The Northman - Movie Review - A beautifully brutal epic from Robert Eggers

Robert Eggers is one of the most interesting filmmakers of the last few years. The Witch and The Lighthouse, the two films he has made so far, are both films I have some reservations about, but are both wonderfully distinct and mesmerising experiences that leave you with much to think about and piece together. So, I was very excited to see not only a new film from him, but a medieval epic, something I absolutely love.

In The Northman, after witnessing his father's murder and his kingdom get overruled, the young prince Amleth sets out on a journey of revenge, in order to fulfill what he believes to be his fate. 

This film was amazing, and it was amazing for a number of reasons. Robert Eggers is almost like a modern day Shakespeare - he takes these concepts that are relatively simple on paper and manages to craft extremely mesmerising experiences around them that explore every ounce of their thematic potential. This was true for his last two films, and equally true for The Northman. For some of my discussion I am going to go into spoiler territory, so do not read ahead if you have not yet seen the film.

This is a story about a number of things, most fascinatingly of all, the questioning of the notion of 'fate'. Amleth, played very well by Alexander Skarsgård, begins very clearly on a path where he is destined to avenge the murder of his father by killing the man who murdered him, and for the longest time, it seems as if that is what he will end up doing. Even when he finds himself embracing his animalistic side and being barbaric towards others, he manages to correct his ways and set himself back on the path that would lead him to doing this. But, at one point, it seems as if this will not be the case. In attempting to get closer to his father's killer, he becomes a slave and meets a woman named Olga, played by the fabulous Anya Taylor-Joy, whose influence seems to send him along a different path; a path where he will have children of his own and continue his father's legacy. This raises the question: is life reducible to one's fate, or is there room for change as life goes on? The film implies that the latter is true at one point, as it seems Amleth will abandon his supposed fate and live a new life with Olga and their children. But, just when this seems true, the film reminds you of the simple times this film takes place in; a time when fate was what defined someone, as Amleth leaves Olga in order to avenge his father. In the end, after a breathtaking final battle, he successfully achieves this by killing his father's murderer, but only to die in doing so, making it clear that perhaps all there is to life is a destiny that one will inevitably fulfill. This idea and all the steps along the way to build it made the film such an enaging and thought-provoking watch. 

All this thematic wonder is presented in such spectacular ways. The cinematography is so full of life and captures the scope of this story, with the huge landscapes and vast seas truly feeling as big as they are. The score is pulse-pounding and enchances the brutality on display excellently. There are visuals that are completely memorable, whether it be all the intense, bloody action, or the haunting faces around a fire, or the two damaged men fighting to the death amid lakes of lava. Almost everything about this film had me transfixed and in awe. 

With all that being said, I have a key issue with the film, and that is the overall nature. While the utter brutality of the film and its willingness to completely emphasise every ounce of pain / shock certainly created a stellar atmosphere, it does make the film a tough watch. It is quite difficult to endure and it takes its time to let every aspect be properly understood / explored. However, this is at a small cost as I'm glad the film didn't play it safe and was daring enough to be as intense as it was, and parts of this did truly make it enthralling. 

I think some people may get the wrong impression of what this film is from some of the marketing, the idea that this is "This generation's Gladiator" is quite misleading. Gladiator does have thematic and narrative parallels to this film but it is a tonally different watch - it feels more like a crowd-pleasing film with an undeniably likeable protagonist and features more sumptuous visuals due to the time period it takes place in. The Northman is far less accessible and goes further in its portrayals of some of the more shocking aspects of this sort of story than Gladiator does. 

Overall, I loved The Northman. While it is a tough film to sit through and can certainly be quite overwhelming it brings so much to the table with its excellent themes and ideas as well as its masterful filmmaking. Robert Eggers continues to prove that he's a hugely talented writer and director, and I can't wait to see what he does next. 

