Logan Lucky (2017)

In an ideal world, we all know I’d like to start calling Channing Tatum a dish, but let’s discuss the film first, shall we? Trying to make an action/comedy/feel good/crime movie can be either a complete flop, or an utter success. For me, Logan Lucky was the latter.

Logan Lucky is the story of the Logan Family. The first character we meet is Jimmy, a hard-working dad from West Virginia trying to do the best he can for his daughter, as and when he is able to see her. He is told by his ex that they will be moving away so he turns to his brother Clyde, and sister Mellie for support when he plots to steal funds from a speedway company. In order to do this they get in touch with convict Joe Bang, who is known for his successes in this area.

This story seems pretty heavy, but I was really surprised to see that it is actually quite a light, easy film, this however, does not make it any less gripping.

Around 120 minutes long, you have enough time to understand enough about the main characters, and empathise with their situation and warm to their characters. This isn’t so much the case for those in smaller roles, such as sister Mellie – it took me a while at least, to realise she was actually a sister, but this wasn’t necessarily problematic. Although a strong story, it seems to lack in some parts, and this is simply due to things not being clearly explained. For example, I won’t give it away, but something that you wouldn’t necessarily expect from this film because of how the story is set up happens, but I just don’t really understand why it did. Even with flashbacks, and later reflection from the characters, some points just don’t really add up, and perhaps this is something that desired more attention to detail.

As I said above, I think it is definitely a challenge to mix action, and comedy. But this film does it wonderfully. Whether it is the subtle comments made by the characters, or the bigger scenes displayed outrage at the fact that the next A Song of Ice and Fire books are not release (oh man, how I related to this), I think there is something there to suit everyone’s tastes.

The cast, really did do their job. Tatum, who plays Jimmy suited this role perfectly, he really did not struggle to fit this character, or consistently present this. I have never been too sure about Adam Driver, since the only (unfortunately) memorable performance of his for me, is Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens. Sadly, this put me off the idea of anything he is in, but he has gone back up in my good and I can firmly say his performance was impressive. Similarly, I can’t say I’ve ever been stunned by any of Daniel Craig’s performances until now, his character was convincing, and he was definitely suitably casted for the role of Joe Bang. This character – someone determined, criminal, yet extremely witty made this film for me. Probably my favourite part of this.

I can’t say much for the score or cinematography in this film, but honestly – for once this didn’t bother me, I can’t say that I missed there not being an obvious score, simply because there was so much going on. I mean, there was definitely one there, but I couldn’t tell you what it was.

Overall, this was a refreshing bit of cinema, and I’m glad I gave it a chance. Believe the hype it has, but it honestly is worth the watch. Great story, great cast, great film.

7/10.

CINEMATES - S

Detroit (2017)

I didn't know a great deal about the story going into this, I was aware it was one of the many recent stains in American history where African Americans are brutally treated by authority and justice has failed them. It's odd that as I write that I could be talking about basically any big unjust shooting in the last couple years but this was 50 years ago in 1967 amongst the Detroit Rebellion. The film focuses on police pushing boundaries and interrogating a group of people in Algiers Motel for a confession that ultimately leads to murder. It's based on real people and actual court cases but due to some missing information and of course the fact none of us were actually there, they fabricated some of the story. 

The reason I was so interested in this was to see John Boyega tackle such a heavy story, to see how he took responsibility to play a real person with important themes. I think he was the best thing about the film. He's mainly level headed and calm but doesn't under react. He appears to be exactly as he is, a random honest man caught in a bad situation trying his best to keep people safe, even when he knows things are against him. Saying that I thought there would be more of him, there's an odd character progression with him where his performance peaks in the last moments we see him on screen.

The rest of the cast was okay. It was more of an ensemble piece than I expected. Antagonist 'punchable face' / Will Poulter was okay, he had some genuine moments regards to the character flat out lying to people and he appeared to be a bad liar. What that tells you about the skill of the actor I don't know. But his accent is great and as I've 100% mentioned before I love a British actor smashing American films. He wasn't likable but he wasn't meant to be. Anthony Mackie was great to watch too, it's nice to him in this type of role no matter how small. 

