How to Make a Sequel: Blade Runner 2049

It's a rare thing that a film sequel lives up to its potential and hype, especially one 35 years in the making that continues the story of a beloved sci-fi classic. Even with so much  pressure mounted on director Denis Villeneuve's shoulders, his 2017 epic Blade Runner 2049 exceeded all expectations, and has been nominated for multiple awards. As well as a critical success, fans of the original Blade Runner (1982) were also in near unanimous praise for the film. Despite underperfoming at the domestic box-office, there is no denying Blade Runner 2049's critical and fan impact serves as an example on how to create a smart, endearing sci-fi sequel. Being that it's always a debate as to whether or not a sequel can truly live up to the original, I'm going to be taking a look at four elements in Blade Runner 2049 that demonstrate how it succeeds as a sequel to one of the most cherished films of the 1980s.

1. Don't ruin the mystery of the original

If there's one film whose whole structure fits the term "ambiguous", it's Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Not least variable in interpretation by several different cuts of the film, Blade Runner asks many questions about humanity and how we would co-exist with another intelligent species, namely the android replicants. Between the human and replicant civillians that populate Los Angeles in 2019, there are blade runners. As special enforcement officers, blade runners are tasked with locating and "retiring" (killing) rogue replicants. In the original, we meet blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who takes on his final job in tracking down four replicants. One of the most discussed questions since the film was released is the debate of whether Deckard himself is a replicant or not. There are hints throughout the film that raise this question, but never is it explained outright. In Blade Runner 2049, Deckard returns after disappearing for 30 years, and the question is once again hinted at. This time however, it is the film's antagonist, Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), that poses the question to the audience and to Deckard himself. When questioning Deckard about his love affair with a replicant named Rachael (Sean Young), Wallace suggests that Deckard could have been designed to meet and fall in love with her. However, he also keeps the thought open-ended by asking Deckard whether he thinks it really was "love" or "mathematical precision". With the discussion of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant going on for 35 years, Blade Runner 2049 only encourages the debate to continue, and doesn't spoil the mystery of the original by giving clear answers.

2. Introduce engaging new characters
Despite being a sequel, Blade Runner 2049 introduces an almost entirely new set of characters, with only a couple of returning faces. Even then, the returning characters are either cameo roles or don't show up until the later half of the film, so it's up to the new cast to drive the plot and engage the audience. Our new blade runner is Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a later model replicant working with the LAPD. Within the first 15 minutes of the film, we get to experience a typical day in K's life, with him hunting down replicant Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista), reporting back to his superior officer Joshi (Robin Wright), and finally returning home to his holographic girlfriend Joi (Ana de Armas). We very quickly experience how lonely K is in this dystopian world, with Joi being the only one who comforts and understands him. Even then, Joi only feels her love towards K because she's been programmed to do so, further emphasising the isolation of our protagonist. K's story arc is about wanting to feel real, and so he treats Joi as if she were an actual person, and Joi in return expresses her desire of wanting to be real for him. The relationship between K and Joi works brilliantly because we see and understand how devoted they are to one another, but all around them are reminders that their relationship is artificial. They experience so many emotional moments together, all of which feel like a genuine love story rather than programming. On the side of the villains, Jared Leto's turn as billionaire Niander Wallace creates an unnerving atmosphere in every scene, which is amplified by Sylvia Hoek's nuanced performance as replicant Luv. Like K and Joi, Wallace and Luv are devoted to each other, but with a sinister edge to their relationship. Luv acts as Wallace's eyes and ears, but their is a lingering threat that Wallace may kill her should she fail him. We see how Wallace unflinchingly executes a newly born replicant in Luv's presence, and so Luv is determined to prove herself to him. This adds a palpable dynamic between the two villains, and gives them depth beyond that of being simply "evil".

3. Expand the film's world
The original Blade Runner broke new ground in science-fiction world building. Enormous billboards and strange skyscraper shapes, complimented by flying cars and cool gadgets, this was a vision ahead of its time. Though at times large in scale, the world of Blade Runner could also feel very claustrophobic, with crowded city streets and darkly lit apartments. In Blade Runner 2049, we see how the technology of the first film has advanced, whilst also keeping the same aesthetic to believably portray the same world. Alongside the billboards, there are now massive holograms, and the streets are still overcrowded and intimidating.The locations in Blade Runner 2049 also help to expand its world, with K travelling to an orphanage located in a scrapyard, and a radiation filled Las Vegas. Both locations contrast the neon heavy city of Los Angeles, and are given scale by Roger Deakins' fantastic cinematography. As well as the obvious grand-scale of the locations, there are smaller touches that help show a progression from the first Blade Runner. The police cars keep the same design from the original, but are now more advanced with the addition of a roof-housed drone, which can map locations and take photographs for evidence. We are also shown how the memories that are implanted into the replicants are made, something that was never explained in the original. Memory maker Dr. Ana Stelline (Carla Juri) guides us through this process, and we learn how the process is not simply just a matter of programming, but a more emotional creation designed to give the replicants "happy" thoughts. Through its portrayals of technology advancements and expressive new locations, Blade Runner 2049 builds on its predecessor's world building in a convincing and engrossing way, allowing the audience to be fully immersed. 

4. Bigger set pieces
Although the original Blade Runner and it's sequel aren't action orientated, there are set pieces in both films designed to thrill the audience. The action in Blade Runner was significantly smaller in scale to its contemporaries (such as Star Wars), instead opting for brief moments of violence or chase sequences, with the story taking priority. Blade Runner 2049 mirrors this approach, albeit with larger, more intense sequences of action violence. As previously mentioned, there is a scene set in a scrapyard, in which K's car in attacked by the locals. Suddenly, missiles begin to rain from the sky, causing heavy damage to the attackers with some moments of gore, greatly contrasting the more low-key action of the original. There are also more confrontations between characters throughout, with a particularly brutal fight between Sapper and K at the start of the film. Finally, there is the fight between K and Luv at the end, set against a raging river with Deckard in need of rescuing. Featuring some nifty martial arts moves and endless determination from K, it makes for a great conclusion. Of course, the action sequences aren't what makes films like the original and 2049 great, but it certainly adds to the latter's credentials to make these sequences feel bigger in comparison to its predecessor. 

With its engaging story, memorable characters and incredible world building, Blade Runner 2049 succeeds on all fronts in how to make a smart sci-fi sequel. Not only a worthy follow up to the original, it stands on its own as a modern sci-fi epic, and one that will no doubt eventually be considered one of the greatest films of all time. For me, its already earned that accolade, and is firmly in my list of favourite films. 

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.

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.