Justice League (2017) Review

"No protectors here. No Lanterns. No Kryptonian. This world will fall, like all the others." - Steppenwolf

It's fair to say that DC has been something of a polarising figure in the world of cinema recently. Whilst critics have bashed every entry in the DCEU (aside from Wonder Woman's solo outing earlier this year), hardcore fans have been quick to leap to it's defence. As someone not well-up on all the DC lore, this superhero universe has been a mixed bag for me. I enjoyed Man of Steel (2013) and thought Suicide Squad (2016) was entertaining enough, whereas Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) was the worst blockbuster I'd seen in years and Wonder Woman was overrated. Now comes the film that brings all the heroes together, DC's answer to Marvel's Avengers: Justice League.

With a new threat arriving to invade Earth in the guise of Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds) and his army of bug-like demons, Batman (Ben Affleck) recruits old comrade Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to form a new team of heroes. Seeking "people with special abilities", the wise-cracking Flash (Ezra Miller), loner Aquaman (Jason Momoa) and technologically advanced Cyborg (Ray Fisher) come together to save the day. But with Steppenwolf's threat continually amplified by the mysterious Mother Boxes, Bruce Wayne contemplates a dangerous new plan to revive Superman (Henry Cavill), with no guarantee that he'll be willing to fight alongside them...

Zack Snyder returns to the director's chair for the third time in the series, with Avengers director Joss Whedon brought in to oversee re-shoots after a family tragedy meant Snyder had to hand over the reigns. The result of these two very different directorial styles controlling the project is evident throughout Justice League. While it's not as jarring as other critics have pointed out, you still can't help but notice when a re-shot scene makes its appearance. Whedon has taken Snyder's grim and brooding look and injected some life and colour, which I felt worked in the film's favour. The original trailer had a similar look to Batman v Superman, but Whedon's focus on lighter character interactions and brightening up the film's murkier looking moments makes Justice League a much more pleasurable experience. I really admire Snyder's focus on creating dynamic imagery, but Batman v Superman proved that too much grimness with no levity makes for a dull sit through. Here's hoping Whedon's style has an effect on how Snyder approaches the rest of the series, as I have no doubt he'll return to direct future entries.

But if there's one thing Justice League absolutely had to get right, its the believable alliance and interactions of the six heroes. Ben Affleck returns as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and we spend most of the film with him and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman assembling the team. Whilst Affleck's portrayal of the caped crusader was easily the highlight of Batman v Superman, he is outshone by the brilliant Gal Gadot here. Her charisma and likeability makes her prefect for the role of Wonder Woman. Whilst I thought her solo film was highly overpraised, she shone as a great lead character and actress, which she further proves in Justice League. The conversations between Bruce and Diana form the moral dilemma and drama within the team, with both equally strong enough to lead but divided by the thought of bringing Superman back to the fight. These scenes were well handled in my opinion, as the two actors are able to make the dialogue work and the performances are allowed to take centre stage.

Joining forces with Bruce and Diana are three new comrades: Barry Allen, Arthur Curry and Victor Stone. As the youngest member of the team, much of the film's quirky moments are given to Allen, who claims that he's no fighter and that all he's done as the Flash is "just pushed people, then run away". Almost every line he has is some sort of jibe, and that means not every joke is nearly as funny as it intends to be. Whilst there are some amusing moments, there's also plenty of awkward lines that make the character a little grating at times. The total opposite to this is Ray Fisher's Stone/Cyborg, who has no comedic one-liners and out broods the rest of the cast. Not even Batman is as moody as this guy and, like Allen and Curry, his backstory is very rushed. There is a nice bit of casting though with his father, who's played by Joe Morton in an obvious nod to Morton's role in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). Arthur Curry aka Aquaman falls somewhere in-between the personalities of the Flash and Cyborg. He has a few one-liners here and there, but is also the most reluctant to join the team, accentuating his status as a loner. Jason Momoa is a lot of fun in this role, balancing the two sides to the character well, making Aquaman my favourite of the three new heroes.

Whilst there's enjoyment to be had on the side of the heroes, the same can't be said for the villain. Steppenwolf joins a long list of bad guys in comic book films that are totally one-dimensional and forgettable. He's another "take over the world" type baddie, and never challenges the Justice League in a more interesting way than that. He has no personal connections to any of the characters, and so there is no internal struggle that the heroes have to overcome, which doesn't make the encounters with him all that thrilling. When the action scenes arrive, they do at least show how powerful he is, meaning that it takes all of the League's effort and will to bring him down. That is until Superman shows up and promptly ends the fight swiftly, devoid of any drama. I get that in a film that has all these heroes teaming up, the logical decision would be to give them an opponent on a world-threatening scale, but I wish it could be done in a more interesting manner than just having the villain show up out-of-the-blue and not having any established character.

There's a handful of silly moments that stand out for me, as well as some plot points that are just baffling. For a start, Batman wants to bring back Superman to fight Steppenwolf, as he feels he's the only one capable of being a match for him. Yet in the previous film, Superman lost in a fight to Batman himself and was then killed by a demonic character similar to Steppenwolf, Doomsday. So if he can't even beat Batman or defeat Doomsday with the help of Batman and Wonder Woman, why is he suddenly the only hope of saving the day now? The film isn't exactly aided by the events of Batman v Superman, as having Superman die at the end of that film and to bring him back so soon means there is no impact of killing him off in the first place. It should be a joyous moment seeing Superman return, but we've not been without him long at all. Other than Suicide Squad, which focused entirely on the villains, this is the only DCEU film that takes place after BvS. Why kill him off when you're going to bring him back so soon? Then there's the films head-smackingly dumb moments, such as Steppenwolf acquiring the final Mother Box all because the League were looking the other way! He just swoops down and takes it, without having to put up a fight, which would make me wonder if I could give the Avengers a call to help solve the problem due to the League's incompetence. I can also credit the film for having the most un-Batman moment for the character to date on film (excluding everything in 1997's Batman & Robin), which is when he has a big, goofy smile on his face when Superman shows up to win the fight.

Whilst there is a clash of director styles and quite a bit to make fun of, Justice League at least injects some fun and spectacle back into it's characters. It won't win over any new fans, especially film-goers who love what Marvel have been doing, but as someone not clued-up with all the DC lore, I found the film to be an enjoyable two hour ride. There are obvious weak-spots with some characters and plot points, but it captures the feel of a comic book come to life better than BvS and the inevitable sequel has some good ground to take this superhero team to the next level. I look forward to seeing what's next for this team, even if most are perhaps unwilling to bother. With Marvel's continual dominance at the box-office and with critics, I don't think the DCEU will ever catch up. However, if they continue to serve up entertaining romps like this, I'll be there for whatever silliness they throw my way.

Deathstalker II: Duel of the Titans (1987) Review

"I'll have my revenge, and Deathstalker too!" - Sultana.

