THE FAVOURITE: And my favourite review so far!

      Here’s my review on ‘The Favourite’ and hold on to your butts cos this may be my first positive review!!

      So the history of the English Monarchy isn’t exactly a strong subject for me and the main reason I saw this film was for one, the extraordinary cast and two, the Oscar buzz this film had created even before its release. 

      The star of the film, and now budding national treasure, Olivia Coleman, was the biggest pull for me and man did that talented lady deliver. A brilliant blend of her raw acting talent showcased in TV shows such as ‘Broadchurch’ and her natural comedic flare in ‘Peep show’ and ‘Green Wing’ made this performance a real spectacle for me and I truly admire this lady in all she does. Dame Olivia (almost) played Queen Ann with a childlike Naivety that masked a very dark and tortured soul and she glided between the two contrasting characteristics beautifully and heartbreakingly. 

        Rachel Weisz played her domineering childhood ‘friend’ with sharp reverence. Her powerful manipulation of the Queen made for uneasy viewing and her veiled intentions kept you guessing throughout the film. These were most apparent when acting along side the innocent and sickly sweet Emma Stone, a former lady of a disgraced family, whose character you follow throughout the film. Her intentions far clearer to us as the viewer enabled the audience to ‘pick a side’ only to have you doubting your opinions of her character at the end. The ‘Game of Thrones’ style power play between these three women was fascinating to watch and the most interesting thing of all was that the male fringe characters barely had any influence over the plot at all. The director Yargos Lanthimos has made an interesting standpoint here choosing for the fantastic, incredibly influential women in this male dominant period of English history to remain at the forefront, in an industry that still struggles to represent female led narratives. In my opinion, the film would be pointless without it. 

       Something else that I really enjoyed was the script and performances allowed us to see the silliness of humans even in serious situations and large parts of the film had a lovely lighthearted tone; especially in the scenes with the fabulous Nicholas Hoult who’s character could be cold and calculating in one instance and then so enjoyably flamboyant, over the top and eccentric in the next. 

       I liked the use of the fish eye camera lens in some transitional scenes when the characters were walking through corridors. These scenes were shot from ‘the wall’ making it look like CCTV in 18th century England which was a nice modern touch. This technique made it feel like we were spying on the characters lives, giving the cloak and dagger edge to the film more credence. 

       A few negatives as it really wouldn't be a Chris Whitmore review with out some scathing remarks would be; some of the more abstract moments grated on me a bit including the never ending final sequence of rabbits filling the screen with a bleed of Olivia's face over the top in turmoil, and then switching to Emma's in equal distress. I understand what the director was implying here suggesting the characters have found themselves in a perpetual cycle of behaviour that no matter what they do they can't shake the tragedies of the past, but for me it was a bit much.

      Overall I would give this film 8.3/10 and would thoroughly recommend as a nice trip to the cinema.

      If you enjoyed this review please like and comment below and feel free to disagree.

     I've been Christopher Whitmore, thanks for reading. 

        

BIRDBOX: One to watch with a blindfold.  

       Sorry for the long wait but here it is as promised for Hebba Brown I have watched ‘BirdBox’ and I have very mixed feelings about this film. 
        
        MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT!! I will be reviewing some key plot points and most importantly the ending, so if you haven’t seen the film (not that I’d recommend it) and don’t want it ruined then stop reading now.
         
        On the whole I can't say this was my favourite Netflix film of 2018 but I did like some elements so I’ll go through those first as I’m aware I’ve become a very moany critic and I want to make it very clear I do actually enjoy watching films, I just seem to be on a bit of bad run at the moment. 


        Firstly I think the cast were fine ( I know that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement but that’s genuinely how I feel). I love Sandra Bullock in pretty much everything she does and she gave a decent surly and justifiably aggressive performance given the extreme circumstances her character finds herself in. John Malkovich played a very convincing asshole and catalyst in the group dynamic and the other notable performance was Mr Save-Every-Scene Tom Hollander (see previous review on Bohemian Rhapsody for that reference). Tom played his pathetic ‘businessman’ turn creepy enforcer of the dark spirit to a tee. I think there was probably a notable sigh of relief from me when he stumbled onto screen and he kept the plot moving on well in the middle section of the film. 


        Another surprisingly good thing about this film was the spirit/monster/demon was never revealed. This left the concept of it up to the viewers own imagination, and as was hinted at earlier on in the film, our own fears. This built the tension when we could hear/sense the spectrum was nearby and it was the suspense that kept me watching till the very end. 
        
