Book Club (2018)

Four friends meet regularly for a book club and have been doing this for 30 odd years. They all have different relationship dynamics, and different lifestyles but everything seems to centre around their longstanding friendships. They then start reading the Fifty Shades trilogy and start to re-evaluate their lives.

The story behind this film doesn’t develop too far from this. I went into it with very low expectations but it was surprisingly better than I thought. It had some depth, and it wasn’t too wishy-washy so that it felt like you were chasing pointless characters. We get a rough idea of what all of them are doing and how they got there, but it goes no further than that in terms of character development – and it was just the right amount.

I didn’t understand how a film about a book club could be interesting or have anything to it, but really it was quite well done. The comedy in it was a bit meh in places, but there were also some chances to squeeze out an absolute belly laugh. However, I am not a middle-aged woman so some of the comedy may have been funnier if you are older? I don’t agree with that though really. I think it was made quite well for audiences of younger women upwards. I mean, I could possibly watch this with my Grandma… at a push, but it’s definitely something you could watch with your Mum.

The pacing was a little bit off, as some parts really dragged, and it seemed like they really wanted to put emphasis on the fact that ‘funny women are serious too’. There was a focus on some characters more than other – as you would expect, because from the off you know who the main character is. Some parts were just eye rolling kind of stuff.

I can’t say I noticed any kind of a score, I’m sure there was music it was just obviously not memorable enough, and wasn’t complimented by editing.
For me, the stars of the show – as I had anticipated were Jane Fonda and Diane Keaton. They are funny ladies. The cast was well chosen really, they all seemed to complement each other and you could believe that they had a relationship that meant something. It seemed like the kind of friendship you want in your 60’s.

Overall, it was incredibly average really. I wouldn’t buy it but I would recommend it to the mums of the world.

4.5/10

CINEMATES - S

Darkest Hour (2018)

Great Britain are losing faith in their current leader, Neville Chamberlain. The Nazis are becoming unstoppable and something needs to change, Britain needs a new leader who is willing to stand up and fight, and protect. Some of the cabinet members are reluctant to take on this role, so it looks like Winston Churchill is the man for the job. Darkest Hours tells the story of Churchill’s early days in parliament, and gives the viewer a slight glimpse into the struggles and triumphs Churchill faced as the Prime Minister of Great Britain during World War 2.

Okay, first things first. I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened, nor was Joe Wright. But this is the case for all productions based on true events, right? I didn’t know Winston Churchill, and embarrassingly, for a British Citizen, I can’t say I’m full of fun facts about him, I have a basic amount of knowledge, like anyone would when it comes to a leader of their country from decades ago. I’ve barely heard more than a handful of his speeches, and I’ve honestly never considered looking at his policies. So again, what is, or is not true I do not know. From what I do know about Churchill, praise deserved to go to Gary Oldman, as one thing that is widely recorded, are his characteristics. He was a fiery, serious man, but also unusually sarcastic, and had a particularly dry persona. If all of that is true, based on the accounts of those that knew him, then Oldman has smashed it. I mean, for starters we know how he spoke, so we know that Oldman got that right. 

The thing about his performance that deserves the most credit though, is the fact that you could believe, and use your imagination. He was a man struggling for approval. He was scared, but was fantastic at hiding it when he needed to, he was professional, unless he was in a situation in which he could let his guard down. He had strong opinions, and was a bold character, and was willing to do anything he could to find a solution to problems the country faced, but needed to be honest with himself and the nation about the reality of the situation. Oldman managed to take these characteristics and make that performance his own. 

He didn’t present Churchill as a good, or a bad character, but as a human being, and realistically that it what we would have seen if we could have been around at the time. In terms of the cast though, I honestly can’t say that anyone else stole my attention, which is of course credit to Oldman, but possible indicated a bad script in places? A lot of the characters were almost treated as fillers in some scenes, and none were given the opportunity to really shine, but then again, they didn’t need to and this wasn’t a bad thing. This film just wasn’t full of minor show-stopping performances.

I can’t say that this film was particularly stunning, visually or aurally. It was fine, and it suited the story that was being told. The score was what kept the mood for this film, it was tense, and depressing. The lighting complimented this well, and the theme was strong, and didn’t falter throughout. 

The editing, although nothing spectacular, was what really tied up all the loose ends in this film. The beginning and end of the film was captioned, which of course set the scene, and allowed us to jump straight in, and allowed the film to be wrapped up solidly, ensuring nothing was left hanging. The timing of this film was perfect, it was just enough that the viewer’s attention could be regained if they started to drift away. About every other scene, we were given an indication of how much time had passed, and this is something that an historical account needs.