Immediately following the above line of dialogue emerges the title "Deathstalker II: Duel of the Titans" through the flames. This hilarious reveal lets you know you are in for one hell of a ride, and a film that has become a staple of the "so bad it's good" genre. Following on from the 1983 original (reviewed on this blog last year), Deathstalker II fully embraces it's cheesy sword-and-sorcery setting and features all the elements that make a film like this so enjoyably bad. Like I did with the original film, I won't delve deep into the plot or anything else that could be open for heavy criticism. Instead, I'll take a look at the characters and bizarre moments in order to demonstrate why Deathstalker II is one of the best bad films ever made.

After her kingdom is seized by the ruthless Jarek (John Lazar), Princess Evie (Monique Gabrielle) seeks the help of the renowned adventurer known only as Deathstalker (John Terlesky). With Princess Evie's help (posing as Reena the Seer), Deathstalker must overcome many dangers, including Jarek's accomplice Sultana (Toni Naples) and an evil clone of Evie in order to win back her kingdom. Through a variety of crazy set-pieces and stock footage, this mismatched pairing must learn to get along if they are to save the day, that is if the bickering between the villains doesn't get the job done for them!

The first thing that's immediately obvious is the recasting of the lead role. John Terlesky looks nothing like the muscle-bound Rick Hill from the original, and is given even cheesier lines of dialogue to say. Given the stark contrast in appearance, Deathstalker is written here as more of a swashbuckling adventurer than an emotionless brute, and that makes him more enjoyable to watch as Terlesky fools around and has fun in the role. He seems very self aware that he's in a mad genre film, and he plays this up brilliantly throughout, with plenty of over-the-top facial expressions and confident delivery of his lines. Terlesky played a key-role behind the scenes, too, choreographing the final sword fight between Deathstalker and Jarek, as well as standing in to play one of Jarek's guards towards the beginning of the film. As wacky as the action sequences are in this film, Terlesky did a great job with the choreography for the sword fight, making use of the entire set and including some nifty footwork for both characters.

Accompanying our hero is Monique Gabrielle as Princess Evie, again a very different approach to the companion character compared to Lana Clarkson's skilled warrior from the first film. Evie isn't much of a fighter, and is really only there to provide more comic relief and give Deathstalker someone to hook up with at the end. That, and to provide the worst line readings of any actor in the film. Whilst her acting is bad, it at least fits the chaotic nature of the film, and actually makes the film more enjoyable. Hearing her say such contrived nonsense such as "you can't treat me like this, I'm a princess!" is always funny, and so once again the Deathstalker series has taken a negative and somehow managed to turn it into a ludicrous positive for me.

Whereas the first Deathstalker film only had one memorable villain, all three of this film's antagonists help to give Deathstalker II an even more enjoyable edge. The primary villain is John Lazar's Jarek, who is both a powerful sorcerer and deadly swordsman. Though is appearance isn't as striking as Munkar from the first film, Jarek is still just as powerful and more than a match for our hero. Jarek's henchman include Sultana, who seeks revenge after Deathstalker robs her castle in the film's opening scene, and a clone of Princess Evie. Evie and Sultana spend a lot of their screen time arguing, and it's great fun to see two bland performances clash, complete with some hilarious dialogue. I like how Jarek clearly doesn't care much for either of them, which I think would be most people's reaction after seeing how much they bicker. Whilst Jarek and the Evie clone are given memorable death scenes, Sultana just decides to run away as the final fight breaks out. In one of the most ridiculous character exists ever, she tells Jarek "good luck, your gonna need it" and is never seen again. Maybe they where hoping to bring her back in a spinoff or something, but seeing as that never happened, it's one of the oddest endings for a character I've ever seen.

If the above mentioned descriptions of the characters weren't enough to convince you of the truly silly nature of Deathstalker II, perhaps knowing that the film pays obvious homage to several other films will. Whereas the first Deathstalker film went for a more serious tone, Deathstalker II's set-pieces shatter any notion of this, and as soon as you hear the Rocky theme play during a scene set in boxing ring, you know there's no chance of recovery. Not only does Rocky get parodied, but dialogue from Goldinger is shamelessly repeated almost word for word (if you haven't guessed yet, the "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die"). There's also a scene with zombies, in which the graveyard set wouldn't look out of place in Ed Wood's Plan Nine from Outer Space (1959). Not only are the settings and dialogue for most of Deathstalker II ridiculous, but the action itself is beyond crazy. In the final battle, an amazonian tribe battle Jarek's forces, with random bolts of lightning striking down a good few soldiers. Never is it explained where this lightning came from or who exactly it's targeting, but it makes for an amusing addition nonetheless. Even the one decent battle scene between Deathstalker and Jarek has its silliness, ending with Deathstalker breaking Jarek's sword with his bare hands and stabbing him through the neck, which is one of the weirdest, but also one of the coolest, moments in the film.

If you've already seen the first film, then get ready to see it again in Deathstalker II, as there's enough stock footage to make a drinking game out of how many times scenes from the original show up. Every scene set in a tavern is accompanied by stock footage of the warriors in Munkar's castle. Such is the laziness of the footage's use, that characters who died in the original film are now in the sequel, such as Oghris casually in the background after having his neck broken previously. That being said, the film is at least edited a lot better than its predecessor, allowing for a more even pace. There are still some dodgy edit moments, however, my favourite being one of Jarek's henchman talking to Sultana in a tavern, and then immediately cutting to him and his men having caught up with Deathstlaker and Evie on the road.

Deathstalker II is the quintessential "so bad it's good" film. It offers everything you could want in a cheesy sword-and-sorcery flick, from bad acting to cheap special effects, and all with a loving wink to the audience throughout. So if you're looking for a good laugh, crazy set-pieces and a rocking soundtrack to go with it, hunt this film down and treat yourself to a glorious serving of 80's action spectacle!

Dunkirk (2017) Review

"Seeing home doesn't help us get there, Captain" - Commander Bolton.

Christopher Nolan appears to be a man who can do no wrong when it comes to groundbreaking ideas and spectacle. Following on from an impressive run of The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012), Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014), Nolan now turns his talents to telling a true story, but with all the expected elements that make his films so intriguing and intense. For his latest venture, Nolan presents the events of the evacuation of Dunkirk in World War Two, and chooses to tell the story through a non-linear structure. Combining the formal components of sound, cinematography and music to create non-stop tension, Nolan has created perhaps his finest work to date, and a film that will resonate with many a viewer.

The non-linear structure allows the film to present the horrific events of Dunkirk from three perspectives and periods of time: on land, on sea and in the air. On land, we meet young Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) as he arrives on the beach ahead of the evacuation. By sea, we are introduced to Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and George (Barry Keoghan) as they set sail from England to aid in the evacuation. Finally, we are introduced to RAF pilot Farriers (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) as they make their way over the English Channel in their Spitfire planes. As Commander Bolton (Kenneth Branagh) leads the evacuation from the sea, the three stories gradually collide with one-another, with each one equally powerful in presenting the struggles of the desperate and seemingly hopeless situation.

