Joker (2019) - Film Review

Review:

*Originally written October 5th, 2019*

This is a hard one to get into. The outrageous controversy surrounding this by fake woke Twitter who had made up their mind on this before even seeing it. It's kinda funny how an ironic and satirical movement of people online using Joker to mascot their joke about being radicalised incels become something the media deemed a genuine threat. In a way, it's the funniest thing about this all. What was interesting to me is the lack of awareness in people and how they couldn't see what these people were doing was satire. The whole Gang Weed thing is literally a joke, nothing more and the fools fell for it.

Getting to the actual film itself, it is a complete triumph. I had genuine concern that Todd Phillips had the maturity to make a film like this after the abysmal Hangover sequels and crappy comedies he usually does. Somehow he pulled it off. He's crafted an entry in the comic-book genre that is unlike anything that came before it. Joker is a character study first and foremost, as we see how Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck slowly starts to lose his mind and become the iconic Joker.

There was many risks involved in making this. The idea of demystifying on of cinemas greatest villains never seemed like a good idea, alienating fans of comic-book films who are so used to soulless CGI spectacle over anything close to substance that has more or less taken over the genre at this point and making such a dark, violent and adult film for a franchise that has mostly been aimed at teens and children. It was a risk for WB, one I'm glad they've taken, as I'm getting pretty sick of these interconnected universes and much prefer films that just tell their own story rather than trying so desperately to connect to other films and potential spin-offs. 

Going in, everyone pretty much knew the Martin Scorsese influences, which are pretty rampant. While Phillips pays homage to Scorsese's early films, this still has an identity of its own. This version of Gotham is a dark, ugly and unstable, much like the portrayal of New York in Taxi Driver. Crime is out of control, politicians are doing nothing to change the city and everyone is at breaking point. There is also a strong King of Comedy vibe (Robert De Niro even more or less plays the exact same character decades later).

While the political overtones of Joker are very apparent, the main focus really is on mental health. While there is no attempt to justify or make Fleck's actions anything close to heroic, it walks a fine line of showing what can happen if mentally unstable people do not get the help they need. There's no condoning their actions, but it's sad to watch and it's feels very honest, despite being an extreme portrayal. If people don't get the help they need before it's too late, then they lash out. 

That's the main thing Joker gets so right that could have gone painfully wrong. Fleck is not the hero of this story at all, you feel empathy for his descent into madness, but you never once see his actions as heroic or justifiable. It's very uncomfortable and horrible to watch as it just gets more extreme and out of control. This is far from the claims that the film is "Dangerous" and "Will encourage unstable loners to lash out" the media blew out of proportion for their ridiculous agenda. This film is a warning, not an encouragement. 

I should get to Phoenix himself. He's an actor I've always quite liked and has recently popped up in some films I've loved recently, so I was very interested to see how he would handle this role. To no ones surprise, he's quite incredible and is magnetic to watch. His performance is filled with so many ticks, physical transformations as he goes from, sad, funny, pathetic and terrifying with extreme ease. I know it's early to say, but this might be the greatest performance of The Joker we've ever had. Time will tell. Even with Phoenix being in nearly every scene of film, I was utterly compelled the whole way through as to where this was going thanks to his performance. I'd be amazed if an Oscar doesn't come his way next year, or at the very least, a nomination. I think it might be my favourite performance of the year. He takes a character that's been done to death and creates something new, tragic, beautiful and sad with it. 

While Joker does goes some places you would expect with the story, it does still go to some very surprising places, keeping me on edge pretty much the whole way. This is one of the most uncomfortable films I've seen in quite some time. The violence is messy, bloody and horrible to watch. The story also goes to some very interesting places as it builds up to its pretty shocking climax. 

While I haven't always been the biggest fan of a lot of Todd Phillips films, I've always given him credit for his visuals. His work always looks incredibly cinematic with a lot of stylish visuals and memorable imagery. Joker is no different, it's as gorgeous as it is ugly, making use of a diverse colour palette that and some disturbing imagery that is sure to become iconic down the line. There's even a weirdly comic dance number that worked far better than it should have. Oh, and I must give credit to Hildur Guonadottir's foreboding and tense score that really elevated the tension on screen. 


Todd Phillip's Joker is far more successful than anyone could have expecting, including me. It joins The Dark Knight and Logan as one of the few comic-book films I consider truly masterpieces. An unflinching, harrowing and deeply uncomfortable watch that features one of the best performances I've seen in recent years. I really hope Warner Bros continue to push the DC films in this direction because this really is something special and unlike anything in the genre. It might just be a game changer.

