X-Men: Apocalypse (Review) - Fun, but Flawed

The second-most anticipated superhero blockbuster of the Summer has arrived in the form of X-Men: Apocalypse. Following on from the previous instalment, Days of Future Past, this sequel introduces us to the titular character teased in the post-credits sequence of the last X-Men movie: Apocalypse.

Ostensibly the “first mutant”, Apocalypse (Oscar Isaacs) is woken from a deep slumber by some devout followers, and soon learns that the world is a very different place from the one he left behind. Soon, this seemingly unstoppable figure vows to rid the world of the systems that chastise his mutant brethren, and create a new utopia for all the gifted individuals to coexist within. However, once Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) learns of Apocalypse’s existence, he fears that allowing him to carry out his plan would mean the end for not only mutants, but the Earth itself.

So you’ve got a villain who cannot be beaten, and a group of heroes who plan to stop him – sounds pretty straightforward and, frankly, boring; right? Well, not quite. While this is certainly the overall plot of the film, X-Men: Apocalypse takes an unfathomable amount of time to get to where it needs to in order to pit these two forces against one another. I understand that it’s important to establish the stakes of the situation, and introduce the new characters to the X-Men roster, but there comes a point when you completely forget how much you’re meant to care about what’s going on. The problem with this movie, is that it wants to tell you so much information, you end up not really caring about most of it.

I say most, because there are still some strong moments throughout the film’s lengthy 2-and-a-half-hour run-time. The villain of Apocalypse is genuinely interesting and formidable, especially when his powers are shown to their full effect. Without spoiling anything, there’s a moment at which he practically blinks, and suddenly an entire room of people are reduced to nothing more than dust – it’s pretty impressive stuff. This raises issues, though: if he has the power to instantly kill anything before him, why is there a final confrontation at all? Obviously, you can’t just kill-off the main players, because then you wouldn’t have a franchise, but it’s difficult to really fear an enemy that miraculously forgets what powers he has.

Some of the other mutants’ powers are equally enjoyable to witness, despite Apocalypse stealing the show. Like the previous X-Men film, the character of Quicksilver has a lengthy scene devoted entirely to showcasing his abilities, and it’s arguably even more entertaining than that of Days of Future Past. Some of the newcomers to this prequel franchise, like Nightcrawler, are also introduced successfully and play a key role in the film’s often meandering plot. Unfortunately, not everybody’s abilities are explained enough to make you want to care when you are supposed to. Again, I’ll try not to spoil anything, but there’s a moment towards the film’s conclusion that is meant to act as a dramatic reveal for one of the main protagonists, but I found it difficult to really engage with what I was seeing.

Verdict

There’s not really much more to say about X-Men: Apocalypse. It has definitely been judged too harshly by critics, but it’s also difficult to defend it in terms of quality and value – both of your time and money. There’s a fan-favourite cameo that’ll likely be enjoyed by those who have followed the franchise from its beginning, but that’s not really enough to recommend it. Basically, if you’ve seen every other X-Men movie, then there’s no harm in checking this one out, too. If not, then there’s not much point starting here. A line from the film, which is intended to poke fun at the previous trilogy, puts it best: “At least we can agree that the third is the worst.”

"You are my children, and you are lost because you follow blind leaders. 

No more false gods. I am here now." 

Captain America: Civil War (Review) - Marvel's Finest

Let's get this out of the way first: although the title may state that this is a 'Captain America' movie, it's just as much a sequel to last year's Age of Ultron. Yes, the film focuses partly on the relationship between Steve Rogers and his childhood friend Bucky, but it also deals with the fallout (quite literally) that the Avenging team caused in that previous movie. 

I won't go incredibly in-depth with a synopsis of the plot, because it isn't necessary. Basically, after destroying cities through trying to saving them, the Avengers have finally been called up on their 'crimes'. A document called the 'Sokovia Accords' is presented to the team, and would mean that they would become regulated and controlled by the government; essentially becoming a privatised army that can be thrown out and withdrawn whenever necessary. Being the main cause of the historical chaos, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) agrees to sign the document, and pleads with the others to join him. However, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) concludes that by doing so, they would be signing away their freedom - hardly an act that a proclaimed 'patriot' could ever agree to. Sides are taken, and the inevitable fight begins brewing. 

