It: Chapter Two (2019)

It's still Andy Muschietti in the director's chair here, but the writing duties have now fallen to Gary Dauberman alone for this continuation of the tale that pits the Losers Club against a supernatural entity that often takes the form of a clown named Pennywise. Is that a good thing? Many people probably think not. I'm in the minority, and I think Dauberman does a fantastic job of filling this hefty 169-minute runtime with excellent scares and moments of dark surrealism.

In some of the most perfect casting to be committed to film, the youngsters from the first film are now shown in their adult forms, but also reappear in a number of flashbacks that tie events of the past and present together. Here is where I will credit both actors portraying them. You have Bill (Jaeden Martell/James McAvoy), Beverly (Sophia Lillis/Jessica Chastain), Richie (Finn Wolfhard/Bill Hader), Mike (Chosen Jacobs/Isaiah Mustafa), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff/Andy Bean), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer/James Ransome). And against this steadfast group is the constant source of terror that is It AKA Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård being as brilliant here as he was in the first part of the story). There are other characters who come in and out of the narrative, some just as important as any of our leads, but the heart of the film remains a group of close friends helping one another to battle their greatest fears.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this would pale in comparison to the successful first instalment, especially when many people would agree that the story of the adults just isn't as engaging or entertaining as the story of their childhood experience, but Muschietti and Dauberman work together to try their hardest at making this work as well as it can. Making liberal use of the child actors is one way that they help themselves. Continuing to let Skarsgård steal pretty much every scene he is in is another.

As far as I can tell, nobody likes this film as much as I do. People like it, and there are individual moments that they can point to as highlights, but the runtime and tone seems to have put many off. You can certainly feel the runtime, but I would still argue that it's not necessarily bloated, considering the many extra treats littered throughout. As for the tone, it's a bit lighter at times than the tone of the first film, but I don't think it ever strays too far away from some proper horror for too long. This is never going to be incorrectly labelled as a horror comedy, despite some of the levity and one-liners. It just shows adults using laughter as an essential release valve from an enormous build-up of stress and fear. I guess that some viewers were disappointed by moments that they thought were too silly to be scary, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the whole thing. This is a film that never forgets that the thing taking on the guise of Pennywise is much more than that, and every form it takes is designed to put victims into a "more succulent" state of fear. Yes, some moments are quite bizarre, and illustrated by suitably wild special effects, but they're all part and parcel of the shape-shifting horror that wouldn't be out of place in any Lovecraft tale.

While not as uniform as the first instalment, the acting here is generally top notch. One or two minor quibbles aside, mainly stemming from the writing more than the performances, everyone does great work, and there is a particular joy in watching the adults feel like such a natural development from the children that already made such a strong impression in the previous film.

Arguably even more visually impressive, and arguably even more ambitious, this is a horror movie that benefits from those involved believing that they can now fully embrace the disorderly and manic nature of the beast depicted. I love that about it. I love that it shows how to make your fears small and manageable. I love that there is as much time given to the ideals of friendship and hope as is given to the darkness and danger. I might be overcompensating slightly, considering how many others consider it the lesser work, but I consider this equal to the first film. There are different strengths and weaknesses, but the whole thing works perfectly to deliver a satisfactory ending without spending too much time repeating the exact same scares that we got the first time around.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Miss Sloane (2016)

Although essentially a drama about a very skilled lobbyist being put in a tight corner by people wanting to render her powerless, Miss Sloane could equally be described as a con movie. Then again, maybe that is very much part of the point. Viewers are shown how lobbying is often a con game, and the system is open to equal amounts of abuse from the good and the bad, with both sides often believing that they are on the right side of a worthwhile political cause.

Jessica Chastain is the titular (Miss) Elizabeth Sloane, a successful and shrewd lobbyist who decides to jump ship, heading to join “the other side”, when there’s another bill being proposed to help improve gun control laws. Her passionate opposition to this makes her a target, which leads to her being requested to testify at a congressional hearing about her behaviour, and ethics, throughout her time working in politics. As she seems to make one or two minor mistakes, potentially bringing a house of cards crashing down upon her head, it becomes clear that the hearing is all part of the battle between two teams on opposite sides of the gun control debate.

Although writer Jonathan Perera doesn’t spoonfeed viewers, Miss Sloane just about manages to convey everything it needs to convey in a smart and concise manner. There are other approaches to the material that might have worked equally well, or even better, but Perera relies on getting us to trust a main character that, above all else, seems to be all too aware of the consequences of her actions. When things become a bit too busy or confusing, never mind, we are always right alongside someone who is convinced that they are doing the right thing.

