NEW RELEASE: Gods Of Egypt

Gods Of Egypt

(Director: Alex Proyas.  Starring: Brenton Twaites, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Gerard Butler, Geoffrey Rush)

Last year Ridley Scott released his biblical epic Exodus: Gods & Kings to much fanfare but also criticism over the film's decision to cast most of the lead roles with caucasian actors.  The most obvious example being casting the Pharaoh of Egypt with Joel Edgerton, an actor from Australia, which is about as far from North African lineage as you can get.  This seemed particularly egregious considering the proximity to the Oscars diversity row and larger conversation about Hollywood whitewashing.

Michael Jackson, apparently

Now we have Alex Proyas' Gods Of Egypt which caused controversy as soon as the first posters released revealed the gods of the title to be played by the very Scottish Gerard Butler and the Danish Nikolaj Coster-Waldau which isn't the most obvious casting considering that both those countries are well known for their large population of Gingers, the closest thing we have in the real world to those albino vampires in Blade II.  Then just to make sure they stuffed two famous Australians in there too (in the form of FX's Bryan Brown and a surprisingly unembarrassed Geoffrey Rush).

Although the most shocking part is just finding out that Bryan Brown is alive and working

However the plot doesn't begin with the characters played by any of these actors but with a young thief called Bek played by Brenton Twaites.  Bek (who is first introduced in the kind of cliched 'old man looking back at his glory years' voiceover guaranteed to make you roll your eyes at the character before he even appears on screen) is a human peasant filling in the Aladdin-esque role of loveable rogue caught up in the battle between supernatural forces of good and evil.  Well, at least he is supposed to, but lacks both lovability and roguishness and instead looks like an Abercrombie & Fitch model with no acting experience who has bumbled onto the wrong set.  He looks about as Egyptian as the Sydney Opera House and has the on-screen charm and charisma of the remains of a digestive biscuit found in the back pocket of a pair of jeans you just took out the washing machine.  In short, he comes across exactly like you'd expect of someone with the name Brenton Twaites.

One of these arseholes surely MUST be called 'Brenton.'

His plot revolves around his love for Zaya, an equally unrealistically photogenic slave played by Courtney Eaton (oddly being now the 4th Australian in the lead cast).  Zaya is introduced as having pretty much zero characterisation beyond her inexplicable adoration of the god Horus, her even more inexplicable love for Bek and her collection of extremely low cut dresses.  She has almost the same screen presence as a shadow of a chair.  Eaton appears to have been cast in this film for only two reasons but shortly after being introduced she takes an arrow through the left one and into her heart leading to Bek having to devise a plan to retrieve her from the afterlife.

Yes, that was a boob joke.  I'm sorry.
Seriously though, these people can't act.

Meanwhile, the Gods have problems of their own.  Osiris, the king of Egypt, has decided that it is time to pass on his throne to his son Horus (it's not entirely clear why though as the gods appear to be immortal and therefore ageless so it's not like he's just received his bus pass or anything.)   Horus is introduced waking from a bad hangover amongst a harem of beautiful but confusingly tiny human women.  You see in this film the gods appear exactly the same as humans apart from that they are considerably larger.  Proyas uses some effective CGI to make Nikolaj Coster-Waldau appear much taller than the actors alongside him.  However due to the rather flat framing choices this effect is less reminiscent of ancient murals of deities looming over their subjects than it is of those really awkward film posters created when none of the actors were available at the same time and the person photoshopping them in doesn't seem to understand how perspective or physical space works.

What the hell is going on here?

The coronation ceremony is interrupted by the late arrival of Osiris' brother Set who is shouted and flailed around ('played' being too subtle a word) by Gerard Butler.  At first everyone is pleased to see their long absent relative despite the fact that he wouldn't be any more clearly villainous if his name was Backstab O'Betrayerson and a demonic imp followed him around with a ghetto blaster blaring Diamond Head's 'Am I Evil?' wherever he goes.  In the least shocking plot twist ever Set stabs Osiris and crowns himself the new king of Egypt.  When Horus opposes him, Set fights him one on one, steals his eyes (apparently the gods can be taken apart and put together just like Lego models) and eventually his girlfriend (apparently the female characters in this film are merely objects to be bargained and/or rewarded to powerful men/gods rather than, you know, human beings with arcs of their own.)    Shortly after assuming power Set decides to enslave the humans to build a ludicrously giant obelisk in honour of himself for reasons that the scriptwriters never really explain (although I'm sure Sigmund Freud would have a few ideas why).  He also decides that from this point on the dead will only be allowed safely into the afterlife based on their level of worldly possessions.  Again, there is no obvious reason why Set, or his kingdom of Egypt, benefits at all from this ruling so it seems that he has decided to completely fuck over the poor and desperate for absolutely no gain or reason other than the simple joy of being cruel.