Understandably very little character development as the story takes place over such a short time. And the story in question relies on the lack of information, the whole point is that we don't exactly know. The antagonists rely on assumptions of other characters and creating the characters to be what they needed to fit their own story, their alibi. 

Katherine Bigelow uses similar techniques as she did with Oscar winning The Hurt Locker (2008) filming one scene with multiple cameras in different places. Capturing the same piece from multiple angles, giving the actors the flexibility to move around and not be confined. Which I believe helps let the characters breath a little. She seems to know strengths of war or humanising it, alongside the handheld shots it helped make people appear quite raw. But this was not quite Academy Award winning. The sound did the same, was very real. Some of the characters were in a Motown band and sung at different points of the film. Hearing a sole voice singing with no backing track and no other sound in the scene is quite powerful. The sound makes sure you notice. 

Though it may appear as Oscar bait it's not quite worthy. It was a 15 minutes intro, followed by a 2 hour scene, a 10 minute 'finale' and some classic real life photos with facts written over them. I understand the choice of narrative structure but I think it's difficult. I understand that it's in place not to break things up, it's to make sure you endure the awful interrogation with the characters. But 2 and a half hours is a long time, let alone for such a topic. But even that, I don't think it had the weight to match the duration.

Good yes, but not as timeless as it could have been 6/10

CINEMATES - A 

The Dark Tower (2017)

I just don’t know where to begin…

The Dark Tower is a story about young boy Jake Chambers who realises he is different from others in his life, whilst battling constantly being told he’s crazy, whilst trying to battle the mystery of his abilities and ‘shine’. He finally encounters the Gunslinger, and the villain of this series – Walter. Jake ends up being stuck in the middle of their battle and all are trying to keep the universe stable by protecting the Dark Tower that stands in the middle of our universe(s).

This sounds like a simple film with a straight forward story, right? It’s not, and this wasn’t what is portrayed in this film. My main struggle here is to not write a book review, or explain how much I adore the mind of Stephen King, because this should be emphasised as not something that represents King’s body of work, and should be viewed as something independent.

The film starts, and we’re straight in which as all film viewers know, comes with both successes and failures. We quickly come to understand the struggles Jake is going through, and are given the chance early on to empathise with him, and his mother. However, due to the length of the film, the only character development we are allowed is his – surprising as there are two main characters we honestly don’t know much about.  

The way the story is presented to us isn’t the only problem this film has. Firstly, the cinematography is consistently poor in this production. I mean, take into consideration the fact that not only are we shown that a lot is happening in a whole different part of the universe, we are also filming in New York. It felt like we were on the same part of planet when flicking between these two worlds, this really took away from the main points in the plot. This could have such a greater impact if even the small things such as the lighting were altered. I understand where the creators were trying to go with this, to emphasise the dark, but come on… no lighting at all? REALLY!? EVEN IN NEW YORK?!

As well as this, the score… it was in no way memorable, this could have helped create an impact by being used as a transition from actions of one character to the next, it’s surprising how noticeable it is that the sound in a film is important when there is almost none.

This film did lack. It wasn’t all bad, it would be unfair to claim that it was terrible, because it wasn’t. The cast was chosen well, they did the job, and Idris Elba was well suited for his role as the Gunslinger, but I don’t know that I can say that is a solid across the entire cast. When we are introduced to the Gunslinger and Jake working together you do understand that there is a connection, but you are left wanting more from them. Matthew McConaughey as Walter… I’m not so sure. As I said, he did the job, of course, and it was fine, but he wasn’t convincing it was an average representation of a character that I remember expecting more from prior to the release of the film.

The only area this film didn’t lack – which I expected, was some okay action. But again, we just needed more! As it began to get good, and we began to see something happen the film switched to a new event because it was just too short for what it tried to do.