Things are much, much more complicated than this, of course, but that's the complete ground-level run-down. The thing is, if you're not a major fan of Marvel films to begin with, then it's unlikely that you'll decide to jump in now. And if you are, then you already know how things are going to throw down. Even if you are a fan, however, Civil War introduces a couple of new faces to the mix: Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), and the long-awaited Spider-Man (Tom Holland). The former of these two slides nicely in to the story, and his motivations for wanting to hunt down certain individuals are clearly established, and are - most importantly - believable. 

Spider-Man is on a whole other level. Tom Holland's first portrayal of the iconic character is not only incredibly entertaining, but probably the most likeable that the web-slinging hero has ever been. Not only is he enjoyable to watch when he dons the red suit, but his version of Peter Parker has charisma in spades. Before going in to the movie, I was a bit indifferent when it came to seeing the character join up with the Avengers; mainly because we've been so fatigued in recent years by so-so adaptations of Spider-Man. However, Holland's performance manages to breath new life into the character, and means that the upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming is now 100% on my 'to-watch' list. 

But back to the focus of the movie: Captain America Vs Iron Man. The thing is, with all the other Marvel movies before this, I found Tony Stark to be an incredibly arrogant, cocky guy, who I wouldn't really want to see win in a fight. I get that that was his deal, but it always felt like Captain America was the voice of reason within the grouping. Luckily, Civil War manages to do a great job of presenting both sides with equal favour and justification. Yes, governmental regulation could lead to terrible things, but those kinds of things have already been brought about by the rise of superheroes since the formation of the Avengers. I went in without pre-taking a side, and found myself constantly switching between supporting each. The event that triggers the need for the Sokovia Accords is a little weak in comparison to things like Loki trying to destroy the world, but it fits within the context of the story. 

In case you're unaware, there is actually a villain in this film. A man known as 'Zemo' (Daniel Bruhl) sits behind the curtain, and orchestrates some of the fighting between the titular heroes...and he's probably the weakest part of the film. I understand that his presence was a necessity, but he's not really given any personality, and the role could have been switched out for literally anyone without the audience noticing. Like Black Panther, his motivations are reasonably strong, but that doesn't forgive the fact that he was mundane. In an ensemble film of such strong, iconic personalities, it's really quite noticeable when there's a weak link.

Verdict
It's hard not to love Captain America: Civil War. It feels like an accumulation of everything that Marvel have put out so far, and there's simply too much to talk about without writing pages and pages of description. I still stand by Guardians of the Galaxy as being my favourite film within this epic franchise, but this definitely comes as a close second. The only thing is that I don't know if people who haven't seen all of the other Marvel films would still enjoy, or even understand, everything that takes place. It's definitely a movie for the fans, but sometimes that's just fine. Definitely check this out.

"I'm sorry, Tony. If I see a situation pointed south, I can't ignore it. 

Sometimes I wish I could." 

"Sometimes I wanna punch you in your perfect teeth."

The Jungle Book (Review) - A Bear Necessity

Way back in 1967, when the original Jungle Book came out, a childhood icon was created. The film still stands up today, and although the visuals may be a little dated, the classic tunes that remain from that movie are just as poignant nowadays as they were in the late 60s. Now, with this year's remake, we get a much more narratively-driven film that takes the original formula, but injects it with more depth, more character, and - perhaps most importantly - a whole lot of charm. 

The story's relatively similar to the original film's, but here's a quick update if you're unaware: Mowgli the man-cub (Neel Sethi) has grown up with a pack of wolves in the jungle, after his parents disappeared when he was only a baby. However, when the terrifying lion Shere Khan (Idris Elba) hears of Mowgli's existence, he declares it his mission to kill the young boy personally. With this news, Mowgli's panther friend Begheera (Ben Kinglsey) decides that the man-cub must be taken back to the man-village, and so begins a journey of adventure, danger, and discovery. 

It all sounds very whimsical, but that's just what Disney does best. Though the charming visuals of the original film have gone, the enjoyment of watching these characters interact with one another is stronger than ever. This is especially commendable when you remember that Mowgli is technically the only actor present; with the rest of the cast generated through CGI. Don't let this sway you, however; the voice performances are absolutely nailed all around. The lovable bear, Baloo, is voiced by Bill Murray in this remake, and he infuses the character with a sense of comedy only touched upon by the original movie. 

