Review: Tomb Raider

(Dir: Roar Uthaug, 2018)

The Tomb Raider game has always seemed like one desperate for a decent big screen treatment. Whether or not you think much of the previous two films they certainly feel fitting of the era in which they were released. Not that that was too long ago of course, but this new incarnation of the Lara Croft character and how she became the titular tomb raider feels a little less overblown, a little rawer. That's not to say there's no crazy unbelievable stunts, of course there are and should be, but it's approach is a little more character first. This is a positive step as any film like this should get us to buy into and believe the character we're rooting for, no matter much of this is fairly rote – fiercely independent and pissed off with daddy, etc. But lest we forget this a video game character and we're not watching for subtle depths. Lara Croft's story is nothing new, and one could happily argue we don't need to see her origins again, but it's handled well enough here that it galvanises the story.

The key is the casting of Alicia Vikander as Croft. She is one of the most interesting young actresses working in Hollywood at the moment – an Oscar winner no less – and makes the character intriguing to watch and easy to root for. Crucially she is more athletic than the overly idealised, cartoonish original incarnation of the character and is convincing in a fight. She seems more real which works better in the context of this film and the aforementioned rawness. The rest of the cast all prove enjoyable to watch – Dominic West makes a good exploring Lord as her father, Daniel Wu is an enjoyable sidekick, whilst Walton Goggins is reliable as ever as villain Vogel, toning down the crazy just a little, which works for him.

As an action and adventure film Tomb Raider certainly does the job, proving to be very entertaining. There's inevitable ridiculousness as Croft keeps incredibly surviving, but what else would you expect? And it's all shot with a bit of intensity that works in it's favour. Sure, it's hardly anything special, but it's a fun film with a decent female lead character, and a sequel would be very much welcomed.

Review: Black Panther

(Dir: Ryan Coogler, 2018)

For decades we've seen directors favour working with certain actors, casting them again and again in their films. One of the most exciting director/actor combo's of recent years has been Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan. Jordan is a great actor who has been a pleasure to watch on-screen since The Wire and the Friday Night Lights TV series. Coogler cast Jordan as the lead in his feature debut, the really rather good Fruitvale Station, and he was perfectly cast as the lead in Coogler's second film, the far better than anyone expected Creed. And so here we are with Coogler's third film, Black Panther, and since Coogler couldn't cast Jordan as the lead we instead get to see him play villain Erik Killmonger. But it's a little more complicated since he's a villain with whom you can partially sympathise – you understand why he's turned out that way and he has something of a point in what he wants to achieve, yet he is still nefarious enough for us to want to see him get his comeuppance. That's all down to a combination of Jordan's skills and his appeal and likeability.

Having both on board is a huge benefit to Black Panther, but there's a lot more to like about it beyond them. Mirroring Thor's shifts between the wonders of Asgard and Earth, the film offers us the amazing, hidden African country of Wakanda. The most technologically advanced place on Earth masquerading as the poorest offers an interesting layer to the story. Should they be protecting what they have so carefully constructed, or be actively trying to improve the rest of the world? Is this finally the time for the all-conquering colonialism of the past to be flipped on its head? This is the ultimate conflict of the film, and although it reaches its resolution in the expected manner, the viewer still feels empowered make up their own mind on the these ideas. Upon leaving the warmly realised land of Wakanda we crash back into a world we recognise, with Coogler bringing a Bond-like feel to a host of these scenes which adds a satisfying counterpoint.

A key aspect of the Wakandan appeal is it's rich and colourful characters. It's a land guarded by Okoye (Danai Gurira) and her cavalcade of women warriors – certainly someone you'd want protecting you. Whilst the chief scientist in charge of pushing the country's advanced technologies forward is the king's younger sister Shuri (Letitia Wright). Both are clearly having fun here which helps enhance already interesting characters. Similarly tribe leaders M'Baku and W'Kabi (Winston Duke and Daniel Kaluuya) create a little dramatic tension whilst not feeling overly serious. Due to the nature of the story Black Panther himself, King T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), is less fun to be around, but he is grappling with not feeling ready for the throne, his sense of duty and the right thing to do, and the sudden existence of a contender/pretender to the throne. Nonetheless he's easy to root for and when the Panther is unleashed he's great fun to watch, with a greater sense of menace than you get from the other Marvel characters.