Overall, this wasn’t phenomenal, and sure there are other actors, films, directors etc. that are worthy of an academy award, but I wouldn’t be mad if this won anything. I am aware that it is completely coincidental that Darkest Hour, and Dunkirk run alongside each other, but they work wonderfully together. Watching Dunkirk straight after this boosted my opinion of this film, both of them complement each other nicely, and really tie in nicely together. What a happy accident.

                                   

Better than expected, a nice, inoffensive account of Winston Churchill’s early days as Prime Minister. This film will – because of Gary Oldman, hold your attention. If anything, his performance is really why this film should be watched.

6/10

CINEMATES - S

Wonder (2017)

Wonder, is the story of young boy August Pullman, who until fifth grade is home schooled by his mum. He suffers from a genetic disease which causes his facial differences. The story explains the difficulties he faces as a child who isn’t quite ordinary, and the effect this has on his family and others in his life.

The trailer for this film shows you everything already, right? No, it doesn’t. I was definitely happy about this for starters. The way the story is split definitely helps give this story some further depth. So, for example it’s not just a story from the point of view of August. We start of learning about him, then how this affects his sister, Via – here we get to learn more about her experiences past and present. Next we move on to Via’s best friend Miranda. After this we learn about Jack Will, another young boy who is in the same form class as August at school, and so on. There is a nice chunk of character development throughout this film, which means it straight away reduces the risk of the story becoming disjointed.

To be fair, it is well written. It is paced fine, though for a film of this genre – seems to be quite long. I can’t say that this is a bad thing though. I really think this level of development is crucial for it to have any effect on the audience. It is a touching story, and the way it is structure is good.

The cast in this film do deserve serious credit. As well as the team of make-up artists, whose work although not breath-taking, was pretty damn good.

There are numerous moving moments, and if you are even the slightest bit emotional, you will cry at least once. Again, something that shows this film has done it’s job, you leave feeling disappointed that people can actually treat people in a way August is treated. This is because you have truly connected with the characters on screen. The chemistry between Owen Wilson and Julia Roberts was perfect. You could tell that they had a strong bond as parents because of all they had been through with their family and their child. You could see the strains the past, and current events were putting on relationship’s such as Robert’s character, as the mother, and her daughter. As well as this, you could see the August was a young boy who just had difficult things going on – like kids do, and he wanted his dad to help him out of it.

Of course, the way certain characters are portrayed is dramatized, and in some scenes it got too much. For example, the way children were shown as being incredibly mean – yes, I am completely aware things like this do happen in society, but not to the extent that it was emphasised in this film, necessarily. By that – I don’t mean, people just are mean in such a way, I mean it as there are 5 or 6 kinds of people in the world, and events don’t always occur in the way they do in Wonder.

But, whatever, if you want nit-picking, that’s my criticism. It’s a fictional story – admittedly, it claims to be based on a true illness etc. but there are, from what I’m aware, no true events on which this film is based.

I liked this film. I think it is moving, inspiring, and it made me feel all sorts of things. I recommend this film, and I’m sure I’ll be watching this again.

6.5/10

CINEMATES - S

Suburbicon (2017)

I honestly don’t know where this review is going to go, because I am just so confused. You know when you head into a film screening, having read the synopsis beforehand… but come out even more curious and clueless that you were to begin with? Suburbicon is one of those films.

Before going in, I was sure this was a film – BASED ON WHAT THE INTERNET DESCRIPTIONS SAID, about a family who had to deal with a lot, due to difficulties arising in Suburbicon, and Matt Damon played a ‘Liam Neeson in Taken-esque’, super-dad that kicked ass. I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE WRONG.

I honestly can’t say that this was a bad surprise though, because I can’t think of a film that I have experienced, which is anything like this. I’m going to try and keep this review as generic as possible because of the fact that the synopsis seems to do the same (This film can be spoiled in a second, so I am going to attempt to skip detail where I can).

Suburbicon is the story of an all-white American town/community living situation, in which everything is very calm, and running like clockwork. Nothing bad happens in Suburbicon. Everyone lives in perfect little houses, with a white picket fence, a back porch, a decent sized garden - you get the drift. Then suddenly, things begin to go downhill in the town, and the Lodge family are the ones that are suffering because of this.

