action film

Io – Review

When Netflix decided to plough the old, worn out furrow of the ‘Earth is dead and it’s our fault’ Sci-Fi film, you would have thought they would at least have tried to come up with something original, or at the very least entertaining. They have failed on both fronts – Io is the blandest, most uneventful Sci-Fi movie I’ve watched in a long time. The cast include up-and-comer Margaret Qualley as Sam, a lone research assistant desperately trying to foster life on a dying earth, and Anthony Mackie of Avengers fame as the gruff hot air balloonist come to sweep her away to the human colony orbiting Jupiter’s moon, Io. And, well, that’s about it really. The only other characters occur as voiceovers and a brief flashback, so for the first act of the film we’re meant to empathise with Sam’s long-distance fling with the hilariously named space engineer Elon, which is about as compelling as an MSN romance.

After Micah (Mackie) soars over Sam’s head in his rugged balloon (one of the few effectively serene moments) and takes refuge in her research facility, it becomes clear that she has been joined by someone with shared interests, namely staring into the distance and getting all teary eyed about the state of the poor old planet. Fittingly for a balloonist, Micah is a bountiful source of hot air, grandiosely quoting Plato in a manner which, I confess, did make me feel rather ill. This, along with Sam’s muted interest in mythology (we know this as she reads from a book titled ‘MYTHOLOGY’) shows the director’s lofty intellectual ambitions for the film, which fall depressingly short. By this point Io is starting to feel more like a dry old period drama than a relevant critique on the dangers of neglecting the planet.

“the film’s core message is the importance of human connection, something its very limited cast struggles to create”

Everything about this film is so achingly dull and conventional. It’s like live action WALL-E on sedatives, but they never get to the fun bit on the spaceship, and the characters are less relatable than animated robots. The dialogue is bare bones, delivered in an uninspired register throughout by the bored looking actors, who have little to no chemistry whatsoever. This is ironic, considering that the film’s core message is the importance of human connection, something its very limited cast struggles to create even a semblance of. Mackie plays the brooding, vodka-chugging wanderer to Qualley’s slightly gormless, wide-eyed scientist, and the inevitable romance is poorly paced and jolting, and also slightly creepy. In one scene the male lead is visibly uncomfortable and repeatedly refuses to engage in a kiss, but Sam tells him ‘we have to’ and forcibly leans in – a tad anachronistic in the MeToo era, or an intriguing inversion of the James Bond dynamic?

Any attempts to ramp up the tension fall immediately flat, or slowly peter out like a leaky old balloon. One particular ‘tense’ scene was edited so horrifically it genuinely reminded me of a sequence from The Room, however, at least Tommy Wiseau actually bothered to put some effort in. The interestingly shot ending had a tinge of ambiguity to it, which left me stroking my chin for a few seconds, but it wasn’t exactly Inception. To be frank, Io is a boring drudge of a drama that masquerades as a science fiction film, and is about as exhilarating as a Jacob’s cream cracker. Steer well clear unless you want to be lulled into a dissatisfied sleep.

Ant-Man and the Wasp – Review

2015’s Ant-Man was one of Marvel’s lighter fares, following hot on the heels of the smash hit sequel Avengers: Age of Ultron. Ant-Man was a considerably more fun film, without the usual links to other marvel films – although there were still references to the greater Marvel universe. The sequel plays in very much the same vein, following not too long after the biggest marvel film yet in Infinity War, which was considerably darker than many other marvel films. Therefore, Ant-Man and the Wasp has to address this somewhat, as well as succeeding as a film in its own right.

It’s probably the perfect film to follow on from Infinity War. Whilst perhaps not linking to that film as much as fans would have hoped, this film is far more closely linked to other Marvel pictures with a heavy emphasis placed on the aftermath of the events of 2016’s Captain America: Civil War. The Sokovia Accords introduced in that film play a key role in driving forward the events of this film, with both Michael Douglas’ original Ant-Man and title character Wasp (Evangeline Lily) on the run from the FBI following the accords and Ant-Man’s escapes at Berlin Airport in the superhero brawl. While dealing with this, the film also sees the heroes trying to find a way to rescue Hank’s wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) who appears to be alive in the Quantum Realm.