       This is where unfortunately this review takes a sharp nose dive into aggravation and mild expletives from me. 
     
       I promise I won’t harp on too long however even before watching this film you can’t help but compare the concept of this film with the Masterpiece (in my humble opinion) that was ‘A Quiet place.’That film was so beautifully shot, wonderfully simple and incredibly scary, I feel like someone watched that and thought to themselves “well that was good but what if they weren’t allowed to see?” The comparisons become more apparent on dissection as well and ‘Birdbox’ falls short every time. Both leading women are pregnant throughout most of the film. They are looked after by heroic male partners who (spoiler) sacrifice themselves in order to protect their family. But ‘Birdbox’ just didn’t work as well. Sandra Bullock ran around blindfolded far too easily in unknown terrain and the relationship between the characters I felt you warmed to less, therefore lowering the stakes when they found themselves in peril. 
I enjoyed the first half less than the second and far from being on parr with ‘A Quiet Place’ I would put it on a similar level with its clunky dialogue and 2D characters, to the horrific remake of ‘Dawn of the Dead’. I think the film fans amongst you can appreciate the similarities of the house in 'Birdbox' and the mall in ‘Dawn of the Dead.’ (Check out podcast for more info on that)
    
        The most disappointing part of the film for me was it’s ending. I was saying all the way through “what had happened to all the blind people who would thrive in this environment?” And when a compound was mentioned I thought “that better be where they all are or this film really is terrible.” Low and behold we find out the compound is in fact an Institute for the Blind and I was even more disappointed that I figured it out so easily. And then there’s the ridiculous fact the her doctor after 5 years had also found her way there and welcomed them for absolutely no conceivable reason at all. Were we meant to care and find that sweet? Perhaps I’m just a cynic. Also why had Parminder Nagra (Bend it like Beckham) aged so badly in those five years with all the added grey hair compared to Sandy B? Weird.


        I would give this film a begrudging 6.2/10 as I did enjoy a few bits but they were far too few and in between for me to give it anything more. 


        I would urge everyone if you haven’t already or have read this and are looking for a like minded film to watch ‘A Quiet Place’ instead. It does everything this film does but with more heart, style, suspense and substance. 


Next up a shorter review on ‘Welcome to Marwen.’


        If you have enjoyed this review please give me a like and I’ll let you know when my blog is up and running and if you have any suggestions or recommendations for me pop them in the comments below.            
        Also some people have said to me they don’t agree with my reviews so also air your thoughts on here and let me know. 
     
        I'll publish my blog next week I hope so I’ll only spam Facebook with the links and Sam Adamson and I recorded the trailer and Pilot for our Podcast ‘Reel Easy’ today so watch out for that coming soon.

       I've been Christopher Whitmore, thank you for reading. 

FANASTIC BEASTS PART 2: Grindelward wasn't doing the only crimes in this film.  

         So here as promised (whether you care or not) after many more drinks is my review for 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald' and buckle yourselves in because it’s another rough one.

         A bit of background, I’m a huge Harry Potter fan and grew up like every other millennial surrounded by the books, story tapes and magical movies. As a universe it had such a profound affect on my adolescence that it's hard to imagine what it would be like without it. 

          I found the first FB film very enjoyable, with its explorative insight into the history of JK Rowling’s world; The HP nerd in me was very happy. However, like many other movie franchises these days (The Hobbit) the one stand alone good film, probably should have been left there. The incessant need for money driven sagas that bores the pants off audiences halfway through an epic (read: lengthy) trilogy rather strips the joy from what makes the original stories so compelling. JK Rowling, renowned for her fast paced plots and pithy dialogue, is here reduced to dragged out story lines and laborious CGI fight scenes (We get it, there are evil wizards with any number of flourescent streams of magic erupting from their wands).

         The big question for Harry Potter fans everywhere is this: Do we bother to invest ourselves in yet another franchise when we already know the formulas? Is it worth it for the inevitable anticlimactic closure we now get? 

         My biggest issue with this film wasn’t the laboured delivery of the lines many of the actors used to justify tension which was then subsequently lost when ... they ... all ... talk ... like .... this ..... in .... every .... scene. 

         It also wasn’t the incomprehensibly complicated plot with several family trees colliding with little foundation or explanation and if there was some sort of explanation I had probably zoned out at this point.

         It wasn’t even the painfully obvious plot hole fillers to make the sequel. IE Credence conveniently surviving being blown up in the the first film thus allowing for exactly Same plot line for the second. Where’s the obscurious?

        Also they desperately needed the brilliant Dan Fogler back so at the beginning he miraculously recovered from being obliviated as “it only removed bad memories” ..... sure ... not convinced.

        No it was none of these things, the biggest disappointment of this movie for me was the vast difference between the kind of magic seen in the first ever HP film and the ridiculous “epic magic” in 'Fantastic Beasts Part 2.'

        In the first film all the magic used was small, intricate and beautiful. Charming little spells that made objects fly, spoons stir and cats transfigure into teachers (Yes I know she’s an animagus). This film however just went way to big with huge blue and red fire dragons coming out of wands and huge VR type WW2 landscapes which was just a bit too dramatic and un Harry Potter like in my opinion. 

        I did like Jude Law’s sexy Dumbledore although I don’t know why the powers that be felt the need to skirt the homosexual issue. Dumbledore and Grindelwald should have kissed right? Are we really not ready for that? 

        After saying all this I’d love to at least pretend I’ve put it to bed now, whilst inevitable and feverishly preparing to watch the next, probably shocking installment. 

I’d give this film 5.7/10 

        Next up as requested by Hebba I’ll give my review of Birdbox and watch this space because it might be my first positive review. I do love Sandy B.

        I’ll also be adding my reviews to my new blog and I will hopefully starting a Podcast/YouTube channel reviewing films with my friend Sam Adamson, so keep an eye out for that. 

        I've been Christopher Whitmore, thanks for reading.

       AQUAMAN: It's got whozit's and whatzits galore, but who cares i want more.      

       WORST DC FILM YET. I can’t even begin to describe how bad this movie is. I’d say it was laughable but like many of the clangers in this film I seem to have missed the joke. The script was juvenile, the plot just another lazy rehashed version of King Arther that was unashamedly crowbarred in and some of the acting made the competitors in the Marvel franchise look Oscar worthy. Seriously where’s Chadwick Boseman’s Academy award if this trash can gross almost a billion dollars in the box office? 

          I could go on and on about the many plot holes of this film and how nobody seems to have thought through the science of the underwater world at all but I won’t because it would be a waste of time, much like this film.

          A few positives I guess I could grasp at for the sake of a balanced review would be Jason Momoa makes a decent super/action hero and much like Henry Cavill as Superman has been let down by poor scripts and direction. Also the CGI was impressive but as I said with Justice League the action sequences just make for decent game-play viewing which you can’t really get into as it’s completely unrealistic.
          
          Amber Heard was watchable but I couldn’t help thinking how similar her character and portrayal was to Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow which got quite confusing universe wise for me when remembering character plot points. Also I couldn’t make out if they were intentionally making references to her being somewhat like the little mermaid or not. Like what was with that flute bit that then no one thereafter mentioned ..... and what was with Black Manta costume?! It looked like something from a dated Doctor Who episode! And are we supposed to care about his relationship with his father who dies within the first 15 minutes of the film? ... sorry it’s got me angry and negative again.
All in all don’t bother. I give this film 3.8/10.
         
         Next up my scathing review on Fantastic Beasts part 2 but I think I need another drink before embarking on that shambles of a filler film in yet another money grabbing trilogy.

         I've been Christopher Whitmore, thanks for reading. 

      BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY: WE WILL ROCK YOU! ..... to sleep.   

      Other than Rami Malek’s flawless portrayal of Freddie and a well timed chicken I don’t have a lot of positive things to say about Bohemian Rhaspody. Clunky dialogue and a heavy handed message made most scenes predictable and contrived, and without Tom Hollander thankfully bringing some sort of gravity to this film I would have found it boring.

       Visually I’d say it was quite entertaining but Queen’s mercifully gargantuan music catalogue keeps things moving along nicely until the final Live Aid sequence. Again Rami was very watchable as Freddie but it went on far too long and if I wanted to watch their final Wembley concert I’d watch the real one and not a strange shot-for-half-arsed-shot reshoot. 

       All in all I’d give this film 5.8 out of 10 and it sort of makes me dread the forthcoming release of Rocketman which I feel will be in a very similar vain.

        I've been Christopher Whitmore, thanks for reading.