The thing that I took away from this film was the awfully random, ill-fitting, unexplained part of the story involving a black American family moving into the town. It was a story about a town of racists in parts. I understand that due to the era this film was meant to be set in, and it being an all-white living area, it makes sense that the event of a black family moving in, will cause conflict. Yes, you can assume that the reason the horrific events that occur, supposedly (from the point of view of the citizens) occurs as a direct result of 3 black people suddenly moving in to the area. But this is just such a disjointed part of the plot, and honestly brings nothing to the story whatsoever, and in fact just confused the plot. As well as it confusing the story, it’s just such a bad depiction of such an event. We have tonnes of films incorporated this theme, and doing something creative with it. The creativity that seemed to be attempted was a giant flop.

The story itself, obviously ignoring this part was gripping. I liked the theme that was chosen, I like how dark it was, and I liked the (possibly) unintentional comedy. Matt Damon plays an awkward Psycho, and his performance surprised me, as it was one that I enjoyed. 

The progression of the story was quick, which was both good and bad. It was good, because it meant it was well paced, overall. I didn’t feel like the film was too long, or too short. It certainly lacked detail, but it was still fine to watch. The setting, at the start of the film, reminded me of the beginning of Edward Scissorhands, so at that point made me feel a bit worried, because that setting can be used badly. In this case, I think it was used well, and it complimented the story… Especially as I thought I was going in to see a TOTALLY different film. But it gradually started to impress me.

The greatest fault that this film has, besides the story, is the script. The script in this film was boring. It was not ‘meaty’, for lack of a better word. I would have written this film off had it not been for the cast, who - on the whole, did the job. This was also the case for the score. Although the score is DEFINITELY not noteworthy, there was one, and it worked with what we were seeing on screen.

Suburbicon is a film that starts off incredibly slowly, and then increasingly becomes more tense, more gritty, and more worth the watch.

5.5/10

CINEMATES - S 

Call Me by Your Name (2017)

From the first time I saw this trailer, I was genuinely excited about this release. I feel there hasn’t been a decent looking feel good film for a while, and Call Me by Your Name seemed to be one with a refreshing story to get me even more excited.

Call Me by Your Name is a film set in 1983 about the Perlman family, who every year have doctoral student stay with them every year. This year, Oliver comes to stay with them and work with the Father of our main character, Elio – a seventeen-year-old boy. Over the time they spend together all summer, they discover a mutual passion which is seemingly something new for Elio.

First things first, this film is beautiful. It’s such a great film to look at, Guadagnino has certainly realised the ticket to this film’s success and taken full advantage of it. There is so much focus on the beauty of the Italian buildings, the relaxing family breakfasts, the views out in the countryside when Elio and Oliver are out on a bike ride, the lunchtime banquets in the garden, the massive group games of volleyball – you get the picture, it was summer, and it is what makes this a feel good film. There’s something about seeing these kinds of scenes on the big screen that taps into so many different emotions for me.

The score was beautiful, it was probably one of my favourite aspects because it tied in so perfectly with the different things the characters were going through, and the events that you were watching. It really connected all the events on screen together. The only way I can describe this feeling, is by saying that it felt like I was part of the experience with Elio. It perfectly helped the transition between scenes, and I do not think this is a feature that was overused.

There really was attention to detail in this film, and the script in part was surprising. It was filled with comedy, sadness and drama. Conversely, there are a great deal of silences – some of these filled with the great pieces of music, but some that are just truly chilling. For this to work an excellent cast is needed, and that is definitely what this film has. Excluding Hammer, I was clueless about the rest of the cast, but went home desperate to find out what else I might see Chamalet in.

This is definitely a must see film. Not in the sense of – ‘I couldn’t keep my eyes off the screen, so much is happening’, but the opposite. It’s easy, it’s pleasant, it’s an extremely emotional story that will make you feel all kinds of things. I will be seeing this again, and encourage others to do so too.

7/10.

CINEMATES - S

The Death of Stalin (2017)

The Death of Stalin is quite simply, a political comedy… if there even is such a thing. The story walks us through Stalin’s last moments alive, and the challenges the rest of his cabinet faced after his death, with a nice dose of comedy.

We caught the Death of Stalin before its release at an Oden Screen Unseen, and it has taken me until now to face writing this review. This isn’t because it was a bad film, it was enjoyable – but it was a bit of something and nothing at the same time. So, I can already tell it’s going to be a short review.

