John Wick Chapter Two

I don't think it's unfair to say that American action films tend to suck...

These days they're far too reliant on shaky-cam in order to mask the simple fact that their stars don't have the training required to make combat look good on screen, and there are very few films in recent years that have managed to overcome that in order to deliver a truly good fight scene. John Wick was one of the few, a film dedicated to practical action and real stunt work in a way that made it stand out amongst the crowd - and now John Wick Chapter 2 has done it again, full of the stylish action that made the first film such a breath of fresh air while also further exploring the heightened, pulpy world that these characters inhabit. And while we are revealing things, I only watched these films because my boyfriend is a huge fan of the action sequences. He brought to my attention how many films do not include shots of characters reloading their guns and frankly, it's changed my expectation of realism within the action genre. Well done John Wick for doing it right. Anyway, back to chapter two...

We follow legendary hitman John Wick as he is once again dragged out of retirement, this time by Santino D'Antonio, an Italian mob boss to whom he swore a blood oath many years ago. The rules of the world John once inhabited means that refusal to honour this blood oath will cost him his life, forcing him to travel to Rome in order to carry out a hit that he doesn't want to.

Even more so than its predecessor, the story told by John Wick Chapter 2 feels like a formality, little more than an excuse for action. Part of this is a problem that all sequels see - returning to an established world is rarely as interesting as building it in the first place - but it has to be said that John's mission here lacks the urgency or intimacy of his quest for vengeance in the first film, and this film's inability to create new side characters as interesting as the ones in John Wick is among its biggest failings. There are attempts, of course - Ruby Rose has a lot of screen presence as a mute bodyguard, and it's great to see John run into a rival assassin as skilled and driven as he in the form of Common's Cassian - but neither of these characters manage to leave the same kind of impression that Marcus or Miss Perkins did in John Wick. This problem extends to the main antagonist of the piece too - Santino D'Antonio is frustratingly two-dimensional in comparison to Iosef and Viggo Tarasov, the Russian mobsters of the first film.

And that's a real shame, especially when the rest of John Wick Chapter 2 is either as good as or maybe even better than its predecessor. My only real complaints about the first film were that John was so good at what he does that he rarely felt in danger and that we didn't have quite enough time to explore the vibrant, imaginative world that the film was building - John Wick Chapter 2 addresses both of those points wonderfully, putting John on the defensive for the first time in the middle of the film while also further fleshing out this world and its customs. It's this middle section that turns John Wick Chapter 2 from merely a good sequel into something more. We get a much greater sense of the extent of this world, and the action sequences here take on a brutality and physicality, a sense of desperation that the first film lacked. Seeing John shoot a lot of people is great, of course, but seeing John forced to improvise when he's on the back foot is something else entirely.

It should go without saying that John Wick Chapter 2 is just as well-shot and expertly choreographed as John Wick was, even if it doesn't quite manage to reach the heights of the first film's nightclub sequence. Keanu Reeves reportedly underwent four full months of training in stunt driving, shooting and various martial arts for this film, and it shows - John Wick Chapter 2 owes much of its success to the amount of faith it is able to place in its star, and Reeves doesn't disappoint.

John Wick

Action films are all about momentum. All the best action films, from classics like Die Hard to more modern films like Dredd rely on a strong sense of direction and a plot created by cause and effect in order to ensure that the audience is as wrapped up in the film as the characters are. There's a reason why action films set over a short period of time always seem to work best – it's because the film never loses that momentum. John Wick is a film that understands that. We follow ex-hitman John Wick as he fights his way through various members of the underground world that he used to inhabit in order to kill a man who stole his car and killed his dog, the son of his previous employer.

As far as the plot goes, that's pretty much it. John Wick is a revenge film first and foremost, but in it's defence, a smart one – our main character isn't taking vengeance on the boy for the loss of his dog and car so much as he is lashing out at the world after the loss of his wife, a temper tantrum caused by his inability to grieve with a body count of dozens. This focus on character is one of the many small things that make John Wick more than just another action film – it has some real substance just below the surface.

