Halloween (2018) Review

"He's waited for me... I've waited for him." - Laurie Strode.

"I'm watching 'Halloween'". "Which one? The original from 1978? Or the 2007 remake directed by Rob Zombie? OR, do you mean the 2018 film that's a direct sequel to the original but is still simply called 'Halloween'"?! Once you've wrapped your head around that, then you can actually relax and enjoy this latest instalment in one of the most iconic horror franchises ever made. Ignoring the messy plot holes of the many sequels to John Carpenter's original film, this new film hits the reset button and takes the story of serial killer Michael Myers back to its grisly roots. With Jamie Lee Curtis returning as Laurie Strode and the filmmakers intent on showing respect to Carpenter's original, Halloween is a more distinguishable chapter in the series, and one that more than lives up to the masterpiece that preceded it.

Forty years after a terror-filled killing spree on Halloween night, Michael Myers (portrayed by both James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle) remains in custody, refusing to utter a word. Visited by podcast duo Dana (Rhian Rees) and Aaron (Jefferson Hall), Myers remains silent as his latest doctor, Sartain (Haluk Bilginer), informs them that Myers is "pure evil". Meanwhile, Myers survivor Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) has been anticipating an escape from the masked maniac, but in the process is alienating her family. Laurie's wish comes true when Myers escapes and returns to Haddonfield, destined to encounter each other again...

After so many sequels which made the backstory increasingly complicated and bizarre, Halloween makes things much simpler again. Gone is the idea of Michael and Laurie being related, which is referenced in one scene. The idea of Michael Myers being pure evil is focused on once again, and it's done very effectively. Before donning his iconic mask again, we see Michael from the back only, never getting a clear view of his face. The characters around him act with increasing paranoia. At one point, the reveal of the mask is enough to make several inmates and a dog go crazy. There are also several moments of Michael barely being visible in the background, with the camera keeping him out of focus, which builds tension nicely. Finally, he acquires his mask and returns to his murderous ways. Even with the mask on, he is rarely seen in clear detail and we never see his eyes, giving him a more monstrous appearance. I loved the unexpected inclusion of Nick Castle reprising the role for some scenes. It's really cool they included him, as they could of just used James Jude Courtney for the whole film. It's this level of respect for the original cast that makes this entry in the series standout, and they do just as good a job with our protagonist, Laurie.

Never forgetting the life-changing night she first encountered Michael Myers, Laurie Strode has changed drastically from her happy-go-lucky life seen in the first film. Now choosing to isolate herself from her family and booby-trapping her house Home Alone style, Laurie is driven by a desire to kill Michael. She's arguably a more dangerous character than Michael, as she is seen to be increasingly unstable as her obsession grows and grows. Such is the disturbing nature of her obsession, that her daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and her husband Ray (Tony Huss) no longer welcome her to family events. This moves her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak) to contact her more often, which places her directly on Michael's hit-list. Jamie Lee Curtis slips back into the role with ease, but also brilliantly portrays the new side of the character. Never is her new role as a bad-ass protector unbelievable, and that's largely thanks to Curtis and her commitment to the role.

Whilst the film is intent on paying homage to the original, one drastic departure is the level of violence. The first film was mainly a blood-less affair, relying on suspense. Halloween also has fantastic tension, but this time the resolutions are incredibly violent. The violence is portrayed in a disturbingly realistic manner, with Michael viciously battering, choking, stabbing and bludgeoning his victims. Never is the violence over-the-top (aside from one scene of a head being crushed), and there a no irritating cutaways. The violence is there to shock us and make us fear Michael, and also stacks the odds against our protagonists, making Michael appear unstoppable. Following sequels that made the violence too silly (see 2002's Halloween: Resurrection), Halloween's focus on gritty, heart-pounding violence is certainly a welcome return, creating a much scarier and intense film.

Eagle eyed viewers will find plenty of Easter eggs throughout Halloween, especially when it comes to the brilliant cinematography. There are shots in the film that directly reference the original, but with a unique twist (including the final shot from the first film). I also loved the inclusion of footage from the original to help tie the two together, as well as references to Dr. Samuel Loomis (brilliantly portrayed by Donald Pleasence in several Halloween films). There are some Easter eggs I'm sure I missed, and I look forward to seeing if I can spot more on my next viewing.

