Wednesday, 8 February 2017

Review: T2 Trainspotting

Runtime: 1hr 57min
Director: Danny Boyle
Release Date: 27th January 2017
Rating: 18 (UK), R (USA)

An immensly challenging sequel to produce; Danny Boyle's reprisal was never going to satisfy old fans and newcomers alike.

Image Source
After twenty years, there would be obvious ambiguity in how to go about writing and directing this cult-classics' sequel. 2017 is brimming with sequels of both original movies and installments to well-established series; thus this may be a recurring issue in the near future. T2 Trainspotting is very clearly a movie made for the fans of the original, for people who loved the first film but haven't watched it in years, and have fond memories of it. This film preys upon the fact that some people will be so wound up in their own nostalgia that they won't give this film the independence from the original it needed.

T2 struggles to declare itself a story of its own; literal scenes from the original Trainspotting are shown to portray a reflection on the past repeating itself; but all that this shows is an unwillingness to write a completely original plot. It is likely Danny Boyle did this to appease fans, as going in a completely different direction would then annoy those who are devoted to the first film.

The story has a great premise; the Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) returns to Scotland and meets with the loveable Spud (Ewen Bremner) and best-pal Simon (Jonny Lee Miller) once again - much to their initial disgust. Not long after, the return of Begbie (Robert Carlyle) fills the plot with more drama than a soap opera. The events that take place are mostly for comedic purpose, under the premise that the audience already know the characters (fair to assume, but not taking into account standalone viewers). A specific scene in which Simon and Mark are forced to perform a song in a loyalist pub had me laughing out loud in the cinema; so often the attempts at making the film light-hearted were received with a good response.

That being said, one of the things about the original is that it wasn't light hearted in the slightest. The characters were the only thing lovable about the film, not what happened to them necessarily, whereas T2 swaps this around - the environments were far more ostentatious in this film, bright neon lighting and fewer disgusting and dull backdrops make for a more optimistic view in this film - quite the opposite of what the original was about. It seems in trying to appease the fans of the original and placing the same characters in a repetitive-yet more flamboyant setting has managed to stray from the roots of what made Trainspotting great.

T2 could have been set anywhere provided the main characters still acted in the way that they do, and that's a shame - every piece of Trainspotting was necessary to put together the plot that was made.

Image Source
Despite all of this - T2 is a good film. It's not a great film, but it certainly isn't awful either. Its' greatest failing is that it can't decide whether to create an entirely new story - which would abandon the roots of the original - or to re-hash Trainspotting - which would be total cowardice. The film does the worst of both worlds, in that it doesn't have a great deal of original thought but it also doesn't capture what the first film did. 


On its own merits, T2 is a funny film; and it is enjoyable to watch. I didn't leave the theatre as disappointed as I would have anticipated, and the film didn't fail to put a smile on my face during. Despite the 20 year gap, the actors clearly haven't lost track of their alter-ego's nature - the performances were great and the chemistry that the actors had was immense, with a gleaming nod to Robert Carlyle.

I can still say I recommend T2, its not like the original in terms of quality or theme, but I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy myself. I can make an odd comparison to another sequel, Aliens, in that both T2 and Aliens are very enjoyable, but both films also spoil the point of their predecessor in a sense.

 6.5/10

Monday, 6 February 2017

Review: Hacksaw Ridge

Runtime: 2hr 19min
Director: Mel Gibson
Release Date: 26th January 2017
Rating: 15 (UK), R (US)

The year's most talked about war epic, Hacksaw Ridge is a well-crafted biopic that Mel Gibson and cast should be proud of.


Based on the story of Corporal Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield) - the first conscientious objector to receive a medal of honor in the United States Army - Hacksaw Ridge is in absolutely no way a war film that makes conflict on the battlefield appear to be fun. A great failing of plenty of Vietnam/World War II war films out there, showing the enemy to be on one side of the battlefield being trounced by the 'heroes' on the other. This movie does not partake in this convention, and portrays outright horror throughout.
 
The storyline is broken into three main sections; Desmonds' early life and young romance, Desmonds' attempts to get enlisted in the army with much difficulty, and the battalions' assault upon Hacksaw Ridge in Okinawa. As the film progresses, it improves in quality. The first section is the only part of the film I can particularly criticise - insert forced, eye-rolling romance with lukewarm performances by Garfield and Teresa Palmer: Desmonds' love interest, Dorothy. 
 