Additionally, the simple plot allows John Wick to retain the aforementioned sense of momentum that all great action movies need. From the moment John picks up his gun, he's thrown straight into some incredibly well choreographed and filmed action scenes that are never simply there to break up the story – instead, the action scenes are the story, and John Wick flows in and out of them as easily as our main character does.

It's probably worth noting just how good John Wick looks. You could be forgiven for thinking that you are watching a particularly meticulously shot arthouse film at times – it's potentially one of the best looking action films I've seen, lights and colours popping out of the screen and contrasting heavily with the darkness surrounding them. This is best exemplified by the nightclub action scene, potentially the highlight of film.

Keanu Reeves is great in the lead role, the actors history as an action star before falling out of the limelight syncing really well with the back story of John, a form of shorthand for characterisation that feels as if it is close to breaking the fourth wall. For a film of this size, the casting is excellent, with recognisable names such as Willem Dafoe, Ian McShane and Adrianne Palicki all making their mark on the film as unique and interesting characters.

The main problem with John Wick is that our central character is almost too good. We know from the start that John was the best at what he did when he still worked as a hitman (part of the charm of the first act is seeing the various characters react to the news that they've got a pissed off John Wick on the way), but the result of this is that John is never in any real danger thanks to the films unwillingness to allow him to come across anyone that could be considered a real threat, and because of that the stakes never seem high enough. There is no sense of escalation, nothing for our hero to really have to overcome, and that impacts John Wick in a way that I don't think could have been predicted.

It's a minor issue, but one that ultimately stops John Wick from being as good as it could have been, which is a real shame because it's pretty fantastic in every other way. The highlight of the film for me was the amount of imagination that went into the criminal underworld – there's honour amongst thieves in John Wick, a culture for criminals that has resulted in an exclusive hotel called the Continental just for the underworld being set up, one with it's own strict rules and a secret currency. It's a great exercise in world building, and another small detail that again sets John Wick apart from the rest.

I wish John Wick had been just 10 or 15 minutes longer in order to further explore this very rich world that it has created. I wanted to see more of Ms Perkins and Marcus and the Continental, but the film doesn't quite have the time to really get it's teeth stuck into the fantastic little world that it takes place in. Regardless, it's a must see for anyone who loves action films, a visually stunning and well-paced trip through a wonderful world that will no doubt achieve cult classic status before long.

Get Out

It may seem a little counter-intuitive, but the best horror films aren't necessarily the scariest. Horror as a genre works best when it's married to the fears of its audience in a much broader sense, and for that reason the best horror films tend to be those tuned into the zeitgeist of the time, those willing to be about something in a way that a lot of modern horror rarely is. Whether it be the anti-consumerism of Dawn of the Dead, the red scare of Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the technophobia of Black Mirror, social commentary and horror have always made for a great pairing - it's little surprise then that Get Out is no exception, commenting on race and culture in modern America and establishing itself as an instant classic in the process.

We follow Chris Washington, Daniel Kaluuya, as he and his girlfriend, Rose Armitage, Allison Williams, travel to her family home for the weekend in order for him to meet her parents for the first time. Rose has never had a black boyfriend before, and the fact that she hasn't yet told her parents about Chris being black has him concerned about their reaction. Fortunately for him, Rose's parents are liberal and tolerant to a fault, but that doesn't stop Chris from feeling uncomfortable and out of place - a feeling that only grows when he starts to notice the strange behaviour of the Armitage's black servants, and the eagerness of Rose's mother to place him under hypnosis and cure his smoking addiction.

It's the first film from writer/director Jordan Peele, but you wouldn't know that from watching it. Get Out has to be one of the most assured, capable directorial debuts we've seen in some time, incredibly well-crafted both technically and textually in a way that you rarely see from first time directors. It's clear that Peele had a lot that he wanted to say with Get Out, and the result is a film that feels as if it sprung fully-formed from his brain onto the screen - it's as singular a vision as you are likely to see, a work that feels so complete and cohesive that it's hard to imagine it ever existing in any other state.