I'm going to give The Northman an 8.5/10

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore - Movie Review - The magic might be starting to fade

J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World is one of the most popular and well-known franchises of all time. I'm not a massive fan of it but I've seen all the films and enjoy them all, not least Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. This spin-off of the Harry Potter franchise is terrific; a film that works for me because it limits its ties to this universe to function as its own simple, enjoyable, standalone adventure with great characters and extremely fun creatures. Even though it takes place in the Wizarding World, it can easily be enjoyed by very lukewarm fans, myself included. It also isn't really a film that I think warrants sequels, especially not four. The Crimes of Grindelwald is a perfectly enjoyable film, but feels quite narratively muddled as it tries to link the characters of the first film to narratives more closely associated with Potter. Now, we have The Secrets of Dumbledore, and I didn't really know what to expect from this entry, but I assumed it'd likely be on a similar wavelength. 

In the film, Newt Scamander, along with Jacob Kowalski, Albus Dumbledore, and his suitcase full of magical creatures, continue their pursuit and fight against Gellert Grindelwald as his influence throughout the Wizarding World continues to grow.

While the previous film in this series probably had a bit too much going on for its own good, this film suffers on the opposite end of the spectrum by having far too little going on, as you may have inferred from that plot summary. This is your typical filler film, as basically nothing of note happens throughout and it feels as if nothing new has been accomplished by the end. As a result, it can be quite boring at times as it just feels like nothing but padding. Between this and The Crimes of Grindelwald, I feel there's about enough content for a single film; the last one ended on a cliffhanger, and it feels like this is just what should've been the final act of that film extended to be feature length. 

J.K. Rowling is undeniably a talented world-builder and has great ideas for stories and characters, and I don't really think she's that bad a screenwriter either. What weakens her storytelling abilities is likely the mindset that what's being told needs to go on for as long as possible, as she's clearly aware that the Wizarding World is a lucrative property and thus wants to capitalise on that by taking this new story and extending it beyond the point of necessity. If she was more efficient with her storytelling, then I think the second and third films in the Fantastic Beasts series probably could've been condensed into one solid entry. 

The downside to this headspace Rowling is most likely in is the fact that the result is multiple films that feel either incomplete, or padded, or both. I understand that it can ensure a greater profit being made, but I also feel it can have the reverse effect. While dedicated fans will no doubt sit through hours of filler to the very end, general audiences may well pick up on the trend of these last two sequels and assume that whatever comes next will be equally dull and uninteresting, thus checking out of the series and not returning, which could be detrimental. If she just told the story of this franchise as concisely and efficiently as possible, at most forming a trilogy (keep in mind I don't know what the supposed fourth and fifth entries will consist of but I imagine will also be a single film stretched into two), then not only would the films be better off, but that fact would spawn positive word of mouth and maybe lead to solid success.

Okay, so the film overall is quite padded and uneventful, but does that mean its terrible? No. Despite its pacing issues, The Secrets of Dumbledore still has much to enjoy. Unsurprisingly, the titular fantastic beasts themselves are the best part of the film, even if they're slowly getting sidelined in a series named after them. Niffler and Pickett are back and still as fun as they were before, and there are some entertaining new additions, including these scorpion-like creatures, which lead to a funny sequence where Newt mimmicks their movements around a cave. The performances are also still great all round, with Eddie Redmayne, Dan Fogler, and Jude Law reprising their roles very well, despite the fact that their characters are hardly developed. The obvious standout, however, is Mads Mikkelsen, who replaces Johnny Depp as Grindelwald and makes the character far more menacing than he was before. There are also some well crafted set pieces, such as the afore mentioned scene with the scorpion creatures, various wand duels, and a climax that is very creatively set-up, as well as taking the Wizarding World to new locations. These factors all made the film passable while it was on, but unfortunately weren't enough to completely salvage it. 