10/10 Dans

Joker is out now in cinemas in the UK with a 4K UHD Steelbook available to pre-order in the UK
Watch the trailer below:

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook

IT: Chapter 2 (2019) - Review

Review:

*Originally written September 9th, 2019*

The last time the latter half of the IT book was adapted for the screen it was a bit of a disaster. The 1990 miniseries/TV film starts of very strong, but once it focused on The Losers Club as adults, it loses all its momentum and falls flat in one of the most laughable and poorly executed film endings I can think of. So there was a lot of worry going into this, despite IT being quite an excellent horror film from 2 years ago that massively improved on the 1990 adaptation as it blended horror, comedy and drama in a way that led to surprising success.

Due to the success of the previous film, Chapter 2 was no doubt going to happen. This time however, it is a lot more self-indulgent and excessive. While it certainly improves in some areas of the previous film, it definitely falters and has its problems. It's not a complete mess though, as this concluding chapter of the story between The Losers Club and Pennywise is a mostly successful and satisfying finale to the series.

Picking up 27 years after they defeated Pennywise in the '80s, The Losers Club are reunited in 2016 as Pennywise returns for his annual spree of murder and mayhem as they swore an oath to destroy him if he came back. As they all return to their hometown of Derry, the group slowly get their lost traumatic memories back of their experience as they need to overcome them and put an end to psychotic clown once and for all. 

What concerned me most with this sequel was its run-time. Rarely do horror films go to the lengths of nearly being 3 hours, which is the length of the entire miniseries that told both half of the books. While it certainly helped to have more time to explore The Losers Club as adults, the run-time is definitely excessive and bloated. While it does move at quite a smooth pace, you do start to feel those 170 minutes overall. With a film of this length, it could have committed to exploring the group as adults a lot more, but it really feels like a lot of this is padded out with flashbacks to them as children, which honestly just feels like a series of deleted scenes from the first added in.

The new adult Losers Club all do a great job with their roles. Bill Hader in particular is given the most personality as a grown up Richie, who was gone on to become a successful stand-up comedian. Hader is a actor who has rarely impressed me until he did the HBO show Barry, which is immensely worth seeing, but still, it amazes me he managed to outshine both James McAvoy and Jessica Chastain. Who both give strong performances, but are very much outshined by Hader. 

The strongest out the cast is still easily Bill Skarsgard, who still fully commits to his horrifying role as Pennywise, mixing wonderfully over the top comedy with grotesque acts of evil seamlessly. There's very much a less is more approach with Pennywise this time around as he actually features very little in the film, which I actually preferred. Based on the success of the first film, they easily could have doubled down on Pennywise, but instead they commit to focusing more on the characters of The Losers Club, which is definitely a move that would annoy a few people, but for me, it's what I'd prefer.

While Pennywise and his presence are responsible for pretty much all the horror here, a lot of it is sadly CGI creations which look far too fake to have any kind of impact. While there is far too much CGI over practical work, there is still some monstrous creativity here as things get really, really weird. There are images I did not expect to see from a big budget studio film and I kinda applaud them for that. I don't wanna spoil anything, but you're gonna see some weird shit.

At its core though, the IT series is more about overcoming repressed trauma by tackling it head on, which is something the writing and cast manage to handle quite well. The plight of The Losers Club as they have to come to terms with the horror they had to endure as children is what makes this story interesting to me, not Pennywise going bananas and killing kids, which is fun, don't get me wrong, but seeing this characters change and grow stronger and confident as the film goes on is the appeal for me. 

The actual battle between Pennywise as The Losers Club that ends the story was completely laughable and pathetic in the 1990 version and while this certainly improves on that, it still feels underwhelming. There are moments of weird and graphic imagery in the overstuffed finale, but like I said with a lot of the horror, it really was just a massively overblown mash of unconvincing CGI. I've not actually read the book, so I'm not sure how faithful it was, but they've done this battle with Pennywise twice now in similar ways, so his "True Form" really doesn't seem to be something that translates well on the screen.

Even with the disappointing finale, the actual end of the film really does wrap things up in a satisfying way, leaving everyone in a position that doesn't make me want a Chapter 3 and made me glad I went on this 5 hour journey with these characters I've really learned to like. That said, with Hollywood being the way it is, if Chapter 2 does half as well as the first one, I'm sure they'll wanna see Pennywise return in some form, in spite of the conclusive nature of this film. 