With its back-to-basics approach and love for the original on full display, Halloween is a return to form for a franchise that has been running low on energy throughout its history. Having Jamie Lee Curtis back certainly gives the film credibility, and some of the new characters are also very likeable (a rarity for modern horror remakes/reboots). Michael Myers is back to being scary again, and there are plenty of moments of tension and scares. Whilst not the most original film, Halloween is exactly what this series needed, and is a standout amongst a plethora of mediocre/terrible modern re-tellings of horror classics. I just wish the filmmakers added a subtitle underneath, as simply calling it Halloween makes zero sense!

The Predator (2018) Review

"They're large, they're fast, and fucking you up is their idea of tourism" - Traeger

After an eight year absence, the Predator has finally returned. This time it's writer/director Shane Black, cast member of the 1987 original, at the helm. Bringing his trademark dry wit to the script and experience from working on the first film in the series, Black seems the perfect choice to keep the franchise running. This latest entry, The Predator, serves as yet another sequel/reboot, referencing the previous films whilst also establishing its own story. With guts, gore and one-liners guaranteed, lets find out if The Predator is worthy to stand amongst its entertaining predecessors.

Upon discovering a crashed spaceship, former Ranger Quinn McKenna (Boyd Holbrook) soon comes face-to-face with a deadly, invisible foe. Salvaging a strange looking mask and other technology from the ship, Quinn mails his findings to his families' home, where they immediately attract the interest of his young son, Rory (Jacob Tremblay). Quickly imprisoned by government agent Traeger (Sterling K. Brown), McKenna must learn to work with a rag-tag team of prisoners to escape and warn of the alien threat. Meanwhile, as Traeger recruits biologist Casey Bracket (Olivia Munn) to examine the alien, dubbed a "Predator", another spaceship arrives to earth, bringing with it a larger, more vicious threat than before... 

One thing that the Predator series has always offered is a diverse mix of characters, whether they be soldiers, the police or even yakuza. In The Predator, our team is a group of foul-mouthed "loonies", each one having their own difficult past. McKenna, one of the more sane members of the group, leads them into battle, with the cool Nebraska (Trevante Rhodes) on hand to serve as second-in-command. I enjoyed Rhodes portrayal of the character, as he delivers his lines in a less over-the-top manner than his cast-mates and exudes confidence. Joining the team after the first encounter with a Predator is Olivia Munn's Casey Bracket. Her backstory and skills are far more interesting than McKenna's, which makes me feel she should have been the protagonist. She quickly learns about  the Predators' strengths and weaknesses, which would make her different to the other protagonists in the series. Sterling K. Brown is the film's villain, Traeger. At first, he seemed to be just a standard antagonist, offering nothing that really stood out compared to the other characters. However, in the film's final third he interacts with McKenna's son, and his performance became a hilarious blend of Tim Curry and Eddie Murphy. Changing his voice, laughing a lot and stealing every scene he was in, his performance suddenly became my favourite part of the film. 

But we don't watch a Predator film for the human characters, do we? We want to see those badass, dreadlocked warriors from outer space cause mayhem. The first Predator the humans encounter is exactly as one might expect: an awesome design with a performer wearing the costume. It was great to see this creature on the big screen again after so long, and every scene it was in reminded me how enjoyable these films can be. But then, the film introduces a bigger Predator (about 10ft tall) and things start to go downhill. The new Predator is just a standard Predator design (with no cool looking mask), and it's bigger. That's it. No new gadgets, no new character traits, just bigger. And to top it off, the CGI is ropy to say the least. For a film made in 2018, the creature should look convincing, but instead we have what looks like a video game character rather than a living, breathing creature. If you have a monster this large, of course its going to be CGI, but the whole idea of just making the Predator really big is not that exciting, and certainly not a strong enough concept to clog up half of the film's action sequences.

There's some major character inconsistencies throughout the film, which makes this particular cast hard to relate to or care that much about. We're told McKenna has PTSD, yet this is never explored or adds any depth. We should feel more sympathetic towards him when learning this, but he remains the same throughout the film, never wavering from the confident leader we see him as in the beginning. McKenna's ex-wife, Emily (Yvonne Strahovski), is a similarly curious case. Before we meet her, she leaves a note for Rory telling him something along the lines of "clean the house for 90 minutes or I'll cut you", which more than implies she may not be the most loving mother. Yet, when she arrives home, she is kind and sympathetic to Rory after he tells her he's being bullied at school. Speaking of the school bullies, the two kids who pick on Rory for having Aspergers syndrome are very cliche and have some laughably bad dialogue. It's these scenes and the weird character choices that made me feel like I wasn't watching a Predator film, and instead a made for TV feature you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel.