Mowgli's upbringing and relationship with his wolf mother, Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o), is also fleshed-out. In fact, this fleshing-out is present throughout the whole movie, which leads to motivations and actions which actually feel like they have a purpose. This is especially apparent with Shere Khan, who is given a clear and valid reason for wanting to hunt and kill Mowgli. 

Unfortunately, the hypnotic snake Kaa, voiced by Scarlett Johansson, feels almost pointless in the film. All that she provides is some exposition, which is a shame, because the snake is designed immaculately to look intimidating, yet enticing. I'm not saying that the movie needed to focus purely on Kaa, but the presence of the character is almost forgettable - something which certainly can't be said for the original movie. I know I've referenced the original a lot, and this is certainly a film in its own right, but it's hard not to when they both share the same name. 

What can be said, though, is that The Jungle Book is an incredibly good looking movie. The titular jungle looks luscious and inviting, and the critters that inhabit it are all photo-realistic. Consistently throughout, it's entirely possible to forget that you're looking at CGI images, and not animals that director Jon Favreau taught to perform. Certain creative liberties are taken - such as with King Louie (Christopher Walken) being colossal in size - but these are completely justifiable given the nature of the film. 

For those of you wondering: yes, the songs from the original return in some capacity. Don't expect this to be a musical, but classics like The Bear Necessities are woven seamlessly into the soundtrack to form a wondrous experience that kids will enjoy just as much as the adults who adore the 1967 original. There is a moment at which a song is sung which does feel slightly forced, but you'll likely forget it and get caught up in just how fun the film is to watch. 

Verdict
Thankfully, The Jungle Book is just as enjoyable to watch as I had hoped it would be. All of the voice performances are spot-on, and Neel Sethi as Mowgli fits in perfectly to the iconic role. There's just very little to dislike about this, honestly. Sure, it changes some things up from the classic story, and the ending is altered, but I think that these changes are for the better. If you like the 1967 film, or just like Disney movies, or even if you just like Bill Murray; see this movie. You won't regret it one bit. 

"I am Mowgli, and this is my home!" 

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (Review) - Exceptionally Conflicting

Well, here it is: the film that's divided critics and moviegoers since its first trailer released almost a year ago. A sequel to 2013's Man of Steel in all but name, Dawn of Justice pits the two titans against eachother in the ultimate showdown...kind of. 

In actuality, the film explores the idea of whether it's possible to have a figure who possesses absolute power, and have this figure still be allowed to operate above the governing law. It does this by questioning what it means to be a 'hero', and whether the ends outweigh the means. At its very best, Dawn of Justice commentates of the nature of a character like Superman, and how he stacks up against a morally ambiguous myth like the Batman of this film, portrayed excellently by Ben Affleck. 

At its worst, it's a movie which spreads itself far too thin, and considers the building of a 'universe' to be far more important than the developing an interesting internal conflict and fleshing-out of its titular heroes. Don't get me wrong: there are some truly spectacular moments in the film. In fact, there's scenes that - as a Batman fan - had me almost giddy with excitement. There's also mundane, mindless fights which could be swapped-out with any character and still retain their boring delivery. It's truly a roller-coaster of quality. 

As mentioned, Ben Affleck is, quite frankly, the best Batman we've ever seen on-screen. Playing a much more experienced, battered version of the character, he succeeds in portraying the sense of moral ambiguity that would come with fighting crime for more than twenty years. The line between vigilante and villain has never been ridden as narrowly as it is in Dawn of Justice, and this makes the scenes in Gotham amongst the very best that the film has to offer; Jeremy Irons as Alfred puts it best in the trailer: "That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men...cruel." 

But then you come to the other name on the poster: Superman (Henry Cavill). Here's the thing: I've never been overly fussed with Superman as a character. I think he's boring, one-dimensional, and generally lacking in the character and complexity that makes Batman so interesting to explore. And in all honesty, that's no different in this movie. The only moments throughout the film in which Superman seems to have even a glimmer of personality are because he's acting as an accessory to Batman; without the Dark Knight, he would be utterly forgettable. Thankfully, the popularity of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader has led to interest in producing a handful of stand-alone Batman films, and this is arguably the best thing to come out of Dawn of Justice. Really, that should tell you everything you need to know, because remember: this is essentially a Superman sequel. A Superman sequel in which Superman is the worst part. 