I really think this film will be appealing to certain audiences, while others may find this if not boring, perhaps offensive, but this genuinely depends on your sense of humour. This film takes a serious event, and basically takes the piss out it, which comes with strengths and weaknesses. The film jumps straight in and sets the scene, which is perfect because it’s something people shouldn’t really need much of a back story for. Which is emphasised right at the beginning when we see characters who seem to be incredibly paranoid that they are at risk and are being watched. If you are going into this film blind, not knowing anything about Stalin, you get the idea that there are some bad things going on…

The cast in this film were the redeeming quality. The performance of Steve Buscemi was probably the most noteworthy. This was the only person I distinctly remember being in this film. His character really brought across the fact that while we are dealing with something very dark, there is still room for a little chuckle. 

While I don’t want to comment on the historical accuracy of this film, it is obvious in certain scenes that events are painfully dramatized, and I do remember sighing because I got bored of the cheap satire. The only way I can describe some of the comedy, is by calling it ‘Dad comedy’.

There is nothing unbelievable about the tools used in this film, the lighting in this film was consistently dull, which suited the atmosphere that was being displayed, which was great. The score… I know there was one, but it’s nothing to write home about. Honestly, the production was fairly average.

All I can really say is that this film is entertaining. It is definitely funny, but also serious. It uses classic British comedy to lighten a difficult subject, and that is something I enjoy.

However, I don’t think it’s everyone’s cup of tea, and I doubt I’d ever watch it again.

5.5/10

The Mountain Between Us (2017)

This film sounds more dramatic than it is overall, but the story captures you regardless.

Alex and Ben (Winslet and Elba), are complete strangers who meet because they have share the need to get to the same place, but a storm is going to prevent them from doing this. Alex then comes up with the idea that they can hire a tiny plane and someone to drive it. Unfortunate events result in them crashing and only having their dead pilot’s dog for company. They need to figure out how to survive on a completely snow-covered mountain, whilst debating whether to leave to attempt to find help, risking Alex’s health – as she injured her leg in the crash or battle it out, and risk their lives by staying there.

OOOOOH DRAMA.

 

I feel like in recent years we’ve had a few films like this with the undertones of survival in them, and I’m not mad about it. They aren’t getting repetitive, because although there are going to be obvious similarities, the cast, and intricacies of the story vary. This film was no different. This is what initially intrigued me with this – the cast. Both fantastic actors, both with some big titles under their belts, and both bloody British (yaaaaaaaas!), but was there going to be chemistry? They were really, the only two actors we saw throughout this whole film, so they HAD to be good together for this film to be even slightly successful.

My god, there was chemistry – they both worked wonderfully together, and I must say Kate Winslet – your American accent isn’t infuriating. As soon as the film starts we are left with just the two of them, and very, very early on in the film the plane crash happens. At this point I really thought, there is no way this is going to be good. There is no way they can be amusing for nearly 2 hours. I was so wrong. We really got to understand the characters, and over those few weeks they were together we got to learn about them, and share a journey with them – the experience really was as corny, yet thrilling as I’m making it sound.

There were some thrilling moments, like the very real (for them, anyway) danger of going for a walk right at the top of a mountain, slipping, and almost falling off the edge of a mountain. The struggle of being stuck with either just yourself, or someone you barely know and might not like. The fear that you could get attacked by a Cougar. It was all captured well, of course dramatized, but not to the point of it being uncomfortable to watch.

The story was well paced, and set in a beautiful location – it’s hard to believe tonnes of effort was needed for this to be shot well – but then again, what do I know about shooting a film at all, let alone in the snow? The film only had one slight downfall for me. This was the fact that a love story was introduced. I cannot say it wasn’t powerful, because of the connection that Elba and Winslet had, but it at the end of the film because kind of cringe because of the conclusion to the story. I will not deny that the situation they were in couldn’t happen in real life, it was just a perfect example of oh, for god sake does everyone HAVE to fall in love and live happily ever after? Couldn’t one get killed by a bear and the other tell their story?

It was heart-warming, heart breaking, shocking, and pleasant all at once. It was everything I wanted from it, and I would recommend it – and say it’s worth more than some of the ratings I have seen so far.

