Are you interested in a sequel to Alien: Covenent?

To me, Aliens (1986) was a sequel that got everything right. It never tried to be as scary as the original, taking only the elements that it needed and built them around a bombastic, sweat inducing roller coaster ride of suspense. Cameron knew his strengths - his ability to create compelling action set pieces - and stuck closely to them.

Underrated storywise, Aliens was razor sharp, (mostly)linear storytelling, gradually building in tension and suspense. It was a murky, used world that you wanted to revisit. A mechanical beast every bit as ugly as the titular character of the ‘alien’.

Since then the franchise has regurgitated often forgettable sequels. The degrees of sucess with them varying from interesting and flawed (Alien 3) to silly and forgettable (Alien ressurection).

When Ridley scott decided to come back and create a whole set of prequels I was very interested in where the story could theoretically go. With ‘Prometheus’ the story was at least sounded interesting, a deviation of sorts from the standard alien fare, asking many questions but giving very little in terms of answers. This, unfortunately, seems to be the hallmark of Damon Lindelof’s writing style, heavy on mysteries that never get answered in a satisfying way.

The movie proved to be a visual feast for the eyes. Scott’s eye for visual storytelling and production design has never wavered. His movies are always interesting to look at. And Prometheus was no exception, given a glossy retooling, tossing out the ‘used’ aesthetic of the original alien movies. The weakest element was ironically the story and certain characters; it never felt fully cohesive often grasping at concepts and ideas, never commiting to answer them.

Which, given the setup it was a surprise to many that the tone of the next prequel changed quite a bit. Gone are the engineers and the search for the answers to mankinds existence. Alien: Covenent was a reluctant step back to the alien mytholgy. It felt like Scott wasn’t as invested in telling this tale. At times painting by numbers, giving us obligatory, half hearted scenes, while pretty to look at, felt a little hallow. It wasn’t remotely scary or apart from the opening forty minutes, particularily suspenseful. Not that it was bad, it wasn’t. It was just a little underwhelming.

“I still think there’s a lot of mileage in Alien, but I think you’ll have to now re-evolve. What I always thought when I was making it, the first one, why would a creature like this be made and why was it traveling in what I always thought was a kind of war-craft, which was carrying a cargo of these eggs. What was the purpose of the vehicle and what was the purpose of the eggs? That’s the thing to question — who, why, and for what purpose is the next idea, I think.”

— Ridley Scott on Alien franchise & what's next

Cut to: 2020 and Scott has signed on to make another prequel tentatively called Alien:awakening. Given the recent take over of Fox by Disney it will be interesting how adult in tone a new Alien movie will be. As a fan of the original series, it would a huge disappointment to have a sanitised, pg version. This would surely put a final nail in the coffin of the franchise.

As it stands Alien: Covenent made a lot less than Prometheus worldwide. Given the pressure on filmmakers to hit that magic 1 billion box office of Marvel movies it becomes more of a question of how sanitised the story will be to fall into fiscal line with other releases from Disney.

On another pertinant note: is where Ridley Scott headed with the prequels still interesting and can he make a final installment thrilling given we know where they will eventually end up?

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

'Mimic' movie review

Follow us: email (right in your 📧 email in box, rss feed - your choice!

“Three years ago, entomologist Dr. Susan Tyler genetically created an insect to kill cockroaches carrying a virulent disease. Now, the insects are out to destroy their only predator, mankind.”

— imdb

Written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, ‘Mimic’ is a throw back movie similar in tone to invasion of the body snatchers. Due to studio interference by Miramax (Harvery Weinstein), Del Toro’s vision undermined and questioned, often being asked to ‘make it more scary’ and less cerebral or suffer being fired from the job. Which is hardly surprising as Weinstein is often cited as being a childish bully. To the point where Del Toro was deliberately trying to make each shot interesting visually so he at least could show future potential investers that the movie wasn’t a complete disaster should he be dismissed.

This was Del Toro’s second feature film. Coming from an independent world where you are often in charge of your own fate with no overseers looking over your shoulder, questioning every shot and dime spent. In a lot of ways it was a baptism of fire and one that nearly broke his fledgling career. Indeed Del Toro would state that if it wasn’t for Mira Sorvino he would have been dismissed and his career might not be what it is today.

The movie starts off brightly enough as an outbreak of cockroaches carrying stricklers disease cripples New York, causing kids to get seriously ill. With no chance of therapeutics or a vaccine the CDC is tasked with solving the crisis. Dr Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) engineers a noval solution ‘the judas breed’, designed to erradicate the cockroach population and take with it the disease that is killing children. Cut to three years later with stricklers disease in the rear view mirror, a new breed of predator creeps up from the depths..

It’s a visually interesting film, there are echoes of other films like the relic and aliens but it has its own sensibility. There are hints of Del Toros work there but they are sporadicaly scattered throughout it. The film has more of a B movie aesthetic than I would imagine the original concept to have been so there is a sense incoherence and jump cutting.

Characterwise the movie doesn’t fair very well, they are stock tropes there just to service the story rather than enhance it. Sorvino turning in Ripley lite; tortured by frankenstein syndrome when her creation has a life of its own. Jeremy Northam doesn’t fair so well he struggles to get to grips with an unruly american accent and a character that is just beyond his grasp.

But really are you watching a movie like this for the characters? in truth its the monsters, the situations and the creep factor. The effects are good created by Rob Bottin (The thing); slimey and grim. However, it isn’t particularily scary but it does have a selection of effective set pieces.

With far too many contrivances and convenient set ups the movie descends into silliness by the end. You are left questioning what could have been without studio interference.. but such is the long history of commerce versus creativity in the movie business. Oftentimes what could have been is the moniker for just ok or passable when it had the potential to be good or great.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Aliens 1986 movie review

“Ellen Ripley is rescued by a deep salvage team after being in hypersleep for 57 years. The moon that the Nostromo visited has been colonized, but contact is lost. This time, colonial marines have impressive firepower, but will that be enough?”

— IMDB

Marginalised by a corporation that is only interested in the bottom line, Ripley is once again thrown, quite literally, to the wolves. Partnered with a group of Gung-ho colonial marines they embark on a rescue mission to LV-426 where contact has been lost with terra-forming colonists.

Made for an impressive limited budget (By today’s standards) of 18 million Dollars Aliens is the muscular sequel to the more sedate and measured Alien. With only a minor increase in budget from the original, James Cameron manages to infuse the movie with tension driven action while still keeping the underlying sense of dread that was pervasive in the original Alien.

Not an easy thing to do considering you’re already dealing with the dreaded sequel-itis where lovers of the original movie will be looking for more of the same. It’s testament to Cameron’s ability to know his strengths as a skilled action director that he took the franchise in this direction.

There’s a certain madness to film directing especially when there isn’t enough time nor budget to do what you really want to do and compromise is unfortunately the only option. Couple that with facing a crew who didn’t necessarily share Cameron’s vision or for his abrupt mannerisms and you have tensions that mirror those of the onscreen characters. It’s a wonder the film turned out as good as it has.

Ripley’s character is fully fleshed out making her strong and vulnerable at the same time. It is undoubtedly Ripley’s movie even with all the machismo on display, Cameron deftly infuses the story with consistent echos to motherhood, loss and family. Ripley’s strength as a character lies in her humanity equally with her ability to wield a weapon. She is a surrogate mother to Newt having lost her own child - a scene that should never have been cut from the theatrical release* - marooned in hypersleep for 57 years to find that life has quite literally moved on without her and promises have not been kept to her own child. She is a stranger in a strange new land, traumatised as much by her own choices as those enforced on her by an alien creature that kills ruthlessly without remorse.

Aliens is a tour-de force of design, action and suspense. Filled to the brim with a grungy used aesthetic borrowed from the first alien movie and enhanced. The sets are excellent and everything feels real. It’s impressive world building from costume design, art direction and cinematography. The late great cinematographer Adrian Biddle taking over duties after Cameron dismissed the first DOP.

Tinged with a metallic blue, harsh highlights and contrasty shadows. The grain in the film stock enhancing the used feel of the world, adding to the heavy smoke and atmospherics. James Horner’s score is excellent, foreboding and bombastic. Coupled that with the fact that almost every effect is practical, the acting is brilliant especially from Weaver and you have a winning combination.