This picture just spontaneously reposted itself for some reason.
*cough*

And so, after all this set up and exposition we finally get to the main plot.  Our 'hero' Bek must now find the now blind and depressed Horus, help him to regain his eyes and then his kingdom, defeating Set and freeing his deceased love from a fate beyond death.  The main thrust of the movie now comes from Horus as he learns to be humble and decent as he goes to war against Set and his legions of evil.

I'm not sure where they could've got the idea for Coster-Waldau playing a cocky, privileged
asshole forced to become a better person after losing his most celebrated body part

Unfortunately much of the runtime is instead spent on various dull side quests as Bek first must find Horus' eyes, then some sacred water which weakens Set's powers and then recruit allies to help fight alongside them.  Apparently all the gods are now at war with Set's forces and losing fast with many of them killed or tempted to his side in the process (why they didn't all just rush him during his fight with Horus at the start is, like so many questions I had during this film, never explained).  One of the Gods approached as a potential ally is Thoth, the god of knowledge who is played by Chadwick Boseman.  Boseman recently impressed me in Captain America: Civil War where he played the hero Black Panther with charisma and a strong sense of dignity and intelligence.  Here he has instead decided to play the wisest of the gods by Speaking. In. Pauses. Like. He's. William. Fucking. Shatner.  It's as odd as it sounds but at least it does give him some distinct character (something painfully lacking in this film) and the scenes that he is in are probably the most entertaining ones in the film. 

Overall the film is a massive mess of weird mythology, hastily abandoned subplots and simply perplexing choices.  (I haven't even mentioned the fact that the Gods can turn into giant badly rendered CGI robot animals which they sometimes, but perplexingly don't always, use to fight each other)  By the end of the film I was left with so many confusing questions that I barely knew where to start (why is Set's architect now also his high priest? Does Geoffrey Rush have a bathroom on his magic space boat?  Were all these costumes bought second hand from a Christmas pantomime?)

Oh no they weren't...
OH YES THEY WERE!

In many ways it reminded me of the equally batshit insane Jupiter Ascending which was one of my guilty pleasures from last year.  Unfortunately although I can admire the sheer ambition that went into Gods of Egypt and the range of high concept ideas that have been crammed into it's runtime I couldn't help but be bored more often than entertained by it.  Where a film like Jupiter Ascending threw itself fully into scenery chewing camp ridiculousness and give us loads of meme-worthy nonsense to play with (Eddie Redmayne's whisper shouting; Sean Bean playing a Bee?  Mila Kunis FUCKS DOGS?!) Gods Of Egypt still tries to take itself too seriously and it's attempts at charm and humour fall awkwardly flat.

Although the cast trying to portray serious drama while
looking like this is pretty funny, I'll admit

Overall the film ends up a convoluted mess of every single weird thought that seemed to run through director Alex Proyas' head.  I'd suggest that the film should maybe have hewn closer to the original mythology of ancient Egypt, but it is somehow even more insane as Horus apparently originally bested Set by wanking on his salad.  (Much like last years '50 Shades of Grey,' this may be one of the few instances where the inevitable porn parody is actually both more accurate to the source material than the film it is spoofing and probably as accomplished in plotting and dialogue.)

Remember kids, THIS was an international bestseller

Proyas is far from the most prolific of directors and after the strength of his 90s one-two punch of The Crow and Dark City many film fans wait for his returns to big budget filmmaking with the anticipation of the Second Coming of Christ.  Sadly after sitting through the cringe inducing dialogue and endless dull action of Gods of Egypt I can't help but feel that faith in Alex Proyas as some sort of lost great visionary maybe will be lost in time much like the faith in the very gods this film is named after.

NEW RELEASES: Alice Through The Looking Glass & The Nice Guys

Alice Through The Looking Glass

(Director: James Bobin.  Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter)

Tim Burton's 2010 adaption of Alice In Wonderland was a surprise hit.  It made over $1 billion at the box office becoming the fifth highest grossing film of all time.  This puts a ridiculous amount of pressure on James Bobin, the director of it's belated sequel 'Alice Through The Looking Glass' to match people's high expectations of his films potential.  He doesn't have to worry about me though.  I have no expectations.  I fucking hated Alice In Wonderland.