7.5/10 

Flatliners (2017)

Flatliners is the story of 5 medical students, who all take part in an experiment, to find out what happens to us in the afterlife, or if there is even such a thing. To do this, they take it in turns to stop their hearts for long enough to have their own experiences, but come back and tell their stories. However, this isn’t as simple as they might have imagined when their ‘sins’ come back with them and start wreaking havoc in their everyday lives. Resulting in serious complications for some of them. This idea to me was still quite refreshing, and the aspect of supernatural beings and life experiences being brought into this is what really hooked me in, well… and Ellen Page… and the 4% Rotten Tomatoes rating (oh and I love giving remakes a go).

As I mentioned, the cast was mostly what hooked me in with this remake, Ellen Page is a gem, and I was excited to see her in this because she takes on different characters and plays them well. This role for her, was no exception. You did understand the determination possessed by Page’s character from the beginning, and by the end you genuinely did fear for her, and in some parts empathise with what she was having to deal with as a consequence of her experiment. This hooked me when the film began. This part of the story was complimented wonderfully by Diego Luna’s character, who was concerned about what was going on because it was such a stupid thing to do, and frequently raised the incredibly real point that getting into a good medical school, and training to be a doctor is hard, don’t ruin all your hard work. Oh and, living is great, why are you all essentially committing suicide?

I don’t want to focus on the fact that this is a remake too much, so I don’t want to say the reason this film got bad is due to the choice of cast, the cast weren’t bad, it’s just the performances aren’t exactly memorable, but I guess this is possibly due to the writing. This was extremely poor in some areas, and I got a few eye-rolls in. The story was reasonably strong up until the point of shoving 2 new romances into an already busy film, it wasn’t needed, and took away some of the potential for originality. Similarly, the end is basically given away at the start. You are made aware of what is going to haunt Ellen Page’s character within the first 3 minutes, which again got a massive eye-roll.

There is really nothing much to say about it, and this seems to be the general consensus from those that have seen it. It was fine, it was well made from the point of view that it encorporated some comedy, some drama, it was a thriller, and possibly could be at a huge push a horror, and I would recommend that it is something you watch if you have either seen the original, and want to laugh at the attempt to make another average film from an already reasonably average film, or if you just want to see it, because it wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t great. I mean, I would watch it again, just maybe don’t get too excited about it.

5.5/10

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 

My Life as a Courgette (2016)

Young Icare – or Courgette, as his mother called him has a troubling childhood and ends up in a children’s home. With the help of a police officer, and the few friends he makes whilst after his arrival, his life ends up being better than he could have imagined. 

My Life as a Courgette is a French animation film. Even though it is only just over an hour long, and it is jam packed with so many different amazing things. 

The story, although quite simple, is powerful, and beautifully portrayed by these animated characters. You learn about learn each of them, and warm to them throughout the film. We get to know a little bit about the history of each character, but not too much that it takes away from the main point of the film. You can connect with, and a feel for each different character as their different personalities are presented through the everyday activities they are part of, or the smaller scale conflicts.

I came out of this showing truly touched by what I had seen, and the story that had been created. I appreciated everything about it. The music in this film, was once again, a simple touch, but it was something that fitted so well. The screenplay was filled with scenes that demonstrated the different simple emotions we all experience in everyday circumstances, and it was so heart-warming to see that it was from the point of view, and experiences of young children.

The main thing I took away from this was what seemed to be the variety of hidden messages within the script. We followed Courgette as he began to experience new things, new challenges, and new feelings. It was emphasised throughout that looks are not the only thing to make a person beautiful, and this was cleverly shown by the animation. Which is something to look out for if you see this film. 

It’s hard to explain this film without giving too much away, and like I explained, all the important qualities to this film are simple, but that it was makes them great. This is a film that must be seen and not just read about. This animation seems to be so natural that it is almost impossible for it not to tug on the heartstrings of anyone who watches it.

I highly recommend giving this a watch, whether you are an adult or a child. It is refreshing, funny, sad, and just so adorable.

7/10. 

CINEMATES - S 

My Cousin Rachel (2017)

I am usually a fan of romantic dramas set around the 1950’s (assumption, because that was when the book was released). So as soon as I saw the, admittedly confusing trailer, I was game.

My Cousin Rachel is a story about a young lad named Phillip who was adopted, and brought up by his cousin Ambrose. Ambrose falls is and is sent to Florence to try and recover, here he meets the first woman to ever catch his eye, Rachel. He marries her and following this he passes away. Phillip is horrified and sets out to discover who this woman is, and why nothing has been left in her name by his cousin Ambrose. Upon meeting her he is instantly swoon, and she captures him with her beauty and charm. He then becomes obsessed with making sure she is comfortable and well off, so much so that he will ultimately be left with nothing. Once she realises this Rachel attempts to do what is needed to ensure she will not lose her late husband’s estate. 