Well, that's not quite fair. The worst part of this would either be 'Doomsday', or Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor - two characters who everybody has been dubious about since they were first introduced through marketing. Let's start with Lex Luthor. While he's not as awful as you might have originally thought, Eisenberg just doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie. You've got a dark, foreboding tone established by the two titans, and then you've got this excitable, giggling caricature who apparently has the cunning to orchestrate the entire duel. I'm sorry, but no. 

And as for Doomsday - wow. As I've said, I'm not the biggest Superman fan, but surely there's a better way to depict a villain like this, rather than just as a hulking, bland brute? If anything, the completely forgettable presence that Doomsday creates somehow makes Lex seem more menacing. Also, if you've seen that trailer for this film, then you know practically every beat it intends to hit. I won't spoil anything (mainly because there's little more to spoil), but don't expect to be shocked by any sudden twists. 

Some have said that Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is the best part of the movie, and that's simply not true. Yes, her 'human' alter-ego of Diana Prince works well in conjunction with Bruce Wayne, and she adds a layer of complexity to the mostly hyper-masculine storyline, but she feels relatively shoehorned in. It could be assumed that this is because DC is using Dawn of Justice to hurriedly create a cinematic universe, but this doesn't forgive the awkward way in which she plays into the movie. 

 Verdict
In a cinematic landscape of absolutes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has everything against it. There's parts of it which are almost genius in exploring the character of Batman and portraying a side to Bruce Wayne which we haven't seen, but then there are parts that are truly limited by the necessity to build-up the idea of the Justice League within the DC Universe. Fleeting cameos from other DC superheroes feel incredibly tacked-on, and are almost laughable were it not for how badly they damage the flow of the film. However, despite all of this, I still think it's worth checking out. You just need to decide for yourself whether you're a fan of superhero films, because if not, then you're likely to be more bored than enthused. As somebody who knows a fair bit about Batman, I got a real kick out of certain references and nods. If you don't care about those, then you won't care about this - it's as simple as that. 

"The world has been so caught up with what

he can do that no one has asked what he should do."

  

10 Cloverfield Lane (Review) - Claustrophobic & Thrilling

10 Cloverfield Lane is a reasonably unique movie in today's landscape, in that the first trailer for it appeared mere months ago and now it's already available for viewing. Arguably, this is the best way to go about releasing a movie, because it allows copious hype to retain until the film's release; rather than peter off over the course of many months and many, many trailers. Because of this, there's a good chance you haven't heard much about its plot - keep it that way. The less you know about this genuinely uncomfortable thriller, the better. 

The film opens to Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving her boyfriend after the two of them have a fight. She drives far from their home and ignores the numerous calls he sends to try and patch things up. After stopping for gas, Michelle is suddenly struck by another driver and thrown off the road. When she awakens, she finds herself imprisoned in an underground bunker, and her supposed captor, Howard (John Goodman), informs her that the world has come to an end; however, we soon come to realise that maybe Howard isn't telling the entire truth. As the film plays out, you're left guessing whether Michelle is overly judgemental of Howard, or whether his intentions are notably more sinister. 

This aspect of 10 Cloverfield Lane is one which makes the film a genuine thrill to sit through. Up until the very closing scenes you're left guessing whether Michelle will make it out alive (or whether she'd even want to), which leads to some truly heart-pounding moments. John Goodman is a physically imposing presence in the cramped bunker, and it's clear that he could murder Michelle if he so desired. This being a reality, coupled with the fact that Howard constantly carries a revolver around, and you've got yourself some pretty tense moments to deal with. Additionally, Michelle isn't the only 'survivor' who gets to deal with Howard's scarily drastic emotional shifts; the couple are joined underground by the wise-cracking Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who does nothing but raise tensions when they need anything but. 

And the best part? It's a film that doesn't reveal all its cards at once. Throughout the movie and the numerous fights, you're left guessing whether Howard is crazy or just protective. You don't know Emmett's true motives. Really, you don't even know much about the protagonist, Michelle. All you know is that three people are underground, and one of them thinks that this is the best place for them to be. This means that, once twists and turns do start occurring, you're left wondering as to what they could mean - it's really intriguing stuff. In fact, certain plot lines are never truly concluded - which is great! If only the conclusion of the film could learn from this open-endedness exhibited earlier on. 

