Isle Of Dogs

And so Wes Anderson presents conclusive proof that people who think cats are better than dogs are quite clearly idiots.

The Partially Educated Review

Some perspective (if needed). The recent output of Wes Anderson has left me feeling rather cold. I particularly disliked Moonrise Kingdom and also couldn't entirely get into The Grand Budapest Hotel. I appreciate both of those are opinions in need of justification, but this isn't a review of those films.

I felt the need to establish that; mostly so that this doesn't seem like a review coming from an Anderson fanboy. That I definitely am not. I definitely am a fan of Isle Of Dogs though.

In a not-too-distant future Japan, a flu has spread through all dogs that leads them to be banished to the nearby Trash Island; away from all human population. This causes controversy for a number of reasons, not least of which being that a reported cure for the flu is being ignored by the corrupt, cat loving (so definitely evil) mayor. Said mayor's nephew Atari travels to Trash Island in search of his long, lost dog Spots where he is greeted by several other dogs who undertake to help him on his quest.

There are two things you are guaranteed not to be missing from an Anderson film; vivid imagination and a pretty dry sense of humour. He has, at times, risked becoming a pastiche of himself when you consider the fact that very little changes tonally from film to film. That's pretty much the root of my ambivalence towards some of his other films; making it incredibly difficult to explain why nothing's changed for Isle Of Dogs, but I couldn't stop laughing at it.

The only thing I can possibly nail it down to is the cast (or my love of dogs, but I'm trying to be artistic here damnit!). Much like many of Anderson's films, this is a big name cast with many taking on roles much smaller than they usually would. I guess that speaks volumes towards how much respect Anderson has conjured for himself. The star this time, however, is a newbie to the Anderson fold. Some bloke called Bryan Cranston. I think he did some inconsequential TV stuff.

As Chief, a rather grouchy and wholly begrudging member of our band of heroes, Cranston just about steals the film. His performance is layered with heaps of emotion; which I will refrain from going into lest I spoil some of the character developments. Credit is equally shared with the writers for this; particularly Jason Schwartzman who must have secretly been wanting this role for himself, but takes on another (still good) one instead. If anything, Cranston is so good that he does expose a bit of a flaw in how inconsequential a few of the other characters feel. When you make me fail to notice that Edward Norton's in your film, you've done something wrong.

The beautiful animation echoes that of Anderson's Fantastic Mr Fox adaptation (also brilliant), but still feels untraditional enough to capture the eye. The plot warms the heart, particularly the portrayal of Akira; taking the WALL-E approach to character development (though let's not get ahead of ourselves, WALL-E's still better). With a slightly trimmed running time and the better fleshing out of characters, this would have been one of the best films I've seen in a long while. Instead it falls just short of that mark. But only just.

EIGHT out of 10

Black Panther

Wait. Hang on a minute. You mean, a superhero film with black people in it can be just as good as the ones with white people. Well, bugger me silly!

The Partially Educated Review

I don't think there'll be a more important film released this year than Black Panther if only from a point of view of the impact this should (I don't trust the industry well enough to write “will”) have on blockbuster cinema as a whole. In the end though, the biggest trial facing Black Panther was always going to be the same as any other film. Making sure that it was actually good. 

Box office returns are all well and good, but if you're churning out the next Ghost Rider, then the fan reception is always going to overshadow any financial successes and those reactions can sometimes be brutal enough to derail a franchise. God knows that was the last thing we needed here. Not much need to worry there though, because Black Panther is one of the absolute best Marvel films released to date.

The key thing here is the cast. All of them are outstanding; from Chadwick Boseman to Michael B. Jordan and those who I had no familiarity with such as Danai Gurira and Winston Duke. If those names aren't being used as marquee names over the coming years; Hollywood, you have officially f**ked up! I feel kind of bad for not mentioning the rest of the cast, but cast lists are what iMDB is for. Safe to say, everyone pretty much kills it here and they do that whilst experiencing all the same emotions that white people do.

