Month: January 2017

Starring: Ewan McGregor (Moulin Rouge!), Ewen Bremner (Alien vs. Predator), Jonny Lee Miller (Elementary), Robert Carlyle (Once Upon a Time), Anjela Nedyalkova (Avé)

Director: Danny Boyle (Steve Jobs)

Writer: John Hodge (The Program)

Runtime: 117 minutes

Release Date: 27 January (UK), 17 March (US)

Trainspotting is an iconic film in many regards. It’s the film a lot of people think of when they think of Scotland. It’s the film that jumpstarted Danny Boyle’s career, as well as the careers of its entire cast. It’s a perfect encapsulation of 90s culture, especially in regards to the youth and the drug scene, but it’s still just as relevant today. So why make a sequel? There are plenty of reasons not to, but just as many to do so as well. You could tread on the heels of a classic, but equally you could expand on a story that may play out a little differently in the modern world. T2: Trainspotting ultimately doesn’t need to exist but, even though it can never reach the heights of its predecessor, I’m glad it does.

Picking up in real time from the end of the first movie, T2 finds the characters of the original scattered. In many ways time has changed them, but they all still have the same ticks and vices. It’s a story about reflection, rediscovery, and accepting your lot in life, as our protagonists struggle to recapture a lost past that was never that good to begin with. It is a film more focused on character than story, and on that level it ultimately succeeds, but in the actual plotting it feels a little unfocused. The original film didn’t exactly have a flowing narrative either, opting for more of a slice-of-life feel, but each story flowed more naturally into the next. Here, the film basically starts with a handful of storylines and waits to see which ones last until the runtime is up; some ultimately mean something, but a lot just drop of the face of the movie. The film also reminded me a lot of the fourth season of Arrested Development in how infrequently the main characters share scenes, instead following them in their own stories that intertwine here and there; it actually takes until near the end before all four of them are finally together. The strong character journeys themselves thankfully hold the film together to create a tangible through line, because without them the film would feel far more haphazard.

Speaking of character, all four main stars recapture the essence of their characters whilst still bringing something new to the table; it’s like they’ve been living in the skins of these people for twenty years and brought all that baggage with them. Ewan McGregor’s Renton has changed the most, having tried to choose life but ultimately made a mess of it. He’s more aware of his mortality than ever and is trying to reconcile his past, but he’s come back home to find that not everything can be changed. Ewen Bremner as Spud is as dopey as ever, still screwing up job opportunities and fighting his addiction, but his story here is a chance at redemption. He can’t fix his past, but he can build something from the ashes it, and his journey gives T2 more of a heart than any single call back to the original can. Renton and Spud represent the characters trying to change, but Jonny Lee Miller’s Sick Boy and Robert Carlyle’s Begbie are the ones who are unable to. They are caught up in the past, simply using the advances of today’s world to make the same mistakes they’ve always been making. This character contrast is the entire thematic core of T2, and it makes it one of the few sequels that successfully reminisces about the first film without feeling like it’s begging for nostalgia, mainly because what they’re remembering is a past that’s not exactly worthy of nostalgia. This reflection on the passage of time is best seen in Anjela Nedyakova as Veronika, who voices the audience’s main concern: why are these people stuck in a past not worth remembering? She isn’t exactly as exciting a character as our returning four leads, but she provides a necessary bridge from the old to the new; someone young enough to leave this life while they still can. There are plenty of other reprising players like Kelly Macdonald, James Cosmo, Shirley Henderson and author Irvine Welsh himself, but they are unfortunately the ones who get lost in the unstable narrative; it’s nice to see them back, but you could have easily done the movie without them.

T2 not only shows how time has changed these characters, but how much Danny Boyle has evolved as a director since the first film. He wisely doesn’t attempt to replicate the muted, grainy look of the original, instead transposing the style he has created for himself since onto this familiar canvas. The use of digital camerawork and saturated neon colours is a staple of modern Boyle and regular cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, and instead of clashing with the aesthetics of Trainspotting it gives it a fresh twist; the rest of the world has evolved around these characters, and so naturally the filmmaking techniques have too. However, not all the advances work, as that also means the more trippy visuals have changed from practical effects to digital ones. Not only are they not as memorable as seeing a man climb into a toilet, sink into the floor or witness a dead baby crawling on the ceiling, they stand out too much in what is otherwise a more naturalistic piece of filmmaking. The original film’s soundtrack is arguably as iconic as the film itself, and though T2’s probably won’t be as impactful it does have a solid selection of tunes; the inclusion of a remix of Iggy Pop’s “Lust for Life” by The Prodigy probably sums up this film’s themes better than my words can.