Evangeline Lilly, star of Ant-Man and the Wasp

Many of the strengths of this film come from the changing sizes of the characters during fight scenes – particularly those featuring Wasp, who more than merits joint-billing and will hopefully become an integral part of Marvel’s roster going forwards with many actors contracts running out. Of particular note is a car chase on the streets of San Francisco, an ode to the classic chase in Bullit; whilst being an innovative sequence in its own right, it’s a thrilling piece of cinema and is one of Marvel’s best action set-pieces in the 10^th year of its Cinematic Universe.

“Despite not being one of Marvel’s finest, it is by no means its worst”

The film perhaps falls flat in the humour department, with more forced gags than in the first film, perhaps lacking the Edgar Wright moments that did make it into the first one. Paul Rudd is, as always, magnetic on screen, and has great chemistry with Douglas and Lily; however the decision to make him appear more clumsy in this sequel is perhaps at odds with how he has been portrayed up to this point. There is a lack of Michael Peña’s Luis and the other members of Scott Lang’s gang from the first film, who really only appear in a handful of cameos. I also felt Lawrence Fishburne’s role was perhaps wasted, especially for an actor of his talents.

In keeping with Marvel’s villain problem, the two antagonists in this film both feel underdeveloped. While not having the goal of ending the world, they are somewhat lacking in character, especially compared to the two villains of the other Marvel films in 2018 – Black Panther’s Killmonger and Infinity War’s Thanos – both of whom rank among Marvel’s finest villains.

Overall Ant-Man and the Wasp is an enjoyable flick. Despite not being one of Marvel’s finest, it is by no means its worst; the links to the cinematic universe feel natural, and not as forced as in other films. The action sequences are thoroughly entertaining and well-choreographed, and the majority of the cast is impressive. We could perhaps have seen more of Judy Greer and Bobby Cannavale, given their roles in the first film. The film’s post-credit scene is a standout, linking to a moment in Infinity War and teasing Ant-Man’s potential importance in the untitled Avengers 4. It seems likely that both Ant-Man and the Wasp will continue to be important presences in these films, whether in their own or (as it seems) a growing trend of feeding characters into other franchises.

Escaping Spectre: Daniel Craig’s swansong

Despite not having the consistency of Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible series or the anarchic freedom of the Kingsman movies, James Bond remains king of the spies as far as box office and public adoration is concerned. It’s the film equivalent of Doctor Who: a series that survives through adaptation and regeneration. Yet whilst current talk of Bond largely centres on who *might* be the next lead, it feels important to take stock of what we have now.

Idris Elba was born to play Bond: he’s the necessary mix of imposing action star and charming romantic lead that these films cry out for. Yet Elba’s (possibly imminent but protracted) casting does ignore that Daniel Craig has one film left, and for my money he’s the best actor to ever hold the license. It’s therefore unfortunate that his movies have been so hit and miss (varying from all-timers in Casino Royale to lifeless duds in Spectre) as Craig is consistently excellent in the role – similar enough to his predecessors to remind us why we like James whilst cultivating his own space that shows us why we should keep watching new instalments. His Bond is a puppy with a pistol, the (now overused) archetypal flawed hero with the build of a boxer and the eyes of a scared child. Yet he’s often been a character in search of a story – having dipped into The Dark Knight re-treads with Skyfall and Roger Moore revivals in Spectre, Craig’s last film will need to stop chasing identities and craft one of its own: a task originally given to chameleon director Danny Boyle, yet he stepped away from the project over creative differences.