The few weaknesses of Black Panther stem from it's need to tie itself back into the arc of the wider Marvel universe, something that jars because it works so well as an independent story. Most notably, Martin Freeman's CIA agent Ross who seems utterly out of place in this film. That's not to say Freeman is bad, but if you take the story on it's own terms and ignore the forced context of the bigger picture, he serves no purpose whatsoever. But fortunately the film has enough time to breathe and develop, proving yet again (every time!) that the best Marvel films are the origins stories with minimal connective tissue to the series. It's also tempting to call out Andy Serkis' extremely clichéd South African mercenary Klaue as another weakness, but he injects a certain amount of fun into proceedings which feels necessary at times.

Outside the context of the Marvel universe Black Panther is already a cultural phenomenon, made with an eye on a target market that would care more about this story than how it might slot into something bigger. And Coogler tells this story so well, creating an enticing world in Wakanda with decent action scenes and drama, and most notably bringing high quality characters to life. This may be a well-worn story, and it certainly feels like a variation on a theme, but it's an important variation and a thoroughly entertaining film regardless. It may not be the best Marvel film, but Black Panther certainly sits in the upper echelons of their releases to date.

Review: All the Money in the World

(Dir: Ridley Scott, 2017)

There's a line uttered halfway through All the Money in the World by the mercurial J.P. Getty (Christopher Plummer): "Priceless? I deplore that word. Dirty and old? I have no problem." In some ways that gets to the core of this character/man, as everything is to be bought and nothing is out of reach, with his whole life defined by the power presented to him by his ever-growing mountains of money. Now just imagine, in light of what we all now know, how that line would have sounded coming out of Kevin Spacey's mouth. Yes, it's impossible not to address the elephants in the room. As a comparison it would be fascinating to watch the original cut with Spacey playing the billionaire, especially as Plummer is so damn good at exuding a callous ruthlessness. The original trailer treated Spacey as the big reveal – the real reason you're going to want to watch this – but his heavily made-up and prostheticised appearance felt jarring in these brief snippets, suggesting this might be bordering on characature. It's unlikely we'll ever know if they made the right creative decision (this being different to the right thing to do morally or what's best for business), as the Spacey iteration suggested a domineering and larger-than-life version, rather than Plummer's more isolationist and almost mythical character. Perhaps being able to see a finished cut of the film let him work out how to make the character work even better?

Which leads us to elephant number two: $1.5 million. Not the ransom demanded for J. Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer), but Mark Whalberg's fee for reshooting some of his scenes as Fletcher Chase in light of the Spacey/Plummer switch. Scott Mendelson at Forbes wrote a prescient article about this controversy of Michelle Williams' payment for reshoots being just $1,000 (read it here). It feels like it needs reiterating here since it highlights the deeper issue going unreported due to the sensationalism of the numbers: the lack of quality, lead roles available to female actors today. Williams, playing Gail Harris, is the lead in the film, and she likely accepted expenses only to ensure the film got released since it's important for roles like this to get as much exposure as possible. Plus she is excellent here. This is a reasonably big film by her standards, but typically in bigger films she (and most other female actors) would be cast as the love interest / wife (cough The Greatest Showman). Whalberg on the other hand is one of the world's biggest film stars and for him this is smaller than all his most recent work, a prestige picture in which his character is third most important. So why shouldn't he, like everyone else involved, try and get paid properly for this extra work? The studio could've said no to his monetary demands, but since his character interacts with JP Getty more than any other his involvement in the reshoots was essential, thus he had nothing to lose by asking. Williams had as much right to make similar monetary demands, but no doubt knew that doing so could have a negative impact on her career, limiting her potential to be considered for the smaller number of quality, visible, female roles. They all have a right to be paid fairly for this extra work, especially when it came about so suddenly, so this shouldn't necessarily be an indictment on Whalberg, it's an indictment on an industry that values its female actors far less, not just monetarily but in it's reluctance to cast them in leading roles, especially in the high profile films that proliferate our screens weekly. It should also be noted that director Ridley Scott allegedly worked on the reshoots for expenses only too.

So now we've addressed the two huge elephants rather unsubtly sitting in the corner, what of the film itself? It is a thoroughly engaging thriller that benefits from it's seventies setting and how it (mostly) jumps between Italy and Getty's staid, hollow palace of wealth in the English countryside. Scott creates an almost dreamlike world – something about the way it's lit and shot feels almost hyper-real, but that helps tease some tension out especially when you're not familiar with the actual events. But this is essentially a two-hander, a game of chess between Gail and Getty himself. A mother prepared to do anything for her son who doesn't care about the money, versus the curmudgeonly patriarch who cares more about the name and reputation he's carefully crafted, the power from owning things and his prospect of getting a tax write-off. And it works because both Williams and Plummer are excellent, inhabiting their characters so effectively. The rest of the supporting cast do a fine job but they are merely window dressing.

