Everyone In The World Has Forgotten The Beatles. Everyone Except Jack

Danny Boyle

Himesh Patel
Lily James
Kate McKinnon
Joel Fry
Ed Sheeran

Jack Malik [Patel] is a struggling musician in the east of England, represented by his manager and childhood friend Ellie [James]. Feeling close to giving up on the music life (or lack thereof), Jack cycles home one night but due to a 12 second global power-cut, is hit by a random bus, losing his two front teeth in the process. As a get-well present, his friends buy him a new guitar and he christens it by playing Yesterday by The Beatles. For some reason, nobody recognises the song, attributing it to Jack. In a panic, Jack learns that this seems to be a worldwide phenomenon and takes it upon himself to gift the world with the songs. After initially struggling, “Jack’s music” is heard around the world and attracts the attention of Ed Sheeran and his unscrupulous producer, Debra Hammer [McKinnon].

There will be a recurring theme throughout this review and unfortunately, it is targeted at one individual in particular; perhaps unfairly, perhaps not. In my opinion, Danny Boyle doesn’t make bad films but Richard Curtis makes plenty of trite ones. To clarify, I have enjoyed a lot of Curtis’ work and he is very deft at producing a certain type of writing but it’s all notoriously twee, rudimentary and rather corny. As such, we probably need to start by talking about the writing and the characters.

Both Himesh Patel and Lily James are, for lack of a better word, very cute. There’s a wonderful relatable earnestness to their performances and this really helps drive the story along, regardless of the absurdity of its foundation. I feel that Boyle has an eye for this and was reminded of Millions, which has a quirky fairy tale device but it is never questioned because the cast are so wholesome and engaging. This unfortunately also means that despite best efforts, the supports are pretty forgettable. That is, until we get to the halfway point of the film and hyperbole reigns over logic. Childhood friend Rocky quickly devolves into a clone of Rhys Ifans’ character from Notting Hill and Kate McKinnon departs the typical agenda-driven producer tropes and becomes a wide-eyed, money obsessed, maniacal figure and everything breaks down into farce. While Patel makes it through in reasonable shape, James’ character is utterly butchered. Without wanting to spoil too much, Jack bumps into Ellie in Liverpool, where she issues an ultimatum: continue on his journey to fame and success or stay with her. This is, frankly, some very lazy writing and creates a path riddled with clichés that the film haphazardly falls into. I appreciate you can’t have drama without conflict but forced in this way, at this time in the story, is quite amateur and sullies both the character and the unrequited nature of the relationship. As stated, James’ charm saves a lot of this because it’s not badly acted but badly drawn selfishness. While this on its own may sound like I am being unfair toward the role of Ellie, it’s a by-product of inconsistencies, whereby she loves Jack dearly but only mentions it at the worst times (setting Jack up to be ineffective and never actually address the issue), is fully supportive until the sought-after success arrives and contradicts her own advice when Jack is thinking of quitting and she explains that he can’t go back to teaching and pour all his energy into kids who will succeed where he deserves to – that last one is a particularly weird line that, due to being delivered well we nod along with in the moment, but in retrospect feels rather cruel and dismissive. Again, I believe the relationship and the chemistry between the two leads is solid but everything they say and do with each other feels clumsy and stupid. But I also appreciate the same could be said of almost every character that Curtis has written and people love them – so maybe it’s a personal rather than purely critical frustration (it isn’t).

The unspoken additional character is this newly forged world that Jack finds himself in. Subsequently there is some truly odd world-building. The trailers hide quite well that a world without The Beatles means there is no Oasis (as they were largely inspired by the Beatles’ sound and aesthetic) which was a nice, surprising touch. This quickly gets out of hand, however, when that extends to Coca Cola, cigarettes and Harry Potter; not to mention Saturday Night Live is now Thursday Night Live for unspecified reasons. Considering how many creatives have been quoted as saying “I wouldn’t be a musician/actor/writer without the Beatles,” hyperbolic or not, the choices illustrated here are very unusual. Things like no Monty Python or Led Zeppelin would have made more sense rather than just a few random alterations. Amazon Prime’s The Man In The High Castle TV series is an interesting “what if” story (what if the Allies lost World War II?) that doesn’t get overly muddied by complicating the rules of its existence. It establishes the similarities and revels in the eccentricities and nuanced differences of this new world. Unfortunately Yesterday seems to operate without any real rules. While I cannot confirm this, it would seem Jack Barth’s initial script has been injected with Curtis-isms and punched up to something more familiar and marketable. I prattled on about this before but there were so many random subtractions, done on a whim, free from research. Apparently, at one stage Curtis wanted to remove the colour purple – the literal colour – from existence. No logical basis for this, just because it would be weird.

**spoilers for the end of the film throughout**
The other key problem I have with this film is how it ends. I am of the opinion that it essentially crumples under the weight of a very rushed, odd, incredibly (almost insultingly) simplistic finale. Making a surprise appearance at one of Ed Sheeran’s stadium concerts, Jack confesses that he is not the progenitor of the songs and credits John, Paul, George and Ringo, to expected animosity and a sea of jeering. He then changes it up by confessing his love for Ellie (who is now in a relationship) and then defies his producer by uploading his entire catalogue to the internet. I hate this plot point. Nothing screams “old man who doesn’t understand how the internet works” better than hacking something or “I will upload it to the internet.” For all the evils of corporations and the excess of fame, I don’t think you can just upload music to the internet and escape the tangled madness of royalties and contractual obligations. But this is what happens. Even then I was expecting the film to turn. It was only a matter of time before normality would be restored and it would be revealed that Jack had in fact been in a coma or was having some manic fever dream but this never comes to pass. This alternate universe is now the new reality. While this allows for a seemingly neat ending, it gave me a complete headache. As I left the screening, many of the audience members muttered to each other “ooh I really enjoyed that” but all I could think of was the logistics and fallout. At one point it is stated that a world without The Beatles is poorer for it and as a fan of their work, I would agree but while I love The Beatles, a world without cigarettes and the Manson murders is surely a better place. It’s the kind of innocent naïve writing that permeates blockbuster cinema where we suspend a level of disbelief and analytical detail to simply enjoy the mirth and hijinks but this kind of surreal, lacklustre close ends up anticlimactic and beneath those involved.

Finally, I need to step away from the writing and talk about the music. Almost half of this film’s budget went on royalties to use The Beatles’ tracks and their presence is a joyous celebration of what makes them popular and iconic. In these kinds of films, the score can be relegated to the background but I genuinely feel Daniel Pemberton’s score complimented the songs marvellously, utilising familiar stings and leitmotifs while accenting the on-screen drama. But getting back to the songs themselves – as a celebration of The Beatles’ hits, I felt like Across The Universe was a more lovingly crafted piece that, due to its musical nature, did more with the pieces and various reference points throughout. Having said that, if the purpose of this release was to instil a feeling of nostalgia or triumph for these iconic anthems, it would be fair to say this was achieved magnificently.

Ultimately this is an interesting premise let down by writing that could not do the concept justice. There’s plenty of whimsy, mirth and charm on display but overall it’s a very disappointing and surprisingly shallow tale.

Release Date:
28 June 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
There’s a touching moment that all creatives must feel, when Jack, who has been playing (arguably) some of the greatest songs of all time to pub audiences who do not appreciate what they’re hearing. This then raises some extremely interesting questions about the concept of talent over luck and opportunity, depicting literal imposter syndrome; that the material is good but it must be the delivery method (i.e. him) that is the problem when in truth, it’s audience absorption of art and the money-making system that drives it. It’s genuinely fascinating and I just wish it was developed a little more.

Notable Characters:
Don’t ask me why – because the film never bothers to explain it. But Jack is the only person who remembers the Beatles. Except he isn’t. For some unknown and bizarre reason, there are two other individuals; a Russian named Leo and a Liverpudlian named Liz – played by Justin Edwards and Sarah Lancashire respectively. Toward the end of the film, these two meet up with Jack but rather than expose him, they thank him for bringing the music back into the world to hear it again and supply him with the address for a still-living John Lennon. At the point of writing this, I’m still not sure how I feel about these two characters. They are setup like creepy stalkers for so long that the twist doesn’t pay off in the intended manner and it seems they are solely there to allow the central figure a chance to vent and revel in the abnormal situation that they’ve found themselves in. But again, none of them question it and everything just carries on as normal.

Highlighted Quote:
“You’ve gotta stop pretending you’re in a big story with an exciting end. You’re in a small story and it ends here”

In A Few Words:
“A strange silly fantasy tribute that, in the words of my wife, I loved until suddenly I didn’t”

Total Score:



The Age Of The Newtypes Begins

Toshikazu Yoshizawa

Junya Enoki
Tomo Muranaka
Ayu Matsuura
Yuichiro Umehara

Set after the events of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn, the Unicorn and Banshee suits have been dismantled and the existence of newtypes is now public knowledge but this hasn’t led to the great shift of power that was initially expected. The mysterious appearance of the third RX0 unit, the Phenex, prompts the Republic of Zeon (led by eccentric pilot Zoltan, voiced by Umehara) to secretly conduct a search to acquire it but Mineva Zabi is politically incapable of intervening. Through flashback we are introduced to three “miracle children” (Jona, Michele and Rita) who precognitively predicted the fallout of Operation British (saving lives in the process) but were then taken to be extensively tested on. By UC0097, Jona Basta [Enoki] is a mobile suit pilot, Michele [Muranaka] is working for her father’s powerful company Luio & Co and it is suspected that Rita Bernal [Matsuura] is piloting the Phenex.

For many Gundam fans, Unicorn is either a specific high point or a gateway into the franchise; short and insanely beautiful, it’s a series standout. Subsequently, any continuation of the Universal Century story was going to have an extremely difficult time living up to its predecessors. On the surface, there are a lot of immense positives to take away from this instalment, from the extremely interesting world-building continuation with the strong focus on newtypes to the questions of identity, evolution and connection. More than that, the outlines of a good Gundam show are here – subterfuge, political machinations, emotionally-charged personal drive, pressure placed upon innocent youth, glorious mech battles – but almost every element is either underdeveloped or rushed over, crammed in to a meagre 88 minute runtime. Disappointingly, this was a recurring thought that cropped up as I was watching the film, how could we fix this choppy narrative? Flesh it out properly in a full series. The powers of the II Neo Zeong feel oddly mapped out (the II Neo Zeong is already overpowered, it doesn’t really benefit from mobile suit puppets)? Just take the time to full explore its potential abilities and the reason for its construction. On top of that, a more evenly paced and generous length would have added impact to the overarching legacy of the piece. Unlike Unicorn, Narrative lacks a certain standalone quality and requires a large amount of Gundam canon knowledge (confirmed by the use of archive footage) which might work in a 12 episode series but doesn’t here.

I should clarify, the “just make it a TV series instead of a film” argument is a bit of a lazy fall-back for critics since the rise of prestige television a decade or so ago. More often than not, I will happily defend the cinematic medium and argue that a reworked or stronger story can resolve a lot of the above issues. But this is not a case of a story written solely for the big screen, nor is it spawned from a series of movies, it is that classically doomed exercise of a film that follows a long-running series and whether it’s The Simpsons, South Park or even The X-Files, the translation from long-form narrative to a single big budget outing can often ring hollow and unsatisfying.

While the story squanders a lot of potential, one of the trades offered up is superior sound and visuals but Narrative stumbles once again. I will admit that the score was mostly subtle and foreboding but in classic anime film fashion, during the pinnacle battle sequences, this gives way to J-Pop/J-Rock tracks that feel out of place and significantly sully the mood. The bigger surprise, however, was the quality of the visuals, which weren’t as good as something like Origin, let alone Unicorn. Oddly animated faces, very uninventive fight sequences and far too many clumsy pop-up screen-within-screens – which were likely a time saving method so as not to detract from the exposition and the combat but felt more like cheap video game cut-scenes. And then the film resurrects classic sound effects from the 70s that felt incredibly dated and jarring rather than jarring than celebratory. I understand the need for homage but without reworking the effect in any way, it stood out rather painfully.