Director John Madden has faith in the script and cast, and rightly so, as well as the patience of viewers. A lot of this movie is made up of people debating in rooms of various sizes, but it’s intelligent and snappy enough to be entertaining without any unnecessary bells and whistles added to it. Every aspect of the production seems to have been handled with care, the camera is set, and the cast get to give their best. Which they certainly do.

I have recently come to appreciate Chastain more and more onscreen, and this is one of her best roles. She is brilliantly relentless and smart, often acting in a way that would turn you off a main character, but helped by the fact that her considerable intellect and determination is aimed squarely at the gun lobby. Mark Strong is his usual dependable excellence, playing a boss who has to trust his new employee as she looks set to head further and further into deep and dangerous waters. John Lithgow is the senator chairing the hearing, and it’s a fine turn from him, while there are equally great roles for Michael Stuhlberg (a standout for him, playing a “shark” on the opposing team), Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Alison Pill, Sam Waterston, and Jake Lacy. Everyone seems to be using others or being used, but it’s something that feels more like acceptable collateral damage in the fight for the greater good.

It isn’t always pleasant to see how often the plans of government are actually crafted by those hidden away behind the main figureheads, but it’s important to remember it. Knowing the system can lead people to more easily hold the system to account, which could, perhaps, improve it. Maybe I am just being far too optimistic there. Regardless, Miss Sloane is a worthwhile watch, both informative and entertaining, and it’s a reminder that politics is like playing chess with a panicking pigeon; sometimes only one person knows the game, but the winner can still end up covered in shit.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Netflix And Chill: Ava (2020)

It feels as if everyone lately has been wanting a shot at portraying a highly-skilled assassin, very possibly due to the great success of a certain Keanu-led franchise, but not all of them manage to do enough to stand out from what has fast become a very crowded field. Ava is a film that not only doesn't stand out, it becomes so well-camouflaged by the cliches and tired tropes it is wearing that it's pretty much the John Cena of the skilled assassin movie sub-genre.

Jessica Chastain is the titular Ava. She is very good at her job, killing people, but has started to wonder what people have done to prompt her being hired to put an end to them. This makes Ava a potential liability, despite the fact that she still (literally) executes her orders. Her "handler" (Duke, played by John Malkovich) still has faith in her though, but others want her retired. And retired means dead.

Writer Matthew Newton seems to think that anyone watching Ava will not have seen any other movie like this, which is the only explanation for a script that is so consistently lazy from start to finish. Ava is given three defining characteristics - her questioning nature, her history of addiction, and her deadly skillset - and some messy family tension (with a mother in hospital and a sister now dating her ex-boyfriend), but she never feels like a fully-realised lead character. It isn’t as if we cannot accept assassins who are defined just by how good they kill people, but there isn’t enough information given to us to explain why Ava has started to ask more questions, or why she has kept such strong connection to her family while still in a job that would seem to make that a very risky proposition.

Director Tate Taylor manages to get everything onscreen competently enough, helped by the fact that Chastain is as committed to the physicality of the role as you would expect, but he doesn’t ever do enough to elevate the script. Some fight scenes are decent, some have to be over-edited. Sadly, none of the moments of straightforward drama work, with characters chopping and changing their moods, depending on what exposition is required or how any scene is leading everyone towards the inevitable climax.

Chastain is good in the central role, even if she isn’t quite good enough to make the film worth watching, and Malkovich excels in a supporting cast that also includes Colin Farrell (good value), Geena Davis (always welcome in any movie), Jess Weixler, Common, Diana Silvers, and a badass Joan Chen. Nobody does a bad job. They’re just stuck dealing with that lame script that leaves them hung out to dry.

On the plus side, the pacing isn’t bad, the runtime clocks in at just over 90 minutes (from opening scene to the start of the closing credits), and you can, with some hard work blocking out the worst elements of the script, accept it as a mildly diverting action thriller. I would always be ready to recommend 100 other movies ahead of this though, easily.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Molly's Game (2017)

Marking the feature directorial debut of celebrated scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin, Molly's Game is another slick, smart piece of work that the man has attached his name to, and it also happens to give Jessica Chastain a great role that doesn't rely on her being defined just by her seriousness and determination (admirable qualities, but not the only qualities I want to see in most performances).

Chastain plays Molly Bloom, a young woman who had a career in professional skiing ended by a freak accident on the slope. Which is the start of a chain of events that leads to her eventually running some major private poker games with very high stakes. Which would all be well and good if she didn't also end up welcoming players with ties to the Russian mob, and having to . . . wiggle herself into a position of illegality to cover some of the higher pots.