Honestly, I just don’t know how I feel about this as a film, let alone something that is part of a serious cult following. Don’t get me wrong, it was entertaining, but there is nothing about it that stands out very well. In comparison to the trailer, I feel disappointed because it set us up for a chunk of Stephen King’s universe. There were some very subtle references to other key parts of his universe in this film, and they just weren’t explained at all. But again, am I making a bigger deal about this because I know about the universe we’re in?
If you are a fan of King’s writing, and are ready to watch this expecting some juicy King greatness, you aren’t going to get it. You will leave wanting more.

I await the next addition to the world of Stephen King, with the upcoming re-release of It, with seriously baited breath. I hope significant attention has been paid to the details in comparison to this production.

It was average, and definitely not for the King super-fan likely to get irritated by missed details.

4.5/10

CINEMATES - S 

A Ghost Story (2017)

So not only will this be spoiler free it'll basically be story free, I want you to go into this the same way I did. So here's what I knew, Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck are a couple, Affleck dies and becomes a ghost in a big white sheet and follows Mara home. Oh and it's not a horror. Whilst I was disappointed it wasn't a horror I was intrigued by the story and as always I'm interested in anything A24 does. Basically, it's about a ghost that mourns the loss of his own life. 

Something you will notice pretty instantly is the cinematography and editing. The film is shot in the aspect ratio 4:3 (1:33:1) like an old tv. Not something you often see on the big screen. It made everything feel kind of vintage? Almost nostalgic, it felt intimate as if it was someones homemovie and they had just stuck the VHS in for you to watch. I didn't find it quite claustrophobic though I believe the intention was to increase the feeling of being trapped. The editing is also noticeable. Very long takes, very long stationary takes where they've plonked the camera down and said, 'yeah go on actors I'll tell you when to stop I promise' then gone to make a cuppa. I don't mind being conscious of an edit or a shot but I'm not that keen on being taken out of the film because of it. I think with the subject matter it works, it gives you time to take in what's happening, though there's never a rush, it let's you breathe. The mixture of a boxier screen and long motionless shots gave the appearance you were flicking through a selection of polaroids. Definitely had its own style. 

I hate saying things like this but the sound was a character in itself. The film had a clever balance between style being overtly used and subtly giving the scene more weight. The sound was beautiful. Composer Daniel Hart has worked with the director previously on Pete's Dragon (2016) and Ain't Them Bodies Saints (2013) in which Affleck and Mara also appear. The score was perfect and the original song included was exactly what it needed to be. Same goes for the absence, the silence and diagetic sound was sometimes noticeable but never imposing.  

Performances were great, Mara was great, though she said few words. Affleck was the same even though he was under a sheet for the most part. You still find their relationship sincere even with the lack of dialogue, and I say lack as if it were missing, it wasn't, again like sound it was what it needed and no more. I will say there is a monologue by singer-songwriter Will Oldham that is wonderfully performed. It is an interesting and engaging piece and even though I thought, no one would ever talk like this is, it was natural. He was great. If you keep your eyes open you'll notice that Kesha is also in this scene, I'm not gonna lie I didn't notice her at all but sure she's there.  

The general themes of mourning and death in a larger sense are explored in a well thought out narrative. I enjoy films that close. It's satisfying for a film to come full circle, to clarify earlier scenes at the end and hint at the final act part way through. A Ghost Story does this well. It discusses the fear that everyone has, will I be remembered? What will last, what will remain of us and our memories? Once I'm gone am I really gone? It's still not preachy in this, and not too heavy as I was bracing myself for but still lands. 

I really liked this film, for some reason I didn't want to. I think it was graceful and sincere and had a good narrative structure. Unique take on death and mourning that you would not have seen before. 7/10

CINEMATES - A

Wish Upon (2017)

Okay so you're either gonna be in this demographic or you're not. I definitely am. By that I don't mean the probable target for the film, I mean people that enjoy bad horrors. I like a silly horror movie, I like horror cliches, I like American high school cliches, I'll take it all. I don't discriminate, I enjoy horrors of all qualities. Wish Upon hits that up. A teenage girl finds a magical box that grants wishes but everything comes with a price.