Finally we have the characters – one of the most important elements of any Gundam release. Sure, audiences initially come for the big stompy robots but you stay for the politics and forever remember the characters. Narrative unfortunately comes close to greatness with some heightened character designs, solid vocal performances and decently crafted personalities, only to falter with their execution. The central trio are all quite compelling but so much of their story is revealed through flashback and rather than pushing forward with the UC story, Narrative is more concerned with introducing and resolving these characters; something I would actually praise if it didn’t make the story so unbalanced. Then we have the lead antagonist, Zoltan Akkanen, who is amusingly over-the-top and brings a lot of colour and life to the proceedings. I very much enjoyed Umehara’s performance, there’s a lot of the flamboyancy that is on display in Origin’s hybridisation of old and new but the character’s motivation and background are shockingly unclear and what could be construed as an enticing tease is actually a frustrating glimpse of what could have been. Similarly, revelations like a central character not actually being a newtype and powerful deaths feel far too rushed over and dismissed. Even cameos like the appearances of Banagher and Mineva are mediocre and sterilised, making them ineffective through their inactivity.

Ultimately, there is enough of a release here to pass the time and generate talking points for moving into the next chapter of the Universal Century story. But at this point, Narrative isn’t a lead-in to some pending series, it’s a completely standalone feature that regrettably fails to live up to the legacy that came before it.

Release Date:

The Scene To Look Out For:
While I was largely disappointed with the artwork and direction, the colony fight in the rain between Zoltan and Basta, while trying to procure the II Neo Zeong, was very impressive. There was a nice scope and scale that emphasised the importance and gravitas of the feud and, for lack of better phrasing, felt like a Gundam release.

Notable Characters:
Rather than highlighting a standout character that I particularly enjoyed, I kept circling individuals that felt weak or a little too embryonic and nebulous. Sometimes this came down to the direction the story was taking but with someone like Michele, I thought a lot of interesting threads were frittered away. But, as stated, this conclusion could very much be applied to the majority of those present.

Highlighted Quote:
“Genuinely happy things always come together with painful things or sad things”

In A Few Words:
“With the foundation it had, Narrative squanders what could have been a truly fantastic instalment but it is not completely without merit”

Total Score:



The Adventure Of A Lifetime

Josh Cooley

Tom Hanks
Tony Hale
Annie Potts
Tim Allen
Christina Hendricks
Madeleine McGraw

Set shortly after the events in Toy Story 3, Bonnie [McGraw] is being inducted into kindergarten but feeling that the orientation may be too overwhelming for her, Woody [Hanks] stows away in her backpack. While experiencing school for the first time, Bonnie creates a toy from rubbish, naming her creation Sporky [Hale]. Upon return to Bonnie’s room, Woody introduces the other toys to this new creation who is somehow alive and unsure what his purpose is, aside from being trash, to be disposed of. Before her full term at kindergarten starts, Bonnie’s parents take their RV on a road trip, leaving Woody in charge of the frankly suicidal new addition, who is evidently very important to his maker. En route to a carnival, Woody and Sporks are separated from the group and Woody reunites with a long lost friend, Bo Peep [Potts].

It’s hard to remember what Toy Story was like when first released in 1995. CGI animation was largely in its infancy and to revisit it now shows just how far this technology and art-form have come. As a flagship series, Toy Story has always pushed the envelope but with their simple toy designs and rosy retrospection, it’s never exactly apparent until a direct comparison is made but when looking at the environment and natural elements like water and light, the result is truly stunning. Another overlooked factor to these films is the oddity that is Randy Newman. I find his songs mind-numbingly vanilla and lacking in all subtlety. On the other hand, his orchestral score work is absolutely pitch-perfect and magnificently touching in the purest of ways. If you don’t believe me just listen to “Gabby Gabby’s Most Noble Thing”; it’s an astounding piece of music that, even separate from the imagery, is charged with an impressive flowing range of emotion. Then there’s the writing. The synopses of these movies have never been too grand in scope because the scale is minute; the drama and risk for the toys being discovered or abandoned is such that we don’t need some globe-trotting outing. What stood out about this instalment though is that it is, quite surprisingly, the funniest Toy Story. It goes without saying that these movies have always been so blisteringly charming but the dialogue and improv work on display here is so consistently and intentionally funny from start to finish.

If it were ever in any doubt, this film confirms that Toy Story is entirely Woody’s tale; the eponymous toy in question is the cowboy and Hanks continues to prove he is one of western cinema’s greatest treasures, up there with some of the untouchable all-time icons. But if we step aside from him for a moment, the character roster gets a bit messy. Introducing new individuals in a “final” chapter is always tricky because for space purposes alone, you will end up shuffling favourites to the background in favour of bringing new faces to the fore. One of the most surprising casualties is Buzz Lightyear [Allen] who, along with many of the original cast, is relegated to a minor support. The crushing thing is that I didn’t miss him. His arc (along with the other classics) was pretty much complete, while this tale focuses on “how do you fix a problem like Bo Peep?” Bo’s absence was very much noted in Toy Story 3 and this entire feature feels like an apologetic send-off to a character who was dealt a poor hand. She is given a much more fleshed-out personality and the prologue gifts her with retroactive agency and skills that were not present in the other films. Rather than a complaint – because I’m all for better utilisation of a film’s established creations and Potts’ performance gives everyone a run for their money – it’s a slight lamentation that this entire release feels like an afterthought. But I’ll expand on that later.

There are plenty of new toys in this film, all of which came across rather dry in the marketing but every single one of them endeared themselves to me by the end of the film. The two prominent additions to discuss are Sporky and Gabby [Hendricks]. From the animation of his movements to Hale’s hysterical whimsy and naivety, Sporky is a complete delight. More than that, he is a great pairing for Woody, offering so much introspection on matters of existence and purpose that are so often absent from family films but which Disney (and Pixar specifically) are known for tackling head-on. Gabby is also a fascinating part if only because she is clearly billed as the antagonist (and for a time she kind of is) but the truth is that this movie doesn’t have a villain, only the harsh, crushing beats of reality.

Is Toy Story 4 an emotionally-charged, heart-warming, thoroughly entertaining piece of cinema? Of course it is. In that regard it’s as much of a triumph as the previous instalments. Was it a necessary addition that created a more pleasing ending than Toy Story 3’s already established close? No. And this is the uncomfortable feeling I left the cinema with. Certain properties, while still functional, are considered sacrosanct until they are run into the ground and ruined. Thus far, these films have returned with great, engaging stories that continue the narrative while acting as standalones. But that lack of diminishing returns is a frail rope bridge and eventually it will collapse. Having said that, these fears and concerns were somewhat dashed when I remembered the other animated movies advertised to the audience before the film started and when held in comparison to that dross, the minor gripes might as well be non-existent.

Release Date:
21st June 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
**spoilers for the final scene**
At the end of the movie (which I won’t discuss in too much detail) Bonnie returns from school once again with yet another new Frankenstein-esque creation. Naturally, there is a connection between Sporky and this new utensil-based invention. Having come to terms with what it means to be a toy, Sporky explains that everything will be alright. He is then asked, “How am I alive?” and for a brief moment, the movie teases a reveal on the mechanics of the entire franchise but all he says in response is, “I don’t know” and with that, the film continues its refusal to explain the universe because we all know that would utterly ruin it. Simple but very effective.

Notable Characters:
One toy I forgot to mention is the heightened and ridiculous Canadian stunt motorcyclist Duke Caboom, voiced by Keanu Reeves. Caboom is 100% comic relief from start to end. Whether fearful, optimistic, brave, jealous, sad or happy, every line is given a comedic twist. The same could be said for Key and Peele’s incredibly funny duo, Ducky and Bunny but there was something strikingly silly about Caboom that made him a joy to watch.

Highlighted Quote:
“Oh yeah! Combat Carl’s gonna get played with!”

In A Few Words:
“While it doesn’t bring anything especially new to the table, Toy Story 4 more than justifies its own existence with a positively splendid adventure”

Total Score:


Cinema City Film Quiz #239

[16 June 2019]

Winning Team:
Dross, Dreck, Drivel
Genre – The three D’s of Uwe Boll

Runners Up:
Rock & Boll
Genre – A far cry from cinematic decency that ought to remain alone in the dark
Chaperone In The Dark
Genre – You’ll need one in Uwe’s house
Street Shiter XII
Genre – Comedy

ROUND I: Pre-Production
1. What was the title of the movie based on the video game Angry Birds?
2. The following songs are from which film: Sixteen Going On Seventeen, Edelweiss and Do-Re-Mi?
3. Leonidas, Xerxes, Dilios and Gorgo are the lead characters in which film?
4. Who played the Queen of Hearts in Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland and its sequel?
5. Which film features a discussion about a five dollar milkshake? [bonus point for naming the flavour]
PULP FICTION [generally accepted that the key ingredients are vanilla and banana]
6. Who directed Gran Torino, Mystic River and Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil?
7. What is the title of the He-Man movie released in 1987?
8. Nicolas Cage portrayed Cameron Poe in which 1997 film?
9. The Lego Movie was released in which year?
10. What is the title of the fourth Mission Impossible film?

ROUND II: Filming [Uwe Boll]
1. What is the first film Uwe Boll directed with English dialogue? Amoklauf? Das Erste Semester? Sanctimony?
2. Which of the following Uwe Boll films is not an adaptation of a video game? Rampage? House Of The Dead? Far Cry?
3. In BloodRayne, Rayne is half human half vampire so is only affected by which of the following? The sight of crucifixes? Thirst for human blood? Contact with holy water?
4. Which of the following was produced by but not directed by Uwe Boll? Tunnel Rats? Zombie Massacre? Blubberella?
5. Which of the following has not appeared in an Uwe Boll film? JK Simmons? Ben Kingsley? Vin Diesel?
6. How many sequels has Uwe Boll directed? 2? 6? 10?
SIX (BloodRayne 2, BloodRayne 3, In The Name Of The King 2, In The Name Of The King 3, Rampage 2, Rampage 3)
7. What is the name of Jason Statham’s character in In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale? Farmer? Thatcher? Weaver?
FARMER (and Camden Konreid)
8. In 2010, Boll made a sport biopic entitled Max Schmeling. What kind of sport was Max part of? Javelin? Boxing? F1 racing?
9. All the body armour worn by Bureau 713 in Alone In The Dark is actually what? American Football padding? Paintball protection wear? Riding supports?
10. Uwe Boll’s first big budget US cinematic release (House Of The Dead) is also his highest grossing film. True or False?
TRUE ($13.8 million dollars, followed by In The Name Of The King at $13.1mil)

ROUND III: Post-Production
1. What are the things that Bill and Ted respectively see in hell in Bill And Ted’s Bogus Journey? (one point per correct answer)
GRANNY S PRESTON ESQ / THE EASTER BUNNY (not Col. Oats as that hell is shared)
2. In 2013 Leonardo DiCaprio starred in which two films? (one point per correct answer)
3. The following quote is from which film, “We’re on an express elevator to hell, going down”?
4. How many feature length movies make up the Riddick franchise? [bonus point for naming the animated short]
THREE (Pitch Black / The Chronicles Of Riddick / Riddick) [Dark Fury]
5. What is the name of the lead character in The Princess And The Frog?
6. 2018’s The Nun is part of which horror franchise?
7. Which four actors played the co-lead roles in Closer? (one point per correct answer)
8. Henry Hill is the lead character in which film?
9. Meg Ryan, John Cusack, Kelsey Grammar and Christopher Lloyd featured in which film?
10. Who played the lead role in Jeanne d’Arc (or The Messenger: The Story Of Joan Of Arc)?