It would be easy to put that down to how well-written it is - there isn't an ounce of fat to be found here, every scene serving a distinct, important purpose and adding to the film overall - but Peele's talent behind the camera can't be ignored either. His control of tone is quite frankly masterful, allowing him to transition from pure comedy to unbearable tension in the time it takes to hang up a phone, and the social awkwardness between Chris and Rose's parents is palpable to the point of being actively uncomfortable to watch. Even if Get Out were just another horror film, the skill with which it's made would establish Jordan Peele as a film-maker very much worth keeping an eye on.

But it's not just another horror film, and that aforementioned social commentary is what makes Get Out something truly special. It's an indictment of race as a fashion accessory, an examination of how Western society fetishises and appropriates black culture for its own purposes, a mocking look at those who are more interested in appearing progressive than they are actually being progressive. Add to all that the truly brilliant performances given by the entire cast and the wicked sense of subversion present throughout, and Get Out is quite simply a must-see film, melding effective horror with a great sense of humour to create something that's sure to leave a lasting impression. 

I referred to Get Out as an instant classic earlier on in this review, a tired phrase that's thrown around a little too often - but Get Out earns that level of acclaim, and I can't wait to see what Jordan Peele does next.

Beauty & The Beast

It's no secret that there aren't a whole lot of new ideas left in Hollywood anymore. The death of the mid major movie (your $35 million budget film with respectable but not outrageous aspirations) has led to a studio-dominated box office filled with sequels, franchises, reboots and remakes. And none exemplifies this more than Disney, the amoeba of the film world that has systematically subsumed the likes of Marvel and Star Wars to become the big name in blockbuster filmmaking. And while the animated division of Disney continues to flirt with originality (Moana), the live action side of things has taken to cannibalize itself through live action remakes of many of these beloved animated classics. These films have seen success, from Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella and Maleficent, and Disney clearly seems to be enjoying themselves putting more and more of these remakes in the pipeline. But whereas its initial forays into the trend were all classics from 50 or more years ago, 2017 marks their first attempt to update a classic film much of its audience would have had the chance to see in the theater: 1991’s Beauty and the Beast.

Choosing to resurrect the first ever animated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards is a tall task, and Disney enlisted Bill Condon to shepherd the project to the screen. Condon has had a fascinating roller coaster of a career, with ups (Dreamgirls) and downs (the final two Twilight movies). But he does have a pretty solid piece of source material to draw from. Writers Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos took the tale and expanded it but the skeleton remains the same. It’s still about Belle, Emma Watson, and she’s still a bookish outcast in her tiny little village, still dodging the romantic advances of muscle-with-legs Gaston, Luke Evans. She comes into contact with The Beast, heavily CGI'd Dan Stevens, after the disappearance of her father, who accidentally stumbled upon his hidden castle in the woods. The Beast was cursed for being an unsympathetic in his younger princely days, with his servants turned into various household objects, and if the now hideous monster could feel true love before the wilting of a magic rose, he would be returned to his former self. With Belle in the castle, having chosen to replace her father as the Beast’s prisoner, his servants go to work to make them fall in love. See? Same old song and dance.

The easiest thing to notice about Beauty and the Beast 2.0 is its choreography. The opening replaces the original’s storybook retelling of the cursing of the prince with a look into one of his opulent parties, with endless patrons dancing through a giant ballroom, the camera swooping and turning, the edits coming fast and loose. It’s chaotic and it’s busy and it’s honestly often incomprehensible, an assault of the senses that threatens to tire you out before it has a chance to get going. The hope would be that the open is so aggressive as to contrast it with the sleepy simple life of Belle’s village, but that hope is soon dashed by Condon’s staging of Belle’s classic opening number, Belle, and the same chaos reigns. It makes for a rather exhausting and deadening first twenty minutes.

When things quiet down (which happens more rarely than you might assume) it settles into something a bit more palatable. Dan Stevens does an admirable job aping Robby Benson’s bellows and growls, while successfully mapping The Beast’s transition from hard-hearted brute to the sort of person Belle could fall in love with. The design of the servants is well-implemented, whether it’s Lumiere, Ewan McGregor, and his sashaying style, or the cowardly and cantankerous Cogsworth, Ian McKellen, their individual personalities shining through the computer generated objects. Perhaps surprisingly, Watson’s Belle isn’t particularly inspiring; she doesn’t quite seem to find the right balance in her characterization and comes off as a bit one note. Luke Evans has Gaston down pat, but Josh Gad’s LeFou seems to vary too much in his personality to get a real beat on him. The characters are about as uneven as the film is. The additions to the story, whether it’s the expansion of the enchantress who initially applied the curse or some additional backstory involving Belle’s mother, all fall flat, as do the film’s new songs. Some things work, but the aspects that don’t work seem to have more staying power, leading to a pretty disappointing experience.

There was a simplicity to the 1991 Beauty and the Beast that Condon simply fails to replicate.

King Kong: Skull Island

There’s no secret that Kong: Skull Island had nothing in common with the three previous versions (1933, 1976, 2005) other than the ape’s name and the location name. Everything else is completely different and somewhat fresh to us, probably not so much to a Japanese audience, as they made multiple films with Kong either as a protagonist or as an antagonist. But for Western audiences it’s a completely new take on a historical and beloved Hollywood character.

The journey begins in 1973 on the day the United States pulled out of Vietnam. Explorer Bill Randa, John Goodman, and his associate Houston Brooks, Corey Hawkins, convince the government to fund their expedition to an uncharted island in the Pacific. Needing help, they enlist Col. Preston Packard, Samuel L. Jackson, and the members of his military group as military escorts, anti-war photographer Mason Weaver, Brie Larson, and, the leading man, ex-British special forces tracker James Conrad, Tom Hiddleston. As soon as the team arrives, they discover that the land they believe they have founded is a world ruled by a gorilla the size of a building: Kong. 

As for the human characters (who, let’s face it, are just the supporting roles here), the cast is a decidedly mixed bag of ultimately weak personalities. The most forgettable performance comes from the man who was given top billing, Hiddleston, phoning it in as the typical straight man. He is heroic, clever, morally motivated and always right about everything. Essentially, he is the direct opposite of Jackson’s character, a proud, honorable military leader who has grown slightly unhinged since the end of the Vietnam War. As for Larson, while her Farrah Fawcett-haired character comes forth slightly underdeveloped, she gives her a strong, witty and courageous personality that comes in handy when she actively participates in the action sequences despite never having a gun. While I applaud the culturally diverse casting most of the characters feel unworthy to root for.

The exception is John C. Reilly as Hank Marlow, a World War II pilot whose plane went down in 1944 leaving him stranded on the titular island ever since. He completely steals the show by thankfully abandoning the “dehumanized, feral stranded victim” trope, giddily guiding the explorers through the island’s native culture and steering them away from the most dangerous areas and creatures. With his optimistic and thoroughly hilarious portrayal, Reilly is more than the film’s comic relief: he is its heart and soul.

Despite moments lacking in more of his own screen time, seeing the king of Skull Island in action is worth the wait. The beautifully shot fight scenes between Kong and creatures that Marlow calls “Skull Crawlers” feel like a child’s fantasies during an action figure crushing session at afternoon playtime brought to life. The film is fast paced, action packed and simply written yet it's real charm comes from director Jordan Vogt-Roberts and cinematographer Larry Fong, who seems to reach higher heights than other Hollywood action expert Zack Snyder. They manage to execute a cheesy, sub-par script with mostly forgettable performances into a surprisingly and thoroughly entertaining monster movie. With beautiful aesthetic, impressive action direction and an irresistible nostalgic tone, this island proves worth returning to.

Hidden Figures

While this is may seem like an insult to some, Hidden Figures is that perfect film you can take the whole family too. Usually the “family” demeanor means non-offensive/basic storytelling, here we have a movie that defies its simple premise and delivers one of the most well-rounded films of the year. Yes, you can take the whole family to this because it is a heartwarming tale showing some progress in America’s history; but make no mistake, you’ll want to take the whole family to see Hidden Figures so we can learn how to make progress in some areas society is still struggling with today.

Directed by Theodore Melfi, Hidden Figures tells the story of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Mary Jackson, three African-American women whose work helped NASA’s efforts in the Space Race of the 1960’s. The story bounces effectively between the three ladies and each of their struggles in the white male dominated world that was NASA. Dorothy, Octavia Spencer, faces push back when she is repeatedly denied career advancement despite her qualifications. Mary’s, Janelle Monae, skill set demands she be an engineer, but she cannot do so unless she is able to take classes at a 1960’s Virginian segregated school. Katherine, Taraji P. Henson, is our main focus, as she is given the opportunity with the most influence: calculating (more like inventing) the math that will allow an American to not only circle the earth, but re-enter the atmosphere safely. The screenplay by Melfi and Allison Schroeder does a great job taking the real life events and crafting them into a compelling two hour film. Each character not only has their career advancement driving the plot, but we also see how each of these ladies encountered segregation and how their math and engineering skills were just as part of the Civil Rights Movement as the protests were.

You might hope that a film set 50 years ago dealing with civil rights would easily be a thing of the past, but unfortunately that is not the case. Whether it be discussions about prejudice in our society, the struggles women face in the workplace, or even how bathrooms can cause social divisions, Hidden Figures feels timely in a way that was not expected. To be clear, Hidden Figures is definitely not a heavy film to experience. The PG-rated story doesn’t shy away from the civil rights aspects of the story but generally it chooses to focus on the hopeful progress rather than dwell on the harsher realities of the struggle.

Hidden Figures ends up being that perfect balance between inspiring, entertaining and educational.

Free in Deed

Free in Deed is certainly a tough film to watch. Exploring themes such as religion and special needs, writer, director and co-editor Jake Mahaffy does not shy away from controversy. In a raw foreword, recorded on skype for Glasgow Film Festival, he simply encourages viewers to disconnect from personal opinion and to embrace the ideal that the film does not reflect his own personal views. An opening statement that felt like he was making excuses for creating the film which I felt was unnecessary considering the film itself is unapologetic. Starring David Harewood, this film depicted the loss of hope, faith and life in way that has me distracted even hours later. 

The film documents the life of a young woman and her two children, one of whom has Autism. Based on actual events, she turns to her local church and it's resident healer for help with her son. The film explores the unfortunate trend within some religious communities of using exorcism and spiritual healing to cure individuals with special needs. The 'storefront church' trend that is sweeping American small towns promoting local bishops and 'healers' and the depiction of the dangerous and in the case of Free in Deed deadly consequences of using these practices on young and disabled children is central to the film. The continuing rise of disenfranchised masses who have turned to religion to both heal and revitalise their lives is worrying from an admittedly privileged point of view. But understanding that millions of people do believe that God is the answer to their problems and that devoted worship will result in physical manifestations of God's love in return is key to understanding some of the wider social issues that are taking hold of America today. In a world that is currently so lost, is it bizarre to look for a higher power to right our wrongs? This film is a brutal display of a popular belief system in central bible belt America and other countries.

A film without a glimpse of hope in any of it's characters lives, Free in Deed strikes a particularly heart breaking tone in it's depiction of Melva's young daughter. Not only does she witness the cruel exorcism sessions but she mimics them with her doll and sits angeliclly, unaware of the implications of what she sees. From a film making perspective the deliberate and unashamed guiding from the cinematography was especially interesting. It has some of the most obvious displays of forced attention I've seen on screen in a long time and was cleverly utilised to show focus on the power of belief. This was particular choice resulted in what felt like slow paced film that had been weighed down by its heavy subject matter. The use of quick cuts and slow motion to emphasise the slow passage of time and draw in audience attention only heightened the tense atmosphere created by the plot.