T2: Trainspotting isn’t as good as the first film, but it does live up to the original. It doesn’t succumb to outright repeating the original or forget what made it so special. It’s a companion piece more than a traditional sequel; an examination of what can happen when you choose life but can’t escape your past. As much as the plot surrounding them can falter, these characters remain as compelling as ever and this film provides a fitting end for them all. It’s not a necessary addition to the story, but for anyone who has wanted to know what happened to Renton and the gang this provides a satisfying answer to that question. Like sharing a few drinks with old friends you grew apart from, T2 can’t recapture everything about your memories of the past, but it can provide some closure to a chapter of your life that may need some.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: James McAvoy (X-Men: Apocalypse), Anya Taylor-Joy (The Witch), Betty Buckley (The Happening), Haley Lu Richardson (The Edge of Seventeen), Jessica Sula (Skins)

Writer/Director: M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense)

Runtime: 1 hour 57 minutes

Release Date: 20 January (US, UK)

Movies that are heavy on twists are incredibly hard to talk about, and Split has several doozies that I’d rather not spoil. However, it’s equally hard to sell how great this movie is without doing so, so please take my word for it that Split is not only M. Night Shyamalan’s best movie in seventeen years but is also one of the best high-concept horror/ thrillers of the decade, and so I’ll try to tread very carefully in this review around a minefield of spoilers.

Like all great suspense movies, Split has a deceivingly simple premise that gradually grows and grows as the story progresses. What simply starts as three girls held captive by a madman gradually evolves into something far bigger than a simple escape thriller. The unpredictability of Kevin (McAvoy) and his fragmented identities constantly keeps the audience on their toes, his shifting moods meaning the difference between safety and danger for these teens. The film does jump around between several plotlines including flashbacks to the childhood of Casey (Taylor-Joy) and psychologist Dr. Fletcher (Buckley) dealing with Kevin’s case, which in the moment feel unnecessary but as the film progresses they prove to be anything but; still, there might have been a better way to weave them in without stopping the main plot in its tracks. There are a lot of moments like that in Split where it tests your willingness to stick with it, especially in the third act when it really starts to go off the rails, but you are rewarded for your patience with a final note that completely annuls every inconsistency and bizarre moment up until that point. The film reminded me a lot of 10 Cloverfield Lane in how it handled its climax but, whereas that film’s ending ultimately cut off the legs of an otherwise excellent picture, this one pays off because it fits more naturally into what came before and actually answers questions rather than raising them. I can’t say much more, but I will say that if you are a fan of Shyamalan’s early work then you are going to love Split.

Every actor wants a chance to show off his or her range in a single movie, and James McAvoy gets the Valhalla of chances to do so in Split. Every single personality inside Kevin’s head is made completely distinct through the way McAvoy adjusts his accent, cadence, posture, body language, etc. At certain points, you don’t even need the costume changes to recognise which identity is in control, but at other times you are unsure as to whether one of his more innocent personalities is in control or one of his darker ones is simply imitating them, and that’s what ultimately makes him so terrifying. It instantly ranks up there with McAvoy’s best performances and sets a new bar to cross for actors tasked with playing multiple characters; Tatiana Maslany, you’ve got some new competition. But Kevin doesn’t steal the entire movie for his twenty-four selves, because Anya Taylor-Joy as Casey holds her own against him every step of the way. One of the best final girls in horror since You’re Next, Taylor-Joy continues to prove herself as a great new talent in a role that could have easily felt generic and weak. Those flashback may be intrusive but they give enormous depth to the character that would have left her flat otherwise, and the greater amount of tension to the situation they provide gives the film another whole layer to dissect. It’s a pity that Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula aren’t afforded anywhere near that amount of character, but ultimately the film isn’t really about them; they serve their purpose and they do so exceptionally for the most part. Betty Buckley, best remembered as the crazy old lady from The Happening (“You eyein’ my lemon drink?”), rounds out the cast well as Kevin’s psychologist who helps provide much of the context that hints at the greater context of the piece. Suddenly, she seems far less off-key now that she’s not playing opposite a befuddled Mark Wahlberg.

Shyamalan’s recent directing has been known for its odd quirks and fumbles, but here he has finally again grasped the art of filmmaking and has crafted one hell of a slick thriller. The movie looks haunting and grimy thanks to the excellent work of It Follows cinematographer Mike Gioulakis, evoking a similar haunting sense of dread in that picture but with Shyamalan’s own penchant for off-kilter shots. The main set is minimal but full of detail and character; so much can be extrapolated about Kevin’s personalities from just analysing the decorations. West Dylan Thordson’s is minimal but adds to the uneasy tension of the piece, and by the film’s climax it all perfectly coalesces with Shyamalan’s familiar classic style. If you’ve seen the movie, you might know what I’m talking about there.

The Visit was Shyamalan’s stepping-stone back to the light side, but with Split he has now fully reaffirmed he is back in business. This is a truly unique movie that reminds you why filmgoers fell in love with the director all those years ago: high concept ideas achieved through simple but effective filmmaking and a fine attention to theme and suspense. The performances by McAvoy and Taylor-Joy alone would have made this film worth watching, but those last few minutes skyrocket this movie from good to pretty damn awesome. If you aren’t as into Shyamalan’s films even before his legendary bad streak, you may not be convinced. But if you have even the slightest fond memories of his early work, no matter how much his lesser works have burned you in the past, you owe it to yourself to watch Split.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Starring: Michael Fassbender (X-Men: Apocalypse), Marion Cotillard (Inception), Jeremy Irons (Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice), Brendan Gleeson (The Guard), Michael K. Williams (Triple 9), Ariane Labed (The Lobster), Charlotte Rampling (45 Years)

Director: Justin Kurzel (Macbeth)

Writers: Michael Lesslie (Macbeth) and Adam Cooper & Bill Collage (Exodus: Gods and Kings)

Runtime: 1 hour 55 minutes

Release Date: 21 December (US), 1 January (UK)

The Assassin’s Creed video game franchise has certainly waned in recent years after countless sequels and spin-offs have run the formula dry, but the core concept remains fun and amongst the numerous entries are some of the landmark titles of the past ten years. Ubisoft let the franchise rest this year, but have instead gone ahead and thrown their hat into the film ring with a cinematic interpretation on the ongoing battle between the Assassins and the Templars. Now video games movies are still as taboo today as they’ve always been, but with the developers heavily involved and some great film talent guiding it, this should be the one to break the curse, right? The short answer: no. The long answer follows…

Assassin’s Creed makes a wise move by not directly adapting any of the games and instead tells a new side-story set within the canon of the franchise, with a few small but appreciated nods to the series’ past. It still follows the basic structure of the games (man forced to work for Templars, goes back into memories of ancestor, does a bunch of random quests to further plot and find Piece of Eden), but at least it can forge its own path and not have to cram ten hours of gameplay into a fifth of that experience. Unfortunately, what they’ve decided to focus on is every bad part of the game: the modern day story. A sizable majority of the film is spent in a cold research facility, and even when we are thrown into the assassin story during the Spanish Inquisition it still cuts back to the present constantly. Both plotlines are dull and underdeveloped, especially the past story because we are constantly thrown into it at random intervals with no indication of how much time has passed and what’s happened in between sequences; it’s like watching a bunch of random missions from the game with no context.

The film’s biggest crime, however, is that it’s dull. The games aren’t exactly action-packed thrill rides jam-packed with explosions and one-liners, but they have a sense of humour and revelled in the fun of being an assassin just as much as all the political intrigue and shadowy machinations. Here, any sense of joy has been sucked out and we are left with a cold, unappealing and po-faced slog that takes itself way too seriously. There are clearly even lines of dialogue that are meant to be witty but they are played completely straight; it’s almost like the director doesn’t understand the concept of humour. The pacing constantly drags as the movie weighs you down with painful scenes of characters prattling on about morality and control and power, and even when the action does kick it is all too brief and the cycle begins again. There are the occasional sparks of an interesting story underneath all the clutter, one that might have been entertaining if it actually played to the strengths of the game, but none of that is taken advantage of. By the halfway mark I was bored, and when the sequel-tease ending finally arrived I felt like I was being set free.