I sound like I complained about this a lot, but in all honesty, I liked it quite a bit. It's flawed for sure and has its problems, but overall it's a satisfying end to this now 5 hour story between The Losers Club and Pennywise and it's a massive improvement on the 1990 adaptation thanks to the strong cast, character work, a now iconic portrayal of Pennywise and enough horrific imagery that while not always convincing, it is at the very least memorable. I feel like a broken record saying this once again this year, but IT Chapter 2 is once again a sequel that never lives up to its predecessors, yet still manages to be something worth watching.  

7/10 Dans

IT: Chapter 2 is out now in cinemas in the UK. With a 4K UHD Steelbook available to pre-order from  HMV
Watch the trailer below:

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook

Angel Has Fallen (2019) - Review

Review:

*Originally written September 1st, 2019*

Now, the Fallen series has possibly been the furthest you can get from high-art when it comes to cinema, but there's just something about this series that keeps me coming back to it. It's possibly the '90s feeling action throwback feeling that I have a soft spot for and the fact Gerard Butler's incredibly named hero "Mike Banning" is one of the most deranged and psychopathic leads I've seen from a film of this genre.

I'm genuinely amazed this franchise has now released its third and final(?) film after starting as one of the two Die Hard in the White House knock-offs of 2013. For what the previous two films have been, they were good fun, tasteless, xenophobic, racist and violent, but it felt like it knew this and ran with it. I sort of appreciate them for that, plus its rare we have these mid-range budgeted, adult action films anymore.

This time around Mike Banning is framed for an assassination attempt on the President (Now replaced by Morgan Freeman as Aaron Eckhart did not return) and must clear his name while trying to find out who really did it. It's such basic level stuff and a story we've seen countless times before. Even the Taken series used its third entry to do this very plot, but with a wife instead of president. Despite this, Angel Has Fallen still makes for a very watchable and moderately entertaining action film.

Gerard Butler attempts to add more depth to a Mike Banning that is very different from the previous two films. I assume they listened to the criticisms and attempted to add humanity to what was a previously one note sociopath. Honestly, this is not the Mike Banning who would torture people for fun and tell foreign terrorists to "Go back to Fuckheadistan". While I appreciate the more vulnerable take on Mike Banning who is feeling his age and his previous adventures are beginning to take a serious toll on his physical and mental health, it's handled about as well as you could expect from a series of this level.

The attempts at humanising Banning are surface level at best as all this is often overlooked in favour of getting to the next action scene or moving the plot forward. Now, I was never expecting some character drama looking at Mike Banning's acceptance of his own mortality, but I was at least expecting something more when they were ditching the tone of the previous films for something a bit more grim. Take Logan as a good example, the third in a trilogy where the previous two films were not so good, but then the third film delivered something much more thoughtful, but at the same time managed to be an incredible action film. That's what I feel Angel is going for, but it doesn't come close.

Despite failing to make something meaningful out of its characters, this is still a fairly brisk and watchable action film. The plot of Banning being framed is outrageously predictable and you'd have to have a very low IQ not to figure out who the real villain is a few minutes in. It's so very formulaic, but Gerard Butler actually manages to carry this, as does some solid action.

Once again changing directors with each film, Ric Roman Waugh actually does a decent job with most of the action. It's not John Wick level stuff, but it gets the job done, The violence feels punchy and brutal while there is minor moments of inspiration within the gun-play with some use of POV. It does lack in comparison to the more memorable stuff in the previous films, there's nothing close to the opening of Olympus with gunship wiping out DC or the motorbike chase from London, but like I said, it's very watchable and competent.

What's more surprising is the subplot involving Nick Nolte as Banning's ex-Vietnam vet survivalist estranged father. Nolte is clearly having a blast playing such a deranged coot of a character who pretty much steals the show with his brief scenes and even gets in on some of the action. The relationship with his father does add just amount of depth to Banning to help figure out how he became the psychotic man he's been portrayed as, but as you expect, that's handled as well as you would expect from this film. There's also a mid-credits scene between the two that is one of the most out of place, insane, unfunny and cringiest things I've seen from a film this year. 