Now, I won't spoil the ending outright, but I've got some strong opinions about why it comes close to ruining the rest of the film. Thankfully, the excellent acting on behalf of John Goodman saves what could be a complete catastrophe, but it's apparent that an original, suspenseful thriller was marred by the necessity to include the 'Cloverfield' brand. Just know this: the film should have ended at least 10 minutes early. Any sense of mystery or intrigue is completely squandered by the closing scenes, and I won't say which way the film sways, but just know that there is definitely a definite ending; an ending which ought to have been cut majorly. Without these glaring answers, 10 Cloverfield Lane would have been a close-to perfect film. With them, however, you've got an excellent thriller that leaves you with a slightly sour taste - a thriller that can still be enjoyed regardless, though. 

Verdict
Despite the hugely controversial ending, 10 Cloverfield Lane is still a hugely engrossing movie with some excellent performances and pacing. Yes, it's clear to see where the original idea ends and the marketing necessities begin, but it's still a film well worth your time and money. Some people may say, "leave 10 minutes early," but I'd implore you to witness the ending so that you can form your own opinions on it's relevance. Still, ignoring this, it remains one of the most thrilling thrillers that I've seen in a very, very long time. 

"Don't open that door! You're going to get all 

of us killed!" 

Spotlight (Review) - Powerful, Important Cinema

Every now and then, a film will come along that genuinely feels tangibly important. Sure, there are films that have important political or social messages which will remain with you long after viewing, but with Spotlight, you feel unapologetically shaken to the core. While it remains a dramatisation of what happened in 2001 with the Boston Globe, its unflinching lack of reprieve truly makes it a memorable experience. 

It's typically a good idea to begin with a little bit of the plot, so here's that: Spotlight shines a light on the notable event in 2001, when the Boston Globe newspaper chose to reveal the huge cover-up the Catholic Church had committed in terms of their priests and paedophilia. Specifically, it focuses on the 'Spotlight' team who work at the Globe - a group known primarily for their intense focus on swept-under-the-rug' stories. Throughout the course of the film, it's revealed that the cover-up goes far higher than any member of the group could have imagined, and paints a chilling story of corruption, paedophilia, and hierarchy. 

Obviously, the film deals with some very heavy content, but it's handled in a manner that is both respectful and eye-opening. There are some harrowing accounts of molestation from some of the victims of the priests, but these never feel exploitative. Naturally, the film is a work of fiction, but some of the acting is so powerful that it feels like documented interviews. In fact, some of the lesser known actors rival the bigger names present. Mark Ruffalo, for example, feels slightly unenthusiastic towards the start of the film, but thankfully improves as the story progresses. Michael Keaton, on the other hand, is consistently stellar as the Spotlight team's leader, and stands out within the film. 

You've really got to give it to the film, though; it manages to make over two hours of nothing but journalism consistently shocking and engaging. There wasn't a single moment during the movie that I found myself bored. Not even during the first half, when the conspiracy isn't fully revealed, does it feel mundane; conversations are filled with euphemisms and huge elephants in the room are left without a comment, which builds the dramatic tension surprisingly high. Despite most people knowing how the story ends, it still retains an unfaltering sense of suspense.

If Spotlight has any faults, it would be that it does feel slightly rushed, or, at the very least, it doesn't return to topics which warrant considerable interest. This is forgiveable when you consider how much content it needs to breeze through, but there's a moment in particular when a priest is quoted as justifying his abuse of children which is never returned to - despite Michael Keaton's character saying that they'd dig deeper into the topic. It almost feels like this scene was put in for shock factor alone - otherwise, why wouldn't they explore it more? However, it's a small complaint for such an interesting film. 

Verdict
Spotlight is the kind of film that doesn't necessarily warrant a second viewing, but still deserves to be seen at least once. It's informative, as well as thoroughly entertaining throughout. Of course, the subject matter is heavy and might be off-putting to some, but it should still be experienced from an educational perspective.  Overall? Worth your money. 

"They say it's just physical abuse, but it's more than that. This was spiritual abuse. You know why I went along with everything? Because priests, are supposed to be the good guys." 