ROUND IV: Promotion & Release
1. The following quote is from which film, “Take a look at the man beside you. It’s a good bet that in the next six weeks you or he will be dead”? The Right Stuff? Contagion? Pearl Harbour?
2. Which of the following is not a Netflix Original production? Triple Frontier? Last Flag Flying? Mute?
3. Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler have co-starred in how many films? 1? 3? 5?
ONE (Just Go With It)
4. Daniel Drumm, Jonathan Pangborn, Nicodemus West and Thor are characters in which MCU film? Avengers: Age Of Ultron? Doctor Strange? Thor: The Dark World?
5. Who directed Pretty Woman? PJ Hogan? Gary Marshall? Joseph Ruben?
6. Scarface was produced and distributed by which studio? Paramount? Universal? 20th Century Fox?
7. What was the budget for Pulp Fiction? 2 million dollars? 8 million dollars? 17 million dollars?
8. Fight Club was released in which year? 1997? 1999? 2001?
9. How many times has Freaky Friday been adapted for cinema? Twice? Four times? Six times?
TWICE (1976 / 2003)
10. The original title for Scream was Scary Movie. True or False?

Screenshots: True Romance / 3000 Miles To Graceland / Austin Powers / Bobby
Poster: Heathers
Actor: Christian Slater


The Universe Is Expanding

F Gary Gray

Tessa Thompson
Chris Hemsworth
Kumail Nanjiani
Liam Neeson
Emma Thompson

Opening with two separate prologues, we are introduced to a young Molly Wright who witnesses an alien creature but manages to avoid being neuralised, thus sparking a drive to become the best and brightest to get into the ever-elusive agency that she witnessed that fateful night. Fast forward a decade and a half later and we see Men In Black agents H [Hemsworth] and T [Neeson] on a Parisian mission to avoid a world-ending invasion of the shape-shifting race, the Hive. We are then reintroduced to the adult Molly [T Thompson] who infiltrates the New York MIB office and blags her way into a probationary position as Agent M. From here M is dispatched to the London office by Agent O [E Thompson] to investigate irregularities in their operations.

The first Men In Black film had an air of Ghostbusters to it. A character-driven, surprisingly emotional and charming, fun, action-packed, effects heavy romp that pulled the curtain back on the world just underneath our own. It sparked the imagination and captivated audiences but no sequel has ever really come close to replicating that magic. The aliens were relatable, the situations were surprisingly grounded and there was a very thinly-veiled allegory of immigration with outsiders wanting to make a new home and get on with their lives that elevated the entire thing. Men In Black International, on the other hand, is a shell of its predecessor with a complete lack of world-building, aside from the dreary rehashes of the previous films with uninspired alien disguises and eye-rolling concealed entrances. As with the previous instalments, there seems to have been a move away from the nuanced balance of styles, to a very comedy-led approach. Admittedly, there’s nothing wrong with this and sometimes a film can shift genres mid-film and it can generate spectacular results but if you are switching genres, you have to really commit to it and ensure the execution is exceptional enough to warrant said change. Classic examples are Alien/Aliens, Cloverfield/10 Cloverfield Lane but the most appropriate example would be the transition from the rather dark family adventure Jumanji to the light comedic outing Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle. Suffice it to say, Men In Black International does not have half of the energy or originality of these instances.

As was apparent from the promotional footage, the Men In Black series has descended from cutting-edge visuals to some genuinely lacklustre CGI. With generic blue holograms-a-plenty, (unintentionally) rubbery looking aliens and big glowing sky beams, there is nothing that sets this movie apart from countless other disappointing summer blockbusters. The only remaining personality comes across through the production design and costume work but even these feel acceptable at best and rely on what has come before rather than forging ahead. While we’re on the subject of visuals, the direction and cinematography lack so much atmosphere, opting for a comedy-centric visual style of brightly lit scenes and generic, underwhelming composition and camera movements. I could transition to the cast but in truth, there isn’t really a lot worth talking about. I can summarise my opinions by grouping everyone into one of two categories. On the one hand you have those who are doing their best with what they have been given, eking out a handful of smirk/titter-inducing lines and eyebrow raising visual sequences. Whereas the remainder are background fodder, underdeveloped signposts moving the characters from triviality to triviality.

Initially one would assume that the key culprit is the story itself, which is remarkably stupid, bland and predictable but the premise itself is fine, it’s in fact the script itself that is so very lacking. As the audience surrogate, the story should largely focus on M’s induction and on paper it does but rushes through the training to get to her first assignment, meaning we are left unsure of her abilities outside of her enthusiasm and being told she is very intelligent. And classically, this movie illustrates this with luck and by making those around her stupid. The script is also littered with painful foreshadowing for third act plot developments and deus ex machina. In the opening prologue Molly meets the young Tranchian creature and as it scampers off into the night, the film whispers “what could that mean” while the audience is expected to keep up the pretence that it wasn’t overtly obvious that said creature will return when the plot requires it, only to be dismissed again just as quickly. Completing the trifecta of mediocrity, is the incredibly flat humour, a lot of which retreads safe familiar ground. I mean, call-backs can be fun when subtle or amusing but more often than not, they hinder a film. Before boarding an express train from New York to London, M (who I should point out, is surrounded by new and exciting peculiarities) takes a moment to look at the worm guys from the previous film before boarding the train. There’s nothing particularly engaging about what they’re saying and no in-character reason for her to be so consumed but the reference is for audiences and therefore is given the same treatment as product placement. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t make sense, there is simply an obligation to show them before moving on with the story.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this film is that on paper it sounds like a winner; a dual-lead team with great chemistry in a new setting on a globe-hopping adventure to save the world. But with rather insipid execution and a very lifeless script, this somehow ends up feeling like the worst Men In Black film, or at the very least, the most unnecessary one.

Release Date:
14th June 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
**mild spoilers within**
So much of the script is riddled with first draft issues; things that look cool or ham-fistedly push the plot along but quickly fall apart under minimal scrutiny. As an example, let’s take the assassination of a member of an alien royal family, Vungus. The twins approach the race of chess people, they refuse and then they kill them all except for the pawn (for unclear reasons). They then learn of Vungus’ location – again, never explicitly stated how – and use a poison dart to kill him. With the alien dying, he is then transported to a car which is propelled into the side of a building with an explosion. While all of the above works as an excuse for action set-pieces and a tedious dance sequence in three separate locations, none of it tracks logically which means either the writing is subpar and everyone involved failed to realise it didn’t make sense or they did and are wilfully indifferent. And with the end result being as it is, I’m not sure which is worse.

Notable Characters:
There are some truly unimaginative beings created for this film. One new addition is intergalactic arms dealer Riza (played by Rebecca Ferguson) who lives on a private island off of the coast of Naples. This alien is referenced a fair few times, creating some mystery and tension but when we eventually meet her, the final product is magnificently underwhelming. With a coloured wig and flowing gown, Ferguson looks like she’s fallen out of a Katy Perry music video and the only thing fundamentally “alien” about her is a third arm. Wow, pulling out all the stops there. But then the film goes in the completely opposite direction with the main villains (dubbed The Twins) whose ill-defined hyper powers are never explained but allow them to crop up briefly when the plot requires them only to be dispatched just as quickly.

Highlighted Quote:
“Passion is unstable, logic is constant”

In A Few Words:
“Frankly, Men In Black International was everything I expected and less”

Total Score:



Every Hero Has A Dark Side

Simon Kinberg

Sophie Turner
Tye Sheridan
James McAvoy
Nicholas Hoult
Michael Fassbender
Jessica Chastain
Jennifer Lawrence

Loosely based on the Dark Phoenix storyline in the X-Men comics, the events of this film are set 9 years after the events in X-Men: Apocalypse. The X-Men are now a publically approved group, with a direct line to the President. While undertaking a rescue mission in the earth’s orbit, Jean Grey [Turner] is hit by an anomaly but survives. This triggers a brief debate between Beast [Hoult], Mystique [Lawrence] and Professor Xavier [McAvoy], who question the extents mutants are pushed to maintain public approval. But Jean is far from alright and begins to suffer uncontrollable mood swings and surges of energy that begin to unlock repressed memories of her past. All the while a mysterious entity named Vuk [Chastain] with a hidden agenda approaches Jean.

It’s worth noting, before we go any deeper into this review, that the director of this release also served as writer for the heavily castigated X-Men: The Last Stand – which also attempted to cover this comic arc. Granted, Kinberg has served as producer on several decent films but his writing credits leave a lot to be desired but with this release he has been gifted full autonomy as writer, producer and director (his cinematic debut) and it is finally transparently clear that his abilities are not up to the task. Littered with fairly uninspired action sequences and excessive use of extreme close-ups, there is a distinct lack of visual flare. On top of that we also have the production design. While I didn’t much care for X-Men: Days Of Future Past or Apocalypse, I could sort of see the references to their respective period settings but this is very much 1992 in name only. If you take something like Captain Marvel for a second, that was a decent example of a film that mostly understood the era and represented it with a playful mirth and wink in its eye. If you had told me this movie was set five years ago, I could have arguably believed it. And then we have the writing itself which is absolutely shocking. The dialogue is atrocious, the story bounces around mercilessly and the world-building is remarkably plain. In other words, the responsibility fell to Kinberg and he has failed on almost every count. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Dark Phoenix is a turgid, thoroughly boring affair, taking a franchise that has trundled along for nearly twenty years and serves up one of its most unremarkable offerings. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was very badly made and frustrated fans, Apocalypse had spectacle but lacked heart or consequence but Dark Phoenix may be the first X-Men film to feel truly dull. Disney purchasing Fox and merging the franchise with the MCU means this is all very likely irrelevant and what should be a fitting send-off (in the way that Avengers: Endgame was) is little more than another bloated outing.

To my mind, there are two redeeming points to this feature. The first is the score work, which was also one of the only positive points about The Last Stand. I enjoyed the motif work and themes but was incredibly shocked to learn that they were composed by Hans “I’ll never score a superhero movie ever again” Zimmer. Which then made me question how much I actually enjoyed the soundtrack because the foreboding strings were thoroughly fitting and pleasant, elevating the entirely mediocre on-screen antics but knowing it was Zimmer, I feel like it could have done more; difficult to say. The second point is the actors. I genuinely have to commend almost everyone involved for the solid performances they worked out of an incredibly flat lacklustre script. Turner, especially, was very impressive even if the story didn’t afford her the necessary logic leaps between tortured, conflicted young woman and straight-up murder-happy psychopath. In truth, even the best chef in the world can only do so much with a handful of second rate ingredients but when you have painful one-liners, erratic narrative leaps and stupid developments (at one point a shuttle is spinning out of control in space but after Cyclops blasts the thruster it stops within two rotations.. that’s not just terrible physics, it’s nonsense), it was never going to end well for anyone.

**semi-spoilery comments mid-paragraph**
What struck me is how unambitious the film is, from the visual effects to the costumes, I couldn’t help but wonder how this movie ended up costing 200 million dollars. And then it became evidently clear; reshoots, tonnes and tonnes of reshoots. Other than the messy story, erratic character priorities and boring action set-pieces, the mighty hand of Disney is present throughout. Not direct interference but as fallout from the acquisition of Fox meaning plot elements and seeds for potential sequels had to be reworked. One of the more obvious examples is the antagonists. Considering the X-Men universe has been kind of grounded on Earth up until now, the film introduces an unspecified shape-shifting alien race who have been chasing the galactic phoenix force and wish to harness it for themselves. Only, they haven’t just been chasing this force, they’ve also been on earth for some time waiting to infiltrate and take over; which is a complete contradiction. I wouldn’t be surprised if the aliens in question were supposed to be Skrulls until Marvel took them back for their own movies. This means we have Jessica Chastain in a completely wasted non-role, attempting to manipulate Jean for very blunt ends with a very ill-defined set of abilities.

