Sonic the Hedgehog Review

Sega’s most famous character gets the cinematic treatment in a highly-anticipated film that was held back for several months due to an overwhelmingly negative response to the character’s original design. It’s also the feature debut of its director Jeff Fowler. Those two things don’t raise doubts about the film at all, do they?...

The film starts with Sonic (Benjamin L Valic) as a child, happily embracing his superspeed powers, but he’s warned by his guardian to keep them a secret. Of course, he just shrugs and the two of them are immediately attacked by echidnas. In the panic, he’s given a bag of golden rings that are one of his franchise’s staples and ends up in the fictional town of Green Hills Montana.

Ten years go by and Sonic (now played with the right amount of personality by Ben Schwartz) is enjoying a carefree life in a cave. He keeps an eye on the locals and makes nicknames up for them, but longs for a friend in his life. By a lucky accident he causes a power surge that attracts the interest of the US Military and they send the brilliant but narcissistic scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey), who stands out here by using his very familiar over-the-top acting style to bring this iconic video game character to life.

Sonic goes on the run intending to live on a ‘mushroom planet’, but in the process of running he ends up getting tranquilized by an aspiring street cop (James Marsden), who along with Sonic goes on a road trip to evade Robotnik and keep themselves safe.

If what I just described sounds basic that’s because it is. There’s a big lack of originality here and we’ve seen this kind of film before, only this one has the characters of a much-loved franchise that It can use as a selling point to get people to see it. But to its credit, it’s very well paced and doesn’t drag; there are comedy and action in equal measure. The human characters feel very bland, especially Marsden’s, but he saves himself somewhat due to the believable chemistry he has with Schwartz. Robotnik is rather clichéd as well, but Carrey’s performance saves it.

Moving on to the visual effects, I can honestly say the redesign of Sonic was a success. He looks more like he does in the games, yet is surprisingly expressive and less like an off-putting human/hedgehog hybrid. More instances of where the film manages to remain faithful to the games can be seen in the look of a forest that Sonic runs around in at the start. And for another example, watch Carrey right at the end.

Even if it does feel like nothing more than the set-up for a sequel, we even get a post-credits scene where a certain fox with two tails shows up in Green Hills. He too looks very much like his video game self.

I didn’t enjoy the film much myself, but as far as films based on video games go this could serve as proof that they can be good if done right. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

C+

 

 

                            

David Copperfield Review

 

Here we have a new adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic, David Copperfield to deal with… as if it hadn’t been done to death already in innumerable other versions. This one comes to us from Armando Iannucci, so that means one thing - a heavy emphasis on comedy.

The film begins in a theatre where David (Dev Patel) emerges and recites the novel’s opening lines. Then he starts to tell the familiar story of his enjoyable early years with his mother and nurse (Daisy May Cooper and Morfydd Clark - who also plays his wife later in the film). But then in comes an evil stepfather (Darren Boyd) who sends him away. As he grows up he crosses paths with his aunt (Tilda Swinton); a gentleman called Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) whom he eventually calls his friend; an eccentric old man (Hugh Laurie) who lives with his aunt; the good-natured but impecunious Micawber (Peter Capaldi); and an ambitious but untrustworthy lawyer called Uriah Heep (Ben Whishaw). Copperfield has many interactions with them and inevitably sets on a path to become a novelist.

I know I should be pleased to see a cast like this, but to my disappointment no one gives a fully satisfying performance. It’s evident that they all understand the characters they play but they fail to engage us emotionally. I was especially disappointed with the waste of the talents of Capaldi and Laurie: the former rushes through his dialogue and occasionally shouts and bulges his eyes for no apparent reason, and the latter just sits going through the motions doing nothing memorable apart from just being there. The part of Uriah Heep ought to have great potential but Whishaw fails to make any impact.

Despite being very humorous, the script (by the director and Simon Blackwell) manages to be surprisingly faithful to the source material. Most of the pivotal scenes (apart from David’s schooldays) are retained, and essential character traits stay the same. However, the whole film is overloaded with humour that after a while becomes excessive – even undermining the dramatic moments. And was there any need for the donkey-kicking scenes?  

One positive thing I can say about this film is that it does have the look of a lavish period drama and appears appropriately cinematic. But even with all the humour at its disposal, the film feels incredibly long, dragging especially in the middle. Also, there’s one very dark scene in a rundown part of London that feels very much at odds with the light-hearted tone of the rest of the film.

I can respect Iannucci for his ambition, but given the results here, I would caution other directors who might wish to follow in his footsteps in making comedic adaptations of classic novels that weren’t originally envisioned as such.

Thank you for reading.