Whether or not this is the end of the adventures of Mike Banning is another question too. The advertisement and trailers did tease this was the end of this franchise, but it lacks a definitive ending. So I can expect a fourth one if this one does as well as the last two. Although in all honesty, I say keep 'em coming. It's probably a good thing, but we really don't get that many films like this anymore. Good bless Mike Banning.


There's very little else to say about Angel Has Fallen, if you're on board with this throwback series, you'll find something to enjoy in the merely acceptable finale to the trilogy, but if not, you will probably hate this as much as the other two, or maybe less, as the horrible parts of the first two are pretty much absent here. It's sad to say, but Angel Has Fallen is another underwhelming franchise film from 2019 that failed to live up to the previous entries, but at the same time is still acceptable entertainment, if entirely forgettable.

6/10 Dans

Angel Has Fallen is out now in cinemas in the UK

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) Review

Review:

*Originally written August 26th, 2019*

I thought I'd watch this at least twice before cementing my opinion on this. I've been a fan of Tarantino films growing up, mostly due to constantly watching Reservoir Dogs on DVD when I was a teenager. A new Tarantino film is always going to be a big deal and this was far and away my most anticipated film of year. I know Tarantino has had a bad rap lately, due to his constant self-indulgences in his recent films, narcissistic personality and frequent uses of a certain N word in his films. 

As much as I love Tarantino and will constantly defend him in a year of cinema that has been rampant with soulless sequels and remakes for the majority of major releases, it is always so refreshing to see a film that is so obviously a director's singular vision. Sony agreed to fund this film and let Tarantino do what he wanted, for better or worse. It paid off though, as not only is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood easily one of the best films of the year, but it's also his best since Inglorious Basterds and possibly his most mature since Jackie Brown.

Hollywood contains some of the things that you should come to expect from Tarantino films by now, long scenes that really don't go anywhere, horrific violence, a twist of history and a grotesque amount of disgusting feet shots. Despite all that, this actually feels like it has a lot of substance under all the usual Tarantino flourish. If I had to criticise Tarantino for anything it's that a lot of his films lack any sort of emotional impact, they're pretty much all extremely entertaining, well written and compelling, but I rarely feel myself caring for the characters.

Thankfully that isn't the case here, as Tarantino has conjured up two of the characters he's ever written with fading western actor Rick Dalton and his trusted stuntman and friend Cliff Booth. Hollywood follows a few days in their lives and Sharon Tate leading up to the fateful night Tate was murdered by the Manson Family when she was nearly 9 months pregnant. 

First of all, none of this went anywhere I expected it to go at all. In many ways this is quite plot-less, we spend time with Rick, Cliff and Sharon as they go about their day at pivotal moments in their life. Due to Tarantino's dense script, it feels like it has something to say as we see Rick try his hardest not to fade from the spotlight and suffer a few breakdowns as he realises he's not as young and famous as he used to be. One particular scene involving him and a young actress is some of Tarantino's most poignant moments he's ever had in film.

DiCaprio himself is the best he's ever been. Ranging Rick Dalton from sad, pathetic to reflective, but at the same time, easy to root for and sympathise with.  His journey during the fading days of the Golden Years of Hollywood is one full of love and respect for the era, even with a few moments of altered history and a few cameos of late celebrities that are sure to divide, but for me I was more than okay with just allowing a lampooning of a late celebrity. Anyway, DiCaprio's arc ends on a surprisingly cathartic note and goes through moments of reflective sadness we rarely get from Tarantino, so it was wonderful to see. 

Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth on the other hand is a whole different beast. A stuntman having trouble finding work after the rumours of him murdering his wife and getting away with it (A note that is kept purposelessly ambiguous through the film). Pitt himself is wonderful as he plays a much more quiet and less flashy role than DiCaprio that feels much more subtle and volatile. We spend a lot of time with him just either with his dog or driving around Hollywood before he gets a chance to steal the film once of the Manson Family come into play, which I'll get to.

Lastly, of the 3 arcs here Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate is certainly an interesting choice. Robbie is insanely likeable as Tate, I see what they were going for here, the last bit of innocence before the '60s ended and it mostly works. She's portrayed as just the nicest person ever with scenes of her just going to see her own films in a cinema and gouging the audiences reactions to her scenes with nothing but delight. It's genuinely sweet to watch and I love the subversion of her story building up to what happened in history, but obviously with Tarantino, it goes in a slightly different direction.

It was also lovely to see such detail and attention to the era of late '60s Hollywood. This is a beautifully shot and vibrant film making use of a wide variety of styles and camera work. Tarantino clearly loved this era of film and watching him portray this time in history only made me want to seek out more stuff from Golden Age of Hollywood. I particularly loved the scenes of Dalton's fake films and TV shows from the era, which perfectly matched the style of TV and films from the time. As you would also expect from a Tarantino film, there's a wide variety of incredible music, mostly '60s rock, which I adored, but he also reuses some scores from other films to clever effect, which I noticed the most during a very tense scene involving Booth and the Manson family. 

I may as well get to to the Manson Family aspect now. A big part of the marketing was dedicated to the fact it would revolve around the night Sharon Tate was murdered, but much like with the end of Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino changes history. I won't spoil what he does, but it's just as crowd-pleasing, hilariously sadistic and demented as you could hope for. It will definitely divide audiences on whether it was in good taste or not, but for me, it was as close to pure cinema as you could get. It was a complete joy to watch. 

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood probably won't change your mind on Tarantino as he indulges in the usual aspects that make him Tarantino, but for me, it was easily his most mature work in a while that spends time with its characters and takes them on a satisfying odyssey of Hollywood in the 1960s while still being as entertaining and demented as Tarantino films usually are. I'll also note that this was the quickest nearly 3 hours for me has passed in a film this year, it completely flies by. I really hope Tarantino doesn't retire after his next film (Or possibly this) because love him or hate him, he's one of the only people still delivering successful original films that have a voice amongst all the soulless live-action Disney remakes and passable Marvel films. 

10/10 Dans

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is out now in cinemas in the UK with a 4K UHD Steelbook available to pre-order from HMV
Watch the trailer below:

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook

Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw (2019) - Review

Review:

*Originally written August 5th, 2018*

2019 in cinema continues to underwhelm and disappoint. Hobbs and Shaw is both the ninth entry and first spin-off of this unlikely franchise that started as a piece of early 2000's cringe about street-racing and wanking off onto a car bonnet or something. No one would have expected this series to go as far as it has or get as big as its gotten, but then the fifth film came along and changed things. It was no longer about getting your dick hard over a bit of vibrating engine and metal, they became ludicrously dumb and entertaining action films that continued to push the boundaries of insanity with each one.

Which is why I guess I'm a little underwhelmed by this first spin-off starring Jason Statham and Dwayne Johnson as the titular Deckard Shaw and Luke Hobbs. This is a fun film, as it should be, for the most part. It just never lives up to its potential, which feels like something I've been saying far too much for films in 2019. The same Fast and Furious gonzo and insane set-pieces are still here, but it lacks the surprising heart of the main series and the ensemble cast.

Johnson and Statham no doubt have great chemistry together, which is why some of the strongest scenes from Fate of the Furious was their stuff together, so it's easy to see why they would pair these two up for their own spin-off together. It's just a shame that a lot of the jokes and banter between them feels so juvenile and lame, I was surprised at just how many dick jokes were crammed into the first half. Honestly, I was astonished, I've not heard that many references to cock and balls since the last time I saw a Seth Rogen film.

The plot they're thrown into is very by the numbers and generic. The mismatched pair have to team up despite hating each other (Didn't they get over that in the 8th film?) in order to take down Idris Elba's genocidal cyborg soldier who wants to destroy most of the population with a virus that ends up in the hands of Shaw's MI6 agent sister (Vanessa Kirby). Yeah, it's a hell of a long way from the days of undercover cops and street-racing.

When I first heard Idris Elba was playing a cyborg enhanced super-soldier called Brixton, I couldn't think of anything better. Something as nonsensical and absurd as that to push this series further and further into insanity. Sadly, he's a little underwhelming. It's not all Elba's fault though, he does a fine job with what he's given, bringing a certain menace and charisma to the role, it's just the character that's very underwritten. He has some really cool moments and his arsenal of sci-fi gadgets and physics defying motorbike is awesome, but his motivations are the same as several villains as of late - "Wipe out loads of the world's population in order to save it", it's oddly dull. 

The real breakout star here was Vanessa Kirby, which I did not expect at all. She really holds her own in action scenes and looks like she has a promising career ahead of her in the genre. She even has much stronger moments and lines than either Statham and Johnson. I hope to see much more of her in this series, whether it be the main series or the inevitable sequel to Hobbs and Shaw.

