Ghost Stories (2017)

First Scream Unseen of the year goes to British horror Ghost Stories. What appeared to be an anthology is our protagonist, skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman, trying to understand three unexplained supernatural incidents. 


I will preface this with the fact I'm a fan of horror movies, all styles or various qualities. At the bottom of my list however finds British horrors and ghosts. With that in mind I was still interested in this film. This in part due to the narrative structure and part due to the cast. With the format having 3 unrelated stories it felt like a few short films. The separation meant the didn't have to rely on each other for momentum. Didn't have to have suspense hold for that long, just 20 minutes or so. Having multiple crescendos is kinda of boring, something has to follow it, it's not the end, even the end of the third story, isn't the end. It's hard to managed to pacing on something like that. 

It was shot as a horror movie. Lots of shots that linger that second too long. A lot of framing where our character is to one side, leading our eyes to an empty space, encouraging you to brace yourself in anticipation. That sometimes paid off and sometimes didn't. I couldn't count how many jumps there were in this film there were so many. Some people enjoy that, some people think its lazy. I think short films can do that no questions asked, I think feature length films shouldn't rely on it. With this being essentially both, it did feel a little much. Again due to the structure of the film it had some cliches, each story is thematically connected but almost thought of itself as a separate thing so reused old horror tropes. Small girl in a corridor, check, creepy woman running at the camera, check, something coming from a misty forest, open doorways to blackness etc etc check check. Fun, sure but has been done before. The sound was decent, again, done with horror in mind. Same as the locations and behaviours of the characters. 

Some of the cast were forgettable for me. Martin Freeman is charming as ever, I enjoy watching him in whatever he's in and this is no exception. I'm also a huge fan of Alex Lawther. He's in Black Mirror's 'Shut up and Dance' episode, Netflix's 'End of the F***ing World' as well as recent release Freak Show (2017). With such interesting character choices I was completely on board to watch minimum his segment. He seems to do desperation and socially inept quite well? These two were the most fun to watch for me. No one was bad but they were the most captivating to watch. 

There's some subtle notices throughout that lead you subconsciously to the end of the film though it isn't exactly expected. It's again kind of a cliche and kind of disappointing? No spoilers of course but it wasn't all that satisfying. I find a lot of films have this, horrors in particular, where the ending isn't great but you can't think of a better one. So you just have to accept it for what it is. The lead to the final part is good and you do notice the breadcrumbs after the reveal but it kind of says, what's the point. You don't feel like you've achieved anything. 

Haven't seen the play to compare but the feature would probably better if it were just released as 3 separate shorts. I'm not sure the few impacting moments would maintain on a second viewing. Watch for curiosity but don't expect too much of a lasting impression. 5/10 

CINEMATES - A 

Peter Rabbit (2018)

Peter Rabbit and his 3 sisters, and his friend are all enjoying their days in the forest. They spend a chunk of their time figuring out how to break into Mr McGregor’s vegetable garden for food. This was something that once belonged to them, when previous owners kept the fence down. 

Something happens to Mr McGregor, and one of his relatives move into their new property. Thomas McGregor is Mr McGregor’s Great Nephew, who hates rabbits just the same. He is ready to win over Bea, however, who is the opposite of him. A local, country girl, who lives to make the wildlife feel welcome.

I’m ready for this review to be short, because there is only so much to say about a film with mostly animated characters.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way… Domnhall Gleeson is an absolute dish. What an attractive man… oh, and I enjoy watching him act. The pairing of him and Rose Byrne was great. In a kids film you need a villain and a hero, right? These two played in perfectly, and there was still opportunity for there to be a message chucked in there. It was made obvious that Thomas was the bad character, and sometimes you meet someone nice that can change that. 

In terms of those casted to voice other characters, none of them offended me… except for James Corden. Don’t get me wrong, I now don’t think it was a bad match, but there were some moments when I just in the cinema thinking ‘Smithy, Smithy, Smithy… When is he going to say Gavaaaalaaaaaaaar?’. If this film wasn’t absolutely stuffed with comedy, it might not have been so bad, but the way the script was written really highlighted the humour that is portrayed perfectly by James Corden.

On the same note, this was belly laugh funny. Like, the kind that makes you turn around to the mental woman sat alone at the back, crying at everything (me). The comedy was so clever in some parts, and this is the definition of suitable for the whole family. An adult can sit in the cinema with their child, and not just have to tolerate it. There is a lot of subtle humour that would go straight over a child’s head, but is also filled with enough silliness, that it suits the audience it is aimed at.

