Next up is 1999’s Election a wicked political satire about corruption and the underhanded nature of politics that just happens to be set in a High School.
It’s all about the battle between Tracy Flick and one of her teachers Mr McAllister portrayed by Reese Witherspoon in a breakout year (she had Cruel Intentions and Best Laid Plans also that year) and Matthew Broderick in quite possibly his best career performance.
The script from Alexander Payne is astute, both funny and full of twists as things spin out of control for Jim McAllister. It was part of what could be called a golden age of “teenage films” appearing in the second half of the 90s including the likes of Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, Drop Dead Gorgeous and more. A seemingly brief period where Hollywood acknowledged that teenagers were interested in content that didn’t underestimate them.
The film is staged fairly straightforwardly with not lot to really discuss in terms of the shot choices, mise-en-scene and the like but low key approach does let the strong characters contained within the script really shine whilst doing enough for it to not feel like a TV show.
If you made a pitch black prequel to Parks & Recreation this could easily be the early days of Leslie Knope. This is worth catching if you’ve not seen it and the themes feel as relevant as they ever were.
Last year Deadpool was held up as being something different and daring in the comic book movie genre. It used it's higher certification to ladle on the violence, nudity and crude humour but underneath that it was basically comic book film by numbers, failing totally to do anything interesting with world of possibility it's source material gave it.
Now with have Logan, another Wolverine story, another story about one of the most seen X-Men characters. Logan too has a higher certificate than the majority of comic book movies. Crucially Logan does do something different, something new with the genre.
What we have here is essentially a revisionist modern day western with a comic book background. It certainly shares elements (and even some dialogue) with the film's title it echoes, Shane. It's the tale of a reluctant fighter trying to leave a life behind but being drawn back to the violence he's trying to escape.
In amongst it there's a comedy-drama about the relationship between two men (Logan and Xavier) struggling with the realisation that their best days are behind them, in this there are echoes of the likes of Unforgiven whilst the determination to do one last thing right (and the Mexican border setting) echo the vastly under-rated The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
Crucially unlike Deadpool's ultra violence for the sake of it the much bloodier take on Logan's world serves a purpose. It's quite startling the first time we seen a claw clearly through a head and a limb severed but it helps to really bring home why Logan is the broken man he is. Haunted by years of this he's become a hollow man just trying to hang together long enough to get Charles somewhere away from anyone he could accidentally harm during seizures that shake the world.
A legacy that Logan has to try his best to help young Laura avoid if he can. This is sombre stuff.
Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart both do their best work as in these roles in the series and indeed both put in very strong performances all around from across their careers. Both mixing ably moments of levity in amongst introspection. One notable scene sees Jackman move from the physical comedy of unleashing his frustrations on a car, Basil Faulty style, to packing an emotional punch as you realise what's truly behind his outburst.
Likewise young Dafne Keen excels as Laura building a real sense of a child haunted by abuse but still wide eyed at a world she's not seen who slowly becomes attached to her travelling companions despite being mostly mute for a large part of the run time.
You could argue that Boyd Holbrook and Richard E. Grant's antagonists are under-developed but this is a film centered on the emotional journey of it's three leads more that it is on the tale of comic book conflict. But you do find yourself caring about a family introduced in an interluding chapter as Charles tries to show Logan what he should be striving for.
The film is beautifully shot, a mix of scorched landscapes along the border, dusty ageing interiors, washed out greys and hazy sunlight is used in the final act as the metaphor of a day coming to end comes towards it's conclusion. Sharpe contrasts, clear images bring a feeling that this is the real world not the high reality of typical comic book fare.
There is imagination in the action (and as mentioned it all serves a purpose; one scene of Logan killing paralysed & stranded men underlying where he is mentally and how desperate things are) but the heart of the film lies in the drama surrounding it.
Deadpool was labelled comic book film making for adults. It wasn't. Logan is.
So Rogue One is Star Wars with the Saving Private Ryan filter turned up. And it works.
This is a very different feeling Star Wars film and justifies the “A Star Wars Story” tag that sets it apart. Yes, the tone is darker than the other films as expected and don’t be fooled by stories of re-shoots done to lighten things. If anything the lighter material went into the trailers but not the final cut of the film. But it’s other things that set it apart.
The combat sequences are much more intense; dynamic, gritty and in a first for a Star Wars film actually quite harrowing in places. For example in an earlier sequence we witness an Imperial patrol attacked in a city street with innocent civilians very much caught in the cross fire. There are echoes of the likes of Black Hawk Down.
This is maximised in the final third as hopelessly outmatched Rebel forces on a beach sacrifice themselves to create a distraction whilst in orbit above them their colleagues mount a frantic assault to make sure it’s not in vain.
Astonishing is the best word I can think of to describe the climatic space battle, with cinematography that really places you right in the middle of the action as fighters swoop and dive around fleets of ships. It’s the best execution of this kind of action I’ve seen and is peppered with imaginative flourishes.
The strength of the action is backed up by the rest of the writing in deepening the experience. Whilst the basic story is a fairly straightforward men on a mission tale it’s the characterisation of those on the mission that make it work.
Here we get shades of grey as we see Rebels in conflict with each other over the lengths they’re prepared to go to. We’re told Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera is an extremist who’s gone too far but this is after we’ve seen Diego Luna’s Cassian shoot down an unarmed colleague without pause to ensure he won’t talk upon capture.
Meanwhile Mendelsohn’s Krennic brings something different to the table as the villain. He starts with a naked ambition to rise up the Imperial rank but slowly switches to desperately fighting for his position and survival after an encounter with Darth Vader.
Felicity Jones’ Jyn is also very different to any of the heroes we’ve see in the series before. At one point when asked if she’s ok with seeing Imperial flags flying over every planet she replies “It doesn’t matter if you never look up”. She’s not in it for the cause at the start and whilst later she joins the Rebellion her main motivation is a fight for absolution for her father.
A sequence roughly half way through featuring Jyn brings all that works so well in the film together at once. We watch as Jyn witnesses a final message from her father, Jones wordlessly showing the heartbreak and new resolve in her face as at the same time the Empire demonstrate the terrifying power of their new weapon. (Something which now is probably now more impactful as it’s lower setting resembles something sill devastating but with real world familiarity).
A haunting beautiful sequence and for me the moment the film really comes together after a slightly choppy opening.
It’s true that some of the other characters in our team are sketched with out as much detail but even then it’s a different vibe to what we’ve seen before. Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang are two believers in the Force trying to hold onto their faith and Riz Ahmed’s defecting Imperial pilot is man finding himself suddenly out of his depth.