1917 Review

Instead of making a third Bond film, Sam Mendes has given us 1917 which is set in World War One and follows two soldiers (George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman) as they race against time to deliver a warning to the allies of an impending attack by enemy forces that could have horrific results. And to make matters worse, one of the soldiers sent to deliver the message has an older brother on the front line who will probably die if the message is not delivered in time.

 

 As well as the two leads the cast features Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Benedict  Cumberbatch and Richard Madden. They have all proven their talents as capable actors, but unfortunately are all on screen at separate moments for short periods of time and have been given underwhelming material to work with. Meanwhile, the actors we spend the most time with are uncharismatic and seem rather inexperienced in their roles.

 

 The script (by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns) only stands out in one regard, and that is by not being as action-heavy as many other films with a similar setting. There are scenes of action, but they are spread throughout the film and there's only one scene of a battle that is a trope of the genre. I must mention how boring the characters are - not one feels at all interesting or complex. Also, many of the supporting characters just feel like genre clichés. There is something to say abut the pacing but I will address that later.

 

 The cinematography is by Roger Deakins and he had the job of bringing about the film's most talked-about aspect, to present the action as a single continuous take. Thanks to his skill, and backed by quality editing, the continuous take succeeds and never breaks, not once. It's especially noticeable when characters walk around corners.

 

 The score is by Thomas Newman and he's given us music that works in the context of each scene, whether it be an intense piece of music or something a bit more sombre.

 

 The main issue I have with this film is as follows: the plot is very simple - get from A to B - and the characters have just under two hours to do so. Time is obviously meant to play an important part in this film but I feel there are one or two scenes where the characters stop and walk around random places just to pad out the running time. A film with this kind of premise should have better control over its pacing. So maybe it would have been ideal to trim some of the scenes down.

 

 I know this film has gained the approval of many audiences and critics and won multiple awards -  and it may be up for several more. But apart from what was done with the film visually (the apparently continuous take), I fail to see where all this praise is coming from. Then again, this is not the first time I have had negative opinions about a film everyone else seemingly loves, and I have a feeling it certainly won't be the last!

 C

 

Thank you for reading.  

The Gentlemen Review

The Gentlemen is out and giving the impression that Guy Richie has returned to his crime film-making roots. It appears to be working in his favour, if the early reactions are anything to go by. The film begins with a pre-title sequence with an American marijuana dealer based in London named Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) in a situation that will have the audience asking the question, how did this happen?

Then we join Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who is visiting Pearson’s right-hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam). Fletcher describes a screenplay he has written and this becomes the story of McConaughey’s background and how he got to where he is. Pearson is looking to leave his life of crime and live with his wife, an admirable if unmemorable Michelle Dockery. But the downside of leaving the life behind appears to be that many other criminals now want his fortune for themselves and will do anything to get it. The people who want the fortune include an up-and-coming Asian gangster (Henry Golding), another American (Jeremy Strong), and a boxing coach (Colin Farrell), who claims to be all about keeping young men out of crime, but who will still do gangster stuff from time to time. There is also a tabloid editor (Eddie Marsan), but I will get to him soon enough.

The performances are quite mixed. McConaughey is good enough in the role and it’s interesting to see him play a gangster. Hunnam also manages to stand out in most of his scenes - he’s gained more charisma and likeability than he had in King Arthur. But the real surprise performance in this film is Hugh Grant who is unrecognizable at first, in a role you would never have imagined him in back in his early days. He is likeable and funny, and it catches you off guard to have spent time looking for Hugh Grant in this film only to realise he was in front of you the whole time.

This being a Guy Ritchie script and a crime film, all the tropes you would expect are here. There are a lot of strong London accents, violence, swearing and all sorts of vulgar language including slurs. There is a rather odd, dark sense of humour, for example a scene in a Chinese restaurant involving Golding’s boss and what becomes of Marsan’s tabloid man. That was where the film took a big shot at dark humour, even if it was near the end. Let’s not forget a joke involving Barry White that whether you’re a fan or not should make you laugh.

The film also has quite unusual lighting; most of it looks relatively bright, but at the halfway point we see some of the characters go to a council estate and suddenly everything has a very grey look to it, and no effort is spared in making these well-dressed criminals stand out like sore thumbs among a group of drug-addicted youths. (Even if one of them is a young woman with royal connections.)

So much was going on in this that the music escaped me, except for That’s Entertainment by The Jam that played over the end credits. I should also mention a character called Ernie, played by Bugsy Malone who is a real rapper. A fight takes place involving him that then becomes a rap video and that is the film’s most “out there” moment - there is some humour to be had in the idea of something like this happening in a Guy Ritchie film, although I’m not entirely clear why it had to be there at all.