While it’s one of the biggest X-Men comic arcs, the dark phoenix saga is supposed to be an enormous emotional culmination but with the lead up this film had, this story was always going to be fighting an uphill battle to produce a satisfactory conclusion. As it stands, Jean is first introduced in Apocalypse, where she isn’t really given much to do but because she’s Jean Grey and everyone is waiting for her to inevitably turn evil, it is demonstrated that she has some sort of inert Phoenix power buried deep down inside her. Yet somehow, in the course of three years, this instalment forgets this development and claims the force is a purely separate entity/ability. Well, I say “claims,” the film never goes into a great amount of detail about much of anything. Another reason this story has never been depicted well, is the continued assumption that the more interesting story isn’t the individual searching for their past with an uncontrollable power but the people who put a few barriers in an attempt to control her. It’s as if we had a Wolverine story about Colonel Stryker. Sure, it’s an important factor to the story but it’s not the main crux and not where the central and relatable emotional core lies.

Overall, this entire effort feels tired, apathetic, lazy and a victim of multiple poor drafts. While I have saluted a fair few of these releases, Dark Phoenix serves as a reminder that Fox may have helped jump-start the superhero resurgence in the early 2000s but it had no real idea how to properly cultivate and develop it, throwing multiple efforts at the wall, hoping something would stick. What’s most disappointing is that the best end to this story was released two years ago but instead it limped on until it finally coughed up this mess, destined to be forgotten once the inevitable reboots roll out.

Release Date:
7th June 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
The film opening with the X-Men being established as beloved celebrities is weird. Not only because a central conceit of the X-Men is fear of the other, the outsider hiding within, etc. So to start them out of the shadows is a bold choice. More so than that, Jean commits two brief on-screen attacks (where I believe only one life is lost) and within a scene or two an entire taskforce is released. Which means the story races from cheering fans with signs and X-Men action figures to internment facilities in a few days; I know the descent of humanity into depravity takes minimal prompting but this is pretty breakneck. Oh, and that mean, misguided, evil, anti-mutant faction coming to take our heroes away is called the MCU. Subtle Fox, real subtle.

Notable Characters:
I’ve always praised both McAvoy and Fassbender for their portrayals of Xavier and Magneto respectively but I can never understand why zero attempt is made to make them age. It’s never established that mutants age differently (other than Mystique) so why do these men, who grew up during World War II, somehow look thirty years younger than they should!? I can suspend disbelief about so much in this movie but I honestly can’t let that go.

Highlighted Quote:
“And by the way, the women are always saving the men around here so you might want to think about changing the name to X-Women”

In A Few Words:
“A very unsatisfactory close to an incredibly marred and violently fluctuating franchise”

Total Score:


Cinema City Film Quiz #238

[02 June 2019]

Winning Team:
Ghidorah The Explorer Vs Rodan The Accuser
Genre – A Nickelodeon, MCU, kaiju mashup

Runners Up:
Kaiju! All Monsters Sneeze
Genre – Monster movie
Genre – The studio regrets giving the franchise to Werner Herzog
Street Shiter XI
Genre – Action
I Have 2 “Cats”
Genre – Inappropriate teen comedy

ROUND I: Pre-Production
1. What is the title of the 1980 comedy about an airplane out of control due to mass food poisoning?
2. What type of animal is King Kong?
3. What was the full title of the Robin Hood film starring Kevin Costner?
4. Who plays the role of Michael Corleone in The Godfather trilogy?
5. Who directed Hook?
6. In The Rock, Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery break into which prison?
7. How many Evil Dead films have been made to date?
8. Which two actors played the lead roles in Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas? (one point per correct answer)
9. What was the name of Brendan Fraser’s character’s name in The Mummy films?
10. Who composed the score for Escape From New York?

ROUND II: Filming [Godzilla]
**10,000th question asked at the Cinema City Film Quiz!!**
1. The word Gojira is a portmanteau of the Japanese names for which two animals? Elephant & Shark? Lion & Octopus ? Gorilla & Whale?
GORILLA & WHALE (gorira and kujira)
2. How many forms does Godzilla take in Shin Godzilla? 2? 4? 6?
FOUR (tail, eel, bipedal, fully formed, 5th form incomplete)
3. In Godzilla: Planet Of The Monsters, despite millennia passing on Earth, how long has the Aratrum been in space? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?
4. Which of the following monsters did Godzilla battle first? King Ghidorah? Mothra? King Kong?
5. The 32 Japanese releases to date are grouped by how many periods? 4? 5? 6? [bonus points for naming any of them]
FOUR (Showa, Heisei, Millennium, Reiwa)
6. What type of kaiju is Ebirah? A giant crustacean? A giant tortoise? A giant bird?
7. Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla, dubbed Zilla, appeared in which Japanese Godzilla film? All Monsters Attack? Final Wars? The Return Of Godzilla?
8. What is the name of the eye-patch wearing scientist who creates the oxygen destroyer in the original Godzilla? Daisuke Serizawa? Hideto Ogata? Kyohei Yamane?
9. The music during the HALO jump sequence in 2014’s Godzilla is Gyorgy Ligeti’s Requiem. This was famously used in which other film? The Exorcist? 2001: A Space Odyssey? Suspiria?
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (specifically during the monolith scene)
10. Mechagodzilla was built by aliens as part of an invasion plan. True or False?

ROUND III: Post-Production
1. What are the respective titles of the three 1992 movies Robin Williams appeared in? (one point per correct answer)
2. The Bad Boys films are set in which US city?
3. What were the two titles for the fourth Die Hard film? (one point per correct answer)
4. The following quote is from which 1996 film, “I know you’ll come carry me out of the Palace of Winds. That’s what I’ve wanted, to walk in such a place with you. With friends on an earth without maps. The lamp has gone out and I’m writing in the darkness”?
5. Steve Guttenberg played the role of Officer Mahoney in how many Police Academy films?
6. What is served for dessert in Pankot Palace in Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom?
7. Captain Marvel, Enemy At The Gates, Road To Perdition and The Aviator featured which actor?
8. The following is the poster tagline for which film, “He’s dying to become a chef”?
9. In The Little Mermaid, what does Scuttle describe as a banded bulbous snarfblatt?
10. Ben Affleck has portrayed three superheroes. Name them. (one point per correct answer)

ROUND IV: Promotion & Release
1. The following quote is from which film, “Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. Whoever opens this box will be turned into brimstone and ashes”? The Maltese Falcon? Kiss Me Deadly? Touch Of Evil?
2. Molly Brown, Thomas Andrews, J Bruce Ismay and Cal Hockley are characters in which film? Legends Of The Fall? The Prestige? Titanic?
3. What is the name of the school in 1978’s Grease? Rydell High? North Shore High? Bayside High?
4. Jacob’s Ladder was released in which year? 1987? 1990? 1994?
5. What colour is the dark crystal in the film of the same name? Green? Purple? Orange?
6. What is the name of the card cut-out of a little girl that Jay shoots during his interview for the Men In Black in the film of the same name? Tiffany? Britney? Sandy?
7. Which of the following countries does not feature in World War Z? Ireland? Israel? South Korea?
8. Who directed Man On The Moon, Amadeus and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest? Andrei Tarkovsky? Milos Forman? Oliver Stone?
9. What does Tom do for a living in (500) Days Of Summer? Designs corporate logos? Play tests video games? Writes greetings cards?
10. Mike Wazowski’s eye in Monsters Inc was originally green as well but was made brown to match Billy Crystal’s. True or False?
FALSE (it’s green)

Screenshots: Super 8 / King Kong / First Man / The Wolf Of Wall Street
Poster: Broken City
Actor: Kyle Chandler


Long Live The King

Michael Dougherty

Vera Farmiga
Millie Bobby Brown
Kyle Chandler
Charles Dance

Set five years after the events of Godzilla, the monster hunting agency Monarch are under public scrutiny for their knowledge of the existence of giant creatures dubbed “titans.” Paleobiologist Dr Emma Russell [Farmiga] is working closely with Monarch on sonar technology to potentially control or subdue monsters. While Emma is working on a new discovery in China, an eco-terrorist organisation, run by ex-military Colonel, Alan Jonah [Dance], storms the Monarch facility and abducts both Emma and her daughter Madison [Brown]. In order to help track the terrorist’s actions, Emma’s estranged husband Mark [Chandler] is brought on board as Jonah and his agenda are revealed.

From the outset, I was quite surprised and impressed at how the pacing wastes no time and rushes along to get straight to the monsters. But this elation quickly faded as the narrative maintains this gait throughout and never eases up to appreciate what’s unfolding. Scrambling from set-piece to set-piece, neglecting the very monsters they sold so heavily in the marketing. See, a lot of critics will dub this film repetitive, cluttered and suffering from too many monsters and on one level, I can entirely understand that but if anything, this movie actually suffers from too few monster bouts and those we get have some genuinely standout moments but even these are littered with stupid or odd directorial decisions but I will expand on that more a little later.

A film of this nature if very much driven by the production design and effect work; all of which, I’m happy to report, are commendable. Bear McCreary’s score is nowhere near as good as Alexandre Desplat’s in the last instalment or even Henry Jackman’s in Kong: Skull Island – both of which emulated a 60s/70s monster pic aural landscape – but by building on the Showa era themes and leitmotifs, it is certainly a rather strong effort. The overall sound design is also great, I missed the guttural Godzilla roar established in 2014 but this is a minor gripe considering the level of talent that has been employed. In a similar way to Aquaman, I was also very impressed at the selection of beautiful, slower wide shots and tableaus peppered throughout the film that felt like the kind of concept art that sells the film but rarely makes it to the final cut. But these pretty and haunting moments also serve to highlight how disappointing the mucky-CGI close-ups can be and while the majority is easy enough to follow, it fails to really convey the scale. Something I wholly applaud Gareth Edwards for doing in 2014 was keeping the view of the monsters from a human perspective, highlighting how helpless we are against these towering behemoths. This sequel largely maintains that but the choice to shoot the fights as if they were regular sized humans wading around a set left the action feeling generic at times and strangely consequence free; which, incidentally, is also what happened in Pacific Rim: Uprising. We lose a sense of terror and wonder and lean into campy Power Rangers visuals; granted, this could be an intentional callback to the older releases but I didn’t feel this landed particularly well. But if I’m honest, that’s always been Godzilla’s problem. The first few instalments strike fear but the series will always devolve into Godzilla recast as a saviour not an agent of balance and we get into more brow-furrowing territory and the human element grows increasingly obsolete.

With the most recent Godzilla releases (including Toho’s Shin Godzilla), there has been a step away from atomic and nuclear fear to one of climate change and human eradication through ecological disaster. The progression of this notion in King Of The Monsters is that our efforts to control and domesticate these forces will always end in folly – specifically releasing Ghidorah then acting surprised when it establishes itself as the alpha species and enacts its own agenda. I, for one, wholly welcome this and have never really understood the complaint that these modern incarnations have been preachy as these features have always been message heavy films with a parallel human component that features sparring opinions, the inefficiency of excessive bureaucracy and crazy technology that man shouldn’t meddle with.

Staying with that point for a moment, the human side of these things frequently gets a bashing. From the marketing, people want to see big stompy kaiju monsters wrestle each other to the ground but the human characters are the ones we spend the majority of the film with. The cast here is a pleasant mix of ethnicity and gender in positions of power and prominence across the board; again, something I fully champion and relish seeing on film. But the characters themselves are furnished with simplistic motivations and remarkably moronic decisions that none of them are especially likeable. And then there’s the dialogue. I’ll readily admit that the lines and their respective deliveries are typical for the genre but even by this standard, anything said aloud is incredibly painful; I’m quietly confident I heard lazy inserts such as, “you better take a look at this” five or six times. Making it worse, there is a strange imbalance across the casting with certain individuals being dispatched rather unceremoniously while others are clothed in immense plot armour that protects them from the most absurd scenarios. In one case, taking a team to land a helicopter to search for one person at the literal feet of the climactic battle between two gargantuan beasts is frankly fucking stupid. But one of the more unusual elements to the cast is that I’m not entirely sure I could point to a single individual and identify them as the lead character. None of the actors massively underperform or standout, everyone simply acts serviceably. One could argue this is because Godzilla is the lead or that the ensemble works so well as a whole that the group services as the driving force but I think those statements may be giving this movie too much credit. In actuality, I think this is just largely a by-product of a jumbled story and messy script with underdeveloped arcs and flip-flopping priorities.