Many are comparing it to Empire Strikes Back and they are both sombre pieces but I’d argue that Rogue One is the more complex in terms of it’s characters and generally depiction of the central conflict and probably a darker film overall seeing as during a couple of parts it even effectively comes across as a horror film.
Without giving too much away the biggest issue I had with it were some moments of ‘uncanny valley’where CGI has been used to reintroduce some characters into the story. It’s striking but does have that sense of unreality to it.
I also admit I’m not sure how well it would work for people who aren’t a fan of Star Wars to start with. I believe it would still stand by itself if you approached it as a Vietnam or World War II film, I’ll be interest to see if I gauge some people’s thoughts on that.
So it seems despite the dodgy looking trailers Star Trek Beyond is a solid entry in the franchise and it seems the newly names "Kelvin timeline" films are inverting the old Star Trek film law of the even numbered entries being the good ones. This time round the first and third so far are clearly the better films and the second entry the misstep.
McCoy, Jaylah and Spock prep for action and banter.
Beyond does what Into Darkness should of done by breaking away from the old entries and being it's own thing (aside from a few nods to the original crew). It tells a stroy of it's own rather than re-hashing a previously told one and takes advantage of it's alternate versions of the classic characters.
For example here we have a Kirk (Chris Pine) who is unsure of the point of his chosen career as the films begins, whilst Spock (Zachery Quinto) struggles with his sense of duty to his now endangered people and subsequently his relationship with Uhura (Zoe Saldana).
This gives our two central characters strong story arcs to go through in the midst of the adventure whilst the rest of the crew all get a good amount to do. Unsurprisingly with Simon Pegg on writing duties Scotty gets much more to do and it's refreshing to see him strike up a friendship with newcomer Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) instead of her becoming a romantic interest for Kirk. Although I think Pegg still plays it a bit too comically broad.
Indeed Jaylah is one of the strongest elements of this entry in the series, a more than capable engineer and a spiky, lively presence for the others to bounce off. Not quite effective however is Idris Elba's villain Krall. He is revealed to have interesting background and motivation but the pieces only really fall into place in the third act and feel a little rushed. The first of the reboots probably retains the strongest of the new villains with Nero.
Worries that director Justin Lin would mean a move towards out and out action can be put aside. Of course there is action, including some imaginative sequences in space and on the ground, but the heart of the film remains the interactions of the main cast. The middle act of the film sees them paired in different combinations (Kirk & Chekov, Uhura & Sulu, Scotty & Jaylah and most enjoyably McCoy & Spock) letting all have their moments to shine.
Karl Urban once again stands out as the grumpy but steadfast McCoy amongst pretty strong performances all round apart for a minor character in Commodore Paris whose portrayl feels stilted which is shame because she's a couple of key scenes for Kirk's story arc.
No doubt some will criticise the method used by the crew to turn the tide of battle against Krall's swarm ships but I admit it was something that brought a smile to my face.
It's not as heartfelt as the series best (Wrath of Khan) but it's up there with the likes of Generations (which i think is under appreciated), Undiscovered Country, First Contact and the opening film from the re imagined crew.
Ok, lets start with getting the main message out first, Ghostbusters (2016) is....terrible because it's got girls in it.
I am of course being facetious. The film is pretty decent, has a lot of good ideas, some good moments and some strong performances but the pacing of it just seems a bit off. It's hard to describe really; some sequences are too long, comic exchanges that feel like they should have snap feel a bit listless, the plot advances in lurches, the filmends suddenly and then what feels like the actual epilogue plays under the closing credits. It also probably doesn't quite break away from its forbear as much it might. (Not two spoil it two much but there are five old players returning for cameos. Two work really well, one is ok and two feel painfully forced)
The apparently controversial new team for the most part do pretty well. Kristen Wiig brings her well worked smart but goofy shtick to play as Erin Gilbert, a serious scientist now embarrassed by a book about the paranormal she wrote years ago. She's at her funniest when interacting with Chris Hemsworth's dopey secretary Kevin.
Leslie Jones' Patty is much more rounded and capable character than early trailers seemed to suggest. She definitely has more to offer than Ernie Hudson ever did and certainly gets to join in the comedy more than he did.
For me Melissa McCarthy was the weakest link, she's not terrible but I just didn't enjoy how character as much the others, but I'll confess I'm not keen on her as a performer to start with so may be being overcritical. I just didn't quite buy that her friendship with Wiig's character was as close as the plotting told us it was, she can pratfall but she's not as strong at the characterisation as the others. Now, the missed opportunity I think is Kate McKinnon's Holtzman. An anarchic presence with a real joy in dangerous potentially life threatening engineering (she's sort of like the original's Egon crossed with Wily E Coyote and a sugar rushing small child). She is constantly either producing new crazy devices or pipping up with a series of great throwaway lines and moments. But her performance is the one that suffers the most from the slightly off pacing, her moments are either cut off two soon so the gag doesn't quite land, lingered on a bit too much or she's lost in the background a little bit. The previously mentioned Kevin portrayed by Hemsworth is also a hit, all comfy charm and bizarre non-sequiters.
Overall the film's humour is lot less cynical the original and is definitely a lot goofier but for the most part it works well with the material, and it is quite refreshing to have somethink like this with humour that does indeed feel different. However the aim to be very much comedy first and fantasy adventure second means the main bad guy and his evil plot is rather flimsy & under developed. In fact by the time we get to the climactic action it's really not clear what he's trying to achieve or how.
Having said that though there a couple of action sequences that are really effectively filmed and the ghosts that need busting offer up a good range of imaginative designs, one particular sequence with Holtzman is as visually striking as anything that's been released amongst this year's summer blockbusters.
So it's pretty entertaining, there is something about it that doesn't quite click into place I feel but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more of these characters.
The last thing to say on it is I hope performs well, and it's hopeful that it will having picked up decent reviews, manging to raise above the ridiculous 'toys out of the pram throwing' small minded hate it's received.
Because young girls deserve heroes as much as anyone else does...
Next up on the Summer's blockbuster merry-go-round is Independence Day; Resurgence as the aliens return for round two twenty years later...
The film picks up the story after two decades, humanity has stopped fighting itself, adopted alien technology and spent time preparing defences. As the victory of twenty years ago is celebrated another alien ship arrives above the new moon defence base.