With David Leitch directing, I had no worries about the action on display here, he did a wonderful job with John Wick, Atomic Blonde and Deadpool 2, so it was awesome to see him work with such a huge budget. His work is easily the strongest stuff on display here and where Hobbs and Shaw really comes alive. It's a shame all the action is spoiled in the trailers, but Leitch really does have a handle on things here. From the gravity and physics defying vehicle stunts to the surprisingly crunchy hand-to-hand stuff, it all feels very fun and creative without living up to insanity of the main series, but it's still wonderfully more crazy and over the top than most films with a budget like this would allow.

It's just a shame the downtime between the chaotic scenes of action seem to drag on so much, it has its moments and a very fun cameo, but it honestly feels about 30 minutes too long with so much that could have been cut for a much leaner and easier to watch film. Some gags and jokes drag on for so long they start to feel like a Family Guy sketch, it just goes on and on. I feel like there's a much better film few cuts away from what we got here.


Hobbs and Shaw just feels a bit too by the numbers for a series as insane and crazy as Fast and Furious. There's fun to be had with the really fun set-pieces and seeing Statham and Johnson together, but it all just feels a little underwhelming and not as fun as it could have been. Passable entertainment, but another 2019 film that didn't live up to its potential.

6/10 Dans

Watch the trailer below:

Hobbs and Shaw is out now cinemas in UK and a 4K UHD Steelbook is available to pre-order from HMV

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook

The Lion King (2019) - Review

Review:

*Originally written July 20th, 2019*

The original Lion King is no doubt my favourite film Disney has ever released. I remember when this was announced I was actually quite excited for it, as I quite liked the Jungle Book remake and a couple of the others. Then something changed, maybe it was me or just the fact I just started to quickly see the rapidly declining state of cinema as these live-action Disney remakes got churned out faster and faster. I mean, this is only the third of five planned films this year alone. I lost all my will towards these after the dull Aladdin.

It turns out my fears were founded. We've dug this property out of its graved, given it a $200 million coat of paint and failed to do anything unique or interesting with it. Yes, it's competently made as it goes through a story we've seen previously beat for beat, but it never amounts to anything close to exciting or capturing the magic from Disney's long gone glory days. 

It's the law of diminishing returns in full effect. I'm okay with remakes as long as you do something interesting and change it around a little. Hell, I give Tim Burton's Dumbo even more credit now for at least straying away from the original film and taking the story in a different direction. This just regurgitates a story with seen before. It lacks any sort of surprise or tries to do anything to make it worth retelling the story. It's just so lazy and cynical.

The most annoying thing is the fact it's very competently made. The CGI effects here bringing the photo-realistic animals alive are genuinely incredible and are incredible to look at. Simba as a cub is insanely cute and easy to get attached to, while Scar still has his intimidating design that makes him a great villain, but lacks Jeremy Irons sinister voice performance. 

While the animals do look insanely realistic, it also works as a disservice to the story. The 2D animation of the original film made these characters very emotive and easy to care about. This "realistic" depiction has a harder job as the characters here do not emote at all. It's very strange and makes it hard to feel anything when they go through the emotional beats. They always just look like animals who's mouths move, but their faces stay the same, it's so weird and off-putting, taking me completely out the film. It's strange, as they managed to pull this off a lot better (From what I remember) with their Jungle Book remake, but 3 years on, the realism of the animation is better, but completely takes you out the performance and fails to create an emotional bond with these characters, despite the Hamlet inspired story and script unfolding more or less shot for shot.

The star studded cast are very hit and miss. There are some very inspired performances that work, like John Oliver as Zazu and Seth Rogen as Pumbaa, who were both surprising highlights for me. Everyone else though, sadly failed to leave an impact on me. It was cool to have James Earl Jones back as Mufasa, but that must have been an easy paycheck for him, just replicating his performance from 25 years ago for an each paycheck. Barely any of this cast came close to capturing the charm of the original. Shame they didn't have cameos from any of the original cast, although Matthew Broderick is probably too busy killing women in car "Incidents" (The word "Accident" would imply no one is to blame) in Ireland. 

This film is going to make over $1 billion and it's inevitable. It's fine. I have no faith left in cinema anymore and these live-action remakes aren't going to stop coming, plus I'm always going to see them out of curiosity. I just feel the same about The Lion King as I have about several others. It boasts groundbreaking special effects to bring this stuff to life, but it loses the heart and soul that made the original films so wonderful. I just left this feeling cold and wishing I just watched the gorgeous 4K remaster of the original instead. 