Nothing to do with Lewis Carroll of course.  I hated the incoherent plotting of Burton's film.  I hated it's garish overuse of CGI.  I hated it's bizarre tonal shifts between overly twee and suddenly bleak rewordings of the story.  Most of all I hated Johnny Depp's overly mannered, irritating, unlikeable version of the Mad Hatter which I'd taken as the absolute proof that Depp had finally given up on any sort of believable acting to focus on clowning around in various ridiculous costumes.  (As one of my henchmen so beautifully put it, he's less of an actor now than an elaborate hatstand.) Shortly after watching it for the first time I joked that the previously talented Mr Burton, Mr Depp, Ms Bonham-Carter and Mr Elfman should be legally required to stay away each other on film sets in order to foster their talents in a less self-satisfied, chummy environment (of course, in 2016, Burton and Bonham-Carter's relationship has sadly ended off set instead and it's quite plausible for Depp to be court ordered to keep certain distance from someone so that comment really isn't very funny any more)

Alice Through The Looking Glass begins with a scene of (the titular) Alice commanding a ship as it sails through Chinese seas, battered by a storm and pursued by pirates (this film apparently has decided to continue that bizarre subplot from the first, suggesting that Alice might now be an international drug-trader partially responsible for the First Opium War).  Alice, of course, escapes but only through some ludicrously implausible sailing manoeuvres.  I understand that this scene is intended to show Alice's strength of will and how great a sacrifice it would be for her to risk losing her ship but it kinda ruins the films tone from the very beginning.  I always feel that a good fantasy film, unless entirely set within a fantasy world, has to first establish the drudging mundanity of normal life to act as a contrast to the magic.  If Alice is already living in a rip-roaring cartoonish 'Pirates of the Carribean'-esque world then Wonderland itself will surely pale in comparison.

Of course, the adventures in the real world don't last long as Alice's current employer (and former suitor) Hamish has dastardly plans to force Alice to settle down into a boring life on land as revenge for rejecting him. (Keeping up the cartoonish tone, Hamish is such a ridiculous caricature of pompous assholery that I'd be surprised if every second line in his scenes doesn't actually state [Hamish snorts in derision.])

Wait a minute... does anyone else think he looks
a bit like David Cameron?

So Alice escapes to Wonderland (or 'Underland' as this film prefers to call it) after being guided there by Absolem the butterfly, played by the late, great Alan (Fucking) Rickman.  Rickman's involvement was one of the most appealing factors in convincing me to watch this film and it's always a pleasure to hear his sonorous tones again on film.  However his role in this film is barely more than one brief scene to drop some necessary exposition so those hoping to see him sneer at someone with glorious contempt would be better served by last months 'Eye In The Sky' which is both a better Rickman performance and better film in general)

In fact this film returns the excellent support cast of the first film (including Michael Sheen, Timothy Spall, Stephen Fry, Matt Lucas, Barbara Windsor and Paul Whitehouse) to only have them appear all at once to do nothing more than pine over the absent Hatter.  (I doubt so many talented voices have ever been assembled to do so little)

The Hatter, it seems, has gone the bad sort of mad.  A hollow husk of his former self he is filled with despair and fits between catatonia and sudden worrying mood swings.

Posted without comment

It seems the only thing that can save him is for Alice to travel back in time and try to save his family from the fate which haunts him.  (Bizarrely the Hatter's father in all these scenes is played by Rhys Ifans, a man four years younger than his onscreen son, Depp)

And this is where our films new villain comes in.  Time, played by Sacha Baron Cohen is waiting in the wings, speaking of senseless things.  His trick is you and me, readers! 

Thankfully, he neither flexes like a whore, nor falls wanking to the floor.

Sascha Baron Cohen is arguably the films MVP giving a ridiculously OTT performance as the lord of time itself.  He is by turn buffonish, threatening and ultimately sympathetic.  He has an oddly fascinating accent which veers wildly from the pretentious French one he used in Hugo to his usual rough English brogue but (most entertainingly) for the most part it sounds like he's doing a solid impression of the hilariously nihilistic film director Werner Herzog.  Seriously, I am always happy to see some trace of Werner Herzog in my family-friendly fantasy movies.

Civilisation is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of 
chaos and darkness.  Bibbity Bobbity Boo!.

In fact the villains are the strongest part of this film overall.  Helena Bonham Carter returns as the cruel, childish Red Queen and once again it is joy to watch her sadistic guffaw every time one of film's annoying protagonists gets hurt. (Even if her performances still feels heavily indebted to Miranda Richardson's brilliant turn on Blackadder II)


The first film's other villain gets a slight nod as well as a skeleton wearing the costume of the Knave of Hearts is seen in one scene suggesting that Crispin Glover maybe once again fell out with film makers between a popular film and it's sequel.  (Although this time they thankfully didn't just hang him upside down in room of fax machines.)