It's destroyed despite the reservations of Jeff Goldblum's returning David Levinson who believes it's a ship from another space faring race. Indeed, shortly afterwards a massive ship arrives that very much isn't freindly and the battle to survive begins again....
We then get the scenes of destruction you'd expect from the film in the initial onslaught but this time most damange is done by the alien ship landing rather than it actvily blowing stuff up seeing as it's bigger than an ocean.
Following that we follow a set of hot shot pilots as they attempt to attack the alien mothership, including the children of Will Smith's Cpt Hiller and the daughter of Bill Pullman's President Whitmore as well as the Goldblum and others on the ground who must devise a plan.
A surprise return in a comedic slot is Brent Spiner as wacky scientist Dr Okun and we also get the now common nod to the Chinese market with Angela Yeung Wing's fighter pilot who you suspect as a bigger role in edits for that market.
Everyone pretty much does well enough with what are broadstroke characters although one comedic relief character does fall flat with the nerdy bureaucrat character that gets caught up with events early on.
There are some nice ideas floating around here, like the militia that has been fighting aliens left behind from the first invasion and the second alien species that holds the key to victory (albeit things end suspiciously close to Stargate SG1's setup) although the build up is much less effective than it was in the first film largely as a result of the film's rush to get to the action.
Overall it's very much a silly B-movie with plenty of money spent on wizzes and bangs, but it know's that's exactly what it is and generally keeps the pace rolling along a decent enough crack to cover over it's simplistic writing. Slight, silly, fun.
And we are with the latest comic book blockbuster of this year's Summer season. X-Men: Apocalypse sees Bryan Singer essentially brings to close the cycle of films that began with First Class.
An in film joke references the fact that the last in the trilogy is often the weakest. Is that the case here? Well, Apocalypse probably isn't as solid as First Class and Days Of Future Past but it's far better than Last Stand was.
It films like a natural continuation of the story from it's two predecessors whilst introducing a new wave of character as the world is threatened by Oscar Issac's Apocalypse. However whilst some of the cast get concluding chapters to their story others like Fassbender's Erik\Magento seem to just go through a repeat of the same arc from the previous entries.
Also Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique spends most of the film in her 'desguised' human form in a move that seems move motivated by the actresses wish to avoid the hours of make-up again rather than the story. You do also have to question the revealing outfit she appears in her first scene. (It's even within the same sequence to something more conservative which actually fits in with the location much better).
New comers Tye Sheridan and Kodi Smit-McPhee don't get a huge amount to do as the new versions of Cyclops and Nightcrawler but acquit themselves well. Unforutnately whilst Sophie Turner's Jean has the most interesting part to play of the newcomers her performance comes across flat, even seeming bored at some stages.
In terms of the action it is true that once again it's sequences based around Quicksilver that steal the show, full of imagination that so far the rest of the year's comic book releases have lacked. Although other sequences aren't helped by Apocalypse's grab bag of abilities never really being clearly defined.
Generally Singer hits the right tone matching to balance the drama, humour and sense of peril. It is fair to suggest that the level of disaster at the end of the film does seem a little like it's pushed too far and with a coda between Magneto and the Professor you do wonder why the latter doesn't seem to be interested in the former being responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths.
Eye In The Sky is a tense drama from director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi, Rendition, er X-Men Origins: Wolverine) that focuses on a joint British/American drone mission over Kenya targeting terrorists.
Essentially it's a look at the morals of using such weapons and the debate over if collateral casualties can be accepted. We follow almost a real time as Helen Miren's Colonel leads a mission from a bunker in Surrey with the intent of capturing terrorists leaders whilst an American crew in Nevada control a drone overhead, Kenya forces operate on the ground and Alan Rickman's General and Government ministers watch from a room in Whitehall.
Circumstances change on the ground quickly and the operation is forced to change from capture to kill as the terrorists move to a house secure on the ground and appear to be preparing a suicide bomb attack. However a young girl is spotted selling bread close to the house in the projected blast radius.
What follows is a series of conversations and debates over what action to take, the legality of it and if there is will to fire on the house with the girl so close. It's a fairly neat simplified encapsulation of the issue.
The different points of view are presented evenly with nothing being sensationalised; the military look at things in terms of one life is to save many more later, the ministers debate the potential political and PR repercussions and the crew in charge of the drone agonise over will result of the actions they take.
Suffice to say I glad I'm not in position to have to make such a choice, indeed nearly all of the characters in the film struggle with it and keep passing things up the chain of command. Rickman and Mirren's military veterans whilst seemingly deal with the situation dispassionately are still crucially shown to be rounded people, not just hawks, who know full well the human cost of warfare.
The film benefits for not making up the mind of the audience for them at the end, matters are resolved but we are shown the price.
Director hood does well to avoid things feeling too stagey in a production that basically takes place in a few small rooms whilst avoiding, aside from a one piece of fanciful technology, making things too 'hollywood thriller'. Recommended.
Well, that's the key point out of the way. The third Captain America film takes it's central plot cue from the Civil War comic storyline, but that's pretty much it as apart from the idea that governments would call for superhero oversight it plays out very differently from the source comics.
This is a good thing. The story presented here is for the large part much more sensible, it does however falter as the core argument effectively takes a back seat fairly quickly and the ongoing conflict between the heroes depends upon Cap'n being a bull headed jerk who is unwilling to trust most of his team mates and see no irony in distrusting other's judgement whilst being convinced that he is literally always right about every decision.
The idea of the requirement supervision is introduced with a sequence discussing the impact of events in the last few Marvel films, much in the same way BvS looks to address the destruction in Man Of Steel, it's a smart move that helps to bring a bit of realism into the MCU. Combined with this a world weary Tony Stark is approached by a grieving mother who lost her son in the events of Age Of Ultron.
So Tony believes the introduction of oversight by the UN is the right thing. As someone points out The Avengers are essentially a PMC operating with unimaginable power across borders with out answering to or consulting with anyone. It's hard point to disagree with.
Anyway Rogers dislikes the idea and give a vague reasoning of feeling that governments have 'agendas', it's a weak point of the film that he never really manages to explain what troubles him or why he believes his judgement is infallible. Instead the conflict is driven by his pursuit and defence of a reappeared Winter Solider. He even concedes that his former friend has indeed killed a lot of innocent people.
So that's Tony and Rogers, everyone else basically just sides with one of them with a quick line or two of dialogue. Basically a setup that had the chance to provide a lot of real character drama is not really treated that way, which is a missed opportunity. Although the plot does hold a couple of nice twists as the Avengers are indeed being manipulated for what I thought was a fascinating reason.