I remember when I'm going through the Disney classic animated films for the first time (Which I'm still working through), I watch them and think I can't wait to watch them again, but with all three of the live-action remakes so far this year, the last thing I've wanted to do is see them again. I have faith Disney will hopefully do something interesting once they've burned through their library of films to remake. Hell, maybe even the inevitable sequels to the live-action remakes will at least do something different with the story and take them to uncharted territory. As for now, we're just continuing to rehash old stories to depressing effect and it's a shame, as I know Disney are much better than this when they want to be.  

5/10 Dans

The Lion King is out now in cinemas in the UK
Watch the trailer below:

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) - Review

Review:

*Originally written July 6th, 2019*

Far From Home is probably exactly what this series needed after the massive and heavy epic that was Endgame. I wasn't sure what to expect from this, as after Marvel followed up their nearly as huge Infinity War with the massively average Ant-Man and the Wasp, I was expecting something along those lines, but this surprised me in several ways I didn't expect.

Following from the events after Endgame, humanity has pretty much recovered from everyone returning to life after Thanos' snap and things are pretty much back to normal. It does also answer some lingering questions about the implications of bringing all these people back to life when people had moved on in the mean-time. Parker returns to college and his school trip to Europe is interrupted (Obviously) by some elemental demons being hunted by Jake Gyllenhaal's Mysterio and Nick Fury looks to Spider-Man to live up to Tony Stark's name.

Far From Home manages to balance things a lot better than I'd imagine. Peter progresses a lot here as he struggles with both living up to the hero Tony Stark was and dealing with his new responsibilities  while also wanting the normal life of a teenager by attending school and getting a girlfriend. The awkward John Hughes inspired teen stuff from the first film is thankfully intact, as the awkward chemistry between Peter and MJ make for some of the funniest and surprisingly sweet scenes in the film.

While there are huge CGI set-pieces, Far From Home is pretty much character focused first, which I always appreciate. We spend lots of time with Peter as he struggles with his responsibilities and it shows in Holland's ever growing performance as Spider-Man, who is just the right amount of awkward, smart-mouthed and easy to root for. At this point I'd say he's definitely surpassed Tobey Maguire in the role and easily Andrew Garfield's weird, almost special needs like Marty McFly impression he bought to the misguided Amazing Spider-Man films. 

A lot of these MCU films also suffer from humour problems, but the tone works really well with these characters. It makes sense that teenage characters would take things a little less seriously and be cracking a joke every now and then, it also helps a lot of the writing seems to be a lot stronger than the usual stuff we get in these films and the hit rate is also a lot stronger. Not everything lands, but some of the funniest stuff of the whole series is in here, especially the two absolutely gold post-credit scenes. I wish the MCU would keep tone down the humour a bit and leave it to separate films like this, as hearing middle-aged men making the same quips you'd here from teenagers is one of the main reasons I find the jokes in these films so cringe, but in the context of a high-school setting, it works.

While none of the action is massively spectacular, it still has a lot of energy to it, while it sadly amounts to big CGI things hitting each other. The more interesting set-pieces are saved for Mysterio's mind tricks, which creates a sequence so zany and out-there, it was close to Doctor Strange in terms of mad imagery and it made perfect use of the character to create that scenario for Spider-Man.

Mysterio himself is a little bit of a mixed bag. Jake Gyllenhaal utterly commits to such a barmy and crazy character, bringing a lot of his usual charm and charisma to the role, he honestly steals every scene he's in, but I just wish they spent more time with his motivation, which honestly isn't the most convincing. It connects to previous MCU films in a fun way and the reveal might divide fans the same way Iron Man 3's twist did. While his motivation isn't the best, the film certainly got more interesting once his intentions are clear and leaves Gyllenhaal much more room to ham it up to incredible effect. 


Far From Home is another excellent film from the MCU (Who are also 3 for 3 this year), it ups everything I loved about the first one, continues to develop Spider-Man in new and interesting ways, while delivering a screen-grabbing, but flawed villain. Looking forward to how the third film wraps up this trilogy, especially with THAT post-credit scene.

8/10 Dans

Spider-Man: Far From Home is out now in cinemas in the UK
Watch the trailer below:

Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @FRFigmentReviews
YouTube: Figment Reviews 
Letterboxd: Dan
Facebook