It: Chapter Two - A Messy But Entertaining Second Half

In retrospect, 2017’s It had genius marketing. Coming out at the perfect time to capitalise on both that weird creepy clown trend and the recent popularity of the first two seasons of Stranger Things (another horror ‘80s throwback), it quickly became the highest grossing R-rated horror film of all time. Part of this success was how singular it seemed. Although those who had read the novel were certainly aware that the film was only one half of Stephen King’s 1,138 page epic, the general public were fooled into thinking that the film was standalone and that any of the major characters could be slain by Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard) at any moment. It wasn’t until the closing title card that director Andy Muschietti played his winning card; the addition of a ‘Chapter One’ to those two letters. Despite the fact that R-rated horror films rarely do gangbusters at the box office, a sequel suddenly became inevitable and twenty-seven fiction and two real-life years later, we have one.

As mentioned, It: Chapter Two picks up twenty-seven years after the events of the first film. Nearly every member of the Loser’s Club has moved on from Derry and have had varying levels of success, including Bill (James McAvoy), Ben (Jay Ryan), Beverly (Jessica Chastain), Richie (Bill Hader) and Eddie (James Ransone). The only Loser who has remained in Derry is Mike (Isiah Mustafa) and he sets the story into motion when he observes a series of disappearances and realises that Pennywise has returned. Muschietti returns to helm the picture, along with the original child cast, who are seen in flashbacks.

The first thing you might think about the film leaving the cinema is about its length, which was easily the biggest talking point leading up to the movie’s release. At 170 minutes, it is much longer than your usual studio horror film. For comparison’s sake, the first It was considered pretty long at about 140 minutes. It is easy to argue that a combined 310-minute runtime is justified for such a long source material (after all, Peter Jackson’s three-film adaptation of Lord of the Rings ran to 682 minutes), but the way Chapter Two uses its runtime make it feel bloated. Very bloated. In simple terms, the film takes bloody ages to do anything. Don’t get me wrong, it’s entertaining throughout, but editor (sorry to name and shame) Jason Ballantine could have easily cut a good ten or twenty minutes off the film. Part of the reason it runs so long is its overreliance on flashbacks to the younger cast. As many viewers have been quick to point out, the whole point of splitting the story into two parts was so they didn’t have to overpopulate the adults’ story with flashbacks to the kids. But overpopulate it does, and the screenplay regularly drops in scenes (that could have easily slotted into the first), with all the grace of an elephant balancing on a pin. There’s even a whole location that was apparently important to the child Losers that wasn’t even alluded to in the first film. Note to screenwriters writing a two-part story; this isn’t how to do it.

On the bright side, many of the elements that worked in the first movie still work here. The adult Losers have striking resemblance to their child counterparts (particularly Ransone) and have the same chemistry with one another. The standout of the cast is Hader as Richie, who is a very effective comic relief character, getting pretty much all of the best lines, but is still given more depth than your usual comic relief character. In fact, after being fairly annoying in the first film, Richie gets some great development here and is now perhaps the deepest character in the film. On the other side of the emotional spectrum, Skarsgard is still doing great things with Pennywise, creating a terrifying screen presence by straddling the line between comical and creepy. On that line of thinking, the film also has some inventive scares that are a bit less predictable than the first’s. The scariest of these involves a countdown, and on that I shall say no more.

The film constructs a running gag about how Bill (who has become a novelist) never finds a satisfying way to end his works. This is set up from the very first scene with him and continues throughout most of the movie. This is most likely a playful swipe at Stephen King, who also seems to have trouble ending his novels (I should know, I’ve read quite a few of them). One of the most notorious of these ‘bad’ endings is the ending to the It novel. Without spoiling anything – reader, it involves a sentient cosmic turtle. Chapter Two follows the precedent that the 1990 It miniseries set in ditching that climax and trying to construct a better one. Just like the 1990 version, it fails spectacularly, in a resolution so goofy it makes the cosmic turtle seem like a David Lynch creation. If I wasn’t so committed to not spoiling the movie, I would be happy to describe it in all it’s ridiculous glory here. If you thought the climax of the 2017 film (in which the kids beat Pennywise up with baseball bats) was a bit silly, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, It: Chapter Two is definitely a mixed bag of a film. It has pretty good performances (and a couple of great ones) and overall expands on the themes of its predecessor through some effective scares and character moments. However, it falls apart with a structure too overreliant on flashbacks to material that could and should have been covered in the first film. Add to that a ridiculous ending, and you’ve got a screenplay that probably needed another draft or two. That being said, it’s entertaining and engaging throughout and is an enjoyable watch with a couple of your cinephile mates (if only to turn to each other and point out the cameos, Easter eggs and references).

Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2 (B)

My Journey in Movies For July 2019 + Blog Update

First off, an apology for not writing as much as I would have liked this month. The main problem was that I haven't seen any 2019 movies since Spider-Man: Far From Home, so I haven't had any reviews to write. Additionally, I've been working on a big, long post about Star Wars that has taken way longer than I thought it would. It has taken so long that I've decided to change the post into a more concise format. It is a bit of a shame but I would have been writing that post for the rest of my life if I hadn't. That post should be up at some point this month once I finish rewriting it. I've also changed the layout of this blog a bit (a bit = literally nothing is the same) to make it look a little more professional. The unfortunate side effect of this change was that certain elements of many previous posts have been reduced to a bunch of white lines in a manner similar to the opening credits of that crappy Godzilla movie from 2014. I have been working to fix this and from what I can ascertain I've succeeded - if there are any other posts that have been rendered illegible, please do not hesitate to tell me.  I've also introduced a new kind of post, the 'Short Subject' editorial, in which I write about a specific aspect of the film world in a way that can be read in one sitting. I premiered this idea the other day with an editorial on 'Why the Violence in Django Unchained is Brilliant', so please check that out if you haven't already. I've got more Short Subjects in the pipeline, so look out for those.

Now, onto the Journey. I've decided to stop copy-and-pasting my Letterboxd reviews as it felt a bit lazy. It also wreaks havoc with the new blog layout. From now on, I'll simply sum up my thoughts in a sentence or three.

Anomalisa (2015)
Directed by: Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson
Thoughts: Not as good as Adaptation or Synecdoche, New York, but still a deserving five star film with a lot to say about the human condition. The stop motion animation by Johnson is absolutely stunning and this is an easy recommend for me.
Score: 5/5





Being John Malkovich (1999)
Directed by: Spike Jonze
Thoughts: Still good, but a huge step down from all of the works from both Kaufman and Jonze I've seen. I found the characters quite irritating at points (with the exception of the main man Malkovich, playing himself) and the ethical dilemma of the film not well-explored at all. Easily the weakest film I've seen from both auteurs. That being said, I have to give it points for a fantastic premise and some spellbinding sequences.
Score: 3.5/5



Manhattan (1979)
Directed by: Woody Allen
Thoughts: Some fantastic dialogue and great cinematography. The premise is a little creepy given the current political landscape. It utilises the black-and-white very well and has some good performances. Ultimately, though, I wasn't especially invested in the characters, so this 4/5 is more of a technical score than anything else.
Score: 4/5




Zodiac (2007)
Directed by: David Fincher
Thoughts: A truly masterful crime thriller. This is my favourite of the three Fincher films that I've seen (the other two being The Social Network and Alien Cubed). It features excellent performances by Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey, Jr. and Mark Ruffalo and some spectacular cinematography in which Fincher proves he is a true master at using CGI as an enhancement rather than the main feature. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I highly recommend this video essay on YouTube. It definitely helped my viewing experience that I knew next-to-nothing about the Zodiac killings going in, so the film was much more tense for me than it would be for other, more knowledgeable people. If you know nothing about the historical context, don't Google it, just watch the film. It'll make the experience much more rewarding.
Score: 5/5


Jackie Brown (1997)
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Thoughts: This is hugely underrated. It's not as fast moving or as violent as Tarantino's other work, which is probably what throws people off, but this is still a fantastic piece of cinema with Tarantino's trademark dialogue, some great performances and a standout scene in which the same heist is played a few different times, each from a different perspective. Admittedly, I would have cut off maybe ten minutes or so from the first act to keep things moving but that is only a blot on what is, for this film, a pretty spotless record.
Score: 4.5/5


Some Like it Hot (1959)
Directed by: Billy Wilder
Thoughts: Look, I really tried to like this one but I have to conclude that it really wasn't for me. I didn't find it all that funny (apart from a couple of hilarious gags, specifically some of the double entendres - which appealed to my dirty mindedness - and the classic line 'I'm a man!' 'Well, nobody's perfect', which was the funniest bit of the whole comedy) and the plot was filled with conveniences and character actions which kind of baffled me. I can appreciate its historic relevance (probably one of the first films to include cross-dressing over an extended period of time), but overall it was just too long and not as funny as it thinks it is.
Score: 3/5