There are lot of positives in the film elsewhere. The action sequences are lively and creative, showing the playfulness and imagination that was so badly lacking from DC's recent big hitter.
All the various heroes have very much their own distinct style, none more so than the newly introduced Black Panther, which help make the central stand off sequence at the airport a great sequence. It's a pacy with a well judged tone that includes humour and acknowledgement that these are friends having a fight in amongst the brawling.
The the two stand outs in the sequence are surprisingly Paul Rudd's Ant-Man, a brilliant mix of star-struck and goofily effective. And the other standout is Tom Holland's Spiderman. Possibly the best screen incarnation to date of the character. Unfortunately the two only really feature in this one stretch.
Strangely to me the film felt much more like an Iron Man film the third Captain America entry because I found Tony's position much more sympathetic (and the two characters have roughly equal screen time) and he actually seems to have the greater emotional journey especially when tragedy strikes his friend Rhodey. In fact Tony even comes over to Roger's side towards the end only for a reveal to again see Rogers be, well a jerk, rather than trying to diffuse a situation.
In general it's not as strong as Winter Soldier was as a film but it's still a solid entertaining couple of hours that just lacks that edge of drama it feels like it could of had. It'll be interesting to see where the storyline goes especially since in the end Rogers comes away as both a criminal and with no real sense of justification for his actions.
Still, better than BvS. But I am wondering if X-Men:Apocalypse might be this blockbuster season's superhero winner.
I've been a bit slow putting a post up on this one, which is kind of appropiate because the film itself is quite a slow moving one.
Telling the story of a father desperately trying to save his young son who has mysterious powers and the government forces trying to catch up with them, Midight Special feels very much like a seventies piece of science-fiction.
It's a slow burn story, there isn't too much in the way of exposition (the audience is left to fill in many of the blanks and there unquestionably elements that could have done with more explanation and at least one strand of the story that just seems to be abandoned) and it's much more about the performances than the spectacle. The central three adult performances from Micheal Shannon, Joel Edgerton and Kirsten Dunst are all very good, with a number of sequences relying on quiet delievery of emotions.
Jaeden Lieberher does ok as the young Alton but you do wonder at times if the part is written to be as other worldly as it comes across or if it's the performance not really selling some of the more emotional beats.
The film looks fantastic in a low key sort of way, like Starman crossed with Micheal Mann's Collateral. And a late stage sequence cutting between reactions to the final reveal and a car accident is fantastically done.
However overall the film feels like it's building up towards a crescendo that never quite arrives. It is nice though to have something a bit different that doesn't fall into the easy template of final reel explosions.
After Midnight Special and Mud I will certainly keep an eye on director Jeff Nichols who seems to developing as someone delievering interesting (and in some ways old school) films.
The first of the year's big blockbusters arrives with Zack Synder's second visit to the world of DC Comics. And whilst it's not as bad some reviews would suggest it does have a lot of problems.
I have to say the film is one of the oddest mainstream films I've seen in terms of it's structure and editing. Roughly the first hour and a half or so (of a two and half hour film) verges on being downright incoherent.
It skips from scene to scene with no apparent connection as it flails around for story and characters, frequently throwing in multiple vision and dream sequences. More than once it cuts straight into such a sequence with no signposting then to a 'real world' scene and then back to another dreamscape sequence. Indeed one such sequence ends to be revealed to still be a dream in a "then he woke up moment".
The effect overall is fairly disorientating and not helped by some very strange editing choices, for example at point we cut from a scene to an establishing shot and the straight into an interior scene taking place somewhere else entirely. It's like Synder and his team have actually forgotten the basic aspects of film language.
Things start to settle down but there are still bizarre choices. In the build up to the central title fight the film takes a pause to basically show us one of the characters watching what amount to trailers for forthcoming feature attractions starring Aquaman, Cyborg and The Flash.
But problems return once we get to the final third as despite the film struggling to pack it as much as possible we really haven't been given enough to invest in any of the characters, pivotally Superman himself is badly underdeveloped.
We are told he's conflicted, but we really don't see it and all Cavill does is stand around with a sort of middle distance stare expression on his face. He's not even really allowed to be heroic apart from in a brief montage.
Nor is there any real explanation behind Lex Luthor's hatred of Superman, there are some nice ideas vaguely expressed but it doesn't really become anything meaningful. Although I don't find Eissenberg's performance as annoying as many seem to and there does seem to be an intended character ark at play for him.
On the positive side though speaking of performance and characterisation Affleck's Batman is the stand out thing in the film. As long as you get onboard with the idea of a Bruce Wayne who has seen too much and been doing this far too long, has basically snapped and is now more than happy to outright kill lots of bad people.
The film does contain a few hints to suggest why Bruce has gone down this route and it actually feeds into why he feels it so necessary to tackle Superman. (Which does help cover over some of the more dubious bits of his reasoning). His fleeting scenes of interaction with Jeremy Irons' Alfred suggesting a stand alone Batman film with the pair is a promising prospect.
Amy Adam's Lois is just there to get rescued basically. And basically no one else in the cast does anything else of note or show any kind of real characterisation.
But another highlight in the at times dreary slog is Gal Galdot's Wonder Women once she finally appears in full Amazonian warrior mode. She provides by far the most stylish and entertaining parts of the final climatic battle but I do remain unconvinced about her acting range in terms of carrying a film by herself since she's only got around five to six minutes of screen time.
Speaking of the final battle, unfortunately the film reverts back to the end of Man of Steel and the last chunk is a barely followable fight between our heroes and some bad CGI. One which shows very little imagination or craft a few Wonder Woman moments aside.
Also disappointing is the bouts of the title match-up. Bats and Supes have two face-offs, one is very, very short and the second longer sequence (although it's still not very long) is actually rather uninspiring.
Again there is no real imagination in the fight, if you've seen the end of Man of Steel, you basically have seen this fight. They've just moved it to an abandoned building. (Indeed the film is at great pain to repeatedly tell us deserted the environments are after the criticism of the previous films massively high levels of destruction). There is so much potential in a film version of these two characters doing battle but it's just not realised.
Much like his previous films Synder is happiest when putting together montages, he is good at montages, and in an early beginning sequence showing Bruce navigating Metropolis during Man of Steel's climax.
Now I've not gone into spoilers here, I can do later if people are interested, but suffice to say there are quite a lot of logical leaps, characters being stupid and face palm moments.