Usually a story like this puts heavy emphasis on performance to portray the horrors these brave men encountered, but I really admire Nolan's choice to prioritise cinematography alongside the performances. The camera work in Dunkirk is stunning, with every scene feeling big and always looking busy. There's always something happening in both the foreground and background, which I think helps to show the chaotic nature of the evacuation. I also really loved the point-of-view shots from the planes, stretchers and boats as they gave the film an immersive quality without ever over-staying their welcome. There are also incredible sweeping shots of the beach, which perfectly establish the size and scale of the location. The "handheld" camera style on the small boat captained by Mr. Dawson was also a smart choice, creating a more claustrophobic and uneasy feel.

Sound plays such an important part in the film, and not in the way most people would think. As it's a war film, the expectation would be for the film to be loud throughout, but Dunkirk cleverly balances this in a similar fashion to one of Nolan's previous works. In the 2012 film The Dark Knight Rises, there is a fight sequence where the absence of music and emphasis on sound allows the viewer to almost feel every punch thrown. For Dunkirk, Nolan applies the same technique, with some sequences only featuring sound to create a more frightening and shocking experience. Hans Zimmer's clever musical score complements this perfectly in other scenes. The introduction of the beach is accompanied by Zimmer's slow tempo instrumentation, which amplifies the foreboding atmosphere. Never is the score too bombastic, instead focusing on a constant goal of enhancing the mood of the increasingly desperate evacuation. It's the perfect mix of the two components that makes Dunkirk such an incredible journey, and one best experienced on the big screen.

I'm usually not a fan of not knowing the names of the characters, but I felt the lack of named characters plays to the film's strengths. When Tommy boards a ship filled with his fellow soldiers, you can put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't learn all the names of the people he ends up travelling with (and therefore the audience don't either), which I imagine was the same for the soldiers who where really there. You wouldn't know exactly who these people where, only that they are fighting to survive, and your best chance to do so is to work together. Even for a main part such as Cillian Murphy's, he is simply credited as "Shivering Soldier", and I can't even recall Tommy's name being mentioned by another character. But the excellent performances (including One Direction's Harry Styles) make you care for every single one of them, which makes it all the more heartbreaking knowing not all of them are going to survive. 

The non-linear structure can be a little jarring at first. Even though you are informed of the different times at the start, it took me a while to adjust to where exactly each story fit. Eventually, though, it all became much clearer, and the merging of the three times towards the end was handled expertly. It was a more than worthy climax to all the build up, especially seeing Tom Hardy's Farriers heroically come to the rescue. Seeing where all these characters end up after all that we'd seen them go through was also well portrayed, with the key theme of survival realised in several different ways. Whether it be the literal survival of some of the soldiers or the efforts of individuals recognised in the local newspaper, all the characters we meet are tied to this theme by the end.

With Dunkirk, Nolan continues his legacy of being one of modern cinema's greatest auteurs. Heart-stopping intensity from the beginning, aided by an incredible musical score, make this film possibly his finest achievement yet. All the right elements are there, from performances, pacing and use of formal components, and they're all strung together masterfully to create an emotional and thought-provoking ride. Whether you see it at the cinema or wait for it to be released on home media, everybody should experience what I consider to be the best film of 2017 so far.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Review

"Can't you just be a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man?" - Tony Stark.

I don't know if you've noticed at all, but Spider-Man's been in a lot of films in the twentieth century. We've seen Sam Raimi's trilogy from 2002-2007 to Marc Webb's reboot and sequel in 2012 and 2014, respectively. Here we are in 2017, and everyone's favourite wall-crawler is still a popular cinema attraction, with his latest solo outing being Spider-Man: Homecoming, following the successful re-introduction of the character in last year's Captain America: Civil War. So, now that Spider-Man is an integral part of the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe, can he serve up another fun adventure with everything that makes the character great (see 2004's Spider-Man 2), or does this new entry get lost in its own web of plot and big comic book characters (see The Amazing Spider-Man 2)?

Skipping the origin story we are all familiar with, we join Peter Parker (Tom Holland) after the events of Civil War, with him already comfortable with how to use his powers, but still struggling to balance his life with school and superhero business. Seeking further opportunities to impress Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Peter's wish is fulfilled when an arms dealing gang emerge selling hi-tech weaponry, lead by the bitter Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton). Tagging along for the ride are Peter's best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) and crush Liz (Laura Harrier), as Peter's pursuit of Toomes (aka Vulture) puts the lives of the people he cares about at risk. With Tony Stark forced to intervene, Peter must learn to cope without his gadget-laden costume and prove he really does have what it takes to be an Avenger in order to stop Toomes and live-up to his responsibilities as Spider-Man.

Having already seen Holland in the role in Civil War, Homecoming gives him the chance to fully become Spider-Man, and it certainly pays off. Holland has plenty of charisma when swinging around and fighting crime as the famous wall-crawler, but he is also allowed to shine as Peter Parker thanks to the film's style of being a high-school comedy with superhero action. Much of the focus falls on his friendship with Ned and his crush on popular girl Liz, which offers up plenty of humorous scenarios. Holland carries all of this extremely well, remaining likeable and engaging and a more than worthy Spider-Man. He brings out the fun side of the character without it ever becoming too cheesy, which is exactly how the character should be done in my opinion. Ned is a very typical sideman/nerdy best friend character, but at least gets some funny one-liners and helps keep the film's light tone intact. He never becomes irritating and he turns out to be a valuable partner in helping Spider-Man save the day. Liz, however, is just OK. She isn't really given a whole lot to do other than look pretty and have Peter stare at her. Harrier and Holland do at least have decent chemistry when together, but there isn't enough time invested in this to make me care too much about the character.

But like with any Spider-Man film, the aspect I was most looking forward to was the villain. I've been waiting to see Vulture in a live-action film for a long time now, and when it was announced that Michael Keaton (still the best Batman in my opinion) was cast, I thought he was the perfect choice. Keaton is the best thing in the film for me because you can tell he's having fun being threatening and flying around in his winged costume. I was smiling every time he got angry at his men for their failed attempts to stop Spider-Man, it reminded me how enjoyable villains in these films can be when you have a great actor with plenty of enthusiasm for the role. There is however, a flaw with Homecoming's set-up for the character. Toomes isn't given much of a personal connection with Spider-Man, nor are his motivations explored in any detail. Only towards the end does he properly meet Peter face-to-face, which means that any prior confrontations between the two felt rather empty to me. Had the film dedicated more time to seeing why Toomes turns to a life of crime and have him interact with Peter more, there could have been some good drama. Instead, Holland and Keaton aren't allowed to dig into the conflict of their respective characters until the film's third act, and by then it's too late to be totally invested.