Due to its reduction from a semi-grounded piece, King Of The Monsters is somehow dumber than its predecessor but by the same logic it is also arguably more fun. With that in mind, there will be those who will watch this film and have a blast from start to finish, watching titanic creatures battle it out for supremacy. For me, I am conflicted and this film will join the long line of Godzilla continuations that I somewhat enjoy but can never truly appreciate because that vital fear is lost, substituted for mindless, almost consequence free action.

Release Date:
31st May 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
Maybe it’s saying something to the nature of how we process “fake news” and the desensitisation of audiences but when a news reporter is glibly explaining that things are looking pretty bad right now, with zero emotion in her voice, you feel someone should have shown the actors footage of journalists reporting on actual disasters because at that point in the movie the fucking US Capitol was on fire! You’d think that would have people just a little worked up.

Notable Characters:
I was going to talk about Charles Dance and the fact he’s a rather interesting individual with unique motivations is looked over quite a lot but instead, I’m highlighting the more memorable Bradley Whitford for being unabashedly Bradley Whitford and quipping his arse off from start to finish. He was incredibly menacing in Get Out but he’s ride sincere and sarcastic so perfectly that his performance feels effortless. Unfortunately, the script doesn’t give him much to work with but his delivery of even mundane lines elevates proceedings.

Highlighted Quote:
“I’ve seen human nature first hand and I’m here to tell you it doesn’t get any better. It gets worse”

In A Few Words:
“In an effort to homogenise properties closer and closer to a standard tone for Legendary’s monsterverse, Godzilla feels lost in a silly, sometimes fun, romp that ultimately fails to impress”

Total Score:



Based On A True Fantasy

Dexter Fletcher

Taron Egerton
Jamie Bell
Bryce Dallas Howard
Richard Madden

The story opens in the early 80s with Elton John [Egerton] checking himself into rehab and regaling the story of young Reggie Dwight to fellow addicts. He recounts being able to play music by ear from a very early age but that his abilities as a musical prodigy were never really supported by his mother [Howard] or father [Steven Mackintosh]. As he grew up, he played backing piano for a few American soul bands on tour but was unable to really write his own music due to an inability to pen lyrics. Bucking up the courage to approach a label, Dwight adopts the new name Elton John and is paired with lyricist Bernie Taupin [Bell] and the two churn out hit after hit. Shortly after this, John comes out to Bernie but is saddened when Bernie does not reciprocate. Despite this initial friction, the two are sent to America and John’s career takes off.

The initial teaser trailer for Rocketman closed with the poster tagline: based on a true fantasy. A lot of these liners tend to boil down to fairly unimaginative marketing but there is an air of accuracy to this statement because while the narrative follows the extremely tired, standard biopic structure, it is only part biopic, with the other part being a musical. In truth, we’ve heard this story a thousand times but this shift in perspective and making the music a reflective expression of the subject’s life works wonders and reinvigorates what could have been a rather dreary paint-by-numbers affair. The overall tone is therefore both extravagant and lavish as well as quite isolated and simple, giving us something relatively unique. Furthermore, the choice to avoid a family friendly PG-13/12a rating was a smart move, allowing the script and performances to actively address the drinking, drugs and sex without resorting to mere coy implication. Having said that, nothing is ever too graphic, choosing instead to lean in to the theatricality of the musical element and producing a trippy, heightened vibe that thankfully never feels out of place. Admittedly, those looking for a straightforward narrative will likely find this jarring and if you’re not sold by the end of the opening sequence, this film makes few attempts to ease or placate.

Like many biographical pieces, this is a long film, running at just over two hours but the pacing works extremely well partly because the cinematography, editing and time-skipping transitions are all perfectly in-line with the manic theatrical format. Which is a decision I can only assume was Fletcher’s but even if it wasn’t, his direction is simply superb; fresh, flamboyant and confident, it’s clear this man has a real handle on the medium and deserves plenty of opportunities to flex these muscles. As a side point, there remains a great debate over how much of Bohemian Rhapsody was actually directed by Bryan Singer but while Fletcher may have been called in to capture two weeks of footage to save that feature, when working from start-to-finish, he really proves that he would have made a substantially better release of Mercury’s story than what we ended up with. But I digress.

The respective hair, costume, make-up and production design teams have worked absolute miracles recreating Elton’s evolving wardrobe and look, gleefully running side-by-side comparisons during the credit sequence to highlight the absurdity of what Elton John was getting away with on stage and the painstaking accuracy and attention to detail involved in recreating it all. But none of that would have gotten the film anywhere without an extremely charismatic lead. Cue Taron Edgerton. Initially one may assume “the kid from Kingsman” is an unusual choice but he embodies John with supreme ease, capturing the rage, the insecurities and the raw, frustrated talent skilfully (also, he kind of had a bit of a dry-run audition in Sing albeit in gorilla form). He carries himself well singing Elton’s biggest hits and though his voice isn’t exactly the same, his twist on the tracks is a welcome treat. To my mind, one of the key accomplishments here is managing to carrying the pageantry of this tragicomedy without tilting too far into eye-rolling melodrama or irreverent farce, which would have been so very easy for a lesser-skilled actor.

With this kind of genre piece, the supporting roles are always a bit of a mixed bag, especially when central performance is such a strong, attention-pulling lead character. Few are particularly standout and even fewer drag the film down with their miscasting or capability. From Elton’s childhood we have some interesting players: Howard is cold and unrelenting in her dismissal of her son, as is Mackintosh as John’s father but they never get to scene-stealing territory or disappointing to the point of distraction. There’s nothing especially vindictive or malicious about them, they’re simply not supportive. But in a way, this makes them all the more relatable for an audience, neither of them beat or neglected Elton (not by the conventions of the period) but they are spiteful in their dismissal of him and that is something that cuts surprisingly deep. If anything, the film’s real villain is Elton’s producer John Reid [Madden] who is controlling and disrespectful – but whether it was Madden’s performance or the naivety of the lead character, there was no twist here, no sign that Reid ever really had Elton’s interests at heart outside of personal gain. He was simply played as a fairly sneering, calculating individual and there was never any doubt that it wouldn’t all end up unpleasantly.

I can’t really comment on the events of Elton John’s real life but this kind of film, released with the blessing and involvement of the man himself while he’s still alive and unafraid of airing undesirable truths, is an incredibly positive move to transparency. As an artist, he owes the public nothing but offering up something that is wall-to-wall swearing and avarice to highlight what the life is like without veering into an overly romanticised fantasy is commendable and something that should be imitated. All we need now is to figure out a way to illustrate the hazards of music and stardom without the copy and paste linear structure, although Rocketman comes damned close.

Release Date:
24th May 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
The standard biopic trope is to build to some formative concert or tour but in a perfect example of this film both bucking the trend and indulging in the formula, the bookend scenes culminate to a recreation of the music video for I’m Still Standing. It’s an interesting choice and effectively acts in the same way as the big final number but with everything that has been shown on screen for the previous two hours, the lyrics resonate rather well.

Notable Characters:
Again, another example of the film getting it perfectly right and curiously misfiring is Jamie Bell. Bell is great in this movie and presents a nice parallel to Elton’s extravagance and self destruction but he is also the man behind the words of the songs that people know. Sure, this is Rocketman, story of the man behind the piano, lost in a world of addiction and debauchery but he’s arguably only one half of the puzzle. Taupin is so very overlooked by this movie that it’s almost obtuse using the lyrics to illustrate parts of John’s life – which I appreciate is in direct contrast to what I wrote not one paragraph prior.

Highlighted Quote:
“You’ve gotta kill the man you were born to be, to become the person you want to be”

In A Few Words:
“Covering the excess, the drama and the songs in a unique way, Rocketman is everything Bohemian Rhapsody wishes it could be”

Total Score:



A Rags To Wishes Story

Guy Ritchie

Will Smith
Mena Massoud
Naomi Scott
Marwan Kenzari
Navid Negahban

Set several hundred years ago, in the ancient kingdom of Agrabah, we are introduced to Aladdin [Massoud], a young street urchin who survives thanks to his quick-wits, fast fingers and sharp tongue. One day in the marketplace, Aladdin meets Princess Jasmine [Scott], who has disguised herself to walk among the common folk and keeps her true identity a secret from the young man. When trying to see the princess again, Aladdin is arrested by the Sultan’s vizier, Jafar [Kenzari] who offers him a chance at redemption by descending into the cave of wonders, deep in the desert, to retrieve an oil lamp. Aladdin becomes trapped in the cave but discovers a genie [Smith] living inside the lamp, who explains he will grant his new master three wishes.

The only appeal these Disney live-action remakes offer is a familiar story through a different prism; for the studio it’s a safe bet and for the audiences, it’s comfortable. In all honesty, that’s been Disney’s modus operandi since day one; take a familiar fairy tale rooted in core values and spin a yarn from it that will entertain their target four quadrants and generate a shit-tonne of merchandise sales. These have ranged from alternate takes, such as Maleficent and Dumbo, where a different perspective has been shown or largely reinventing the story, to fairly straight-laced shot-for-shot adaptations like Beauty And The Beast and for the most part, these movies have generated an insane amount of money for Disney but stagnated their output by recycling and cannibalising their own properties. Aladdin is, for a great many people, one of the top three best Disney animated features and fundamentally this iteration was always going to be at a disadvantage and fighting an uphill battle.

From the outset, it’s clear that a great deal of time, attention and effort has gone into crafting a detailed visually lush setting. Drawing on so many cultures from India to Morocco, we are shown a vast melting pot kingdom similar to the standard vague medieval Europe that Disney calls on for its western adaptations. The costumes, hair and makeup are all spectacularly rich and vibrant as is the production design employed to shape the city of Agrabah. Having said that, maintaining the bright and colourful quasi-cartoony tone does leave a lot of the movie feeling a little too polished, failing to give that realistic lived-in quality.

Another key factor of this release is the musical set-pieces. It is extremely difficult to grade the songs because they are a rehash of what has come before (and arguably some of Disney’s finest tracks) and while the new entries are perfectly serviceable, they are competing against decades of nostalgia and familiarity, coming off a bit Eurovision-y at times. That being said, Alan Menken has returned to build a charming mix of older methods and modern flare that gives the score a nice rounded presence. But sticking with the songs for a moment, we have to address how they are presented visually. Ritchie’s direction has always been a bit of a mixed bag, veering from incredibly creative and innovative shots to generic repackaged tropes. This comes out most notably during the musical numbers where some of the lines are delivered seemingly to no one or without impact. As silly and potentially petty as this example may sound let’s take an example. During the One Jump Ahead number, Aladdin turns and sings, “let’s not be too hasty’ while ascending a flight of stairs. In the animated version, he is surrounded by guards and backed into a corner, whereas in this live-action version it doesn’t become immediately apparent that he hasn’t got away and is still being pursued; the villains are off-screen and he’s kinda warbling to no one in particular. Small things like this really impact how well these musical interludes are incorporated into the story. Having said that, the execution and choreography for many of the standalone dance sequences are very impressive and pleasingly handled.

