Review - Suicide Squad

**This review is slightly spoilerish, so if that matters to you, avoid reading it until you've seen the film** 

(Dir: David Ayer, 2016)

In an excessive summer of sequels, there's something exciting about the prospect of a great, not yet seen concept. Welcome to Suicide Squad, twisting the now standard superhero ensemble to focus on a team-up of villainy. Okay, it's not exactly original in idea but it's fascinating enough to ooze fun. And fun is probably the best compliment that can be laid at the actual film's door, because it is mostly entertaining, despite being an encapsulation of "great concept, poor execution".

Let's start with the characters, as they're the core to making a film like this work. Two ostensibly take the lead – Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). The novelty of "Will Smith playing a bad guy!?" quickly dissipates when you realise he's essentially playing the same character he always does, except he just so happens to kill people. His unique set of skills never seem effectively utilised in the story, and he's just too nice (it is Will Smith after all!), but there could be potential for an interesting Deadshot film as his character introduction suggested. Robbie is clearly having the most fun here making Harley Quinn an enjoyable character to watch, although for virtually all the film she mostly seems devoid of depth. Choosing to focus more on her was a wise one (she is the most iconic of the group after all), but to the detriment of the film no-one else is given much of a meaningful back story. Diablo (Jay Hernandez) has clear motivations and there's a lot more you want to know, but he's glossed over until plotting demands his skills. The make-up on Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) is excellent – he is by far the most visually interesting team member – but we're given literally nothing about him and his presence is irrelevant. Jai Courtney's Boomerang is just a terrible walking Aussie cliché, making an annoying/bad actor the most annoying he's ever been. Everyone else is barely introduced and thus disposable. The one good guy, Flag (Joel Kinnaman), who serves to keep everyone in check, is a totally vanilla character, on-board with the bad shit that needs to be done and possessing only very simple motivations.

The problem of trying to present so many characters at once is endemic in every ensemble film, and usually most likely to be it's downfall, but it's doubly challenging when these are all new-to-screen characters. A good, satisfying villain can ease some of the difficulties, but the two pronged attack of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), the person whom the squad begrudgingly have to obey but who is just so utterly uninteresting thanks to being totally one note, and Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), do not good antagonists make. There's something in the back story of Enchantress that could be intriguing, but as a villain she's just clichéd, and poorly acted by Delevingne. When you have villains stopping other villains the threat level needs to be ratcheted up high, and they have to be stopping something truly terrible, which never feels the case here. Then you have The Joker (Jared Leto). The problem with adding The Joker back into the mix is that the last two performances on film (Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson) have in different ways felt so damn definitive that it's hard to see what else can be brought to the table. Leto's iteration feels infinitely inferior compared to Ledger's iconoclastic fuck-the-world nihilism and Nicholson's crazed comic-book esque mania. He's just a skeletal, somewhat outré crime boss with a wild streak, but not given enough screen time to develop the character whilst serving no real purpose to this story (importance to Harley Quinn aside) since he's thankfully not the villain here.

From a technical standpoint the film doesn't really work either. The introductions are essential but imbalanced, and despite some good content feel forced in a way that quickly stalls the film. It then shifts into a boring structure of complete a mission with a little surprise twist, act annoyed for a bit then reluctantly save the world, whilst partly feeling like it's ripping off Escape From New York. Throughout the editing is too focused on short shots / scenes, likely due to the plethora of characters and to keep things moving, but it's wearying and gives the impression that there's plenty of (possibly better) film left on the editing room floor. Whilst the copious inclusion of recognisable songs jars, frequently not working in the context of their respective scenes. On the plus side there's enough humour throughout to keep things entertaining.