It seemed that director Roger Michell, having directed classics such as Notting Hill (1999), and Persuasion (1995), was in his comfort zone/area of expertise when it came to My Cousin Rachel. The screenplay although simple, did suit this type of film. He did justice to the fact that not much other than the acting and the few locations we had were enough. 

I am not sure what role he played in helping select the cast, but although it was clear that there was a much-needed connection between characters Phillip (Sam Claflin), and Rachel (Rachel Weisz), in some parts it seemed that it almost began to fade, and they were just acting together, and the amount that I believed the true connection between these two characters decreased.

When casting, I think they selected Weisz well. From the position of a viewer, I wasn’t understanding the charm and beauty that Rachel held when played by Weisz. That is not me being horrible, I liked that. I like that she wasn’t stupidly stunning (not saying that she isn’t), or made to look so, and wasn’t awfully bubbly and outgoing. You got the idea that he loved her for his own reasons, that we probably weren’t going to see. This emphasised the fact that Rachel was their ‘torment’. The other members of the case complimented the story and the other actors well, as this was noticed by other characters almost the same as it was by me. I could see this in the reactions of the characters played by those such as Holliday Grainger and Iain Glen. Who gave a variety to the characters we had on screen, and suited their parts well.

The feeling that given off by this feel was largely set up by the filming locations and minimal sets that were selected – as mentioned above. But this meant that we got some beautiful shots of the places that were supposedly important to the few main characters in this film, and did set a tone for the film. Alongside the costumes, the makeup, the jewellery worn by the characters, even the footwear, and in some cases the way actors held themselves, they were had this period drama sorted!

However, the story although it looks like a juicy one, didn’t do much. I was excited at the beginning as things were set out for us, very well, as we started by hearing a chunk about Phillip and Ambrose and then that kind of just faded away into nothingness, and ended with a few things not being tied up, and finally finishing up similarly to how it all began. There were parts when I believe it was going get dramatic, and we were finally getting to the good bit, but in this area, My Cousin Rachel did lack.

Even though the story did lack in places it was okay, and it wasn’t too badly paced, I didn’t feel too long, and it was a pleasant film to watch. I don’t think it’s a film for someone who has never seen a period drama, or dislikes them, as typically then can be quite straightforward films especially one with a story like this – however, this is not a bad thing.

This wasn’t a bad film, but it also wasn’t a good one. It was fine, but I may even consider buying it one day, though I can’t say I’m desperate to see it again.

5.5/10.

CINEMATES - S 

The Mummy (2017)

After the masses of bad reviews following the release of The Mummy, Universal’s first instalment to its Dark Universe series… I really was not looking forward to watching this film. I mean we’d seen the trailers for months, and I’d begun to just get sick of seeing anything to do with this film, bit the bullet and caught a showing.

The story is what you’d expect from what we’ve already been given, but it is really nicely set out right at the beginning of the film, because we don't really know much about Ahmanet’s (Sophia Boutella) character, or history. So the film was really set up well, and honestly, the story just went downhill from there. Considering the film is called The Mummy, suggesting it is likely to be about a mummy, it’s almost quite the opposite. The main theme of this film was lost in some parts of he film, and it wasn’t so much a film about the villain, or the main character of the film it was more of a series of events surrounding the leading actor.

This was a problem for a couple of reasons. For starters, I’m not a massive fan of Tom Cruise anyway, and I know that isn't a popular opinion, and I cant always justify my reason for that statement, but I just don't always quite connect with him as an actor. This was something that i really noticed in this film, I just didn't quite understand what he was trying to do with his character. Secondly, it was a problem because its The Mummy! We want more of the Mummy! The rest of the cast really were nothing to write home about, I feel horrible saying it, but - they did the job but the actors did not stand out as the new ‘someone to watch’, because they starred in this film.

The actual film itself was really quite messy in parts, and I found myself sat there feeling exhausted, because it was pure on screen chaos. We jumped from one dilemma to the next, without much transition, or in some cases closure. It felt like during filming they were like RIGHT, WE NEED A BUNCH OF DISASTER, EDITING TEAM… SMUSH IT ALL IN. The result was not a positive one, and ended up with the film not only being a bit all over the place, but a little bit too long. It really felt like it was 2 hours long.