At the end of the day All the Money In the World is a decent film that will, unfairly, be remembered for it's controversies. More written about than seen. But it features a couple of excellent performances and an interesting dive into the psychology of someone wealthy beyond compare, which retains an abhorrent fascination that makes some sort of sense by the end.

Review: The Cloverfield Paradox

(Dir: Julius Onah, 2018)

Cast your mind back ten years. That was when it emerged out of nowhere and took us by surprise. There had been that nameless, mysterious teaser trailer which decapitated the Statue of Liberty and referenced JJ Abrams. There was little to no information online beyond the cryptic, and eventually a name that told you absolutely nothing. I was fortunate enough to be invited to the multimedia screening in the sorely missed Empire Leicester Square screen 1 (the best in central London and perfect screen for this film). No-one there really knew what to expect. Eighty-five minutes later, after emerging from the sensory assault on-screen, the adrenaline was coursing through the body and the mind was buzzing with excitement. The thrill felt whilst first watching Cloverfield a decade ago is still firmly embedded in my memory – how few of the eight hundred plus films I've since seen at the cinema can I actually say that about?

Since then it has remained something of an enigma. Credit is due for not just rushing into creating more of the same, but it seems to have gone too far the other direction with a tenuous approach to keeping the name alive. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a decent little thriller but you'd never know it was supposed to be any relation to the first film without that name, which if anything proves more of a hindrance. And it's the same issue with The Cloverfield Paradox – there amounts to a few minutes which directly thrust it into this world, but beyond that this could be any independent story in which we need to save our planet. It doesn't help that we've jumped an indeterminate amount of time forward to follow an international team of scientists two years into conducting dangerous energy experiments in space. What has actually happened in the numerous years between destruction arriving and what we're now seeing? There's an interesting bridging story to tell, and if the "second film" does actually answer some or most of this it was done in such a subtle way that only the most ardent fans will have latched onto the details. 

There's potential for The Cloverfield Paradox to be a really interesting film, but tonally it's all over the place. At times it hints at wanting to be like Event Horizon yet it's flirtations with horror amount to nothing. The mystery and thriller elements feel half-baked, and there's not enough action or convincing drama to satisfy. Frustratingly there are some good ideas here such as the actual paradox concept, the introduction of Elizabeth Debicki's character and the lighter touches from Chris O'Dowd (the latter of which would sit better in a different film). Then there's the Earth-bound scenes which feel unnecessarily tacked on, existing solely as a way to tie it into the Cloverfield series – something the film was never originally conceived as being part of. And it shows. Thus we have an averagely entertaining film that would've been greatly improved by either going full bore into sequel territory, or by ditching the half-assed attempts to tie into an existing series and refining it's ideas under the original God Particle title. The only winner here is Paramount who wisely abandoned plans for a cinema release and instead sold the film to Netflix for an alleged $50m. Quite why Netflix paid that much for this film without obtaining rights to the Cloverfield name will remain the most intriguing mystery associated with The Cloverfield Paradox.

Review: The Post

(Dir: Steven Spielberg, 2017)

The Post is a predictably reliable film. Steven Spielberg directing. Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks as the leads. A real life story that proved an important moment in history. These guys can sleepwalk through a film of this nature and you know it'll be high quality, regardless of it not being close to the best films of their respective careers. There's nothing to fault with the acting here and it's particularly enjoyable seeing familiar faces such as Matthew Rhys and Bob Odenkirk dig into interesting roles – in many ways it's their presence, and the whole supporting cast, that actually lifts the film. The moments of argument and debate over whether they should or shouldn't publish the famed Pentagon Papers are where the film really comes alive.

Thanks to the current political "situation" in the US The Post was rushed into and through production – a clear case of trying to be relevant with an eye on marketability – but that arguably feels a little too detrimental to the film. Watching it without making parallels to the present day is impossible and somewhat distracting. The positive sense of achievement you get from the actions of the staff of the Washington Post in 1971 feel hollow knowing that in 2018 the press are facing an even more alarming problem. And it's not as if a Spielberg drama is actually going to inspire much positive action. If The Post had been released two or three years earlier we would've all breathed a sigh of relief over how far we'd come. But now it's films such as Oliver Stone's Snowden, with the same core theme of disgust at the government and a belief that the public should know, that feel more relevant.