As a whole, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore is a fine watch, but nothing special. It has many of the good attributes of that great first film and the previous entry, but its highly uneventful and padded nature make it a fairly dull watch. This will certainly be the one, and hopefully only, film in the series that is looked back on as the skippable load of filler, with its closest relative in the Harry Potter series being The Deathly Hallows Part 1. I'm not sure if I'd rank it lower than The Crimes of Grindelwald, but the fact that stuff actually happened in that film, even if much of it is contrived and overstuffed, makes it slightly more attractive. This was nothing awful, but nothing awfully good either.

I'm going to give Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore a 6.0/10

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 - Movie Review - As much zany fun as it ought to be

Sonic the Hedgehog was one of the last big releases to come to cinemas before COVID struck. I didn't catch it during its short yet successful theatrical run, but I did see it on Netflix a few months ago, and it wasn't too bad. I'm not a massive Sonic fan, the only game featuring him that I remember playing as a kid is Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games on the Wii as well as maybe a few others, but the movie was still a perfectly servicable time. Quite generic and maybe a bit tiring, but still fun in parts. As it managed to perform pretty well, it was only a matter of time before we got more Sonic on the screen, and after hearing some good things about this sequel, I decided it might be worth a watch. 

In the film, Dr Robotnik and his new ally, Knuckles, are on a journey to recover a powerful item known as the Master Emerald. So, Sonic, along with a new companion, Tails, must beat them to it to prevent them from causing chaos. 

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was a ton of fun, far more so than its predecessor, and I think this is due to a few things. The main thing is that the antics in this film are far more in line with what a Sonic film ought to entail. As I said, I'm not the biggest fan of this character, but even I could recognise that the first film was just your typical movie where a popular character is given the realistic CGI treatment and shoved into the real world, and the main character just happened to be Sonic. This feels much more like an adventure out of a Sonic the Hedgehog video game, and that instantly made this one more engaging. There were plenty of solid set pieces and the action was consistently exciting.

The new additions are also really enjoyable. Knuckles, voiced to perfection by Idris Elba, was really entertaining, and Tails was a really endearing sidekick too. Watching these two alongside Sonic had a certain charm to it, and I really liked that. The returning characters remained enjoyable as well, with Sonic still being a likeable protagonist, and Jim Carrey as Robotnik being extremely fun to watch, and even more so in this film than the first as his appearance is made more wacky and closer to the source material.

Some big issues I have with the film are the pace and the story structure. At one point, the plot kind of screeches to a hault as a sub-plot involving a wedding with the human characters is given far too much focus, with jokes that weren't even funny enough to make up for that fact. The film is also just too long in general; by the third act I felt I'd had enough even though what was going on was still fine, it just felt like it was meandering on at that point. But, to be honest, those are really my only problems with this film. 

While nothing amazing, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was just as fun as it needed to be. It may be a bit too long and a tad messy but it's a big step up from the original film by having a far more interesting series of events and well realised characters. I doubt I'll be watching it again any time soon, but I certainly wouldn't mind sitting down and having fun with it again, and I'll also happily watch any inevitable further sequels if they're on the same level of quality. 

I'm going to give Sonic the Hedgehog 2 a 7.0/10

Morbius - Movie Review - A morbid misfire

Spider-Man: No Way Home came out just over three months ago and it was absolutely phenomenal. Everyone has sung its praises, myself included, and only now is the dust around it beginning to settle. So, with that in mind, it's about time the next Marvel outings see their releases, isn't it? Marvel Studios have taken somewhat of a break since No Way Home, only now just getting started once again with the gradual release of their new show, Moon Knight, and their next film, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, releasing in just over a month. However, also releasing their new Marvel outing at this time, that being Morbius, is Sony, who have lately been trying to replicate Marvel's success with their own Spider-Man cinematic universe. I really wasn't excited for this film, but I thought it may be worth going to see it, similarly to how I thought Venom: Let There Be Carnage from last year may be worth going to see despite very minimal anticipation. 