Not all was bad though, there were some interesting bits of action that I hadn't expected, and a lot of Cruise falling of buildings, dodging explosions and showing us some new creatures, which did on occasion look different to most others that we have seen before. The comedy however, was truly awful, corny, and eye-roll worthy. When i wasn’t that, it was jus funny because some scenes almost ripped off Shaun of the Dead… Which is great, if you’re watching Shaun of the Dead.

Honestly, this film for me was a hot mess, and like myself, I wouldn't rush to see it. It’s not the worst film by all means, but is it better than the 1999 original? No, of course not. Is it worth buying? No. Is it even worth recommending? Probably not. For a 2 hour film there is not a lot to say that isn't really mean, but I was no more impressed with this after watching than I was before release.

4/10. Sorry Cruise, I still won’t be joining a fan club.

CINEMATES - S 

It Comes at Night (2017)

I heard about this film a little while back, we were given a poster (which I adore) and one trailer and that was it. I'm a fan of A24 and the story seemed right up my street so I was on board. If you were anticipating a strange monster in the woods, a scary climax and some potentially disturbing visuals, this is not it. I will tell you now the marketing is in some places incorrect. After watching the trailer back, it comes across as a slightly different film, different genre almost too.

So, we have Joel Edgerton as Paul, the father and husband in a desolate world when an intruder breaks into his home. After restraining Will, said intruder, we discover that he too has a wife and son and is looking for refuge. I mentioned before that I loved the poster and I do. The simple contrast and empty space alone is pleasing. It so effortlessly implied danger whilst showing none. Like a famous piece of art called Deimos by Dragan Bibin. A dog, in It Comes at Night's case his name is Stanley, standing alert and uneasy staring at something we can't see. I was intrigued and impressed that we did not have the big reveal up front. Though after watching it's kind of because there isn't one. This is a character piece, this is a drama. It would barely scrape horror, thriller is a closer fit.

Some of the score has a sci-fi feel, like warped sirens, the repetition that wouldn't feel out of place on a space vessel. It also relied decently on the absence of sound. Heads up, you can't eat your popcorn during every scene. The silence adds real unease and suspense, the whole film is, visually and audibly, quite natural. Bar the occasional score it was all diegetic sound, very real. And most frames are filled with darkness. The black seeps in from the edges to meet the often-small singular light on screen. We see no electricity in the film, just multiple lamps and the natural lighting. The shadows created against the characters hints at what we don't know. As I said, it's more of a character piece with moral standing being part of the ensemble. 

The cast were great, Edgerton is great, I thoroughly enjoyed him in Warrior and The Midnight Special and it's no different here. One of the biggest flaws I found in the film is that there isn't enough of anything. This goes mainly with the characters. Edgerton's Paul has some difficult scenes, he shows emotion and self-conflict well but somehow has a surprisingly sparse time to show them. Kelvin Harrison Jr plays Travis, Paul's son, who has possibly the best performance of the film. He shows a genuine range of emotions and unlike most other characters he can explore them fully. As an audience we're tied to him, he often day dreams or is deep in thought and we stay with him as other characters continue with scenes. He's in a way our time keeper, he often leads us in and out of days with simple dimming to black as he sleeps and brightening as he wakes, often from nightmares. He has different relationships with every character and, thinking about it, is the only person to have a direct conversation with every other character in the film.

Will, played by Christopher Abbott, came into his own. I personally only knew him from Lena Dunham's Girls, and it was nice to recognise him but not see the character and just see this new person. But again, we don't have the chance to see the full potential and beef the character out a bit more. Same goes for the two women in the film, Travis' mum Sarah is well played by Carmen Ejogo who again doesn't have many solid scenes to show off but still managed to show her character. Will's wife Kim alternatively gets a couple of scenes to give some information about her but ultimately, she's used for other characters to work off. With the film being on 97 mins none of them really got the chance to flesh themselves out that well considering its a character driven film.

Overall it felt like a student film. Low budget but well made. Clearly Trey Edward Schults baby as he wrote, directed and co-edited the film, something I have split minds over. I don't tend to agree on people being involved in that many aspects on one project, mostly a 'Jack of all trades master of none' mentality. Sometimes one person's vision needs another persons contributions. It Comes at Night is likely to divide people’s opinions though the reception has been good. Very similar tones and style to The Witch (2015), which debatably had the same marketing flaw, though was well received. I really wished I enjoyed the ending more. A good ending doesn't have to mean a happy ending so I was open to something awful. It felt abrupt and largely unsatisfying. Though one part may shock some people it doesn't have that much of a crescendo to the basic character development. Third act has an interesting goal but not executed that well.