The time travel plot does give the film a new sense of freshness and interest but sadly most of the films runtime is used on either scenes featuring the Hatter's infuriating shtick or a sub-plot intent on humanising the Red Queen.  The latter feels a particular waste since this can only take away from the enjoyment found watching her glorious terribleness and also because it means we spend more time with Anne Hathaway waving her right arm around in circles for no goddamn reason.

The film also suffers from some of the same tonal shifts as it's predecessor (we jump quite suddenly from scenes of the Red Queen humorously struggling to fit a crown over her enlarged head to scenes of her burning a whole village alive in vengeance).  I had hoped that James Bobin would bring some of the charm that he did to Flight of the Conchords or the recent Muppet movies (or at least give us a song by Bret McKenzie) but his style seems lost in the mix.

The central message of this film seems to be that the past cannot be altered but can be learned from.  This seems a fitting description of the film itself.  James Bobin has certainly made a film which is more focussed and coherent than the previous Alice In Wonderland, but ultimately, it cannot escape from the mistakes made in that film to really become something I could recommend as worth giving up a couple of hours of your time.

The Nice Guys

(Director: Shane Black.  Starring: Ryan Gosling, Russell Crowe, Angourie Rice, Kim Basinger)

I have to say that, when first asked, the idea of going to see a film called 'The Nice Guys' did not appeal to me.  From my time spent having conversations online I have soon learned that most men who refer to themselves as 'Nice Guys' often tend to be emotionally unstable,  reactionary manchilden who throw tantrums if they aren't instantly rewarded every time they manage to act like functional adults and, worst of all, tend to think that it's acceptable to wear a brightly coloured trilbies along with their cargo shorts and stained Kid Rock t-shirts thus damning the world of pretentious hat-wearing by association.

Real men know a good hat should always be accompanied by a
matching suit and a large glass of single malt scotch.

Thankfully the title appears to be more ironic as the two leads are both self confessed assholes struggling to find some sort of integrity as they are forced into doing something good for once.  Also the film features the worlds favourite feminist sex puppy Ryan Gosling, so that should avoid any confusion.  It also features Russell Crowe, but...er... hey, Ryan Gosling!

The Nice Guys has mainly been promoting itself as a buddy movie between these two stars.  However the truly interesting partnership on show here is that of producer Joel Silver and writer/director Shane Black who jointly brought us Lethal Weapon 1 & 2, The Last Boy Scout and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.  In fact coming off of the mixed reactions to Iron Man 3 it's good to see Shane Black returning to what feels more like home turf.  In fact, The Nice Guys almost feels like a Shane Black greatest hits package since it features all of his favourite tropes from the mismatched leads working a case together, a kidnapping plot which reveals a larger conspiracy, a precocious child character,  the film industry itself being used as a setting, snappy, sarcastic voiceovers and even a brief scene set during Christmastime.

The film may have been advertised as a two hander from the two gentlemen on the poster but the central relationship of the film is the awkward three-way friendship which forms between Jackson Healy (Crowe), Holland March (Gosling) and March's young daughter played with wit and charm by newcomer actress Angourie Rice.

Even if she has a name which sounds like an
ingredient from a hipster, vegan quinoa pot.

The film is set in 1977 Los Angeles (I knew I was going to enjoy this as soon as the films title appeared in neon font to a soundtrack of slap bass and wah-wah guitars).  Ryan Gosling plays a corrupt, bumbling Private Investigator who is investigating the apparent sighting of a recently deceased pornstar.  One of his leads in the investigation doesn't want found however so hires Russell Crowe's brutish enforcer to convince him to stay away.  Of course someone else is searching for the girl for more nefarious reasons and soon our two leads are forced to join up in order to try and save her and work out what the hell they've been dragged into.

With it's neo-noir genre trappings and dark sense of humour, this film almost works as a sort of sister film to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and it will certainly appeal to fans of that film.  There are nods to L.A. Confidential too from the sleazy Hollywood setting and grim conspiracies (not to mention the fact that both films feature Crowe as well as Kim Basinger).  There's more than a little Boogie Nights too to the film's debauched 70s detail.

The film is a riot throughout.  It's exciting, witty and genuinely laugh out loud funny at times. Ryan Gosling reveals himself to be a gifted physical comedian and Russell Crowe gets his best role in years as the heavy with a hidden kindness.  They are also complimented by a solid support cast featuring the previously mentioned Kim Basinger in blunt and icy mode, an unnerving Matt Bomer and the always enjoyable Keith David (who recently leant his wry gravitas to the otherwise disappointing final season of Community.)