Really there are only three performances to talk about: Jasmine, Genie and Jafar. Giving Jasmine actual agency reflects contemporary sensibilities, in the same way that the 90s animated Jasmine was very outspoken and reflected the social progression of that specific era. I feel Scott is a very capable actress and enjoyed her in the underrated Power Rangers, she is also giving one of the best all-round performances in this story. She is earnest, driven, empathetic and intelligent, while also displaying that young naivety that allows the audience to connect with her. On the other end of the spectrum, the Genie is larger than life and sits somewhat outside of the more grounded realism of the human characters. Will Smith is as charismatic and charming as he always is and makes this role very much his own; not the manic-paced, impression-quipping ball of energy that Robin Williams was, nor the big, bombastic, drag-inspired, fourth-wall breaking performance that the Broadway/West End musical cultivated but a pleasing middle ground that very much plays to his strengths. Which brings us to Jafar – easily the weakest thing about this movie. The performance would have been arguably fine if it weren’t for the range of hissing, shrieking, growling and arrogant tones that Jonathan Freeman gave us. Giving us a glimpse of Jafar’s past, that he has worked his way up from the slums to the highest position outside of inherited nobility, is nice but criminally underused. Alan Tudyk helps elevate the vizier’s persona with a subtly malicious Iago that is very different from Gilbert Gottfried’s pitch and intensity but a solid companion for this more subdued Jafar

The opportunity was here to create something bigger, more ambitious and more spellbinding but a lot of the time, what we end up with feels inferior to a nearly thirty year old cartoon (without sounding too diminutive). Just as a brief example, at the close of the animated movie, Aladdin is almost crushed by a giant rolling tower in a frozen tundra, Jafar transforms into an enormous serpent, Jasmine is trapped in an hourglass filling with sand and the stakes feel important and lasting. All this film really shows us is a few guards being arrested, a parrot morphing into a sort-of-roc and principal characters being raised off the ground in a very loosely defined glowing energy field. And that is the ultimate problem with this feature, lack of mind-blowing, awe-inspiring vision. There is such a wealth of mythological and cultural influence to draw on but Aladdin failed to capitalise on any of it, choosing to comfortably recreate the beats of the original but without ever really escaping its shadow.

Release Date:
24th May 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
I’m a sucker for the opening song Arabian Nights. I genuinely love it and the elegant, exotic tones resonate for me and genuinely set the mood in the same way that Maurice Jarre’s Lawrence Of Arabia score immediately captivates the imagination and transports you to a different land. It is a wonderful example of music constructing an environment before one is ever truly seen. This variant, however, is not without its flaws; not because of the song itself but because of what we are being shown at the same time. This sequence is used here to establish so much, under the distinct impression that you are already more than familiar with the original animated film. Subsequently, this devolves into a rush job that demonstrates some of the scale of this locale but not enough of the wonder and mystery to it all. If anything, the film’s opening sets the scene for everything else that follows.

Notable Characters:
I enjoyed that the Sultan [Negahban] is less of a simpering, doddering old man, as he was in 1992. Instead he is simply an over-protective father with the best intentions for his daughter. It also helps to reiterate Jasmine’s relatable frustrations rather than convincing an audience to accept the will and authority of a bit of a man-child.

Highlighted Quote:
“Steal an apple and you’re a thief. Steal a kingdom and you’re a statesman”

In A Few Words:
“A very middle of the road, mixed bag recreation that never truly justifies its own existence”

Total Score:


Cinema City Film Quiz #237

[19 May 2019]

Winning Team:
My Crazy Ex Machina
Genre – Caleb and Ava attempt a reconciliation.. it does not go well

Runners Up:
The Iron Giants
Genre – A group of well-oiled dancers short circuit into the future and start a dance revolution
The Cinematrix: Rise Of The Reboots
Genre – Humanity is enslaved by machines that force them to make the same few movies over and over
Street Shiter X
Genre – Action

ROUND I: Pre-Production
1. What is the name of Arthur Curry’s superhero persona in Aquaman?
2. What is the title of sequel to Finding Nemo?
3. Who played the lead role of Jackie Kennedy in 2016’s Jackie?
4. What is the title of the film about the making of The Room, starring James and Dave Franco?
5. How many Ocean’s films have been made to date (excluding the 1960 original)?
6. Which Men In Black film featured Josh Brolin?
7. What was the title of the first Transformers spin-off, released December 2018?
8. Which sport is depicted in I, Tonya?
9. Who voices the lead role in the Hotel Transylvania films?
10. What is the name of the 80s western starring Emilio Estevez, Kiefer Sutherland, Lou Diamond Phillips and Charlie Sheen?

ROUND II: Filming [Robot Leads]
1. What is the name of the robotic Godzilla that appeared from outer space in 1974? Robozilla? Godzilla 2.0? Mechagodzilla?
2. How many Short Circuit films have been made to date? 2? 3? 4?
3. Ex Machina was released in which year? 2013? 2015? 2017?
4. Which character does not appear in Avengers: Age Of Ultron? Baron Von Strucker? Prof Erik Selvig? General Thaddeus Ross?
5. The following quote is from which film, “Skynet knew it was losing, so it tried to rig the game. It sent a machine back to the time before the war”? Terminator 2: Judgment Day? Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines? Terminator Genisys?
6. Who directed Wall-E? Brad Bird? Pete Docter? Andrew Stanton?
7. Which animation studio produced 2005’s Robots? 20th Century Fox Animation? Universal’s Illumination Entertainment? DreamWorks Animation?
8. What do Frank and his robot steal to impress Jennifer in Robot & Frank? A copy of Don Quixote? A sapphire necklace? Her ex-husband’s car?
9. The Iron Giant is set in which year? 1947? 1957? 1967?
10. I, Robot did not require any reshoots. True or False?

ROUND III: Post-Production
1. Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Andrew Garfield appeared in which film?
2. In 101 Dalmatians what does Pongo’s owner, Roger, do for a living?
3. Who directed the 2016 adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning play, Fences?
4. Which natural disaster forces Paddington to make his way to London?
5. What is the name of the council of assassins in the John Wick films?
6. The following is the poster tagline for which Martin Scorsese film, “Nobody knows Rupert Pupkin but after 1130 tonight, no one will ever forget him”?
7. What is the name of Wade Watts’ avatar in Ready Player One?
8. Who composed the score for Alien?
9. What is the eponymous animal in the Jordan Peele/Keegan-Michael Key comedy Keanu?
10. In The Town, we see two separate bank robberies. What type of masks are used in each respective robbery? (one point per correct answer)

ROUND IV: Promotion & Release
1. What is the title of the 2002 film in which Al Pacino portrays a director who uses a digital actress to complete his film and then tries to keep up the pretence that she is a real person? S1mone? H3l3n? Eve?
2. Control is the name of British Intelligence in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy but what is its informal nickname? The Circus? The Farm? The Shop?
3. Of the seven books, how many Chronicles Of Narnia films have been made to date? 3? 4? 5?
4. The African Queen, starring Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn was released in which year? 1946? 1951? 1959?
5. The Untouchables is predominantly set in which city? New York? Chicago? Los Angeles?
6. The following quote is from which film, “We’ve always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible”? Deepwater Horizon? Interstellar? Invictus?
7. How many characters appear on the “line-up” poster in Trainspotting? 5? 6? 7?
8. What gives Ted’s true identity away to Kate in Sicario? A tattoo? A wristband? A marked banknote?
A WRISTBAND (used by the cartel to bind wads of cash)
9. What is the name of the villain in Basil The Great Mouse Detective? Ratula? Ratiarty? Ratigan?
10. Isle Of Dogs is the highest grossing PG-13 animated movie. True or False?
FALSE (The Simpsons Movie is at $527mil)

Screenshots: Coffee And Cigarettes / American Gangster / Due Date / The Man With The Iron Fists
Poster: Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai
Actor: RZA


It’s Time For A World Class Detective

Rob Letterman

Justice Smith
Kathryn Newton
Bill Nighy
Ryan Reynolds

Set in a world where Pokemon and humans co-exist, we are introduced to Tim Goodman [Smith], a young insurance salesman who turned his back on the world of Pokemon due to the death of his mother and absence of his father, Harry – a detective working in the sprawling metropolis of Ryme City. Tim’s fairly mundane existence is disrupted when he learns that his father has died during an investigation. Tim heads to Ryme City to collect the personal effects of his estranged father but is drawn into the investigation when he meets Lucy Stevens [Newton], a click-bait-columnist who dreams of investigative journalism and a Pikachu in a deerstalker who Tim can understand verbatim.

The first thing to acknowledge is that while this movie generates a fair amount of lore (and rather interestingly seems to tie-in with the original animated series canon) it doesn’t devote a great deal of time to dryly expositing about what Pokemon are. Subsequently, those familiar with the property will get significantly more out of the film than those who are newly initiated but there is still plenty of charm and abounding cuteness for the casual viewer. A lot of this comes down to the fact that this movie is relatively a straightforward fun romp that revels in the playground it is afforded. More than that, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu captures that same magic present in the various games of world-building, creating something an audience would want to belong to – akin to franchises like Star Wars and Harry Potter, etc – and starts conversations among fans about what Pokemon would be their companion, what job they would like to do in this universe, which Pokemon they would like to see represented in future instalments. Admittedly, this level of fanaticism has always been present and has eked out further into the public consciousness over the last twenty years through games, shows and recently the mobile app, Pokemon Go but the leap into multi-million dollar filmmaking has the power to not only invigorate the established fan base but to cast a wider net of support and interest in the property. So even before we discuss the merits of the film itself, it’s already done its job acting as one big advert for the licence.

Leaving the branding talk for a moment, this is a very technically sound feature. The initial reaction was mixed but unsurprising, owing to the attempt to make photo-realistic incarnations of fictional creatures. One of the smartest moves by the production team was shooting on film and utilising a combination of puppetry and CGI to create something eerily realistic; replicating the methods of the first Jurassic Park film. All the detailed, layered and bustling shots illustrate that clear care, attention and respect for the source material has been taken but when we are introduced to a creature outside of the central cast, there can be a significant dose of uncanny-valley wavering that spoils the illusion. An example of this would be the colossal Torterra set-piece which starts on a mind-blowing scale before resolving itself extremely quickly and proves the entire sequence was little more than an excuse for CGI action without actual consequence. In addition to the visuals, the audio work performs admirably, the sound design and mixing are pleasant and Henry Jackman’s score being a mix of video game inspired themes and genre-expected orchestral tones offers a welcome balance.

Detective Pikachu walks a fine line between trying to be dark, gritty and grounded at the same time as fun, light, colourful and cartoony; a dichotomy that will conjure a lot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? parallels for older viewers. In an essence, the film simultaneously treats the content seriously but is aware that kids are the primary demographic so avoids taking itself too seriously and this is a key difference. The film never condescends or talks down to its target audience; there is a distinct absence of dance numbers and pop culture references (excluding the central conceit) and feels more like an 80s/90s family feature than the post-Shrek formula we have seen repeated ad nauseam. This level of pseudo-maturity has allowed the writers to slip in some references to contemporary issues of equality, feminism, integrity of news and the environment, which in of itself is fantastic, but as they are delivered wholly without subtlety, the messages feel a little stunted and disposable; much like the 80s cartoon sign-offs instructing children to avoid the perils of drugs. As a counterpoint, despite the various progressive messages, the story heavily relies on the tired trope of a disabled villain, which is a tragic and easily avoidable misstep.

Keeping the narrative character-focused, the usual Pokemon Trainer trekking through the landscape, finding various creatures before entering a tournament story and, subsequently, a larger scale is missing but this probably helped make the film more palatable for newly initiated. At the same time, the movie attempts to sample this in the underground fight club scene and hoping for a positive reaction to this, will likely build on it in future (especially as it has been at the forefront of a significant portion of the marketing). One aspect I have avoided discussing up until this point is the characters and that is because they are fairly simple and frankly dumb. Far from stilted, the performances aren’t as terrible as some would make out but they are certainly one of the weakest elements. Tim’s story is very vanilla and Smith’s portrayal of him is just as flat as his character in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Kathryn Newton as plucky up-and-coming reporter Lucy Stevens is much more interesting and feels very much like a video game NPC brought to life but as much as she displays a degree of skill and competence in her role, the plot does tend to unfold for the leads quite conveniently and without any lasting ramifications. But again, this is something present in films like ET, The Goonies and Flight Of The Navigator and clearly something being heavily emulated for nostalgia purposes, relying on a combination of charm, nostalgia and fantasy to see you through to the close.