It's slower and more art-house than advertised. Strong aspects but more forgettable than I would like. 6/10 add on another 2 marks if you're a fan of The Witch.

CINEMATES - A

Colossal (2016)

I was really looking forward to this when I first heard about it. Thought the premise was really original and worse case scenario would be that I would see an ending I couldn't have thought of. Now though it wasn't the worst case scenario for me, it wasn't what I expected nor was it as good as I was expecting. The story follows Anne Hathaway playing Gloria, an alcoholic without a job that has just been kicked out of her boyfriends apartment. She moves back home and bonds with old school mate Jason Sudeikis all the while a giant monster terrorises Seoul. Slowly Gloria realises that she is in control of this monster and has to figure out how to stop the havoc she's caused. Great idea, decently executed, the ending I don't think anyone saw coming, though isn't necessarily that satisfying.

The cast was good but not all were great. They weren't bad but I don't think they all meshed that well. I love Anne Hathaway but her character needed a bit of honing in on. Rocky development but development none the less. She did some things that didn't have much reason to them unless it were just for her wanting to cause chaos. Which would be acceptable if that avenue was explored just a little more in depth. Some of her decisions seemed half assed, yet more half assed from the script than from the character, lazy writing almost, like a space filler to the next part of the story. Little parts of her, like her being a writer, were mentioned quite late in the film and didn't seem to have much acknowledge until the end. And even then it was almost too subtle after the dusting of information we had for it, for it to have some proper weight behind it. Her progress of understanding the monster and owning up and figuring out how to fix it and conquer her demons parallels clearly enough with her drinking problem and it's nice to see her grow even if its just a small amount.



























 I did like Oscar's development, played by Sudeikis, I also didn't. I'm conflicted by this. I stand strong that bad people don't make bad characters. Awful people aren't always awful characters, you can still like them and they can still be integral to the narrative whilst being the antagonist. I'm just not 100% sure that's what this is. It was pretty gradual thankfully, but Oscar spiralled down from being likable, potentially lovable, to pretty awful. With no solid reason, and that's why I think it was a bit of a struggle. No spoilers but I liked that he became basically irredeemable. It's refreshing to not be forced to sympathise with a troubled character. Keeping that in mind the little reveal of back story at the end is okay but again not that satisfying. But maybe that's the message, the lack of justification, the unforgivable behaviour of chaos.

I'm a big fan of Dan Stevens who played Gloria's boyfriend Tim, but they didn't seem believable together. You could somewhat believe that he had put up with a lot, but their opening argument didn't hold enough weight to balance Gloria being kicked out and leaving the city so abruptly. Tim's character actually came back in parts during the film which surprised me somewhat, as from the trailers I had guess he was just used for the sake of starting the story. He was pretty charming but being British in an American cast does that kinda automatically. The other two actors of the film were Joel and Garth played by Austin Stowell and Tim Blake Nelson respectively. Both alright but again had development issues, and we didn't get given enough information to know if we needed that or not. Were okay but in a way not detrimental.

Cinematography was odd, as if now and again it made a point of reminding you you were watching a film and created a poster like shot, something oddly symmetrical or simple. I did enjoy that for almost every scene of the film Gloria wears black. To begin with it appears as if she's in mourning and expressing this with her clothes. She has a slight change when she gets a job in Oscar's bar but soon again she goes back to black. The images in Seoul Korea are good but its hard to make a giant monster in such a big city look uninteresting.

Hathaway was our only real outlet to the real world. We get shown new stories from the worlds point of view alongside being in the city itself to experience the fear and confusion. Personally that's what I found to be the most interesting part of the film, though it didn't go to the degree that I would have liked. It's a very interesting concept to imagine what would actually happen in the world if a giant monster magically appeared and disappeared in a busy part of civilisation. Gloria is the only one to really think about the severity of this and how big of a deal it is. Other than that we wouldn't have felt the gravity of the situation and the risks as well.

If you were expecting a comedy it isn't one. I'll put that there. Described as a dark comedy yes, but even that, its not funny. It's not a funny film. There are the odd awkward interactions that are kinda funny but no jokes. Not necessarily a bad thing just not what I expected, I thought it would have more laughs. 

5/10 go if you're curious but it's kinda whatever. Seeing a woman gain power over her personal monsters should be more empowering but Hathaway's character is still the highlight of this interesting feature.

CINEMATES - A