The first half of the movie is all about the slow build up of tension. Arguably without this the subsequent action scenes wouldn’t have the punch or power that they do have. We’re along for the ride with these characters, stranded like they are, facing a legion of almost indestructible foes.

It’s very effective, building to a reveal in the finale that added to the original alien origin and ratcheted it up to ninety. The puppetry is brilliant as is the design of the creatures themselves especially the queen. We’re there along with Ripley - adoptive mother and daughter - determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past and keep her promise this time to newt..

When all is said and done Aliens is quite rightly heralded as a classic of the genre. Often copied but never outdone. The flip side of alien, it’s bombastic cousin. This time it’s war.

*included in the extended cut of the movie.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Star wars: the rise of Skywalker movie review

Star wars - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“The surviving Resistance faces the First Order once more in the final chapter of the Skywalker saga.”

— IMDB

The good news is Star Wars: the rise of Skywalker is marginally better than the last jedi (which isn't saying much). The bad news is the movie is soulless and made by a corporation more interested in turning Star Wars into Marvel than creating a great movie franchise. It attempts to pander to fans in a really uncomfortable fashion where more actually means less.

For my viewing there was a mini documentary screened before the movie that played heavily on nostalgia with archive footage from the first three movies including outtakes and interviews from set. Turns out this documentary was more entertaining than the actual movie itself. Making you realise what the first movie had above everything else: passion. Idealistic young movie makers trying to make something interesting and special. It is heavily counterpointed with the hallow money making venture witnessed after it. An exercise in story by committee, haphazardly trying to re-engineer a cohesive story from the poorly crafted ‘the last Jedi'. It's little wonder they jettisoned most of Rian Johnson's world, trying to right the ship and placate fans at the same time.

When we join the story - as slim a story as there is here - lord palpatine has apparently risen from the dead hidden away on ‘Excelon', a type of sith colony creating legions of other sith's as well as thousands of star destroyers under the unimaginative title of ‘the last order'. Kylo Ren is instructed by palpatine to kill Rey to assume control of the new army. Meanwhile Rey is being trained by Leia in the ways of the force - a strange turn of events since we had no clue Leia was a Jedi before this despite her Mary Poppins flight through space in the last Jedi - she is ‘force' visited by Kylo Ren who controls her training Robot firing blaster rounds at her. This leads Rey to abandon her training to destroy Kylo Ren. Her amiable sidekicks join her and along the way they embark on a dark adventure that will see them come face to face with an ancient foe.

Visually the rise of Skywalker is impressive. It looks, for the most part every bit of 150 million. It's biggest flaw besides some really badly scripted dialogue is the fact we don't care about any of the characters in this universe. It doesn't help that every exchange between characters on screen is either exposition or decidedly unfunny quips. Even the actors I feel are phoning it in, weary by the same exchanges scene after scene.

It gives the impression that the movie was 'made up as they went along' with scenes haphazardly thrown together and a plot that contradicts itself.

Rey is now super human capable of controlling space craft, leaping hundreds of feet in the air and anything else the messy plot requires of her to fill gaps with. When there is no grounding for a character literally anything goes. The same can be said for Palpatine who has powers enviable of a god despite his cataracts and ailing health. It is world building by committee and lazily copying a trend that Marvel movies have adopted having to one up themselves to the detriment of tension and excitement. To the point we don't care when one more Lazer battle explodes onto screen.

It's contrived to showcase effects, jettisoning human interaction and passion leaving a hollow empty soul of a movie that only sometimes entertains. When all has been said and done Star Wars: the rise of Skywalker is a messy exercise in excess and it is a lesser movie for it.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'Alien' movie review

Alien poster - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“After a space merchant vessel perceives an unknown transmission as a distress call, its landing on the source moon finds one of the crew attacked by a mysterious lifeform, and they soon realize that its life cycle has merely begun.”

— imdb

I came to the party late watching ‘Alien’ initially in the early 90’s having watched ‘Aliens’ many years before it and thoroughly enjoying it’s action and tension. Perhaps this coloured my opinion as I was initially a little underwhelmed by ‘Alien’ when I first seen it. I did appreciate it’s dense visual tapestry something all Ridley Scott’s movie’s have in common but it lacked something in terms of character - a type of distancing approach which counterpointed ‘Aliens’ in your face aesthetics. (By that stage there had been any number of inferior ‘copies’.) Indeed you could say that the characters themselves are mostly one-dimensional bar Dallas and Ripley who play off one another with equal love and tension.

What mostly got me was the sense of claustrophobia and gradual build up of tension. It practically drips with it. Every scene a mixture of elements and atmospherics. Light and darkness, smoke and hidden shadows. It is a potent mix designed to draw you into this grunge-filled world. No more so than in the final 20 minutes where you can literally feel the sweat dripping down Ripley’s face when she comes face to face with her nemesis. This scene would be less impactful had there not been such a long build up introducing mundane tasks and underlying tensions amongst the group of space truckers. The cinematography is brilliant, designed to be looked at on the biggest screen possible and perfectly captures the claustrophobic feel.

As a designer Ridley Scott is unparalleled. He has spawned many copy cats but none have been quite able to match him in terms of aesthetics. ‘Alien’ was considered a hackneyed B-movie by executives and perhaps it could have been in another directors hands. Indeed Tom Skerrit was initially skeptical about the project citing issues with the budget. The initial budget for the project was projected at 4 million which gave you an idea of the thoughts of Fox executives. Make a low budget ‘Corman rip off’ and release it on the cheap to capitalise on the success of ‘Star wars’.

Ridley had other ideas creating a world filled with a terrifying monster from the twisted mind of H.R Giger. A creature that is silently menacing, stalking its prey in the shadows. The scene where Dallas is trapped in the airlocks a particular highlight.

Thankfully the budget increased and finally settled on 14 million. It’s small wonder what it would have been like had Fox not bought Ridley Scott’s vision for the project. What is quite clear is the fact that we wouldn’t be talking about the movie 40 years later nor have it appear on ‘best of’ lists.

Not that the movie doesn’t show the occasional minor flaw grown from the use of a man in a suit. Mostly these exchanges are clever punctuated by quick cutaways which hides the suit only occasionally can you see the alien in its entirety. But these are few and far between.

For the most part it is a slow burning ride, gradually building in tension and suspense. In space no-one can hear you scream.

Be social - follow us!

Terminator: Dark fate movie review

Terminator: dark fate - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Sarah Connor and a hybrid cyborg human must protect a young girl from a newly modified liquid Terminator from the future.”

— Imdb

I'm a huge fan of Terminator and Terminator 2. They we're ground breaking, had interesting stories and exciting action with characters you actually cared about. Now in its sixth outing Terminator: dark fate is a frustrating mess echoing these previous movies and plot, gender swapping this time in a lazy attempt at updating the franchise.

In this iteration Grace (Played by Mackensie Davis) is our lone warrior, an augment, sent back through time to protect Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes), a mexican worker who has no idea that she is the future savior of mankind.

There is a trend in attempting to rewrite existing franchises to shoe horn in female characters, who are woefully underwritten for political reasons and not because it makes for a great story. Take Dani Ramos for instants, her character is almost non-existent, a cipher, forceful but single dimensional. It perhaps didn’t help that I thought Natalia Reyes seemed a little out of her depth, lacking the spunk of Linda Hamilton, her turn bland and uninteresting.

Mackensie Davis doesn’t fare much better, hampered with stilted dialogue like ‘come with me or you’ll be dead in thirty seconds’ an obvious throwback to Kyle Reece’s ‘Come with me if you want to live’ only this time rote and contrived. The movie is chock full of throwbacks some that work and others not so much.

Much of the dialogue feels forced and without character. Scenes without action are tired, lacking in chemistry almost like Director Tim Miller had only a passing interest in them, preferring to focus on the action instead. Which leaves the characters exposed, Linda Hamilton struggling to revive the intensity of Terminator 2’s Sarah Connor, leaving a faded copy xeroxed until faintly recognisable. Which is a shame as she was a seminal female character of the 90s. In this she is given short shrift in favour of introducing new ‘characters’ that don’t really work. There is an uneasy alliance between the three that feels unnatural and forced. As a result the acting is laboured and devoid of chemistry.