6 Seasons & a Movie?  I'd prefer 3 Seasons and consistent quality.

I don't want to say anything more about this film to avoid spoiling any of the jokes or clever plotting but I will wholeheartedly recommend it.  Go see The Nice Guys.  It's the most entertaining film out right now and, despite the old saying, it deserves to finish first.

NEW RELEASES: Money Monster & Warcraft: The Beginning

Money Monster

(Director: Jodie Foster.  Starring: George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jack O'Connell)

Money Monster, the new movie by Jodie Foster is built around the titular fictional television show which purports to be a financial programme offering insights into the stock market but seems to mainly consist of George Clooney dancing around in silly costumes with a pair of showgirls and playing clips from old movies.  I'd suggest that this is a ridiculous satire but having watched what gets passed off a 'news' in the USA this show seems oddly plausible.  One such airing of this show is interrupted when a young delivery man (played by Jack O'Connell) storms onto the set armed with a gun and an explosive vest and demanding for the show to continue until he gets answers to why his recent investment failed.  Meanwhile the shows director (Julia Roberts) remains stranded in the studio gallery trying to maintain some control of the insane circus she is now being forced to direct.

Foster has some previous experience with stories involving a woman trying to
maintain control of a situation where a dangerous man is separated from her by glass.

Money Monster's greatest selling point is it's A-List cast.  George Clooney, in an echo of his Oscar nominated turn in Up In The Air plays a self-righteous corporate blowhard who is forced to question his whole outlook on life over the course of the film.  His ability to play smarmy arrogance is put to great use in the early sections of the film but his turn towards empathy and integrity by the end feels a little bit forced and unlikely.  Jack O'Connell (an actor who was so good in 2013's Starred Up that it helped me forgot that the awful 300: Rise of an Empire existed) brings a natural intensity to the role of the put-upon everyman on a desperate bid for retribution.  However the best performance in the film goes to Julia Roberts who, much like in her recent roles in August: Osage County and the Secret In Their Eyes remake, plays a strong woman powering through a troubled situation with quiet grit and determination (also like both those films, the performance feels like it deserves to be in a stronger movie overall.)

I'm not sure how her performance in Mother's Day ranks as I'd
rather set myself on fire than pay to see it.

Jodie Foster does a solid job of keeping the film moving at a steady pace.  There is enough tension and mystery to keep you entertained throughout and there is a surprising number of genuinely funny moments dotted throughout the runtime (an ill-advised attempt to get someone to talk O'Connell down is an unexpectedly harsh highlight.)  Where the film lacks bite however is in it's attempts at satire which, whether the target is the financial system or the media, has been done better before (Julia Robert's attempts to keep the televised hostage drama looking professional have a slight air of Sidney Lumet's 'Network' about them for one.)  The plot pivots around the idea that a major financial business could just lose $800m overnight and get away with blaming it on nothing more than a computer glitch without any further investigation by regulatory bodies or the media.  Even considering the ridiculous wheeler-dealing that major banks get away with, this seem rather ludicrous and makes it impossible to see the film as relevant to any real-life scenario.  Also a rather silly third act relies on Clooney's previously unscrupulous lead suddenly becoming protective of the man who has been threatening his life for the previous hour and puts finding him the answers he wants above his own safety.

Still despite this, Foster manages to keep the plot speeding forward throughout the film's well paced 90mins (not enough films these days keep the runtime down to such a sharp succinct level) and the there's enough tension and dark humour to keep things fun.

So ultimately the question is whether giving Money Monster your time would be a good investment?  Well that depends on your circumstances.  If you are already planning to go to the cinema and are looking for a film which will keep you entertained for 90mins then Money Monster is a solid low-risk choice.  However if you seek an intelligent and angry satire of the recent economic situation then you'd be better served by either the Oscar Nominated 'The Big Short' or the less known but subtly biting 'Margin Call.'  And if you seek a film that will give you a perfect mix of thrills, laughs, tragedy and dark satire of the way a violent confrontation can quickly turn into a media spectacle, well then the smart money would instead go on Sidney Lumet's 1975 classic 'Dog Day Afternoon.'