Due to the story/source potential there's many ways Suicide Squad could've worked, but it sits in that awkward position of great concept, poor execution. As both writer and director, blame for that has to fall squarely on David Ayer. One look at his filmography tells you that his best film, Fury, is nothing like his previous films arguably making that a fluke. Clearly it took three goes to nail the LA cop film with End of Watch, before throwing out the awful Sabotage. Ironically the hiring of Ayer may have been to give Suicide Squad the edge it requires, something his previous films defintiely have, yet it's sorely lacking here. With weak villains and our heroes being a collective of barely menacing bad guys – Deadshot and Diablo are just too nice whilst Harley Quinn is crazy but never really threatening – this is yet another superhero ensemble where seeing more of these characters individually would be much more satisfying, not least because group chemistry is virtually non-existent. It's hard to say its not an entertaining watch, but you just wish for so much more from it.

Review: Star Trek Beyond

(Dir: Justin Lin, 2016)

Now this is the Star Trek sequel we've been waiting for!! J.J. Abrams' 2009 restart of the franchise was far better than anyone ever hoped it might be. Whilst it may have lacked slightly in the villain department it completely made up for it through a joyful sense of discovery as this new crew took to space with a sublime chemistry. That chemistry proved to be the only saving grace of the the 2013 sequel Star Trek Into Darkness, a film felled by the complete and utter miscalculation that what happened in the original film series must be repeated. Not only was Benedict Cumberbatch so distractingly awful as the chief antagonist, the first ten minutes were resolutely the best part of the film as they almost solely provided the entire film's interactions with otherworldly civilisations - one of the most appealing parts of the Star Trek universe. Alas I wasn't sad to see Abrams move to the Star Wars universe (Trek has always been the more interesting of the two), and considering how Justin Lin reinvigorated the Fast and Furious franchise, the omens were good.

Star Trek Beyond could almost pick-up where the first film left off and offers almost everything you'd want in a sequel. The characters are now all established, and their dynamic and chemistry is left to purr away. Everyone remains so well cast and they give it their all, and we the audience are now fully invested in them. And the humour continues too - in large part due to Karl Urban's Bones, whose dry, deadpanned pessimism wins every time he is on screen, much as it has since he was unwillingly escorted onto that shuttle in the first film. But we also have to thank Simon Pegg and Doug Jung's script which is sharp and creates an exciting story (the only complaint being how many times Pegg makes his Scotty character say "lassie"!).

And this is an exciting story. After a fun little intro and a touch of scene setting, we're off on a mission that quickly gets interesting. The first proper action sequence is jaw droppingly good, setting up for a second half that plays to everyone's strengths with perhaps the exception of Spock who feels just a little sidelined. But importantly we get a proper villain this time in the shape of Krall. Idris Elba carries the character under a ton of prosthetics and make-up with a fiercely imposing determination, almost spitting his words out. Whilst his squalls of deleterious drones offer a superbly rendered threat for the crew to sabotage. The introduction of new character Jaylah works, mostly thanks to the humorous innocence Sofia Boutella brings to the role and her dialogue, plus her make-up is awesome! And so it remains engaging throughout, perhaps only stumbling slightly at the finale as it tries to stretch things a touch too far, but forgivably so.

This is the film we should've had in 2013, meaning this year we'd have (hopefully) been watching another sequel as good as this! Star Trek Beyond makes sure it hits some of the key requirements for the universe - superb chemistry with the core cast, decent villain and threat to the Federation, alien worlds, impressive space scenes. But it's also a hell of a lot fun, frequently funny and visually impressive - including one of the best ever ideas for how to stop your enemy! Although it may lack that wonder of coming together and discovery that the first film had, it hits the ground running heading straight into its own story, clearly having learned from the mistakes of the very flawed and unnecessarily dour Into Darkness. If they can keep making Star Trek films as good and fun as this with this same cast (Anton Yelchin will be missed), I want to see this modern iteration keep running and running.

Review: Jason Bourne

(Dir: Paul Greengrass, 2016)

**This review is a little spoilerish, so avoid reading it until you've seen the film, if that matters to you**

Here's the question – at what point in a successful and very good series of films do you begin to see diminishing returns, both creatively and entertainment wise? In other words, when should you start changing things up a bit? If Jason Bourne is anything to go by, the answer is the fourth film... or at least the film that follows nine years after a trilogy was wrapped up in a nice bow, seemingly over.