Joey King plays protagonist Clare Shannon, who's dumpster diving dad, who I will wholeheartedly discuss in a moment, finds a box covered in ancient Chinese writing. He gifts it to her as an early birthday present to which she says, sure I'll make a wish, what's the worse that can happen? Death is the answer to that. Somewhat interesting concept for a modern horror, which was enough to pique my interest. I figured even if it wasn't very good she's still gotta wish and the box still has to mess things up so even if it's bad, stuff is going on. 

It's pretty funny, the best friend characters almost get a few chuckles in and same with the mean clique but most of the jokes come from the cliches and not from them trying to be funny. Some of the deaths are pretty comical, I won't ruin any but they're all pretty predictable. There's a girl fight in the high school that's also pretty funny. To the point where it almost appears as the cast think it's pretty silly too. The acting wasn't great, it didn't need to be but it wasn't great. I thought King was okay until I saw everything else she's been in and now I think with all that under her belt she should be better. Her friend Ryan Hui is played by 30 year old Ki Hong Lee, who played Dong in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. And her dad is played by Ryan Phillippe. 

Let talk about Phillippe. I forgot how long ago Cruel Intentions was. It's long enough ago that he is old enough to play a dad now. And I'm gonna be straight with you, he's pretty dilfy. So he dumpster dives, for what exactly I don't know, just stuff of value. He wears a big jacket and a beanie and hasn't shaved in a little while. He also has a saxophone for some reason. After seeing him dumpster dive yet again Clare gets annoyed and wishes for her dad to no longer embarrass her. So he shaves. That's legit it, he shaves and plays his sax again and her friends suddenly realise he's hot because they didn't know him in 1997. This is one of the silly wishes. It feels more like there was an idea for a death and so they thought up a mediocre wish to justify it. The box specifies 7 wishes, which let's be real, is about 4 too many. 

It was well rounded enough, hinted at things at the beginning, became full circle. Script was alright but a little messy, writer Barbara Marshall hasn't written many features. The director John R. Leonetti has an odd mix of works behind him, having director, cinematographer and camera department credits. Cinematography was whatever, nothing in particular, had a few classic horror shots, edited in an over zealous manner to some standard horror music. Pretty average as far as that goes.

It's not a great movie, but interesting enough. I had a lot of fun watching this and I know I will watch it again. It's like one of those films you see on Netlflix and say, sure I've got a time to spare, I'll try it. Again, if you're a fan of silly horrors, this will be right up your alley, if not, you probably won't find many merits. 

A high five out of ten if you will. If you're looking for the next classic horror to chill you to the bone, this is not it. But honestly, it's a good laugh with friends, just a reminder that a movie doesn't have to be good to enjoy it. 5/10

CINEMATES  - A

The Big Sick (2017)

Lucky enough to catch one of Odeons Screen Unseen premieres this week, where you buy a ticket for a fiver and you don't know what it's going to be. Previous films this year have been Get Out and Baby Driver. Both films Odeon deemed to be potential classics, so we had high hopes for what we were about to see. It was The Big Sick and it didn't disappointment.  

The Big Sick is about a couple that deals with their cultural differences as their relationship develops. This is based on real couple writer and actor Kumail Nanjiani and his wife, fellow writer, Emily V. Gordon. Nanjiani, brown, from Pakistani, trying to rebuff every advance for arranged marriage his mum pushes. Emily, white, American, didn't really want a relationship but that Kumail man is pretty charming.  Nanjiani is a stand up comedian who is trying to make his way forward and get acknowledged and Emily is finishing her degree and looking to become a psychiatrist.  They don't really deal with their differences until they become a problem, because if it ain't broke, you know? There's a break up due to culture clashing and thoughts of deception but before we have a good chance to deal with this Emily gets sick. She gets the big sick. After being taken into hospital Kumail goes to look after her and meets her parents for the first time. This moment is almost when the film really begins. I think how we are shown each character and their family is pretty great. We see only see Nanjiani's family when they are with him. Whereas in contrast we only see Emily's family when she isn't there. This changes towards the end of the film, where people start to intertwine as they should, but it's still quite a strong choice. It's Kumail with both sides, with both cultures. 