Warcraft: The Beginning

(Director: Duncan Jones.  Starring: Travis Fimmel, Paula Patton, Ben Foster, Dominic Cooper)

Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien was first published in 1954 and sent shockwaves around the whole genre of fantasy writing inspiring thousands of books, comics, films and games to start filling their universes with Elves, Dwarves and Orcs.  In 1983, inspired by Tolkein's works, Games Workshop created the world of Warhammer for their tabletop games which pitted armies of these beings against each other.  In the 90s, the computer game company Blizzard attempted to buy the rights to Warhammer as a basis for a Real Time Strategy game.  This plan fell through but instead inspired the creative minds at Blizzard to come up with their own universe which reworked those influences into their own unique brand.  The first Warcraft game was released in 1994.  World of Warcraft, released in 2004, adapted the story of the strategy game into a large open-world MMORG becoming a global phenomenon which inspired a series of novels expanding the mythology of the game.  Now we have the new film which is directly based upon storylines taken from those novels.

This means that director Duncan Jones has been challenged to the unenviable task of adapting a film from a spin-off of an adaption of a knock-off of a tribute while still trying to inject it with enough original spirit to stand on it's own.  Not an easy task.

Warcraft begins in Draenor, the homeworld of the orcs, which is beginning to die off.  In order to survive the orcs band together under the leadership of a sinister shaman called Gul'dan to build a portal with which the orcs can use to escape to the more hospitable world of Azeroth.  Unfortunately the magic used to power the portal requires death to work so a small army of orcs make the first journey in order to find live victims to bring back to charge the portal so that the rest of the orc 'Horde' can join them in their new world.  Meanwhile the humans who rule over Azeroth prepare themselves to fight back this invasion.

As a citizen of Glasgow, I'm used to being overrun by a terrifying green Horde

To describe the plot further would be a bad idea as it involves multiple characters over many locations being drawn into this central conflict and it would take the entire length of this review to cover it all so I will jump straight to my feelings about the film.  Now there are two ways that this film can be approached.  Either it can be treated as nothing more than a multi-million dollar piece of fanservice for the 12 million people who have subscribed to play World of Warcraft online or it can be treated as a standalone film in it's own right unbeholden to any larger mythology.  As someone who has never played a single second of any of the Warcraft series, I will have to approach this review from the latter viewpoint.  Unfortunately this is where it begins to fall apart.

The sheer scale of the film's mythology (or 'lore' as I've been advised to call it) is both it's greatest strength and the burden which ultimately ruins it.  Apparently one of Duncan  Jones' major contributions to the script was the idea that the orcs would be treated as equal leads to the humans rather than simply as rote villains.  He was successful in this effort but maybe too successful as the lead orc characters end up being so much more interesting and engaging than the fairly generic and underwritten human protagonists that you spend all the human scenes wanting to get back to them.  

This guy looks like he'd be more at home getting stoned in an alley behind
 a video rental store in a 90s comedy than casting spells to save the world

There are so many characters and plot points to cover during the film's 123m runtime that none of them feel like they have been given the time required to properly serve them.  So we end up with a film which simultaneously feels both too long and too short.  When major characters are killed we feel nothing as we have not been given any reason to connect with them enough to feel the loss and the film moves onto the next set piece before we've had a chance to really see the effect these deaths have on the other characters.  Similarly, one big twist (involving a character being revealed to be possessed by evil) is both obviously predictable and very confusing as we are given no explanation how or when this happened or how much of their behaviour in the film was their real self and how much was the actions of the demonic spirit within them.  The film is also inconsistent tonally and can't seem to decide whether to embrace the campy fun ridiculous elements of the setting fully or whether to aim for the more self-serious and tragic vibe found in, say, the Lord of the Rings movies or Game of Thrones.  Instead we end up in an awkward middle ground which is too silly to take seriously but too dry give us the barnstorming cartoon adventure that it has the potential to be.  (It doesn't help that Ramin Djawdi's score is often very similar to his own 'Baratheon theme' from the far darker world of Game of Thrones)  It also doesn't help that many of the lead roles seem oddly miscast.  Glenn Close even appears for a cameo which is both even shorter and stranger (although less enjoyable) than her surprise appearance in Guardians of the Galaxy (a film which knew how to turn a ludicrous plot filled with bizarre characters into something very entertaining).  Oddly, both Dominic Cooper and Ruth Negga from the TV adaption of Preacher appear in roles which do not require their natural charisma and which only succeed in reminding you how much more fun this film could be if it also featured a drunken Irish vampire.

Arseface?

In the end, the film succeeds in creating a fascinating world that is enjoyable to spend time in but lacking in a human connection to give it any emotional power.  Considering that Duncan Jones managed to make you laugh, cry and sweat in his debut movie 'Moon' (a film featuring only Sam Rockwell stuck in a room with a talking emoji played by Kevin Spacey) it's a shame to see him struggle to make the epic scale of the Warcraft universe as compelling.  Ultimately, watching Warcraft the movie is as personally engaging as watching someone else playing a game of World of Warcraft.  It can make for an intriguing watch but you can't help but feel that your time would be better spent just playing it yourself.  