Deadpool (Review) - Funny, Though Foreseeable

Deadpool is an undoubtedly funny movie. The trailers were funny, the marketing campaign was funny, and Ryan Reynolds is a funny guy. In fact, the movie itself rides heavily on audiences finding it funny, because if you take a glimpse past the humorous surface, then you'll find a movie that's okay, if a little bit formulaic. 

Like all first instalments to a new character, the film is essentially an origin story. Told in a non-linear fashion that skips back and forwards, we see the transformation of freelance merc Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) from a thuggish anti-hero into the foul-mouthed, wise-cracking, titular 'merc with a mouth' plastered all over the posters: Deadpool. Of course, a hero is nothing without a villain, and in Deadpool this role is filled by generic enemy 'Ajax' (Ed Skrein) - a stereotypically British antagonist who almost seems like a budget Jason Statham. From here, the film is almost surprisingly straightforward; Wade Wilson must track down Ajax, and get revenge for wronging him. 

Something that will undoubtedly surprise those unfamiliar with the character of Deadpool is the way in which the film is presented to the audience. Frequently throughout, Deadpool himself will talk to the audience - commonly known as 'breaking the fourth wall' - and reference himself as well as other movies within the superhero genre. If you're a big fan of Marvel or Fox movies like The Avengers or The X-Men, then these references will no doubt have you chuckling at every turn. If you go in without prior knowledge, however, then it's possible that Deadpool's brand of humour might go over your head, and lead to a lesser experience. Even if you do 'get' all of the cameos and remarks, you still might find yourself silent at moments, as not every one-liner hits as hard as the film might want it to. The rate these jokes come at means it isn't a huge issue when one misses, though. 

One thing that definitely doesn't fall flat, is Ryan Reynolds as the leading hero. The thing is, while this is technically an original story that tracks the change from Wade Wilson to Deadpool, the character never really changes at all. Wade Wilson is just as sarcastic and referential before he dons the red suit; all that's upped is the violence he inflicts. This means that what could have quite easily been a boring opening half to the film is instead just as entertaining as the latter segments, and Wade's constant narration throughout makes this a seamless transition. 

Conversely, the villain of Ajax is incredibly boring. I know this is kind of the point, as even the opening titles label him simply "A British Villain", but the satirical nature of his lacking personality is lost when he has no redeemable factors. Sure, it makes for a funny introduction segment, but after this you're left with a hollow character who honestly drags the movie down with how forgettable he is. 

The best thing about Deadpool isn't necessarily within the film itself. No, the best part is that it got made - especially when placed in the sea of factory-produced superhero films that are quickly becoming stale. It's genuinely refreshing to get a colourful superhero movie that has a 15 certificate...and earns it. Limbs are torn off, nudity is prevalent, and the eponymous star swears at every opportunity. If anything, the chance to make this a truly unique film compared to all the others was slightly squandered in making it a straight-up origin story. Too much time is dedicated to introducing us to Wade, as his alter-ego Deadpool is where the film really shines. Hopefully this will be remedied in the now-confirmed sequel - only time will tell. 

Verdict
While not a perfect movie by any means, Deadpool still proves to be thoroughly entertaining and genuinely funny at parts. It's an exciting glimpse into what superhero movies can be, which is refreshing, as they're beginning to grow stagnant. It might not be as clever as it thinks when it comes to wasted roles like the villain Ajax, but Ryan Reynolds manages to carry the movie single-handedly above that 'average' grading. Grab some buddies, and enjoy a funny, mindless trip to the cinema. 

"I love you, Wade Wilson. We can fight this" 

"You're right. Cancer's only in my liver, lungs, prostate and brain. All things I can live without" 

The Revenant (Review) - Just Give Leo an Oscar

Let's just get this out of the way: Leonardo DiCaprio ought to win an Oscar for this movie. It's inevitable that he won't, because unfortunately he's never awarded for his consistently stellar performances in all of his films, but he truly should. DiCaprio's central performance throughout all of The Revenant is the driving force behind the emotional tension, and is the crux of the the drama. 

The film itself tells the true story of Hugh Glass (Leondardo DiCaprio); a frontiersman in 1820s America, who's on a fur expedition with his native-American son, as well as other hardened men who just want to get home with some money for their families. As the title implies, Glass finds himself left for dead after a bear mauling, and must trek through the harsh, icy environment. His goal: to avenge the unprovoked murder of his son by the hands of a fellow frontiersman. 