So overall the film is not Green Lantern level rubbish but it's not very good either. The first two thirds drags on, likes to think it's being all smart and lurches around like it's drunk. The final thirds regains structure and a sense of purpose but it's done without any sense of imagination or creativity. It's just seen it all before action fodder with an ending that reaches for heartstrings but misses (a final montage is quite effectively done though) for the most part as none of the characters have, well much character.
It's hard to go into the plot of 10 Cloverfield Lane too much without getting into spoilers, loosely Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Michelle wakes up after a car accident to find herself locked in an underground survival shelter, John Goodman's Howard tells her that everything outside is dead and they can't go outside.
Michelle doesn't believe him but fellow bunker dweller Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) agrees something did happen to the world outside. However Howard is hiding some secrets.
Despite the name the film is not directly linked to Cloverfield, there are some small things like adverts for Slusho and mention of a couple of other companies named in Cloverfield. But as the PR has suggested it's more a thematic and overall feel that is shared.
Very much a three hander the film shares some thematic qualities as "Right At Your Door" although it's actually not quite as tense and doesn't share the same gut-punch ending.
The majority of the film sees an fascinating exploration of the dynamic of the three main characters whilst meanwhile feeding in the odd thing to raise questions as to what is really happening.
How long has Michelle been in the bunker? Is Howard telling the truth about what happened to his daughter? Is Emmett meant to be in there? Why is that 'Help' message scratched on the inside of the window?
Mary Elizabeth Winstead's strong central performance as the same and capable Michelle, makes you wonder why she isn't a bigger star than she is. It's a performance that moves from vulnerable to questioning to determined and very much helps sell the gear shift the film undergoes in it's final stretch.
John Gallagher Jr. is also give a good performance as Emmett, bringing a earthy quality to the part which helps balance the dynamic between the central three.
A less even performance comes from John Goodman, he brings a strange off putting sense to his Howard, visibly showing awkwardness whilst speaking to the others. This is a man who struggles to relate to people. However he doesn't always convince with some of his character's more violent swings in demeanour.
Director Dan Trachtenberg brings at lot of energy to film mostly set in about four rooms, the opening scenes/credits are very nicely done for example and he ensures there is a real sense of claustrophobia to the shelter.
Now I don't think it's a surprise to find out there are twists in the tale and that the final stretch of the film offers something of a switch-up. When it comes, it's executed very well from a technical standpoint, it's a rush and stands up very well against similar material.
However it's one that I'm not sure totally worked for me, but possibly because I wasn't expecting something quite as significant a gear shift and I do wonder how much of a rewrite the finale received to bring it closer to Cloverfield to suit the title.
So the film is three quarters a slow burn thriller with a nice number of questions to be resolved and a couple of genuinely surprising moments as well as a couple of great character moments. The last quarter is something quite different as things finally spiral out of control and then the last half of that final phase is something else again entirely.
Here's the fist thoughts on a year of cinema. I've signed up for a year long pass at the Odeon which basically lets me go to the cinema as much as I want, so I figure I'll kept notes and thought on what I've seen during the year (will be fun for me to least to look back on)
So up first is the Coen brothers' "Hail, Ceaser!".
The film follows a fictionalised version of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) a notorious 'Head of Production' aka fixer for MGM whose job was to kept the contracted stars in line and out of the papers. Here we have trying to track down a kidnapped star amongst other things.
It's packed with a great cast including George Clooney as the kidnapped Kirk Douglas style star, Scarlett Johannsson a aquatic pictures star who's not as innocent as her reputation, Channing Tatum a musical performer, Johan Hill, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton and more, The problem is they all feel underused giving the impression that a lot of material must of have been left on the cutting room floor.
Johannsson's story in particular feel's truncated and like it was originally intended to be a bigger part of the film. Indeed one of Mannix's most notable (and nasty) stories concerned having a female star "adopt" her own baby to hide the shame of single motherhood, a story clearly the basis for this part of the film.
It's only really Brolin's Mannix that has much screen time out of the case and I'd say he's not given much interesting to do beyond the centre of swirling almost farce. The one aspect that gives a bit of insight into Mannix is brace of scenes of him considering a new job offer.
Overall the film is something which never quite gets going, for it's whole run time it feels like it's going to start picking up speed but never quite does. If it had the energy of the likes of "Raising Arizona" I think it would have worked much better. There are strange choices like the pause to show a song & dance number being filmed for of the fictional films in full with no clear indication why. It just slows things down.
It illustrates the issues here, some scenes really work. Fiennes' director struggling getting a rodeo star newly assigned to his film to get the lines right. The 'study group' of Communists. (The old school Hollywood studio as analogy for the evils of capitalism appealed to the sociologist and film nerd in me!) A visit to a professional legal stand-in.
But amongst these are scenes that drift like the fore mentioned song and dance, scenes the feel like they've been dropped in from a more manic film (those with Tilda Swinton's duel cameo) or Mannix speaking with Christopher Lambert's director which seems to fill no purpose.
Being the Coens there is meticulous attention paid to details such as the period setting, the difference aspect ratios used for each of the different faux films so they appear as they would have in their day.
Overall it's largely enjoyable but very much a lesser effort from the Coen brothers. The good news is last time they made a farce that didn't quite work with "Burn After Reading" the came back with "A Serious Man" and "True Grit"
Time for some longer thoughts on Deadpool. Currently the film is performing very well and has already it's taken four times it's relatively modest $56m-ish budget.
It is being suggested that this shows there is an appetite for comic book adaptations that are aimed at an adult audience instead of the typical 12A/PG-13 bracket. I'm not so sure, I think it more suggests there is a market for filthy, crude and violent comedies that have good marketing.
I wouldn't expect a 'straight-laced' X-Men film pitched at an 'R' to perform as well, although admittedly Blade did well enough to produce a couple of sequels but tellingly it was marketed as a horror-action picture rather than a comic book property at time of it's release.
Anyway as for the film itself, Deadpool starts with energy and a high level of imagination with in particularly amusing credit sequence. Although as soon as this sequence ends there is the first signal that the film might not be able to keep up the level of creativity.
This is because the first major sequence is a retread of the test footage that infamously lead to the film being green lit in the first place. It still a fairly striking sequence but you do wonder about why after a few years it's still being re-used.
From here we get the perfunctory entrance of two other X-Men characters who serve to be butt of a few jokes and the disappear again until the final reel showdown before we flash back to how Wade became Deadpool.