Whilst there's fun to be had with some of the performances and other humorous moments, The Predator feels like a significantly weaker entry in what was a strong trilogy. The new giant Predator is lame and the characters are difficult to become attached to. But, with all that included, the film at least felt like a weird enough experience to laugh at and along with, which makes it an enjoyable journey at most. I believe no entry in the series can top the original for its suspense and creativity, and The Predator will certainly not be held in as high regard in the next thirty years or so. It's just about fun enough to not be terrible, but I would expect a lot better from this series. A future classic? No. Just about trashy enough to enjoy? Yes. 

Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell (1988) Review

"Potatoes are what we eat!" - Khorsa.

Sadly, that's about it for memorable quotes from this film. That says a lot about the third entry in the Deathstalker series. Lacking in quips and memorable moments, we've arrived at the series' blandest offering, but let's see if we can unearth any goodness. Here we go: Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell.

After meeting the beautiful Princess Carissa (Carla Herd), Deathstalker (John Allen Nelson) is entrusted with a valuable jewel, one of three such items that will unlock a magical city. Unfortunately, the evil Troxartas (Thom Christopher) possesses the other two jewels, and seeks the third to resurrect an army of the dead. Accompanied by Carissa's sister Elizena (also played by Herd) and warrior Marinda (Claudia Inchaurregui), Deathstalker must outrun Troxartas' forces and face his toughest challenge yet in a bid to win the day.

Like the other films, Deathstalker III introduces a new lead actor to the title role. This time it's John Allen Nelson, a far less brutish leading man than initial lead Rick Hill. Nelson exhibits some of the same personality traits of John Terlesky's Deathstalker, but is overall a more charming hero than either of his predecessors. He's a more gentle soul, especially towards the women he meets compared to the other two Deathstalkers. Unfortunately, he doesn't have much personality beyond that, making him the most forgettable of the three. He occasionally delivers the a few one-liners, but Nelson's delivers a straight portrayal for the most part. Rick Hill also played the role straight in the first film, but had more cheesy lines and the right look to convincingly portray the hero. Here, Nelson doesn't have the intimidating presence of Hill or the comic timing of Terlesky and looks nothing like the muscle-bound warrior seen on the film's poster. 

The female leads also suffer from fairly bland personalities and a lack of screen time. It's hard to tell which character is supposed to be the lead, as Deathstalker shows sexual interest in all of them (probably the only consistent character trait in the series). The sibling princesses Carla and Elizena are both played by Carla Herd, and they are at least given distinct personalities. Carla is the more noble and fair, whereas Elizena is more irritating and untrustworthy. Elizena is sadly becomes the focus after her sister is killed early on in the film, and her character becomes annoying very quickly. She constantly antagonises people and is completely incapable of defending herself. At least Lana Clarkson's Kaira from the first film knew how to fight and never backed down from a challenge, but Deathstalker III's Elizena reverts the female lead back to the damsel-in-distress role. There's also Deathstalker's main love interest Marinda, the closest we get a strong heroine. She hooks up with Deathstalker soon after meeting him, but lacks any notable character traits. She does participate in the fighting, but that's about it. Of the three female heroes, Carla was the one who possibly would have made the best lead, but she's killed off so quickly and the other two have such obvious weaknesses which further places Deathstalker III below the first two films.

Then there's the film's villain, Troxartas, a sorcerer with weird fashion sense. Whilst his physique or sword skills won't do much to intimidate, his ghastly choice of clothing is sure send shivers down your spine. Wearing something different in almost every scene, his costumes range from a traditional sorcerer's cloak to a wearing no trousers. Funniest of all is a fuzzy blanket, which is easily the most amusing costume in a film full of them. It says a lot when the wacky costumes for the villain are more memorable than the villain himself, with Troxartas mixing well with the other dull characters. His evil plan is to possess all three jewels to resurrect a room of defeated warriors, but he doesn't do much at all throughout the film other than that. He fights Deathstalker at the end, and it's a truly pathetic display of fight choreography. At least the fight takes them to various rooms in the castle, but the sword work leaves a lot to be desired, with both actors seemingly incapable of delivering a convincing display. 