The aforementioned bear mauling scene, as shown briefly in the trailer, is by far one of the most intense moments from the entire film. I've rarely found myself to be uncomfortable when watching a movie, but the visceral reality of the attack is genuinely unnerving, and a testament to how proficient DiCaprio is as an actor. It's one of several violent moments found throughout The Revenant, but it's easily the most poignant, and will remain with you long after leaving. It also sets the scene. Hugh Glass is left in a critical condition following the encounter, which allows empathy when certain members of his team suggest leaving him behind. In a freezing wasteland, where everything is apt to kill you, why drag along a man waiting to die? 

While the wasteland may well be frozen and dangerous, The Revenant proves to be an honestly beautiful movie. Filmed entirely with natural light sources (primarily the Sun), the prolonged shots of endless forests place you precisely within the film itself. This is usually just a term thrown around, but when you eventually find yourself in a warm, heated shower, you'll suddenly remember just how different it was back then. Understandably, cinematography is just one of the several Oscars that this film is nominated for, and I'd be shocked if it didn't win. 

DiCaprio's portrayal of Hugh Glass isn't the only stand-out, though. Tom Hardy as the antagonistic John Fitzgerald is equally notable, although his thick accent makes some dialogue hard to understand. There isn't a single performance throughout the film that lets it down, although some are forgettable at the very worst. The miscellaneous members of the hunting party near the beginning are all reasonably interchangeable, for example; however, their role is comparatively minor, so this is far from a negative issue. Perhaps the best example of how powerful the acting is, is that most of the key plot points are conveyed through facial expressions and action, as opposed to conjecture. Hugh Glass is alone for a long time. Because of this, Leo DiCaprio doesn't necessarily speak to anybody. The manipulation of his face, however, leads to strikingly emotive scenes. 

If I had to pick a handful of negative things about The Revenant, I'd have a tough time. It's a fairly flawless movie in terms of things it gets right and wrong, but there's a couple of issues that do drag it down slightly. There are hallucination sequences throughout in which Hugh Glass sees figures of his past, as well as other symbolic objects or monuments. Though these are intentionally vague and subjective, the nebulous way in which they are presented can come off as slightly pretentious. The pacing of the film is also an acquired taste. Going in to this expecting a Taken-esque style of revenge would be foolish, but it's likely even slower than you may expect. I didn't have a problem with this, but the slow-burn of the narrative may be unbearable for some. 

Verdict

The best word to describe The Revenant would be 'powerful'. It's a film that will leave you emotionally drained, but one which is well worth viewing at least once. Multiple viewing aren't really necessary, because it's a story that only needs telling a single time. The slow pace of the story and the out-there delivery of some sequences may put off some viewers, but it's still worthy of your time and money. 

"As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight. 

You breath...keep breathing." 

The Hateful Eight: 70mm Is Best?

By now, it's likely that you've seen Tarantino's latest offering, The Hateful Eight. You've walked out of the cinema, satisfied with yet another stellar film from the main man himself, and avidly await the announcement of his next project. What a smaller portion of you may have done, however, was to walk out of Leicester Square after seeing the deluxe, 70mm version of the film. Luckily, I managed to be one of these people. 

Now, I love movies. That might be a reasonably clichéd thing to say, but I'll say it regardless: I really love films. I'm not one of these people who can talk in-depth when it comes to the actual production side of cinema, though. Because of that, I'm not going to go in detail when it comes to what actually goes in to the 70mm version of the movie; I'll come off like an idiot. I can go through it in basic terms, though: Basically, when a film is...well, filmed, it is then converted into digital footage to be shown to the masses in cinemas. With the special 'Roadshow' production of The Hateful Eight, however, Leicester Square Odeon is showing the film on reels - like cinemas used to do decades ago. 

But what does this actually mean? Well, it means that the movie looks like an old-timey film. In that, I mean you can see all the wonderful grain and imperfections that a digitally shown movie lacks; giving the cinematic experience an oddly real, palpable feel to it. The colours are deeper, and the contrast between them is a joy to behold. In terms of how you're actual experience will change, though, that's equally significant. After a brief introduction from one of Odeon's staffmembers, you're treated to a three-minute Overture, which consists of music pieced together from the film itself - this sets the mood, and gets you excited to begin. 