NEW RELEASES: X-Men - Apocalypse

X-Men: Apocalypse

(Director: Bryan Singer.  Starring:  James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac)

A couple of weeks ago I read a headline which stated "Comic fans X-static to discover Wolverine appears in new X-Men movie!"  This was a rather silly headline and not just because of the godawful attempt at a pun. (Seriously, I gambit I could forge a dazzler of an X-Men pun in a blink without any of the havoc that beastly attempt caused.) 

Wolverine has featured in at least a cameo appearance in eight films featuring X-Men characters (and as a hilarious meta reference in the ninth: 'Deadpool.')  When you consider that by owning the X-Men series, Fox has the rights to over 240 original Marvel characters to use however they want, the fact that they keep returning to the same one is less exciting than it is a worrying sign that they are either lazy or desperately out of ideas.  To be honest, I'd be more excited to be told that the next X-Men film 'won't mention Wolverine at all' as this would force the filmmakers to focus on a new interesting and coherent story instead of simply trading on previous successes.

Luckily, much like with his brilliant one line appearance in X-Men: First Class, Wolverine is used quite cleverly in a way that is both enjoyable without distracting from the main thrust of the story which he doesn't greatly influence (also, like that First Class cameo, this film uses it's one rating allowed 'fuck' in the dialogue in the best way it could, although in a different scene with a different character).

Sadly not the Kelsey Grammar version of Beast though.

Unfortunately, outside of this scene, my worries that the film may become muddled and unsatisfying in an attempt to reference past glories was somewhat correct.  The film introduces us to some new characters but also many that we have previously seen in other X-Men films even though their appearance and ages here make the timeline of the series into an even more convoluted and contradictory mess than already was (Although  if, like me, you simply pretend that X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine don't exist then both this film, and the world in general, make much more sense)

If I keep my eyes closed it's like this shit isn't happening.

For example, there is a popular moment in the original X-Men movie where the team get split up and once some of them re-group Cyclops asks Wolverine to prove that he's not Mystique disguised as him.  Wolverine simply replies 'you're a dick' which is evidence enough for the others to believe him.  However, now due to this film, Mystique has met Cyclops years before the events of that film.  Now she would know exactly how much of a dick he is!

Also a major theme in every X-Men film right back from the first is how human society is being unfair and prejudiced to mutants, treating them as dangerous weapons that need to be controlled rather than innocent people deserving freedom and equality.  When you consider that in every one of these prequel movies the Earth is almost destroyed by the actions of a handful of crazed, evil mutants then each one only makes the case being fought by the mutantophobic politicians in the early movies even stronger.

I can read the minds of every living person on Earth, erase your memories
and brainwash you to do whatever I please but don't worry I've just teleported
into the office of the US President with my team of trained super powered soldiers
to explain that there is nothing to be afraid of.

So to the plot: Barring a squish-tastic pre-credit sequence where mega-baddie Apocalypse is first defeated in Ancient Egypt by some guys armed with some well placed stone blocks (somewhat deflating his threat level when he returns to destroy us later on) the majority of the film is set in 1983, ten years after the previous X-Men: Days Of Future Past and 20 years since X-Men: First Class (apparently all the characters from that film have aged miraculously well and barely look any different since then).

The main story begins when Rose Byrne's character Moira McTaggart goes to Egypt to search for information on the said title character, an ancient mutant of world destroying power (most likely to get revenge on some REALLY annoying neighbours of hers) and witnesses his awakening (which only required a handful of guys chanting together for five minutes but apparently still took about five thousand years to happen).

Posted without comment.

Apocalypse then sets out choosing the most powerful mutants he can find to become his new Four Horsemen to bring about the destruction of all civilisation.  These henchmen consist of Magneto, who has the ability to control metal with such power that he can rip minerals out of the earth and tear down bridges and buildings, Storm who can control the weather to the degree that she can create devastating hurricanes and fire lightning from her hands and Angel who... er... has a pair of wings I guess (which I suppose lets him use all his energy flapping them to keep up with the other two while they levitate effortlessly.)

I'd comment Psylocke's powers but even just after watching
 the film I still don't really understand what they are?

Storm is actually given quite a good introduction as a young, angry, African teenager using her powers for petty theft until she is approached by the titular villain and convinced that she is made for something bigger.  (In an early scene when knife wielding man asks here 'Do you know what I they do with thieves around here?' I almost hoped someone would say the hilariously shit follow-up 'Same thing they do with everyone else!")