Where the film also suffers is a lack of memorable scenes or creatures. In the first two films, there was a large variety of foes including a pig man, zombies and trolls. Deathstalker III has the undead army, but they only show up at the end and their screen time is limited. The poster claims this to be "the most action packed Deathstalker yet", but there is very little action and the film moves at a very sluggish pace. With no quotable lines or enough to make fun of, the majority of the film is actually boring, only picking up at the end with the large fight between the warriors from hell and the heroes. The soundtrack is also unspectacular, with the main theme being recycled from several other Roger Corman produced films. The first film's soundtrack was full of energy, featuring a choir singing what sounds like an ancient language, perfectly setting the right atmosphere. Deathstalker II's theme was slightly more fitting to the decade of when the film was made, with the inclusion of synthesizers and a faster tempo. Deathstalker III's recycled musical score only serves to make it stand out as the weaker film. Praise must be given, however, to the lack of stock footage. I was only able to count one use of footage from the previous Deathstalker films, and even then it was only a brief shot of a castle interior. 

Lacking in action, memorable characters and a fun pace, Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell is easily the worst entry in the series. The new Deathstalker has no charisma and the film lacks a strong villain, with only the final third of the film serving up a half-decent slice of entertainment. There isn't much to recommend here, and I would only say to watch just to complete your viewing of the series as a whole. But if you only ever check out one of these films, make sure it isn't this one.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) Review

"Assume everyone will betray you, and you will never be disappointed" - Beckett.

It really doesn't feel like any time has passed since Star Wars: The Last Jedi arrived to split audience opinion into extreme love or extreme hate for the latest instalment in the space epic franchise. Now, before Episode IX is released to no doubt divide opinion, we have the next entry in the "anthology" series: Solo: A Star Wars Story. 2016's Rogue One was an excellent addition to the series, as it brought a fresh angle to an already known story and some big risks, most notably the use of CGI to "resurrect" the late Peter Cushing. Solo, however, is a completely different take, opting to a tell a relatively more optimistic tale than Rogue One. Despite flying the Star Wars banner, Solo has performed far below expectations financially than any other before it. But is the film itself actually any good?

After the Galactic Empire has taken control of the galaxy, a young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich), alongside love interest Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke), makes a daring attempt to escape the murky streets of Corellia. Unfortunately, things don't go to plan, and Han soon finds himself teaming with a criminal gang led by the charismatic Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Eventually hired by crime lord Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany) for a new job, Beckett's crew, including wookie Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) and gambler Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), set out to make the legendary "Kessel run" and settle their debt to Vos, all whilst being pursued by the mysterious Enfys Nest (Erin Kellyman).

Of all the recent Star Wars projects, Solo's premise is certainly the one that makes you think: "is this really a story we need to know?". The answer is, unfortunately, "no". We already know Han's personality and goals from the other films, and seeing him in his youth doesn't add any sort of depth to his character. Alden Ehrenreich does fine with the material he's given, but the script is severely lacking Han's trademark sarcasm and wit. There are moments when Ehrenreich breaks past the script and gives us a hint of a young Harrison Ford, but these are sparingly displayed and Han instead takes a back seat to the other characters (in a film that is named after him!). Whilst not all the characters in Solo are particularly memorable, Donald Glover's portrayal of young Lando Calrissian is a standout. Glover flawlessly embodies the charming but untrustworthy characteristics that Billy Dee Williams first introduced us to in 1980's The Empire Strikes Back. The mannerisms and inflections were spot on for Lando, which confuses me how the film can do a supporting character justice, but not its lead. Woody Harrleson brings his usual charisma to Beckett and makes a good pairing with Westworld's Thandie Newton in a brief role. Emilia Clarke, best known as Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones, brings a softer edge to the film as Qi'ra, but she also gets her chance to be tough and proves to be an essential member of Beckett's team. 

If there's one quality that makes the Star Wars films an essential piece of science-fiction, its the villains. From the dark lord himself, the Emperor, to iconic baddies such as Darth Vader,  Boba Fett, Darth Maul, Count Dooku and Kylo Ren, these characters are instantly recognisable and have resonated with audiences for years. In Solo, Paul Bettany is our primary antagonist, Dryden Vos. Though we are given a hint of his history with Beckett, we learn very little about Vos, and he never comes across as much of a threat. Whereas Boba Fett and Darth Maul weren't the most developed characters, their design and actions cemented them as instant fan favourites. Vos on the other hand isn't very distinguishable and, like Ehrenreich, Bettany tries his best to elevate the character above the script he's been handed. The mysterious Enfys Nest is a complete waste, appearing out of the blue and making no impact on the story whatsoever. It just goes to show that a cool design simply isn't enough to be a great Star Wars character, especially given the series rich history of iconic heroes and villains.