There's one more name that definitely needs mentioning though. Ryan Coogler. A man who I love and hate in equal measures. I love him because he has become one of the most deservedly respected directors working today. He's done that by knowing that the key to any great film is making sure that you put your performances at the forefront and create around them. I hate him because he's only a year older than me and has already released a film that's set the box office alight. Which kind of outweighs it for me. This one's for you, Coogler!

That aside; the world of Wakanda that he has created feels rife with possibilities. It's inevitably the culture change that makes Black Panther stand high when you realise that the plot isn't straying that far away from the Marvel template. You know the action sequences are going to be spectacularly brilliant, just as much as you know that Stan Lee's going to appear at one point (and let's not be mean to a 95 year old man having a bit of a laugh). With the amount of these films coming out seemingly increasing every year, it's always the ones which give you something different that will rise to the top. The real test now is whether they can keep this going.

EIGHT out of 10

The Greatest Showman

At a point in The Greatest Showman, P.T. Barnum tells a grumpy reviewer that his show could give “joy to the most joyless of critics”. Nice try, mate.

The Partially Educated Review

When it comes to pure Hollywood actors working today, I struggle to think of one with more versatility than Hugh Jackman. Whatever film you put him in, he will always give it his all and usually pulls it off. He blew me away with Logan (a performance so grizzled it made the bear from The Revenant look like Winnie the Pooh) but, some 9 months later, he's back into musical territory with the “true” story of circus mastermind P.T. Barnum. It's a performance filled with so much twinkling teeth he may as well be John Barrowman's bastard offspring, but he remains an asset that The Greatest Showman greatly benefits from. Even if he's just as infected by all the glitz.

There isn't an element of the film that doesn't feel rampantly stage-managed. Even the most destitute of scenes feels like it's populated by perfectly placed bits of dirt. As a stage production, The Greatest Showman would probably succeed to a fantastic degree and make an absolute killing and I think they know that. It's not that it doesn't feel cinematic or suffer from a lack of belonging in cinemas, but at times you do get the impression that its heart and desire lies in a different type of venue.

The positives are there though. It's not just Jackman's performance that wins over. Zendaya, in particular, feels like a talent to watch. Her role in Spider-Man: Homecoming was one I would have happily seen more of and I look forward to seeing how her career develops. Rebecca Ferguson oozes seductive charm and Michelle Williams is always watchable (if a little saddled with the “wife” role). Zac Efron is perhaps a little boring, but he's spent the last few years knowing that simply stepping into the room will cause a certain area of the demographic to instantly swoon and its made him a lot more successful than I am so fair play to him. Most of Barnum's acts also suffer from a lack of true character development, generally there to back-up the songs. Keala Settle's bearded lady role gets a fairer scoop than most, but she's only a couple of jazz hands away from making Chicago seem like The Driller Killer by comparison.

This is, of course, a musical, so it stands to rights that I mention the songs and, come on, you must know what you're letting yourself in for. If your musical pleasures are derived from the likes of Slayer, it's safe to say this probably won't be your scene. If, however, the idea of Steps going on tour gets you excited, then know that you're part of the problem... you'll probably like these songs though. They're well put together and they're catchy as hell. For me though, when 2 hours had passed after I'd seen the film and This Is Me was still going round my head on a constant loop, I couldn't help but start Googling lobotomy clinics.

The Greatest Showman is a film for a very specific audience. That audience will lap this up (looking at Twitter, they aren't hard to find) and people of different tastes may find it fairly interminable. For a first-time director Michael Gracey demonstrates skill behind the camera, but he could probably do with removing one of the glossy strings from his bow in future. As such, any references to the shadier side of Barnum are fleeting at best and if you think they'll touch on his profiteering from blackface minstrelsy or that whole business with animal captivity, you're kidding yourself. There's a dirtier film to be made about the man (one that I'd probably enjoy more), but I'd be lying if I said I disliked this.

SIX out of 10

Justice League

In 2012, The Avengers arrived following 4 years of hype. In 2017, Justice League arrived following the same length of time. You'll never guess which turned out for the better.

The Partially Educated Review

It must be warm and re-assuring for a filmmaker when their franchise reaches its ultimate goal and fan anticipation falls somewhere between disdain and disinterest. Most of the DCEU (or whatever the hell they're calling it nowadays) has managed to make the Dark Knight trilogy look like Elf on the cheerful scale. So maybe the disinterest was justified, but the automatic assumptions that it would be rubbish bothered me slightly. With Wonder Woman coming earlier this year, it felt like they'd acknowledged the things that were putting fans off and were working hard to rectify these. For the most part, they were successful. Wonder Woman may not have strayed from the formula too much with its narrative, but it still provided a lot of fun within that. So, if that acknowledgement of fan feedback was there, surely they'd know to carry that over to Justice League?

While Justice League does attempt to bring about a lighter mood to proceedings than Batman V Superman, it seems pretty apparent that this is the result of unfortunate circumstances. Director Zack Snyder left the process following a real-life family tragedy, meaning that Joss Whedon (credited only as writer) picked up the reigns for apparently fairly extensive re-shoots. The problem here is that Snyder and Whedon both have their own distinct styles and the two simply don't gel. When the two styles combine, scenes become incredibly easy to tell apart based on who directed them, leaving the overall tone to become messier than a norovirus addled 2 year-old.

Character development is also found wanting. Where most of the Avengers got their own film to establish themselves prior to the big coming together, here 50% of our heroes got (at a maximum) 2 minutes of screen-time in BvS. In a film that needs to introduce so many different characters, the new additions just don't get the necessary time for us to develop much of an attachment. Ezra Miller's Flash becomes the one-liner guy and gets a little annoying at times. Ray Fisher's Cyborg is the serious straight-man, seemingly going for a Morpheus-style performance, but showing the personality of a broken radiator. Jason Momoa's Aquaman fares a little better, as they're willing to let the character show some different facets, but it's still not quite enough to get you properly pumped for his upcoming solo film. Momoa is fairly solid in the role though which, if you've seen Conan The Barbarian, will be deeply refreshing to hear.

The real let-down though is chief baddie Steppenwolf. This should be one of the best villains going and also one of the most devastating. He does feel threatening, but he ain't half generic. He arrives, he kicks ass, he promises to destroy everything, he leaves. Nothing he says feels overly different to any other villain you've seen and when looking to find an impact that will last over the franchise, you'll come up wanting. With an actor as good as Ciaran Hinds in the role, that becomes the film's biggest waste. As for his quest to find the Cubes of Cubery, or whatever it is they're calling those things... it all seems a little familiar.

We're not in complete dud territory with Justice League. Gal Gadot still makes for a fantastic Wonder Woman and (tonal problems aside) Whedon's touches do make for more than a handful of humorous moments. They're not enough to overshadow the problems though and it's all outweighed by a disappointing sense of failing to learn from past mistakes. Even things that previously worked no longer do. Ben Affleck, for example, seems bored in the role, as if he's still not got over the fact that more people wanted to talk about Batman than Live By Night. It's your own bloody fault for making a boring film, mate!

In the long run, it seems that Justice League will be remembered in a similar vein to its box office figures. There have been bigger disasters, but it still stings a fair bit.

FOUR out of 10

P.S. I know I didn't mention Henry Cavill's Superman, but after three films of blandness, it's becoming difficult to give a shit.

The Unsungs #2: Bone Tomahawk

In life, there are injustices. From the Hollywood blacklist to that time my sister deliberately waited until my own birthday to give birth to my nephew (and I'm supposed to be grateful that I get to share it with him!), sometimes things come along and laugh in your face. The same fate can be thrown at a film, as many great pieces of entertainment arrive and leave with all the impact of North Korean peace talks. Well, allow me to redress the balance and celebrate those films which deserve more attention than they've had.

The Unsungs #2

We're closing in on 15 years since the Saw franchise began, bringing with it an era of horror that basically said “Here's some gross stuff. Shove logical storytelling up your arse.” It was a bleak period for horror fans as we were left with very little other than cheap shock tactics and a heap of the red stuff. It wasn't just about the absence of true fear. There was so little to get invested in. It was all just a bit too...

So the idea of a horror western which once again explores all the disgusting things that can be done to the human body didn't exactly decorate me in anticipation. Throw in the fact that director S. Craig Zahler's past lies in making the sort of music that makes grandmothers weep and there was a whiff of the Rob Zombies about the place. I love Rob Zombie. I've seen him live many times. His films can do one.

Anyway, feel free to shoot me down for casting the sort of generalised assumptions that could turn me into the aftermath of Boris Johnson getting jiggy with an Oompa-Loompa...

(I found that after I wrote the joke)

...for I was very much in the wrong to assume that all purveyors of loud noise would make for bad filmmakers. This film is an absolute belter, provided you can stomach it.

The key to the film's success is that it very much prioritises its story and characters, working the grotty bits around it. Kurt Russell, Richard Jenkins, Matthew Fox and Patrick Wilson serve as the four men taking a joyful little romp into inadvisable territory. Their mission: rescue some of the locals from the hillside cannibals that plan to make them the centrepiece of their wholesome Sunday dinner.

All four of the leads have their distinct personalities, clear reasons for taking on the delightful task at their feet and motivations towards each other. This couples itself with dialogue that's razor-sharp with both wit and drama to create a four-way dynamic that's worth the price of admission alone (or the time it takes for you godless bastards to torrent it).

Whether you'll accept the violence depends on your own tolerance for that sort of thing. If you're a gore-hound, prepare to have your bloodlust satisfied. The film has a slightly canny way to it, opening with some pretty grim violence, but ensuring that it saves the best (worst?) for last meaning you'll always have something nastier to get through. It's not just the sights, but the pinpoint sound that makes for some truly disgusting scenes. If you're of a squeamish nature...

But as far as I'm concerned, sometimes cinema needs to be nasty. It needs to ruffle some feathers and offer those of a slightly depraved mind some respite from an industry that increasingly fears the 18 certificate. Bone Tomahawk is a nasty little film. And I love it for it.

NINE out of 10

The Mummy

It's taken me 2 weeks to write a review that I feel is publishable, mostly because I felt more like writing about the pizza I had afterwards. That is both an insult to the film and a complement to the pizza.

The Partially Educated Review

In 50 Words or Less: In a year that has already given us xXx 3 and Power Rangers, it is this that will most likely go down as the year's most generic action film.

---

Truth be told, I don't actually have much of a problem with Tom Cruise. Outside of the stain on cinema that is Top Gun (I'll deal with that another day), I can't think of any of his films that I harbour all that much of a dislike towards and when he's on form he produces bangers like Jerry Maguire and the Mission: Impossible franchise. I don't want to get stuck in a religion themed conversation with the guy, but I'm quite happy to sit down and watch one of his films.

The Mummy, though... It's a real misfire.

First off, this whole Dark Universe thing that Universal are trying to make into their juggernaut. It's obviously not going to work, particularly looking at the returns this film's (not) making. It was more than a little bit arrogant of them to start touting this as the franchise starter, as there was very little to suggest that this would have legs. Though Tom Cruise hasn't fallen from grace quite like, say, Johnny Depp (also set to become involved in the franchise; some solid business strategy there), he has fallen victim to the overall fall in box office returns and it's reached the point where his films have actively started to make a loss. Throw in the fact that The Mummy franchise hardly went out on a high-note last time around and you've got to assume that some mightily glowing reviews would have been needed to give this one a chance.

In qualitative terms, The Mummy isn't quite the disaster that some are declaring it to be. There's nothing to take it above average though. The action sequences are as close as it gets to actually giving us something of interest, but it does throw out its still lacking apex (Cruise once again doing something stupid in a plane) way too early, meaning the ones that follow feel like a whole load of nothing. Outside of those sequences is where the flaws really start to crawl out. The dialogue is particularly teeth grinding, showing about as much imagination as a Disney live-action division creative meeting.

It's not helped by actors who are known for being elevated by good material, rather than their ability to do that elevation themselves. Yes, that is partly aimed at Cruise, but Annabelle Wallis (chief sidekick) is considerably lacking in much of a presence, while Sofia Boutella's sarcophagus dweller mostly just moans like her death came about on the verge of climax and she's stuck in a continuous loop. Then we have Russell Crowe...

