War for the Planet of the Apes

Cast: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Amiah Miller, Steve Zahn

Director: Matt Reeves

Writer: Mark Bomback, Matt Reeves


No movie about sentient apes has any business being this good. Even the original 1968 Charlton Heston movie isn’t so much a serious, profound picture with deep philosophical and sociological themes as it is a campy and often humorous sci-fi adventure-thriller (albeit an intelligent, well-made one). This prequel trilogy took the ideas raised by the original, modernised them, and has gone on to depict them with a greater degree of intimacy and sophistication than I’d ever have thought possible of a story about talking primates. The film’s allegory of racism, politics, and culture is similarly depicted with a reflective sense of irony, but is far less satirical about it. The conflict between the humans and the apes is more complex, more substantial, and more morally ambiguous and War of the Planet of the Apes goes even further than Rise or Dawn ever did, capping off one of the best Hollywood trilogies of the 21st century.

Two years after The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes when the strained tension between the humans and the apes finally erupted into an all-out war, Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his troops are engaged in a conflict with Alpha-Omega, a rogue faction of the U.S. Army led by The Colonel (Woody Harrelson). After releasing some human prisoners and expressing to them his desire for peace, Caesar becomes a subject of personal interest to The Colonel, who subsequently leads an attack on the ape base, killing half of Caesar’s family. From here Caesar sets out on a quest for vengeance, accompanied only by his closest friends and advisors Maurice (Karin Konoval), an orangutan, Rocket (Ty Olsson), a chimp, and Luca (Michael Adamthwaite), a gorilla. Along the way they discover a human girl, rendered mute and simple by some unknown cause, whom Maurice takes into his care and calls Nova (Amiah Miller). They also meet Bad Ape (Steve Zahn), a reclusive chimpanzee who knows the location of the Alpha-Omega base. There Caesar finds The Colonel and faces him in a battle that will ultimately define the fates of both of their species.

The achievement of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was drawing the humans and the apes into war with each other in such a way that we could understand the views and choices of both sides to the point that we cannot even really say for sure who started it. Now its two years later and there’s no clear victor or even an end in sight. Caesar’s main priority is survival, but even after all that’s happened what he really wants is peace and for the apes to be left alone to live their lives. The humans however will not abide co-existence with another species of equal, if not superior, intelligence. Thus Caesar is forced to continue fighting this war and suffer the tragedies that come with it. As soon as his loved ones die by the hands of The Colonel, so does any chance of peace. From there it becomes all about vengeance. One of this film’s achievements is how strongly it depicts Caesar’s turmoil; the despondent grief he feels upon losing his family, the cold single-mindedness he brings to his hunt for The Colonel, the way he loses his very soul along with everything else that gave his life any kind of meaning. The movie makes the narrative decision to stay with Caesar throughout his quest (rather than cutting away on occasion to show us what Woody Harrelson is up to) and it is by following him at every step and seeing all that occurs through his eyes that we are able to identify so strongly with him.

Another reason of course is Andy Serkis who has, perhaps more than other actor in the past couple of decades, almost single-handedly redefined what acting is and can be. The remarkable thing about the CGI complexion they give him is that you can still see the actor beneath it all. The expressions and gestures are all his and are all so genuine that Caesar feels as real and as human as anything else. That he has portrayed this character across an entire lifetime from infancy to adulthood to old age over the course of three movies is in itself an astonishing feat. Here he deftly conveys the kind of forlorn, world-weary melancholy that you only get from those old veteran characters who have been through hell and have carried it with them ever since, the kind that we saw from Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven and Hugh Jackman in Logan, to name a couple. This is a character who deserves to be memorialised in the hall of fame of sci-fi heroes and, if the Oscars were to finally look past the CGI barrier and recognise the actor behind it all, it would be well-deserved and about time.