When Arnold appears the movie picks up, his familiar turn as the T-800 a welcome (And funny) reprise even though his presence doesn’t really make much sense. In an opening prologue we witness (Spoiler alert) the T-800 gun down John Connor after they have supposedly saved man-kind from Skynet. Throwing the first two movies under the bus to reinvigorate the franchise in favour of female empowerment to the detriment of story and everything else. It feels badly contrived and Natalia Reyes performance doesn’t sell this idea at all effectively, seemingly miscast in her role. The story involved a bad case of word swapping, the world essentially the same, Skynet replaced by Legion, Dani Taking over from John Connor. You get the idea.

The action is frenetic but without tension or a distinct style. CGI overload, rinse and repeat. Gone are the physical effects bypassed in favour of acrobatic maneuvers that look completely fake. There isn’t a successive build up of escalating tension that is characteristic of the first and second Terminator movies. Now it is a desperate case of throwing as many things at the screen as possible in the hope that something sticks. None of the action scenes are particularly memorable or for that matter involving. Perhaps in part to the fact you don’t really engage with any of the characters - they don’t exist in that realm, cynically substituting male for female without introducing ‘character’ within them.

Overall a disappointing mess.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

The Hidden (1987) Movie Review

the hidden - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Law abiding people suddenly become violent criminals. A cop and an FBI agent race for answers in this sci-fi thriller.”

— Imdb

Produced by New Line cinema who delivered classic movies like A nightmare on elm street and The lord of the rings trilogy, The Hidden is a mish-mash of different genres echoing films like Invasion of the body snatchers, Star Man and The Terminator.

We open in California where a stranger walks into a bank and coolly opens fire on security guards transporting money. Shown in blurry CCTV camera footage, the figure turns to camera after he has slain his victims peering at us the viewer, an insidious smile grows across his face before he turns the weapon on the CCTV camera obliterating it.

It’s a compelling opening. Turns out the figures name is Jack De fries (Chris Mulkey) and he is being pursued by police for a number of robberies. From here the movie launches into a car chase across town where Jack Defries is pursued by the police. Causing destruction along route, even shamelessly knocking over a wheel chair bound pedestrian all to the tune of 80s rock music. It’s fast paced with a slight tongue in cheek, nihilistic persona. Defries pictured as a cold faced killer, eagerly causing mayhem and destruction.

The chase ends with Defries being cornered by police. They open fire decimating Defries vehicle, sending him skyward in flames. Hideously burned he is transported to hospital.

Enter FBI agent Lloyd Gallagher played by Kyle MacLachlan who is teamed up with the straight-nosed no nonsense cop called Tom Beck played by Michael Nouri, who was supposedly set to play the character of Martin Riggs in Lethal weapon but chose to do this movie instead.

Together they visit the hospital to find that their victim has died. If you haven’t seen the movie before and don’t want to know any spoilers then stop reading now. But its fair to say that its pretty obvious from the get go where the movie goes.

Echoing invasion of the body snatchers the movie turns to SCI-FI/Horror mode as ‘The hidden’ inside Defries body transports itself to another host in the bed across from him. It’s a nicely grotesque sequence as this slug-like parasite enters his next victim through his mouth. Shot in stop animation, this sequence is a practical FX treat. Still highly effective and nicely handled.

With a new body to play with ‘The hidden’ goes on a spree gleefully killing if he needs to taking whatever it fancies from a Ferrari to a ghetto blaster, shamelessly ignorant to niceties of earth. We get the distinct feeling that this creature enters bodies to drain them of whatever life force is left, having to regularly change hosts when the current one becomes redundant.

The movie is very funny at times. There is a recurring Joke involving Gallagher and Alka seltzer that made me chuckle. At times its pitch black and others tongue in cheek. ‘The hidden’ changing into a stripper body gleefully shagging a john to death to take his car. It is rumored that the producers didn’t quite like Claudia Christian’s (who played Brenda the stripper) breast shape choosing to emphasize her ass in the clothing choices for the character. At one point her character wears a very revealing dress designed to show her derrière.

Switching tone easily, it never really becomes boring. Putting aside the fact that it was shot in the 80s which has some of that eras shooting style it still looks quite good. The action is constant more or less from the get go where countless die from bullet wounds. In a riff on the terminator, a lengthy action scene taking place in a police station where ‘the hidden’ riddled with bullets still keeps on going. Also In the musical score, with its pulsing electronic base trying to emulate Brad Fiedel’s iconic Terminator score.

The movie isn’t perfect but it is still worth a watch, even though many movies have been made now which use a similar approach. The police investigation scenes somewhat redundant as well as the occasional shoot out.

The practical effects are nicely handled, the slug-like creature a particular highlight. Not everything fx wise is perfect however, the exception the somewhat dodgy animated laser beam near the end of the movie.

Overall worth checking out. Enjoy!

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Ad Astra movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
Astronaut Roy McBride undertakes a mission across an unforgiving solar system to uncover the truth about his missing father and his doomed expedition that now, 30 years later, threatens the universe.”

— Imdb

Where do I begin with reviewing the movie Ad Astra? In terms of plot it is quite simplistic. Roy Mc Bride (Brad Pitt), a troubled yet stern Astronaut must embark on a mission to find his father, who thirty years previously, set out into space to find other sources of life on distant planets. The ‘Lima Project’, a top secret mission pioneered by H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), the golden boy of the space programme, long thought to be dead until mysterious energy fields begin destroying life on earth.

It’s an interesting premise hampered somewhat by unnecessary ‘on point’ voice over, messy plot contrivances and an unconvincing world. Undoubtedly the core underlying meaning of the movie is about the damaged son chasing after the neglectful father in the hopes that they can reunite after thirty years of absence, to seek answers from him to why he chose to abandon him. In this you also see that the son is doomed to repeat the mistakes of his father if he continues down this road. The other being the chase for something better ‘out there’ and in the process taking everything for granted including our loved ones at the cost of our humanity. It is a nice sentiment and one the world definitely needs right now.

But it is hidden within a messy plot where you never really get on board with what’s happening on screen or fully grasp the world created. It’s intentionally sterile to the point where it literally sucks the tension out of the movie. There was potential for the movie to be exciting and engaging as well as tell a meaningful story. But it misses the mark. Personally, I felt the voice over for the most part didn’t work. It was very on point telling you, the audience, what exactly was happening on screen. In one instance Brad Pitt actually says ‘I’m on my way to Jupiter’ just in case you missed that plot point. Not that Brad Pitt is bad in it, far from it, he is excellent. A really understated performance. But he is really the only character that stands out, the supporting cast is completely secondary coming across as one dimensional ciphers just so Pitt has ‘something’ to react to.

The other niggling aspect was some of Brad Pitts dialogue which hammered home, quite literally, how the character was feeling telling us at one point, travelling for 80 plus days to reach Jupiter ‘I’m so alone’ - just in case the subtext was lost on the viewer his chosen hermetic workaholic lifestyle has created a ‘loner’ separating himself from his loved ones - it is reinforced with flashbacks to him and his wife drifting apart. I would argue the audience would have gotten that idea without the inclusion of this clunky dialogue.

One of the aspects I found interesting was the trip to the moon and the fact that there is a ‘war’ raging on it where Pirates are ravaging resources for their own personal gain. This is never really explored at all which is a shame as it was one of the more fascinating ideas in the movie. Not to say that it fits into the story. It doesn’t. Sticking out like most of the action scenes. Perhaps studio interference responsible to try to punch up the story.

It is probably worth mentioning about the messy/implausible physics displayed in most of the movie. I could get on board with most of it bar three glaringly bad scenes: 1. The race to catch a rocket to Jupiter where Brad Pitt with ten seconds to launch manages to climb onto the rocket and somehow hold on as the rocket is propelled at 18,000 miles per hour climbing into a hatch at the base of the rocket. 2. Brad Pitt ‘surfing’ on a piece of metal trying to get back to his rocket near the end of the movie blasting through a debris field of rocks without being thrown off trajectory in the slightest. 3. Stopping for SOS call in space. Again the rocket was traveling at a tremendous speed so stopping without any reference on a whim seems very unrealistic. It’s worth pointing out that the rockets seemed like they we’re from our time and not in any way modernised/updated.