From a story perspective, I think there should have been an entirely different focus from what Solo gives us. I don't think we needed to see the Kessel run, as it's only a small anecdote in A New Hope and actually shows us nothing that we didn't already know. I would have preferred to see a story that challenges our opinion on the characters. Why not a story that shows Han working for Jabba the Hutt where he has difficult moral decisions to make due to the nature of his work? The plot of Solo does nothing to make us think differently or feel any deeper connection to Han. Its also worth mentioning that the humour throughout the film felt forced (no pun intended), something which many people found to be a problem with 2017's The Last Jedi. There are too many moments of pausing for laughs, that and the jokes themselves aren't actually that funny. The only one I really liked was hearing the famous Imperial March music being played in a major key for a piece of Empire propaganda.

Whilst it has moments of being a fun adventure, Solo is an ultimately pointless venture. The flashes of good performances and the odd set-piece aren't enough to separate it from the many similar blockbusters seen in cinemas nowadays. Star Wars became a sensation for breaking new ground with old stories. Solo simply plays it safe and offers nothing more than "here's Han Solo in his youth". Even then, the character hardly resembles the rough scoundrel we know and love, making this arguably the weakest entry in the saga to date.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018) Review

"The hardest choices require the strongest will" - Thanos.

So after years of build-up, Marvel finally unleash their most ambitious project yet. Avengers: Infinity War is the culmination of several sequels and crossovers, featuring every major player from the MCU film series. Already smashing several box-office records, fans have been near unanimous in praise for the film. But did the film truly live up to the enormous expectations, or is it a case of "less is more"?

The plot revolves around the six Infinity Stones, a recurring motif throughout the MCU films. Rarely seen antagonist Thanos (Josh Brolin) is on a quest to acquire all six, as their combined power will enable him to achieve his goal of "balancing" the universe. With countless lives at stake, the Avengers must come together again, this time with the aid of the Guardians of the Galaxy in order to defend their world. But with Thanos' relentless pursuit gaining momentum, how many lives will it cost for the heroes to obtain victory?

I won't go too much into major plot details, as this is one of those films you're supposed to keep really quiet about after you've seen it. So I'll only look at the basic outline of the plot and whether the film works as the mega-crossover it intends to be. It may come as no surprise that the plot itself is very similar to a lot of the other MCU films, especially the other two Avengers films. There's a big villain and a threat on a world-threatening scale, and everybody needs to learn to work together if they're to have any chance of winning. Infinity War's answer to this is that this is the most epic angle they've gone for yet: bringing together all of the heroes from each film series into one. So what we have is a long list of mega-stars and colourful characters, and I'm happy to say all of them get their own moments to shine. I personally was looking forward to seeing how the Guardians of the Galaxy team would play off the other heroes, and they are the highlight of the film for me. Chris Pratt's unwavering charisma and Dave Bautista's comic timing are by far the times that made me laugh the most, and Bradley Cooper's fast-mouthed Rocket is also makes for a great partner to Chris Hemsworth's straight portrayal of Thor. Benedtict Cumberbatch is also fantastic as Doctor Strange, exuding great confidence and wisdom, and is a more than worthy leading character in this particular story. In the other Avengers films, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and Captain America (Chris Evans) are looked on as the two leading figures, so it's nice that Strange is just as much a leading character as those two.

But the heroes can only be as good as their villain, and Thanos has been teased as the Avenger's ultimate adversary ever since the first crossover back in 2012. Physically imposing, enough to take on the Hulk in a fight and comfortably win, Thanos' one desire is to balance the universe by means of genocide. Performed through motion-capture, Josh Brolin had a tough task in not only making the character intimidating, but also a tragic figure in some ways. There is particular focus on Thanos's relationship with his daughters Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Nebula (Karen Gillan), which we see through flashbacks as well as through their inevitable physical conflict. I really appreciate the time dedicated to this, as the MCU have a fairly weak record of presenting villains with great depth. In many ways, Thanos is the lead character of the film, with him stealing every scene he's in as well as having the most development. Whilst this character development isn't ground-breaking by any means, we do at least see him as more than just a cliche "bad guy who wants to destroy the world". Like all great comic book characters, it's not his powers or intellect that make Thanos a great figure, it's his personal struggles and how he deals with them.