If I was ever going to be a sportsman then it would involve me learning how to get better at poker. Because it's the right level of physical activity for me, I like to feel as if I have a chance of winning, and it's just fun. It's also surprisingly cinematic, with many filmed games showing the building tension and how characters react differently to it. This works in Aaron Sorkin's favour, and he structures everything perfectly to reveal more about the main characters, tease out backstory, and lead viewers towards a finale that you don't think will prove satisfying, until it does. And it really does.

The dialogue is as good as you would expect, with the best exchanges being had between Chastain and Idris Elba (playing her lawyer), but also some great lines reserved for her infrequent conversations with Kevin Costner (her father). A lot of the lines sound cool and clever, but there are just as many that show Sorkin's knack for getting to the heart of a character or situation with just one or two sentences.

Chastain is excellent in the lead role, always cool and running through the odds even as things look to be overwhelming her. It's the kind of role she loves to sink her teeth into, with just a bit more detailing her and there to make her feel more human and rounded than she has been in some of her previous performances. Elba is an equally assured character, although he is at times worn down and frustrated by the stance that his high-profile client takes during her defence. Costner gives another great supporting performance that adds to the impressive list he has been building up over the past few years (but I may be biased, having always been a fan). Michael Cera, Chris O'Dowd, and Jeremy Strong are all good as various important figures in the journey that Molly makes to her position as poker game queen, with Cera and Strong both particularly good when angrily trying to assert dominance over a woman who knows she has to stay one step ahead of them. And there are a number of solid supporting turns from people Sorkin picked for their poker skills, lending the gaming scenes an air of authenticity some other films on this subject might lack.

It's easy to see why this appealed to Sorkin, and I am happy to say that he does well in the director's chair. Jargon is explained, dynamics are always made clear, memorable characters move in and out of the narrative, and Chastain looms large in every scene. Molly is never painted as an angel, although we only have her word for her personal code of conduct, but her bad decisions (some of them head-smackingly bad) are given as much attention as her successes.

Entertaining, gripping at times, aimed at adults, and doesn't often feel as if it is pandering to the audience. This might not be a full house for Sorkin, but it's enough for him to win the pot and walk away with a profit.

8/10

There's a disc you can order here.
And Americans can order the Blu ray here.

Bonus Review: Interstellar (2014)

It sounds like a cliche, it's the kind of thing that all fans seem to say at one point about their cinematic heroes, but I really wish Christopher Nolan would move back to the smaller movies that he showed so much promise with years ago. Because I DO really like the guy, he always puts moments onscreen that make for great cinema, but he's in danger of taking away every ounce of goodwill that I have left for him. Interstellar is his most unsatisfying movie yet. Like the wildly overpraised The Dark Knight Rises, it suffers from an excessive runtime, a selection of ideas that are never treated as well as they could be, and a real lack of actual entertainment value.

The place is Earth. It's the future. There have been wars. There are environmental problems that affect the growth of crops. It doesn't look good for the future of the human race. One man (Cooper, played by Matthew McConaughey) ends up piloting a spaceship on a mission that everyone hopes will provide a solution, or at least provide an alternative home for the general population. Cooper is accompanied on the mission by Brand (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley), Romilly (David Gyasi), and a couple of smartass robots. As they venture further into their mission, travelling through a wormhole and dangerously close to a black hole, it soon becomes clear that the most important resource they have is one that they can do very little to manage: time.

Where to begin? Where, where, where? Perhaps I should start by clarifying that my biggest problems with Interstellar don't lie with the science, which many are quick to state is considered to be quite sound. I'm no scientist, so I'm not going to fight that fight, even if I have my doubts about some of the speculation. I will, however, say that the ideas presented here are never explored to anywhere near their full potential, which left this particular viewer frustrated and wishing that Nolan had at least created a film with the full courage of his convictions. He didn't. He sets up what could be an interesting tale of the human spirit flying into the unknown abyss of outer space and then simply neuters the whole thing. Which is a great shame.

Perhaps I'm skipping ahead. My first problems with this movie cropped up within the first few scenes. First of all, Nolan set up a world that I didn't believe in. An Earth blighted by such problems (no military, extra health issues, the potential for mass hunger) shouldn't, in my view, seem like our Earth as it is now, albeit with an extra coating of dust over everything. But this is the world that we're presented with. Then I started to get an idea, an inkling that I knew how things were going to pan out. This was within minutes of the movie starting, mind you. For a movie that clocks in at just under three hours, that's not a good thing. It's even worse when the whole thing plays out exactly as envisioned.