Where the film fell down for me somewhat was some of the supporting characters, namely two of the other students. Michelle (Zendaya) and Flash (Tony Revolori) exist to provide humour, in a film that already has plenty, and they show up way too many times. The running joke of Michelle being the awkward outcast got old fast, and Flash just came off as lame, hardly someone to match Peter physically or intellectually (despite the film's efforts to display the latter). It's implied that Michelle will have a greater role in future Spider-Man films, and her character really needs to be given some depth and intrigue if that's to be the case. Of course, Peter's loyal Aunt, May Parker (Marisa Tomei) is present, and she at least gets her chance to show how supportive she is without becoming overly preachy. She doesn't give Peter all the answers to his problems, instead showing enough support in order for him to work things out for himself. I really admire this choice because as an audience we want to see the hero rise to the challenge and not have things worked out for him.

But as fun as the film is, it all feels very safe. There is a lack of edge, which I think comes from the handling of the hero/villain relationship. Other Spider-Man films have demonstrated the dangers of having this much power at such a young age more convincingly, and have given us some incredible action sequences as well. Take Spider-Man 2 (2004), for example. We see Peter struggling to cope with his responsibilities that he actually quits being Spider-Man. After a long absence, he makes a spectacular comeback and battles his nemesis in a thrilling sequence on a train. In Spider-Man: Homecoming, the final battle has a good enough scenario, but it isn't used to its full potential. Spidey battles the Vulture on an aeroplane, but the whole thing looks unrealistically "loose". Referring back to Spider-Man 2, the action feels like it has weight and physicality, almost as if you can feel every punch and kick, whereas the fighting in Homecoming looks more digital and less real. I personally prefer the fight scenes in films to actually look like they could happen, even in a crazy scenario such as Spider-Man 2's train battle, and so Homecoming unfortunately falls flat against its predecessors in this department.

Whilst it has a great lead and is an overall fun time, Spider-Man: Homecoming doesn't feel all-that fresh. I know a lot of superhero films follow the same formula, but Spider-Man has always stood out to me as a hero who can have a great mix of fun and edge. There is certainly the former in this case, but I still felt the film lacked a good dynamic between the hero and villain, as well as having a supporting cast that I totally cared about. If you've enjoyed the other MCU, you'll be fine with this. For me, Spider-Man was my childhood superhero, and he's still yet to have a better outing than Sam Raimi's second take thirteen years ago.

Alien: Covenant (2017) Review

"I was not made to serve. Neither were you" - David.

I'm one of those rare cinema goers that totally loved Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012). Set years before his beloved classic Alien (1979), Scott presented an original story that loosely ties into the events of that film. Prometheus told the story of an expedition to discover the origins of humanity, with Noomi Rapace's Elisabeth Shaw serving as our hero. With Prometheus receiving a mixed response from fans, Scott aims to please by having the long-awaited sequel feel more like his original masterpiece, focusing more on horror elements and re-introducing the classic Xenomorph alien. The response to this film has once again been mixed, but I went into it having loved its predecessor, so was greatly anticipating which direction the story would go. So, does Ridley Scott still have what it takes, or is it time to finally lay the franchise to rest?

Setting out on a colonising mission, the crew of the Covenant spacecraft suffer a rude awakening from their long sleep. A blast causes heavy damage and the death of the crew's captain, and so first-mate Oram (Billy Crudup) is forced to take charge. Along with our heroine Daniels (Katherine Waterston) and android Walter (Michael Fassbender), the crew answers a distress call from a nearby planet. As the planet appears just as inhabitable as their original destination, the crew land and soon realise all is not as it seems. Discovering a crashed spacecraft and with some of the crew becoming infected by an alien pathogen, the crew must turn to the planet's only inhabitant for help. Unfortunately, this turns out to be David from the failed Prometheus expedition, and the android has many a dark secret lying in wait for the humans...

I can't help but feel as if Alien: Covenant is the result of a director with a vivid imagination who has been swayed by fan opinion on what kind of film he should make. Earlier this year, I wrote an article as to how the film could serve as a sequel to Prometheus, and stated that questions raised by that film should be answered. However, only a portion of Alien: Covenant feels like the sequel to Prometheus, and even then it ignores some of the questions that I wanted to explore. The entire plot-line of Shaw and David trying to discover why the Engineers wanted to wipe out humanity has been scrapped. Instead, we have a completely new set of characters who coincidentally encounter David on the planet. These new characters are not in any way related to the story established in Prometheus, and only when David shows up does the film actually begin to get interesting. Before his arrival, a lot of time is devoted to the exploration of the planet, which was once the home of the Engineers. Whilst I enjoyed these exploration scenes, the characters themselves are very one-dimensional. We don't get to know their names or personalities too well before things inevitably go awry, and so they aren't very memorable. Whilst the performances of the actors are all good, particularly Katherine Waterston, there isn't much substance for them to work with and at times the dialogue feels very unnatural. This was disappointing to me as although many criticised the characters in Prometheus, I felt they all at least had established personalities and some memorable moments. Here, many of the human characters are quickly killed off before they've said more than a few lines, resulting in not a great deal of emotion from the audience.

Whilst the film lacks a good cast of human characters, what it does have going for it is the pairing of androids Walter and David. Michael Fassbender completely steals the film, creating a clear contrast between these identical characters. Walter, a later model of android, was designed to have his emotional capabilities restricted, something which David has developed at a frightening rate. Seeing himself as superior to humanity, David attempts to convince Walter to abandon his existence as a mere servant. These scenes are easily the highlight of the film, as we delve deeper into David's twisted perception of reality whilst Walter tries in vain to stop him. It is here that the film got me hooked, primarily due to Fassbender's superb dual performance. Overall, I actually felt more emotions towards these two artificial people than the humans as they are far more engaging than any of the other characters. 

Of course the big draw of the film is the return of the classic Xenomorph alien, which was deliberately left out of Prometheus. Featured on the film's posters and having the word "alien" in the title, Ridley Scott was clearly attempting to reassure the fans that this film will tie into the original Alien film in a more direct manner. Before the Xenomorph arrives, however, we are treated to a new monster equally as deadly. This new breed of alien (referred to in the credits as the Neomorph) spawns from several of the Covenant crew after they are infected with the pathogen. I was impressed with the design of the Neomorph, as it closely resembles the Xenomorph whilst also clearly being different due to its lighter skin tone and size. The only downside to the the portrayal of the aliens is the overuse of CGI. I know I sound like a broken record when it comes to CG in films, but it says a lot when the alien effects from 1979 look more convincing than the effects from a film made in 2017. Having the alien jump around and be shown in way too much detail reminded me of their depiction in Alien: Resurrection (1997). And trust me, that isn't a good thing.

