The Last Jedi (2017)

So does a follow-up fare better than the more independent Rogue One? By miles.

First of all: Where there is charm, there is a way. Daisy Ridley is a real gem and delivers a character that the audience can care about. Oscar Isaac and the underrated Mark Hamill flank her very nicely, and particularly Hamill's Jedi calm is instrumental to Ridley's opportunity to be as emotional as she is without it becoming tedious. Finn is more of an unwelcome distraction, both as a character and most of his storyline. The former seems erratic and the latter more like a B-side of the hit single. Other than that, Domhnall Gleeson is the scene-stealer for the most. His genius and tactical, cynical and cold brain a welcome contrast to a saga where everyone reaches out with their feelings incessantly.

And herein lies the problem. Whereas the protagonist and the mentor are both in place, where is the supposed villain? Sure, Snoke is decent (though no Palpatine), but nowhere near a worthy villain in an epic saga. Much worse is Kylo Ren. Though Adam Driver isn't a bad actor, and his scenes with Ridley are at times riveting, he is nowhere near portraying an evil master and megalomaniac. You pity the poor General Hux, often thwarted by the sheer stupidity and lack of perspective shown by the young Jedi. And without a decent villain, the tension suffers greatly. I will give it to director Johnson that he does understand this and tries hard to work around it. The Empire is vastly superior in numbers and firepower throughout, adding to the suspense and hopelessness where a great and evil presence would have done much of the same.

John Williams is pushing 85, so to flicker with his masterpiece is probably perfect work for him. He's not afraid to come up with a few new themes though, but the real treat is when they sneak in excerpts of the old themes at pivotal moments. It adds such an extra layer for the real fans, and we can smirk and feel just a bit smarter and well-informed for a short second. 

As for the storyline, it's pretty much the same as all the films in the franchise. Disney hasn't tried originality in decades apart from when they let Pixar run without interference. There is a larger scope, and a lot of fairly straightforward smaller stories necessary for the larger scope to be realized. There are formulaic (but great) action scenes, a bit more regular and longer than necessary, and the lines are still as Harrison Ford described them many years ago. But the film has a nice flow, great suspense at times and the humour is infinitely better than in Rogue One, making this instalment keep its charm. And what more than charm, Jedis and pew-pew can a Star Wars-fan really demand?

7/10

Rogue One (2016)

Disney would appear to mean business as both Mads Mikkelsen and Forest Whitaker appear within seconds, showing off some big names. Kudos also to Ben Mendelsohn for doing his finest Ian McKellen impersonation.

As there are no familiar characters from the last movie, it starts disjointed and a frankly a bit messy. Cross-cutting between many characters in different positions is best left to characters where you have already established an interest amongst the viewers. Such as the finale in Lucas' last instalment.

There are many highpoints though. The CGI to re-introduce Admiral Tarkin is sublime and Guy Henry's voice is pitch-perfect. And old characters in cameos are always fun, though you know that is determined by the evil marketing-department at Disney. That goes for all the many, many nods to he earlier installments, large and small. And still Storm-troopers are utterly useless whenever shooting at anyone known to the audience.

A low-point would be the peculiar choice of Michael Giacchino as the new composer. He has made very few epic scores and this blends poorly with the old excerpts from Willams' former work. Surely there were better options available for the amount of money they had available?

Generally, the characters are not as interesting and charming as last time around, meaning interest is fading. Nor is their development particularly good, even for a George Lucas-franchise. As for robots, I love Alan Tudyk, but his robot is just a reason to miss Anthony Daniels more. Chirrut Îmwe is a particularly dull Jedi with dialogue so horrible, not even the fortune-cookie companies would be able to shove it in their products without shame. And he repeats his lame catchfrase like a bad episode of Teletubbies.

There is of course plotting and bravery a plenty with the formulated action every 12 minutes, but we've seen it before now. Many times. Particularly the problematic shield and the hail Mary's.

Lucas' franchise originally had some of the same flaws, but there was always plenty of charm and (only in the oldest trilogy) a spark between the characters. This has neither. The ending is fantastic, though. A part from the last 10 seconds which is so mind-numbingly stupid and unnecessary you almost need to weep.


As the franchise moves on, it seems wise of all A-name actors to insert a death-clause in their contract.

4/10

True Lies (1994)

James Bond meets "Junior". The Governator stars in a spy-thriller with an everyday twist. Can he save the world and his family the same week? Yeah, I agree. Not a brilliant tagline. 

Though Arnie works really hard to add some suave to his character, that really isn't his strong suit. Cameron does know this, however and tries equally had to make it work. And some of the time it works really well, particularly when Cameron is able to insert some aloof arrogance and calm skill in situations of distress. Jamie Lee Curtis on the other hand, is wasted for a long time. As a homely, clumsy and insecure housewife, she is not playing to her strengths either. As the film, and her character, progresses, she does find her footing and adds a bit of spunk towards the end. The scene where she goes from housewife to high-end prostitute is very nice though, and a perfect (literal) transformation. Tom Arnold is excellent though. With just the right blend of everyday working man and comical agent with control of all aspects, generally a believable and jovial colleague, regardless of one's occupation. And a funny asshole at times. Those are priceless! Kudos to Bill Paxton for being a total sleezebag too, moustache and all. He brings out the best of repressed hate and anger from Arnie, very amusing. 