**spoilers abound throughout this paragraph**
As much as I enjoyed this film, it has a plethora of problems, most notably the entire third act which is horribly cliché and uneven. The big reveal that Howard is actually the central antagonist was obvious very early on, as was the method of defeating him, thanks to some uninspired dialogue from Howard himself stating that he can transfer his consciousness to Mewtwo while leaving his body vulnerable and unguarded. It’s the kind of quick fix that is remarkably lazy and has no place in modern cinema for an audience of any age. And this simplicity is a truly double-edged sword, allowing for a light approachable fun feature but generating huge plot holes and stale exchanges. The aforementioned charm cannot supplant this insufficient depth, leading to a rather flat but strangely satisfying conclusion despite the heavily signposted twists. What’s more, the ending seemingly shuts out a direct copy and paste sequel by establishing that the status quo would not remain. I found this a genuinely interesting move and one that could highlight the potential future direction the studio could take the franchise in.

The bar for video game adaptations has been incredibly low and while Detective Pikachu makes many of the same mistakes committed by every other attempt (incorporating the flaws from the source material and alienating newcomers) it somehow manages to come out standing, having earned enough respect from all swathes of demographics to warrant returning to this property but owing to how the film ends, it will be interesting to see if we will see a genre-shift or if this magic can even be captured for a second time.

Release Date:
10th May 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
I’m going to briefly highlight the Mr Mime scene for two simple reasons. Firstly Mr Mime was the source of a lot of flak in the trailers due to the outrage about the Pokemon skin textures. When finally watching this on a big screen, any fears or concerns I had were allayed; sure it’s a little unsettling and weird but it’s a four foot mime creature, nothing about it is conventional. Secondly, part of the film walking that line between cute and dark is in this scene. Tim and Pikachu interrogate Mr Mime for information and a handful of mime gags ensue, mostly telling our heroes to get lost. But then things take a weird turn when Tim mimes dowsing the creature in gasoline and lighting several matches. Especially as the joke ends with, what I can only assume, is a dead Mr Mime, whose belief in the improv sends him into a psychosomatic cardiac arrest.

Notable Characters:
This is a little tricky as I nobody stood out as decidedly impressive or an impediment to the film as a whole; there were definite areas for improvement but nothing ruined the experience. I felt Ken Watanabe was criminally underused and Nighy was limited by his chair but the biggest head-scratch is Ryan Reynolds. He is absolutely serviceable as Pikachu and by the end of the film, it’s very clear why he was chosen but I still don’t think there was anything specific about Reynolds’ performance that was unique to him and, as much as I want to resist writing this, ultimately felt like a studio/producer’s note about the success of Deadpool.

Highlighted Quote:
“It’s not news if it can’t be verified”

In A Few Words:
“An upbeat, energetic and competent adaptation that understands its core audience while providing enough light-hearted entertainment for the uninitiated”

Total Score:



Getting Straight A’s. Giving Zero F’s.

Olivia Wilde

Kaitlyn Dever
Beanie Feldstein

The day before their high school graduation, Amy [Dever] and Molly [Feldstein] learn that all their dedication and hard work, which has given them reputations as pretentious and aloof, has been in vain as their fellow students have also gotten into ivy league universities despite outwardly partying, slacking off in class and showing little interest in further education. This sparks a crisis for Molly who feels they have wasted their time and abandons their pre-determined evening celebrations to attend a popular jock’s house party and live as stereotypical teenagers.

When it comes to analysing comedies, the writing and performances are (understandably) at the forefront of reviews and opinions. One thing that is often overlooked is the technical acumen on display and Booksmart is a prime example because while it merits a significant amount of praise for its creative elements, the sound design, camera work, editing and direction are all magnificently vibrant, energetic and captivating. More than that, Wilde has managed to create a time capsule release, akin to the works of John Hughes, steeped in the politics and social landscapes/pressures facing the youth of 2019 while retaining a timeless relatability for older audience members.

Over the last decade, many films have tried to imitate the energy and zeal of Superbad, setting two high school best friends on a final hurrah odyssey that tests their relationship but ultimately strengthens it with the assurance that even though they may change, these moments will be with them forever. Almost all of these imitators have fallen flat, conveying little more than the shock factor without any actual impactful or lasting weight. Present in this feature is the perfect combination of outrageous teenage comedic antics and a rather mature emotional core that resonates throughout. At the same time, Booksmart also subtly subverts several genre expectations and feels fresh due to the perspective shift. In truth, society, reflected through cinema, has always given young males a free pass; the content of Stand By Me would be difficult to imagine with an all-female cast solely due to the difference in coming-of-age experiences between genders – or so we would be lead to believe. Of course a film like Stand By Me could be written with an all-female cast, the only difference would be a wealth of additions that would need to be included to illustrate the increased pressure that young women face. A simple example of this is when Amy and Molly are trying to ascertain the location of Nick’s party and realise that a local pizza parlour has completed a large delivery and would likely know the whereabouts. Fashioning their hair into makeshift masks, they break into the back of the pizza delivery man’s car and make their demands. Immediately, he gives a wake-up call by explaining that they have willingly entered a stranger’s car, unarmed (while he has a gun), and he could easily drive them onto the interstate and abduct them with little resistance. As they get the information and depart the car, he calls over his shoulder “Don’t trust people! Oh my god!” It’s such a simple interaction but one that highlights things would almost never be considered in a male-led feature. If we take Superbad, for example, Seth and Evan’s lives are in jeopardy so frequently but we rarely worry about it because they’re male and we assume nothing too awful will happen, whereas the reality for young women is different – as obvious as that may sound.

At the centre of this movie is the duo of Dever and Feldstein that are a magnificent find; the timing and chemistry are genuinely astounding, feeling both sincere and free from superficiality. On top of the whip-smart dialogue present in the script, the delivery and physical comedy display a confidence and capability which shows promise that these actors will go on to have very successful careers. I would also add that so many of the characters and situations are extraordinarily relatable on so many levels. From the students who have worked hard only to discover that others appear to be coasting by, the further revelation that everyone is dealing with their own insecurities and issues and that the adults barely have their own lives figured out. The principal moonlighting as a Lyft driver is a standard commentary on underpaid teaching positions but Amy and Molly’s favourite teacher stating that she felt she didn’t experience enough radical, life-changing things as a teenager so went off-the-rails by over-compensating in her 20s and regretted so much of it, cut wonderfully deep for me. Another stellar move is taking the key lesson from the conclusion of Mean Girls, illustrating these kids not necessarily turning on one another but generating unusual alliances due to the common ground of adolescent tribulations. More so than that, this film manages to recreate the warzone of high school without including intentionally malicious individuals; the worst we get is highly opinionated, self-absorbed kids who are trying to figure out who they are – which is one of the most accurate representations of teenage life. The film is not without antagonistic individuals but this villainless high school film is an art-form and a welcome treat.

In spite of all the above gushing, the film isn’t perfect. The events depicted provoke little fallout and follows the same path as most teen comedies, even a character getting arrested is given a rather fantastical resolution, enforcing the movie’s overall consequence-free, feel good tone. What’s more, aside from the female and LGBT perspective, the actual plot doesn’t really offer anything new. The standard archetypal characters are present, the only difference is that the bully/villain angle is played down or explained. But if I’m honest, this could be said of most genre pieces; you don’t need to reinvent pasta for a good pasta dish, you just need the right accoutrements.

Release Date:
24th May 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
There are plenty of fantastic scenes to highlight but the opening five minutes are spectacular. Molly sits cross-legged on her bedroom floor, listening to a motivational tape, reinforcing the notion that she is truly better than others because she is giving 110%. Amy then picks her up and they spend an excessive amount of time dancing outside Molly’s house. It’s honestly fantastic and indicated to me, so very early on, that this film was going to be noteworthy.

Notable Characters:
Gigi (played by Billie Lourd) is a strange medley. On the one hand, she represents the classic stoner character who seemingly appears wherever the plot requires her, connected to everyone and blessed with insight; essentially an otherworldly spirit guide. On the other hand, she’s also a spoilt rich girl in desperate need for validation and attention. Again, two archetypes that don’t often gel but Lourd brings this wealthy insecure oddball to life superbly.

Highlighted Quote:
“Excuse me madam, are you judging people’s sexual preferences? Because you fuck a panda every night”

In A Few Words:
“Sharp, witty and endearing, Booksmart deserves to become a classic”

Total Score:


Cinema City Film Quiz #236

[05 May 2019]

Winning Team:
Wyld Stallions (sponsored by OCP and Skynet)
Genre – Whether you’re dancing with wolves or silencing lambs, this corporate merger aims to draw first blood in bringing history’s future today.. but it’s not set

Runners Up:
The Galaxy Is On Orion’s Belt
Genre – A friendly alien puts a chocolate bar on a cat’s collar
He’s Not Orion, He’s A Very Naughty Boy
Genre – A desperate attempt to think of a team name because we are all super tired
The Great Orion Mix-Up
Genre – Orion Reynolds and Orion Gosling keep betting confused for each other
No Points Can Be Found On Orion’s Belt
Genre – Sci-fi (straight to VHS)

ROUND I: Pre-Production
1. What is the title of the first sequel to Rush Hour?
2. Emma Watson starred in the live action adaptation of which Disney film?
3. What is the name of Wayne’s best friend and co-host in Wayne’s World?
4. Jurassic Park was released in which year?
5. Jean Reno and Natalie Portman starred together in which film?
6. Who plays Jenny in Forrest Gump?
7. Which film was first read out as the 2017 best picture academy award winner before the correct winner, Moonlight, was announced?
8. How many children does Robin Williams and Sally Field have in Mrs Doubtfire?
9. What is the title of the 1993 film in which Harrison Ford is falsely accused of his wife’s murder and escapes custody?
10. Groundhog Day takes place in which month?

ROUND II: Filming [Orion Pictures]
1. The Terminator was released in which year? 1981? 1984? 1989?
2. Who played the title role in Arthur? Dudley Moore? Dustin Hoffman? Billy Crystal?
3. What is the name of the company that funds the RoboCop project in the film of the same name? MBA? WYC? OCP?
OCP (Omni Consumer Products)
4. Which of the following did not play one of the Three Amigos in the 1986 film of the same name? Martin Short? Chevy Chase? Gene Wilder?
5. Amadeus is told in flashback from the perspective of which composer? Giuseppe Bonoo? Franz Joseph Haydn? Antonio Salieri?
6. Michelle Pfeiffer, Matthew Modine, Alec Baldwin, Joan Cusack and Oliver Platt starred in which film? Radio Days? Married To The Mob? Love Field?
7. The following quote is from which film, “He was insubordinate, cowardly and insubordinate. He frightened the men. I did not put the fear there, he did. So he will be lashed and we will go around the horn.”? Master And Commander? In The Heart Of The Sea? The Bounty?
8. Only one of the Rambo films was distributed by Orion. Which one was it? First Blood? Rambo III? Rambo (2008)?
FIRST BLOOD (R2 Tristar R4 Lionsgate)
9. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a remake of which David Niven, Marlon Brando film? Separate Tables? King, Queen, Knave? Bedtime Story?
10. Orion’s highest grossing picture was The Silence Of The Lambs with $424 million dollars. True or False?
FALSE (Dances With Wolves made $424mil followed by The Silence Of The Lambs with $272mil)

ROUND III: Post-Production
1. What are the titles of the six Paranormal Activity films? (one point per correct answer)
2. Disney’s The Sword In The Stone was released in which year?
3. Adjusted for inflation, what is the highest grossing film of all time at $3.7 billion?
4. Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell appeared in which two films? (one point per correct answer)
5. Which actors voiced the lead roles in 2000’s The Road To El Dorado? (one point per correct answer)
6. Who is the only actor to date to have three Oscars in the Best Leading Male Performance category? [bonus point for naming the only actor to receive four best lead Oscars]
DANIEL DAY LEWIS [Katherine Hepburn]
7. Who directed The Goonies?
8. Which actor appeared in Better Off Dead, Identity, Being John Malkovich and The Grifters?
9. The following quote is from which film, “That is good, for believing what you do. We will confer upon you a rare gift these days – a martyr’s death”?
10. 1978’s The First Great Train Robbery, starring Sean Connery and Donald Sutherland, was directed by the author of the novel of the same name. What was his name?