While this film mostly works very well, there are a few problems but they’re confined to the pacing. The film takes time to get going, but once it does it barely stops and keeps you engaged.. until the third act when it starts dragging again, mostly for the sake of intensity, which I can understand, but a bit of light trimming and moving things along faster wouldn’t have hurt.

The Gentlemen proves to be a promising return to form for Guy Ritchie with a very memorable performance from Hugh Grant. I really believe Ritchie may have put his recent run of less successful films behind him, as long as those who see his work as offensive and homophobic don’t get their way. Because The Gentlemen is neither of those things, it’s nothing more than a quality film from a skilled storyteller who has clearly shown that making crime films is what he is good at... and not films about a motion-capture Will Smith genie with a six-pack.

Jojo Rabbit Review

Director Taika Waititi returns with his latest film JoJo Rabbit which is set in the late stages of World War II in Nazi Germany and is about an over-indoctrinated ten-year-old member of the Hitler Youth (Roman Griffin Davis). He finds his ideals challenged when he discovers that his single mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin Mackenzie) in their house. And JoJo has an imaginary friend, a comedic version of Adolf Hitler (played by Waititi himself)…

 

In supporting roles we have Sam Rockwell, Stephen Merchant, Rebel Wilson and Alfie Allen and others, some of whom give very promising performances. Griffin Davis especially feels credible in how much he undoubtedly believes and doesn't question the Nazi ideology; Merchant comes across as the most serious Nazi in the film, but still manages to be funny; Wilson has moments where she shows promise; Allen is overshadowed by the other actors; and Rockwell shows some comedic ability as a very out-there soldier.

 

In the end it does all come down to Waititi as Hitler, and he immerses himself completely in his role. He does go over the top, and it would very hard not to laugh, but here I think that might just be acceptable. You could call it egotistical of a director to cast himself in such an important role, but he does such a good job with it, it's hard to complain. Johannsson didn't really leave me with a lasting impression, and Mackenzie while good, just seemed to be there to throw out the occasional insult.

 

 The script (by Waititi, and adapted from a novel called Caging Skies) seems to get through the essentials fairly well. The world is set up for the core events of the story and the main characters all feel distinctive. Where it truly stands out, though, is how well it balances absurd, fantasy humour, with a period in history that isn't something to laugh about. It manages to make its serious points without dragging down the generally light-hearted tone.

 

The cinematography, by Mihai Mălaimare Jr, is rather mixed for me; there are some shots in the film that give you a good long look at just how bizarre this film is. It's mostly done through the use of slow motion - I can think of one notable shot early on, and another that tries to combines the brutal nature of war with the film's style of comedy. It also has quite a striking colour palette, going from very bright at the start, gradually turning to grey as it reflects the changed viewpoint of the main character.

 

 The score was composed by Michael Giacchino, and while I have nothing to say about that, I do have to mention the film's use of very familiar songs, but in their much-less familiar German language versions. The songs in question are the Beatles' I Want To Hold Your Hand and David Bowie's Heroes.You can hear them throughout the film, but the two occasions I can think of that stand out are at the beginning and end. These songs are well known all around the world, as are the artists, so I feel it is a good way to bookend the film, especially at the start as it helps to give a feel of what the next hour and forty eight minutes are going to be like.

 

 The main flaw I found with the film was that it dragged a bit, especially in the first and second acts. There are scenes that seem to go for far too long and could do with being trimmed down, and while I could mostly deal with the film's style of comedy, one joke came out of nowhere and left me wondering what was supposed to be happening.

 

 The conclusions I draw from this are that: JoJo Rabbit has good performances; a script that balances its unique humour while not forgetting what's happening in the background; some very notable shots in the cinematography that show an understanding of the film's tone; a use of colour I could an actually notice and admire; and intelligent use of popular songs translated into German. But it's flawed in moving along too slowly in places and one joke involving JoJo's absent father that I found mystifying.

 For a film out in January, this is a promising start to the new year and new decade, and judging by what I have seen and read about future releases there is much more in the way of promising material to come.

 

 B-

 

 Thank you for reading.

1917 Review

Instead of making a third Bond film, Sam Mendes has given us 1917 which is set in World War One and follows two soldiers (George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman) as they race against time to deliver a warning to the allies of an impending attack by enemy forces that could have horrific results. And to make matters worse, one of the soldiers sent to deliver the message has an older brother on the front line who will probably die if the message is not delivered in time.

As well as the two leads the cast features Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Benedict  Cumberbatch and Richard Madden. They have all proven their talents as capable actors, but unfortunately are all on screen at separate moments for short periods of time and have been given underwhelming material to work with. Meanwhile, the actors we spend the most time with are uncharismatic and seem rather inexperienced in their roles.