I would've liked to have seen more of Storm developing as a character (especially seeing her turning from bad to good while inspired by Mystique who is destined to go in the other direction) but unfortunately the film feels the need to cram in so many characters that each of them feels underserved by the narrative.  

As in previous instalments, Michael Fassbender's Magneto is aptly the most magnetic presence on screen and once again imbues Eric Lehnsherr with both tragic vulnerability and uncontrolled fury.  However by the third act, much like Storm, he spends a long sequence pretty much literally hovering around while the plot goes on around him.

Of course during these scenes Magneto is responsible for much of the massive destruction shown in the trailers but that makes no difference since the actual carnage has little to no emotional effect on the audience.  Whether it's the main characters' total indifference to the thousands of lives ended or destroyed, the lack of a ground POV or simply the fact that the CGI effects used feel too empty and weightless to connect as reality but the scenes of citywide disaster leave very little impression on those watching.  You can't help but get the feeling that you'd care more about the buildings and bridges being tore apart if they were made of Lego.

the horror...the horror...

Magneto's lack of direct conflict with Xavier removes a lot of tension from the film's climax as much of this series emotional power comes from watching these former allies forced into fighting against each other (a theme continued with mixed success by this years other big superhero movies: Captain America: Civil War and Batman Vs Superman: Yawn of Martha)

"I have to save him, he's my best friend"
Batman talking about the guy he literally tried to murder for no
reason one scene ago and has only apparently met twice beforehand.

Instead the conflict of the movie centres on Oscar Isaac's new villain Apocalypse.  Apocalypse is given suitable hype as a truly dangerous force to contend with (it's not like he's named 'Temporary Discomfort' or anything) but he can't help but feel somewhat underwhelming overall.  Isaac is a great actor who can bring quiet intensity to a variety of roles but here he is buried under so much make-up and OTT costuming that he looks like a villain from a 90's kids TV show like Power Rangers.  It could be literally anyone straining to be taken seriously underneath all that face paints.

Oscar Isaac is an anagram of Ivan Ooze.
Coincidence?  I think not!

Ironically, despite Apocalypse spending the full runtime looking like a big blue Robert Z'dar, the producers seem keen to keep the majority of the young sexy X Men looking exactly like their bankable stars.  Although Mystique has previously been shown to be able to look like anyone at any time but having to put effort in to appear as anything other than a Blue Meanie she spends almost the entire length of the film looking exactly like Jennifer Lawrence while giving rousing speeches to teenagers.  Hank McCoy happens to have found a successful cure for this mutant powers so he can look just like rising star Nicholas Hoult and only turns into Beast once he's required to start fighting.

Again, sadly not Kelsey Grammer's Beast.

Despite this nitpicking, there are many positives to be taken from this film. The 1980s setting continues the Cold War paranoia vibe combined with some brilliantly cheesy music and costume choices (at one point one of the young X Men wears Michael Jackson's Thriller jacket, because why the fuck not).  There's another suitably silly slo-mo scene of Quicksilver saving the day, which is a shameless retread of the popular 'Time In a Bottle' sequence from Days Of Future Past but is entertaining nonetheless. 

Ultimately this film's biggest weakness (and most likely the inspiration for the rather unfair drubbing it's got from some critics) is also it's greatest strength.  That being the campy, silly spectacle of it all.  The film is ridiculous nonsense both narratively and visually but yet it is never boring.  The exact details of character's origins and relationships may not be entirely accurate to the source material but you are left in no doubt that what you are watching is an adaption of a comic book (and not the kind that feels it necessary to call itself a 'graphic novel')  Sure the drama is lightweight and there is no sense of depth on a character or thematic level but the action is kept, fast and fun throughout.  Overall, you feel less like you are watching a self-serious modern superhero movie than the latest episode of a lighthearted Saturday morning kids show.  I wouldn't call X-Men: Apocalypse a great film by any means but I know I'd much rather watch it twice back to back than to put myself through the grim, joyless trial that was Batman vs Superman ever again. (In fact comparing the vast difference between the feel of both these films truly reveals the tonal tightrope that the best Marvel films manage to carefully step along)


At one point in the film some of the characters go to a screening of Return of the Jedi and enter a discussion over which is the best Star Wars movie.  'The third is always the worst' they agree.  It's not clear whether this is a coded apology for the terrible original third X Men film (Brett Ratner's totally mishandled X Men: The Last Stand) or simply baiting critics already sharpening their knifes for this one.  Either way it's a fair assessment.  Although the Return of the Jedi analogy seems particularly apt for this film.  There is no doubt that it's quality pales in comparison to it's prior two instalments but it carries itself with enough charm and good spirit that fans will be happy to join their favourite characters on another adventure regardless.