The weirdest thing about Alien: Covenant, though, is the inclusion of exclusive scenes uploaded to YouTube prior to the film's release. The two scenes not included in the final cut would have given more depth to the film, with one in particular hinting at the story I wanted to see in the first place. The first exclusive scene features all the members of the Covenant having a final drink together before setting off on their mission. It's the most natural part of their interaction compared to any of the scenes in the final cut, and so this definitely would have helped to make the characters more believable. The biggest offence, however, was to not include the second exclusive clip in the final film. Lasting just over two minutes, the clip depicts Elizabeth Shaw and David's journey to the home of the Engineers, with Noomi Rapace reprising her role. To have Rapace return for only a brief clip and to not even include it in the film is a real disservice to her performance and the character. I cared more about her than any of the new characters in the film, and I'm pretty certain that Ridley Scott originally intended to include her more than in just a cameo in an online clip. This was the film I wanted to see: Shaw and David finding the home of the Engineers, answering the questions left over from Prometheus.

With so much to balance in its two hour run-time, Alien: Covenant feels like a bit of a mess overall. Ultimately, the film is broken down into three completely different acts: an intriguing mystery leading to the crew being attacked by the Neomorph, a ton of exposition explaining what happened after Prometheus, and then a standard conclusion featuring the Xenomorph. For me, it's crazy to think that people bemoaned the Xenomorph not being included in Prometheus because as soon as that thing shows up, Alien: Covenant becomes cliched and predictable. We could have had a more original story, but Ridley Scott appears to have given in to fan demand. That being said, the film is at least well acted and looks stunning, which makes sitting through some of the film's silly moments (like the shower scene shown in the trailer) a little easier. I just wish we could have had a different story that properly follows on from Prometheus. I guess all I can do is hope for a directors cut that makes the film feel like a proper sequel.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) Review

"You need to find a woman who's pathetic, like you." - Drax.

I knew nothing about Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy before viewing James Gunn's 2014 adaptation for the first time. The characters aren't as iconic as the Avengers or the X-Men, so I had no expectations for what I was about to watch. The film turned out to be one of the nicest surprises and most fun cinema experiences ever, boasting fantastic characters, incredible designs and a super-cool soundtrack. Guardians of the Galaxy quickly became one of my favourite superhero films, and I couldn't wait to see what James Gunn was going to bring us in the sequel. After three years of waiting, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is finally here, and is set to be just as successful as its predecessor. All your favourite characters are back, as well as some new additions to the cast, and all the enjoyment delivered in the first film is still present throughout this worthy sequel.

We rejoin the team of Peter Quill aka Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) and the now foot tall Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) as they carry out a dangerous mission for golden skinned Sovereign race. Retrieving valuable batteries for the Sovereigns in exchange for Gamora's evil sister Nebula (Karen Gillan), Rocket can't help but steal some of the batteries for himself. Chased by the Sovereigns, the team are forced to crash land on a remote planet, where they are rescued by the mysterious Ego (Kurt Russell) and his companion Mantis (Pom Klementieff). Ego claims to be Peter's father, and wants a chance to bond with his son. But the Sovereigns aren't about to let the Guardians escape them, hiring Peter's old accomplice Yondu (Michael Rooker) to track them down. As Peter learns of his heritage, he must decide where his loyalties lie, as his love interest Gamora grows increasingly suspicious of Ego's intentions...

The real charm about the first film was undoubtedly the chemistry of the cast, and Vol. 2 continues to present us with many heart-warming and hilarious moments amongst them. Chris Pratt once again shows why he's the perfect action-adventure lead with his charm, charisma and wide acting range. For me, he's quickly becoming this generation's Harrison Ford, and it's the role of Star-Lord that will no doubt be the central role in his legacy. However, not even the brilliance of Pratt can steal the show from Dave Bautista's Drax the Destroyer. By far the funniest character in a film full of them, Drax's scenes had me smiling and laughing throughout, and his interactions with Mantis are some of the best comedy moments you'll see this year. Also providing plenty of laughs are the duo of Rocket and Baby Groot. With Groot now being the smaller of the two, Rocket's attempts to point out the obvious to him gives them a more father/son relationship than before, adding a new layer of depth to their friendship. As before, Gamora is the more serious of the team, and this is no doubt influenced by her rivalry with Nebula, which is taken to the next level in Vol. 2. Now acting alone, Nebula is more determined than ever to finally better her sister, which leads to a thrilling encounter in the film's second half.

Kurt Russel as Ego adds an interesting dynamic to this entry, as he appears to only want to achieve a personal goal of connecting with his son. His ambitions do go beyond this, but the majority of the film's time shows his efforts to gain Peter's trust and loyalty. This was done believably throughout, and gives us more insight into their family history, something which is far more interesting to watch than the typical good vs. evil theme seen in the first film. Ego is more mysterious and cunning than the first film's villain, Ronan (Lee Pace), and so I found him to be more engaging and memorable. The only weak point in the cast is Sylvester Stallone, bizarrely given a "straight" role to play rather than crazy or comedic. Stallone isn't convincing at all playing a serious character, but thankfully his screen-time is limited. It has to be one of the most pointless roles to ever be so highly billed in the film's opening credits.


As before, the film is accompanied by a killer soundtrack, something which has helped characterised the Guardians of the Galaxy series. The songs chosen for the first film were widely praised, and Vol. 2 builds upon the list of great songs. James Gunn's use of each song is so carefully plotted that at times you'd think the songs were specifically written for the scene, in the same way Quentin Tarantino has been doing for years. My personal favourite use of music is Glen Campbell's "Southern Nights" juxtaposed with Rocket taking out a squad of thugs. Cheerfully humming along, Rocket uses a variety of traps and gadgets to comedic effect, which looks especially impressive with the size and sound of the cinema. I'd like to make a personal plea to include the songs "More than a Feeling" by Boston and "Girls Got Rhythm" by AC/DC on the soundtrack for the next film, as I think they'd fit perfectly into the series.  

The only real downside to the film is the inevitable problem of it not feeling as fresh an experience as its predecessor. My expectations of it being a fun two hour ride were met, but its never going to feel as surprising and delightful as when I saw the first film. That said, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 continues the MCU's strong run of blockbusters and further cements the iconic status of the craziest superhero team around. Packed with charm and unbeatable character chemistry, it will no doubt be the most colourful and fun film you'll see this year. Just be sure to stick around during the credits, as there are no less than five additional scenes tacked on the further your enjoyment!

Brotherhood (2016) Review

"The only person more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose... is someone who stands to lose everything." - Sam.

Known to mainstream audiences as the clumsy Mickey Smith in Doctor Who, Noel Clarke very quickly established a new identity for himself in 2006's urban crime film Kidulthood, Flexing both his acting and writing muscle, Clarke's story of teenagers living in west London packed a thought-provoking punch, never shying away from depicting the dysfunctional and dangerous lives of the characters. Shrugging off the shyness of Mickey, Clarke portrays "bad-boy" Sam Peel with fierce intensity. Sam's aggressiveness ultimately ends up ending the life of the film's protagonist, and the 2008 sequel, Adulthood, explored the effects this has on Sam as well as the people he knows. After writing and directing Adulthood, Clarke returned to the series with the final chapter: Brotherhood, once again in the role of actor, writer and director. But could the series still be as thought-provoking as the first entry, and was the film a worthy conclusion to a trilogy ten years in the making?