The protagonists of Assassin’s Creed can vary wildly in likability, with some endearing stars like Ezio or Edward but then there are some absolutely bland ones like Altair and Connor. The movie easily falls into the latter camp and Michael Fassbender is equally unappealing as both present-day captive Callum Lynch and Spanish assassin Aguilar. Lynch is given basically no personality, his backstory is barely touched upon, and his motivations fluctuate wildly throughout the movie due to a complete lack of clear character development; the man pretty much changes his allegiances on a dime. Fassbender’s performance does nothing to make the character stand out, his characterisation basically beginning and ending at a Christian Bale growl, and then there’s the bizarre scene where he starts wailing out Patsy Cline’s “Crazy” as he’s being dragged into the Animus. No, seriously, that’s a scene in the movie. He honestly makes original series protagonist Desmond Miles look positively fascinating by comparison. But at least Lynch has a vaguely discernable story and the skeleton of an arc, because Aguilar is pretty much a blank slate. We are told nothing about his past, he has no real motivation beyond his commitment to the creed, and there is no real resolution to what could barely be described his “story”. All he’s really there to do is engage in action sequences, but it’s hard to get invested when I don’t care about him or the dude experiencing these memories.

The supporting cast is a fantastic assemblage of talent on paper, but they are all given bland and underdeveloped characters to play so nobody comes out looking good. Marion Cotillard probably gets the most interesting role to play as a morally conflicted Templar scientist who doesn’t necessarily agree with all her order’s plans, but everything interesting about her just seems like it’s being saved for a sequel and Cotillard’s cold performances nixes any of the potential intrigue. Jeremy Irons does nothing but blather on about the beliefs of the Templars, Michael K. Williams is wasted as one of several other assassins held in the facility in another poorly developed subplot, Charlotte Rampling is completely pointless as the head of the Templars, and both Brendan Gleeson and Essie Davis are essentially extended cameos as Lynch’s parents. The only vaguely interesting character is Ariane Labed as Aguilar’s assassin buddy Maria, and that’s only because she looks cool and is I think the only character that smiles in the movie.

Justin Kurzel showed he could deliver on spectacle in his adaptation of Macbeth, and whilst there are some impressive moments in the all-too-brief action sequences in Assassin’s Creed they are hampered by numerous other problems. The cinematography is suitably cold and haunting in the present day sequences, but in the past it becomes overdone and jittery. There’s a lot of odd pans and shaky zooms, which completely doesn’t suit the acrobatic style of action the film has on display, obscuring what is clearly some impressive parkour and stunt work. The clumsy editing also ruins the immersion, constantly interrupting the flow of the action to cut back to the present so we can watch scientists watch Fassbender swatting around at air. Barring the film’s overdone reimagining of the Animus, the design of the sets, props and costumes is probably its only saving grace, perfectly capturing the aesthetic style of the games perfectly, but again it never takes advantage of it. One of the joys of the games was exploring a historic city and marvelling at the scale of it. Here, there’s never a moment that really lets you soak in the historic environments. Like everything else in the movie, the joy has been removed entirely.

Assassin’s Creed had everything it needed to be a great movie and makes every wrong decision it can. Not since Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four has so much promise been wasted on idiotic mistake after idiotic mistake. It takes a fascinating premise and makes it dull, it takes great actors and gives them nothing to work with, it takes thrilling action and makes it incomprehensible, and it takes a promising director like Kurzel and makes him look like an incompetent idiot. Say what you will about Warcraft, but it at least showed a passion for the material that this movie seems too afraid to even have. Most bad video games movies at least have the distinction of being hilariously bad. You can watch something like Street Fighter or Super Mario Bros. and laugh at their ineptitude. Assassin’s Creed is far too boring and lifeless to do that with. If Ubisoft thinks this is good enough to start thinking about doing more adaptations of their properties, then they are basically just throwing their money away.

FINAL VERDICT: 3/10