Do we need to talk about CGI rabbits, and real humans working perfectly together, and being visually satisfying? It’s 2018, I feel like this should be expected, but it looked brilliantly edited, regardless. There was definite attention to detail paid at this point.

I was excited about this because I bloody love Peter Rabbit, just the same as I love Winnie the Pooh, it was a character that let me escape, and use my imagination as a child. I was scared that giving these characters recognisable voices was going to ruin it for me, and others that feel the same about Peter Rabbit, but it didn’t.

The script was well written, and well executed, the editing was pretty much spot on, and I had a blast. I laughed, my heart felt warm and fuzzy, and even when it got tense, I felt myself genuinely being bothered by what was happening.

Another must watch ‘kids’ film for 2018.

6.5/10

CINEMATES – S

Mom and Dad (2018)

America has gone mental, parents are trying to kill their kids. That’s it, that’s what Mom and Dad is about. I think this is a brilliant idea, if you’re into that sort of thing of course.

It’s a normal, quiet day in the setting of a typical horror film - a suburban town in America. We meet our main characters very early on, Mom/Kendall (Selma Blair), Dad/Brent (Nicholas Cage), and our 2 kids/main victims; Carly and Josh (Anne Winters and Zackary Arthur).

The family set out to complete their normal, routine day consisting of Kendall going to classes, Brent clocking in at work, Carly going to school, and Josh staying at home with what seems to be a cleaner, or Nanny… or chef? (this was never really explained, but you get the drift). Suddenly, parents are at the school gate trying to get to their children, but no one knows why. Seconds later, there are news reports of parents trying to kill their kids. Before they know it, Carly and her friend Riley are charging away from the school trying to get to safety. Parents are roaming the streets like hungry zombies, armed with bloody baseball bats, and knives, and soon enough one of the girls ends up being killed by their parent.

That was the final point, in which this film held my attention. Then my attention started to drift, because it all became a bit of something and nothing. The build up was so much, that when it all started to calm down I was constantly on edge expecting something really big to happen. Nothing big happened.

Mom and Dad is described as a dark comedy, and I agree that it fits into that category. Although a little bloody and grim in parts, this is not a classic horror. The way the characters have been written really helps lighten the mood of this film, as much as this can be done. I mean, it wasn’t funny per se, but there are moments that amused me. It didn’t cross the line between being comedic, and being silly. It sat somewhere in the middle. It was utterly ridiculous, as an entire film, but it wasn’t unbearable.

The strongest thing about this film was Nicholas Cage. I can confidently say he was one of the only members of the cast I was interested in watching once the film kicked in. I have never really been over, or underwhelmed by Cage (except for in National Treasure, sick film). Initially I didn’t really care for his character, but he really brought the role to life, and made me wonder whether it was the fact that he had been brainwashed by the media – which is what we were being told was happening during this film, or if he was genuinely a psycho dad, who was in the midst of a midlife crisis that genuinely wanted to kill his kids. Honestly, he freaked me out a bit and I’m glad that this film had something to hold the darkness there.

I didn’t really understand Selma Blair’s character in the same way (not that I relate to a child killer), I just feel like her change was just so random. To be honest, I still don’t fully get why everyone wanted to kill their kids. Kendall for example was strong as anything one minute, and fighting off this urge, then next minute she wants to stab her daughter in the head… but her personality didn’t change, Kendall seemed incredibly monotone throughout.

We didn’t see much of Zachary Arthur (except that he’s cute as a button), and Anne Winters was as good as she could be, it just wasn’t show-stopping. She spent most of it running and surviving.

The script for this film seemed like a giant mish-mash of events. It’s like they had it all sorted, then it came to editing and with the looming deadline it was going to be easier to randomly plop bits together. It felt messy, come on - it ended half way through a sentence! The script is what really let the film down. If it wasn’t so jumbled, something good could have been produced. 

One thing that was done nicely was the lighting. The mood was very sombre throughout, like something bad was going to happen. I wish I could say the same for the score, the pacing, the rest of the cast, or anything at all, but nothing else was memorable.

This film was absolute chaos, which fizzled into nothing. Such a huge disappointment.

4/10 

CINEMATES - S

Tomb Raider (2018)

PLEASANTLY SURPRISED. Honestly. Lara Croft is back, Alicia Vikander stars as daughter of missing adventurer who ends up on the island where he had disappeared. 