It still astonishes me that I can watch a war take place between human beings and talking apes and take it as seriously as I could if I were watching Platoon. Indeed, there are echoes of Vietnam in this movie (which, unlike Kong: Skull Island, does not beat you over the head with it) and it is clear that Matt Reeves was especially inspired by Apocalypse Now (there’s even one point in the film where you can see the term ‘Ape-pocalypse Now’ inscribed in graffiti). This is especially apparent in Woody Harrelson’s Colonel, a bald, philosophical villain cut from the same cloth as Kurtz and holding a similar heart of darkness (although his goal of building a wall does invite comparison to another figure). There is a parallel between him and Caesar as The Colonel seems to be fighting his own war of vengeance, that being for his species. We learn that there is a virus going round infecting the humans and rendering them mute and primitive, an epidemic that The Colonel intends to stop by executing and burning any and all who are affected. What we see here is a man who recognises that the time for human beings is ending and so has done away with his humanity.

One of the signs of great science fiction is that it provides a reflection of the world as we know it and of ourselves. In War of the Planet of the Apes we see people, humans and primates alike, who are affected by tragedy, pain, and loss and who turn to violence and revenge as an answer, one that inevitably begets more tragedy. We see the fear and aggression that comes with being confronted with that which we cannot understand and with losing our power and control. It isn’t all doom and gloom though. There’s also humour to be found in this film, particularly from Bad Ape who doesn’t understand much of what’s going on. There’s also empathy to be found, this time from the silent Nova and the bond she forms with her simian rescuers. Through her we see the bridge that could be built between the two species, one of compassion and understanding, if only things hadn’t turned out the way they had. This is a great film and it is a great end to a great trilogy.

★★★★★

Advertisements

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Cast: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Donald Glover, Tyne Daly, Marisa Tomei, Robert Downey Jr.

Director: Jon Watts

Writers: Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Jon Watts, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers


This movie is a big deal for Marvel. For decades Spider-Man has been the comic book company’s flagship character; he is to Marvel what Superman is to DC. After two movie franchises in a little over a decade, one that became too silly for its own good and one that crashed under the weight of all the characters and stories it was trying to juggle, Sony has finally made a deal with Marvel to bring Spider-Man into the MCU. After a wonderfully received debut by Tom Holland in Civil War, Homecoming now marks the character’s third cinematic introduction a mere fifteen years after his first. It’s a bit different this time because Peter Parker is now a part of a larger world, one where the idea of the superhero has already been well established and where the world has already been threatened by gods, aliens, an artificial intelligence, sorcerers, and a guy with energy whips. Thus, to focus more on the themes of growing up and taking responsibility, Homecoming scales back on the epic fantasy and instead gives us a high school movie with superheroes.

After being drafted by Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) to fight for the Avengers, Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is told that he’s not ready yet to join the superhero team and is sent back to school to focus on his studies. In the meantime Stark encourages Peter to be more of “a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man” and assigns Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) to look after him. Peter however struggles to balance his school life with his crime-fighting life. His best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) keeps pestering him about his ‘Stark Internship’, his decathlon team, led by Peter’s crush Liz (Laura Harrier), is getting frustrated with his inability to commit to the upcoming championship, and even his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) must be kept in the dark about his alter-ego. Meanwhile Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), a salvager who was driven out of business years ago by Stark Industries, has gone into the arms trafficking business, dealing weapons based on Chitauri technology recovered from the Battle of New York in The Avengers. When he learns of Toomes’ activities, it falls onto Spider-Man to stop whatever it is he has planned.

Holland plays a much younger Peter Parker than either Maguire of Garfield ever played and his youth plays a prominent role. Spider-Man’s arc as a character has always been that he’s a young man learning to grow up and take responsibility, which is exactly what makes him so identifiable and relatable, especially to teenagers. In Homecoming his youth is emphasised in order to set him apart from the Avengers, most notably Tony Stark, who are pros at being superheroes and who understand the dangers and responsibilities of the job far better than Peter does. Although Peter is smart, talented and well intentioned, he’s also just a kid and he possesses all of the liabilities of youth. He is cocky, naïve and is in way over his head. Spider-Man has never just been a superhero fantasy, it is at its core a coming of age story and this movie embraces that by drawing inspiration from the filmography of John Hughes (which is good, but a little on the nose in one scene referencing Ferris Bueller’s Day Off). Angst, awkwardness and adolescence all come in abundance and the movie does a great job of showcasing those sides of Peter Parker.