Despite the film's well balanced group of characters, there are some pacing issues with the film. The first 45 minutes or so play out like a beat-em-up video game, with characters meeting the villains and having a fight. There is so little time to register everything because as soon as one fight is over, we immediately go to the next one. This means that the middle portion of the film then takes us through all the backstories and slower moments, and the third act comprises almost entirely of two simultaneous battles. With the other Avengers films, I've found the pacing to be a bit easier to get through as they are more evenly spaced, whereas Infinity War throws everything at you at the start and and the end, making some of the second act feel a little empty. Whilst there are significant events that happen in the second act, not all of them hit the mark in terms of depth or emotion. The action scenes are a lot of fun though, particularly the final battle with Thanos, which I felt was more character driven than some of the earlier battles. 

Lastly, without giving anything away, I'd like to mention the ending. Infinity War aims to have everyone talking about where the story could go after it's final moments. For me, the ending didn't have the same impact others felt as I don't think the filmmakers will stick to their guns. There is already enough within the lore of the series and the production plan for more sequels to suggest that the ending won't stay exactly this way. Infinity War has a lot going for it character wise, but it's attempt at having this grand ending involving so many of them wasn't convincing in my opinion.

To conclude, and to avoid delving further into spoiler territory, my feelings on Infinity War is that it achieves its goals of being the biggest crossover in history by allowing each of its characters to shine and creating a compelling villain in Thanos. Whilst I felt there were some slow moments and may have benefited from a slightly shorter run-time, the film is still a lot of fun. The ending may not have been my favourite, but I am still excited about which direction the story may go, and the sequel will no doubt aim to be just as epic. If this particular era of the MCU is coming to an end with the next Avengers film, Infinity War has nicely set up a suitably massive farewell.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) Review

"I only know one truth. It's time for the Jedi... to end." - Luke Skywalker

Chances are by the time this review is posted, you will have already seen the newest entry in the Star Wars saga. If you haven't, consider this your spoiler warning. I don't think I can truly say how I feel about this particular film without discussing major plot points and characters, and that's down to the fact that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a completely different entry in what's perhaps the biggest and most popular film series ever made. The reception of this film from fans and critics is one of the most divisive I've ever seen, and that's something I really didn't expect. As always, I'll be sticking to my own opinion and ignore being swayed by what other's think of the film. That being said, let's dive into the maze that is Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

After a hard earned victory against the sinister First Order at the end of The Force Awakens (2015), the brave Resistance now find themselves on the back foot. With the armies of the First Order, led by the mysterious Snoke (Andy Serkis) closing in, it's up to Finn (John Boyega), Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher, in her final film role) to hatch a plan to save what's left of their side of the fight. Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) has finally come face-to-face with Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), and hopes that she can convince him to re-join the conflict and confront his former student, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). As Rey learns the ways of the Force, she is conflicted with whom she can entirely trust, with neither Luke or Kylo seeming entirely as she first thought...

One of the joys of The Force Awakens was seeing how the new characters interacted with the classic Star Wars heroes, and The Last Jedi continues this effectively with the teacher/student relationship between Luke and Rey. Her training scenes are some of the film's standout moments, and director Rian Johnson adds his own spin on portraying the effects of the Force. During a meditation, we are able to see what Rey sees, which is shown through several edits of different parts of the island, which I found to be a particularly intriguing choice. In terms of Rey's progression as a Jedi, we see her growing into a more confident, independent warrior, even besting Luke in combat in one scene. I really enjoyed Rey's introduction in the last film, and her journey continues to be the most fascinating part of this trilogy for me. Mark Hamill effortlessly brings his charisma as Luke Skywalker back to the series, but this is an altogether different take on the character. Being that he feels he failed the Jedi order in not stopping the rise of Kylo Ren, Luke is now a distant, tragic figure. His trademark optimism is completely absent, something which Mark Hamill was initially concerned about. For me, it was cool to see a new interpretation of the character, as so much time has passed since Return of the Jedi (1983). However, some moments are a little jarring, such as him comedically throwing away his old lightsaber, which isn't entirely how I think Luke would react, regardless of age.

