Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) REVIEW

Spider-Man: Far From Home is the latest instalment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, directed by Jon Watts (who also directed 2017's Spider-Man: Homecoming). It catches up with Tom Holland's Peter Parker, AKA Spider-Man, as he prepares to go on a school vacation after helping to save the universe in Avengers: Endgame. However, his holiday plans are thrown for a loop when elemental monsters the size of buildings begin to show up around Europe, alongside enigmatic new hero Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal).

I would like to start by saying that I don't envy Far From Home. It has the sorry job of following up both April's three-hour epic Avengers: Endgame and last year's spectacular, Oscar-winning animated film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. It has to not only measure up to the expectations left by one of the best Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but also to the ones left by one of the best Spider-Man films. It doesn't fully succeed at either, but it is definitely an entertaining film.

Jon Watts was widely criticised for his bland direction in Homecoming, and it feels like he's made a conscious effort to be more interesting here. In certain scenes, he uses a handheld camera rather than the usual Marvel Steadicam, and there is one (already well-praised) sequence relatively late in the game that is one of the most visually inventive I've seen all year, with a hint of the psychedelic visuals of 2016's Doctor Strange. I can't go much further into it without spoiling a major plot twist, but let's just say that you'll enjoy it if you enjoy creative film moments. Watts has still got a long way to go before he can match the directorial flair of some of his fellow Marvel directors such as Taika Waititi (and even longer before anyone could class him as having a distinctive style), but I appreciate the added effort on his part.

All of the performances are pretty good. Holland is as likeable as he usually is, Samuel L. Jackson (reprising his role as Nick Fury) has a lot of screen presence and all of the other bit players get at least a couple of good comedic moments, particularly actor/director Jon Favreau (who appears in a relatively larger role than he has in the MCU's past as former Iron Man supporting character Happy Hogan) and Jacob Batalon as Ned Leeds, Peter's best friend. However, the standout is, as expected, Jake Gyllenhaal. He is one of the most talented actors of this generation and he is perfect for his role as Mysterio. Whenever's he's on screen, the film is always entertaining. Unfortunately, he is largely absent from the first half of the film.

The screenplay and editing really let this film down. The first act is weirdly fast-paced for no discernible reason other than to disguise the fact that not much is happening. I could basically sum up the first half in a sentence and it wouldn't even be a spoiler because it's all covered in about a minute in the trailers. Basically, Peter and friends go to Europe and although it doesn't take that long, a lot of time is still wasted. Other than a pre-credits sting, Mysterio doesn't show up until approximately half an hour into the movie, the first half-an-hour being taken up with high school comedy stuff. While Homecoming did an excellent job at seeding in superhero stuff among the comedy stuff, Far From Home appears to feel the need to carve out large portions of the film for each section, resulting in a narrative that does not flow well at all. Once the plot does kick in, though, we're 'treated' to several numbing, weightless action scenes that are not helped by the fact that you've probably already guessed the twist, which seems to think that it's a lot less obvious than it is and therefore takes ages to show up. The editing really doesn't help as the scene transitions feel a lot choppier than you'd expect from a $150 million blockbuster. On the bright side, the movie really picks up from the twist onwards and the rest of the film is funny, exciting and inventive.

I just really wish the whole film had been like that, because, while Far From Home is certainly a fun, engaging time at the cinema, it never quite reached it's full potential. A good comparison point is 2013's Iron Man 3. When faced with following up The Avengers (2012), Shane Black decided to deal with the way the events of the previous film changed both the world and its characters, which resulted in what is probably my favourite MCU film (a bit controversial, I'll admit). Far From Home attempts this, but while IM3 was a tightly plotted thriller with well-written dialogue, this falls apart in the writing. However, it is definitely helped along by entertaining performances and a good third act. Unfortunately, to dig into my specific positives and negatives on this film, I'd have to go into spoilers, so let's just say that while this is by no means a perfect film, it is an entertaining if slightly disappointing follow-up to Endgame.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2

My Journey in Movies For June 2019

Due to a combination of the Sydney Film Festival, lots of new cinema releases, and just being generally busy, I didn't watch anywhere near as many films this month. But that's not to say I didn't watch any. The early stages of the month were mostly taken up with classic films (classic here being defined as pre-1970), from Hitchcock to Leone. After that, I watched some grittier, more modern releases, before concluding with a couple of light comedies. I managed to not give out a single negative score this month (apart from one new release), so I guess that's a win...?