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Thoughts: The first of two foreign language films I watched this month is a spellbinding, dark fairy tale that manages to be both whimsical and tense over a well-paced runtime that never overstays its welcome. The scene with the Pale Man is, in one opinion, one of the scariest in cinema history, relying on pure suspense rather than jumpscares. There are several distinctive and memorable characters. The production design is probably among the best I've ever seen in a film. My only complaint is that I would have liked del Toro to try to connect the fantasy and real worlds a bit more. I understand that he was trying to make a contrast but it kind of feels like two great films rather than a single masterpiece.
Score: 4.5/5

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Thoughts: This might just be my new favourite Coen Brothers movie. It's difficult to put something above Fargo but this absolutely knocked it out of the park. The best thing about it (other than the writing) is Oscar Isaac's powerhouse performance as the titular character. Expect to see this on my 'best of decade' list at the end of the year (while we're on the subject, why has IndieWire already posted it's 100 Best Movies of the Decade? The decade's not even over yet! What if Cats is the best movie ever?!?).
Score: 5/5


Mulholland Drive (2001)
Directed by: David Lynch
Thoughts: Honestly, if I could give this six stars I would. I watched it almost a month ago and I still think about it every day, trying to unravel the mystery. It was a surreal, dream-like, totally transcendent film experience I will never forget. I loved every single minute of this, even the ones that didn't make sense (especially the ones that didn't make sense). Each time I think about it, each time I read someone else's interpretation, it climbs a little bit higher on my favourite films of all time list. It is scratching on the door of my top ten and I wouldn't be surprised if it kicked it down. This is maybe my second best first time watch of the year, and it could climb even higher than that.
Score: 5/5

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Thoughts: Yes, I realise how bad it looks that I gave out three five stars in a row, but come on. Llewyn Davis, Mulholland Drive and Inglourious Basterds? If you've ever had a better one-two-three punch of first-time watches, please tell me. Anyway, Basterds is a masterful piece of cinema from Tarantino, with great writing, cinematography, acting (particularly Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz) and what might be my new favourite closing line of a movie. I'm struggling to decide whether I like it more than Django Unchained, but either way I loved it.
Score: 5/5


The Seventh Seal (1957)
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Thoughts: The last movie I watched in July. Like Some Like it Hot, this is another black-and-white film from the late-'50s that just didn't really click for me. I can appreciate a lot of Bergman's directing prowess and much of his clever dialogue, but the story and characters just didn't click for me. I thought the character of Death had a fantastic screen presence but overall I expected more from this supposed classic.
Score: 3/5



Ranking:
11. Some Like it Hot
10. The Seventh Seal
9. Being John Malkovich
8. Manhattan
7. Pan's Labyrinth
6. Jackie Brown
5. Anomalisa
4. Inside Llewyn Davis
3. Zodiac
2. Inglourious Basterds
1. Mulholland Drive

Short Subject: Why the Violence in Django Unchained is Brilliant

Short Subject - editorials on a random filmic subject, short enough for you to read in one sitting.

When Quentin Tarantino's seventh feature film Django Unchained was released in 2012, I have no doubt many members of the fun police protested the film's violence. They probably called it excessive, exploitative, sadistic, sickening, and many other negative, hyperbolic adjectives.
These people have missed the point completely.

The most violent scene (at least in terms of bloodiness) in Django is the shootout at Candieland where, without spoiling anything, Jamie Foxx goes on a bit of a rampage, doing a pitch-perfect impression of me whenever I play Red Dead Redemption 2 (I wish). I remember thinking that Tarantino must have used half of the fake blood population of the world as red fills the frame, splattering the walls and characters, the relatively small wound caused by a revolver's bullet exaggerated by about a thousand times.

On the surface, the easy explanation for the huge amounts of blood on-screen is that it simply adds to the dark-yet-slightly-campy tone where you are as much invited to laugh at the massacre as you are to wince.

But there's more to it than that.

For the first few decades of the twentieth century, America was treated to bloodless, safe, censor-appeasing Westerns such as High Noon, The Magnificent Seven and The Searchers. If the gun violence is exaggerated in Django, it is understated in these films. This is not a reflection of those films' quality, it's just how it is.