Yes, Matt Damon is back, reprising the role that's most defined his career (as evidenced elsewhere, something that's clearly hard to walk away from), along with director Paul Greengrass, much revered for how he helped revitalise the stale action film, not to mention crystallising the governmental conspiracy plotlines that Event of the State defined for our generation. Ordinarily this would be cause for celebration, it was certainly cause for anticipation, but when the ideas seem to have dried up over these intervening years, it's hard not to feel a little disappointed. The underlying starting premise is solid – Bourne is long off the grid and gets called on by Nicky (Julia Stiles) to help her out of some trouble. But it's how this instantly morphs into a rehash of the previous two films (discounting The Bourne Legacy for the moment) that is unedifying... there just so happens to be more secrets about his past that he needs to uncover, whilst the CIA do exactly what they've tried previously to stop him, and a more sympathetic agent (Alicia Vikander) has conflicting emotions about trying to neutralise the perceived threat he represents. This really does feel like Supremacy and Ultimatum repeated, even returning to some of the same cities, just with newer government tech and agents. This leaves it feeling a tired, uninspiring film.

One glimmer of storyline hope comes from allusions to the Edward Snowden leaks - a timely and potential-filled story angle that gets thrown away in favour of a more clichéd online privacy angle that adds nothing to the film, not least because it just feels tacked on so there's something seemingly relevant in here. Of course a lot of people will say so what, we're just here for the action anyway, but even that feels a pale imitation of the past. These scenes suffer greatly thanks to the editing. Previously Greengrass crafted thrilling and visceral action, with punches you felt and stunts that blew you away (just watch that Tangier's set chase/fight scene in Ultimatum!). Faster editing and handheld-style camerawork created the necessary immediacy and realism, but in Jason Bourne it has tipped too far over the edge into frenetic nearly unwatchable territory. It's like that opening scene in Quantum of Solace that's edited into a mush in a desire to ape the Bourne films – alas the series seems to have turned in on itself in that sense! None of the action scenes are memorable. The vehicular chases go on too long, with the one roaring down the Vegas strip over-the-top in the manner of those films that the Bourne series was the antidote too. One can only presume the final fight sequence was edited so that you cannot discern much of what happens to make it eligible for a lower certificate.

Nonetheless, Jason Bourne is still an entertaining film. This series has become the gold standard for action films as well as those brewing governmental subterfuge, meaning that even on an off-day there's still plenty to enjoy. The reality is that Damon's embodying of a not especially complex character makes him absorbing, even when time seems to have made him a little calmer and a little greyer. But the problem with being the gold standard is that there's an expected quality. Thus the revenge motivation here feels a little hollow, whilst Tommy Lee Jones' CIA Director is now a cliché even he can't convincingly sell. I wanted to like Vikander but her motivations seem all over the place, whilst the insane technological skills she possesses makes solutions to moments of detective work feel overly convenient. Vincent Cassel was however born to play a CIA asset!

After Damon and Greengrass walked away from the franchise, pursuing it with a different character seemed credible and rife for potential considering the nature of the universe. I liked Jeremy Renner in The Bourne Legacy but they shot themselves in the foot by trying write a separate story into the events of the prior two films. What both films post Ultimatum prove is that "CIA chasing one of their own agents" is not the element that made the original trilogy so good, it was that it was a taut journey of a man trying to find himself whilst utilising a savagely innate ability. There were many interesting places to go with this character, so to return with the hackneyed plotting of "here's some more bad stuff about his past he must discover in order to exact facile revenge on those now hunting him who are also conveniently responsible", just results in more of the same but far less inspired, and nowhere near as good. Jason Bourne is entertaining, but the original trilogy deserves a far better sequel than this.