Video game adaptations have a certain stigma, of course they do. There's some great games with some great stories but they're playable. The characters are empty so you can play them. This is why if you think about Jolie's performance, chances are you remember her look (and her accent) but not so much who the character is. Tomb Raider (2018) does surprisingly well in making her an actual person and not just a pair of pointy boobs running around in a forest. Vikander is great, as expected, the Swedish actress already has one Oscar under her belt. Though more of an action role than she has played before she was believably strong, great physique and showed determination. 

The action is good if you include chase scenes, if you take them out then there's not really any action left. There's 3 main chase scenes, in London, in Japan and in the jungle on the island. Different terrain different reasoning but all well shot and paced. Though the film itself was still quite long. The cinematography was decent though it did have the luxury of having some great looking locations. You notice in a few scenes they do emulate the perspective of a video game, following closely behind Lara as she shoots and runs and ducks from cover. The 3D is not terrible. Same as a lot of more recent 3D movies, nice touch for standard shots, well composed rooms etc, adding depth. Not the cleanest thing, definitely had some stereotypical video game cutaway shots but of course it did. Sound wasn't anything to write home about, was alright, nice to have some actual songs and not just a score. 

As I said Vikander was great, the younger verisons of Lara aren't quite as good but they each don the french plait in tribute to how we see Croft in most cases. No spoilers but there's a particular scene of her in the rain where she has a fight with someone on the island that is great. Her reaction shows how far she's come from the start of the film and not just how she's changed but that she's surprised by the change as well. It was handled well. Daniel Wu looks great as Lu Ren, drunk captain that helps Lara on and off the island in Japan. I'd keep an eye out for him, he's fun to watch, it would be great to see what he could do with a role that had a more realistically fleshed out arc. For the most part that was the issue, how real some things were, most of which you have to leave at the door anyway because it's fictional, so come on. There isn't too much disbelief. Walton Goggins is a somewhat believable villain who, to be honest, has an interesting enough story to tell alone. We don't see how his character comes to be we just get the end result which is a bit of a shame but isn't necessary for the film so understandable. 

The mystery aspect to it was fun, it's easy to forget that that is how games work, it's a giant puzzle with puzzles in the middle. It's been a while since I've watched something similar, especially with a strong female lead. To be fair the film does well to leave most of the iconic imagery from the previous films alone. And the times we do see what we're used to is at the end of the film, which makes perfect sense, let's us get to know this Croft without the pretense first then hit those I guess satisfying points. Ends with the assumption for a second and potentially third installment though I'm not sure whether these would follow the game cannon or manage to justify it's own original work. 

If you a fan you're already gonna watch it, if you're on the fence I'd definitely try it. Is it long, yes. Does it completely redeem video game adaptations? No, not quite, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.  6/10 

CINEMATES - A 

You Were Never Really Here (2017)

Let's get to the point, I'm disappointed. Joaquin Phoenix as a gun for hire specialising in retrieving children from sex trafficking. Sounds hard hitting right? Eh.

So the premise was enough to intrigue me, awful topics always do. But it's not thaaaaat bad? Of course it is, some big 'important' men are swaping children, that's horific, but it never really hit me. I might be harden by other film/documentaries handling the topic in a heavier way but it didn't quite sicken me. I know, it sounds ridiculous. But I was expecting to wince, to squirm in my seat to be uncomfortable. Some people have been. But personally, sounds awful but with a topic that sensitive it wasn't as heavy as it could have been. I think part of this is due to the rating. It's a 15 in the UK, that has some restrictions though all cut's of the film passed. I missed the violence. Along with the abuse themes the violence was often implied instead of shown. Seeing clips of Phoenix as our main man Joe tentatively selecting which hammer to use gave me a bizarre sense of expectation that didn't follow through. I understand not using violence just for the sake of violence but the main character is described as a gun for hire. There are some graphic images yes but depending on how much violence you've seen in the past I don't believe it would be as jarring as it would to others. 

A big selling point for me was Phoenix. His stary eyes yo. The character wasn't what I was anticipating. They gave him a softer side, made him more human, somewhat deflated. Clearly cares for the children outside of the money. But he cares for his mother as much as needed. We are given abrupt flashbacks of his childhood, a violent scene with his parents. We never get that satisfying moment where we get the flashback in full. I guess to show that all of his actions aren't just based on one moment 30 years ago. They are just that he has a lot of moments. Kind of a shame it didn't follow that cliche because it is satisfying. It makes you wonder why it's really in the film. If it were removed there would probably be less questions to be honest. 

Ekaterina Samsonov plays the kidnapped young teen that Joe is looking to rescue. She is great, has sad habits from her abuse. Though she is very subtle about it, she really captured the lack of innocence in her character. 