Or, rather, was, as the late Fifties and Sixties brought in a new kind of adventure in the Wild West: the spaghetti western, the slightly racist-titled Westerns made in Italy, starring Italians with their voices dubbed over with English, plus the odd American star, like Clint Eastwood. Although they shared a genre with the American multiplex Westerns, the spaghetti variants were a different beast; darker, with more morally ambiguous characters, and much bloodier.

The fun police are right about one thing; the violence in the Candieland shootout does make you a little uncomfortable. You're simply not used to seeing this much blood on screen. And that is completely intentional.

I can only imagine what American audiences used to Stagecoach thought of For a Few Dollars More or The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Tarantino's favourite film of all time) when they first saw them. They were probably horrified by the amount of blood and violence. The reaction was probably the same as it was for modern audiences seeing Django Unchained.

With Django, Tarantino set out to replicate the feeling of watching a spaghetti western back in the day. Part of that was replicating the way American audiences must have felt about them at the time. Current audiences wouldn't be shocked by the level of violence in '60s spaghetti westerns, so Tarantino had to up the ante. Basically what I'm saying is that we had become acclimatised to the level of blood in old westerns and so Tarantino had to dial it up to eleven to recreate that feeling. It may seem completely ridiculous and exploitative, but there's a point to it.

And that's why the violence in Django Unchained is brilliant.

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: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Double Feature: I Am Mother/Rocketman (2019) REVIEW

I'm pretty backed up as far as reviews for new releases go at the moment (everything seems to be coming out at once), so I thought I'd combine these two films into one post. Both reviews might be shorter than a normal one.  Without further ado...

 I Am Mother is the new sci-fi Netflix film, which is the directorial debut of Australian director Grant Sputore. It follows a young girl (Clara Rugaard) who is raised in some sort of bunker by a robot named Mother (voiced by Rose Byrne), who tells her that the world outside has been fatally contaminated and only refers to her as Daughter. However, their sheltered existence is shattered when a survivor (Hilary Swank) appears...

Right off the bat, the first thing you'll notice is how great the production design is. Much of the film is spent in the bunker, and it looks fantastic, a minor miracle given what I can only assume was a small, Netflix movie budget. The long corridors are eerie and sterile and the mood is consistently claustrophobic. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that you do get to see some of the world outside the bunker, and what is there is creepy, unique and strangely beautiful. I'll speak no more of it since the outside world does form part of a series of reveals.

Another technical achievement is the design of Mother. A mixture of practical effects and CGI, it looks real the entire way through, the illusion helped by small details such as the lights on the side of its head and stickers that Daughter has put on it in the past. The only nitpick that I have with the design is that it looks a little too immobile. This is not a problem in itself but whenever Mother runs down a corridor it breaks my suspension of disbelief because I find it hard to believe that a robot designed like Mother is would be that agile. It doesn't help that the running effect isn't fantastic on it's own.

I also enjoyed the story and how twisty it was. It's definitely a movie that pulls the rug out from under you multiple times and leads you to question the motivations of the two supporting characters. I also think that the film has some considerable subtext and I read it as a metaphor for sheltering your children from the horrifying reality of the outside world and whether that is ethical. I can't really dig much more into it without getting into spoilers; this movie is a little difficult to write about in a spoiler-free review. I don't think I care quite enough to do a spoiler review but I wish I knew someone else who had seen it so as to discuss the film's themes and twists with them.

As great as the film is conceptually and technically, it does have some problems in the execution. `For one, I wasn't the biggest fan of the acting in this movie. Clara Rugaard was meh, while Swank was overacting a bit, in my opinion. The exception to this rule was Byrne, whose warm voice makes her perfect for the role of a seemingly friendly robot A.I. There is often menace hidden in her amiable tones that elevates Mother above the average movie robot. I also found the pacing of the film to be a bit off. This may be partly my interest levels but I felt the film really hit lulls at the start and end of the second act that considerably slowed it down.

Overall, though, I Am Mother is a notch above most Netflix original films, with great production value, a good script and a standout performance from Rose Byrne. However, it is held back from being truly great by some bad acting and pacing.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2


Listening to 'Saturday Night's Alright' as I write this. Rocketman is a musical biopic that follows Elton John (Taron Egerton) as he navigates his rise to fame, his drug and alcohol addiction, his relationship with manager John Reid (Richard Madden), as well as the other people in his life, including his songwriter (Jamie Bell) and mother (Bryce Dallas Howard). Directed by Dexter Fletcher, it has positioned itself as the edgier alternative to last year's Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody, which Fletcher finished off after original director Bryan Singer was fired for being a very creepy man. It has made history as the first major Hollywood film to feature a sex scene between two men. Not only is it changing the face of film, it's also doing seriously original things with the genre in which it takes place. While the music biopic genre has long since become a menagerie of cliched storytelling, this film shakes things up by introducing a musical element and a non-linear narrative. And I was on board the whole way through.