Review: Captain America: Civil War

(Dir: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, 2016)

Expectations were more in check this time. After deep disappointment sitting in the cinema watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier (lengthy exegesis here), it was best to go into Captain America: Civil War with them suitably lowered. Right decision. Just to back track... Winter Soldier felt like such a regression into blandness following Captain America: The First Avenger, one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's high watermarks (at least we now have the Agent Carter tv series!). The first hour was really enjoyable and gripping, then it monumentally jumps the shark at exactly one hour and two minutes. Then once you're slowly recovering from that, it jumps the shark again with the Winter Soldier reveal. Now this may be true to the comics, but the film handles it so badly, explaining away something seemingly illogical in a single sentence. Incredulity ensues... in this viewer at least. It never recovers from this, and even the much touted claims that it's a throwback to seventies conspiracy thrillers never holds true either – what, just because there's subterfuge, it's set in Washington DC and has Robert Redford in the cast? That's reaching. So clearly expectations had been tempered, even more so following the frankly poor Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Should we have expected the key flaws of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice to ring true here too? Marvel has had plenty of time to hone things in this universe, so it was surprising to see Civil War go down one of the same rabbit holes... blindly held vengeance. Where that seemed like a bewildering motivator to get those two DC icons fighting each other, it likewise feels as if it's utterly unnecessary here too. For the final showdown to be what it is, based solely around this awkwardly manufactured "v" word, feels like utter bullshit. Maybe there is truth to the idea that the only way to destroy this team is from the inside out, but when it's forced in this manner it never rings true. There's always been mildly combustible differences, but this feels nothing like the culmination of that.

Unfortunately the new lazy cop-out for superhero films seems to be having the heroes fight each other. Ignoring the above mentioned finale, at three quarters of the way through to devolve the film into a twelve character showdown split into two warring sides with cgi overloaded fighting... it's just a waste of what's come before. Yes, that's twelve characters... twelve!! That's double the number of members of The Avengers in the first film, just for context. This serves the story in no appreciable way whatsoever, and sure it might do it for some people, but really it's just boring when there is zero actual threat or chance that it has any consequence beyond wounded egos and further mild rifts in the group. Thank god Paul Rudd's Ant-Man adds some very brief moments of humour, just to remind you that amidst the pointless po-faced "we have to fight each other" nonsense, it is possible to have some fun.

Civil War rarely feels anything like a Captain America film. Sure, he is ostensibly the lead, but most of what's covered here is really just a direct Avengers sequel. The fall-out of Age of Ultron certainly needed addressing, but as the very good opening sequence proves, things can happen in the meanwhile before playing this out in Infinity War, letting a Captain America story run off on it's own (with a smidgen of added Falcon and Black Widow if necessary). What the film did not need was this much Tony Stark/Iron Man focus, the excess assortment of other characters, and not to mention two brand new characters too. Black Panther offers an intriguing taste of the character and I look forward to his stand-alone film, but the inclusion of Spider-Man serves exactly zero purpose here. Of course it's relevant for the "universe" but it is this film we're watching and he only adds bloat (slightly awkwardly it has to be said) to an already long film.

At least for the first half, Civil War is very entertaining, probably more so than Winter Soldier. That well-shot opening action sequence and the globetrotting help, as do some of the scenes of debate (ie trying to bring rational arguments and intelligence into proceedings) and a little bit of heart. Likewise, barely a mention of Hydra is a move in the right direction, as is giving the Winter Soldier (the character that is) some actual context – which if done in the last film would've helped immeasurably. It's just unfortunate that the second half overshadows all of this.

Much to its detriment, Civil War is really Avengers 2.5. It covers ground that doesn't really fit a Captain America film, and it's bloated beyond belief – it certainly does not need two thirds of the characters that are in it. The denouement is utterly disappointing, and it's under the misguided delusion that having your heroes nonsensically fight each other actually serves some rational purpose – and if that's all you're building too, it's a depressing waste of the source material available. It still feels necessary to ask, what was the point of this film? Yet again, Marvel proves that it's the origins stories, divorced of the bigger picture and the wider group of characters, that are the ones worth getting excited about.

Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

(Dir: Zack Snyder, 2016)

How many people out there wanted to see Warner Brothers attempt to kick off The Justice League, much as Marvel teased their burgeoning integrated cinematic universe in Iron Man 2, rather than a true Man of Steel sequel? That film retold a well known origins story in an interesting way, with excellent casting. Henry Cavill proved a superb choice as Clark Kent / Superman, better perhaps than Brandon Routh's much loved turn in the role in Superman Returns, whilst the overall supporting cast of characters really help make the film what it is. Sure it devolved into an hour of mindless destruction (something that seemed more palatable at the cinema than upon rewatching), whilst rubbing some people the wrong way by going against the core ethos of Superman's character. Thus a sequel was nicely set-up to explore these ramifications in more depth and offer a hopefully more interesting, Earth-bound threat. Despite it's flaws Iron Man 2 definitely felt like a sequel, whereas the waters are intentionally muddied here so that's only what we partly get in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Without ruining the plot (the title is obviously a clear sell of what's to come), we're presented with Batman (Ben Affleck) who is our cipher for the disappointment in Superman's past actions. This unfortunately puts the focus in the wrong direction as it solely leads to "revenge" as the driver for the inevitable showdown the title promises. A more apt / interesting angle to explore this disappointment through is the congressional hearings prompted by Holly Hunter's senator, but this just scratches the surface, ultimately serving as a plot device for facile soul-searching without better exploring the culpability of actions that save the world; not to mention the interesting undercurrent of America's fear of an almighty being who wants to operate unilaterally and not solely in their interest. Whatever shape a sequel were to take, it was key to address Superman's actions from the first film as it appeared so uncharacteristic, yet it's done in such a purely commercial manner (Superman AND Batman, in the same film, together!!) seemingly because Man of Steel's strong box office was not quite as comparable to more successful, recent superhero films. Yet it tries to disguise this by offering desperate lip service to fanboys who yearn to see Frank Miller's much-loved graphic novel Batman: The Dark Knight Returns on screen, even though this feels utterly different. Maybe it's cynical to view it this way, but the inclusion of Batman seems to be the most important aspect: look at how the film is positioned, whose name is first in the title, face is first on the poster, which actor is credited first, whilst the first five minutes dwell utterly unnecessarily on the death of Bruce Wayne's parents. To it's credit that's really all we get for a Batman origin. However this should be a Superman film and to it's detriment it rarely actually feels like that.

 

A refreshing decision made when writing Man of Steel was not to include Lex Luther as the villain. He may be the quintessential nemesis of Superman, but that doesn't mean he has to appear (and potentially overshadow) in an origins movie. His presence this time round feels more suitable, not least because of Jesse Eisenberg's casting in the role. Expectedly he plays up the character in an effectively manic, megalomaniacal way, particularly in the first half. The allusions to godliness and such powers are inescapable throughout, and he typifies man's desire to control this whilst bringing a supposedly good god down to flawed human levels. But come the second half it's all gone a little overboard, devolving into plot contrivances and excuses for the digital effects team to go totally wild. Lex initially satisfies the desire for an Earth-bound villain, until he just becomes the puppet master for something far less edifying. Which is a suitable summation of his involvement in the titular showdown too. Eisenberg is enjoyable in this role but his shortcomings come down to what he's given to work with.

The writers, Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer (the former an Oscar winner no less) probably had a thankless job trying to introduce these extraneous characters into this established world. Gal Gadot doesn't have too much to do other than look beautiful in daring dresses whilst briefly playing foil to Bruce Wayne, before turning up for a cgi battle, but there is a satisfying amount of mystery within how she's introduced that bodes well for the future. This approach is really how the Batman character should have been used too. There's an almost bleaker level of darkness at play than in previous portrayals, and the first Bat appearance on screen is menacingly effective, yet by the end he just feels superfluous to the film. Affleck works particularly as Bruce Wayne, portraying an intriguing world-weary dissolution. Arguably he is better than Christian Bale (Michael Keaton remains the actor to beat in this role, followed by Val Kilmer – just for the record) but his Batman is all mechanised bulk accompanied by the inevitably ridiculous-sounding enhanced voice. However the big plus of this character's presence is Jeremy Irons playing Alfred.