It is these implausible plot points that really let the movie down such as Tommy Lee Jones who is a very fine actor but I could never, not for one instant, believe he would be capable of surviving space flight - he looked old in his thirties never mind now in his seventies. Not withstanding that the movie is in long stretches actually quite boring. There was potential there but it is sterile, working in service of pretentious notions in love with the idea of meaning, to the detriment of story, character and an engaging plot.

Overall it was disappointing, I really wanted to like the movie and I could see the potential in it but it fell short.

** & 1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Avengers:endgame review

View fullsize

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

SPOILER ALERT: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

Where do I begin with Avengers:endgame? In a mind numbing(and ass numbing) whopping three hour run time Avengers fails as a thrilling finale (of sorts) to a 22 movie run. I have to admit I found myself more than a little bored with this instalment having enjoyed the previous outing a lot more than this. With stilted dialogue abound and dramatic scenes that aren't entirely earned it quickly becomes a chore to watch. There is a distinct feeling that ‘we’ve see this already before’ about the movie.

Not to say that it’s entirely bad, it’s not. There are some entertaining scenes and Robert Downey junior puts in a good performance since he is given a script that’s a little more weighty than anything in the franchise before. The effects for the most part are really good, although I’m still not entirely convinced about the backgrounds of some of the planets they have a very distinct ‘Green screen’ feel to them that is a little off putting and for a reported 200 million budget should be flawless. But I digress: the good if you are a Marvel fan then you will most probably like the fact that Thor has become an overweight mess who has taken on a look of ‘The dude’ from the big lebowski. Having failed to kill Thanos in the previous instalment of the franchise.

This will lead us neatly onto what is less good about the movie: The ‘one liners’ that fall like a brick in the ocean. Why was there ships parked around the statue of liberty five years after 50% of the population disappeared? Like there is a shortage of housing suddenly. No one about to moor these boats. Doesn’t really make sense and is there just to create a false atmosphere.

A lot of the plot since it doesn’t seem to make much sense arbitrarily setting up a strict time travel narrative and then simply discarding it when an action scene is called for. The returning of the ‘stones’ in said same time travel narrative. The fact that nothing essentially changes when they ‘bring everyone back’ they have knowledge which they wouldn’t have when five years have passed. When the ‘stones’ magically meld with Tony Stark’s suit so that he can use them. The fact that everyone turns up at the end to have a battle with Thanos on earth: How would they know being essentially dead for the past five years? Surely they would be brought back to the original place they died in?

The obligatory eye rolling ‘all female’ super hero moment that includes Pepper Potts as a hero - not that I don’t believe women should have their moment far from it, it just feels like pandering for political reasons rather than built from story it would have been perfectly fine if the women actually had anything to do in the rest of the movie but they don’t - it is a fleeting moment that is tacked on to the end in a last ditch effort for inclusion. Captain Marvel - what was the point of her character? To turn up and destroy Thano’s ship and then be beaten. While we’re on the subject of Thanos in the final battle without the stones he is nigh on invincible taking on all of the avengers and still coming out on top. Yet he was easily taken out at the start of the movie with only three avengers on hand. Again the contrivance to suit the narrative. There is no rules accept those that suit whatever scene comes next. And last but not least we have returning the lost soul stone which required a sacrifice to get in the first place surely that applies to return it? The list goes on and on..

It is the convenience of ‘fitting the narrative’ to suit the situation that is what hurts the movie and makes it less interesting and simply lazy screenwriting. These are all questionable plot holes that are glossed over in deference to an action scene or when something needs to happen.

I’m increasingly surprised (or maybe I shouldn’t) at the critical reviews of these movies. Last year we had Star Wars: The last Jedi which was an abomination of plot contrivances with more plot holes than the average block of Swiss cheese yet it received glowing reviews from most critics stating that the movie ‘subverted expectations’ like this was a good thing yet they glossed over the fact that these ‘subverted expectations’ we’re simply bad writing. They are seemingly afraid to be critical of the Behemoth that is Disney instead opting to review these movies with ‘rose tinted glasses’ glossing over their flaws. Yet these same critics hammer other movies for less egregious errors. It is this inconsistency that paints certain reviewers in a less than pleasing light. No-one is perfect but even the casual viewer has to admit that these movies are far from perfect.

With a reported box office of over two billion, nearly beating Avatar’s world record have the general movie going public succumbed to the fact that these big tent pole movies no longer need to make sense plot wise instead if they contain enough pretty images and explosions they will let anything slide? This is a worrying trend in movies that are making huge amounts in box office receipts. I see lost opportunities for the reported 200 million budget that could have made four 50 million dollar movies that try to tell a cohesive story. These type of movies are increasingly being squeezed out in favour of big tent pole movies. Which is a shame as there should be room for both.

At the end of it all the plot contains too many questions and no real answers instead opting for glossy explosions and a false sense of drama.

* 1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Upgrade movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Set in the near-future, technology controls nearly all aspects of life. But when Grey, a self-identified technophobe, has his world turned upside down, his only hope for revenge is an experimental computer chip implant called Stem.”

— imdb

***Spoilers ahead***

The writer of 'Saw' Leigh Whannell slides into the director's chair after his debut movie 'Insidious: chapter 3' this time taking on a sci-fi revenge story called 'Upgrade'. Starring Logan Marshall-Green as 'Grey' a Tom Hardy look-a-like (certainly in this movie) who shuns technology and prefers the analogue more tangible world of cars and engine grease over anything 'advanced'.

When his life unexpectedly changes after he and his wife are viciously slain by 'Tech enhanced' humans Grey must turn to technology to reverse his spinal paralysis inserting an experimental chip call Stem' into his central nervous system. Together they form an unlikely allience to seek revenge against him and his wife's attackers.

Reportedly made for just over 5 Million dollars under the Blumhouse banner 'Upgrade' does make good use of its budget even though at times you can tell that the budget was a little tight for the type of story they were trying to tell. I often felt that it needed a bigger budget to fully realise the world and as a result it was lacking in some areas. That's not to say that the world isn't realised no, just not realised to its fullest potential. 

View fullsize

It felt like a smaller movie masquerading as something bigger and sometimes the production design suffers as a result. In the empire podcast Leigh alludes to the fact that he had written a much bigger budgeted screenplay and slowly whittled it down to its current incarnation. With a budget so tight they do a great job of the physical special effects. They are, at times violent and bloody and suitably macabre. The movie is well shot and the action scenes have a nice energy to them. What lets the movie down a little is the one dimensional characters - we've seen them before perhaps done better - Grey is the only character with some depth to him if only surface.

It is an action movie which tries to replicate the tech noir gritty stylings of 'Robocop' and 'The terminator'. In this regard it doesn't entirely succeed. Those movies still superior despite being made over twenty-five years ago. When the plot is so simple getting that aspect right perhaps should have been a priority. 

When Stem interacts with Grey their exchanges are fun and there is a sense that not all is as it seems when 'Stem' requests that protection barriers be stripped away from its operating code. We are party to a twist that isn't quite a twist if you pay attention closely to the movie. Suffice to say that 'Stem' has other plans for Grey and they don't include being in a symbiotic relationship together.

When the finale rolls around, the tone of the movie shifts slightly to the familiar theme of being weary of technology. Perhaps we should be scared that the ghost in the machine may be looking back us waiting for a day when 'it' can take over. In a very real sense that day may be sooner than we think with more advanced AI being produced daily. But that's another discussion entirely. Suffice to say that the ending of 'Upgrade' is appropriate but not entirely satisfying.

*** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

The Meg movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“After escaping an attack by what he claims was a 70-foot shark, Jonas Taylor must confront his fears to save those trapped in a sunken submersible.”

— imdb

Where do I being with the review for 'The Meg'? I think it might be appropriate to start with a quote from Jason Statham himself when he was interviewed about the project:

"The film changed a lot. The script was totally different. There was so many different ... sometimes you just go: How did it happen? How did it go from this to this to this to that? I guess if you have the control to keep it a certain way you would, but you don't. They have so many people deciding on what action stays and what scenes stay. How the characters ... In the end they want to put something at the beginning. The whole thing at the beginning where I *spoiler* do a rescue on a sub? That was not in the script that I read. That was all brand new stuff. Good or bad, I'm just letting you know"

I think in a way that quote sort of encapsulates what is wrong with the movie. I remember reading the book 'MEG' in the early 90s, it was a far fetched 'Jaws' knock off but also strangely captivating and filled with tension. Tension is the keyword here or the lack thereof in the movie. It seems that a committee has decided to make the movie a 12s friendly affair when it should have been R-rated and filled with gorey deaths. When nearly every death happens off screen it becomes very disappointing. After all we're coming to see a monster movie, a predator that is stalking innocent people to their deaths. Also if you like your movies to follow basic real world truths this isn't really for you. At one point they make a dive beyond 10,000 feet and not one person suffers from the bends or decompresses when they come to the surface - so in other words not realistic whatsoever.