Sam is no longer is the aggressive young man of the previous films and has settled down with his partner Kayla (Shanika Warren-Markland) and his two kids, working various jobs. But old tension's re-surface after his musician brother Royston (Daniel Anthony) is shot, with the assailant leaving a letter for Sam. Dragged back into his old life, Sam sets out to confront the people responsible, with Royston's friend Henry (Arnold Oceng) tagging along to help. But there are still old scores to settle with the returning Curtis (Cornell John), whose nephew was killed by Sam in Kidulthood. With Curtis and his brother's assailants surrounding him, Sam faces the ultimate test to keep his family safe, but realises he way have to go back to his old ways in order to do so.

The most rewarding thing in this third film is the performance of Clarke and his writing for Sam. We've seen him go from villain to anti-hero, and in Brotherhood he starts out as neither. As Clarke has grown older since the last film, so has Sam, with him now facing responsibility as a father and partner. These are by far the most interesting parts of the film as Sam is so different to how we have seen him before. But Clarke can also pull off the vengeful side to Sam as things begin to spiral out of control around him. Channelling his inner thug, Sam is a man on a mission in the film's final act, with Clarke giving a powerful performance, particularly when he squares off against Curtis. The only negative I have towards Sam in this film is his act of unfaithfulness to his partner. Early on in the film, he meets a woman asking for directions, and Sam agrees to go back to her flat afterwards. She quickly seduces Sam into having sex with her, with Sam unaware he is being filmed. This evidence his show to Kayla later, thereby stacking greater odds against Sam to win back everything he fears to completely lose. As Sam has become more likeable and mature from the start of this film, having him be unfaithful feels out of place. He had learned his lessons from similar acts in the previous films, so to have him so easily act this way didn't make much sense to me.

The other characters are hit and miss, with some being likeable and others totally unbelievable. Arnold Oceng gives the film a lighter tone as Henry, very much the comic relief. He means well, but his constant white lies to his girlfriend of course get him into trouble. He's like a sitcom character, which could easily be a turn-off for those wanting a serious tone from beginning to end. Personally, I found it to be refreshing for the series to include a character who was more fun and not be so flawed, especially compared to the troubled teens from the first film and the villains. The villains are sadly where things get silly for the film. Whilst their intentions to hurt Sam and his family are certainly scary, the performances become far too comical to take seriously, especially when they also have ridiculous names. A gang with members who have given themselves the names Mookz (Jason Maza), Yardz (played by grime rapper Stormzy) and Hugz (Leeshon Alexander) don't sound like the most intimidating bunch of baddies you'll ever hear of. Camping it up the most is Jason Maza as the film's primary antagonist, with a performance wacky enough to blend right into either of the sequels to Green Street (2005). Cornell John is still good as Curtis, but his quest for revenge against Sam feels sidetracked by the other villains and their apparent connection to some of the series' other characters. Perhaps with more focus on him, his despicable actions would've had greater impact.

Brotherhood also breaks the barriers of realism considerably more than its predecessors, with the final third involving military-esque weaponry and Henry's girlfriend still not cottoning on to his increasingly silly lies. The scenes with Sam and his gang raiding the home of the villains is certainly entertaining, but still feels a little too extreme for a film trying to portray a gritty, realistic depiction of Sam. Then there's Henry's girlfriend believing every blatant lie he tells her as he tries to aid Sam. Once or twice is okay, but to have her believe every lie is a bit far-fetched. It also doesn't help that these moments are accompanied by gangster film cliches, such as Curtis waiting ominously for Sam with his back turned away from the camera when the two first meet again. With such an honest portrayal of urban life explored in Kiduthood, Brotherhood bites off more than it can chew with moments like this. Thankfully, the cliche moments aren't enough for us to not care about the outcome for Sam, and the ending does feel like his story has come full circle.  With the film clearly stating that this is the last entry in the series, the ending leaves Sam with a more positive outlook on life, which is a welcome sight after the darkness and tough situations he's put himself and others through.

Whilst it certainly is the most "out-there" film in the trilogy, Brotherhood at least keeps us interested in its central character and portrays an appropriate evolution of his personality. The cliches and silliness in some moments can be off-putting, but the film never drags and has some standout performances. Most importantly, it shows that Noel Clarke can continue to engage audiences through his triple offering of acting, writing and directing, something which very few British talents can lay claim to with his level of success. Overall, its a memorable conclusion to Clarke's passion project, and the series is one I feel will pass the test of time when looked back on.

Kong: Skull Island (2017) Review

"I spent thirty years trying to prove the truth: monsters exist"- Bill Randa.

It's been twelve years since we last saw everyone's favourite giant ape on the big screen. Now he's back, bigger and badder than ever. Kong: Skull Island serves as a reboot to the series, and establishes Kong in the shared MonsterVerse in which a crossover with Godzilla is planned for 2020. With the original King Kong being one of my favourite films, I'm always keen to see what's next for the series, especially after hearing the news of the upcoming crossover. As a blockbuster, this new entry ticks all the right boxes, but if you're expecting the same levels of greatness as seen back in 1933, then this really falls short of the mark.

Story-wise, the film shares a similar plot to the original, with a group of explorers arriving on Skull Island, encountering natives, as well as a few brushes with death via the various creatures they encounter. And, of course, there's a giant ape who is worshipped as a god. However, instead of a film crew and an actress who is captured by Kong for the majority of the film, we have a mixture of soldiers and scientists who are sent to prove the existence of monsters on Earth. Sure enough, after dropping explosives on his territory, Kong greets the team by destroying their helicopters and killing a significant number of the crew. With the team split up, they must head to the north of the island and signal for rescue, that is of course if the headstrong Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) can learn to get along with former serviceman James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and pacifistic photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson). With all manner of creatures after them, it's a race against time for the outnumbered humans, but Packard is intent on showing Kong that man is the superior species...

The film's biggest star is sadly one of the film's biggest problems. No, not Tom Hiddleston or Samuel L. Jackson, but rather Kong himself. Despite being larger than ever before (around 100ft tall) and taking on many opponents, Kong serves very little purpose to the story. He isn't given anything interesting to do, whereas he originally formed attachments to some of the human characters, particularly Ann Darrow in two of the other films. Whilst this film is a reboot and doesn't feature any previous characters, not having this connection and Kong not being central to the plot takes away what makes him a memorable and tragic character. There is a suggestion that Weaver "understands" Kong better than the other characters, almost acting as the Ann Darrow replacement, but it comes far too late in the film and still doesn't give Kong much of a purpose. I liked the appearance of Kong, however. He stands upright and is very agile, not to mention a powerful opponent for the other monsters. It is suggested that Kong is still growing in size, and hopefully he'll grow fast enough for his upcoming confrontation with Godzilla.