One thing that occurred to me was all the delays this film received. Of course, its initial July 2020 release as well as some of the subsequent ones had to be pushed back due to COVID closing cinemas down, but it felt like they kept postponing it even when the virus wasn't much of a concern. I mean, at one point it was scheduled to release in late January, a time when cinemas were doing great business thanks in no small part to No Way Home releasing a month prior, yet it got delayed once again to now, the start of April. I suspect Sony were wary that the hype around No Way Home would still be quite formidable around that time, which it was, and thus thought best to push the release back so Morbius wouldn't get stuck in Spidey's shadow. Based on that, maybe this film is something special and the filmmakers thought it deserved the absolute best release window. Maybe, right?

In the film, Dr Michael Morbius is a renowned scientist with a rare blood condition. After spending his whole life searching for a cure, he soon finds something that may actually be what he's been looking for. However, it ends up making things worse for him as he soon acquires the characteristics of a vampire bat, most significantly having the horrific desire to consume blood, turning him into a murderous monster.

The major problem with this film is that it just borrows from every other superhero film we've seen to the point where it feels it doesn't have a single original aspect outside of the main character being one we haven't seen on screen before. The plot just trudges through the typical motions; the main character with a conflict of sorts, the inciting incident giving them a set of powers, a montage where they come to grips with said new powers, then an action scene or two where these powers are exercised, and, of course, a baddie who acquires the same set of powers but uses them in bad ways, resulting in a final battle where two characters with the same set of abilities punch it out until the good one wins. Sorry if that's spoiled the film for you, but if you couldn't see any of this coming, I really don't know what to say. Narratively, this film offered absolutely nothing. It was so predictable and thus such a boring experience. 

What's irritating about this is the fact there is an interesting story buried in here somewhere. The film highlights how Morbius is put into a position where he will eventually have to consume human blood in order to stay alive, which is actually quite a fascinating dilemma, and I think you could derive some very compelling drama from it. However, this isn't Avengers: Infinity War, or Spider-Man 2, or The Dark Knight, that being a superhero film that manages to properly explore the themes and conflicts associated with the main characters while also being a fun and exciting watch - this just raises the questions and moves onto some action scenes and extensions of its cinematic universe, so the attributes that could make for a really intriguing film are just plainly abandoned.

Speaking of action scenes, they're the sort of thing you'd expect to be at least passable in a film of this nature. For example, I'm not such a big fan of films like Venom or Captain Marvel, but they do at least have a couple of noteworthy action scenes to keep themselves afloat amid their rather flimsy narratives. Here, however, they're actually quite incompetent; just a load of ugly CGI combined with an excess of shaky cam and that effect from 300 where what's happening goes from normal speed to slow motion in quick succession, so nothing especially engaging. There's some mildly interesting stuff when we see Morbius harnessing the abilities of a bat such as echolocation, but most of it was just incomprehensible and hardly enjoyable unfortunately.

Is there anything good about the film? Not especially, but there are certainly things that aren't bad. The performances were all fine, albeit nothing outstanding. Jared Leto, who I don't really think is that good an actor, was perfectly adequate in the lead role, and nothing more. I guess he looks the part, but that's about it. Matt Smith was equally fine as the villain, and Tyrese Gibson was actually fairly enjoyable, though that can entirely be attributed to the fact that I just find him innately likeable. I suppose one thing I can praise the film for is its runtime. It's about fifteen minutes short of two hours, which is fairly short compared to other superhero movies. The pacing itself isn't great but at least the film doesn't outstay its welcome. Also, being a new entry in a big cinematic universe, there are a couple of scenes during the credits to hint at what's coming next. I won't spoil what happens in these scenes, but they were moderately intriguing, and actually managed to clear up some confusion I had from the trailers I saw for this film, so that's something I suppose.

One final thing I'll note is an extremely personal factor, and that is the role of bats in this film. Bats are the single thing in the world that I am scared of the most; not because I'm scared they'll suck my blood and kill me or whatever, but because they just look absolutely horrible. So, this film, which features a frankly extortionate amount of bats on screen in great detail, more so than every film I've seen about a character literally called 'Batman', was absolutely nightmarish for me, and I had to look away on numerous occasions. This alone made the viewing experience quite unpleasant, though it is, as I said, a highly personal factor. 

Overall, Morbius is a dictionary definition of mediocre. It's so average, so bland, and so ordinary, that I felt I just got absolutely nothing out of watching it. It isn't dreadful enough for me to hate it and I'm certainly not disappointed by the way it's turned out, but it's still boring and bland. All I can say is that maybe it was delayed as much as it was because the filmmakers wanted to keep it away from us for as long as they could before there wasn't enough room left on the shelf that it'd been sat on for nearly two years. 

I'm going to give Morbius a 4.5/10 

Turning Red - Movie Review - Something new and different buried in familiarity

We all know Pixar, and I think it's safe to say we all love them. Despite this, their newest film, Turning Red, is not one I was particularly hopeful for. From the trailers, this film just looked annoying and very predictable to me. But, it's a Pixar film and it got some very positive reactions, so even though I was still cautious, I had some hope that this may turn out to be something up to their usual standard.

The plot involves a confident young girl named Mei in her teenage years who gets her whole life turned upside down as she obtains the strange tendency to turn into a giant red panda whenever she gets excited. After initially being resentful of this, it soon brings out a side in her that she and her friends start to like.

This film is extremely frustrating. Not just because of the fact that my concerns were completely accurate, but because I can also easily detect a better film within this. This is a coming-of-age story, and to me, the best coming-of-age stories are the ones that just depict life in a way that's completely down-to-earth and thus relatable for the audience. For example, films like Lady Bird or Booksmart, which are enjoyable because of, among other things, how we can easily understand the drama at hand because of how realistically it's depicted and how well defined the characters are. Turning Red has all the attributes of a film like this, as it has very well realised and relatable characters and plays with very human themes. But, what it also has on top of that is a thoroughly unique and beautiful aesthetic with its animation, thus feeling more in line with a slice-of-life Studio Ghibli film such as Only Yesterday or Whisper of the Heart. Based on this, it could have easily been Pixar's equivalent of one of those films, which I would've loved because not only is it the sort of film I find a nice enjoyment in, but it'd also be a nice change of pace for them as a studio. 

However, all this is completely let down by the execution. Turning Red goes about conveying its themes with the implementation of fantastical plot elements, namely having its protagonist transforming into a giant red panda. This is frustrating because it strips the film of the down-to-earth, almost indie style it could've easily had and gives it a far more accessible, mainstream, and childish sensibility. This is made so much worse by the fact that there are individual moments throughout where it behaves as this superior type of film, whether it be Mei just chilling with her friends and getting excited about seeing their favourite band, or her father sitting down and having a heart-to-heart conversation with her. I loved those moments but their integrity is spoiled by the way the film is elsewhere.

I kind of have similar issues with Pixar's other recent films, Soul and Luca. Those also feel like very neat slice-of-life films augmented by silly fantastical nonsense, however, they don't suffer as much as Turning Red does. I find enjoyment in the creativity behind the way Soul's story is made more otherworldly, and it also deals with bigger and more novel themes overall, which makes it more praiseworthy. As for Luca, the fantastical stuff in that film doesn't weigh it down so much, as the fact that the main characters are sea monsters, despite always being an underlying fact, becomes a lesser focus in certain chunks of the film's narrative, allowing those parts to feel nice and down-to-earth. Here, the magical stuff is highly prominent and it doesn't help that the narrative is as predictable as the trailers made it seem. 