There's almost nothing wrong with this movie. Egerton is electric as John. This is less of an impression than a performance, and is made even more impressive by how Egerton sang all of his own songs, as opposed to Bohemian Rhapsody, where Rami-Malek-as-Freddie-Mercury's vocals were created using a mixture of Malek, an impersonator, and the man himself. Egerton spent a long time living with John and the result of this is a passionate and acurate performance. Though he regularly outshines the other actors, Egerton's is not the only good performance on show. Look no further than Bell as songwriter Bernard Taupin, who embues a chracter who ultimately doesn't have a lot to do with a natural charisma. The chemistry between him and Egerton is the beating heart of the film. Richard Madden as John Reid also functions better as an antagonist than, say, Allen Leacher's Paul Prenter in Bohemian Rhapsody. He is surprisingly menacing, especially coming off Rhapsody where Reid was portrayed as a sympathetic character. I guess it just goes to show how different perspectives can change your perception of a person. These two films would make an interesting double feature. Also impressive is the nearly unrecognisable Bryce Dallas Howard as Elton's mother.

Aside from all the performances, the storytelling in this film is exceptional. This isn't a traditional A-to-B biopic; we start with the adult John in therapy and then flash back to his childhood, flashing back occasionally to add extra emotional heft as John remembers the moments that we've just seen. It's also actually a musical - it doesn't just pause to recreate a concert, the film works classic John songs into the story to amplify it's themes and characters (such as when Elton's mother is introduced to 'The Bitch is Back', and a showstopping, highlight performance of 'Rocket Man' follows John's overcoming of a key obstacle). The film uses this format (and Elton's substance abuse) to it's advantage. Rather than attempting to cover everything in minute detail, it plays fast and loose with the facts; don't be surprised to see fantastical elements in the story. This results in a completely unique story. But the script's genius doesn't stop there; the dialogue is snappy and occasionally heartbreaking, and the understated (and at times obvious) use of metaphors adds an extra dimension to what could have easily been yet another style-over-substance musical. Plus, it's elevated by forming it's entire story around a theme; a theme about the longing for unconditional love, which is what many of Elton's songs are about.

It's surprisingly good-looking. The cinematography is often interesting and the direction of the musical scenes is kinetic without being hard-to-follow. There is a beautiful scene in a pool that is both an achievement in visual effects and cinematography. There are some colour grading choices that I really enjoyed, such as when the bright red of adult Elton's demon costume contrasts with the dull colours of his childhood.

If you can't already tell, I loved Rocketman. It's currently my favourite film of the year and I recommend it to everyone. The beats of the story are maybe a little predictable but the journey to get there is anything but. It's got fantastic performances, great music (obviously) and some pretty good cinematography and narrative structure. Stop rewatching Avengers: Endgame and watch this instead!

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Skin (2019) REVIEW - SFF2019

This film was viewed at the Sydney Film Festival 2019. As it was not the only film I saw there, this review may be slightly shorter than usual.

Skin is the latest film from Israeli writer/director Guy Nattiv, who directed the controversial Oscar-winning short film of the same name. It features Jamie Bell as a white supremacist, who, inspired by his girlfriend (Danielle Macdonald), decides to disentangle himself from his skinhead 'family,' who have modelled their rituals after vikings.

The results are a little mixed, though I doubt anyone would argue the fact that Jamie Bell is 100% the most valuable player in this film. His nuanced performance allows the audience to see different layers (be it the hardboiled exterior or the vulnerable aspects) in the character and breathes new life into a surprisingly underwritten character (in that his character arc is pretty much over after thirty minutes and he doesn't have much internal conflict afterwards). All of the other performances are good, too, the exception being Vera Farmiga, who is somewhat flat and unconvincing as the 'mother' of the skinhead clan. Even the child actors are good.