The superhero side is also very good, but there is a slight disconnection there. The one thing I never really got from this incarnation of Spider-Man was a sense of what was driving him, a motivation. It’s hinted at in his first scene in Civil War but in this movie it is never elaborated in any meaningful way. Now, I’ve seen the other movies, I’ve read the comics, and I’ve watched some of the cartoon. I know full well what Spider-Man’s motivation is. The problem is that this movie throws us straight in without giving us some kind of foundation on which we can plant our feet. Uncle Ben, the lessons he taught Peter, and the role Peter may or may not have played in his death, we have no idea how relevant these are to this version of Spider-Man because they are never addressed. There is something of a stigma these days against superhero origin stories and not for no reason (we have after all seen two Spider-Man origin movies within ten years of each). I’m not saying that Homecoming had to be origin movie, but the crucial details of the backstory that fundamentally make Peter who he is do have to be addressed, even if it’s only in a couple of sentences. Leaving that out is bad storytelling.

Homecoming however is far from a bad movie. It is engaging, funny, thrilling and just delightful. Not only is Holland terrific as Spider-Man, he is hands down the best Peter Parker in any of the movies. His Peter is nerdy and awkward enough to make him a believable social outcast but also charming and eccentric enough to be likeable. Keaton as the Vulture is spot on and for me is easily the second best villain in the whole MCU after Loki. He is menacing, but also entertaining; villainous, but understandable. In addition, there is a twist with the villain (because there always are these days) that works incredibly well, bringing the conflict between him and Spider-Man to an entirely higher level. There are a couple of action scenes that don’t quite work, such as the climatic fight that takes place almost completely in the dark, but the ones that do work really well. As well as being his usual acrobatic self, this Spider-Man also makes effective use of the gadgets at his disposal such as his iconic web-slingers and a ton of other goodies provided by Stark’s suit. It’s not the best Spider-Man movie ever made but there is a lot to enjoy and a lot to be excited about going forward.

★★★★

Baby Driver

Cast: Ansel Elgort, Kevin Spacey, Lily James, Eiza González, Jon Hamm, Jamie Foxx, Jon Bernthal

Director: Edgar Wright

Writer: Edgar Wright


Before working on this film Edgar Wright famously walked away from the production of Ant-Man over creative differences, stating that the studio would not allow him to make the movie he wanted to make. That experience must have had a profound effect on him because with Baby Driver what Edgar Wright has delivered is a movie that only he could have made. As with Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Baby Driver is a movie that is positively bursting with life and energy. There is always something happening on screen and it is always something interesting, creative and entertaining. There is also a clash in genre that is similarly typical of the director’s work as this movie brings together the adrenaline-fuelled car-chase thrillers of the 60s and 70s with the romantic musicals of Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. Wright has distinguished himself before with his enormously funny and inventive films, but Baby Driver feels like more of a passion project than any other movie he’s made, making it his most personal work to date.

Baby (Ansel Elgort) is a getaway driver in Atlanta, working off a debt he owes to the fearsome criminal mastermind Doc (Kevin Spacey). As a child Baby and his family were caught in a car crash that killed his parents and left him with an eternal ringing sound in his ears. He blocks this sound out with music, keeping a sizeable library stored on his iPods, and now choreographs his daily routines, including his getaway driving, around the songs he listens to. After his latest job he stops by a diner and there meets the waitress Debora (Lily James), whom he starts dating. After his next job goes awry Baby is ready to get out of the game, but Doc isn’t ready to let him go even after their debt is squared away. Instead Doc blackmails him into working on another heist, teaming him up with the psychopathic Bats (Jamie Foxx) and the happy-go-lucky couple Buddy (Jon Hamm) and Darling (Eiza González). Stuck in this predicament where there are no happy outcomes, Baby has to decide what kind of man he wants to be and what he must do to save Debora and himself.

Baby Driver isn’t a musical in the sense that it has characters bursting into song and partaking in elaborate dance routines, but it has the mood, sensibility and logic of a musical. Baby chooses his music to reflect his state of mind and whether he’s losing the police to the tune of ‘Bellbottoms’ by the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion in a car that dances in its own way or skipping along to ‘Harlem Shuffle’ by Bob & Earl on his way to pick up some coffee, there is such seamless synchronicity to his movements. Wright shoots these scenes as if everything surrounding Baby were in perfect harmony with him, matching the tone and tempo of the song, lining Baby up with visual cues and even placing lyrics in the background. This synchronisation is vital to Baby’s process and when he loses it, that’s how we know things have gone badly. When Baby abruptly halts and delays a job in order to sync up with The Damned’s ‘Neat, Neat, Neat’, it’s a hint of the dark turn that the job is going to take.