Vertigo (1958)
Watched On: Blu-Ray
Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.2/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.3/10
My Review: It pains me to give a Hitchcock film anything lower than 4.5 stars, but this one just isn’t up to scratch with Rear Window or Psycho or even The Birds. It definitely has a very intriguing, well-shot storyline for the first hour or so, with great performances from both of the leads, reaching a crescendo with possibly the best dream sequence in the history of cinema. And then it keeps going, stripping away every strip of likeability that our protagonist had and ultimately not contributing much at all. It ends with a scene that feels more Hitchcockian than any of the unnecessary hour leading up to it, one that brings to mind the climax of Rear Window, but that scene culminates in an ending that is so abrupt and unsatisfying it is almost comical. Overall, Vertigo is a great half a movie.


For A Few Dollars More (1965)
Watched On: Stan Australia
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.1/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.3/10
My Review: Actually better than A Fistful of Dollars. Sergio Leone’s great camerawork is complemented with a more complex story with better characters and even more action. Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name is badass as always, but it’s Lee Van Cleef who really steals the show here, his elegance contrasting perfectly with Eastwood’s grittiness, with a believable backstory and motivations to boot. The film also has a great villain, who is menacing throughout and is explored as the story progresses. Not many Westerns would take the time to develop their villains, but this one does. The soundtrack is fantastic, and feels much more thematically appropriate than in Fistful. There were a couple of scenes where diegetic sound was important to the plot but the score drowned it out, but it’s still a great score. At 132 minutes as opposed to 99, it loses some of Fistful’s breeziness, but there is not a moment wasted and the constant action ensures that it never drags. The action is perfectly edited and choreographed much better than was the industry standard at the time. This is the deeper, darker second entry, and further carves out the space for the Dollars Trilogy to become one of my favourite trilogies of all time. Bring on The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.


Sherlock, Jr. (1924)
Watched On: YouTube
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.3/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.2/10
My Review: Quietly amusing and quirky. It boasts some fantastic special effects for the time and contains one of the greatest dream sequences ever in film (which I also said earlier this month when reviewing Vertigo). It’s compelling, light viewing that doesn’t require too much thinking but is certainly entertaining and funny. Buster Keaton is fantastic and it’s amazing how much can be communicated without conventional dialogue. A high four from me. I’d definitely recommend it to people who want to go back to the early days of cinema.






The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Watched On: Stan Australia
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.4/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.8/10
My Review: It’s now no surprise to me that Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is considered one of the greatest films ever made. The epic conclusion to Leone’s Dollars Trilogy (that is as standalone as the other two installments), it frames an epic journey to $200,000 buried in a grave against a backdrop of the American Civil War. It is part-western, part-war film, and does each side justice with some of the best cinematography I’ve ever seen complimented by extraordinary editing and a relentlessly hummable score. While Clint Eastwood’s Blondie is still as stoic and badass as he was in the previous two films, he’s given new depth by his setting. In the third act, his act of kindness towards a dying army captain solidified his place as a hero rather than a antihero. He makes up the ‘Good’ part of the title, and is joined by Lee Van Cleef as the ‘Bad’, a more villainous rendition of the character he played in For a Few Dollars More, and Tuco (the ‘Ugly’), whose hyper-excitedness is a good counterpoint for Eastwood’s man of few words. It’s the interactions between these three that give the film much of it’s sense of humour, which is often perfectly realised by the editing. 
The war steadily grows in the background until it is inescapable and the characters have to cross battlegrounds to get to the grave. There is very much an anti-war sentiment here (the film looks down on both sides rather than framing one as heroic) and it blends surprisingly well with the western aspects. In a way, the soldiers are similar to the titular gunslingers, pettily duelling over a few small bits of land, or a few small bags of coins. 
And duel they do, climaxing in a three-way gunfight that is perhaps the most brilliantly edited and scored scene of the entire film.
The ending is very satisfying, and as the last man standing rides into the mid-afternoon sun, you know only one thing: you’ve just witnessed a true masterpiece.

Snowpiercer (2013)

Watched On: Stan Australia

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.6/5

Avg. iMDB Rating: 7.1/10

My Review: Great direction, great performances, really cool world building. Actually decently funny for such dark plot points. I really enjoyed it’s use of slow motion, which emphasises every breath, step and blow. Some of the action scenes were a little chaotic - not hard-to-follow, per se, but the camerawork was very shaky - and some of the editing was a bit choppy, but none of those things really bothered me that much. This is an excellent modern sci-fi film with fantastic visuals, and is certainly an underrated gem.