The cast was great, Nanjiani is funny and charming as he is in most things including Silicon Valley. He's sweet and genuine and even when Emily finds reason to dislike him, as an audience you don't. Emily is played by Zoe Kazan, wonderfully cast, I think personally because she hasn't been in too many big things. So it was even easier to just see her as the character. That and the fact that half the film we're told what she's like from other people and not from her. It's like she exists. Her parents are played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano. Hunter is a strong mother in this as she is as Elastigirl in The Incredibles (2004), in case you're wondering why she sounded familiar. It was great to see Romano as someone new, he was great, funny and again genuine, this film has such fresh performances from the cast. 

Now Judd Apatow produced this, and not directed, and you can tell because the film isn't 40 minute too long like most of his directed features. It had some of the same humour but you could definitely tell it was written by Nanjiani and that it was written by a couple. It did really well to have genuine stand up moments, being awkward and not completely funny. As if they knew they wanted the stand up to be funny but not as funny as the real life happening around it. Some of the stand up I recognised from Nanjiani, his own works and interviews. The interactions between him/his character and Emily are real, they don't feel forced. That was something that was written and cast well. His family were well written as to use cultural differences to add comedy but not as the butt of the joke. Race jokes were of course there and there is a particular 9/11 joke that had the entire audience cackling. As much as race and culture were involved in the comedy it wasn't there just as a punchline. 

Very sweet film, only a slight bit too long I'd say. Lots of laughs, and a good amount of tears too, if you're into romantic comedies this might be a tad bit heavier than you expected but definitely worth the watch. A refreshing 7.5/10

CINEMATES - A

Despicable Me 3 (2017)

The first Despicable Me came out in 2010, since then we have had an onslaught of minion merchandise. I for one don't care for them, didn't think they were particularly funny and I don't understand why people who don't understand memes have adopted them, but there we are. Despicable Me 3 follows Gru, ex villain, as he connects with his long lost twin brother Dru who wants to have one last family heist. 

Alongside that narrative we have the super villain Balthazar Bratt, who was a child star in the 80's and kind of a one hit wonder. He goes downhill after his voice breaks and ends up believing he's the character he played. He was a lot of fun, voiced by Southpark's Trey Parker, he was stuck in the 80's meaning he played a lot of 80's music and all of his tool and weapons were throwbacks to the decade. A bit of a novelty, I think a lot of parents will enjoy this throwback but the use of a portable cassette tape will be lost on the aimed demographic. 

So what do the target demographic like? Minions. They were there. They have a falling out with Gru and try it on their own and end up in prison. It was interesting I guess to see them make their own decisions or just see them in different environment.  But eh, same old same old, all I can ever think about is how they will be sold. Now there can be a bunch of minions in prison uniforms. And in the last scene wearing something different. I think they've been exhausted, unfunny but there, no real merit to the story but what you expect from them.

Steve Carell is great, some of the scenes it really felt like he was having so much fun playing both Gru and Dru. He's a likable guy and that comes across with both characters. The brothers grow together despite some differences they still have a lot in common. The few scenes that actually warranted a chuckle were basically Carell talking to himself. Each of the characters get their own side line stories to follow the main theme of the film, there's sweet development for Lucy, Gru's wife, as she learns to fill the mother position for the girls, Margo, Edith and Agnes. Agnes goes on search to find a real life unicorn with Edith as Margo ends up in a pickle with a local boy. Each sideline felt a little forced as just something for them to do whilst Gru pasted the time but they did manage to tie them both together with the overall message alright. 

The animation was spectacular, as should be expected with Dreamworks at this stage. The parts I found particularly engaging were the adverts for Bratts show, the animated characters using toy action figures that looked real. That was really impressive. And to be honest a little confusing to see something look so real with such exaggerated animated characters. No spoilers but there's a particular scene in the final act on a beach with Bratt's final show stopper and seeing that looked pretty amazing. The sound was great but Pharrell Williams is involved so what else is there to say. They used the theme 'Despicable Me' as well as a song from the original film. Lots of 80's tracks which were fun and worked well.

Pretty forgettable to be honest, but I say that as someone that find the first two the same. The kids in the screening didn't sound that impressed either, very few laughs. 5/10

CINEMATES - A