“…A SERIES THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE ATTEMPTING TO GET AS FAR AWAY FROM THE ISSUES OF BOTH THE BOOKS AND EARLY MOVIES AS POSSIBLE”

Such differences should be expected: the powers that be know that this film should both celebrate Craig and craft a baton to pass (Craig is a noted producer and was mentioned in the press release for Boyle’s departure, so his sway over the film seems significant). Yet how do you balance a respectful goodbye with excitement for the future? It seems likely that the Bond of the future will be heavily influenced by #MeToo and the societal changes bought by unquestioned patriotism, which can only be a good thing for a series that should probably be attempting to get as far from the issues of both the books and the early movies as possible. The film many fans hope will be emulated is Logan, Hugh Jackman’s R-Rated swansong to his Wolverine, and the appeal is obvious: an emotional no-holds-barred definitive end to a character would feel like a spiritual resolution to Skyfall and a good bookend to Casino Royale. Perhaps this is ambitious for a series that’s avoided definitive in almost all measures (which is why it survives despite maybe half of the entries being any good: it’s hard to maintain disdain when the thing you disdain keeps changing) – yet the Bond of the future will take time to settle, and whomever Boyle’s replacement is could utilise their opportunity to smooth the passage.

Craig’s Bond has fallen in love, has dealt with personal demons, has lost his most trusted ally – what’s to say that he can’t atone for actions of the past and deconstruct the toxic British culture that makes his existence possible, and the idea of a black Bond so difficult for many? In Skyfall, Bond’s abilities were questioned. In Spectre, it was his intentions. In Bond 25, could it not be his existence? What service does James Bond have in 21^st century Britain, and to whom does he belong? How can he survive in this world, and why should we want him to? It is a difficult task, but it’s in capable hands, and my fingers are crossed that the sign-off Craig deserves will allow Elba to start from the best possible place: anticipation.

Review: Mission: Impossible – Fallout

With 2015’s Rogue Nation already under his belt, Christopher McQuarrie brings a laser focus to this sixth film in the franchise as writer, producer, and director of this well-oiled machine, arguably the greatest entry into the franchise to date. Mission: Impossible – Fallout provides the latest, and most compelling piece of evidence that this franchise is one that only gets more comfortable with age – and not even a broken ankle can stop it from sinking confidently into its own shoes. Perhaps comfortable is the wrong word, because although the film operates so seamlessly – you can practically see the cast and crew working away like ants – the film’s polish does nothing to detract from its sense of tension and thrill.

Because its vision is so singular, the film’s defining quality is this sharpness, meaning that in spite of its 146 minute run time it practically never sags. Not only this, but the film’s self-assuredness allows for humorous reprieve, without feeling forced or contrived. Situational Dramaturgy – the concept of plot devices, or ‘situations’, that its characters must escape from (the chase, the face-off, or the hostage situation) is a staple of the genre, but Mission Impossible’s latest instalment is so successful because it takes these classic situations and finds ways to make them fresh. In fact, by embracing their clichéd nature, McQuarrie is able to integrate them more seamlessly into the plot; they become the film’s very fabric, as opposed to mere set-pieces.

“The result is a film which feels fully committed to one purpose: to entertain”

The flow of the narrative is so smooth that you may not even notice one sequence giving way to another. The result is a film which feels fully committed to one purpose: to entertain (OK, perhaps two purposes – Fallout has grossed $438m worldwide at the time of writing, despite an $80m loss during the time it took Cruise’s ankle to heal – the cast still had to be paid). Crucially, the film would not be able to entertain so easily had its director not been so competent. The film is also impeccably edited: action sequences that could confuse in the hands of another are cogent because of their well thought-out spatial geography. Never are we unsure about the locale or allegiance of our characters, and if we are, it is all done in aid of a broader purpose.

A nice reprieve to the film’s characteristic sleekness is its incorporation of Hunt’s raison d’être, which bookends the film without becoming overly saccharine. Though it is difficult to see Tom Cruise as anyone other than Tom Cruise – his celebrity out-spans the franchise at this point – Fallout nonetheless is aware of its own humanity, an essential tenet in a film as well-balanced as this one. Perhaps the most gratifying element of this entry, though, is the way it bucks the trend of universe-building by creating a film that, while still serialised and placed within a broader story context, can be enjoyed in and of itself. This is a franchise that really grows into itself, instead of growing tired of itself, as one might expect; the result is a slice of entertainment that is fresh, innovative and – most importantly of all – deeply fun to watch.