Halfway through The Hateful Eight, things fade to black, and the audience is then presented with an "Intermission" slide. During a movie, this kind of interruption is practically unheard of (in modern cinema, at least), but it feels perfect when watching a movie that's essentially a cinematic stageplay. Also, this makes Tarantino's eventual narration feel somewhat justified, if still a little peculiar. 

The final bonus of seeing the film in this context is the free programme given to the audience beforehand, which contains set photos, character profiles, and other titbits of information which just beef up the whole experience. It might seem like I've used the term "experience" a lot during this, but that's because it's exactly what it feels like. In a time when going to the cinema has become commonplace, it's nice to try something new (though technically very old). 

Should you see The Hateful Eight in 70mm if you can? Yup. You definitely should. 

The Hateful Eight (Review) - A Tarantino Wet Dream

Describing the plot of The Hateful Eight sounds like something straight out of a Tarantino fan's dreams. You've got yourself a handful of hugely talented actors commonly associated with Tarantino - with the likes of Tim Roth, Bruce Dern, Walton Goggins, Kurt Russell, and, of course, Samuel L. Jackson - all locked in a small cabin for a few nights, left with nothing to do but look shadily at eachother and throw anecdotes all over the place. 

If you were to actually describe the plot, however, it'd go something like this: John 'The Hangman' Ruth (Kurt Russell) is transporting dastardly criminal Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) across Wyoming to a small town called Red Rock, where he plans to have Daisy executed for her crimes. Along the way, The Hangman picks up travellers Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and Sheriff Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins). Together, the four head for Red Rock, but a storm forces them to seek shelter in a small, isolated cabin: Minnie's Haberdashery. Now, The Hangman isn't entirely pleased with this, what with Daisy's bounty being exceptionally high, and so he doesn't trust any of the seven other men inhabiting the cabin. One thing leads to another, and soon the mystery begins to unravel. 

What is perhaps most unique about The Hateful Eight when stood alongside Tarantino's other movies is that it takes place almost entirely within a single room. I'm aware that Reservior Dogs plays with a similar concept, but that film didn't clock in at almost three hours runtime; this does. Because of this, the film feels more akin to a stageplay than a traditional Tarantino flick, and is all the better for it. It could've been easy to capture the violent, action-packed lightning that is Django Unchained, but this is a very different beast. Things are far more foreboding, which makes the inevitable violence pack a bloody punch. 

And the violence is certainly bloody. I'd go as far to say that it is quite probably the most violent Tarantino film to date, despite the violence itself being isolated to the latter half of the movie. Heads literally explode at times, and that alone should let you know what you're in for. There's also plenty of profanity and, controversially, racial slurs littered throughout. Of course, racist vocabulary is far from desirable in real life, but the contextual nature of the film means that it would be anything but acceptable to omit it from the script. Most of this is targeted at Samuel L. Jackson's character (being the only black man out of the Eight), but he gives just as good as he gets. Like Django Unchained, the script is shocking, but hilariously entertaining. 


The solitary conditions that the film plays out in mean that it requires some hefty performances from its cast to remain interesting, and these are most certainly found. Every single inhabitant of Minnie's Haberdashery is fleshed out and personified by their respective actor, and there's never a moment in Hateful Eight's staggering runtime that I found myself feeling bored. You're drawn in to the story from the moment you lay eyes upon the bitter Wyoming countryside, and things don't let up until the credits roll. 

The version I saw was at a regular screening, so I can't speak to the 70mm or its effect on the overall experience. There's a certain moment in the film which follows on from the intermission found in the longer cut, however. Without the intermission in the regular version, this moment that follows the transition felt a little unusual. I won't spoil why, but a certain narration seems more comical than endearing without the pause, and it almost feels like it should have been removed for the wide-spread release. 

Verdict
While The Hateful Eight might feel a little slower than previous films by this legendary director, it's far from mundane. Every single scene is packed with tension and intrigue, and will have you guessing at the true motivations of the Eight until everything is revealed. The eventual reveal of the truth isn't even the conclusion to the story however, as Tarantino's iconic 'Chapters' continue further than this, until the story is truly told in its entirety. If you know what you're in for, then this is a bloody good time.

"Room for one more?"