Not that I'm saying its all bad, its not. There are some interesting scenes there its just a shame that the whole movie couldn't have been that way. Its fairly obvious that the movie went through a number of changes in edit. Scenes seem to be cobbled together at times and it makes for an unruly watch.

The conversation pieces between characters are quite badly handled highlighting the fact that there was no chemistry between the leads and/or poor acting on display or sometimes a combination of both.  Statham comes off quite badly at times especially in the opening scenes - Which is a shame as I think he could offer so much more than he is currently showing.

Then again that could be down to the script which falters, chugging out cliched conversations and jokes that don't really hit. Harrison Ford once said about Star Wars 'George, you can write this shit but I can't say it'. I'm paraphrasing here but you get the idea. It makes for some cringe worthy scenes. The movie is at its best when they are fleeing the prehistoric monster or trying to destroy it. Tension is what was called for and we didn't really get it.

There was plenty of scope for tension in the movie but it never really quite works which is a shame as I think it had potential. Given the fact that 'The Meg' has had a troubled production history - multiple directors and screenwriters for over 25 years have tried to bring it to screen - its little surprise that the final product isn't everything that it could have been. But that shouldn't excuse delivering something below par. With that much time to prepare and polish a script should we not have expected more?

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Solo: A Star wars story movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“During an adventure into the criminal underworld, Han Solo meets his future copilot Chewbacca and encounters Lando Calrissian years before joining the Rebellion.”

— imdb

With a short turnaround now a mere 6 months between the last Star Wars movie we get Solo: A star wars story. Having mostly enjoyed Rogue one I thought at least the spin off stories would perhaps be an entertaining diversion albeit not particularly necessary. It was true for 'Rogue one' and the same sentiment applies to a certain degree with 'Solo' as well. It's an entertaining diversion which answers certain questions that fans may or may not have had.

The movie follows the young plucky 'Han Solo' from a young age right up to just before he makes contact with the rebellion. The movie flies at a cracking pace never leaving you time to think about anything. For the first 45 minutes I would say that the movie is actually quite good, bar a few scenes that came across a little flat and lifeless. To be fair considering the alleged mess that the movie was in before Ron Howard assumed Director duties, he has managed to create a cohesive story that holds together quite well. With a reported 70% reshoot we do, at least, seem to get what Ron Howard intended. And to be fair you couldn't really see where the issues might have been. 

This is not to say that Solo: A Star Wars story is perfect. It's not. There are a number of areas that I thought were a little flat. At times the dialogue exchanges lacked polish and crackle. It also lacked a little in action and jeopardy. The finale is a prime example of this: at no point did I feel any jeopardy for Solo. Which is a big problem with these stand alone 'Star Wars' stories we already essentially know the outcome. So the only interest that remains is how the character gets there. Which, depending upon your viewpoint, could either be interesting or two hours and fifteen minutes of boredom.

The early reports from set seemed to paint a very bad picture of Alden Ehrenreich who plays Han Solo. But for the most part I think he actually plays the part quite well and I buy him in the role. Despite positive reviews of Donald Glover who plays Lando Calrissian I felt at times he veered into a slight parody rather than authenticity. That's not to say his acting is bad, it's not. I feel its down to the change in tone of the character giving him a more campy edge that wasn't present before. I believe this is also what has certain Star Wars fans up in arms. After a bombardment of questions to writer Johnathan Kasdan over twitter he intimated that Lando is now pan sexual. There is clearly a hint that Lando holds more than friendship in mind with L3-37 (Played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) indeed at one point L3-37 infers that they would be more if only she wasn't a robot.

It seems a strange turn for Star Wars. Indeed with The last Jedi movie there was sexual politics involving men and women with a slightly sexist viewpoint - to the detriment of story and quality - just to fulfil some type of agenda. Which is a strange stance that Kathleen Kennedy has taken considering she is in charge of a franchise which champions the theme of 'Hope'. Under her stewardship the star Wars story lines seemed to have deteriorated with a noticeable decline in quality of writing usually sacrificing story for a political viewpoint rather than creating quality entertainment. 

But I digress, back to Solo I think it's an entertaining diversion that has some interesting aspects. Setting aside some weaker parts it at least tells a cohesive story unlike the predessor The last Jedi. But when push comes to shove the ending is a little underwhelming with the movie coming to a close with a whimper rather than a roar. Paul Bettany's Drydon Vos falling foul of the cliched evil villain mantle by simply being underwhelming and under written.

*** out of *****

Avengers: Infinity war movie review

View fullsize

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“The Avengers and their allies must be willing to sacrifice all in an attempt to defeat the powerful Thanos before his blitz of devastation and ruin puts an end to the universe.”

— imdb synopsis

**SPOILER ALERT - THERE WILL BE SPOILERS AHEAD**

Lets get this out of the way first. I wouldn't really be a fan of the marvel universe as a whole. I know I said it but lets get past that. Even though the movies are well produced they all fall neatly into line with the tagline 'seen it all before'. As a company line I often wondered how many movies Marvel could produce with minimal jeopardy for any heroes before they felt the need to reset the franchise.

With their tenth year of producing movies - sometimes two in a year - there is definitely a case of 'can we get this over with please' syndrome. It seems every time you look at a trailer its for a new superhero movie. In fact most of the tent pole movies every year seem to be either 'Marvel' or 'Star wars'. Don't get me wrong I love a good fantasy and SCI-FI movie. I would just prefer a little variety every now and then. At this juncture I feel they have reached their saturation point. Eighteen movies in and jet-lag has definitely hit.

But I digress - is Avengers: Infinity war any good? well, yes and no. Let me explain. I'll start with the no part first. Characters. There's far too many at this point all clamouring to get their little piece of the pie that there is literally no room for anyone. Most are relegated to throwaway lines that are essentially a regurgitation of the plot or stating the obvious jeopardy that lays ahead. Its especially noticeable in Mark Ruffalo's performance whose acting is the worst I've ever seen from him. I often thought it would be a better movie if we actually got to know any of them beyond their superficial personas. But who has time when there is a special effect explosion to get to.

And that's one of the biggest problems I had: I didn't really care about any of them. With the stakes so high in this movie it should be at a point where you feel something. But perhaps Marvel has pressed that reset button too often now that cynicism has begun to set in. In truth when the finale rolls around and most hero's are fizzled to the ether it was met with a stunted 'Oh'. There's always a catch and a way out. I don't think its going to be any different with this one. But for a momentary instant it does work and at least, even temporarily, there could be an interesting ending. But therein lies the ever present potential reset. 

For the most part the special effects where good with the notable exception of the exposition scenes on 'Titan' which had some really quite badly handled green screen removal. The action scenes on wikanda where quite generic, however. A mishmash of chaotic CGI and quick cuts with very little in the way ingenuity or for that matter tension. You only have to look at the recent movie ' A quiet place' which oozed tension to realise how how far apart they both are in terms of this. Its chalk and cheese. But really are we going to a Marvel movie for that or just the spectacle of things being blown up? I think we should expect both. Tension and spectacle. Sadly we don't get both.

Now to the good. Josh Brolin as Thanos is quite compelling. I felt he was a quietly threatening presence, obviously mad and intent on carrying out an Armageddon plan to wipe out half of the universe to solve the galaxies ills. While not perfect its still a good turn. The guardians of the galaxy give a much needed burst of laughter. Their scenes are easily some of the best in the movie. The movie spins at a great pace never staying still for very long, sliding across the cosmos fulfilling various sub-plots.

And finally we come to the ending. For the first time in a Marvel movie someone dies. And it appears that some may not come back again (Except perhaps in a reboot/reset) which is somewhat refreshing and at least a decade coming. While it is an interesting ending there is an inbuilt get out clause that undermines this heavily. If Marvel uses it, which they may well do, it will erode what has come before it.