Are there ANY surprises? Yes. Well, it may be better to say that there are one or two decent diversions. I can't go into any more detail because they feature people and situations that you'll enjoy more if you have no advance notice. It's just a shame that those good moments are adrift in a sea of horribly manipulative codswallop, surprisingly lacklustre special effects, and an audio mix that ranks among the very worst I've had to endure from a blockbuster cinema release. Seriously, Hans Zimmer may have enjoyed being given so much screentime to score by Mr. Nolan, but there were times when I would have much preferred to hear what the main characters were actually saying. You may think I'm joking, but there were at least one or two moments when I strained to hear dialogue that was obscured by Zimmer's ruckus.

The film never falls below average, which is unsurprising when you consider just how good at the technical stuff Nolan is. He's also helped by a decent cast, all doing their best to distract viewers from the clumsier elements of the script. McConaughey continues his hot streak, giving a performance that distils all of the best of humanity into one strong-willed protagonist. Hathaway is also very good, somehow able to waver between supporting McConaughey and trying to equal him. Bentley and Gyasi may be given less to do, but both men acquit themselves capably. Michael Caine and John Lithgow both make the most of their supporting turns, while Jessica Chastain once again proves that she'll never stop ACTING her heart out to show you how hard she is ACTING. She could take some notes from Mackenzie Foy, a young actress who steals every scene that she's in.

Many people will love Interstellar. It seems that every film Nolan makes nowadays is able to find a large, loyal fanbase. Who wouldn't want such bankability? I certainly didn't love it, and there were many times when I didn't even like it. It's a mess. It never feels plausible, despite the science all being as accurate as possible (allegedly). It's massively self-indulgent. Worst of all, it never feels like great cinema, even as it clearly strives to prove that it is.

Maybe, just maybe, Christopher Nolan should come back down to Earth. And soon.

5/10

Here's the science part - http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1415650031&sr=8-4&keywords=interstellar+movie

Coriolanus (2011)

Ralph Fiennes makes his directorial debut with this challenging film, an adaptation of one of Shakespeare's lesser-known plays (certainly lesser-known to those of us who only know the Bard's greatest hits, anyway). The fact that he has made such a fantastic end product just shows that he really needs to kick himself up the backside and get some more directorial credits under his belt.

Fiennes also takes on the central role of Caius Martius Coriolanus, a great soldier who doesn't care for the love or respect of the common people. He's a proud man, an honest man and someone not interested in the political game. This all becomes a bit of a problem when others try to get him to run for consul. Mainly to please his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), Caius tries to do his best, but when his disdain for the role becomes abundantly clear he becomes a hated figure, so hated, in fact, that he is banished from Rome. As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and so Caius ends up befriending Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler), his old enemy, and joining with him to march upon Rome.

There is a lot more to the story than what I've briefly outlined. The central trio may be Caius, his mother and his enemy, but there's also some meddling from Menenius (Brian Cox), serious scheming from Tribune Brutus (Paul Jesson) and Tribune Sicinius (James Nesbitt), some loving concern from the wife of Caius (Virgilia, played by Jessica Chastain) and protests from common folk such as those played by Lubna Azabal and Ashraf Barhom. John Kani plays General Cominius, yet another character more swayed by the political machine and opinion of the people than any direct action, and Jon Snow (yes, THAT Jon Snow) pops up as a TV anchorman to discuss the situation with other commentators.

Taking Shakespearean source material and giving it a bit of a modern update is nothing new, of course, but Fiennes decides here to aim for a nice middle ground that suits the text. There are guns, cars, TVs and much more signifying that this is a tale set in the modern age, but that all falls by the wayside when the camera focuses on the characters and what they have to say.

The cast are all very good, and an interesting mix. It's unsurprising to see what gravitas is brought to the table by Fiennes, Butler, Redgrave and Cox, for example, but Chastain holds her own very well indeed and Jesson and Nesbitt have fun with their roles. The dialogue that you expect to hear, adapted into screenplay form by John Logan, is a treat for the ears and the whole presentation tries to keep things fresh and dynamic, an aim in which it largely succeeds.

Sadly, I am not familiar with the source material so cannot comment on how faithful it all is to the original text, but I do think that this is a very worthy drama to be enjoyed by fans of the Bard and fans of quality acting displays. Give it a try to see how you react to it.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Coriolanus-Blu-ray-Ralph-Fiennes/dp/B006H10H2W/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1359127784&sr=1-2