Dirty Harry (1971)

Watched On: Netflix AU

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.8/5

Avg. iMDB Rating: 7.8/10

My Review: Dirty Harry is a classic crime film that still holds up brilliantly today. This is partly due to how many films appear to have taken inspiration from it since then (I noticed similarities to movies such as Speed and Die Hard With a Vengeance). Clint Eastwood is great as always as the titular character while all of the supporting cast also deliver good performances, particularly Andy Robinson as the psychotic ‘Scorpio’ killer. The film is fantastically edgy and definitely is a product of it’s time, as a story that could almost exclusively be told in the fallout of Vietnam. The screenplay is immensely quotable (‘Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?’) and the cinematography is actually above average, which I wasn’t expecting. There are a couple of examples of nice composition, and there’s a brilliant shot at the end of the stadium scene. The action scenes are all entertaining and easy-to-follow, right through to the film’s brilliantly bittersweet ending. If I had some gripes with the film, they’d be related to the lighting (some scenes are way too dark). I’d have also liked to see some of the supporting characters get further fleshed out. Those are only minor things, though; this was really good.

Hero (2002)

Watched On: DVD

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.8/5

Avg. iMDB Rating: 7.9/10

My Review: Hero, a 2002 Hong Kongian martial arts film, takes inspiration from Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon to craft one of, if not the, most beautiful films I’ve ever seen. In fact, I’d go so far to say that this is the superior film between the two. Each portion of the film is distinguished by a different colour, from red to blue to green and more. This is visually striking by itself but is made even more stunning by the brilliant cinematography. I could praise the visuals of this film for days but I don’t want to make it seem like this is style over substance. There is a real story here, about love, unity, and the power of mind and words over violence. All of the performances are great and the story structure is perfect. All of the action scenes are fantastic - standouts included the black-and-white fight between Jet Li and Donnie Yen in their minds, and a bit where Li and Maggie Cheung fend off against a bunch of arrows using a sword and, in Cheung’s case, cloth. Some of the scenes also use slow motion to visceral effect. 

Hero is both effortlessly cool and staggeringly beautiful, and we really can only thank Quentin Tarantino for bringing this masterpiece to English audiences.

Groundhog Day (1993)
Watched On: DVD
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.9/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.0/10
My Review: Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. Still, this was pretty good.

Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. Still, this was pretty good. Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. Speaking of repetitive, I feel like I’ve written this before. Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. I’m starting to identify with the existential horror story of being stuck in the same day over and over, unable to make your mark on the world until, inexplicably, you do. Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray, who I should start taking the advice of. Maybe I should repeatedly kill myself. Hold on, I’ll go and get the DVD of Jurassic Park III.  Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. Killing myself with a talking raptor didn’t work, so I guess I’ll just be nice to everyone instead. Joe Johnston, all is forgiven! Hey, I’ve made it past 6 am! Hey Joe, your movie’s shit!

The Upside (2019)
Watched On: Amazon Prime
Score: ⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.2/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 6.8/10
My Review: The Upside was a charming, completely inoffensive film. Kevin Hart was okay but Bryan Cranston was fantastic in his role as a quadriplegic. Nicole Kidman, meanwhile, sounded like she was struggling to suppress her accent. Some of the cinematography was nice and the film had a good message, but the script was definitely very cliche. After about a minute, you’ll probably be able to predict every succeeding plot point. What you might not be able to predict are the jarring diversions into Hart-brand comedy, including a scene involving a shower, which add comic relief that wasn’t really necessary. It would be nice if they had just let the film stand on it’s own without feeling the need to add in comedy, because the over-the-top shenanigans  of Hart’s character on his own feel a world away from the gentle humour that his chemistry with Cranston brings to the film. 
Overall, I’d say that the film is good. However, just like how Cranston’s character gives Hart specific orders not to go to any extraordinary measures to revive him, I wouldn’t recommend going to any extraordinary measures to watch this film.