With all of the hype surrounding the movie is it justified? Well yes and no. The movie is at the very least a distracting 2 hours+ but also at the same time too long. Some characters have very little to do and are only there to see a familiar face. It suffers from Harry potteritis where the ending is split into two for convenience and the money making potential that that implies.

So should you watch it? Well if you are a die hard Marvel fan then you have probably already seen it if not then don't go in expecting anything different. Some flaws have been lessened and others created. Not perfect but not bad either. You'll already know what to expect: Big explosions and lots of colourful effects with a smattering of funny lines thrown in. It definitely doesn't break the mold in fact it only very slightly modifies it. And that modification is probably only temporary.

*** out of *****

Annihilation

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A biologist’s husband disappears. She puts her name forward for an expedition into an environmental disaster zone, but does not find what she’s expecting. The expedition team is made up of the biologist, an anthropologist, a psychologist, a surveyor, and a linguist.”

— imdb

Warning possible spoilers ahead *

Having been a fan of Alex Garland I eagerly anticipated the release of 'Annihilation'. From the trailer I was expecting a slightly colorful and intriguing intellectual 'Aliens' mashup. Although taking trailers at face value will usually guarantee disappointment and with this trailer, to a certain degree, that rationale applies here.

This is not to say that the movie is bad per se just more intellectual and slow moving than anticipated which isn't necessarily a bad thing either. But having said that I can see that there's a lot of plot holes in the movie some involving setup and others motivation.

From the outset we witness a character in turmoil, Lena, played by Natalie Portman - a very talented actress - who is missing her husband after he sets off on a top secret mission into 'the shimmer'. 12 months later he reappears, walking back into Lena's life, who has misplaced her grief putting everything into her job with very little of herself remaining to 'live'.

Kane, Lena's husband is a ghost of his former self, apparently traumatized from his ordeal in 'the shimmer'. This is when he rapidly becomes sick, coughing up blood and is rushed to hospital. En-route the ambulance is intercepted and Lena et al are taken to a top secret facility across from the shimmer. So far so good.

From here the plot begins to get a little bit sketchy for me. Here she meets Dr. Ventress, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who interrogates her about her husband and what he has told her about his experiences in the shimmer. Dr. Ventress appears to be the controller of this operation, a psychologist by trade, who informs Lena that they are about to embark on another operation into the shimmer despite all other operations failing including sending in drones. In other words they have all previously failed and people have died along the way.

What follows next doesn't really make much sense to me. This 'death' mission is headed by a rag tag group of women with varying occupations: biologist, an anthropologist, a psychologist, a surveyor, and a linguist (The last occupation I gleaned from Imdb as I never heard it in the movie itself). They enter the shimmer, armed with weapons (Even though most of them are academics with no military training) and seemingly very little else to investigate the shimmer.

From this point I wondered why they never wore any sort of 'hasmat' type suits. They are going into an unknown area possibly of alien origin without any idea of what the air quality would be like. We were already informed no drone made it back through the shimmer and all communication ceases once inside.

They appear, as a group, not to be too concerned even when strange happenings appear around them. They are attacked at one point by a rabid crocodile, the next scene they suggest someone should 'stand guard'. Strangely this means the guard is stationed over 2oo meters away on the ground when everyone else is high and dry up on a look out platform (?!). This set up just appears to be there to create a false sense of tension and a set up for another attack.

The hybrid animals are interesting but the cinematography lets this down for me. It appears muddy with blown out highlights that are very distracting at times. Aesthetically I found the production design good for the most part up until the ending which we will get to later. 

Very little actual scientific detecting is done with in the shimmer. It appears whomever packed their backpacks decided to leave major equipment behind like night vision goggles and rubber gloves. At no point is there a concern for 'cross contamination'. With the stakes so high for humanity you would think they would have all the equipment necessary at their disposal. Which brings up another question who exactly is running this operation? It appears that Dr. Ventress is in charge, a psychologist who wouldn't know a mutated cell if one punched her in the face. With a big military presence we assume this operation is run by them. So strangely they are not accompanied by any army. It seemed like a setup to have an all female cast at the center of the story without any regard for 'story'.

Not that an all female cast makes a difference. It doesn't. They could have easily included a few female military personelle  and dropped one or two of the existing characters as they added very little to the movie at all. They just appeared there to make up the numbers and scream occasionally or bicker amongst themselves. The biggest disappointment for me is the characters. They are incredibly one dimensional. At times it appeared that the actresses were struggling to add 'life' to them. As portrayed Dr. Ventress appeared to be depressed half the time. It didn't help that they seemed to be given the direction to be stilted with their responses to each other.

When we do get to the finale we witness an area very much like 'Alien' with its chitinous living interior. Having spent so much time giving us colourful highlights to be subjected to an Alien hive felt like a misstep. Not that it looked bad, it didn't. It just felt like very lazy production design.

Some will be very disappointed by the ending and what happens after. To me it was at least interesting. I can't say that it was entirely successful, however. There seems to be a jump in logic where the final image will have you wondering why this should end in a cosy embrace. 

Overall there are some interesting ideas if you can get past the obvious flaws there may be some enjoyment. However, if you don't enjoy slow moving sci-fi movies you wont enjoy this either.

** & a half out of *****

Star Wars: the last Jedi review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

SYNOPSIS

“Rey develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker, who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance prepares to do battle with the First Order. ”

— Imdb

Warning spoilers ahead:

As we open on Domhnall Gleason's General Hux sneary scowl dolling out lines like an evil villain from a Christmas panto play I couldn't help but think there was somehow a mistake - someone in the projectionist booth had keyed up a funny behind the scenes outtake instead of the actual feature film by accident. Surely this couldn't be the actually movie, could it? I sank deeper into my seat and tried my best to focus on the positives but it continued to shock with its failed attempt at 'dropped telephone connection' humour between Rebelion hotshot pilot Poe Dameron and general Hux . To say that this exchange was more akin to a part of Space Balls: the movie than Star wars would be an understatement. Having glossed over some reviews they lead you to believe that this installment was closer in tone to the Empire strikes back while in reality it was more akin to an unintentional comedy than a space opera. I sat there and wondered where they watching the same movie as me.

This weird structure was to continue with humour that failed seemingly every time it was attempted. Gone was the laconic smart ass-ness of Han Solo being replaced by a slap stick humour that just wasn't funny. We have a scene involving Princess Leia that was quite simply silly - it would have been better served for her to simply die at that point at least it would have created some gravitas as it stands she comes across as some sort of super hero who cannot be killed.

Minor plot holes I can forgive but a blatantly poorly written plot I cannot. What ensues for most of the movie is a slow motion chase across space that makes literally no sense. The rag tag rebellion fleet is quickly running out of fuel and has only enough to make one more light jump but the only snag is that the 'First Order' can track them through the 'light jump' and remain on their tails. This begs the question: why didn't the first order simply surround them and obliterate their ships into tiny particles? In the original movies the star destroyers where incredibly fast moving. In this they are hulking beasts travelling at a snails pace while the rebellion ships have shields that can continuously repel bombardment for hours on end. The logic here is simply bad and just an excuse to create a subplot for Finn to go to attempt to rescue the ship. Which, by the way, is another major misstep. An OTT CGI mess where Horse creatures are seemingly more important than human children. Why would you free race horses and not the slave children? Yeah, exactly that doesn't make any sense either... anywhoo...  

The muddled plot continues when we visit Luke Skywalker and Rey. She wishes to try to bring Luke Skywalker back with her to balance the force and rebuild hope in the rebellion which is fine. I can even get on board with the fact that Luke is now a loner and doesn't want anything to do with the rebellion, having made drastic mistakes training the future Jedi knights. But the motivations of Rey and her temptation at the hands of the dark side of the force seem laboured and without character. It is just a matter of convenience to try to bring Rey and Kylo Ren back together again. Luke Skywalker as a character is now wasted and what was considered by many to be an iconic screen hero is reduced to a bumbling old man who has divorced himself from the force in favour of living a life as a hermit.

He was one of the most optimistic characters in Star Wars universe and in this movie his character is treated abysmally by a writer who seems to think more about fashionable concepts and ‘winging it’ than actually writing a good story-line. When we eventually clunk into the finale ragged and beaten by the poor choices we are treated to a scene that is supposed to illicit compassion and sadness where Luke has sacrificed himself to save the rebellion. But this sacrifice hasn’t been earned nor has the ‘sadness’. It plays as one more contrivance in a movie riddle by them. There was a lot of experienced reviewers saying that these type of scenes and the movie itself is a vehicle to ‘subvert expectations’ like this concept in its current incarnation is something the average cinema-goer should be wowed by but in reality this just reeks of incoherent storytelling. Add to the fact that very few of them seemed to pay attention to the obvious plot holes on display and you have very inconsistent reviewing especially when other movies of similar ilk get a hammering for the same flaws.

It just makes me wonder how a script like this could be read and not notice all of the plot holes in it. With so much money gambling on a movie as big as this do Disney simply just believe they will make a ton of money no matter what sort of Star Wars movie they cobble together? Ensemble movies are notoriously difficult to get right. The ability to hit the highs while maintaining the tone of the original is incredibly difficult. With the advent of more impressive special effects and the ability to blow up everything into a million impressive pieces we've forgotten the golden rule of cinema: Character. Impressive special effects will never gloss over the fact that a screenplay is poorly written. Motivation is key. Conflict is paramount and character is king.

In Star Wars we have forgotten that sense of wonder where the continuous battle of good versus evil hangs in the balance and love and faith are what holds the universe together, binds us in an ever increasing circle. In this movie we are treated to a collection of contrivances where spectacle has replaced poignancy and motivation and it is a lesser movie because of it.

When all is said and done the worst travesty of the movie is the simple fact that you don't actually care about anything or anyone in it. It's all flash and no substance. Poorly executing a screenplay with more plot holes than the average block of swiss cheese 'if we throw in enough lightsabre's perhaps they wont even notice'. A sleight of hand designed to rob you of your wares like a street magician who silently picks your pocket while earnestly looking into your eyes. 

The force is definitely not strong with this one. 

Rating *1/2 out of ***** 

Alien: Covenant review

View fullsize

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“The crew of a colony ship, bound for a remote planet, discover an uncharted paradise with a threat beyond their imagination, and must attempt a harrowing escape.”

— imdb

As one of those people who grew up watching - and enjoying - the first two of the Alien movies (The third I really enjoyed visually with its grimy, grungy atmosphere but it lacked some aspects in story which where somewhat fixed by the release of the 'assembly cut' which made it a better iteration but still not perfect. The fourth movie lets just say it was very 'meh'.) I could appreciate the opening title sequence for what it was. A resetting of tone back to the traditional roots of the 'Alien' movies with its riff on Jerry Goldsmiths opening title score for 'Alien'.

However, after this brief interlude we appear back into 'Prometheus' territory with its sterile white backgrounds and talk of 'god' and 'creation' with a very appealing turn by Michael Fassbender as the android with aspirations of being a type of 'creationist' himself as he talks with his 'Father' played with intensity by Guy Pearce. It is the 'setting up' of David as a villain if we didn't already gleam that from the first movie 'Prometheus'.

I seem to be in a minority of those that quite enjoyed 'Prometheus' upon its release. While far from a perfect film it did, however, offer a visual feast for the eyes that carries on into 'Alien: Covenent'. Even though the story was lacking it did at least offer a somewhat different approach to the material.

We are firmly back in 'Alien' territory with bulkheads and long corridors, moody lighting and an ensemble cast of characters. It is these characters - mostly one dimensional - that join us on our journey to Origae-6 a habitable planet that has been ear marked for a settlement of colonists aboard the ship. A tragedy strikes aboard the ship and 'mother' is forced to wake the weary crew seven years before arriving to Origae-6. In a blink and you miss it cameo James Franco's character dies horribly in stasis setting forth the angst that Karen Waterston's character portrays for most of the running time.

The crew intercepts a transmission from another habitable planet which is closer to them so the newly appointed captain - played by Billy crudup, not relishing seven more years in stasis - sends a landing party to take surface samples and to survey it as an alternative colonising site for their mission.

From here the atmosphere builds with a terrific looking setting as a back drop. The inevitable infection happens which sets in motion a tense sequence involving small alien hybrids that are menacing in their intensity and blood letting. The culmination of which sees the crew stranded from the mother ship with only the android 'David' for company who may have sinister intentions for them.

It is here that the movie will either lose momentum for you or have you intrigued. We spend a long time in cinematic terms visiting with 'David' as he proceeds to teach 'Walter' the new upgraded version of himself to play the flute - played admiringly with menace by Fassbender - who makes playing both roles seem effortless.

When the inevevitable set up happens and David's plan is revealed (Spoiled bizarrely by the teaser prologue released a week before the film opened) there is a race against time to abandon the planet and regroup with the mother ship.

The tension rises again when the full 'Alien' finally reveals itself and tries with all of its prowess and skill to thwart the escape. It is a skilled sequence that was somewhat sullied by showing a portion of it in the official trailer. I don't quite understand the necessity to do that. It seems to be a current trend in the marketing departments for big tent pole movies.

In essence Alien: Covenant is a hybrid movie not quite a full 'Alien' movie nor 'Prometheus'. It is a bastard child that tries to mesh the best of both movies and doesn't quite succeed. However, where it does succeed it does so quite well. In other areas you may feel slightly aggrieved as it plays as a 'best of' compilation from other 'Alien' movies without adding enough new things to the mix to make it truly great. For instants, I would say that the movie isn't scary. Gone are the long lingering build up of tension scenes. Instead there is fast cuts and quick kills purely for shock value. Ultimately, you need to build tension in order for these shock kills to really hit home. Without that its just some quick blood letting without context.

There seemed to be a few odd editing choices, ending scenes abruptly either for rating or time - the shower scene immediately springs to mind as one scene which does this - to the detriment of the movie for me. I will be interested to see if a directors cut of the movie improves on some of these scenes. 

There is hope for the franchise as the end coda does potentially set in motion an interesting story for the next installment. I am hopeful that Ridley Scott may build on this and hopefully try to create tension aswell as spectacle as I don't believe they are mutually exclusive.  

Ultimately like Prometheus before it Alien: Covenant is not perfect but it is very worthy of viewing on the big screen and does offer some interesting sequences. Good but had potential to be great.

Suicide Squad movie review

View fullsize

movie review blog

“A secret government agency recruits a group of imprisoned supervillains to execute dangerous black ops missions in exchange for clemency, which inevitably leads to chaos.”

— Imdb synopsis

REVIEW

Initially, as I watched the trailer for Suicide Squad with it's vibrant graphics and edgy, dark tone, I thought that DC had finally taken a chance and decided to deliver a comic book movie that was, at least, a little different. If the marketing was to be believed you were being treated to a humorous dirty dozen movie where the bad guys take on even badder guys in a battle to save mankind.

In reality that's only partially correct. When the movie is set up we think its going to be like the dirty dozen as it follows a similar setup but with one vital difference. And this is crucial: the setup is very disjointed, showing a series of flashbacks which introduce characters, some interesting, others not so. While trying to set up the plot, such as it is, featuring a round table of big wigs discussing the 'Suicide Squad' and the 'plot'.

admittedly, the first forty minutes had me interested and hoping when we finally get to the main thrust of the plot that it builds on the beginning. Sadly, that was not the case. The rest of the movie is incoherent, with disjointed poorly edited scenes that look like they have been twisted and turned inside out hoping to find a movie in the process.

I did read that the director was 'Locked out' of the edit by Warner Brothers which may or may not have contributed to the scenes being delivered so poorly. This movie is a pale shadow to the enjoyable 'Fury' movie the director did last. Roumers where floating around the internet that there was 30 million dollars worth of reshoots. Now wheter or not this was forced reshoots by the studio trying to salvage a very expensive summer blockbuster or a director trying desparately to fix holes remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it still remains somewhat of a mess. But was it an enjoyable mess at least?

View fullsize

Well yes and no. I quite enjoyed whenever the Joker appeared on screen. He added a much needed lift to proceedings and Jared Leto's performances was suitably menacing and intense. But the biggest problem was that he was hardly in the movie at all. He merely drifts in and out of the picture and when he isn't in it, the movie begins to travel in a downward spiral. Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn adds a quirky, comic touch to proceedings and outshines everyone else around her.