There is still good entertainment to be had from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, especially if you enjoy watching superhero films or this type of big budget spectacle. Sure there's nothing new on offer – yes we've seen heroes fighting each other before and it rarely amounts to much – but because of the players involved and the world that had already been created, it remains (mostly) engaging. Visually it works and in that sense Zack Snyder has to be thanked as that is definitely his forte. He may get a lot of flack but genuinely, every one of his films is enticing and at the very least entertaining. And sound wise it felt big (maybe pushed continuously into the red a bit too often) with the Hans Zimmer / Junkie XL score another asset. But its biggest deficiencies are the result of plotting and story decisions.

Superman's wings really feel like they've been clipped by virtue of giving Batman equal billing, when an extended cameo would've been far more effective. The "versus" angle is one of marketing desperation rather than actual creativity, and never serves the underlying story or even the essence of what was established in the first film. It's hard not to feel robbed of the far more interesting film that Man of Steel left us primed for, especially when intriguing plot ideas and the opportunity to spend time actually seeing Clark Kent figuring out how to be both characters, gets skated over to service this. This is too reminiscent of how Captain America got screwed over after a unique (in the Marvel context) and thoroughly entertaining film that was full of heart, by placing him in a blandly overblown Avengers-lite action sequel. Alas, now that justice has dawned, it's probably futile to hope that Superman might be able to get back to that.

Review: High-Rise

(Dir: Ben Wheatley, 2015)

I am going to start this review by making a comparison to the horror director Eli Roth. Bear with me. Roth hasn't actually directed many films, but those he has have been somewhat revered in horror circles, and he is very active from a production side with his name attached to many pictures. I quickly learned that he is not a good director or writer, and that almost every film he is involved in I just don't like. Yet despite this I kept coming back for more and was genuinely excited about watching his recent return to the directors chair for The Green Inferno - the possibility of him transplanting the nihilism of his Hostel films into a modern take on Cannibal Holocaust seemed the perfect fit. Surprisingly it was this edge that it ended up lacking, whilst inevitably suffering from the usual poor storytelling, yet it was still watchable and is his best film to date. But that is faint praise for a film which, in my eyes, barely scrapes an average 3 star rating.

The reason for this comparison is that this is almost exactly how I feel about Ben Wheatley, with the difference being that he is far more skilled from a visual perspective, and the much wider critical love surrounding his films. There's no need to rehash my intense dislike for all of his past films, but the proposition of High-Rise actually excited me - not just because of the cast (Tom Hiddlestone! Jeremy Irons!), and not just because the concept of the story is interesting, but mainly because this was an adaptation of a JG Ballard novel. I may have never attempted to read any of his work, but there was something appealing about the expected dystopian vein and a general sense of something "a little bit out there". But more than anything, Wheatley's biggest flaw as a director is his inability to tell a story in a coherent or remotely engaging way.  Whilst his previous films have all been original, tackling something with an existing plot and structure offered the chance for him to deliver a far better film than usual. In my head that was the theory at least.

From a storytelling perspective, High-Rise is a bit of an incoherent mess. Whether that complaint should be leveled at Ballard, or Wheatley and his scriptwriter Amy Jump, I can't answer with certainty, but as Jump has written all of Wheatley's films there's clearly a theme here. Regardless, when adapting a novel you should be able bring out a core line of plotting to focus on. The overarching story about social hierarchies is obvious, as are the allusions to the downfall of Rome as the decadent orgy and the proletariat's agitation rises. The metaphors and ciphers are plentiful throughout, which is intriguing at first, but becomes rapidly more tiresome as hopes of any sort of interesting plotting to hold onto vanishes. Yet there is still much of interest taking place - the set design is superb placing us in a weird eighties London, whilst I couldn't help but think of the towers in Dredd. It's never boring to look at as the camerawork, editing and general visual aesthetics constantly offer excellent eye candy, whilst the use of sound and music adds to the all round weirdness - the Portishead cover of ABBA's S.O.S. is creepily sublime despite the obvious metaphor overload. The acting itself is solid and it's quite frankly really well cast, with Hiddlestone and Irons being the obvious highlights, whilst Luke Evans and Sienna Miller are strong in their own unique roles.