Its a standard approach of a desperate man making a bad choice to trust someone dodgy, the issue for me being though that nature of the constant smirking, smutty script doesn't really allow any kind of drama to breathe and in particular it's hard to sense any sincerity in the central relationship when it's basically a string of sex jokes and not a lot else.
Meanwhile as the films on it falls into a standard three pattern building to the final reel showdown with an undeveloped villain with very vaguely sketched powers. In that way the film actually matches Marvel Studios own origin story films by having a forgettable antagonist.
In terms of how he plays it, if you seen Reynolds in Blade : Trinity, you know how he plays it. Which is fun for a bit but does start to wear thin the longer it goes on as sadly whilst in comic form Deadpool's ISP of breaking fourth wall is not taken advantage of fully. There are a few fourth wall breaking moments (including a good gag about breaking the fourth wall side a fourth wall break) but I felt so much more could have been made of it. The chance was there to not only deliver a few pop culture gags but really work in some satire on the nature of super-heroes and movie genres.
But having said that I did laugh a number of times and there is cracking joke about our very own David Beckham. I just fell it could have been funnier if they'd stepped back from the crudity a little and approached things a bit smarter.
Oh, the post credits scene is nicely done as is the post post credit one.
With the upcoming new entry that has director Paul Greengrass back onboard and will see Matt Damon's Bourne cross paths with Jeremey Renner's Cross I am actually quite excited.
Legacy is actually a in my view a good action thriller despite it's lackluster reception on release. Smartly exploring an expanded history of the black ops programs with a different angle as the main character know fully who he is and is just looking to survive. It does have a unsatisfying ending which leaves things very much open for the continuing story. But hopefully that can be forgive now a new entry has been confirmed.
Coming before the patented Besson film-o-matic conveyor belt of identikit action thrillers Leon (known as The Professional in the States) in 1994 cemented Luc Besson as filmmaker to watch.
His first American outing after a trio of accomplished cult films (Subway, The Big Blue, La Femme Nikita) it's a great action thriller and at the same time a drama based around the growing relationship between an orphaned girl and the emotionally cut off man who comes to be her carer
The film centers around Jean Reno's "Cleaner" character who cameo'd in La Femme Nikita (although this is a different version of the same character rather than literally being the same), a professional hit-man who lives alone with his handler being the only person he knows.
He ends up taking in the girl, Mathilda (Natalie Portman) who lives down the hall after her family are killed by corrupt cops. She discovers how he makes a living and eventually convinces him to let her learn from him so she can avenger her baby brother.
The pair slowly grow closer as adopted father and daughter. Giving him the personal connection he's never had and her the caring father figure she has never had.
With strong performances all round, from Reno's stoic title character who loves musicals, Gary Oldman's unhinged corrupt DEA officer and of course Natalie Portman's startling debut performance. Showing a range well beyond her then 13 years.
Besson's style perfectly suits the film, zooms (with some great use of depth of field) and tracking shots work to emphasize moments of action & tension as well moments of reflection and emotion.Whilst the framing brings the feel of the French new wave of the 80s from which he emerged and is almost comic book styled at times.
In short a thriller that is guaranteed to bring a tear to your eye at the end. Just don't watch the trailer first, it gives basically everything away.
I have said it a number of times before but I believe that in amongst a basically legendary filmography that Jurassic Park is the time that Steven Spielberg knocked it out of the park. The time that he basically made a practically perfect film.
That's not to say that the like of Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Munich aren't all very good films but Jurassic Park is the perfect example of it's adventure blockbuster genre.
So let's have a look at some of the reasons why; these are some general thoughts as to write about each masterfully executed shot and moment would take a very, very long time.
The film opens with a deliberate slight of hand sight gag that demonstrates a fantastic confidence. Spielberg knows we've all come to see dinosaurs and so the film opens with swaying trees as something big heads towards us (the audience) and group of nervous and determined looking men. After a few seconds it's revealed to be...a forklift with a boxed cargo.
There are number of these smart visual cues within the film. Another great example is the Jurassic Park gate which is deliberate homage to King Kong, the peak of all creature features. My favourite comes right towards the end of the film as the "When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth" banners flutters in front of the roaring T-Rex. (Just, look past the fact it managed to sneak up on everyone!)
Seamlessly we move from this gag into something with an air of menace as the transfer goes wrong and we get a view, albeit a smartly restricted one of the dangerous that will be faced later in the film. From here it's on to a sequence of scence that establish the characters and start the wheels of the plot in motion. (A later spot of exposition is cunningly inserted as an explantory film forming part of a theme park ride). Crucially we get to know the characters before they are fighting for thier lives, including the supporting characters like Nedry & Muldoon.
So unlike so many of today's films we actually care what happens to people once the actions starts. These all tap into the themes that run through the film. Corporate greed, morality in science (the core themes of Micheal Crichton's novel - who worked on the screenplay as well), the power of nature and set up Dr. Grant in particular for Spielberg's trademark missing father and father figures themes. (Can you honestly say that a lot of a modern blockbusters having any themes beyond EXPLOSIONS? I'm looking at you, Mr Bay.)
We even get sly tip-offs. Note Grant's struggle with the seat belt in the Helicopter as he tries to connect two of the 'female' ends of a belt. Eventually he finds a way by tying the straps together. Only females present but life finds a way....
Following this we get one of the key sequences twenty minutes in and it's time for our first dinosaur proper.
The sequences starts by building anticaption masterfully as we watch the reactions of the characters to what they are seeing whilst crucially not seeing it ourselves. The looks of wonder lead the audience towards the same feeling as the music builds, then we get the shot of the huge creature they are observing and it's perfectly timed.
It's a technique used to great effect again as the characters witness the Raptors for the first time. We see the swaying foliage and the looks of horror on the faces of the characters but not the Raptors. In another canny move we are told that THE classic dinosaur, the T-Rex will appear, but we're not shown one yet. But we know it's coming. Anticpation is once again used to sway the audience as the early dinsosaur tour shows no dinosaurs.
Indeed once again Muldoon's tension is used to build the audience's as the tour passes the T-Rex paddock of the first time. Smartly this tension is allowed to pass unresolved.
(In fact the second creature we get a good look at is a sick Triceratops.)
Spielberg later demonstrates his mastery of suspense with the T-Rex attack sequence. (A sequence so good I might well write a full post just on that) It all kicks off with the by now legendary cup of water showing the impact of the steps from the approaching menace. (A trick so good Spielberg uses it twice in the same film).