ROUND IV: Promotion & Release
1. Which of the following young adult novels has yet to receive a live-action cinematic adaptation? How I Live Now (Meg Rosoff)? The Hate U Give (Angie Thomas)? The Carnival At Bray (Jessie Ann Foley)?
2. Aguirre: The Wrath Of God, Goodbye Lenin, M, Wings Of Desire and The White Ribbon are films from which country? Germany? Austria? Poland?
3. In Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, what colour is Cameron’s father’s car? Black? Red? White?
4. In Clash Of The Titans, who creates the golden owl Bubo? Athena? Hephaestus? Hermes?
5. Which of the following 2005 films earned the most at the box office? Batman Begins? Mr & Mrs Smith? Charlie And The Chocolate Factory?
MR & MRS SMITH $478mil (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory $474mil, Batman Begins $374mil)
6. What are Captain Miller’s last words in Saving Private Ryan? Earn it? Angels on our shoulders? I’m alright?
7. What is the name of Robert Redford’s character in Captain America: The Winter Soldier? Alexander Pierce? Jasper Sitwell? Brock Rumlow?
8. Straw Dogs was released in which year? 1971? 1979? 1983?
9. In Event Horizon, the titular space ship disappears for seven years and reappears orbiting which planet? Jupiter? Neptune? Pluto?
10. The Last Samurai made more at the box office in Japan than America. True or False?
TRUE (JP $119mil, US $111mil)

Screenshots: Gone In 60 Seconds / Lost In Translation / Cold Mountain / Public Enemies
Poster: Lost Highway
Actor: Giovanni Ribisi


Anthony Russo
Joe Russo

Chris Evans
Robert Downey Jr
Chris Hemsworth
Scarlett Johansson
Mark Ruffalo
Jeremy Renner
Josh Brolin

**I would have thought this obvious but literally everything about this review is a spoiler and as such, this review is primarily for those who have already seen the movie**

After the events of Avengers: Infinity War, Tony Stark [Downey Jr] and Nebula [Karen Gillen] are adrift in space but rescued by Captain Marvel [Brie Larson] and brought back to Earth. There, the surviving Avengers locate a signal on a distant planet and discover that Thanos is alone, having used the infinity stones again to destroy the infinity stones. With their plan to simply reverse the effect of the gauntlet ruined, Thor [Hemsworth], lashes out and beheads the Titan. The story then jumps ahead five years and illustrates mankind’s efforts to move on in the wake of the loss of half of all life. The Avengers are dispatched both globally and galactically to act as an unofficial police force. Through random circumstance, Scott Lang [Paul Rudd], whom everyone thought dead, is released from the quantum realm and introduces the idea that quantum physics can be deployed to navigate time and undo Thanos’ actions. Thus a grand scheme is hatched to travel back in time and recover all of the infinity stones to reverse the damage wrought upon the universe.

One of the first things that needs to be addressed is that Endgame has the unenviable task of being a second instalment. More than that, it is the follow-up to a film that got to step away from the standard formula, break the rules and leave its audience hanging in a state of uncertainty. This film had to not only course correct back to the expected but do it in a manner that felt somehow satisfying to the majority of viewers without feeling like a complete retcon. In truth, this movie could never live up to everyone’s expectations, the best it could do was deliver something simultaneously nostalgic, subversive and bombastic – which I believe it did stunningly. Having said that, that statement comes with a lot of caveats.

From the trailers alone, the notion of a time skip and time travel were somehow inevitable and despite what could be construed as a fairly slow-burn first hour, it felt like no time was wasted getting straight to these conceits. But as I said, there was an inevitability to the regressive, self-exploratory nature and a weight of legacy to this feature despite the fact that, ultimately, very little actually happens (I will contradict this exact point later but I stand by it). Oddly enough, both Avengers and Infinity War did the same thing; while achieving something hitherto unimaginable, the core narrative developments were relatively straightforward and could be broken down into a handful of key plot points. But introducing something like time travel to a universe creates a lot of headaches for a standalone tale let alone the direction of a franchise as the question will continually arise: why don’t they just use time travel to fix this new problem? On top fo that, Endgame also sets up its own rules for time travel and then seemingly breaks them – a cardinal sin of story-telling. Certain outcomes are not possible through time travel, others ostensibly are and the only overriding sense of which prevails is dictated by which is more convenient for the plot at that moment in time. Having said that, I would stand by my tried and tested adage that we don’t care that Terminator 2 can’t work because it’s so very, very entertaining and Endgame is no different.

Something that may not be apparent upon first viewing is how well Marvel have balanced character development with spectacle; despite being something they repeatedly exercise in their features. If we take Tony Stark, for example, the catalyst that drives his arc is choosing to potentially lose the peace he has found in defeat or live with the guilt of simply not trying to rectify his failings. What it is to be a hero, what it is to be a father, many of these things may be initially lost on an audience but the script is smart enough to condense it down into three or four lines that will really resonate with fans: “I love you 3000” “I am Iron Man” and “You can rest now Tony.” That’s it. His whole arc in this movie. This is what I stand to lose, this is my choice, this is my destiny. Which is a logic that can be applied to the six central Avengers and the truth is that so many of the core characters have these deeply personal moments but a few may become initially lost in the first viewing. Things like Black Widow’s [Johansson] death, for another example, may feel rushed over, solely because the narrative urgency dictates the pacing. But when we think about Natasha’s role as “the man on the wall” (as Fury once said in the comics), her attempts to bring Clint back into the fold, her sacrifice and finally her almost secondary funeral with only Barton and Wanda in attendance, it says a lot to the nature of her presence on the team as a spy who keeps everyone at arm’s length. Each of the OG members of the Avengers team transitions from individually-motivated hero to saviour, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of humanity. In other words, the film achieves wondrous things with character development and catharsis but by offering so much of it, the nuance is lost, like eating spoonfuls of assorted herbs and spices without a main dish – sure I can kind of taste them all but it’s frankly overwhelming and difficult to appreciate.

If we put the old guard to one side for a second, we end up with the Captain Marvel problem. Carol Danvers is extremely overpowered and is absent for almost the entire film. Sure, it’s explained fairly, highlighting that the Earth isn’t the centre of the universe but she was not only massively under-utilised but also a bit devoid of the personality cultivated in her standalone feature (but I think this is probably down to the filming schedule – I wouldn’t be surprised if her scenes here were shot before anything on Captain Marvel). By devoting such a substantial amount of time to the original core group (as a milestone and a send off), new blood are left a little neglected and curiously, a little obsolete. I understand there will be plenty of time to explore them in greater detail in the coming years and the next 20+ Marvel films but this lack of screen time afforded to individual components felt like an imbalance.

It’s also worth noting that Endgame is a brilliant technical achievement. The amount of exciting and competent visual effects is staggering and the level of production design and recreation involved in revisiting old sets during the time travel sequences is impressive. I still feel one of the standout accomplishments is the level of emotion, physicality and weight of presence behind the motion capture of Josh Brolin as Thanos. Interestingly, with so many periods and settings visited, Alan Silvestri is given quite a lot to play with. He works in the major character themes and instrumentation as well as the dour funereal tones we experienced in Infinity War but also gives us a taste of some levity with the jazz-infused heist music, especially when breaking into the SHIELD facility in 1970. But for every soaring motif, there is a slew of admittedly generic ambient tones that fit the visuals but are far from memorable, averaging out to a functional but fairly uninspired score.

Incidentally, as a rather odd comparison, YouTube board game enthusiasts, Shut Up And Sit Down, reviewed one of the largest, most expansive and indulgent board games (Twilight Imperium: Fourth Edition) by stating for all of its merits and all their love of it, it is incredibly stupid. That’s how I feel about Endgame. I am, at this point, a devotee to the MCU; I’m here for release-day screenings and the next decade of stories. I think the whole franchise is a wonder and even when it is misfiring, it’s performing spectacularly. Its interconnectivity and episodic nature is as much a pro as it is a con, the possibilities are vast and the accomplishments to date, undeniable. But if I take a step back from that love, I can quite happily admit that this 22 part saga is a bloated, calculable mound of fatuity and pretension. Yet this is, first and foremost, a celebration; a cavalcade of fan-service. It is as emotional as you are invested. If you are fairly indifferent, you’re not going to suddenly care any more now but if you have an ounce of dedication or investment in this sprawling story or its legion cast, you can’t help but get sucked into the mad glory of its soap opera tropes. The three hours passes reasonably and then we enter into a bit of a Return Of The King multiple endings situation that is more a passing of the torch than an all-out conclusion. Which is probably because Endgame is somehow bigger than a single narrative, it’s a chapter of a larger entity – subsequently it will leave a bitter taste in some viewer’s mouths but the actualisation of the feat remains. It didn’t do what everyone wanted but it did what it was supposed to. It drew a line and allowed this steamrolling behemoth to rest on its laurels for just a moment and proudly announce, “Like it or not, we have done the impossible. And we will do it again. And again.”

Release Date:
25th April 2019

The Scene To Look Out For:
During the colossal final showdown between Thanos’ vast army and Earth’s finest, there is a moment when an ensemble of female heroes mount an all-out assault. It makes no sense in a sense of battle logistics but who honestly gives a shit? My wife felt this was a bit forced but it’s about time images like this are forced onto our screen. The fact that the audience could tell the film was making a point to gather its female combatants into a single melee is testament to its importance, specifically we shouldn’t notice, it should be the norm by now and we’re still far from it. And if this is the direction Marvel is taking blockbusters, more power to them. As a second highlighted scene, during the credits time is given to the key players of the entire franchise and there is a genuine rising in one’s chest as Endgame pulls a Star Trek: VI – The Undiscovered Country with the actors silhouettes and signatures acknowledging the significance this cast and these movies have had on the industry.

Notable Characters:
The evolution of Thor from dour to pure comedic relief has been an interesting one. When looking back on Thor’s best moments, people tend to highlight the fish-out-of-water mirth or giddy irreverence, yet the shift in personality was one of the main complaints made about Thor: Ragnarok. I feel the representation of Thor will be a very divisive one here too but for a plethora of reasons. In Iron Man 3, Stark is racked with PTSD at the prospect of his own insignificance and the mounting intergalactic forces that could threaten the Earth. It’s given a very serious treatment and shines a light on mental health. It also appears briefly again when Stark returns to Earth and has genuine difficulty coping with his brushes with death and the monumental inability to prevent the worst from happening. When travelling back to the events of Thor: The Dark World (with some shoe-horned leftover Natalie Portman footage) Thor experiences the same thing and sinks into denial, depression and insecurity but the difference is, it’s played for comedy. Something about it didn’t feel entirely right, especially as the last meaningful interaction between Rocket and Thor was in Infinity War with Thor putting on a brave face and Hemsworth giving a surprisingly impressive and emotive performance. As stated, Thor may be one of the more divisive components, with some loving the performance and others hating it but the fact he’s (probably) being tied into a future Guardians Of The Galaxy release is a work of pure genius.

Highlighted Quote:
“It’s time travel.. either all of it is a joke or none of it is”

In A Few Words:
“A magnificent abundance of movie that stumbles only under the weight of its own excess”

Total Score: