Mindhorn review

Mindhorn is a comedy about a has-been actor who is called back to the Isle of Mann to reprise his most famous role in order to help solve a murder case.

The film is co-written by and stars Julian Barrett, of Mighty Boosh fame. He is hilarious as the actor who thinks he is much more important than he actually is. We are introduced to him through a documentary style recap of his fame, and then it picks up 25 years later when he is struggling for work. The laughs start from the beginning and do not let up throughout.

This is absurdist British humour at its best. The case goes in interesting places, and Barrett never seems to stop delivering the laughs. Other characters do get to shine, the best line in the film belongs to the antagonist, and Russel Tovey threatens to steal the film from Barrett at times. I genuinely think this is the funniest film I have seen in cinemas in quite a while. I would even say it is funnier than Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, my two favourite comedies of last year.

It keeps to a short and necessary 89 minutes, which stops the film from dragging. The story is engaging, but the jokes are what keeps the film interesting. I don't think I have laughed more at a film recently than I have at the climactic scene.

The premise of the fake show, also titled Mindhorn, is about a detective with a robotic eye that allows him to "see the truth" (a premise not too dissimilar to that in the yet-to-be-made Crime Stinks: The Smell of Penetration). The murder plot in the film is equally as ridiculous as the 80s cop shows that they are parodying. Luckily, it never veers into cheese and embraces the ridiculousness, adding to the film's charm.

In short: Mindhorn is hilarious, extremely fun and suitably ridiculous.

The Zookeeper's Wife review

The Zookeeper's Wife is a holocaust drama about a husband and wife who smuggle Jews out of the ghettos and let them hide at their disused zoo.

On the scale of holocaust dramas this is somewhere in the middle. Jessica Chastain is great, as is Daniel Brühl in a smaller role. The story is familiar but told well. My problem is the unclear view of the survivors. The early scenes show Chastain's character caring for the animals in an affectionate way. When they are helping those who have escaped, she cares for them in a similar way. The presumption is that means she treats the animals like humans, but it also leaves an unpleasant thought that she might be treating the survivors like animals. That aside it is rather good.

In short: It is an effective but flawed holocaust drama.

Fast and Furious 8 review

Fast and Furious 8 is the latest instalment in the franchise, and sees Dominic Toretto go rogue against the family, with Charlize Theron's cyber terrorist.

My view on the recent Fast and Furious is; the 1st is OK, the 2nd and 3rd are rubbish, the 4th is OK, the 5th is easily the best, the 6th is good, and the 7th is somewhere between the previous two. I haven't watched any of the good ones more than twice, apart from 5, because they are just fun, dumb action movies. Luckily, 8 continues the surreal action.

At this point in the franchise you should know exactly what to expect, and if you expect any more you will be disappointed. Luckily I wanted a fun action movie, and in delivered in that sense. I couldn't care less about the plot of these films (there was a character and an important plot point I completely forgot about), so while others might be annoyed by certain things, I wasn't.

The reason Dom is working with the cyber terrorists is believable enough for him, but it wasn't the part I wanted the film to keep returning to. What I wanted was The Rock and The Stath interacting with each other. They are easily the highlights and I am glad that a spinoff with the two has been announced. The best, most enjoyable scene includes Statham, an infant and some rodents.

Another enjoyable part is Tyrese Gibson's comic relief, Roman. In this world he is the everyman, the only one who realises how ridiculous their situation is. The family have gone from street racers to, essentially, secret agents. His best line is when he brings this up and says something along the lines of this not being his original life.

However, there were some disappointing aspects: many of which have to do with Charlize Theron's villain. Theron is a brilliant actress, and a pretty good action star. So it is a shame that she is very underused. Her character would have been more at home in the most recent Watch Dogs game, and she never got to show off her action skills. In Mad Max: Fury Road she is the standout of the whole film, a stronger character than Max, but here she is given barely anything. And when she looks like she will have an action scene she parachutes away.

Another problem I have has to do with one of the main set pieces, the one in the trailer where half the cars in New York are hacked and remotely controlled. We see that many of them are empty, but some still have people in them. During this scene, they are rammed together, and shot at by government officials. Not once is it brought up that there were people in the cars who would have died, some of whom being killed by a Russian government employee.

While I'm on the subject of the set pieces, it still annoys me that the Fast and Furious trailers always feature them. I know they need to be shown to get people to want to see the film, but I knew which was coming and when, and through the whole thing I was waiting for the submarine part. It's just as bad as when they showed the plane exploding in the trailer for 6.

In short: It's a Fast and Furious film.

Going in Style review

Going in Style is a comedy about three pensioners who decide to rob a bank after their pension fund is dissolved.

The film stars three excellent actors: Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin. Freeman has openly talked about starring in anything that gives him a paycheck, so there is always the trepidation of whether a film he stars in is one he wants to make, or just wants the money. Their is also the story of Michael Caine reading the script for Jaws: The Revenge and deciding to star after the words "Open: the Bahamas", and later saying that he has never seen it, but has seen the house it built.

Even if two of the leads took their roles for money, they all look like they had a lot of fun making the film. And luckily, the fun is mostly transferred to the screen. While there are no big laughs, there are several chuckles to be had and it moves along at a pace so that I was never bored.

It is nice to see these three actors, with an average age of 82 still getting leading roles in a time where mainstream films (especially comedies) are more aiming towards teenagers and people in their twenty's.

In short: Going in Style is harmless fun, but not much more.

Their Finest review

Their Finest is directed by Lone Sherfig and is about a woman who is hired to write propaganda films for the Ministry of Information during World War 2.

The main idea of a woman working in a predominantly male field and showing that she is just as good, if not better than, her male coworkers during a time of heightened tensions between the sexes and countries is an interesting, and familiar one. It was explored to great effect earlier this year in Hidden Figures. And while I appreciated it here, as a whole it did not work as well as Hidden Figures.

There are three main differences between Their Finest and Hidden Figures: the quality of the film, the inspirational reach, and how true the film is.

While there are some aspects of Their Finest which are very good, overall I thought it was just ok. There is some cracking dialogue, most of which comes from Bill Nighy as an actor who finds it difficult to accept that he is ageing and not as popular as he used to be. Nighy's Ambrose Hilliard could easily carry a film of his own, but then there is the possibility that his expanded role would ruin the character. The production design is also wonderful. The film looks as though it is actually in the murky, war ravaged streets of 1940s London.

The first half of the film; when Gemma Arterton's Catrin Cole is starting working for the Ministry, meeting her fellow writers and writing the main film-within-a-film is easily the strongest part. After that I started to lose interest, especially after an underdeveloped romantic subplot (similar to Hidden Figures is introduced. Although we see more of Bill Nighy in this half, it is just not as interesting to watch. I started to get bored at points and would have preferred if it kept to an hour and a half (like the fake film and the title of the book this is based on).

The film does have commentary on the role women have both then and now. While this film is written and directed by women, the film industry is still not a 50/50 split when it comes to these creative roles. There are conversations about pay, credits and the way her writing is viewed. It is mostly in comparison to Catrin's co-writer (played by Sam Claflin). Due to the time of war that the country was in, there are not many discussions or implications of discrimination outside of those areas, apart from Catrin arguing heavily about the role that the twins will play in the film. She fights to have them be more than "the people that go to Dunkirk to save the troops" and have them be more heroic in the script.

Heroism is present in the fake film, Their Finest and Hidden Figures. The problem is that the female heroism comes off stronger in the fake film than in the rest of the film. And when compared to Hidden Figures it is severely lacking. Part of what is great about Hidden Figures is that I believe it may be able to inspire young girls to want to work in one of the scientific fields that are focused on in the film. This is because it is an accessible, inspirational well made film that almost anyone would be able to watch. However I don't believe that Their Finest will be as inspiring. This is because I don't think it will have as wide a reach, and it doesn't show fighting against opposition as well.

Moving away from the Hidden Figures comparison: there is a point towards the end of the film where something completely unexpected happens. I would have been more accepting of it if they had properly shown the destruction of the Blitz. Because it has not been well established, this moment feels out of place in the film, and abruptly ends one story arc.

In short: The first half shows a lot of promise, but wastes it in an uninteresting second half.

Ghost in the Shell (2017) review

Ghost in the Shell is the live action, American adaption of the famous manga, which follows a law enforcer called The Major, who is a human brain (a ghost) inside a completely robotic body (a shell).

The only other version I am familiar with is the 1995 anime, so I can't help but compare it to that masterpiece. Obviously this is nowhere near as good, but that doesn't mean I didn't have fun.

This is missing anything remotely complex present in the anime. Any ambiguity, subtext, subtlety or social commentary is completely abandoned for the sake of action. There is some social commentary, but it is mostly in clunky throwaway lines that seem to more be references to the anime. There are plenty of visual references to the anime, and a scene partially lifted that doesn't quite fit. The lifted scene is the bin lorry scene and its aftermath. In the anime it works due to the context, but here it seems as though it is there to pander to the fans.

The plot is mostly changed, which I like, but the new plot is more conventional, predictable and safe. They try to have an ambiguous villain, but the twist is really obvious and neither villain is well developed. And with the changed plot removes any ambiguity that may have surrounded The Major.

Scarlett Johansson does the action scenes convincingly, though I don't doubt the use of stunt doubles, and handles the rest of the scenes well. Pilou Asbæk (I'm really glad there's no audio aspect to these reviews as I would have butchered his name) is very well cast as Batou. He is visually very similar to the character in the anime.

In fact, the visuals are easily the best part of the film. You can see that they have put most of their budget on screen. There is some impressive CGI, and the city looks fantastic. This is a prime example of style over substance.

I wanted to have this review up as soon as possible, but since Saturday I have postponed it. Since then it was revealed that it only made $19 million opening weekend in the USA, currently the world's largest film market. The film has a budget of over $100 million so it will be difficult to make it back (it made $40 million everywhere else). I am honestly not surprised it made relatively little. There is the whitewashing controversy (which isn't fair if you haven't seen the film) and some poor marketing.

With the marketing, they definitely made it known that it was coming out, but it was how. I don't think they made it too clear that Scarlett Johansson is playing a cyborg, and the trailers made it look like a typical sci-fi action movie. When I saw Free Fire, the opening 15 minutes of Ghost in the Shell were shown in 3D(don't). This footage instilled confidence in me, but it didn't really help explain the film to those unfamiliar to the subject. Afterwards my dad said that he had no idea what was going on.

In that preview footage, some of the shots were slightly different. In fact the difference was that they had blood, and the final product didn't. One of the shots is even in the trailer(attached somewhere). This made me think that the studio corrupted the directors vision in order to get a lower rating. This is despite films like Kingsman, Fifty Shades, Deadpool, John Wick: Chapter 2, Get Out and Logan all proving you can be successful without an all ages rating. I won't be surprised if a 15 rated cut will be released on the DVD.

In short: Ghost in the Shell is a beautiful film with no depth. Just watch the anime instead.

The Discovery review

I have decided that if an original film is released on Netflix and I decide to watch it, I will review it here.

The Discovery is about the aftermath of a scientist proving the existence of an afterlife.

The film starts off with an interview with Robert Redford's scientist, Thomas, around 6 months after the discovery. The state of the world is set up, with the suicide rate having increased dramatically. The interview then ends in a shocking and abrupt way, and we pick up close to the two year anniversary, where over 4 million people have committed suicide in order to see this afterlife.

The film mainly follows Thomas' son Will (Jason Segel) as he returns to his father and brother, and starts a relationship with Isla (Rooney Mara). I have always liked Jason Segel in comedic roles but, along with The End of the Tour, he has proved he can make the transition to dramatic very well. Hopefully, like Steve Carrell and Jonah Hill recently, he will soon start getting recognised for these performances. He and Mara both have convincing chemistry with each other and bring depth to their characters and their relationship.

Since the discovery, Thomas has created what is essentially a cult, despite his denying of it. They are all living together believing in a single belief, wearing different ranking jumpsuits, and occasionally having sessions of public humiliation. It was set up as a sanctuary for those obsessed with the afterlife, but even if they are not able to kill themselves here, being in close proximity to the man who proved the afterlife is not helping heal them.

The film deals with the moral issues brought up by the existence of an afterlife. Nobody knows what it is, yet millions are curious enough that they will end their life to start again in this new place. Questions of ethical testing, free choice and whether this sort of thing should be shared are brought up and explored well. As the film goes on the mystery and curiosity continues to build up to a satisfyingly confusing, heartbreaking ending.

After I finished watching this I wanted something lighter to watch, as it was quite bleak and depressing. So I look down and in the comedies there was The One I Love. I saw it had Mark Duplass and, while the description didn't sound fun, it was listed under "comedies, romantic comedies", so I thought "why not?". I later realised it was written and directed by the same people as The Discovery, but it was too late for me to turn back as I had already finished it. I don't want to give anything away if you haven't seen it, but don't take the Netflix description as an accurate description of the film and don't look at the IMDB page. All I will say is that I was pleasantly surprised, but it was not the light entertainment I wanted. At this point it was too late to give up on Netflix's recommendations and put on a DVD, so I had quite a bleak, but excellent, night of movie watching.

In short: The Discovery is an effective look at how the world would have reacted to proving of an afterlife, and features an excellent Jason Segel.

Free Fire review

Ben Wheatley's Free Fire follows several groups of people involved in a shoot out, after an altercation at a weapons deal.

High-Rise was one of my favourite films of last year, so my expectations for Wheatley's follow up were fairly high. While this has nowhere near as much subtext or social commentary, it did not disappoint.

This is a prime example of a well done bottle movie. Apart from the opening 5 minutes, the whole film takes place in the abandoned warehouse. The setting never feels repetitive or confining as everyone is constantly trying to move around or escape. Though they aren't able to do any of it very quickly, as all the violence looks realistic. When people get shot, instead of running at a slightly slower pace, characters look like they are in pain and, for the most part, are crawling around everywhere, no doubt accumulating a number of diseases.

The warehouse is almost a character of it's own. Throughout the layout is changing due to the gunshots, explosions and rubble being thrown about. While other films neglect the setting, Free Fire fully embraces the setting and the layout. You are able to get a sense of where everyone is in respect to everyone else.

In a confined film like this it is important that the characters are likeable. Despite their dodgy characteristics (weapon dealers, IRA, assaulters, assassins) everyone gets their share of hilarious lines. The standout is definitely Sharlto Copley's Vern. When he is introduced, we are told that "As a child he was misdiagnosed as a prodigy, and he's never gotten over it," which really tells you all you need to know about him. He is fast-talking, loud, untrustworthy, obnoxious, slightly sexist, but well meaning. If you haven't got a sense of his character yet, he is the sort of person to use their own name in a pun. Other exceptional performances include Sam Riley, Michael Smiley and Armie Hammer(who I may not have recognised if I didn't know that he was playing the character).

In short: Free Fire is a highly entertaining, exceptionally planned, realistic gun fight.