Now, I've said some nasty things about Russell Crowe's recent acting and they're not going to get any better here but, for the sake of balance, do go and read my review of The Nice Guys in which I was incredibly positive about him. When he's on form, I like him, but sweet merciful crap he's bad in this film. At points, he's bringing back the Man Of Steel gravitas which is always welcome.

However, the fact that he's playing Henry Jekyll would suggest there's going to be a little something extra to the character. There is, but we'd have all been better off if it had stayed contained. If you like defending Crowe against criticism over his frequent issues with ascribing to the less is more mentality, you might want to pretend this didn't happen. It's like he graduated from the Guy Ritchie School of Geezers with a 1^st Class PHD in Dick Van Dyke. Yes, it's even worse than this.

So The Mummy is definitely a misfire. To say that the most fun it gave me was with its frequent use of camel spiders as I sat next to a true arachnophobe is testament to how forgettable it is. As well as proof of my own enjoyment in the mild suffering of others.

FOUR out of 10

Pearl Harbor

May 21^st, 2001

On this day, Enron announced that it would no longer supply power to India. Rumour has it that many of their customers asked them to get on with it as Pearl Harbor was premiering in America that day and they wanted to avoid it reaching them.

The Partially Educated Review

There's a director's commentary somewhere (I think it's for The Rock) where Michael Bay talks of his admiration for James Cameron. He needn't have bothered telling us; Pearl Harbor makes it pretty obvious. The parallels between this and Titanic are so clear that it may as well be an official sequel with both being exceedingly long and dedicating less time to the titular event than they do to the love story at the centre of the narrative. Also, I'm sure it's a coincidence that Titanic “boasted” Celine Dion singing My Heart Will Go On and Pearl Harbor “boasted” Faith Hill singing There You'll Be; a song that was actually offered to Dion first.

Where they differ is that Titanic isn't quite as bad as some people would have you believe. Pearl Harbor is.

It's the timeless tale of two fighter pilots and one woman facing the great inconvenience of having their insipid love triangle interrupted by nearly 2500 people with the sheer gall to die and take away some of the attention. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett turn on the mope (and little else), while Kate Beckinsale looks beautiful. Let's face it, that's all a woman's expected to do in a Michael Bay film, but she does it very well.

That part of the story is where a lot of the criticism is thrown at Pearl Harbor and it's wholly deserved, but my main gripe lies elsewhere. The film is not without its moments that attempt to display the futility of war (sometimes successfully), but they are completely dogged down by a staunch good guys vs bad guys mentality. Now, I'm not about to start debating the heroism and bravery of the people who fought in conflicts such as this. We all know how well it goes down when a privileged millennial starts saying stuff like that.

However, when you present to me scenes of soldiers taking delight in the prospect of inflicting death on other people, I'm going to get a little irked. Not that I'm saying it may not have happened (it quite possibly did), but when I see the line “we're bombing Tokyo” be greeted with cheers and excitement, it can't just be me who thinks that's a little perverse. The best war films are those in which characters deal with the conflict between the horror of what they're doing and their sense of duty. This film has them pretty much revel in what they're going to do and it makes the characters so easy to dislike. I don't want to make this look like I'm saying Michael Bay thinks war is a good thing...

…as there's enough in Pearl Harbor to make it clear that isn't the case. However, those moments feel hollower than a brain donor's skull when they're coupled with scenes that completely contradict that. Likewise, the flashy spectacle and daredevil antics isn't particularly welcome either. Hartnett and Affleck's characters are incredibly guilty of this, as they move from one flashy manoeuvrer to the next, once again perpetuating the notion that this was a war won by two men and a couple of planes.

Pearl Harbor is a classic misfire. It's a tailor-made piece of Oscar bait that was so transparent it will forever dog Michael Bay's career. Even if the guy suddenly came into his own and made a truly magnificent piece of work, I genuinely feel like his past transgressions would dog him too much for it to receive any true accolades. Only one month to go till Transformers 5 though. You never know, the guy may surprise us.

THREE out of 10