What held the opening act together was the performance of Hugo Weaving, playing Tom Doss; Desmond's father. As a soldier in the Great War, Tom is absolutely opposed to his sons enlisting in the army, as he believes there is only death and destruction awaiting them if they were to fight in the army. Weaving is an excellent actor, and was cast very well in the role, presenting a broken man who lost those he loved through conflict. 

When the movie reaches full swing and Desmond is training to serve in battle, the film becomes more dramatic and begins to flow more smoothly, and introduces a surprisingly well cast Vince Vaughn as Sergeant Howell, while appearing as the comic relief of the film, actually puts together a crisp execution of his character. It was difficult to keep track of the different soldiers in the company however, as only a couple of these characters were particularly memorable. 

The best part of the film, the section which is truly Oscar worthy, is the assault upon the ridge. The direction is perfect; there is no hiding the brutality of the battlefield. As soon as the fight begins, there is no mercy as to what the viewer sees, there is no form of restraint on gore or cruelty at all, and the suspense and terror is kept consistent.



Garfield's performance improved incredibly when the second act came into play, and the well cast company including Captain Glover (Sam Worthington) made the movie worth watching to such a level that the earlier sections of the film that I found quite mundane were completely removed from my mind

When the credits filled the screen, I found Hacksaw Ridge to be a touching yet vicious film which deserves all the credit it is getting. I could not recommend the movie more, although it is not for the faint-hearted. 

 9/10

Sunday, 5 February 2017

Review: Sing

Runtime: 1hr 48min
Director: Christophe Lourdelet & Garth Jennings
Release Date: 27th January 2017
Rating: U (UK), PG (USA)

From the pure standpoint that this movie is designed for children, Sing absolutely serves its purpose; however adult viewing sees a cliché, cringeworthy picture that leaves much to be desired

Image Source
A clear cash-grab, with its release sandwiched between Moana and LEGO Batman (both awesome!), I deemed Sing very dull and obvious. The plots' reality-TV/talent show model didn't overly appeal to me, and I feel if it weren't for the characters being members of the animal kingdom, it wouldn't appeal to many others either; an unoriginal decision for an animated kids' movie.

Scraping together some sort of storyline, Sing trails Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey), a theatre-owning koala, whose attempts at staging a city-wide singing competition in order to try and save his business from bankruptcy go far from smoothly. Despite the title and premise, I was disappointed to learn how overlooked the dialogue was - the vast amounts of poorly-performed pop music covers saturated the almost-two-hour-long screening (seriously, they must have forked out a fortune on rights).

Each creature that enters Busters' show has an unoriginal backstory and there is minor storyline lead-up to their reasons for entering; the constant switch back and forth conveys fear of losing the viewers' interest. Johnny the Gorilla's (Taron Egerton) father is a robber and wants his son to be part of his gang, when all Johnny is obsessed with is singing; Mike (Seth MacFarlane) is a loud-mouthed mouse, living on the streets performing jazz and swing numbers; and Meena (Tori Kelly) is too shy to perform in front of anyone despite being an elephant. The list of yawn-inducing, eye-roll-worthy character profiles go on - not a single differentiator from many a children's movie before it.

The performances the actors give are barely of note, nothing provided was particularly engaging or enchanting at all - most gave it their standard presentation and nothing more; the voice-acting wasn't horrible, but it certainly wasn't great either. 

On the other end, as far as animation quality goesSing is definitely up to scratch with the modern day; there was no point in the film where something looked unnatural in any way, so that can certainly be commended. Character movement and reactions are organic and fluid - the animation team are the ones to praise the most for this movie. 

Image Source
As harsh as I may have been to Sing, I cannot deny that children will love the movie - it is intentionally tailored to the under 11s of this world, of which it more than meets expectations: but unlike other children's movies which understand that parents will watch the movies with their kids, Sing does not decide to throw any adult humour in to make the movie more of a family film; Sing will leave any adult with common sense with a lot to be desired.

What Sing leaves us with is a movie which (most importantly) isn't very enjoyable. If I was forced to poke fun at the film in order to make my viewing time entertaining, there is certainly an issue with the film put before me. Watchable (barely) but hardly a classic.

3.5/10