Ranking For the Month:
9. The Upside
8. Vertigo
7. Groundhog Day
6. Sherlock Jr.
5. Dirty Harry
4. Snowpiercer
3. For a Few Dollars More
2. Hero
1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Double Feature: ANIMA/Parasite (2019) REVIEW

Another week, another double feature review. This format is beginning to grow on me; I can kill two birds with one stone and perhaps allow a lesser known film ride some of the success of a more popular one. In this post's case, I'm lumping a brand new short film with the probable front runner for this year's Best Foreign Language Feature Oscar. Let's jump right into the former....

ANIMA is a brand new fifteen-minute short film created in a collaboration between musician Thom Yorke (of Radiohead fame) and director Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love, Phantom Thread). For PTA fans, this was a welcome surprise,as Anderson hasn't directed anything since the aforementioned Phantom Thread in 2017. The plot of the short is a little difficult to describe without going into specifics as it's almost certainly metaphorical. Let's just say it follows an unnamed man (Yorke), who attempts to return a lost item in a very strange world.

ANIMA could be described as music video - it's scored by Yorke songs and it's simplistic story definitely make it feel like one. However, there is a lot of interesting cinematography and visual storytelling that sets it apart from the thousands of music videos on the market. There is not a single word of dialogue spoken, but every movement tells us everything we need to know about Yorke's leading character. Every action is choreographed like a dance, and the dream-like, sometimes violent, movements are a spectacle to behold, as are is the surreal set design. This short could only have been directed by a true master of cinema, and I highly recommend it. It is, after all, only fifteen minutes of your time.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Disclaimer: I don't really understand how Korean names work and therefore may have made mistakes in spelling, punctuation and order. Feel free to correct me, and sorry about that.

Parasite (AKA Gisaengchung) is the latest film from South Korean auteur Bong Joon-ho. It stars longtime Joon-ho collaborator Song Kang-ho as Ki-taek, the father of a lower class family in South Korea. When son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-sik) gets a job as an English tutor to the daughter in a wealthy family, Ki-taek devises a plan to infiltrate the house in the form of a driver, a housekeeper (in the case of mother Yeon-kyo) and an art teacher (in the case of daughter Ki-jung). However, they soon discover that things are not all they seem in the large house the wealthy family occupies. Parasite has already been showered with festival awards, winning the Palm d'Or at this year's Cannes Festival, as well as the top prize at this year's Sydney Film Festival. 

All that praise is well-deserved. Parasite is a fantastic deconstruction of class and wealth. Let's start with the screenplay, which is phenomenal. The film is much funnier than you might expect from a premise that doesn't really inspire laughter. It's hard to make English-speaking audiences laugh with subtitles but my theatre was loving the comedy in this. Don't get me wrong; this is very much a dark comedy, with a spectacular third-act twist. Every element is well-set up and comes into play later; I find it pretty astonishing that Joon-ho turned this film around in two years, as it feels like decades of thought have been put into its complex, deceptively simple plot. It is unpredictable but never cheats the audience. Every character is great, but special attention has to be given to the characterisation of Ki-taek. I wouldn't really call him the main character but it is often his actions which act as the catalyst for the plot points. The script weaves in subtext in a way that doesn't feel forced, making the commentary essential to every motivation and event rather than forcing it upon the story. The characters never explain what they're feeling; the emotion is all palpable. 

Part of this is the performances, and all four of the central thespians are very strong in their roles. Again, Kang-ho is the standout. They all have great chemistry and their interactions feel naturalistic. All of the supporting characters do some exceptional work, too. The cinematography is exceptional, boasting many great examples of composition and camera movement. The direction is also great; Joon-ho mounts tension and suspense in an almost Hitchcockian way I rarely see these days, and he never skimps on the payoff, either. All of this culminates in a brilliantly edited sequence that is both cathartic and brutal (or perhaps cathartic through its brutality), a final expression of rage at the unfairness of the South Korean class system. For such a specific problem, it is surprisingly universal and all the characters are supremely relateable.

In short, Parasite is nothing less than a masterpiece that could honestly be taught in film classes. Every person who worked on the film is clearly at their best and it is one of the most engaging and shocking experiences I've had at the cinema in months. It is easily the best film of the year so far and I would even say that if it had been released last year, it would have been my favourite film of that year, too. It's the kind of film that feels destined to become a classic (at least among cinephiles), the rare kind of foreign language film that could find a place in, say, the iMDB Top 250, and hold it there for the foreseeable future. Everybody needs to see this film, and I encourage every one of you to find where it's being shown near you and see it. I don't care if you have to drive for hours, do it.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