You might be asking what's wrong with a film having fantastical elements and using them to tell a story, and to be honest, there's not an awful lot that is. But here I certainly feel it was the wrong choice. Sure, it makes the story more understandable and more enjoyable for kids, but this film makes it clear that it's going for a slightly older audience than five-year-olds who want to see big red pandas jumping about. At age thirteen (the age of the protagonist), you start to feel a little uncomfortable and immature watching animated films, as the stigma is that they are for youngsters. With that in mind, if you're trying to appeal to that audience, why treat them like they're super young and enforce that stigma? I'm sure your average thirteen-year-old would enjoy watching characters experiencing relatable situations more than watching these situations get dumbed-down and made more childish. It's easy for me to say that as an eighteen-year-old but even I think I would've been deterred from watching this movie as a young teenager, outside of my love for Pixar.

But that's not where all my issues end, as this film also has a frankly obnoxious nature. It's so hyperactive and energetic to the point where I just found it downright cringeworthy and exhausting. The main character herself is just plainly irritating as well, and what's perhaps most bizarre is that it doesn't feel like she explicitly grows much as a character over the course of the narrative; the way she is at the start is hardly distinguishable from the way she is at the end, making the growth experienced feel so ill-defined.

My oh my that's a lot of negativity, is there anything good about this film? Well, yes, there certainly is. As mentioned, there are individual moments of genuine, human character interaction that I loved, and they kept me engaged while the film failed to do so elsewhere. Also, aside from Mei, I loved lots of the characters. Her friends were all awesome, especially Priya, whose extremely deadpan reactions to almost everything that happens was just delightful, and Abby, who feels like a character straight out of a Ghibli movie with a wonderfully expressive design and the appropriate amount of unbridled, naïve energy. Mei's Dad was also really enjoyable as he just felt like such an accurate depiction of a Dad, and I can't really explain why, he just does, and I love that. Additionally, the animation is wonderful as usual. The setting of Toronto is very well presented and the characters all have a terrific design with such a unique and memorable style. 

So, Turning Red has a lot going for it, and when watching it, I can detect all the attributes of a great film. It could've been Pixar's Only Yesterday or Whisper of the Heart, but the factors that would make it so are buried in a load of on the nose and childish nonsense. I can't say I'm that disappointed as my expectations were about as low as you could get, but seeing just how close it came to being something special and different for Pixar standards does make me kind of feel that way. It's not their worst film, I doubt they'll ever make anything worse than Brave or Cars 2, but it's definitive proof that, as a studio, they will always be restrained by a need to appeal to young children and have an overall mainstream nature, and this is becoming increasingly detrimental to their recent works. 

I'm going to give Turning Red a 6.0/10

Anyway, looking to the future, I'd say I'm still somewhat optimistic for Pixar. Lightyear, their second film this year, looks like it may actually break away from these restraints in some ways. Tonally, it looks more in line with a Marvel or Star Wars movie than something by Pixar; not necessarily adult or anything but also not directly for children. Also, it's a Buzz Lightyear origin story starring Chris Evans, how can it not be a banger? Let's wait and see, and let's also hope that it gets released in cinemas and not dumped onto Disney+ like all thier recent films.

The Batman - Movie Review - Another Batman, but unlike any we've seen before

When it comes to Batman in film, I'm rather unfamiliar. I've only seen the Nolan Dark Knight films, all of which are excellent, and The Lego Batman Movie, which is also great but for completely different reasons. I've never seen the original from 1966, the Tim Burton films, the Schumacher films, or the recent DCEU ones with Ben Affleck. Despite this, I love Batman nonetheless; he's definitely one of my favourite fictional characters of all time, even if I'm not especially adversed in the many adaptations of him. So, of course I was keen to see the next iteration of the character with Robert Pattinson. 

Even though I was keen to see this film, I had some concerns. From what I saw in the trailers, I couldn't help but get the sense that this film was going to just retread familiar ground in terms of themes and tone when it comes to Batman. There have been so many versions of this character and I was struggling to think of how they could possibly keep any new version fresh. But, it still looked absolutely spectacular, so I was hopeful it'd at least be a great film.