Another definite plus is the atmosphere that the film builds over it's two hour runtime. It's relentless and almost every scene has a degree of tension. I guess you could call it a kind of cat-and-mouse thriller, with the skinheads as the cat and Bell as the mouse. There were also some stylistic touches that I appreciated, such as the depiction of an overdose early on and a later, certainly metaphorical shot involving a burning car. Speaking of metaphors, there're definitely visual motifs and structural metaphors to look into. Over the course of the film, there is a sort-of subplot set around a new recruit to the gang, and it serves as an inverse of the main plot - the recruit is descending while our main character ascends. The subplot feeds into the themes of the main plot, which is exactly what a subplot should do. The film also uses the removal of the main character's tattoos as a framing device, but it also serves as a metaphor for his rejection of white supremacy and the expectations that society has set upon him. These tattoo removal scenes are brutal but elevate the plot.

It's a shame that some of the rest of the film does not live up to the standard set by the aforementioned elements. For one, I found Nattiv's direction quite uneven - there'll be a fantastic shot or stylistic shot one minute, and then a really bad shot the next. There's one scuffle scene early on where the camera was so shaky I a) had no idea what the hell was going on, and b) felt dizzy in my seat. He's definitely got some room to grow but I'd hate to be too negative; I could definitely see him becoming a great director one day.

Meanwhile, it also began to bother me how stupid a lot of the characters' decisions were. Lots of the situations that the main character gets himself into could have been easily avoided. The pacing was also a little off, moving pretty slowly at first then speeding up then slowing to a lazy finish. There wasn't much of a payoff to a lot of the stuff that the film set up and that was disappointing. I also would have liked to see some more conflict in our main character; I would've thought it would be harder to leave the people who raised you, but he makes it look easy, or at least as easy as it can be if the people who raised you are dangerous skinheads. The use of the tattoo removal as a framing device also alleviates some of the tension where it probably shouldn't have been.

Overall, Skin mostly works, but, like it's central character, it is it's own worse enemy, with many of it's best aspects causing problems in the long and short run for the rest of the film. However, I can't deny that it features great performances (including an Oscar-worthy turn from Jamie Bell) and some moments of pure inspiration. It's not the best film you'll see this year, but one that shows promise for all involved.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2

The Souvenir (2019) REVIEW - SFF2019

This film was viewed at the Sydney Film Festival 2019. As it was not the only film I saw there, this review may be slightly shorter than usual.

The Souvenir is the latest film from director Joanna Hogg. It follows a privileged film student (Honor Swinton Byrne) in the 1980s who attempts to make a film about the lower classes in Britain. Meanwhile, she's falling in love with a charismatic older man (Tom Burke) who is hiding something from her.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I am struggling to find any negatives with this film. Every single element is top notch. All of the performances are fantastic, Swinton Byrne (who improvised most of her lines) in particular, who gives the film a likeable natural energy. Burke is also impressive and provides an intriguing hook with his guarded delivery paired with his chemistry with Swinton Byrne. He's also pretty funny in his role. Tilda Swinton (acting alongside her daughter) isn't in the film as much as the trailer might have you believe but she plays against type and makes an instant impression in every scene she's present for.

The cinematography is also great, as is the sound design. The square aspect ratio lends the visuals a pleasing symmetry and Hogg's use of dead space and composition really accentuate the emotions of each of the characters. The camera is mostly stationary so that when it does move it's for a purpose. Many of the takes are impressively long, giving the audience a chance to really emphasise with the characters and feel every silence and non sequitur. This is not a fast film, but it's never boring. The runtime is well-earned and it doesn't overstay it's welcome.

The script is excellent, which is good because the film is 99% conversations. Many of the exchanges of dialogue reward active analysis and pay off later. All of the dialogue is well-written and natural sounding, and the plot is engaging, the characters well-sketched. Even the characters with the smallest roles are distinctive, such as Richard Ayoade's Patrick and Tosin Cole's Phil. The world of the film is also well-developed. On a surface level, the film might appear pretentious with it's beautiful locations and upper-class characters, but Hogg is well aware of this and blends it into the motivations of Swinton Byrne's character.

I'm interested to see where Hogg goes with the upcoming The Souvenir: Part II, which is set to costar Robert Pattinson (who, in the space of a few days, has gone from being 'that guy from Twilight' to 'the new Batman' in the eyes of the casual moviegoer). There are certainly plot points that could be picked up and developed, but the film does not really leave the door open in the way that past Part Is such as The Godfather or Back to the Future have done. Hopefully it is actually the second part of two rather than just a sequel and Hogg has thought the story out from the start of this film through to Part II's ending. I'll certainly be there whenever it gets a release over the next few years.