As seen in the trailer, and in the tradition of the other Kong films, there are other monsters roaming the island. Throughout the film, the humans encounter creatures such as a giant water buffalo, giant daddy longlegs and even a giant stick insect (although it's more of a log than a stick). Whilst these creatures are at least given there own individual set piece, I lost count of the amount of times they emerged after being camouflaged. Every creature appeared to be introduced in this manner, to the point where I was numb to seeing it. The biggest letdown, however, has to be the new monsters. Dubbed as "Skullcrawlers", these beasts move at lightning speed and are apparently so terrifying that the island natives built a giant wall to keep them away from their village. The design of the monsters appears all too familiar, with the most obvious connection being the monster from Cloverfield (2008). I found these monsters to be very underwhelming, especially given how the natives respond to them and them supposedly being a worthy adversary for Kong. Whilst the sequences in which the humans encounter them have their moments, I didn't believe for one second that these things posed any sort of threat to Kong, and so overall, they are a missed opportunity to give the film a unique, memorable monster.

As for the human characters, there really isn't much to say. None of them are really developed enough to care if they survive the ordeal. The actors, however, do all they can with what they are given. There are no bad performances to speak of, and the film would feel significantly duller without the inclusion of a quirky John C. Reilly. Reilly's character does tend to create a farcical tone to the whole thing (as if the film isn't strange enough already!), but he does get the funniest lines and moments in the film. Samuel L. Jackson also has plenty of charisma to keep things moving nicely. I will give special mention to Jackson and the script for including one of the funniest, unexpected quips ever. After attacking Kong, Weaver attempts to plea with the Colonel, arguing that "the world is better than this". The Colonel's response is a simple statement of "Bitch, please", completely shattering the seriousness of Weaver's argument. Tom Hiddlestone really has nothing to work with here, and so I didn't end up forming an attachment to his character, despite the fact he's the hero and being a fan of the actor. Everyone else is there to be eaten or squashed by the monsters, and nothing other than that.

I enjoyed the monster battles, though, and they are by far the main reason to see the film. They are brutal and not afraid to show the damage these massive beasts cause. The heft and weight of the monsters, despite being all CGI, was also well realised. The monsters aren't flipping around without care like you'd see with the robots in the Transformers films, but rather each movement feels heavy and powerful. The action scenes do include some pretty weird moments though, such a scene where a Skullcrawler eats a character holding a camera. The camera continues to flash repeatedly after being swallowed by the monsters, which is one of the oddest ways to try and create tension I think I've ever seen. There's also a moment where Kong uses a long boat chain as a weapon, something which bares an uncanny resemblance to Scorpion from the Mortal Kombat video games.

Whilst I wasn't expecting the film to come anywhere near to creating the same impact as the 1933 original film, Kong: Skull Island is still far less impressive than I had hoped it would be. The battles are fun and the performances have their merits, but the unremarkable cast of characters and lack of some fresh ideas makes for an underwhelming reboot. Kong is very impressive to look at, but the core tragic nature of the character is lost in a sea of lazy monster designs and a clunky script. With Kong set for a few rounds of fighting against the equally iconic Godzilla, here's hoping the giant ape returns to his former glory when he stars in what could be the biggest monster clash ever made. Until then, Kong: Skull Island will definitely need some time to grow on me.

What can we expect from Alien: Covenant?

With two fantastic films, two dodgy sequels, two crossover films and a prequel (of sorts), the Alien franchise has seen more than its fair share of highs and lows. Starting in 1979, Ridley Scott's original horror masterpiece introduced audiences to one of the most chilling creatures ever depicted on film, as well as Sigourney Weaver's iconic Ellen Ripley. James Cameron continued the franchise's success in 1986, opting for a more action-packed approach. After Cameron's Aliens, Alien 3 (1992) and Alien: Resurrection (1997) both failed to live up to expectations. Years later, the franchise combined with the Predator series, spawning two films. Both Alien vs. Predator (2004) and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007) were both financially successful, but fan and critical reaction was largely negative. In 2012, Ridley Scott returned to the series to direct Prometheus, a film set before the events of Alien but primarily focusing on its own mythology. Now with Scott once again at the helm of the upcoming Alien: Covenant (2017), this article will explore what audiences can expect based on three factors of my choosing: the fan reaction to Prometheus, the look of the film based on the trailer, and Ridley Scott's own sayings as to how his new film links with the rest of the series.

First, I'd like to look at Prometheus, seeing as how it is the latest film in the series to be released. I was really excited to see it back when it came out, especially with Ridley Scott back to direct and to focus solely on the Alien series and not be another crossover. The film follows the crew of the titular spaceship as they explore a distant planet. Archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have discovered a star map leading them to the planet, believing that the planet could hold clues to the origin of the human race. Along with the android David (Michael Fassbender), the crew soon discover a threat in the guise of the Engineers, a humanoid alien race. Shaw and David survive the encounter with the Engineers, and set off to find their home planet to discover why the Engineers intended to destroy humanity.

Critically and commercially, Prometheus was largely successful. However, the film garnered a more mixed response from fans. Whilst universal acclaim was given to the design and performances (in particular Michael Fassbender), elements of the plot were criticised. The main focus of negativity from fans seemed to be aimed at where exactly the film fits into the timeline of the original Alien film. There are references to the aliens and hints towards similar discoveries by the crew, but with some expecting Prometheus to link directly to Alien, people where left confused. The surprise at the end of Prometheus was to see what initially appears to be the first alien, as it closely resembles the creatures from the other films. This creature, known as the Deacon, only appears briefly but makes for an impactful ending to the film. But the Deacon's close resemblance to the other aliens would only generate more confusion. Seeing as Prometheus pre-dates Alien, many initially thought it to be the first alien to have existed, but the film clarifies this isn't the case by depicting statues of the aliens earlier in the film. With the title of the new film clearly stating it to be a closer link to the original Alien, perhaps Alien: Covenant be more like how some fans expected Prometheus to be and straighten out some of the confusions from the first film.

At the end of last year, we finally got our first look at the sequel to Prometheus. Before this, the film had already caught attention by going through a title change. Originally named Alien: Paradise Lost, the new title was revealed to be Alien: Covenant. Like Prometheus, the film takes its title from the name of the spaceship featured in the film. The R-rated trailer begins with a horrific death scene before creating a mysterious atmosphere. We see shots of incredible landscapes as well as dark corridors, and of course a brief glimpse of an alien. Michael Fassbender is also featured in the trailer, as well as several new characters. From this trailer, it appears as though Alien: Covenant will match the look of Alien more than Prometheus, due to the gore and darkness. However, the shots of landscapes and the use of music lean more towards the tone of Prometheus. With this trailer, one can hope that the film feels equally balanced, showing clear direction that not only is this the sequel to Prometheus, but also a more direct prequel to Alien. Check out the trailer for yourselves below:

But how will Alien: Covenant fit in with the next instalments in the series? Ridley Scott has stated that there will be more sequels following on from Alien: Covenant, and intends them to clearly lead into Alien. Seeing as how Alien: Covenant echoes the look of the original Alien and the sequels will eventually take us to the start of that film, where does that leave the established plot points of Prometheus? The focus was initially on the Engineers and Dr. Shaw's journey to discover their home planet, but the trailer has no references to this. Will the Deacon alien be featured in the sequels, or was it just an added surprise at the end of Prometheus? Despite Scott's intentions to the have a closer link to Alien, these elements of the story cannot be ignored, otherwise Prometheus has not much purpose within the story leading into Alien. I am a great admirer of Scott's direction of Prometheus, as it was clearly linked to Alien but also told us a story was hadn't seen before. I just hope he hasn't given in to fan demands of wanting a direct prequel to Alien and tells the story he wants to tell. Whatever the direction of the new film, we don't have long to get our answers, as Alien: Covenant arrives in May...