High-Rise is Wheatley's best film, but as I said above about Roth, that's faint praise. As a visual experience it utterly delivers, but lacking a coherent story to lead us through the miasma means it outstays its welcome a long way before we reach the end. It's always on the cusp of wanting to take us on a fascinating journey, but seems content to tease us instead, and then beat us around the head with metaphor and over-done dystopian weirdness. That's not to say there's not interesting and funny stuff here, but it's clear you need far more skilled hands to tease out the essence of Ballard, as David Cronenberg managed with Crash. I disliked that film upon watching it at the cinema, but upon repeated viewings I really got it and it got to me (perhaps age helped too). I guess we'll see if High-Rise inspires the same desire for perseverance, but right now I'm not holding out much hope.

Review: The Hateful Eight

(Dir: Quentin Tarantino, 2015)

At this point in his career it's become a pretty indisputable fact that Quentin Tarantino doesn't know how to make a bad film. Certain people may not find a specific film to their tastes, but they are all strong films in their own right (including Death Proof - a point I'm very keen to defend when required). The Hateful Eight doesn't deviate from this path, and works in large part by stripping everything down to the core of what Tarantino does.

This is a film of conversations, and how the twisting tangle of words can lose you in the duplicity at play. There are but two real settings for these conversations, and in both you are left to work out the intentions of those who appear and who to really trust. And fortunately its not made easy, mostly thanks to casting. We all know Samuel L. Jackson can switch on a dime, and those versed well enough in film know that Michael Madsen, Walton Goggins and Tim Roth can never be trusted. Or can they? Kurt Russell is thoroughly enjoyable as the lead (proving here as in Bone Tomahawk that he is so suited to Westerns), and brief moments of uncomfortable violence towards Jennifer Jason Leigh's Daisy Domergue aside, leaves you rooting for him to make it out alive. And she is very good, having fun in this role whist never letting on to her true intentions. For once the language is toned down somewhat, despite the increase in derogatory racial epithets which, for better or worse, make it more accurate to the era. It's just a shame that sometimes there's a bit too much mumbling.

Even though all appears to be as it should, the film really would have benefited from a structural shake up. The way it approaches its second half (for those who saw the 70mm roadshow version that's post intermission onwards) leads to a less satisfying denouement than had it been more open about certain story elements earlier. It doesn't help that Tarantino really does need to learn how to self edit now and again, as it rolls on longer than necessary. However the intermission was gratefully received (sorry all those who saw the normal theatrical cut and didn't benefit from this) without ruining the mood or momentum.

Visually this is a beautifully shot film, but the 70mm Ultra Panavision shooting / projecting feels like a gimmick. The novelty of doing so meant an overabundance of establishing scenery shots to show off the cameras when really this is a film focused on people talking in a room. Sure it allowed for different choices in framing shots, but it's hard not to think that Django Unchained would have benefited much more from this widescreen stylistic choice. I can't say the 70mm projection added much to the experience, aside from the "fake authenticity" of recreating an old school Western through the flicker, pops and crackle of actual film passed over light, though perhaps this was the fault of the cinema projecting it (Odeon Leicester Square in London)? If memory serves the 70mm projection of The Master added more visual quality, yet for me nothing beats the 70mm IMAX projection of The Dark Knight trilogy and Interstellar, with the scenes Christopher Nolan shot in that format remaining some of the most stunning I've ever seen on a big screen. But it's commendable for Tarantino to try. And he got a fantastic score out of Ennio Morricone, which adds gravitas and waves and waves of portent.

The Hateful Eight is typical Tarantino. It's certainly not his best work, meaning it sits comfortably in that middle ground of his still defined as very good. A bit more self-editing and an improved structure would've helped greatly, but as ever it excels thanks to the cast and the dialogue. One thing all the focus on the revived shooting technique seems to hide is that this is the closest he has come to writing a theatrical play yet.