The Souvenir is a menagerie of talent led by an auteur obviously in her prime, and I highly recommend it, whether you see it at a festival or wait for it's inevitable awards season release.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Dark Phoenix (2019) REVIEW

Despite what Rotten Tomatoes would have you believe, Dark Phoenix is not the worst movie ever, nor the worst X-Men film (I would put The Last Stand and Apocalypse below this). However, that is not to say that this is a great film, or even a particularly good one.

It's hard to know where to begin with this movie, so I guess I'll start with the (few) positives. The action sequences in this (of which there aren't that many) are actually pretty entertaining. Maybe I was just happy to see some punches thrown after the dullness of the film's many conversational scenes, but the fights were easy to follow and creative. The movie utilises each mutant's individual powers much better than most, so we get to see the new renditions of Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Nightcrawler (Aussie Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Storm (Alexandra Shipp) integrated into the action much more and in more creative ways than in Apocalypse. As a byproduct of this, I found the final setpiece (taking place on a train) pretty engaging. It felt like the film had finally been given the shot of adrenaline it needed from the start. That scene was added in reshoots and I feel like it shows growth for Simon Kinberg as a director. He definitely has the potential to do great things in the action genre.

I think the biggest thing that stood out to me as bad in this film was the acting. There are two classes of thespians in this film: those who clearly don't want to be there and those who are giving it their best but don't have much to work with. The only person who rises above this is Michael Fassbender as Magneto, who is just as captivating here as he was in the previous three films. The rest don't fare as well. James McAvoy, who, in the interim between this instalment and the last, managed to give a career-best performance twice as another superpowered character, the Horde, in M. Night Shyamalan's Split and Glass, is definitely in the latter camp but his performance is severely harmed by his character spending most of the film being an unlikeable jackass and having lots of the worst lines. Tye Sheridan is an actor who I think has a lot of potential but he is given the unfortunate task of carrying a romance that we've never seen previously developed, and, like McAvoy, he gets some horrible lines. He does get the movie's obligatory X-Men f-bomb, so that's something, I guess. Turner doesn't fare very well, though it's a little harder to tell whether that was her fault or Kinberg's, Jennifer Lawrence looks like she's counting the seconds until her paycheck comes in, and Evan Peters is severely underused as Quicksilver. Jessica Chastain is usually pretty good but even she can't save the thankless cold villain character she's saddled with.

It's also clearly a movie directed by a first-time director. This can be seen in the aforementioned performances, but also in the cinematography. This is not a very interesting-looking film, and it is also pretty amateurish in some of it's camerawork and editing. Some of the shots aren't even fully in focus (some of those were stylistic choices, but some definitely weren't), and there are many odd cuts. There is also some awful foley work that a more experienced director would have shut down in a heartbeat. These sorts of things have no place in a blockbuster movie with this much money behind it, especially one that's been in production for years.

And my gripes with Kinberg aren't done yet. He also wrote the film, and the script is no good. It's entirely predictable, which might be down to the fact that the movie's been delayed so much that I've had plenty of time to think about it, but I'm still deducting points for it. The film really drags; for such a short movie, it feels a lot longer than it should. It never gains a sense of urgency or pace - it moves from one situation to the next in a fairly leisurely manner, using it's limited time to stage repetitive conversations that ultimately don't lead anywhere rather than developing the villains, or whoever the hell the main character is meant to be. Most of the character decisions, great and small, make no sense. For example, there's one scene which has a battle outside a house. Xavier is in a park on the other side of the road from the house, and needs to get to it. He calls Nightcrawler over and they teleport... to the curb on the same side of the road that they already were? I nearly yelled, 'WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST TELEPORT TO STRAIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR EVEN INSIDE YOU IDIOTS?!?' This is followed by an action scene where all the characters try to get across the road into the house when they could have just teleported there in the first place.

Unfortunately, between it's bad acting, amateur technical aspects and a script that is entirely devoid of logic, Dark Phoenix sends this franchise off on more of a whimper than a bang. It's not the worst this series has to offer but it's positioning as the final instalment makes it hurt that much more. There are some redeeming qualities such as the action sequences and Michael Fassbender's performance, but they do not keep the film afloat for me to recommend this to anybody who isn't already a fan of this franchise.

Score: ⭐⭐1/2