The story isn’t as interesting as the execution, but then that tends to be the case with action films. Take some good characters and put them in the hands of a great director and you can make the plot almost irrelevant (just look at Mad Max: Fury Road). Baby himself however wasn’t as interesting as I would’ve liked and I cannot help feel that he was miscast. Elgort gives it a good try and he’s certainly baby-faced enough for the role, but he just didn’t have the charisma to pull it off. I think the role would have been better served by more of a Steve McQueen/Burt Reynolds type. Still the movie had some great side characters to pick up the slack, especially in Foxx’s Bats and Hamm’s Buddy. Foxx brings a volatile sadism to his role not unlike Joe Pesci’s in Goodfellas and every scene he’s in is rife with tension as we wait to see what will or won’t set him off. Hamm (and González for that matter) are both great as the criminal couple who are as dangerous as they are passionate.

The superb soundtrack, the inspired choreography, and Wright’s keen instinct for visual storytelling all make for a movie that’s as imaginative, as stimulating and as enjoyable as La La Land. There are some weaknesses like the lead and the rather bland romance that never quite hits the wild fairy tale love story of True Romance that it was going for, but compared to the sensationalist experience of watching this film I’m willing to dismiss those complaints as nit-picks. Who cares about that kind of stuff when you’re enjoying an adrenaline-pumping finale to the tune of ‘Brighton Rock’ by Queen? This is a Hollywood blockbuster that doesn’t get made any more, not based on any popular property nor part of any franchise. It pays homage to the dozens of movies that inspired it, but it is also modern and self-aware enough that it doesn’t feel in any way outdated. It is a movie of its time and of times gone by, a balance that not many movies can hit. Edgar Wright put his heart and soul into this film and it was a pleasure to watch from beginning to end.

★★★★★

Despicable Me 3

Cast: (voiced by) Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig, Trey Parker, Miranda Cosgrove, Steve Coogan, Jenny Slate, Dana Gaier, Julie Andrews

Directors: Pierre Coffin, Kyle Balda

Writers: Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio


Although I was never a big fan of Despicable Me, I could understand the appeal. It had a fun idea that allowed room for both humour and sentiment, it was well animated and had some good performances, and the Minions in particular were enjoyable in their scene-stealing moments. Despicable Me 2 was serviceable as a sequel but otherwise forgettable. It lacked the novelty of the original, its humour got more childish and unimaginative, and the popularity of the Minions led to the expansion of their roles, at which point they started to feel a little much. When Minions came along I ended up not seeing it because I was about as interested in watching the Minions in their own movie as I would if they were the Oompa Loompas or the aliens in Toy Story. They’re fine in brief segments, but not as protagonists in a feature-length narrative. Now, with Despicable Me 3, it feels to me like this franchise has seriously run out of steam.

Gru, having left his villainous ways behind him, is now a member of the Anti-Villain League with his wife Lucy and is tasked with stopping Balthazar Bratt, a former child TV star turned supervillain. Gru is able to foil Bratt’s plan to steal the world’s largest diamond but fails to catch him, leading to Gru and Lucy being dismissed from their jobs. Shortly after informing his daughters Margo, Edith, and Agnes of their termination, Gru receives an invitation to fly to Freedonia (Land of the Brave and Free!) to meet Dru, his long-lost twin brother. The family meets Dru at his estate and learn that he is charming, handsome and fabulously wealthy. Later Dru reveals to Gru that the source of his wealth is their father, who was in fact a legendary supervillain. Dru enlists Gru to return to his old ways and to teach him how to follow their father in his footsteps. Gru however, desperate to get him and Lucy their old jobs back, decides to take advantage of Dru’s resources to catch Bratt before he can proceed with his villainous plot.

With a story about three adoptive daughters in the first film and one that ended with Gru falling in love and getting married in the second, it’s very clear that Despicable Me is a series very much about family and that continues in this film. Here Gru is reunited with a brother he never knew he had and gets to learn more about himself and where he came from while bonding with this person who is so different from him in so many ways and yet in many other ways so identical. Lucy meanwhile is realising that by marrying Gru she also married his three daughters and is struggling to step into the role of their mother. Either or both of these stories could have been interesting and touching enough to make for an enjoyable family movie. The trouble is that Despicable Me targets itself towards a very young demographic and is ill-equipped to tackle these stories with the maturity they warrant. This isn’t to say that the stories cannot be made accessible to young children, but when a movie elects to open up with a fart joke during the production company’s logo, I think that sends a clear message about the kind of tone the movie is going for.

Now, if a movie doesn’t care about nuance and just wants to keep an audience of six-year-olds entertained for a couple of hours, that’s fine. But I don’t think that Despicable Me 3 does that particularly well. The story they’ve put together with its points about Gru and Lucy’s concerns for the future with the loss of their jobs and the family dynamics is just not engaging for young viewers. The characters are not rich enough and their problems are not relatable enough. There are a couple of sub-plots that might catch children’s interest like Agnes’ search for her very own unicorn and the Minions’ misadventures in prison and a TV talent show, but they’re so disconnected from the main story that if either or both plots were removed entirely barely a single thing would change. The movie would be less fun, considering that those two subplots contain the film’s best moments (as annoying as the Minions can be, even I had to chuckle during their rendition of Gilbert and Sullivan), but otherwise the same beats of the main stories would still play out in the same way. It also doesn’t help that the main villain is one big joke about a the 80’s, decade about which little kids are pretty much clueless.

More than anything Despicable Me 3 is a guaranteed paycheck for the studio. Even the cast seemed largely disinterested, especially Trey Parker who turned in his most generic South Park voice for a movie that’s about two MPAA ratings below what he needs to excel. Carell does well enough for Gru to remain an entertaining character but he doesn’t bring anything new or surprising to his performance despite having an entire second character to play. The movie is bright, noisy, and recognisable enough that kids will flock to the theatre to see it and will probably even enjoy it. What the studio either doesn’t realise or doesn’t care about though is that, in the long run, those kids are not going to embrace this film because it doesn’t offer them anything worth returning to. There are no valuable lessons to take away, no unforgettable moments that demand to be relived and no qualities that make this movie rewarding to an older audience. Any attempt this movie makes to be more grown-up backfires because it simply isn’t smart, competent or mature enough to handle that kind of material.

★★

The Mummy

Cast: Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis, Sofia Boutella, Jake Johnson, Courtney B. Vance, Russell Crowe

Director: Alex Kurtzman

Writers: David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, Dylan Kussman


You have to give it to Hollywood, they know how to take a neat idea and keep screwing around with it until everyone hates it. This time it’s the ‘cinematic shared universe’ idea, the concept of producing several movies that inhabit the same reality and tie into each other. The MCU showed it could be done with only a few hiccups here and there, and now everyone wants to do it. The problem is that the studios are so focused on building these universes that they keep forgetting to make movies. The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel suffered because they spent far too much time on plot points, characters and tie-ins that had no bearing on their respective stories. Batman v. Superman was similarly overblown as part of DC’s effort to sprint ahead to The Justice League in as few steps as possible. Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither was the MCU, and yet still these studios persist in their exorbitant franchise building. Thus we get the proposed Dark Universe which, after just one movie, I’ve already had enough of.

The movie kicks off with a flashback to Ancient Egypt where Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) falls to second in the line of succession when her father’s second wife gives birth to a son. She summons Set, god of violence, to help her claim the throne and kills her family but is caught before she can complete the ritual to transfer the deity’s spirit to corporeal form and is mummified. In present-day Iraq the American soldiers Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) discover Ahmanet’s tomb after calling in an airstrike. Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), a renowned archaeologist, investigates the tomb and finds Ahmanet’s sarcophagus within. As the sarcophagus is being transported to England however, Ahmanet’s spirit attacks the crew. Jenny escapes with her life when Nick parachutes her off the plane but everyone else is killed. Or so they think. Nick wakes up in an Oxford morgue and learns that he has been cursed by Ahmanet, who has decided that he shall be Set’s vessel.

I’m not sure how many different projects had to be merged in order to bring Tom Cruise and the Dark Universe together, but it plays out like a shambolic mixture of several different clashing ideas that has no idea what kind of movie it wants to be. On one side we get the supernatural monster movie that plays out more like a superhero thriller than a horror akin to those of the classic Universal monster films or the Hammer Horrors. On another side we get a Tom Cruise movie that, despite having him get killed and resurrected by an ancient Egyptian curse, is somehow as generically Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise gets. Then there’s the franchise building whereby we are introduced to the Prodigium, a secret society led by Russell Crowe dedicated towards combating supernatural threats, there to distract us from the story and to assure us that sequels are on the way. The movie also incorporates the English crusaders (because one historical backdrop wasn’t enough), a romance with less life than a 3500-year-old embalmed corpse, and the Iraq War (because that isn’t at all problematic for a silly horror/thriller blockbuster).

Naturally when an audience goes to see a monster movie, the thing they look forward to the most is the monster itself. People are so drawn to great monsters that iconic actors such as Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney and Christopher Lee were able to build their careers playing them. The Mummy in this film is not one of the greats. It might not be fair to criticise this creature for not being scary because I’m not convinced that that was what the movie was going for, but she is not in any way an interesting or entertaining creature. Her design follows the example set by the Enchantress in Suicide Squad by being scanty and erotic to the point that it is impossible to find her at all threatening or intimidating. Her personality as well is a complete blank slate and, if she had a motivation, it escaped me. Tom Cruise meanwhile tries to do his usual thing the best he can, but the character he is given is a cosmic nonentity and there is only so much he can bring through star power alone.

This movie isn’t terrible or painful; it’s just depressingly dull. The story is tired and incoherent, the characters are bland and redundant and the moments between the action scenes are so relentlessly tedious and overstuffed with filler and exposition. Even when the action gets going, its mostly just a collection of moments lifted from better movies that I would rather have watched like An American Werewolf in London and Bride of Frankenstein. There were maybe one or two moments when the film went completely off the wall and delivered a moment that was crazy enough to hold my attention for a couple of minutes, as with Russell Crowe’s performance as a surprise character. Those moments were never good, but at least they were interesting. At the end of the day though, what really killed this movie for me was how blatantly transparent it was in its attempt to kickstart a franchise that has got nothing going for it and nowhere to go. I could not be less excited for the Dark Universe’s future.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Àstrid Bergès-Frisby, Djimon Hounsou, Aiden Gillan, Jude Law, Eric Bana

Director: Guy Ritchie

Writers: Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram


There have been many unlikely combinations in art between subject and style that have worked splendidly despite expectations and preconceptions. A Second World War Western by the director of Pulp Fiction? Excellent! A hip-hop/rap musical about the US’s first Secretary of the Treasury? A masterpiece! An absurd yet melancholic TV show about a horse who used to be a sitcom star? Incredible! So when I saw that Guy Ritchie of all people was going to take on the King Arthur mythos, I was ready to give it a chance. His style is one that I’ve enjoyed in other movies before and he already made it work with another unlikely subject in Sherlock Holmes, so maybe there was something to this idea. In this case though, it doesn’t work. This version of the British legend is so stupid, so silly, and so dull that I’m inclined to take the version with the coconuts, the Trojan Rabbit and the Knights Who Say Ni more seriously.

Many years ago in a great battle where Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) defended the kingdom of Camelot against the warlock Mordred, his treacherous brother Vortigern (Jude Law) orchestrated a coup and used dark magic to slay the king and seize the throne for himself. Uther’s son survives the usurpation and drifts away on a boat that ends up in Londinium. The boy is found and raised by prostitutes and grows to become Arthur (Charlie Hunnam), a strong fighter and streetwise scoundrel. When a confrontation between Arthur and some Vikings goes badly, Arthur is taken by the king’s men and put on a ship to Camelot. There the Blacklegs have been forcing young men to try and pull out a sword stuck in a stone nearby. Arthur successfully removes the sword and is overwhelmed by its power. After he is subsequently taken prisoner and learns the truth of his heritage from Vortigern, a mage (Àstrid Bergès-Frisby), an acolyte of Merlin (Sir Not-Appearing-in-This-Film), rescues him from his planned execution with the aid of the Uther’s former knight Sir Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou). The mage and her team then enlists Arthur to embrace his legacy and help them overthrow Vortigern.

This movie takes pretty much the opposite approach to the Clive Owen film, which sought to depict a demystified, historically authentic King Arthur. Ritichie is instead more interested in modernising the myth and having some fun with it. This Arthur is less of a medieval nobleman and more of a 21st century lad, roughing it up and talking in slang. His crew is made up of other rough, tough misfits such as Back Lack (Neil Maskell) and Wet Stick (Kingsley Ben-Adir) and they are a multicultural bunch, complete with their own martial arts master in Kung Fu George (Tom Wu). They crack wise, get into fights, and plan their ruses the way the characters in Snatch would plan their heists. This is all fine in theory and Guy Ritchie is the kind of stylistically over-the-top director mad enough to pull it off. In theory, a contemporary King Arthur film with cockney banter, acrobatic, slow-motion sword fights and an array of enormous CGI creatures should’ve at least been good fun. The film however is anything but, and that is because it Ritchie exhibits absolutely zero restraint and moderation on his style.

It is one thing for a director to have a distinctive storytelling style that adds a fun, interesting twist to the narrative, it is another thing entirely when that style usurps the narrative. The movie is so overloaded with rapid edits, haphazard shifts in time and space, hectic ­mise-en-scène and blaring sounds that all the important things like story, dialogue and character get lost in the chaos. There are so many things happening all at once that nothing at all is happening. Nothing means anything in this film because nothing is allowed to sink in and be processed. Whether the film is being serious and trying to have an emotional impact, such as the moment when Arthur learns who he is and what happened to his father, or when the movie is being silly and cheeky and trying to have a laugh, such as when Arthur delivers one of those stories within a story that Ritchie likes so much recounting his encounter with the Vikings, it all rushes past like a blur. The film just doesn’t know when to stop and let a moment play out or when to let a crucial piece of information or plot development linger just long enough for the viewer to absorb it. It’s like Guy Ritchie made a 10-hour movie and then screened the whole thing in fast-forward.

It is entirely possible that the reason Ritchie went so overboard with his style is because the movie itself offered little else of substance or worth. The story is so determined to keep moving forward that it never actually gets anywhere. When Arthur lifts Excalibur from the stone and discovers that he is the heir to the throne, the objective from that point on is making Arthur the king. That’s fine except it feels more like an obligation for the plot than a progression, considering that we never really see Arthur displaying qualities of heroism or leadership. It doesn’t help that Hunnam plays him as a smirking rogue; I had a harder time rooting for him than I did for Jamie Campbell Bower’s rather bland take on the character in the otherwise solid Starz series from a few years back. Jude Law can be quite entertaining in his  scenery-chewing role as the villainous, slightly camp Vortigern but that’s about it. When a movie understands its story so little that it ends up detracting from one of its pivotal moments with an embarrassingly distracting celebrity cameo for the ages, you know you’re in trouble.

Wonder Woman

Cast: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Danny Huston, David Thewlis, Connie Nielsen, Elena Anaya

Director: Patty Jenkins

Writer: Allan Heinberg


Whether it wants it or not (and whether it’s fair or not), Wonder Woman has got a lot of pressure and expectation riding on it. Not only is it the first solo movie for one of the most iconic female characters of all time, it is also the single biggest movie to ever be made by a female director. For years studios have been pointing towards flops like Catwoman and Helen Slater’s Supergirl as evidence that female superhero movies don’t work (as if male superhero movies have such a perfect track record). With the MCU so far neglecting to make any female-led movies in spite of having a popular character and marketable star in Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow, it falls onto DC to finally break this glass ceiling. While it’s not up to me to judge this movie from a feminine standpoint, I also cannot ignore what a big deal this movie is or how significant its success will be. And it is by all means a resounding success.

The movie starts off with Diana (Gal Gadot) as a child on the secret island of Themyscria, the home of the Amazonian race. There, as the daughter of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), she is forbidden to partake in training as a warrior, but does so anyway with her aunt, General Antipone (Robin Wright). Years later, having grown into a strong and capable woman, she rescues a downed pilot as his plane crashes nearby. The pilot is Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) and he is an American soldier fighting in the First World War as a spy. He was being pursued by the Germans as he was escaping with a notebook stolen from the infamous chemist Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya) and must return to London as soon as possible. Diana, believing that the war god Ares, whom her people have sworn to oppose, is orchestrating this war in the form of General Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston), arms herself with the Amazons’ ‘Godkiller’ sword and accompanies him. Thus she joins the war to end all wars where she will discover the true extent of her powers and find her destiny.

This film marks the fourth instalment in the DCEU, a franchise that has so far proven uneven in its storytelling. Batman v. Superman for example was a movie that felt messy and overblown because it took on too many storylines and spent too much time on world building. One of the strengths of Wonder Woman is that it tells an entirely self-contained story. There are no forced cameos, no tangential set ups for upcoming titles and no unnecessary subplots. This is Diana’s story and the movie keeps the focus on her. When approaching a character such as Wonder Woman, one might have been tempted to sculpt her simply as a strong, badass warrior woman, essentially a female Braveheart. The movie however is more thoughtful and complex than that. Diana is indeed tough and vengeful, but she is also curious, compassionate, earnest and brave. She is an inspiring hero of a kind that movies haven’t really seen since Christopher Reeve’s Superman. When Diana runs into battle to face the enemy, there isn’t a childhood trauma that forces her, no words of wisdom from a mentor that move her, no inner conflict about responsibility and morality that compels her. Diana is a kind, virtuous person who wants to help simply because it’s the right thing to do.

Joining Gadot in her wonderful turn as the DC legend is a strong supporting cast, the best of whom is Chris Pine as the dashing WWI pilot. Whereas Diana is hopeful, naïve even, Trevor is altogether more pessimistic and world weary, a quality to which Pine brings both charm and humour. There is a clear attraction between them on the outset which feels utterly authentic and organic due to the electrifying chemistry they share. Not many superhero movies can make their romances work, but this is definitely one that can. Also great are the Amazonian women, particularly Wright, who are every bit as fierce, steadfast and awesome as a warrior people ought to be. Watching them in action is one of the most thrilling parts of the movie as Jenkins does away with the rapid editing and generic framing we see in most blockbusters. Instead we get to see the warriors in their full glory, fighting in a variety of styles that make the combat feel more like an epic ballet than a punch-by-numbers.

Jenkins is to applauded on more than just the action scenes. Much of Wonder Woman feels unlike anything we might’ve expected from recent blockbusters, including and especially those of the DCEU. For one thing, Wonder Woman has actual colour in it. The magnificent gold of the Amazonian armour and the luscious greens and deep blues of their paradise island can all be seen in their splendour. Even the reds, greys and browns of the Western Front show that dark colours can be dire without being murky and stale. The movie also installs much humanity and humour into its story which, far from undercutting, help to enhance the film’s more serious moments. When we see Diana charging into her battle with her comrades, which include Charlie (Ewan Bremner) the sharpshooter, Chief (Eugene Brave Rock) the Native American smuggler, and Sameer (Saïd Taghmaoui) the Moroccan master of disguise, its all the more affective because the movie has actually taken the time to show these characters bonding. Wonder Woman, being set in 1918, also does a good job of tackling issues of sexism and racism without beating us over the head with it.

The fatal flaw holding this movie back from greatness is its third act which sadly slips into the more generic territory we’ve seen in recent blockbusters. In starts off promisingly enough with a reveal for the villain that is surprising in its sophistication, suggesting that Ares is not in fact the simple baddie we took him for, and there is an excellent final scene between Diana and Steve that I found moving. Otherwise, unfortunately, the climax is typical of the sort of explosive finales that modern blockbusters like with overwritten, pretentious dialogue and a morally confused resolution. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a weak ending and it certainly doesn’t kill the movie, but it was underwhelming given how strong and fresh the first two acts had been. Still, even if I would have preferred an ending that took a few more risks, Wonder Woman is despite its flaws a great watch. It is gorgeous, exciting and inspiring and is entirely worthy of the comic book icon it has brought to life.

★★★★