Also look at the fence climb/power breaker sequence. A master class in the cross cut art of building suspense. Brilliantly finished off with a moment that shows judiciously used jump scares can be fantastically effective.
Again it's a case of showing something is coming, something is about to happen. But what? The audience feels the same panic as the characters., frozen with fear.
In general the pacing of the film as a whole is as sure footed as pacing within individual sequences. It flows and ebb,s starting with a snap then quietening down before settling into a pattern almost like waves as it builds to each set piece then allows space for the audience to breathe before building up again. Whilst always moving at a pace to keep you swept up in the adventure.
The film progressed CGI technology massively and it is very well done (note the details like the DNA code like pattern of light and the Raptor's face as it looks towards the ceiling) but crucially Spielberg was smart enough to also use a range of practical effects.
Effects which help ground the creatures in reality (there are more practical effects then you think. Pretty much everything that doesn't feature a dinosaur moving at speed or over a distance was done practically with animatronics) making it really feel like the dinosaurs do exist in the same time and space as the cast. Something so often neglected in a lot of more recent films. Everyone remembers the CGI in the film being so good because it's actually used a lot less than people assume.
Yes, it's not totally perfect (Lex's computer skills are handled clumsily, some of the spatial geography is a bit off) but it nails the crucial sense of wonder, excitement, fear, suspense, & elation that an adventure like this needs.
For want of a different way to say it, it has soul. It has a heart. It's not a cynical, technically proficient blueprint with an empty mind like say the Transformer's films. And next time someone says a director is the new Spielberg, ask yourself, could they have made Jurassic Park anywhere near as well as he did?
Ok, so I thought I'll once again try writing a few posts on here since I've had a few ideas and since we're still early into the year it makes sense to start with a preview of a few of the films I'm looking forward toward this year.
So in no particular order lets have a look see. First up is Jurassic World. Ok, the trailer is a bit hit and miss but the original film remains to this day one of my favorites and I'm still a sucker for dinosaur related mayhem it seems.
There are some interesting ideas at play which do riff on Crichton's original premise and theme of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" amongst others. Add to that a decent looking cast with rising star Chris Pratt and the hope is for a daft but fun effort.
Recently given it's title officially Spectre is the next Bond installment. Skyfall was an interesting thriller but didn't feel like a Bond film so with Sam Mendes staying in the director's chair it's going to be interesting to see if he goes back towards more familiar ground for the franchise or retains that 70s thriller feel.
American Sniper is already attracting a certain level of controversy over in the states over it's message but critical word is positive. I'm hoping it'll be something along the lines of Jarhead or The Hurt Locker looking at what it means to be a soldier under high pressure without necessarily taking a stance on the wrongs or rights of the wars being fought.
Micheal Keaton plays off his own legacy in Birdman as a former superhero star trying to relaunch a fading career. Inarritu;s film already has a very positive critical reaction and is tipped to do well in this year's award season.
After a lack lustre couple of years by their high standards it looks like Pixar are returning to form with the imaginative Inside Out.
Meanwhile Tarantino returns with Hateful Eight. I loved Inglorious Bastards, but was less keen on Django Unchained however QT's films are always worth watching and he's talking more often about retirement these days so we may only get a couple more from him.
Malick also returns with Knight of Cups. His films often split people but they're always look amazing and are a welcome bastion of slow burn in amongst so much frenetic output.
Terminator: Genisys is either going to be terrible ot quite good. (But I'm in the minority liking Salvation) Initial looks sere not promising but the trailer showcases a potentially canny timeline altering curve-ball recreating shots for the opening of the original film only to almost literally crash through it.
Pixels hopefully will have the wit and imagination of Wreck-It ralph and be a smart comedy fusing retro gaming with Pacific Rim's baisc plot!
Closing to release is Ex Machina which is Alex Garland's debut behind the camera. It certainly looks stylish and Garland is fond of playing around with expectations.
In on a totally different note look out for Night Will Fall coming up on Channel 4 towards the end of this month. A documentary which promises to be a moving and fascinating look at the efforts of filmmakers to document the Holocaust camps at the end of the second World War.
Back to lighter things we get more super-heroing this year as the Avengers return in Avengers: Age Of Ultron. Can it deliever on being the next BIG thing in the Marvel Universe? Whedon certainly has a strong track record and the cast by now really wear these roles.
I'm sure there will be surprises along the way, films that appear almost out of nowhere that i will love (like Brick and Winter's Bone) but in all honesty my most anticipated film comes towards the end of the year....
JJ Abrams style suits Star Wars much better than it does Trek and Lawrence Kasdan is on writing duties so he should recapture the feel of Empire and Jedi. At the end of the day it just taps into my inner child and I'm hopeful he won't be disappointed!
Right so some forty years after creating the Alien franchise Ridley Scott returns to the fictional world of his most famous creation. It's a return that's fully successfully sadly.
There is no mistaking that Prometheus is a fantastic looking film with sweeping cinematographer and outstanding work in the design of everything from the eponymous research ship to those telltale flashes of Gieger inspired design in the alien landscape. For instance the way the Prometheus both feels shiny and new but is reminiscent of the corridors and halls of the doomed colony from Aliens.
In fact of the best stuff is only glimpsed briefly such as the murals on the walls of the 'engineer' temple that quickly vanish. The design is undoubtedly the strongest single element of the film but it sadly lacks in other areas.
One of the main problems is that none of the characters are really developed enough to engage with and as such you never really get drawn into the story. Idris Elba's captain of the ship only seems to there to be surely and deliver a plot point to explain he known part of what is happening despite him barely leaving the ship.
Charlize Theron's Vickers delivers an early piece of exposition to establish the mission and then actually does nothing pretty much for the rest of the film. Well, she does have one significant act but it's one more inexplicably initiated by another character.
We have also a few other collected crew members who get names but not enough screen time to actually remember these names let alone establish themselves as people rather than disaster fodder.
Arguably the three central characters are Noomi Rapace's Dr Shaw, Logan Marshall-Green's Dr Holloway and Micheal Fassbender's David.
Even here things are rather undeveloped as although we're supposed to understand Holloway's drive to push forward we never really do - he just seems to be a bit of a sulky twat and before we know it he's falling ill and deciding to off himself rather promptly.