Unfortunately, Cameron doesn't stop at that, entering a prolonged jealousy frenzy that takes up a lot of time and focus without ever giving anything back. And a 2 hours, 21 minutes, you really need to do better editing than that. That there is no real villain, nor henchman for that matter, is another disappointment. All action-flicks need villains and henchmen of quality, and though Tia Carrera is delectable in her dresses and has a sly smile, she shouldn't have to be the best baddie here. Furthermore, as the action takes over, the film looses a lot of its positive traits. 

So the comedy is a bit good (at least in the first third), a bit bad, and mostly decent. The action is 90's in the sense that there is an utter excess of bullets and explosions, and aiming worse than a Stormtrooper. James Cameron is usually not bad at suspense, but doesn't really hit a good note in that respect here. Perhaps because he tries to insert too much humour in his chases, taking the edge off. But even though it's a bit hit & miss, and too long to really flow nicely, it's slick and entertaining. The ending is crap on a wheat cracker, though. 

5/10

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

Since the first made money, a sequel was absolutely inevitable. So was it worth the wait?

On the bright side, they have  a stellar cast. Joining Egerton, Strong and Firth are Julianna Moore, Jeff Bridges, Hally Berry, Channing Tatum and Elton John. On the not so bright side, none of them really leave a mark on this film. Berry is so unnecessary, it's staggering. The first instalments best feature was the swagger of Colin Firth, so why they would make him into a fumbling baboon this time around, is a question of mythic proportions, and a huge letdown. Moore deserves a bit of credit for showing restraint over a role that could easily have been cartoonish and irritating. Other than that they're mainly there to make the film cooler. Simply by showing up.

But Vaughn does know cool and he works very hard (sometimes too hard) to provide it. There are so many variations of cameraspeeds and -angles, that at times it's just tiresome to watch. Most of the time, the action and set-pieces are absolutely state of the art though. And since it takes about 20 seconds for the first huge action-scene to start, it's impossible to be bored. The part where Vaughn has improved upon the original is in tension. Whereas the original was just action and speed, this one has suspense and I caught myself at the edge of the seat several times.

Humour however seems to have been virtually forgotten. Though it had one brilliant oneliner, the lack of a feisty Firth sets it back many steps. Egerton has the cheeky look, but his lines aren't good enough and neither are anyone else's, quite frankly. And since this genre really needs some tongue-in-cheek, it is a matter of concern that this film comes up so short. The idea of a sister-company in USA is actually quite clever though. Not bad in a genre where good ideas mostly dried up years ago.

Henry Jackman's music is a bit too frantic, and at times so stolen (from himself and Elfman) it's a miracle he didn't have to pay for copyright. Much of the time it fits OK, as long as you don't already have a headache. Vaughn continues to blend in modern music at a hit-and-miss ratio. The best uses of modern music here by far is Elton John's "Saturday Nights alright for fighting" and Buddy Holly's "Raining in my Heart"

But Vaughn still has brilliant attention to detail, and there are a couple of gems for the extra alert viewer. Such as the fact that every car in Saville Row is of British make. How perfectly fitting.

At 2.21 they have enough action scenes, but nowhere near enough dialogue and script for what they've set out to do. But you are highly entertained for most of the time, though your brain is likely to ask for breaks the next 12 hours due to stimulation overload.

6/10

Dunkirk (2017)

It's hard to evaluate a film that has no real protagonist. Hell, most of the characters in this instalment by Christopher Nolan isn't even mentioned by name. That's a huge chance to take as you risk the audience not caring as much about what actually happens to the characters.

No worries, though. Nolan is always in control and he has a plan. This movie is end-to-end tension and excitement as he never lets up for more than a minute. Particularly the last hour is exasperating to watch as there is so much going on at the same time, so many hail Mary's and so much devastation that it leaves you quite flabbergasted. And I do love a film that demands you sit up and pay attention.

But back to the lack of stories for characters. There are no cut-ins of grieving widows (We were Soldiers), no look back from old silly sodds (Saving Private Ryan) no bonding with your mates over drugs or fatigue (Platoon and Saving Private Ryan) and no lingering mothers waiting for their sons by the stow (also Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg always was a sucker for sentimentality). And there is no McGuffin or someone to save as it's all about waiting to be evacuated and constant survival under horrible circumstances. What you get is war. And masses. Not to mention water. Combining the latter two, means there is a lot of drowning, panic and claustrophobia. It's absolutely riveting, in a rather horrible way.