The other heroes are a bit hit-and-miss, but thankfully the returning Finn and Poe are still a delight. Poe's role is greatly expanded in this film, with us finally seeing him becoming a leader and willing to do whatever's necessary to help the Resistance. I felt like we barley got to see him in The Force Awakens, but The Last Jedi has definitely made me feel more of an attachment to the character. John Boyega is still as witty and likeable as ever, with Finn given an important quest to find an ally to help them escape the clutches of the First Order. Finn adds levity and charm to this quest, which is definitely needed considering his companion, Rose (Kelly Marie Tran), isn't much fun. I found her character to be a bit all over the place, with her quickly forming an attachment to Finn despite her first scene with him ending with her electrocuting him for attempting to flee the fight. She never seems to lighten up, even in the company of such charismatic people like Finn and Poe, and so I never really found myself caring for her too much.

If you thought Kylo Ren was conflicted in The Force Awakens, you haven't seen anything yet. Just about the most angst-y character created for Star Wars, Ren aka Ben Solo's journey to the Dark Side is complex and engrossing. Having murdered his father and "given everything" to embrace the darkness, his master, Snoke, sees him as a failure. This makes Ren more determined than ever to thwart the Resistance and become "the new Vader". I really enjoyed the dynamic between Ren and Snoke, especially Snoke referring to Ren at one point  as being "just a child in a mask". However, just as I was looking forward to seeing more of them together and possibly finding out more about Snoke, he is killed off and Ren becomes the new Supreme Leader. Whilst his death scene is pretty cool, I feel Snoke is ultimately a missed opportunity. He appears to be strong with the Force, but we never learn of how he corrupted Ben Solo or where he came from. Even though these things can still be explained in the next film, it would have fleshed out his character whilst he was still alive. And speaking of wasting characrers, Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie) is back for a brief encounter with Finn and is then quickly killed off, too. Having done very little in the first film, only having her appear in one sequence and then being killed makes the character look like a bit of a joke. 

The final performance I should mention is of course the late Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. The main thing I want to talk about is her final scene with Luke, which was a very special moment. This is her standout moment in these new films for me, as she plays the emotional aspect of the reunion with her brother very well. I still feel using her american accent doesn't quite suit the character, but this is only a minor complaint. She does have other notable scenes, one in particular splitting the fans as to whether it was awesome or the most ridiculous thing they've ever seen. After being blasted out into space, Leia uses the force to pull herself back to safety, and soon recovers completely. Whilst it is pretty silly, I personally didn't have a problem seeing Leia use the Force, as she is after all the sister of Luke Skywalker and has most likely learned to use it between Episodes 6 and 7. Maybe it would have been better to not have her use it to do something as far-fetched as surviving the vacuum of space, but then again, this is a series with laser swords and a 900 year old little green muppet being able to do flips and levitate ships, so I guess I can't complain too much.

Much has been said about the film's run-time and whether it was necessary for the film to be two and a half hours long. I wasn't too concerned, considering the prequel films were all close to that run-time, and surely it would make the film feel grander? Well, yes and no. There are moments here that truly deserve a lot of time dedicated to them, such as Rey's Jedi training, and other sequences that over stay their welcome. The subplot of Finn and Rose searching for a "master codebreaker" to help them escape from the First Order drags at times, and a lot of it feels more like something you'd see in a Harry Potter film than in Star Wars. Whilst the chase scene in this subplot is well done, it could easily be cut from the film and you wouldn't feel like anything was missing, and maybe the film would flow better as a result. With so much drama between Rey, Luke and Kylo, the stuff with the Resistance doesn't feel as important as it should, despite the performances of Isaac and Boyega.

Rian Johnson certainly deserves credit for being willing to take risks with The Last Jedi. He's created a Star Wars film that is truly his own. Some of these gambles didn't sit too well with me the first time around, but after a second viewing, I appreciated them more. The heroes of this new trilogy are quickly becoming my favourite part about them,and I also look forward to seeing what the next stage in Kylo Ren's development is. Whilst some moments feel a little bloated or naff, The Last Jedi has enough charm and drama to keep you invested in the characters and story. It may not be as satisfactory an experience as The Force Awakens, but it's still a fun and intriguing adventure, and a worthy addition to the saga. 

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.