Rapace's Shaw fares better and we get a slightly stronger sense of her as she becomes manifestly the central character although as the film goes and she increasingly becomes the 'Ripley' of events it becomes a little harder to believe this anthropologist is capable of seemingly shrugging off invasive surgery to be running around minutes later. Rapace she doesn't have that same ability to convey a layer of inner strength that Sigourney Weaver did, but it's a decent performance given she only really learnt English after hitting the spotlight in the 'Girl With..' series.
Fassbender's David is both the best performance in the film and the most interesting character, albeit one that doesn't really quite make sense. In some excellent early scenes he's establish as being an android along the lines of Ash and Bishop as he monitors ship and sleeping crew alone on the long voyage out.
Fassbender gives him a very convincing sense of being almost human but just being that little bit 'off', a sort of uncanny valley sense about him. Things are muddled though as we are told repeatedly he is incapable of feelings yet we often see him smiling to himself and apparently experiencing wonder. The biggest problem though is he clearly has a secret agenda fairly on and no-one on the crew appears either smart enough (desptie him being fairly obvious about it) to notice or call him on it. He's also a little convienet and used to shorthand the story a couple of times. Why have people work out the alien writing when your android can 'learn it' by deconstructing early Earth languages whilst everyone else sleeps?
It's the story that does let things down in the main. It has some interesting ideas but to me the twists were fairly obviously signposted and chunks of it really don't make a lot of sense.
So we have a expedition led to this planet by archaeological finds. Eventually we learn the 'enigneers' as they get called don't live on this planet and the facility that is found just seems to somekind of evil goo producing factory. So why signpost it to other civilisations?
Anyway, our crew arrive but not at the planet in Alien, find a mysterious structure and investigate. Inside for some reason there are helpful holograms that show them the way forward. We find a temple like room with a statue of a human face and jars of some black goo. This goo seems to either mutant things like worms into snake like things, people into super zombies or just disintegrate people from the inside. It's never clearly establish why each of these different things happen.
Eventually two of the crew get separated, one has face dissolved in our first encounter with that famous acidic blood whilst the other is grabbed but what is basically a protoface hugger. No-one seems to notice they're missing for a long, long time despite knowing they had been separated from the group.
Meanwhile David has taken some of the goo back to the ship, an 'engineer' head explodes for an unexplained reason and a storm arrives. Vickers' has a joke about sex - almost literally one of the three things she actually does and then David poisons Holloway with the goo. Seemingly just for the hell of it. Meanwhile Shaw discovers we have the same DNA as the 'engineer' aliens.
Holloway then impregnates Shaw, gets sick but in a different way to how we've see the goo affect other things and then basically forces Vickers to flambe him. Just after this the chap who was proto-face hugged turns up as a sort of zombie managing to kill a handful of the faceless crew before being stopped in a sequence that seems to have slipped in from The Thing.
Shaw escapes isolation (after being placed there due her contact with Holloway - despite the fact that at this point everyone else has had the same level of contact to the knowledge of the crew) after discovering she is pregnant by knocking out two of the crew who fail to raise the alarm at all it seems. I say this because she then successfully carries out a cesarean section on herself to extract a alien squid from her womb which seemingly is ready to be born despite only being hours old without anyone trying to stop or assist her.
Meanwhile David has found a sleeping 'engineer', learnt how to work the alien ships, the Captain decides it's all a weapons factory despite setting foot off his ship once and old-man Weyland emerges from his not-so secret hiding place. Weyland, David, Shaw and some other people we don't care about then go to talk to the 'engineer'
Said 'engineer' however is not friendly, kills Weyland and the other non-descript characters and pulls David's head off. Shaw however despite having had surgery only hours ago manages to run away.
The 'engineer' begins to take off so he can go to Earth and kill everything for some reason but is prevented by Captain Elba flying into his ship as it launches.
Shaw survives the crash but is then attacked by the 'enginner' whom she kills by luring to the still alive alien squid that she birthed which has now become a huge Lovecraftian thing that proceeds to facehug the 'engineer'.
She then retrieves David's head and body and takes off with him to find the home planet of the 'engineer' aliens with everyone else already dead (Vickers is amusingly crushed during the crash).
Finally the face hugged 'engineer' has a proto-Xeno burst from him.
A proto-Xeno that was implanted by a giant squid, which was birthed from a woman who had sex with a goo infected man. So either the Xeno's are a random development or these 'engineers' have a really strange way of going about things.
So what was Weyland trying to find? What were the 'engineer' aliens actually doing? Why did they all die bar one? Why build this temple? What is the black goo and what exactly is it supposed to do? Why did that guy become a zombie? Why were the 'engineers' trying to kill humanity after seemingly having created it? Why did the 'engineer' ship seen in Alien apparently decide to store a cargo of Xeno eggs on it's bridge?
Basically none of the main questions that stem from Alien are answered, all that is achieved is to take away some of the sense of wonder from that ship. Whilst the 'stand alone' story that Ridley has championed is underwhelming because you don't care about any of the characters and it doesn't really make any sense (you can feel the pen of Damon 'Lost' Lindelof trying too hard to throw in some curveballs)
The film also film also feels quite disjointed with characters seemingly jumping to certain conclusions/decisions very quickly - it definitely feels like a lot has been left on the cutting room floor. Fully expect a longer cut to emerge at some point that hopefully will fill in some of the gaps.
It looked great but has fallen into the trap I fear of trying to explain something that was so much more interesting as some unknown, imagined story. They've tried to remove the mystery whilst keeping a sense of mystery and left themselves with a inconclusive mess that in the end all feels a bit hollow.
Right postings last year were a little bit stop and start but I shall at least pretend to try and be a bit more active this year for a little while.
First it's time to take a look at 'Senna' director Asif Kapadia's documentary about the Formula career of Ayrton Senna The film itself is constructed from existing footage of Senna from race broadcasts, family home videos, news reports, TV interviews of the day and is shaped by commentary from those who knew and worked with Senna
It's a brillant move to create the story this way and it is of course helped by the sensational career of the man himself. In fact Senna's rivalry with Alain Prost could almost be purposefully written for a sports drama
It does have to be said this is a somewhat blemish free treatment of Senna (it can be argued that he was indeed arrogant) but it's hard to detract too much from the determined man of faith presented here, especially in the sections that highlight how much the man meant to his country (and his country to him).
I challenge anyone not to be thrilled by the racing action caught here, outraged by the FIA's campaign against him, inspired by his determination to be all he could be and of course not moved and saddened by the events of that fateful weekend in Imola.
A fantastic chronicle of extra-ordinary career, recommended for even those with no knowledge or interest in the sport - the human story tells it all here.