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) Review

"We have hope. Rebellions are built on hope!" - Jyn Erso

Happy New Year to all. I've held off reviewing the latest Star Wars as by the time this review goes out, I will have seen the film twice. Being that Star Wars is one of my favourite film series, I think it's only fair to give my full opinion after having seen it again in the cinema. One of the biggest films of last year, Rogue One has been a massive hit with critics, but more of a mixed bag with fans. Me personally, I'm leaning more to the critics side for this one. Finally, I'd like to mention that this review does contain spoilers, so if you have yet to see the film, check back here after you've seen it.

In the opening text of 1977's Star Wars, we are informed that the Rebels have stolen plans to a weapon known as the Death Star, an enormous space station used by the Galactic Empire to spread fear throughout the galaxy. Rogue One takes place a few days before this event, where we meet Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), whose father Galen (Mads Mikkelsen) has been captured by Director Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) to complete the Death Star's construction. In an attempt to rescue her father, Jyn joins the Rebels, teaming up with Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk). Upon learning that the plans to the Death Star are located on a planet occupied by the Empire's military, Jyn assembles a rag-tag group of soldiers to launch a desperate assault against the Empire in a bid to rid the galaxy of their rule.

When I first heard of the plot of the film, I wasn't too excited. Granted, we've never seen the story of how the Rebels stole the plans to the Death Star, but I didn't think it was an interesting enough idea to sustain a two-hour plus blockbuster. However, upon the reveal of a new plot point that will change the way you look at the original Star Wars, I was fully immersed. One thing most people point out as being one of the silliest aspects in the first Star Wars was how easy it was to blow up the Death Star. In Rogue One, that issue is addressed with a clever solution as to why that is. From that point on, I was completely drawn in, and it allowed me to appreciate director Gareth Edward's new angle for a Star Wars film. Tone-wise, Edwards has crafted a very different look to previous entries in the series, appropriately going for a grittier, darker presentation. The violence isn't highly stylised, instead opting for intensity and suspense. There is no slick choreography or crazy stunts like in the prequel trilogy, which allows for greater drama and engagement. It's the first Star Wars film to actually feel like a war film, which was a good decision given the nature of the story and to give audiences something new.

Like The Force Awakens, fans were excited to meet new characters in the Star Wars universe, as well as the return of some familiar faces. The new characters comprise the main cast, with Jyn Erso as our protagonist and Orson Krennic as the primary villain. Jyn is very similar to Rey in The Force Awakens, growing up without a real family and being thrust into a war where she will have a key part to play. Starting out as reckless and eventually learning to care about and trust the Rebels, Jyn goes through quite a journey throughout the film's two hours, and I found her to be an engaging lead. I felt her transition to becoming a leader was well handled, as she shows strength and courage right from the beginning, and she uses these qualities to inspire hope for the Rebels. Orson Krennic is quite the opposite. Completely self-centred and using fear to get what he wants, Krennic is a ruthless individual. Such is his desire to elevate beyond his current position, that he clashes with several other members of the Empire, including Darth Vader. He also has history with the Erso family, capturing Galen and killing Jyn's mother at the start of the film. I was very pleased the story didn't just become a revenge fantasy for Jyn and kept its focus on the greater storyline of the Rebel's struggle against the Empire. Still, when Jyn and Krennic finally come face-to-face, it is an emotionally driven confrontation and was one of a number of highlights in the film for me.

Now the spoiler stuff, which I thankfully avoided completely before my first viewing. One of the big talking points of Rogue One is the inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin, a character who appeared in the first Star Wars played by Peter Cushing. Cushing died in 1994, and so it seemed his character's inclusion in this film was impossible. However, to my amazement, Tarkin actually shows up, with his first appearance facing away from the camera. When he turned around, there was Peter Cushing. Much has now been written about the techniques involved in creating this state-of-the-art digital recreation, but more so on whether or not bringing back dead actors via this technique is indeed ethical. Seeing how the filmmakers received permission and help from Peter Cushing's estate and that Tarkin is a central character to the Death Star story, I think this inclusion was incredible. It was such a shock to see his face again, but I was delighted to see more of this character. Later on, the same process is used to have Princess Leia appear as she did back in 1977, with her delivering the film's last line. Surprisingly, despite her face only appearing for a few seconds, the effect is inferior to the CGI Tarkin, but I still love that they had her in the film, especially now after the passing of Carrie Fisher.

Then there's Darth Vader. Having already been shown in the trailers, I knew he would appear at some point, but I also didn't expect him to play a large role. He has only a few scenes, but I thought each of them were great. He has arguably the best moment in the film: mercilessly cutting down a group of Rebels like the Grim Reaper. James Earl Jones returns to voice Vader, and it really wouldn't be the same without him. Hearing that iconic voice again reminded me of watching the original trilogy as a child, which is exactly how The Force Awakens made me feel. If they continue to make Star Wars films in this way, I'll almost certainly love each and every one of them. 

The negatives I have are to do with the pacing of the beginning and ending. I imagine pretty much everybody has seen the original Star Wars, but I think the film was too reliant on this, as it wastes no time in chucking a ton of exposition at you. We visit far too many planets in such a small amount of time, which makes it difficult to establish exactly who the characters are and at what point in the Star Wars timeline we are in. The ending also throws all it can at you in terms of the final battle. There's ground battles, sky battles and a space battle all going on at the same time, ending with Vader's invasion of the rebel ship. Like the opening of the film, I found it difficult to process where all the characters were despite having seen the film twice now. I enjoyed the action overall, but too much at same time is a bit exhausting, especially when the only battle that really mattered was Jyn and Cassian's attempt to steal the Death Star plans.

While some see Rogue One as the beginning of a process that "cheapens" the Star Wars experience, I for one are more than happy to see more anthology films if they are this well made. Though the beginning and ending was a bit too much all at once, the bulk of the film exceeded my expectations. It builds upon previously established Star Wars elements with new ideas and engaging characters, as well as having more than enough well done fan service along the way. Like The Force Awakens did for the sequel trilogy, Rogue One has paved the way for the next instalments in the anthology series by delivering an exciting, intriguing and thoroughly enjoyable Star Wars film. May the force be with the next films, because Rogue One just upped the game.