It's refreshing for a director to cast aside all convention and just make a film that is utterly realistic and direct in what it does. And he really does his research here. He does not fall into the trap of endless gasoline bombs, heroic gestures nor quid pro quo. The bombs are mostly very loud thuds, and he makes good use of the single, narrow strip of smoke from a hit fighter jet. Even the music is stripped to a bare minimum as Zimmer bombards us with either very short or excruciatingly long notes, often by a single instrument. Perfect to the film, but most likely tiresome on a CD.

The cutting of scenes is at times a bit back and forth chronologically, adding to all you need to pay attention to. But it's essential for the flow of the film, which is quite frankly state of the art.

This is an wonderful example of an idea executed to perfection. No compromises, no sidestepping, just raw power presented in a brilliantly a methodically meticulous manner.

It's not a classic but it is a very bold and different film, done right to the letter.

9/10

The Mummy (2017)

As they've had a recent franchise called "The Mummy" the last decade, starring Brendan Fraser, one would think that Hollywood had at least a slight pinch of creativity and name this something else. Alas not. Hollywood has made this film for those whose memories (and most other cognitive functions) are limited, and hence it doesn't matter. Nothing does it would appear. Just google "The Mummy" and see how long you have to scroll to find a reference to this flick.

Is Tom Cruise getting old?.Why else would he make this? He never made anything so oafish before. Low on quality, yes, but nothing that doesn't even try. In this film he has a nothing of a character. Not only has it been done to death in other movies, but Nick Morton lacks depth. So he's a scoundrel and a thief, and a Navy SEAL (of course). But who does that make him? And how does he develop from who he was at the start of the film until the end? He doesn't really do either. He just uses basic survival instincts as time goes by. Which is fine if you're Chuck Norris in the eighties. And we all know that a loveable scoundrel has the most wicked smile and an exceptional tongue-in-cheek personality. Cruise has neither here, making you miss both aforementioned Fraser, but also Harrison Ford. Hell, even Norris and Bronson would use a trademark scowl and get off a couple of one-liners to make you smirk.

Worse is the fact that his chemistry with the woefully cast Annabelle Wallis is absolutely non-existent. No one wonders, or cares, if the two hate each other or kiss. Not even the director it appears, as he refuses to give any action on either part. Cruise should instead look to Russell Crowe (or himself in Magnolia) for how you age with style. Crowe has a small part with some good lines and makes a full meal out of it. A thoroughly joyous performance for all to behold. And even clever.

As for action there is plenty, and unless you're too busy rolling your eyes, you won't fall asleep. Kurtzman also manages to keep a consistent tone to the film (though grey both metaphorically and in filters), and a decent flow. The story is more or less the same as all the other Mummy-movies: Something dark happened long ago, now we did something stupid and woke something. "Ooooops" and "O my" for all.

So that leaves us with the fact that Tom Cruise has made a shockingly bad career-move and accepted a part that plays to none of his strengths and most of his weaknesses. Thus he hangs to dry, though with millions of dollars from your pockets. Clever sod. As it is, this is a soulless movie that has no other intention than stealing your money and almost two hours of your life.

3/10

Big Fish (2003)

So can Tim Burton make a decent film that isn't goth and doesn't star Johnny Depp? It turns out that's what he should have been doing since "Batman Returns".

Burton commissioned Eddie Vedder to make a song for this flick, and reportedly the entire band was blown away by the story. Fitting then, that Pearl Jam's "Man of the Hour" is such a perfectly contrasted end to Burton's colourful story, with its down to earth melody and, under the circumstances, heart-breaking lyrics. Nominated for a Golden Globe, ridiculously losing out to Annie Lennox.

And the story does baffle. It could so easily have been dismissed as stupid and silly, so easily overacted (particularly if Depp had to do yet another Burton). But Burton holds it together by a thread, with a breathtaking cast, so meticulously selected I doubt any pundits can make a cry for an improvement. And he even manages to show us how aware he was of the tight rope he was walking in the final scenes. Kudos.

Though McGregor is fantastic as the determined, optimistic nice guy Edward Bloom of his youth, it's the current day cast that excels. Albert Finney is at his utter finest, the old shining beacon of a man slowly extinguishing with his ever supportive wife (a brilliant Jessica Lange) and estranged son (the always underrated Billy Crudup), there for all too different purposes in his final days. Who knew that Burton was able of such exceptional displays of everyday toil and love. Watch carefully for the scene with Lange and Finney in the tub. Lovely.

That Burton spices the cast with exceptional cameos for Steve Buscemi, Danny DeVito and Marion Cotillard can only be to further joy.

Burton cuts perfectly between past and present, life and death, (semi)-fantasy and reality, balancing the frustrated son perfectly with his creative and eager father, partly through the diplomat-wife with 30 years of experience cancelling out the two stubborn men in her life.

If I was to nitpick, I would have to point out that Burton could also have left out Helena Bonham-Carter as she is all to familiar to his tones, and we are to her impact in his films, and there are a couple of scenes where McGregor could have benefited from tighter directing.

Other than that, this is perhaps Burton's finest work, his usual grand scenography actually coupled with a loyalty to the story and an amazing cast.

9/10