05 July 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
**spoilers within**
Once the film has dispensed with the pretence that Beck is in any way an ally to Spider-Man, Beck reveals both how powerful his technology is and how twisted he can be. Granted, the CGI could have been stronger but every time we enter Mysterio’s world the visuals were interesting, engaging and unique nonetheless. Much like the mind-warping spectral realm work in Doctor Strange, this feels like something that will always be tied to this release and will ensure that my previously mentioned longevity and notability issues are somewhat assuaged.

Notable Characters:
I am happy that Peter and MJ have good chemistry. I was initially unsure by the end of the first film but they are actually cute together. We don’t get the big sweeping grandiose personal melodrama of individuals in their twenties, instead the backdrop is the melodrama with the simple centre piece of a boy trying to give a gift to a girl and tell her his feelings, while she tries to keep people at a distance but wants to acknowledge she feels the same way. It’s simple, relatable and feels age-appropriate without being condescending; which should mean it will work surprisingly well for a wide demographic.

Highlighted Quote:
“Never apologise for being the smartest one in the room”

In A Few Words:
“Far from particularly unique in its content, the real charm of this Spider-Man feature lies in how effortlessly it appears to juggle and keep aloft so many components”

Total Score:

4/5