I frankly couldn't have been more wrong. The Batman is a thoroughly distinct take on the character in almost every way. Tonally, it's what people tend to refer to as 'dark and gritty'. This is also a term that defines the Nolan Batman movies, but I think the use of it in reference to those is somewhat misjudged. To me, those films are simply Batman films that take place in the real world; they're very grounded in reality in many areas. Here, while this also feels as if it takes place in reality, it is the epitome of the phrase 'dark and gritty' - it has extremely violent and brutal elements, and is visually almost always bleak. As a result, from a tonal standpoint, it doesn't feel repetitive compared to previous Batman films. 

The same can be said for many other aspects of the film. The genre doesn't really feel like a superhero film or even an action film, it's a mystery thriller, in the same vein as something like Se7en or Zodiac. It's basically a detective movie that just happens to feature Batman and some of his iconic foes and associates. Aesthetically, as already mentioned, it's very dreary, with an abundance of rain and minimal lighting, creating an excellent atmosphere for this type of story. The direction from Matt Reeves is also very distinct and extremely graceful. So much of the imagery in the film is so memorable. I can't discuss some of the specifics of these without getting into spoilers, but there are many images that perfectly scream hopefulness as well as terror, and they were just beautiful. Additionally, there's a car chase in the middle of the film that's admittedly fairly commonplace for the most part but reaches a catharsis that had me transfixed. I can safely say I won't be forgetting it any time soon. Most blatantly, the music is unlike any Batman score we've heard in the past. It's chilling yet exciting and nerve-racking, and also utterly memorable. It's amazing that, despite Batman being associated with so many iconic themes by a variety of artists, this new one manages to feel as definitive as it does.

The only area where I did feel like the film wasn't going anywhere especially new was in its themes. A lot of the thematic elements of the film touch upon similar ideas to the Dark Knight trilogy in terms of fear, corruption, and hope. They were all very well explored and given enough variation, but I did notice the familiarity here more so than with any other parts of the film.

As you will probably expect, the performances are terrific. Robert Pattinson was brilliant in the lead; much like every other aspect of the film, his version of Bruce Wayne is very unique. He's not the charming, suave, likeable billionaire we've seen before, he's solemn and almost sociopathic based on his mannerisms and interactions with other characters, which was refreshing to see. His version of Batman wasn't anything especially new but did certainly strike me as more intimidating than any previous verison. The opening scenes of him alone cemented this. Jeffrey Wright gives a solid performance as James Gordon (he's always great), and Andy Serkis was wonderful as Alfred, surprisingly so, but he was very underused unfortunately, though there is only so much you can do with that character I suppose. As for the villains, Paul Dano is genuinely terrifying as the Riddler, continuing to prove what a talented performer he is, and Colin Farrell gives an energetic and completely unrecognisable performance as Penguin. 

There aren't many major issues with the film, but the runtime certainly was one of them. I definitely felt I was sat watching the film for three hours, unlike many others who have claimed the film went by swiftly. While it didn't necessarily drag, it did occur to me that the plot seemed to be going on and on and that it might have benefitted from being truncated in some places. I like the nature of the film as a slow burn, so I don't think a faster pace would've been better, I just think chunks of the story where it somewhat goes in circles could've been omitted to create a tighter, more succinct film. Additionally, parts of the film were unfortunately just plainly dull, but there was always enough going on that was interesting to keep me engaged and keen to see what'd happen next. Regardless of this, the film manages to come to a perfect conclusion that leaves you both satisfied with what you have while also being desperate for more, just like the Nolan movies were each able to, and that was awesome. 

All things considered, The Batman was pretty damn great. I don't think I like it as much as the Nolan movies but its existence is undoubtedly justified through the masterfully distinct ways it reinterprets the caped crusader. I have a suspicion it'll improve the more I watch it as it does offer a lot and I don't think the single viewing I've had has allowed me to sufficiently comprehend each and every aspect. Just time spent reflecting on the film after watching it and writing this review has already elevated it in my head, so further viewings will likely do the same. If there is one more thing left to be said, it's that modern DC have cracked the code on making great movies - putting 'the' in the title. They did it with The Suicide Squad, and now with The Batman. Here's to more definite articles in DC movie titles.