View fullsize

The segmented editing style meant that the characters ended up being uninteresting, trading one liners over character. The biggest loser of this was Jai Courtney as boomerang, given nothing to do except try to be an Australian who says stupid things and robs banks. Its a nothing role for him and you wouldn't have lost anything plot wise if he wasn't in the movie at all. They didn't even bother giving Slingshot a proper introduction scene as one of the squad because less than ten minutes later he gets his head blown off in a scene that plays comically rather than serious.

As an ensamble piece it doesn't quite work. Some of the Suicide squad characters are interesting, others are just there for filler and serve no purpose at all. Arguably, it would have been a better movie without so many characters there to fill screen time and to have their 'bit'. If they are not contributing to the plot or building tension or obstacles then they shouldn't really be there in the first place. But therein lies the problem with ensemble pieces. Trying to give the requisite amount of time to each character. This is where suicide squad fails biggest, becoming a choppily edited piece trying to fit every scene together, rushing to the next to the detriment of story and continuity.

View fullsize

Finally, we have the main villain of the piece Enchantress. It would be fair to say that her scenes where misjudged, playing silly, at times, and others unintentionally comical. As a driving force for getting the suicide squad together she fails to elicit real interest and is quite incoherent. We get snippets of her ranting about building a 'machine' but we really get to know nothing else. And as a result the ending fails. Whether this is down to editing choices or a poorly written script is anyone's guess. This just adds to a series of choices that unfortunately didn't work out.

The movie did have potential which is the biggest loss. I can see where they were headed with it but through whatever reason it just didn't come together and no amount of pretty graphics or special effects or clever marketing will gloss over that fact. (Having said that I can easily see a special edition of the movie being released that is much longer in run time which may or may not help filling in plot points.)

In the end we were left with a movie that wasn't finished and didn't quite work. 

** out of 5

GhostBusters 2016 review

GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 REVIEW

movie review blog

“I ain’t afraid of no ghost”

— Ray Parker Jr

“‘Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.’   ”

— imdb

When I first read about the 'Reboot' to the 1980s movie 'Ghostbusters' I was more than a little apprehensive. To say that I'd had my fill of uninspired reboots would be an understatement.

When they released the first pictures for the main cast of the all female lead ghost busters, I at least thought maybe it might be funny. With the talent assembled here there was at least potential for comedy.

Then I watched the movie. Very few laughs were to be had. It felt more like 'throw as many jokes at the screen as possible and see what sticks' formula. And unfortunately not many did.

The movie follows a very similar set up of the original 'Ghostbusters', only deviating very slightly in story and set up. It should work. There should be moments of laugh out loud comedy but there isn't. There's a strain of comedy on display that, to me at least, isn't very funny. It seems the magic improvising potion got lost in translation resulting in a flat rendition of one liners that just don't really hit.

The actors themselves didn't seem to really know how to play with the characters and instead clutch at comedy straws that aren't really based upon character, instead wholly on props. A recurring 'joke' about wantons falls flat every time its used and its used a lot.

I'm not saying the original Ghostbusters movie was perfect, its not. But what it did get right was character. I engaged with them. I found them annoyingly like-able. And for the most part the comedy worked. 

So apart from the comedy was it an interesting movie to watch? Well, yes and no. I thought visually the hyper colourful images were very nice and the renders of the ghosts were nicely captured. At times, though, the actors seemed to be slightly confused in the CGI environment especially in the beginning of the movie at the haunted house.

Chris Hemsworth was probably the funniest actor in the movie, he plays an engagingly stupid receptionist called Kevin. You could tell he had fun with the role and the other actors bounced off him including Wiig who unashamedly undresses him with her eyes at every opportunity.

Kate Mc kinnon plays scientist Jillian Holtzman as an Egon lite character with a crazy edge. Her brand of humour didn't hit for me. Her one-liners falling flat and missing nearly every time. The expectation was clearly high as they cut to her character repeatedly for a one line zinger that doesn't quite work for the scene.

Which brings us nicely onto the movies Cameos featuring some of the original cast members. This and the constant call backs to the original movie were one of the movies biggest weaknesses. For me, they felt lazy, shoe horned into the movie without thought or conviction. Bill Murray sleep walks through his cameo seemingly uninterested in what's happening. And how he ends.. ahem spoiler alert is quite badly put together almost like the editor ran out of usable footage to complete the scene properly. One of a number of strange edit decisions in the movie. This admittedly, could be the result of scenes which were ad-libbed for comedy. 

When the finale rolls around, it becomes a CGI rampage with Ghouls and ghosts circulating downtown Manhattan. There is a big call back of sorts to the stay puff marsh mellow man from the original which did get a chuckle but ultimately the ending just came and went. It was a forgettable piece that wasn't really satisfying and deserved better. You could say that for most of the action scenes in the movie. They were nothing memorable and just ok. This seems to be the calling card of this movie and its lasting impression: nothing memorable.

1 and 1/2 * out of 5*

Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice Review

movie review blog - batman poster

“‘Fearing that the actions of Superman are left unchecked, Batman takes on the Man of Steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs.”

— imdb

A direct sequel of sorts to 'Man of steel', Zack Snyder is once again in the directors chair of this dark sober tale of fear, demi gods and angst.

In the current run of high profile comic book movies this venture from DC studios and Zack Snyder is a curious mix, often muddled, with both good and bad points.

It is a sober, dark and brooding affair where we once again witness the murder of Batman's Parents in a stylish opening introduction to his character. The titular role of Batman is given to Ben Affleck who plays the role in a very understated fashion. Hard boiled, brooding and angst ridden. One of the more interesting aspects of this incarnation of the character is the fact that he brands the perpetrators he brings to justice. It's strangely dark and nice touch but it is only very briefly touched on in the movie and never really spoken about. It had more potential to add layers to his character.

you can quite evidently see Christopher Nolans influence on the film. Some of the editing choices are clearly from the Nolan playbook. The skips in narration, slightly off kilter, abrupt style in the action sequences are undoubtedly Nolanesque. Its just a question wheter this hinders or helps the storyline.

I felt at times, it made the narrative a bit muddled, trying to add depth to the story that wasn't really there to begin with. If the story beats are broken down you can see the plot is really rather simple. Admittedly, I can see why you would want the epic approach given that its a tent pole summer blockbuster but at the same time I do wish that there was more substance. We never really crawl under the surface. So it feels very scant while attempting depth.

I liked Ben Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne, given the limited material he had to play with he gave the tortured soul of Batman life for the most part. However, I wasn't a fan of the batman voice which to me came across a little silly and unconvincing. Henry Cavill is once again short changed as Superman, left looking stern with no sense of humanity, humility or humour, the type of stoic hallmarks of superman in the original Richard Donner movies and it was sorely lacking. The biggest surprise was the casting of Jessie Eisenberg as Lex Luthar which was wholly misjudged seemingly acting in an entirely different movie to everyone else. At times his acting style was cringe worthy eliciting a snigger rather than intrigue or interest.

But was the movie any good? That's a good question. To be honest I'm torn. I have to admit that usually I'm not the biggest fan of Zack Snyder's approach to super hero movies generally. They tend to be too over the top for me. Taking 'Man of steel' as a point of reference, I felt the ending was just forty minutes of buildings getting blown apart and needless destruction. It felt more like a video game than a movie. This approach very quickly became boring and I began looking at the clock to see how much time was left to run - something I never do during a movie. Sometimes less is more.

With BVS the premise seemed very silly because ultimately where could you go? An indestructible Alien facing a human with a bat suit fetish seemed like a non-starter for interest. At times it does feel exactly like that. There is quite a lot of build up for a showdown that lasts for maybe five minutes of screen time. And how it concludes is rather abrupt and unintentionally silly. Its the kind of moment where you do a double take.

its not all bad though as the movie had some potential which was squandered under the weight of trying 'to fit it all in' including the obligatory intro to the upcoming Justice league movie. As a result the movie just feels too focused on plot and not on Character. Which is, admittedly, a dichotomy as the plot itself is simplistic. It is filled to the brim with subplots and bit players that don't really add much to the movie. Visually it is quite nicely shot in a hazy sepia tone colour palette and the effects are colourful and overblown, as you'd expect from a Superhero movie. The action for the most part is well done especially involving Batman and hand to hand combat.

Ultimately though the movie felt muddled plotwise and I found it hard to keep my attention for the entirety of its running time. 

** out of 5