The script (by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns) only stands out in one regard, and that is by not being as action-heavy as many other films with a similar setting. There are scenes of action, but they are spread throughout the film and there's only one scene of a battle that is a trope of the genre. I must mention how boring the characters are - not one feels at all interesting or complex. Also, many of the supporting characters just feel like genre clichés. There is something to say abut the pacing but I will address that later.

The cinematography is by Roger Deakins and he had the job of bringing about the film's most talked-about aspect, to present the action as a single continuous take. Thanks to his skill, and backed by quality editing, the continuous take succeeds and never breaks, not once. It's especially noticeable when characters walk around corners.

The score is by Thomas Newman and he's given us music that works in the context of each scene, whether it be an intense piece of music or something a bit more sombre.

The main issue I have with this film is as follows: the plot is very simple - get from A to B - and the characters have just under two hours to do so. Time is obviously meant to play an important part in this film but I feel there are one or two scenes where the characters stop and walk around random places just to pad out the running time. A film with this kind of premise should have better control over its pacing. So maybe it would have been ideal to trim some of the scenes down.

I know this film has gained the approval of many audiences and critics and won multiple awards -  and it may be up for several more. But apart from what was done with the film visually (the apparently continuous take), I fail to see where all this praise is coming from. Then again, this is not the first time I have had negative opinions about a film everyone else seemingly loves, and I have a feeling it certainly won't be the last!
C

Thank you for reading.  

Jojo Rabbit Review

Director Taika Waititi returns with his latest film JoJo Rabbit which is set in the late stages of World War II in Nazi Germany and is about an over-indoctrinated ten-year-old member of the Hitler Youth (Roman Griffin Davis). He finds his ideals challenged when he discovers that his single mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin Mackenzie) in their house. And JoJo has an imaginary friend, a comedic version of Adolf Hitler (played by Waititi himself)…

In supporting roles we have Sam Rockwell, Stephen Merchant, Rebel Wilson and Alfie Allen and others, some of whom give very promising performances. Griffin Davis especially feels credible in how much he undoubtedly believes and doesn't question the Nazi ideology; Merchant comes across as the most serious Nazi in the film, but still manages to be funny; Wilson has moments where she shows promise; Allen is overshadowed by the other actors; and Rockwell shows some comedic ability as a very out-there soldier.

In the end it does all come down to Waititi as Hitler, and he immerses himself completely in his role. He does go over the top, and it would very hard not to laugh, but here I think that might just be acceptable. You could call it egotistical of a director to cast himself in such an important role, but he does such a good job with it, it's hard to complain. Johannsson didn't really leave me with a lasting impression, and Mackenzie while good, just seemed to be there to throw out the occasional insult.

The script (by Waititi, and adapted from a novel called Caging Skies) seems to get through the essentials fairly well. The world is set up for the core events of the story and the main characters all feel distinctive. Where it truly stands out, though, is how well it balances absurd, fantasy humour, with a period in history that isn't something to laugh about. It manages to make its serious points without dragging down the generally light-hearted tone.

The cinematography, by Mihai Mălaimare Jr, is rather mixed for me; there are some shots in the film that give you a good long look at just how bizarre this film is. It's mostly done through the use of slow motion - I can think of one notable shot early on, and another that tries to combines the brutal nature of war with the film's style of comedy. It also has quite a striking colour palette, going from very bright at the start, gradually turning to grey as it reflects the changed viewpoint of the main character.

The score was composed by Michael Giacchino, and while I have nothing to say about that, I do have to mention the film's use of very familiar songs, but in their much-less familiar German language versions. The songs in question are the Beatles' I Want To Hold Your Hand and David Bowie's Heroes.You can hear them throughout the film, but the two occasions I can think of that stand out are at the beginning and end. These songs are well known all around the world, as are the artists, so I feel it is a good way to bookend the film, especially at the start as it helps to give a feel of what the next hour and forty eight minutes are going to be like.

The main flaw I found with the film was that it dragged a bit, especially in the first and second acts. There are scenes that seem to go for far too long and could do with being trimmed down, and while I could mostly deal with the film's style of comedy, one joke came out of nowhere and left me wondering what was supposed to be happening.

The conclusions I draw from this are that: JoJo Rabbit has good performances; a script that balances its unique humour while not forgetting what's happening in the background; some very notable shots in the cinematography that show an understanding of the film's tone; a use of colour I could an actually notice and admire; and intelligent use of popular songs translated into German. But it's flawed in moving along too slowly in places and one joke involving JoJo's absent father that I found mystifying.
For a film out in January, this is a promising start to the new year and new decade, and judging by what I have seen and read about future releases there is much more in the way of promising material to come.

B-

Thank you for reading.