The Post is the sort of drama that Spielberg makes so well, with both Hanks and Streep fitting perfectly into roles of the type they usually inhabit. In other words you know this is a high quality drama even if it's not the best work by any of the parties involved. Just try not to feel too deflated as it reminds you how bad things are today.

Review: Molly's Game

(Dir: Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

The rags-to-riches-to-rags biopic now seems to have become a staple of Hollywood, with at least one or two of these films emerging a year. And it's become a pretty tiresome story trope despite it essentially being based on fact. But here are two ways to grab attention with a story of this nature – the lead is played by Jessica Chastain, and the film is not only written by Aaron Sorkin but it's his directorial debut. Interest is most certainly piqued. The lucky/unlucky centre of Molly's Game is Molly Bloom – an ex-Winter Olympics wannabe who made herself into the poker princess of LA and New York. 

With most of these films we spend much of the time waiting for the inevitable downfall, but this point is brought to the fore as the story jumps back and forth between Molly try to convince lawyer Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) to take her case, whilst telling the story of why she's come to be in his office. This is very much to the film's benefit as the scenes between Chastain and Elba are some of the most enjoyable thanks to some typically sharp Sorkin dialogue. He is frequently one of the best writers in Hollywood, albeit with a tendency to go a little overboard, but the script feels just about right here. Although the story jumps around a lot with some occasionally schizophrenic editing, it stops this story from feeling too stale and keeps things moving. This also applies to the poker scenes – a lot of explanation is thrown out quickly and no doubt this might lose some of the uninitiated, but this is rarely about watching hands of poker unfold and more about an overall psychology of people who play / run games. But of course this is Chastain's show and she is excellent as ever as Bloom, always captivating to watch and only ever seeming out of place when playing her character's much younger self, proving yet again that she's one of the best actors working today. 

Although Molly's Game wins zero points for originality, it's a really well put together film that's enjoyable to watch thanks to the key players. Length is perhaps the only complaint (as per usual) and shaving a good twenty minutes off the run time would've helped immeasurably, but that's a small gripe. This is a well-worn story told interestingly with an excellent lead.

Review: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

(Dir: Jake Kasdan, 2017)

Did anyone actually think we needed another Jumanji movie? Well, when it proves to be as much fun as Welcome to the Jungle, it turns out that answer is yes. Updating the concept for today's modern world – computer game over board game – makes logical sense, with the film essentially functioning as a second part where you need to know absolutely nothing about the original 1995 film. The jungle-based world of Jumanji we're thrown into provides plenty of entertaining thrills and decent set pieces, never standing still for too long, whilst the many little computer game references / quirks of the world are a neat touch that give the film a lot of personality. It's long been said how rare it is to come across a decent filmic adaptation of a computer game – it's those films that play out as if they are computer games that prove most creatively successful (such as Scott Pilgrim vs the World and eXistenZ), and this is no exception.

However the primary reasons Welcome to the Jungle works as well as it does is down to the script and cast. It's genuinely laugh out loud funny most of the way through and is just sharply written, seemingly with these actors in mind. It starts with the kids who effectively embody the high school clichés we've come to expect – geeks, football star, hot popular girl – before flipping expectations by turning them into their opposites within the game. Thus awkward geeks Spencer and Martha become an intrepid adventurer / man mountain (Alex Wolff / Dwayne Johnson) and kick-ass hottie (Morgan Turner / Karen Gillan). Whilst quarterback Fridge becomes small, scared and slow (Ser'Darius Blain / Kevin Hart) and phone addicted popular girl Bethany is superbly switched into a palaeontologist (Madison Iseman / Jack Black). They keep their teenage character traits as they learn to embrace a better facet of their personalities via these avatars. It's a family film so there's the inevitable positive message here. 

Johnson is as enjoyable as ever as he works up the courage to be brave, Gillan plays awkward attractiveness well, Hart seemingly does this outraged schtick in his sleep, but the most fun is had watching Black fully embrace playing a teenage girl trapped in a schlubby mans body whilst lost in an environment totally alien to her. He fully divorces himself from his usual annoying brand of comedy to be the highlight and provides some of the funniest moments. The important thing is that you care about these characters and how they develop. Whilst Bobby Cannavale does a decent enough job providing threat as Van Pelt, in an effectively myopic villainous role.

There's nothing especially unique about Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, but it fully embraces it's concept with two goals in mind – be very funny whilst being thrillingly entertaining. And it totally delivers on both fronts. Completely unexpectedly this turned out to be some of the most fun to be had in the cinema last year.