Categorised as film noir, and it is, I was interested in the cinematography. There are a lot of silhouettes and contrasts. I enjoyed the intimacy of some of the shots. Combined with the editing some of the shots feel loud. HEY IT'S ME THE NEXT SHOT. The sound obviously helps with the abrasion. Think Drive (2011) but rougher. There some techno sounding moments that almost sound like they're being played backwards or at just the wrong speed. This feeling increases as the film progresses. It's cut with the diegetic sound cut well.

There were some beautiful moments. No spoilers but there is a scene that appears on some of the posters in water which is quite peaceful, considering the context. It doesn't spoon feed you which is complementary to the audience. But I think is almost too gentle with some of it's points. Being only one hour 30 it's not that long for a feature and again, for a feature dealing with this type of topic. 

I wanted something that would stick after the viewing and for me it didn't have the lasting effect I wanted. Great ideas not as great execution 6/10

CINEMATES - A

Red Sparrow (2018)

I got to catch this earlier this week, Spy drama, with what appeared to be notable similarities to Marvel's Black Widow and her Russian back story. Jennifer Lawrence stars as Dominika Egorova an ex-prima ballerina that is coerced by her uncle to be a part of a secret intelligence service training, Sparrow School. Ooo Russian spy school, cool right? Um, kind of.

Now I've not read the book by Jason Matthews (who is former CIA by the way) so I don't know how it compares, but I'd like to think there's a thin line of reality somewhere in there. Whether that's just in the portrayal of CIA, fine. The graze over Russian politics went over my head which is fine to me, as did the accents. I can't say I've heard a real Russian accent to clarify if Lawrence's portrayal is accurate. Plus Russia is huge there's probs alottalotta accents. 

The Sparrow School has notoriety of being a sex school. Adult students, men and women, learn how to seduce the enemy to get what they want. When our protagonist is first introduced, Matron, played by Charlotte Rampling (who reminds me of the Dean in Monsters University (2013)) explains what shes up against. You will learn how to make sacrifices, to manipulate, to fight, to identify your targets weakness and use it against them. Sounds really interesting but we don't actually get to see that training. We had a montage which is them watching porn and a couple people shooting a gun in the distance. This is heavily reliant on abrupt sex talk and nudity. Fine, I get it, it's a people thing, but man show us some of the other cool things. How do I know Dominika can wield any weapons? How do I know she has any skills whatsoever other than taking her clothes off? We see the single skill of picking a lock but otherwise, a bit of waste of spy stuff to be honest. 

The sex stuff was a bit rash because it wasn't sexy, even the intentionally sexy bits. The first 'sex' we see, is forced and it is not the only time we see someone attack our main gal. It's seen as a form of power and in no way to be personal or intimate, just a tool to get whatever it is you're after. So when they try to get sexy with Joel Edgerton, who's starting to look pretty daddy might I add, there isn't as much chemistry there as we'd like. But maybe that's the point, the brutality means that the two attractive people doing it still isn't sexy, we're too far gone for that. 

It looks alright, a lot of greys and dulled colours, inner cities and grand hotels. Many uniforms of course, set in the present the costumes isn't really much to go on. Same goes for hair, though makeup is interesting. The film does have violence, being rated a 15 here in the UK they made active decisions to discuss with the rating board to get a lower rating. There's a few fight scenes and body shots, we see a dead body after torture. Then later in the film we see the torture actually happen, though cleverly always just out of the shot until after the act. To be honest not too extreme, the sexual violence was, standard violence wasn't. 

Lawrence was alright, though it can be hard to judge acting when a character is acting. We believe she cares for her mother but the whole thing is about whether or not she's lying, who's side is she on. I think there are particular scene in which she shows herself as powerful and not just the character. Joel Edgerton was good, though comes across earnest and honest, which isn't what I would think CIA agent should be. He does show some skills and I think he's getting a good variety of roles. Jeremy Irons was good, his character arc was fun, his accent I don't really know what it was. Alright all round. 

The film is long, 2 hours 19 minutes though to be completely honest it didn't actually feel that long. There was some odd pacing, to try and keep the illusion of mystery and spies and whatnot you didn't really know when the crescendo was or what it would be. The ending was somewhat satisfying, which is what  you want from any film. 

Not bad, I'd probably leave it on the telly if I stumbled across it again. It was nice to see Lawrence interested in her work a little more than X Men Apocalypse (2016). Not completing boring but a lot of wasted potential 6/10

CINEMATES - A