I'm going to give The Batman an 8.0/10

Death on the Nile - Movie Review - Return of the glorious moustache

Kenneth Branagh is a filmmaker you've probably heard a fair deal about lately, as his relatively new film, Belfast, has been met with numerous nominations at all the big awards ceremony and will, presumably, be the winner of many too. However, the release of this film and all the discussion sparked a different thought in my mind, that being me remembering that we're still yet to see his second round as Hercule Poirot in Death on the Nile. This is another one of those films that saw an extreme delay in its release due to the pandemic, and I think it's probably the last of the initial bunch to finally hit the big screen. I may well be forgetting something, but we'll find out whether that's the case as the year goes on. 

I wasn't highly anticipating this film, but I was still very keen to see it. Murder on the Orient Express from 2017 was a film I enjoyed, albeit one I haven't revisited since seeing it in the cinema all those years ago. One thing I distinctly remember was Kenneth Branagh, who not only directed the film, playing Poirot with an absolutely bonkers moustache, which combined with his scenery-chewing take on the character all the more entertaining. Additionally, I always enjoy a murder mystery, so I feel there was plenty convincing me to go out and catch this. 

In the film, Hercule Poirot's holiday in Egypt is disrupted as he accompanies a newlywed couple on a private river cruise along the Nile. Things get worse and his detective skills are put to the test when a passenger on board is killed and the murderer needs to be identified. 

Like before, the best part of the film is Branagh. He's just so much damn fun as Poirot and he has some really hilarious lines, so seeing him navigate another mystery was inherently enjoyable. Additionally, he's once again accompanied by a solid ensemble. The standout for me was Emma Mackey as Jacqueline de Bellefort; I always enjoyed her as Maeve in Sex Education, and it's really nice to see her have such a prominent role in a big film like this. I really hope this gives way for more great stuff from her. 

Much of the film was well crafted; the production design and costumes were all very slick and made the film visually pleasing, though I do think it relied a little too much on noticeable CGI and green screen a lot of the time. Watching the film so close to Branagh's Belfast has made me realise just how distinct all his films are. It may well just be me, but I feel there's little cohesion across his filmography as a director. If you put Thor, a big-budget Marvel movie, Cinderella, a live-action Disney remake, Belfast, a black and white indie drama, and this film along with Murder on the Orient Express in a room together, I'd have a hard time telling you they were all helmed by the same person. I suppose they're all very slick and stylish from a production standpoint, but that's sort of where it ends for me. 

Narratively, parts of it did drag a bit. I feel like it took a little while to properly get going, as the plot isn't set in motion until around the forty-five minute or maybe even the one hour mark, which made much of the first and part of the second act a little dull. Additionally, once the main part of the plot is set in motion, it does feel repetitive in places as it goes through the usual whodunnit structure of going from one suspect to another and analysing their motives, which kept the film from being completely engaging. However, I was always interested overall as the general prospect of finding out how the intricate plot has panned out was enough for me despite the sections where I somewhat zoned out. I did enjoy the plot and thought it was quite unpredictable, though that's probably more to the credit of Agatha Christie's original book, which I haven't read, than it is to the film.

As a whole, I enjoyed Death on the Nile. It isn't the most engaging film but Kenneth Branagh being back in this role was a delight and everything around him was executed sufficiently. So, I had a good time. I can't really say if it's any better / worse than Murder on the Orient Express as it's been so long since I saw that film, but from what I remember, this is about on the same level of quality, so if you enjoyed that film, then I'd recommend this, but if you didn't, I doubt this will do much for you.

I'm going to give Death on the Nile a 7.0/10